The performing arts dedicated to the gods in Shinto rituals in the palace are collectively called “Mi-kagura”, and the most sacred and most profound musical ritual of this kagura is the Naishi-dokoro (Kashiko-dokoro) Mi-kagura, which is performed in front of the Kashiko-dokoro Shrine where the Yata-no-kagama Mirror, the Sacred Spirit of Amaterasu, is enshrined. However, the original image of the Imperial Mi-kagura in the palace is said to be a song and dance performed by Ama-no-uzume, who was almost naked and possessed while stomping on a bucket in front of the rock door of heaven, as described in Japan mythology. Her song and dance, which at first glance seems to be a vulgar form, is actually called “wazaogi” and is a magical act of “tamafuri” (activation of divine spirits) of Amaterasu.

　　This magic to activate Amaterasu was incorporated into the Chinkon-sai, which is a ritual to perform tamafuri for the emperor before the Niiname-sai. Several Chinkon-sai songs were sung to recall the soul of Amaterasu as the Ancestors of the Emperor, and each time a mysterious incantation-like song, “Ajime Ooooo”, was added to the beginning. It is believed that Ajime is a change of Uzume, and Ooooo is a warning incantation against confronting Amaterasu and performing magical rituals.

　　This incantation of Ajime was later adopted as the “Ajime-no-sahou Manner” in the Naishi-dokoro Mi-kagura, which was formed in the Heian period, and was inserted in the Mi-kagura in a different form about three times, and reunify songs in Mi-kagura as rituals directed to Amaterasu. The Naishi-dokoro Mi-kagura is a magnetic field that religiously unites the other imperial kagura and ritual songs and dances, and the Ajime manner, which is derived from the magic of tamafuri of Ama-no-uzume, is the crystallization of Shinto musical sensibilities.

　　At the further bottom of Christian “original sin” and Tahitian “wildness,” what is the “Buddhism” that kept moving Gogan's life? It is generally believed that the painter Paul Gauguin went to Tahiti to recover the wildness that had been lost in modern societies, but is this true? He once lived a luxurious life as a stockbroker. However, in 1882, he lost a lot of money when the Paris stock market crashed, and in the midst of the depression, he had no choice but to live a humble life as an unknown painter. As he struggled to survive, he began to have doubts about Christian dogmatism and awakened from the illusions of capitalism along with the truth of Buddhism, which he encountered at the 1878 World's Fair in Paris. “In the eyes of the Tathagata, (...) the pursuit of the Buddha's path is like a flower.” These are “fragrant” words written in Noanoa, but they are actually a quote from the early Buddhist scripture: 42 Chapters of the Sutra. He also had Dhammapada. To fight against the “evil” of civilization, he believed that the best way to follow the Buddha’s teachings. Therefore, he went to Tahiti “to retrain himself,” and painted while recalling the Buddha's teachings. Thus, he conceived “Where do we come from, What are we, Where are we going.” What was Gauguin trying to convey through this final work? In order to generate new discussion, I would like to present an image of Gauguin who regarded painting as a path to a Buddha.

　　Wie verhalten sich die Religion, die Dichtung und die Philosophie zueinander? In diesem Aufsatz habe ich versucht, diese Frage zu erörtern, indem ich insbesondere über M.Heidegger, L.Wittgenstein und K.Nishida Überlegungen anstelle.

　　Heideggers Denken an “die Zwiefalt” des Seins hat wegen seiner spontanen und direkten Rede eine Verwandtschaft mit der Dichtung. Und hinsichtlich des Problems der Religiosität möchte ich speziell auf “das Danken” in Was heißt Denken? eingehen.

　　Aus welchen Motiven wagt Wittgenstein in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus dem Ausdruck der Gedanken eine Grenze zu ziehen? Durch die Betrachtung über “schweigen müssen” in dem Hauptsatz 7 möchte ich die Stellung der Dichtung und den Anruf des Religiösen suchen.

　　Während Nishida die Dichtung als einen Aspekt beim Sichbilden der Welt erläutert, wird die Religion mit “der absolut widersprüchlichen Selbstidentität (Zettaimujyuntekijikodōitsu)”, aus der Alles erläutert wird, gleichgesetzt. Aber es scheint mir, dass der naive Übergang von “dem transzendenten (absoluten) Eines (Chōetsuteki(Zettaiteki)itsu)” zu “dem transzendenten (absoluten) Einer (Chōetsuteki(Zettaiteki)issha)”, d.h. dem Gott, in Frage kommen soll.

　　Durch dieses Nachdenken habe ich mir folgenden Überblick verschafft : Der Mensch ist das ausgezeichnete Seiende, das, im Zusammenhang mit der Transzendenz stehend, sich selbst als das immanente Seiende verstehen kann. Das Gefühl solcher Erfahrung redet (singt) die Dichtung anders als Alltagssprache. Die Verfassung solcher Erfahrung redet (erläutert) die Philosophie, indem sie die angemessene Logik sucht. Die Religion zielt darauf, die tatsächliche Lösung der belastenden Frage, die aus solcher Erfahrung entsteht, zu finden. Gerade dieses Verhältnis macht der Philosophie ihre eigene Bestimmung wieder deutlicher bewusst.

　　This study examines the relationship between D. T. Suzuki’s thoughts and psychology, focusing on his development prior to the influence of W. James’s The Varieties of Religious Experience. While previous research often emphasizes the impact of James’s work, this study takes a multifaceted approach by focusing on this relationship in the context of his earlier influence.

　　The analysis proceeds as follows: it reviews the ideological currents in Japan before Suzuki’s arrival in the United States, followed by the change in his religious views from his time in Japan to his stay in the United States. It then explores his two Zen experiences and the psychological ideas he engaged with during the early days. Regarding ideological currents in Japan, the study highlights the surge in Zen’s popularity and academic efforts to link Zen with psychology. With regard to changes in his religious perspective, it examines his evolving relationship with Paul Carus and his English translation of “Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana.” As for his two Zen experiences, the second one guided by Zen teachings was examined. The analysis discusses Suzuki’s engagement with psychological thought before his exposure to James’s work, specifically the relationship with Harald Höffding’s Psychology.

　　In addition, the study suggests that Suzuki’s Zen experiences and his engagement with Höffding’s psychology laid the foundational core of his thought. Finally, the study introduces Suzuki’s later reflections about The Varieties of Religious Experience.

　　Diese Abhandlung befasst sich mit der Trinitätstheologie bei Edith Stein. Die Verschmelzung von Scholastik und karmelitischem mystischem Denken innerhalb ihres Gedankenfelds ist für das Konzept der Person, in bezug auf den dreieinigen Gott und Menschen von großer Bedeutung. Insbesondere bietet diese Trinitätstheologie eine originelle Sicht auf den Problemskomplex der Ideen bei Augustinus, Thomas von Aquin, Duns Scotus und Johannes vom Kreuz sowie bei Teresa von Avila. Die Schwerpunkte dieser Arbeit liegen auf der Herausarbeitung von Einheit und der Verschiedenheit der philosophischen, theologischen und mystischen Gedankenelemente, die in den Schriften von Stein enthalten sind. Der erste Punkt bringt die Auslegung von “De Trinitate” des Augustinus ans Licht. Der zweite Punkt betrifft Trinitätslehre des Thomas von Aquin in seinem “Summa Theologiae”. Der dritte Punkt erklärt das personale Ich, und zwar die erste Person des menschlichen Geistes als dreieinige Natur von „Leib-Seele-Geist“, wie sie in der karmelitischen Mystik diskutiert wird. Diese Trinitätstheologie lässt eine Wechselbeziehung zwischen der immanenten und der transsubstantiellen Trinität zu.

　　This paper examines Kant’s thesis, “I can do it because I ought to,” by analyzing his confrontation with the Carmelite philosopher Edith Stein. Stein criticizes Kant’s thesis in “Critique of Practical Reason” in her main work “Finite and Eternal Being.” Unlike Kant, who justifies the connection between “should” and “can” based on moral principles, Stein locates the grounds for this connection in the Christian faith. The former demonstrates the cognitive capacity to understand necessary actions, whereas the latter emphasizes the belief in the realization of miracles based on God’s grace.

　　However, Kant reiterated the thesis in his subsequent work titled “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason.” Thus, both philosophers should have been allowed to engage in a second confrontation. In his later years, Kant particularly emphasized that the “can” in the thesis is not merely a presumed cognition but rather embodies the reality of the power of practice. Concerning this matter, he should have been able to identify a specific resemblance to Stein. According to Stein, power originates from a life force of the divine entity, whereas Kant believes that the subject who exercises power is not God but humans. This paper delineates the confrontation between the two philosophers as such.

　　This paper explores Nikolai Fedorov’s concept of religious integration within the context of Russian religious thought and 19th-century European religious studies. Building on the ideas of the Slavophiles, who advocated for spiritual unity of humanity and freedom of conscience, Fedorov criticized their approach for lacking external forms. He sought to materialize it by incorporating contemporary developments in European and Russian religious studies, ultimately shaping his idea of the religious integration of humanity. He criticized the existing classifications of religions for maintaining the status quo of religiously divided humanity and instead proposed a chart where all religions would converge into true Christianity, envisioned as a common human mission. He also identified a shared element of ancestral worship across major religions through an analysis of their funeral arts. Lastly, Fedorov proposed a hypothesis about the environmental origins of religions by showing that different methods of food production influenced the development of various religions. To conclude, Fedorov relativized the plurality of religions as much as possible, paving the way for the religious unification of humanity. Similar to Friedrich Max Müller, he recognized the Christian truth in all the other religions; however, his view resembled more of Karl Rahner’s inclusivism in that he primarily sought the Christian unification and salvation of all.