Impermanence is one of the fundamental buddhist principles and of Japan’s typical view on life and world as well. The paper attempts to clear up commonalities and differences between the buddhist view of Impermanence and of Nietzsche’s Nihilism, and to compare the buddhist view with that of Nietzsche. The paper contains five chapters. The first argues for peculiarities of the buddhist, the second for Nietzsche’s view of Impermanence by looking at their common principle of Negation. The third and forth chapter (...) attempts to find and emphasize the superiority of the principle of Negation as transition and development from the negative and passive standpoint to the positive and active. The fifth chapter elucidates essential characteristics of the buddhist view of Impermanence and Nietzsche’s Nihilism, by showing how their principles of Negation differ from each other regarding Naturality and Artificiality, Temporality and Historicity.Unbeständigkeit ist eines der Grundprinzipien des Buddhismus und der typischen Welt- und Lebensanschauung der Japaner. Der Aufsatz versucht, Gemeinsamkeiten und Verschiedenheiten zwischen der buddhistischen Unbeständigkeitssicht und dem Nihilismus Nietzsches herauszustellen, und die buddhistische Sicht mit der Nietzsches zu vergleichen. Der vorliegende Aufsatz gliedert sich in fünf Kapitel. Im ersten werden die Eigentümlichkeiten der buddhistischen Sicht der Unbeständigkeit und im zweiten die des Nihilismus von Nietzsche erörtert, wobei ihr gemeinsames Prinzip der Negation verglichen wird. Das dritte und vierte Kapitel versucht die Überlegenheit des Negationsprinzips zu begründen und hervorzuheben als Übergang und Entwicklung vom negativen und passiven Standpunkt zum positiven und aktiven. Das fünfte Kapitel erhellt die wesentlichen Grundzüge der buddhistischen Unbeständigkeitssicht und des Nihilismus Nietzsches mit dem Aufweis, wie sich das Prinzip der Negation beider Standpunkten im Hinblick auf Natürlichkeit und Künstlichkeit, Zeitlichkeit und Geschichtlichkeit voneinander unterscheidet. (shrink)

Dogen Kigen (1200-1253) tritt uns in seinem Werk in vielfaltigen Aspekten entgegen: als Praktiker buddhistischer Lebensform und Experte fur Meditationstechniken, als Lehrer, um den sich Anhanger sammelten, als gebildeter Scholastiker, der sich bestens in buddhistischer Dogmatik auskannte, als Theoretiker, der diese Lehren und die mit ihnen verbundene Begrifflichkeit kritisch hinterfragte und auf seine Situation hin adaptierte, sowie als Neuerer, der traditionelle Konzepte auf eigenwillige Art interpretierte, und schliesslich als Dichter, der seine philosophischen Erkenntnisse auch in poetische Formen zu fassen wusste. (...) Um diese verschiedenen Facetten des Wirkens einzufangen, wird Dogens Werk aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven und unter Einbeziehung verschiedener philosophischer Methoden betrachtet. Zusatzlich sind zwei seiner beruhmtesten Texte, Genjokoan und Bussho, in deutscher Neuubersetzung wiedergegeben. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche's work has had a significant impact on the intellectual life of non-Western cultures and elicited responses from important thinkers outside of the Anglo-American philosophical traditions as well. Bringing together thirteen internationally renowned scholars, this is the first collection of essays to address the connection between Nietzsche's ideas and philosphies in India, China, and Japan. The contributors are Roger T. Ames, Johann Figl, Chen Guying, Michel Hulin, Arifuku Kogaku, David A. Kelly, Glen T. Martin, Sonoda Muneto, Graham (...) Parkes, okochi Ryogi, Eberhard Scheiffele, Mervyn Sprung, and Joan Stambaugh. "Exemplary. Its comparative approach is incisive yet accessible. I consider it a 'must read'"—Kathleen Marie Higgins, _Philosophy East and West_ "An excellent introduction to the broad ranging reception of Nietzsche among Asian thinkers."—James R. Watson, _Canadian Philosophical Review_ "The essays in this welcome collection are invariably thought-provoking and genuinely cross-disciplinary."—Kenneth Surin, _Religious Studies Review_ "A worthy and undogmatic introduction to several fascinating questions concerning the relations between Nietzschean thought and certain traditions of thought in India, China, and Japan."—Don Miller, _Asian Studies Review_. (shrink)

“私”という意識の創成。不定形で豊饒な、宗教の培養槽とは。魂、霊、気―東西の世界像の逆説に満ちた生成のプロセスを追う。宗教の輝きと危うさと―生と死の新しいかたちを探る。.

There is no arguing the impact of Inoue Tetsujirō on the development of philosophy in Japan from the Meiji Restoration through the end of the Pacific War. He was the first Japanese to receive a doctorate in philosophy from Germany and the first native-born chair of the philosophy department at Tokyo Imperial University, the training center for almost all the major Japanese philosophers who graduated before 1915. Inoue was instrumental in making German idealism the Western philosophy of choice for Japan, (...) but he also appreciated Asian traditions as well, having no qualms about claiming there was true philosophy in India, China, and premodern Japan. He set the foundation for academic philosophy in Japan not so much through his own rather simplistic personal philosophy, but especially through his contributions to the organization of the field. This article focuses mainly on Inoue’s troubled relation with Confucianism. On one hand, in seeking a premodern philosophy to serve as the bedrock for modern Japan, Inoue looked to the Edo-period Confucian traditions originating in China. He divided them into Shushigaku, Yōmeigaku, and what he named Kogaku, the school focusing on classical texts preceding neo-Confucian developments and interpretations. In many respects, like so many others of his generation, Inoue was by training and personal preference a Confucian. That is not the whole story, however. Inoue understood Confucianism’s primary purpose as cultivating the social values and order that would ensure an efficient society of human flourishing, stability, and harmony. Yet, he also likely suspected that the people of the new Japan, with its modernization and plethora of Western ideas, would not unquestioningly accept the authority of the Confucian classics, nor be willing to undertake the rigors of textual study that are the hallmark of the Confucian scholar. In Edo-period Japan, that study had been the responsibility of the samurai class, but in their democratization program, the Meiji reformers had abolished the old class system. Education of the young would now shift from the Confucian academies to the new public school system. Always cooperative with the government to the point of being obsequious, Inoue took a leading role in the National Morality program and its installment in the nationwide school curriculum. That curriculum combined a Shinto-based reverence for the sacred nature of the emperor in the kokutai ideology along with practical moralistic values that could be loosely called Confucian. Yet, if schooling for most was limited to the elementary level and if there was no longer a samurai class to oversee the moral behavior of the society, who could nurture and enforce the moral order? Through a set of fortuitous events, Inoue “discovered” bushidō, the Way of the warrior. If there were no longer a samurai warrior class, perhaps all Japanese could become de facto samurai—at least in their mindset. Most may no longer have the scholarly skills and time to glean their spiritual and moral insights from Confucian texts. Yet, they could find the virtues of loyalty, sincerity, filiality, and compliance with seniority within the distinctively mindful heart and spirit of ancient Japan carried within the Japanese bloodline. What happened to the Confucianism of Inoue Tetsujirō? Some of its values were absorbed into bushidō and National Morality, but the praxis of the Confucian scholar and the ideal of the kunshi seem to have been lost, much to Japan’s detriment. (shrink)

1-3. [without special titles] -- 4. "Kogaku" no shisō.