Are we experiencing déjà vu? Are we simply reconfirming the cliché that premodern and postmodern are somewhat congruous? In his Empire of Signs, Barthes has already shown us that a poststructuralist cognitive praxis can be intimate with Buddhist polemics. The French semiotician analyzes bunraku, the puppet theater, and regards it as not dichotomizing animate and inanimate.1 He also divides the indivisible in a Buddhist manner:

[H]ere the voice, there the gaze, there again the figure are eroticized, as so many fragments of the body, as so many fetishes.2


Mediate Nature Secret Transmission Perfect Copy Arbitrary Relationship Buddhist Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 3.
    Henry Clarke Warren, Buddhism in Translations ( Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1986 ), 131–133.Google Scholar
  2. 6.
    William R. LaFleur, Buddhism: A Cultural Perspective ( Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1988 ), 45–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Maki Isaka Morinaga 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maki Isaka Morinaga

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations