, ,

, E-mail, : 89, , daliborklickovic74@gmail.com

( 400 ) : (1974)
.
, ,
, .
.
. , ,
(2014),
(2016) . ,
2008. .

:
?

(400 ) :
, ,
.
.

 , ,
, . ,
, , . ,
,
,
.
, ,
. ,
, ,
. ,
.
,
, ! ,
, , .
, .
, ,
,
, .
, XIV ,
- ,
.

( ) : ,
, , , ,

( 400 ) : Dalibor Klickovic (1974) works as an Assistant

Professor of the Japanese language and Literature at the Department for Oriental Studies of the
Faculty of Philology, the University of Belgrade. Besides the Japanese language itself, his main field of
interest is a broader phenomenon of Japanese Buddhism, and especially that of Zen Buddhism.
Lately, he pursuing some researches into the complex phenomenology of religion/literature relations,
seeking to find out how the earlier Buddhism and literature ties conditioned the reception of Zen,
which is generally considered to be the main source of the Japanese aesthetics and many forms of
Japanese life and culture. He has published a number of papers concerning above-mentioned topics,
in particular dealing with issues such as Zen and modern Japan and some problems of Zen discourse.
His book on Natsume Soseki and Zen was published in 2014, and the translation of the History of
Japanese Religions by Sueki Fumihiko appeared in 2016. The latter was published with the support of
the Japan Foundation.

: In search for the points of encounter between medieval Japanese

and Serbian literature
 (400 ) : Any kind of strictly comparative research on medieval
Japanese and Serbian literature, with each of them being essentially rooted in its own context, doesnt
appear to be fruitful or necessary. Their philosophical and historical roots, as well as their
epistemological and aesthetical foundations are mutually so distant that any trial to put them side by
side would be just an objectless oversimplification. Old Serbian literature emerged within the
boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, and only in that way, while the Japanese bears in its
background the vast spiritual and literal heritage of China, with Buddhism being only lately, but
nonetheless quintessentially added to the existing foundations. These two traditions might have had
come in touch with each other in the days of old, but thats not the reason why we should get them
researched together. Still, something between them should be looked for on the side of contemporary
readers anyway, in our time when the basis for judging on what makes a text to be perceived as
literature is completely different. Being literary text today does not mean to be brimming with
symbolical meanings pointing to an invisible world, based on one dominant episteme. Exactly such
was the case of the ancient literature in Japan and Serbia, which makes us think about their relevancy
today. During the Middle Ages, to create a literary text did not mean to be new and special it took
more than that, namely to recast and recreate existing paradigm and convey what needs to be
conveyed, in a more o less conventional manner. To create and to read often meant to put in some
ascetic efforts and let the faith speak, to communicate with a world beyond all utterances. Today, we
dont believe that the literature does represent anything at all, not even the truth, for the truths are
many, and not too much different from lies. How to read a literature which doesnt want to startle, to
be unprecedented, but to communicate some eternal meanings and to point where to look for what is
represented in words? This is the issue that I would like to address this time.

( ) : old Serbian literature, medieval

Japanese literature, buddhism, hesychasm

: _________ __________________________________