Suchergebnisse

Maya religion : as one of the pagan religions -- Problems of Maya sources -- Maya religions, dualism, and the universe : their differences from Christianity -- Religion as a part of the universe : the case study of the 'religious fusion' between the Yucatec Maya religion and Christianity -- Christian discovery of pagan religions -- The birth ofChristianity and its difference from the pagan religions -- The Spanish spiritual conquest of the new world -- Spanish version of Christianity in the new worlds -- Christianity from a world perspective of -- The confrontation between dualism and monism : process of its localization -- Nahuatl discovery of Christianity -- Inca discovery of Christianity -- In defence of Christianity : chinese discovery of Christianity -- Japanese discovery of Christianity and the development of "Christianity made in Japan" : the Christian Lord as a vassal of the living God = The Japanese emperor, 1873-1945 -- Maya perspective of Christianity I : the Popol Vvuh -- It's authenticity -- Conceptual difference among translations of the Popol Vuh

The focus of the present research is to reconstruct the original meaning of the culturally dense term Ved. dákṣiṇā / Pa. dakkhiṇā, which, in the late Vedic language, specifically means the gift due to the priest who officiates the rite in favour of a patron. The discussed data make it possible to postulate a com- pletely different meaning for this term in the early Vedic texts, where it is used to evoke an 'auspicious condition' prototypically proper to a successful leader, both as an effect of previous glorious deeds and as a possible cause of further prosperity. We propose that in the Vedic context this term should be translated as 'magnificence', in which we distinguish two facets, namely: a more abstract one, that is magnificence in potency, as a result of past merits and often associated to the gods' favour, and magnificence in action, i.e. the (sometimes material) outcome of such a condition. The latter may become the crucial ingredient of a simple devotional act of offering. Albeit with the expected differences, we find also in Pali sources a comparable emphasis on such an act of offering, in particular when addressed to a worthy recipient. Indeed, retrofitting the late meaning of dakṣiṇā/dakkhiṇā to the earlier cul- tural and linguistic stages leads to a miscomprehension of many relevant pas- sages and pivotal features of both Vedic and early Buddhist ancient religious and political ideology. This is why we dedicate the last part of the paper to investigating how this assumed notion of 'magnificence' matches with what we know about the most ancient Indo-Aryan societal forms and with what is assumed about the evolution of these forms. We hope in this way to be able to add a crucial element to the interpretation of the cultural dynamic at work between the Buddhist and Vedic cultures, a dynamic characterised by some unresolved tensions such as preservation versus innovation and identity con- struction versus syncretic strategies.

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...

Traduction japonaise, original anglais disponible en ligne sur HAL-SHS. Remerciements à Matoba Hiroshi pour sa traduction. ; International audience ; This paper responds to two different contexts. The first one was the coming UK referendum and, whatever the result, the challenge for the EU to reinvent itself or dissolve if it continues failing European populations. The second context was a deep questioning in Japan, but also in South Korea, about the future of East Asia and of ASEAN: is a convergence possible beyond economic interactions? How to breach cultural divides? How to overcome the search for hegemony, deep historical hatred, in order to reach and establish a common ground? The paper analyzes the presupposition of the European construction from the beginning: a union can be negotiated and instituted by the construction of a joint or common economic sphere. This construction has always denied or even repressed the fact that the autonomization of the economic sphere is complex historical process different for each nation in Europe or in the rest of the world. So the economic sphere has different relations to politics, society, knowledge production and education, even religion, in each nation. The same can be said of the conception and practice of public opinion, the structure and role of the state, etc. A union based on the presupposition of a common economic sphere becomes unsustainable in time of crisis. No solution can be hoped from the minds of politicians and bureaucrats: they don't act at the level where solutions can be found. "Culture", like "market", does not touch the problems at stake. The only real solution is to produce and share knowledge on the differentiation in each case of politics, civil society, the economy, research and education, even religion in order to map the differences and the family ressemblance between the different national trajectories. This joint knowledge is the only common ground of a coherent and creative union in Europe. It is also true in other parts of the world where ...