English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The special issue of the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies on the sociology of religion of Bryan Wilson (Vol. 9, No. 1) was an excellent piece of work. There are indeed few open discussions like this one in the Japanese world of religious studies. In the field of methodology, in particular, everyone stays in his own little cave and there is little or no exchange of ideas. I do not feel myself qualified to act as a referee in this discussion. Thirty years have passed since I have written anything really academic on methodology, and though my views on the matter have changed since then, I have published them only in the form of 6 6 random notes." I once tried to put my thoughts on the problem of "the sacred and profane" into shape, but this attempt ended in failure. I have described this process in the brief "Foreword" to the fifth volume in the series Essays in the ~cient$c Study of Religion (Yanagawa 1978b), entitled "Beyond the Sacred and the Profane." Since that failure, however, I have felt rather afraid of touching on the problem of methodology. This might be a fear of having to expose myself. The present essay, then, is nothing more than a simple description of some of my impressions, somewhat along the lines of Morioka, who in the special issue on Wilson proposed "to take as the basis for my discussion the experience and knowledge that I have personally accumulated in my thirty-odd years of research activities" (Morioka 1982, p. 41). Araki Michio is very emphatic in his "Toward an Integrated

From a science of “behavior” to a science of “understanding