This paper examines the debate on reductionism in the study of religions, which developed in North America since the 1980s. The debate started with social scientists' reductionistic criticism of Mircea Eliade for his non-reductionistic approach to the study of religions. In view that the debate started among English-speaking scholars, this paper first reexamines Eliade's thesis in English translation by carefully comparing it with that in its original French version, thus grasping his message as given to the English-speaking scholars. I will then demonstrate the points of the reductionistic critique by focusing on arguments by Robert Segal and Wayne Proudfoot. I will further show that in the process of the debate the meaning of "reduction" came to be precisely defined, and in consequence even non-reductionistic approach such as Eliade's was regarded reductionistic. In conclusion, I will argue that if the debate on reductionism is examined beyond the narrow scope of "Eliade critique," it has left us with a number of important questions with respect to the methodology of religious studies. It is claimed as an example that the debate opens up the question of whether or not the believer's own view is also reductionistic.

View full abstract

This paper tries to reconstruct the theory of privatization in order to argue more generally the relationship between religion and the individual in the modern world, which is one of the most important themes in contemporary religion. According to Luckmann or the advocates of the orthodox model of secularization, the process of privatization causes the diffusion and withdrawal to the private sphere of religion. This can be called the "Individualism model" of privatization. The revisionists of the secularization theory connect the process with the socio-cultural context of religion. Privatization is the process where individuals negotiate with the dominate context in order to acquire meaning. This paper calls it the "Context-dependence model" of privatization. The fundamental difference between both models is whether it regards the matter of meaning or not. The Individualism model omits the importance of the process of meaning in the modern world, and comes to the conclusion that privatization causes the fragmentation of religion. On the contrary, from the perspective of the Context-dependence model, privatized religion also can be grasped with a more macro dimension, and then the question about the relationship between religion and the individual can be located within a greater problematique.

View full abstract

Cet article vise a aborder la problematique de la jouissance religieuse, en se focalisant sur ce que nous pouvons appeler une typologie des jouissances chez Jacques Lacan. Dans ses dernieres annees, Lacan a elucide les fonctionnements de la jouissance en les classifiant dans ses trois niveaux: la jouissance de phallus, le plus-de-jouir, et la jouissance de l'Autre ou de femme. Nous pouvons constater les rapports qu'ont ces trois sortes de la jouissance respectivement avec des phenomenes religieuses concretes, surtout l'affinite entre la derniere et des ≪ dites ≫ mystiques. Pourtant ce qui est remarquable, a notre avis, c'est que l'elucidation de la jouissance de l'Autre ou de femme, exemplifiee par celle des mystiques, finit par devoiler les conditions historiques, donc une limite historique, des activites psychanalytiques elles-memes, y compris celle de Lacan.

View full abstract

Fujaku was an important Buddhist thinker in Japan in the eighteenth century. In this essay I will discuss Fujaku's response to the argument that the Mahayana was not preached by the Buddha, which was one of the greatest problems for early-modern arguments in defense of the Buddha Dharma, and show the meaning of early-modern Buddhist thought through his thinking. Fujaku's Mahayana thought was an applied practical theory based on the Kegon classification of the Buddhist teachings. The classification of the teachings for him was not a conceptual theory, but the path put into practice on his own, and the steps on which his soul was ascending through his many lives in the future. He changed the focus away from "Mahayana not preached by the Buddha" into "the teachings by Buddhas in other worlds" where he would be born next, by the way of living the classification of the teachings. Furthermore, early modern rationality, as represented in Japanese intellectual history by Tominaga Nakamoto, gave rise to the religiosity for Fujaku to live the classification of the Buddhist doctrines. The connection of these two figures in early modern times influenced the development of modern Buddhism, and provided the theoretical basis for modern Buddhists such as Murakami Senjo.

View full abstract

When we study Shinto studies on the foundation of Meiji Shrine, it is essential to consider modern Japanese respect for Emperor Meiji and Empress Shoken(Meiji-Seitoku-ron). In this article I review the history of studies on this subject, which has received little attention, and attempt a preliminary consideration to explicate the process of the foundation of Meiji Shrine. I also consider the results of new studies on the Emperor and the Empress, which assumes considering them as "Persons." Particularly in recent years, the interest of researchers subdivide it to descriptions of political history and everyday life, while switching their focus from studies on the "Emperor system" (ideology) to the subject of an "Emperor image" (personality). Consequently, interest in "spiritual" elements such as the "virtue" of the Emperor and the Empress have thinned. I found a clue for the results of a prewar Shinto study (e.g. Kato Genchi, A Bibliography of Shinto: A Collection of Shinto Literature from 1868 till 1940) and confirmed the necessity of historical studies on Japanese thought with regard to Meiji-Seitoku-ron as seen broadly in newspapers, magazines and publication as mass culture, the trend and thought of various people at the time of the founding of Meiji Shrine, the veneration of a person's activity, and the phenomenon of "visitors/pilgrims."

View full abstract

Recently, "life" has been more and more acknowledged as an important subject in Buddhist Studies. As part of this current academic trend, we should revaluate Gorai Sigeru and his philosophical discourses on Buddhist Folklore, because Buddhist Folklore is nothing but Buddhism reconstructed in the life histories of the common people of Japan. Gorai often criticized other Buddhists, or students of Buddhism, because their view on Buddhism is so unrealistic and so speculative that many ordinary people could not understand nor utilize such Buddhism for their daily lives. To improve such a lamentable situation, Gorai provided an alternative view on Buddhism, which is full of the reality of people who accept Buddhism. Gorai's philosophy mainly focused on Buddhism in "practice," that is, Buddhism in action or Buddhism in body, and his philosophical discourses are very useful when we think about various kinds of Buddhism in real life, regardless of their level of sophistication. Gorai's philosophy has its weak points, such as his too idealistic view on "popular belief," but if we think of Japanese Buddhism free from epistemologies of specific academic disciplines, there is much to learn from his ideas concerning Buddhist Folklore.

View full abstract

According to the Indian anthropologist M. N. Srinivas, the low caste is able to rise to a higher position in hierarchy by adapting the customs, rites, and beliefs of Brahmans. He named this process sanskritization. In the case of the teyyam cult in Kerala, South India, there are two kinds of myths; the puranic myth and local myth, and these are united. However, this union is not always caused recently, but it has been united for a long time. The ritual is participated in by the Brahman priests, but the main performers are untouchables, and the Brahman ritual is only partly picked up. Moreover, the performer doesn't imitate Sanskrit culture totally. And as the means of raising the social status, the improvement of the economic condition is given importance. Srinivas presumes the hierarchy with the Brahman at the top, but the sanskrit culture and the non-sanskrit culture are not based on such a hierarchy, but they are selected historically and culturally.

View full abstract