Search

This article analyzes Buddhist variations of the so called temple oracle (qian 籤 divination) that can be traced historically in the form of sets of answers for people seeking counsel about their future. The ritual is commonly known as a habitual practice in popular religious temples today. Three different ritual texts elucidate modes in which the temple oracle has been woven into Buddhist practice: a doctrinal variation (connected to the aspect of jiao 教) has come to us through the fifth-century Consecration Sūtra; in the sixth-century Sūtra on the Divination of the Effect of Good and Evil Actions can be found a practice-oriented integration (connected to the aspect of xiu 修); and a nominal adaptation (connected to the aspect of ming 名) is preserved with the thirteenth-century Efficacious Slips of Tianzhu. The temple oracle in China is based on long-standing East Asian traditions as Carole Morgan demonstrated about twenty-five years ago in this journal. Based on the initial results presented at the end of this article, future research might shed light on how this tradition evolved in the context of a pan-Asian and Buddhist exchange process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to apply the perspective of aesthetics of religion to the context of museality, focusing on notions of the agent and the senses. After sketching different roles of agency in the field of museality and suggesting some theoretically interesting links to research on European history of religions, the notion of agency will be extended to aesthetic, sensual, bodily, cognitive, and other aspects of experience, perception, sense-making, and interpretation of objects and media in the context of museality. Furthermore, questions of how specific cultural and religious sense hierarchies affect the interaction of agents with museality are raised. Finally, the insights gained are applied to a discussion of the analytical value of the concept of 'museality.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An article in response to Jürgen Mohn's discourse in this journal on comparative religious studies and the aesthetics of religion is presented. The author criticizes Mohn's concentration on the sensory aspects of religion rather than on the theological aspects, which allegedly detract from cognition on religion itself.