Edition Lara, Zagreb 2005.

A collection of essays titled “Comparative philosophy”, by Ksenija Premur, encompasses a broad range of topics including various fields of Asian literature, art and philosophy. Therefore, in this overview, I shall turn my attention only to the chapter on Buddhism and Daoism, which I find the most remarkable in this invaluable piece of work, absolutely worth publishing. The dimension of planetary polylogisation implies in nuce a certain “de-construction” of Oriental studies in toto.  Articulation of any of the issuing areas requires code input constituting topophilia into a process of universalisation one’s spiritual traditions and their values. In statu nascendi/cognoscendi occur living phenomena of spiritual fraternisation and collectiveness, which then turns into criterion primus to every method of contemplation, every scientific analysis and akribia. Thus the attitude “on the trails of crossroads” needs to be articulated in modo of polylogic reality for this is no longer only another expert and theoretical issue.
The author rightly pays respect to the necessity of complementing comparative and contrastive approach / method to the matrix of every spiritual tradition. Ex origine approach is required, however, through some important modifications of a spiritual existence thus giving new meanings in profiling contemporary spirituality, eo ipso of the third millennia, to the fundamental issues and “philosophy / religion”. Ono proton pseudos must be preserved in order to realise spiritual traditions as the static, petrified elements in Euclid space of spiritual history. Perennial philosophy is crucially spiritual wisdom and telos of future.
It is illuminating to immerge into the wisdom of Daoism – the most profound things do not express any particular philosophy or religion. Daoism is a foundation of primary origin of every spiritual and mental modus; be aware of pitfalls of our own mental constructions! It is an even deeper pitfall than an aporetic mind in Kantian discourse of western hybridity of a philosophical mind. Let us not delude ourselves with historical forms of Daoism, or with prominence of philosophy – religion dichotomy. These are only illusions of our conceptual approach to spiritual dimension of perennial philosophy. 
The author intuitively realises pitfalls of hermeneutisation which is a permanent vacillation among options of an uncertain philosophical mind. Therefore she offers source texts, successfully striving throughout the whole translation process in order to preserve the heritage. In ultima linea, this is not a scientific adequacy or mimicry of a language or its entanglements in the labyrinths of lingual mining, but what this is about is that we are as heirs to all spiritual traditions invited to live them, being all integral parts of a higher dimension of existence in the spiritual evolution of a man and mankind. This valuable piece of work and endeavour by Ksenija Premur we highly recommend as a significant contribution not only to Oriental Studies but also as an enlightening element in the service of a spiritual growth. 
Polylogic processuality implies a special care in the approach in via spiritualis to any area of a particular spiritual tradition. The author analyses thoroughly all relevant determiners of an early Buddhist thought. Spiritual unicum of early Buddhism can be articulated through a discourse of textual heritage per se, but the ultimate intention must polylogically open overview of that perennial in utopic dimension of spiritual present / future. 
Early Buddhism has been evolutionally metamorphed through modalities of spiritual metaphysication, through a network of spiritual solutions, all the way up to what makes Zen tradition  today, and what “closes the circle” (ouroboros of Buddhist traditions). Zen comprises a genuine renovation of “original” Buddhism, primordial situation of its coming to life. That moment is crucial for the wholeness of Buddhist tradition. Today Zen is the most authentic Buddhism at the frontline of the planetary polylogisation. Thus “the deepest foundation of the insight”, among other things, should be considered from the point of view of Zen.
Epochising from every metaphysical apsolutisation and focusing of the consciousness to the incredible dynamics is what Zen essentialises like “primordial” Buddhism. The intention of Ksenija Premur is implied in a more “comprehensive” understanding of Buddhism, which opens up a new chapter in the Indological Studies.  

dr. sc. Jadran Zalokar