AN EVALUATION OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
AN
EVALUATION OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION
Introduction
This paper is an attempt to
evaluate the origin and development of scientific study of religion and to
highlight the common issues in studying religion and their implications for the
Indian context, in four parts. The first
part is an exploration into the various factors, which were responsible for the
emergence of the science of religion, with special reference to the
contributions of Max Muller. Second part is an evaluation of the major methods
used for the scientific study of religion. Third part examines the main issues
emerging from different methods. And the fourth part is an attempt to examine
the possibilities for an appropriate Indian approach to the study of religion.
1 Early Beginning of Science of Religion
From the first century A.D.
onwards there had been attempts, perhaps amateur or ostensible to acquire
knowledge about religions other than one’s own[1].
The culmination of this process was the dawning of a new discipline for the
systematic or scientific study of religions in the later part of the 19th
Century. Many factors and persons, especially Max Muller, contributed to this
end.
1.1
Factors Responsible for the Emergence of Science of Religion
Several factors were responsible for the emergence
of science of religion. They were:
reformation, geographical discoveries, deists, scientific and intellectual
developments, travel accounts, decipherment of ancient texts, enlightenment
philosophers, romantic idealism and studies in myth and folklore.
E. O. James[2]
and Waardenburg perceive the impact of reformation upon the study of
religions. It subjected Bible and
rituals or church practices to critical study and reasoning. Julius Welhausean challenged the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch and the possibilities of fixing a specific date.
Similarly, David F. Strauss had concluded that the whole life of Jesus was a
myth: that, as a historical person, he never existed.[3] The application of historical critical method
for the study of scripture was, in fact, a courageous act.
Geographical discoveries of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries helped the west to come in contact with other ways of
behavior, thought, and belief; and demanded broadening of its view of human
nature, culture and religion.[4] They also created an earnest interest to
learn about the life and practices, including religions, of other people.
During seventeenth and eighteenth centuries deists[5]
were of the opinion that, the original religion was good and pure, it was only
later the priests corrupted it. They
also popularized the natural religious quality of humanity against the
prevalent idea of revealed religions. [6]
In spite of the dominance of the church deistic thoughts contributed the
fundamental insight-the ideal of natural religion, to the sprouting scientific
study of religion.
Scientific and intellectual developments of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries provided the model for new approaches to
the study of religion.[7] Darwin
Although not very systematic, eighteenth century witnessed
the descriptions of religion by several travelers. Charles de Brosses’
suggested Fetishism was the earliest form of religion. He held that all nations had to begin with
fetishism, to be followed afterwards by polytheism and monotheism.[9] Muller argued that there is no fetish without
its antecedents, and it is in these antecedents alone that its true and
scientific interest consists.[10] Meiners accepted the theory of fetishism but
went beyond it and ‘stressed the role of human imagination in the development
of religious worship’. Similar account was given by Benjamin Constant y de
Rebeque: “For Constant, religion is essentially a feeling which is the very
foundation of man’s nature.” [11]
Discovery and decipherment of ancient texts opened a
field of research on as yet largely unknown religions. William Jones discovered
structural similarities between Sanskrit and European languages. He also found
similarities between the Indian Myths and Greek, Roman and Biblical. Jean Francois Champollion deciphered the
ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic script.[12] In fact, philological research ultimately
initiated the Scientific Study of religion.
Having taken into consideration the plurality of religions, German
philosophers[13]
viewed religions as out growth of a natural reasonable religion or as the
natural outcome of the general manifestation of divine grace. For them
religions have a historical existence and that religion cannot be studied apart
from history. [14]
Romantic idealism emphasized
individuality, feelings, and imagination, and it urged openness to remote,
ancient, mystical, and folk culture and religion. Friedrich Scheliermacher
assigned religion primarily to feeling that is the feeling of absolute
dependence. For Hegel the concrete history
of religions is the realization of the abstract idea of religion. Vico held that, fear of a superior power was
the origin of religion. [15] In general, Romantic Idealism considers that
religion had a common origin whether it was fear or feeling.
The early part of the 19th century witnessed
several studies in mythology.
Often the history of religion was compared to the study of myth and
comparative religion with comparative mythology. Along with myth, studies in the folklore also
influenced the scientific study of religion.[16]
While the influence of the above factors on the founding of a
new discipline for the scientific study of religion can be endorsed[17]
S. Radhakrishnan writes “the development of the science of comparative Religion
is due mainly to two factors: the publication and study of the – Sacred Books
of the East and the growth of anthropology.”[18]
1.2
Early Founders
Although the Emperor Akbar may be considered the first who
ventured on a comparative study of the religions of the world,[19]
the real vision was the product of later part of the 19th
century.
Cornelis P. Tiele was one of the first to offer a historical
survey of a number of religions based on study of source materials.[20] On the basis of evolutionary thought Tiele
stressed the evolution of the ‘religious idea’ through the historical forms of
religion which represented different stages. Although he advocated a kind of
historical method, he maintained that, the science of religion requires a
broader foundation than history in the ordinary sense of the word.
Pierre D. Chantepie de la Saussaye was a forerunner of later
phenomenologies of religion.[21] Besides historical work in his field, he was
primarily interested in systematic classification. His inadequate knowledge of languages hindered
access to the original sources. Hence he
concentrated less on history and more on classification of religion.
1.3 MAX MULLER
The most important of the founders of ‘Science of religion’,
was Friedrich Max Muller called, the father of Religionswissenschaft or
Religious studies.[22] According to J. G. Arapura, “but for him,
comparative religion, history of religion, phenomenology of religion,
Relgionswissenschaft, or whatever else it is called, as distinguished from
theology, would not have found a place in the modern university.”[23]
Being a philologist Muller used comparative method for the
study of languages and applied the same method to the systematic study of
religion. He was interested on the
archaic forms of religion in order to find the origin of religions and
“…suggested that contemporary primitives might preserve some very ancient
mythologies, rituals, and beliefs which could be taken as survivals from
prehistoric times, and that from them one could discern originals.”[24] Of course, “his ultimate aim was to elaborate
a complete science of human thought: and this he chose to do in four stages,
beginning with the science of language, and passing through the science of
mythology and the science of religion to the final goal of the science of
thought.”[25] This is reflected in Muller’s Natural
Religion.
1.3.1 Language
Muller approached the study of religion from his knowledge of
Sanskrit and other ancient languages.[26] He considers comparative philology as both a
tool and model for research in religion, because both religion and language
originate in the instinctual life of humanity and exhibit a remarkable
continuity of development.[27] Waardenburg writes “he held that philological
and etymological research can discover the meaning of religion for early men by
restoring the original sense to the names of the gods and the stories told
about them.”[28]
In Muller’s own words “the science of Language has taught us
that there is order and wisdom in all languages, and that even the most
degraded jargons contain the ruins of former greatness and beauty.”[29] Further “our customs and traditions are often
founded on decayed and misunderstood words.”[30] Muller’s conviction is that more than half of
the difficulties in the history of religion owe their origin to constant
misinterpretation of ancient language by modern language, of ancient thought by
modern thought, particularly whenever the word has become more sacred than the
spirit.[31] He further, tells in very authentic tone that
if we want to understand ancient religion, we must first try to understand
ancient language.[32]
1.3.2 Myth
Muller’s interpretation of myths is distinct. He tried to
explain their substance by means of natural phenomena, and their terminology by
what he called a ‘disease of language.[33] That is explaining the figurative metaphors
derived from impressive experience of natural phenomena as the real. Penetrating the myths is necessary to reach
the heart of the religion, which they conceal.[34]
1.3.3 Science of Religion
“Science of religion”
is the direct translation of the German expression ‘Religionswissenschaft’. Max Muller coined this term.[35] It only points to the scientific or
systematic study of religions. Muller
adopted comparative and historical methods in the science of religion.
Comparative religion is simply one aspect of the study of
religion.[36] But often it is misunderstood.[37] Max Muller writes “Generalization will come
in time, but generalization without a thorough knowledge of particulars is the
ruin of all sciences, and has hither to proved the greatest danger to the
Science of Religion.”[38] The expression ‘comparative religion’ is
suspected because of its implied connection with theology. That is the motive for much work in the
comparison of religions was not the ‘impartial and scientific’ desire to
establish patterns, similarities and differences, but the theological desire to
demonstrate that one’s own position was superior, fuller, or more than mundane
compared with that of others.[39]
In fact comparative study of religion or ‘comparative religion’ for short is
really a phrase to indicate the study of religion in so far as the student is
not confining his attentions to single case study.[40]
Muller also used historical method called Religionsgeschichte
(historical study of Religions): “… to my mind, the more interesting, if not
the more important part of the science of religion is certainly concerned with
what we call the historical development of religious thought and language.”[41] Because of the ambiguities and disadvantages
of the two expressions ‘Science of religion’ and ‘comparative religion’, today
the term ‘history of religion’ is preferred for the systematic and scientific
study of religion.
1.3.4 The Subject, Data and Task of the Science
of Religion
Faith of the believer
cannot be a legitimate subject of the science of religion. Hence “the science
of religion investigates religious conception, values and behavior.”[42] For Ernst Troeltsch “its great question is
the question of the nature of religious phenomena, the question of their
epistemological and cognitive import, the question of the value and the meaning
of the great historical religious formations.”[43] It does not focus upon the essence of
religion nor does it creates a new religion.
For the science of religion scripture is an important data.
But one needs to remember that canonical books too give the reflected image
only of the real doctrines of the founder of a new religion, an image always
blurred and distorted by the medium through which it had to pass.[44] Ernst Troeltsch suggests that “Very important
data are those one-sided or exclusively religious personalities, sects and
groups among whom the effects of scientific ways of thinking sit but loosely or
are absent altogether, and who also have not yet lost their religious innocence
by any struggle against science.”[45] Besides these two, the practical utility of
religions in every day life should become a datum.
The central task of science of religion is ‘the understanding
of other religions’.[46] Y. Masih writes, “…the most important task of
comparative study of religions is to find out a principle of unity which will
harmonize and balance the claims and counter claims of warring religions into
one unity.”[47] According to Ernst Troeltsch the purpose of
Scientific work on religion is entirely and necessarily to influence religion
itself.[48] Ninian Smart maintains, “an important task in
the building of a science of religion is to collect the various key materials
which recur in differing religious environment.”[49] He wanted to investigate the interaction of
such materials in diverse religions.
Such an approach could promote healthy inter-religious understanding,
without insisting upon unity or without causing damage to any particular
religion.
1.3.5 Pattern of Study and Objections to the
Study of Religion
Some study religions only to laud the superiority of their
own and to depreciate those of others, others consider all religions were false
and entertain a simpleminded theory of the nature and origin of religion. Today
emphasis has been placed on understanding the uniqueness of each religion and
discovering the basic structures of the religious phenomena.[50] Dr. Radha Krishnan writes, “for a scientific
student of religion is required to treat all religions in a spirit of absolute
detachment and impartiality.”[51] E. O. James writes, “Religious phenomena as
distinct from spiritual experience must be investigated on their own merits
historically and comparatively independent of any preconceived theories or
accepted loyalties.”[52]
In spite of the noble purpose of studying religions some
object to it. Dr. Radha Krishnan gives at least three reasons for such
objections. One is that the scientific study of religion is imagined to be a
danger to religion itself. Another is that comparison means resemblance, and if
one religion is like another, what happens to the claims of superiority and
uniqueness. And the third is if
comparative Religion tells us that higher religions possess features in common
with the low and the primitive, then the inference is legitimate that our
religious beliefs are of a degrading and childish character. [53]
Max Muller had perceived this objection in advance and
answered as “I do not say that the science of religion is all gain. No, it entails losses, and losses of many
things which we hold dear. But this I
will say, that, as far as my humble judgment goes, it does not entail the loss
of anything that is essential to true religion, and that if we strike the
balance honestly, the gain is immeasurably greater than the loss.”[54] It is time that the discipline of religion
looks beyond the simple objections to fulfill its task of presenting useful
facts in order to facilitate a peaceful co-existence among people of different
faiths.
1.3.6 Origin of Religion
Muller maintained that, my chief endeavor is to show that
‘religion did not begin with abstract concepts and a belief in purely
extra-mundane beings, but that its deepest roots can be traced back to the
universal stratum of sensuous perception’.[55] He gives at east three reasons for tracing
the origin of religion. One is “whenever
we can trace back a religion to its first beginnings, we find it free from many
of the blemishes that offend us in its later phases.”[56]
Second is “To Max Muller, the attempt
to understand religion was an attempt to understand men, and an attempt, to
persuade men to understand one another.”[57] Thirdly
“Religion is something which has passed, and is still passing through an
historical evolution, and all we can do is to follow it up to its origin, and
then try to comprehend it in its later historical developments.”[58]
Max Muller found that “Nature, man and self are the three
great manifestations in which the infinite in some shape or other has been
perceived, and every one of these perceptions has in its historical development
contributed to what may be called religion.”[59] He has assigned names to these three
manifestations. “I shall distinguish
these three divisions as Physical Religion, Anthropological Religion, and
Psychological Religion.”[60]
He wanted to show that these three aspects are found in every religion in
varied degree: “it must not be supposed that these three phases of natural
religion, the Physical, the Anthropological and the Psychological, exist
each by itself, that one race worships the powers of nature only, while another
venerates the spirits of human ancestors, and a third meditate on the Divine,
as discovered in the deepest depth of the human heart.”[61] As intended, Muller has reached his final
destination of finding the origin of religion.
2 Different Approaches to the Study of
Religion
‘Science
of Religion’ was simple in origin, rich in purpose and privileged to avail the
expertise of many other branches of knowledge. As a result many approaches
developed for the scientific study of religions. Some of them are: anthropological,
sociological, historical, phenomenological and psychological.
Anthropology is study of human
beings and its basis is culture. Anthropologists use comparative method in
order to find what is common to all humanity and ‘what is distinctive of
particular societies or groups of societies’.[62]
They also study the beliefs and practices of all human societies and use their
data to trace the origin of religions.
E. B. Tylor is generally regarded
as the founder of the Anthropological study of religion.[63]
For him religion was not the result of any revelation or supernatural
intervention.[64] He propounded the theory of animism i.e.
“the belief that al living beings and natural phenomena that appear to move or
have life (Sun, Moon, Rivers, etc.) have individual spirits (animas), some or
all of which are appropriate objects of worship.”[65]
For him the earliest stage of religion ‘consisted in the belief in souls,
present not only in human beings but also in all natural organisms and objects.
Tylor saw earlier animistic experience as the irreducible and original source
of later religious life.[66]
R. R. Marett, disciple of Tylor,
proposed ‘animatism’ or dynamism or pre-animism as the origin of
religion. Marett argued that belief in
souls or spirits is the result of reasoning.
Before reasoning, there could have been a ‘super naturalistic’ stage, in
which man recognized an impersonal religious force, which was rather felt than
reasoned out.[67] The
Melanesian islanders worshiped this supernatural force as Mana i.e.
‘undifferentiated impersonal supernatural force’.[68] In short animatisms is belief in Mana. For Marett this was the first stage of
religion.[69]
For Hebert
Spencer manism or ancestor worship is the beginning of religion.[70] . This
he derived from man’s belief in spirits or ghosts.[71] The fundamental assumption is that, just as
fear of the living is at the root of political control, fear of the dead is at
the root of religious control.[72] E. O. James called it as ‘ghost theory’.[73]
Andrew Langh
proposed that the primitives believed in Supreme beings or high gods and
that could be the earliest form of religion.
It was prior to animism.[74] He perceived that ‘parapsychology has more to
say about the nature and origin of religion than rationalistic anthropological
theories.
For James G.
Frazer religious activities and attitudes were preceded by the practice of magic.[75] Its aim was to master the external
environment through human powers. It is
easy to conceive that religion and magic function side by side but not magic
preceding religion.
Apart from the
above views of cultural anthropology, Social anthropology emphasizes on the
functional aspect of religion. The
Diffusionist school insists upon the necessity of studying various cultural
circle or layers, which could have been caused by small migrations in order to
answer the question of similarities in cultures in different religions.
The general
criticism against the anthropological approach is that it is confined to the
empirical religious phenomena and does not go to the original religious
feeling. The second criticism is that,
having studied one or few religions, the anthropologists involve in
generalizing the data. There is also the
fear of approaching the primitive religions with missionary motive.
2.2Sociological Approach
The original
aim of sociology was to find out the ‘scientific account of the laws underlying
the social fabric’.[76] It is convinced that human institution cannot
be based on error and falsehood, otherwise it could not have lasted.[77] By definition “the sociology of religion is
the study of the significant, and often subtle, relationships which prevail
between religion and social structures, and between religion and social
processes.”[78] It
studies the processes by which religion enters into human interaction and how
the interaction of men influences religion.[79] In the words of Joachim Wach “the sociologist
of religion will have to study and to classify with care the typologically
different organizational structures resulting from divergent concepts or
religious communion.”[80] Harvey Carrier writes, “sociology from its
very birth showed itself immediately concerned with the role and the function
of religion in the dynamism of societies.”[81] It is expected that the sociologist will not
make any statements about the supernatural in the theories, which attempt to
explain or predict religious behavior.[82]
Religion cannot be understood as an extra-social
phenomenon.[83] It is the product of society. Hence “we cannot understand the inner from a
society unless we understand its religion.”[84]
Max Weber was the first to conceive of a systematic sociology of religion.[85]
For him, religious behavior can be understood only through its meaning for the
individuals concerned[86]
and “the most elementary forms of behavior motivated by religious or magical
factors are oriented to this world.” [87]
William
Robertson Smith argues, on the basis of totemism that sacrifice was a social
integrative and conservatively traditional act.[88] For him totemism was the most elementary form
of religious life. Emile Durkheim ‘associated totemism with the distinction
between the realms of the sacred and the profane’. For him religion is inherently a social
reality and hence it should be studied as a response to specific social needs.
He says, “the most barbarous and the most fantastic rites and the strangest
myths translate some human need, some aspect of life, either individual or
social.”[89] K. P. Aleaz says, “according to Durkheim
religion is the essence of the social bond.”[90] The only difference between religion and
other institution is that religion distinguishes itself from other human
institutions through its fundamental opposition between the profane and the
sacred.
2.3 Historical Approach
Cornelius Tiele
may be regarded as its founder. The
protagonists of a strictly historical approach emphasize the use of historical
– critical method and insist on factual – descriptive expositions. Ursula king
writes “It was not only the concern of historical truth but also the need to
free the study of religion from the dominance of a priori theological
and philosophical speculation which required a strong insistence on the use of
the historical method.”[91]
The reason is every religious element is, significant only in its own proper
context.[92]
Robert D. Baired’s
definition that history is the descriptive study of the human past[93]
holds good if only religion is treated as an integral part of humanity. Muller writes, “there is but one method that
leads to really trustworthy and solid results and this is the Historical
Method.”[94] For him “the principle of the historical
school is not to ignore the present, but to try to understand the present by
means of the past.”[95] Practically, the historical approach is
burdened with surplus data without adequate ‘integration’. Another concern is whether the historian is
able to investigate the essential inner meaning of any religious tradition.
2.4 Phenomenological Approach
The main task of
phenomenological approach is to study the essence of religion by studying
various structures of religion.
Phenomenology is defined as the systematic discussion of what appears.[96] Further “the phenomenological method is a way
of describing rather than a way of explaining.”[97] The first person to outline the principles of
phenomenology to investigate the ‘essential inner structures of religion’[98]was
P. D. Chantepie de la Saussay. Husserl
laid two basic principles to phenomenology.
One is Epoche i.e., ‘bracketing, or suspension of judgment regarding
the phenomenal object’. The second is, eidetic
vision, i.e., ‘the intuitive, undistorting grasp of the ‘essence’ of the
object’.
One of the major
tasks of phenomenologists is to ‘describe the essence of the phenomenon, and
not to “locate” it. That is seeking the
meaning or essence rather than finding the cause or truth.[99] They have to interpret the symbols in a way
that enhances the self-knowledge of human beings. Thus phenomenologist of religions takes a
deep interest in the symbol.[100]
The earlier (empirical) phenomenologists were busy with structures and pattern
but the modern historical phenomenologists, study the structures and their
connection in their specific historical context.[101] The new style phenomenology “is moving from
the search for timeless essences to a search for meaning inside time.”[102] Its aim is to trace the intention of the
religious phenomena.
For Rudolf Otto the
non-rational, which is the opposite of that which can be thought about
conceptually is the subject matter of investigation. The unnamed or the
non-rational is numinous. It is felt as objective and outside the self.
Its nature is ‘Mysterium tremendum’, i.e., it grips or stirs the human
mind with this and that determinate affective state. Conceptually mysterium denotes merely
that which is hidden and esoteric, which is beyond conception or understanding,
extraordinary and unfamiliar. Tremendum
is the positive aspect of it. It is not
fear in the strict sense. This positive
can be experienced only in feeling. It
is this feeling which emerged in the mind of primeval man, forms the
starting-point for the entire religious development in history. Besides ‘mysterium tremendum’, the
numinous is fascination. The combination
of these two qualities, the daunting and the fascinating, now combine in a
strange harmony of contrasts, and the resultant dual character of the numinous
consciousness, to which the entire religious development bears witness. The
relation between the rational and the non-rational constitute the final meaning
of the “Holy”.[103]
On the basis of the
combination of these two aspects “Religion, he (Otto) argued, has its own
autonomous existence as a phenomenon in human experience.”[104] Otto’s theory is that reason and its limits
likewise being set aside, reality manifests itself in consciousness by means of
a peculiar numinous sense. He instead of
studying the ideas of God and religion undertook to analyze the
modalities of the religious experience.[105]
Radin[106]
remarks “awesome” feelings described by Otto are the result of ‘economic and
psychic insecurity’. Otto did not grasp
it because of his theological and mystical background.
Nothan Soderblom’s
major contribution is the idea of “Holiness”.
He was of the opinion that there may be religions even without God, but
none, without the distinction between the holy and the profane.[107] His disciple Friedrich Heiler asserted that
all religions are directed toward the Holy.
For him prayer is the heart and center of all religion.[108]
For Gerardus Van
der Leeuw Phenomenology seeks the phenomenon, as such, the phenomenon
again is what appears. This principle
has a threefold implication: 1. Something exists, 2. This something appears, 3.
Precisely because it ‘appears’ it is a ‘phenomenology’.[109] When someone tries to explain what appears,
then phenomenology arises. Thus
phenomenology is the systematic discussion of what appears. He focused on a wholly other “power” as the
object of religious experience. The
experience of power varies from people to people. The original experience of the power is more
important than the reflection upon it.
Finding the original experience of the power is the key aspect of
religious study. Leeuw was criticized
for devoting his effort to the ‘discernment and presentation of timeless types,
structures, and essences. His intuitive
method for arriving at his types and structures is far removed from the
empirical procedures practiced by modern science and scholarship. Joachim Wach insisted upon the necessity of
some personal religious predisposition in the inquirer, apart from scholarly
procedures.
Mircea Eliade views
that man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself, shows itself,
as something wholly different from the profane. For him the history of
religions – from the most primitive to the most highly developed – is
constituted by a great number of hierophanies, by manifestations of sacred
realities.[110] The sacred and profane are two modes of being
in the world, rather, ‘two existential situations assumed by man in the course
of his history’.[111]
2.5 Psychological Approach
In this approach
the area of investigation will be primarily the mental states, motivations and
attitudes found in religious contexts.[112] Erich Fromm writes “analysis of religion must
not stop at uncovering those psychological processes within man which underlay
his religious experience; it must proceed to discover the conditions which make
for the development of authoritarian and humanistic character structures,
respectively, from which different kinds of religious experience stem.”[113] Since psychology of religion is more
individualistic in nature[114]
and it explores man’s inner consciousness, it should never slacken in its
search for scientific means of doing so.[115]
From the beginning, the psychology of religion
follows the observation of religious individuals and the study of traditional
content from the history of religion. In
other words “the methods employed by psychologists are those of experiment and
observation.[116] Psychological approach to the study of
religions considers rituals seriously because “compulsive neurotic patients
exhibits numerous forms of private ritual.”[117] Again
“Religious behavior springs from conscious and unconscious motivation.”[118] But one need to be cautioned that religious
emotions, sentiments, and dispositions are complex and no single feeling or
meaning characterizes all varieties of religious experience.
William James viewed
religious experience as involving intense human emotions and feelings directed
toward some unseen order, reality, power “Out there” to which the personal
stance is adjustment and surrender.[119] A person’s religion involves both moods of
contraction and moods of expansion of his being i.e. sorrow and happiness. In order to explain the matter further, he
divides the psyche (soul) into two types.
One is healthy soul and the other is sick soul. Healthy soul is optimistic and the sick soul
is pessimistic. In his wards “the
completest religions would therefore seem to be those in which the pessimistic
elements are best developed.”[120] James is criticized for interpreting his
cases apart from their socio-cultural context and hardly went into religious
history or anthropology.
Sigmund Freud
discovered the existence of the personal unconscious and he was able to analyze
the major forces within this realm and their influence on consciousness.[121] The unconscious is essentially that in us,
which is bad, the repressed, that which is incompatible with the demands of our
culture and of our higher self.[122] Freud’s main insight was that all psychical
activity is at first unconscious.[123] For Freud, religion is the projection of
infantile dependencies upon imagined superhuman beings. The dependencies, he called, collective
neurosis. He also found that, there were
many non-religious motivations, behind all religions aspirations. The infantile dependencies, or the
obsessional childhood neurosis, Freud called, the “Oedupus complex.” That is why he said religion is illusion. The process of detecting this neurosis is
called psychoanalysis. For this Freud
chose to interpret dream. Dreams for
him, are the out come of the suppressed feelings, may be of childhood. It is
commented that Oedipus complex may be a more complicated image in our context
given that insofar as the father’s influence actually has been complex and not
simply authoritarian in our own times.[124]
For Carl Gustav
Jung the psyche consists of two parts: Consciousness and the unconscious. The
unconscious is older than the consciousness. Again he made a distinction
between personal unconscious and collective unconscious. Collective unconscious is responsible for the
religious behavior. The personal
unconscious is an accumulation of contents that have been repressed during the
life of the individual and is continuously being refined with new materials.
The collective unconscious consists entirely of elements characteristic of the
human species. The elements of the collective
unconscious are called ‘Archetypes’. The archetypes are common to all human
beings. From the collective unconscious,
the archetypes come into the regular course of life. This is religion.[125]
3 Issues in the Study of Religion
This section will
analyze the issues involved in the different approaches to the study of
religion. Besides, some of the general interests that concern all the students
of religion shall be highlighted. They are such as, definition of religion, who
should study religion, nature of data for the study of religion, whether value
free judgment of data is possible, issues related to the use of language,
specific problems in studying living religions, response threshold, observable
and non-observable aspects of religion, hermeneutic and option for a pluralist
perspective.
3.1 Issues Involved in the
Different Approaches to the Study of Religion
With due
acknowledgement to the contributions of Max Muller it can be said that, his
initial endeavors did not suffer challenges, which are confronted by the modern
scholars. His openness to accept the
significant value of data supplied by other branches of learning for the
science of religion is in fact a beacon.
The anthropologists
mostly depended on empirical knowledge and did not penetrate into the real
religious realm, which is beyond the empirical phenomena. They are suspected
for missionary activities. Their main concentration was upon the primal
religions, hence failed to examine the challenges facing the living
religions. They are also blamed for over
generalization. Even though most of the
primal religious data are in oral form, the anthropologist is handicapped with
language, at least at the stage of interpretation.
Sociologists have
explained religion as a social phenomenon.
The real issue is whether religion is responsible for the social
institutions or the social structure is responsible for the emergence of
religion, because many religious experiences of individuals cannot be explained
away by sociological criteria alone. Some
sociologists also perceive some form of supernatural influence upon the
religious behavior of people.
The issue in
historical approach is whether the historian of religion will be able to use
the abundance of available data to trace back the origin of religion. Since the data will be influenced by the
values and personal experiences of the particular scholars concerned, the
historical approach should explore the possibilities of presenting objective
facts, which are not hampered with other personal influences.
Phenomenologist are
accused for their over dependence on the religious experience of the
people. Their quest for various
structures, to find out their similarity or differences, involves removing of
certain phenomena from the original setting. It can lead the scholar to
recognize meanings different from what was really intended. Their enthusiasm to find out the essence of
religion is a crucial issue because what seems to be the essence of one
religion may not find similar status in other religions.
Studying a few
individual cases, psychologists conclude that, certain psychic experience is
common to humanity. And this common
human nature is responsible for the religious behavior of people. Generalization has its own limitations. They do not see any other possibility for the
religious behavior of people.
3.2 General Issues
These are issues
that concern all the scholars of religions irrespective of their specific
approaches. First of such an issue is the definition of religion. Definitions
abound, but without any common agreement.
The very word ‘religion’ has become bone of contention because of its
implicit Roman religiosity.[126] Also studies have proved that there are
religions even without any supernatural element. Thus the question is whether religion has to
be defined or not before attempting to study.
As an inadequate definition of religion can affect the scholar in
examining all the available data, an open-ended approach for the definition
will be of greater significance for the scientific study of religion.
Secondly, although
not now, earlier studies of religions had been dominated by western scholars,
presumably with considerable missionary zeal.
The main issue, irrespective of advantages and disadvantages, is whether
the insider or the outsider should study religion. The convincing answer is honesty in study.[127]
Thirdly the scholar
of religion is over burdened with enormous amount of data because of the
emergence of various disciplines and the rapid growth of science and
communication. Whether any individual
scholar will be able to handle and classify all the data or only one aspect of
the data should be focused. It depends
of course on the limits set by the individual investigator.
Fourthly, whether
one achieves pure value free objectivity, in the study of religion. Although difficult, student of religion can
exercise more balanced attitude.
Fifthly, since all
religious language, symbol, practice etc. are found meaningful only in their
proper contexts, can modern language transmit their real content and
implications? Textual study of the religious traditions can be effective. But
the availability of the texts[128]
and language[129]
scholarship are again matters of concern.
Sixthly, unlike
studying primal religious traditions, the living religions pose new challenges.[130] Here the problem is not data or origin, but
how different religions interact and exist side by side in harmony by
addressing common issues.[131] In other words their ‘meaning and function in
society’.[132]
Another issue connected to the study of living religions is “the response
threshold” that is the right of the present day devotee to advance a
distinctive interpretation of his or her own tradition.[133]
Seventhly, the
academic study of religion, now, is generally concerned with observable data -historical
knowledge of the rituals, mythologies, religious communities, ideas, teachings,
institutions, arts, and architecture.
Beyond the observable there is a non-observable. A clear distinction
between them can resolve many misunderstandings.[134] And “discovering the character of this
transcendent focus comprises an important part of the study of a religion.”[135]
Eighthly, the bulk
of religious data warrants appropriate hermeneutical principle as religion
influences human life at all levels. Otherwise it is impossible to
systematically order and account for the variety of religious data.[136]
Ninthly, contrary
to the original intention, the increasing connection between religion and
theology, and other disciplines pose the challenging question can the study of
religion be called as an area rather than a discipline. In other words whether a multidisciplinary
approach is possible. The answer seems
to be affirmative.[137]
4 Implications for the Indian
Context
Scientific study of
religion offers many valuable insights to the Indian context. First, it reveals that religion is as old as
human history.[138] Secondly, it helps furthering ‘free sharing
among religions’ i.e. interaction among them. Thirdly, it also postulates that
‘all our faiths have some value’ and the superiority claims of religions
becomes untenable[139]
and suspicious[140]
because in one sense every religion was a true religion in its context.[141] Fourthly Indian context requires special
approach, not merely western, as she houses major living religions of the
world.[142] More
over now the nonwestern scholar’s study and reflection of their own religion is
amply available.[143] There is a clear distinction between the
Eastern and Western contexts. In India
Sixthly, the
scientific study of religion reveals the fundamental, “Unity of Religion”.[146] It is already present in religion but we need
to realize it.[147] It helps bring home the idea that religion
was one and manifold forms are its existence in diverse cultural contexts. Seventhly, studying religion means studying
life.[148] The
problem of religion would become vastly complicated if it were to be discretely
separated from the problem of people because it has neither essence nor
existence nor any kind of being whatsoever apart from people.[149] Focus upon “Life” should become key to the understanding
of religious phenomena in India
Eighthly, the two
fundamental aspects for the scientific study of religions from Indian
perspective are “Unity of Religion” and concern for “Life”. It is time we shift from
the teaching of religion to the study of religion.[151]
Ninthly, there is
no distinction between religion and philosophy in India
Tenthly, against
the original wishes now there is more possibility for creative integration
between theology and the study of religion.[154] This possibility is promising,[155]hence
Indian theology cannot ignore the rich and variety of religious resources.
Conclusion
Max Muller founded
the “Science of Religion”. Its main task
is to study religion scientifically. The
scientific study of religion concentrated on the origin of religion. For this the comparative and historical
perspectives were applied. The early anthropological theories saw the origin of
religion in animism, Animatism, manism, supreme beings, magic etc. The anthropologists of religion used rigorous
empirical method. The sociologists of
religion interpreted religion as social phenomena. The phenomenological perspective found the
essence of religion in some ‘sacred focus’.
And the psychological perspective has located religion in human psyche.
The science of religion has to
tackle some crucial issues. One of them
is whether religion should be defined at all.
Whether the insider or the outsider should study religion is another
issue. The ever-growing quantity of data
raises serious concern to the scholars of religion. The study of living religions faces new
issues, which were never problem to the scholars of primal religions. To avoid all seeming hardships in the study
of religion a multi-methodic approach is convincing.
The scientific
study of religion offers valuable insights, which are relevant to the specific
Indian context. A challenging Indian
perspective for the scientific study of religion can be formulated on the basis
of these insights. Any relevant
perspective for the scientific study of religion should take “Life” as the
hermeneutical principle.
The growing communal conflicts in India
Religion and Dialogue
[1]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History, Duckworth, 1975,
pp.1-26.
[2] E.
O. James, Comparative Religion, First Published as University Paper
back, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London
[3]
Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, Aims, Methods
and Theories of Research, I: Introduction and Anthology, Mount, Parries,
1973, pp.6-25.
[4] E.
O. James, Comparative Religion, Op. cit., p.16.
[5] Ibid.,
p.16.
[6]
Thomas L. Benson, The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.14, p.65.
[7]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.8.
[8]
E.O. James Comparative Religion, Op. Cit., p.16.
[9]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.8.
[10]
F. Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated
by the Religions of India , Indological
book house, Varanasi (India
[11]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.8.
[12] Ibid.
[13]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.65.
[14]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., pp. 7-9.
[15]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., pp.65-66.
[16]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 13.
[17]
Kuncheria Pathil, “Scientific Study of Religions : Some Methodological
Reflections”, Journal of Dharma, Vol.XXI, No.2, April-June 1996, p. 163.
[18]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London
[19]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition, London
[20]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 98.
[21]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[22]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s methodology of mythology”. Journal
of Dharma, Vol.II, No.4, October 1977, p.368.
[23]
J. G. Arapura, Religion as Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative
Phenomenology of the Spirit, Mouton & Co., Netherlands, 1972, p.31.
[24]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s Methodology”, Op. Cit., p.368.
[25]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History, Duckworth, London
[26]
R. W. Brockway, Op. Cit., p.368.
[27]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p. 29.
[28]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 85.
[29] Ibid.,
p.86.
[30]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, 1979, p.385.
[31]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition, London
[32] Ibid.,
p.198.
[33]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.85.
[34]
Eric J. Sharpe, Op. Cit., p.43.
[35]
R. W. Brockway, Op. Cit., p.108.
[36]
J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity and Comparative Religion, Reprinted,
Tyndale Press, London
[37]
Ninian Smart, Phenomenon of Religion, Mac Millan, London
[38]
Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.350.
[39]
Frank Whaling ed., Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2
Volumes, Volume I: The Humanities, Mouton Publishers, Berlin
[40]
Michael Pye, Comparative Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials, David
and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972, p. 8.
[41]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.13.
[42]
Ursula King, “The debate about the science of religion”, edited by Frank
Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.131.
[43]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Translated and edited, Duckworth London, 1977, p.88.
[44]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition, London
[45]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Op. Cit., p.91.
[46]
Waardenburg, Vol. I, Op. Cit., p.513.
[47]
Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidars, Delhi
[48]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Op. Cit., p.63.
[49]
Ninian Smart, Religion and Truth: Towards An Alternative Paradigm for the
Study of Religion, Mount Publishers , The
Hague
[50]
Kuncheria Pathil, Op. Cit., p.163.
[51]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London
[52]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.18.
[53]
S. Radhakrishnan, Op. Cit., pp. 15-17.
[54]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, Op. Cit., p.8.
[55]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.141.
[56]
Waardenbugr, Op. Cit., p.88.
[57]
Eric J. Sharpe, Op. Cit., p.44.
[58]
F. Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, Op. Cit., p.21.
[59]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.164.
[60] Ibid.
[61]
F. Max Muller, Physical Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi
[62]
Marc J. Swartz and David K. Jordan, Anthropology: Perspective on Humanity, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976, p.2-3.
[63]
Thomas L. Benson, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 14, p.69.
[64]
E. O. James, Comparative Religion, First Published as University Paper
back, Methane & Co. Ltd., London
[65]
Marc J. Swartz and David K. Jordan, Op. Cit., p.664.
[66]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott, et al., Religious Traditions of India
[67]
Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, Aims, Methods
and Theories of Research, I: Introduction and Anthology, Mouton, Paries,
1973, p. 257.
[68]
Marc J. Swartz and David K. Jordan, Op. Cit., p.663.
[69]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History, Duckworth, London
[70]
F. Max Muller, Anthropological Religion, second AES Reprint, Asian
Educational Services, New Delhi
[71]
Thomas. L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[72]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.29.
[73]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.37.
[74]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.240.
[75]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott et al., Op. Cit., p.21.
[76]
Michael Hill, “Sociological Approaches” Contemporary Approaches to the Study
of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Frank Whaling, Volume II, Mouton
Publishers, Berlin, 1985, pp. 117, 118.
[77]
W.S.F. Pickering, Durkheim on Religion, A Selection of Reading with Bibliographies, New translations by
Jacqueline Reading and W.S.F. Pickering, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
1975, p.103.
[78]
Thomas F. O’ Dea, The sociology of Religion, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966,
p.117.
[79]
Richard. Knudten, The Sociology of Religion an Anthology, Meridith
Publishing Company, New York
[80]
Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion, Twelfth Impression, The University
of Chicago Press, London
[81]
Herve Carrier S. J., The Sociology of Religious Belonging, Darton,
Longman & Todd, London
[82]
Daniel L. Hodges, “Breaking a Scientific Taboo: Putting Assumptions about the
supernatural into scientific theories of religion”, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 13, No.4, December, 1974, p.393.
[83]
Gunter Kehrer and Bert Hardin, “Sociological Approaches”, Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Fran Whaling,
Vol.II. Mouton Publishers, Berlin
[84]
Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture, Meridian Books, New York
[85]
Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion, Twelfth Impression, The University
of Chicago Press, London
[86]
Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion, Translated by Ephraim Fishchoff,
third printing, Beacon Press, Boston
[87]
Max Weber, Op. Cit., p.1.
[88]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.70.
[89]
Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Translated
by Joseph Ward Swain, Second Edition, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London
[90]
K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, Study, Experience and
Interaction Punthi Pustak, Calcutta
[91]
Frank Whaling ed., Vol.1. Op. Cit., p.37.
[92]
UGO Bianchi, The History of Religions, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands,
1975, p.49.
[93]
Robert D. Baird, Category Formation and the History of Religions, Mouton , Netherlands
[94]
F. Max Muller, Physical Religion, Op. Cit., p.7.
[95]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.278.
[96]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.49.
[97]
Joseph Pabney Bettis, ed., Phenomenology of Religion, Eight Modern
Descriptions of the Essence of Religion, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1969, p.6.
[98]
Eric J. Lott, Vision, Tradition, Interpretation, Theology, Religion, and the
Study of Religion, Mouton de Gruyter, 1988, p.179.
[99]
Joseph Dabney Bettis ed., Op. Cit., p.10.
[100]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.39.
[101]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.88.
[102]
K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, Study, Experience and
Interaction, Op. Cit., p.17.
[103]
Rudolf Otto, The idea of the Holy, An inquiry into the non-rational factor
in the idea of the divine and its relation to the rational, Translated by
John W. Harvey, Pelican Books, 1959, pp.15-45.
[104]
P.S. Daniel, David C. Scott et al., Op. Cit., p.37.
[105]
Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, The Nature of Religion,
Translated from the French by Willard R. Trask, Harcourt, Brace and Company,
New York, 1959, p.9.
[106]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.74.
[107] Ibid.,
p.74.
[108]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.461.
[109] Ibid.,
p.412.
[110]
Mircea Eliade, Op. Cit., p.11.
[111]
Jay J. Kim, “Hierophant and History” Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, Vol.XL, No.3, September, 1972, p.334.
[112]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott el at., Op. Cit., p.24.
[113]
Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, Fourth Printing, Yale
University Press, New Haven
[114]
Paul E. Johnson, Psychology of Religion, A Bingdon – Cokesbury Press,
New York, No Date, p.15.
[115]
Walter Houston Clark, The Psychology of Religion, An Introduction to
religious experience and behavior, Second Printing, The Macmillan Company,
New York, 1959, p.29.
[116]
L. W. Grensted, The Psychology of Religion, Oxford University Press, New York
[117]
Erich Fromm, Op. Cit., p.31.
[118]
Paul E. Johnson, Op. Cit., p.221.
[119]
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Mentor Books, New York
[120]
William James, Op. Cit., p.139.
[121]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.96.
[122]
Erich Fromm, Op. Cit., p.96.
[123]
Hans Kung, Freud and the Problem of God, Translated by Edward Quinn,
Yale University Press, New Haven
[124]
Leighton Mc Cutchen, “The Father Figure in Psychology and Religions” Journal
of the American Academy
[125]
Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C. G. Jung, 1973 edition, second
printing, Yale University Press, 1974, pp.9&35.
[126]
De Graeve, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.12, p.240.
[127]
Henry H. Presler, “How should we study other religions?” National Christian
Council Review. Vol.LXXXI, No.5, May 1961, pp.193, 194.
[128]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.86.
[129]
Jarich Oosten, “Cultural Anthropological Approaches”, Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Frank Whaling,
Vol.II: The Social Sciences, Mouton Publishers, Berlin, 1985, p.252.
[130]
Ursula King, “The debate about the Science of Religion”, Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Frank Whaling,
Vol.I: The Humanities, Mouton Publishers, Berlin
[131]
Geoffrey Parrinder, Comparative Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London
[132]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol. I, Op. Cit., p.43.
[133]
Michael Pye, Comparative Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials, David
and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972, p.13.
[134]Thomas
A. Idinopulos, “The Difficulties of Understanding Religion”, What is
Religion? Origins, Definitions & Explanations, edited by Thomas A.
Idinopulos & Brain C. Wilson, Brill, 1998, p.27.
[135]
Eric J. Lott, “Approaching Religious Traditions”, Religions Traditions of
India, Indian Theological Library, 1988, p.3.
[136]
Ursula King, Op. Cit., p.152.
[137]
Eric J. Lott, Tradition, Interpretation, Theology Religion, and the Study of
Religion, Moutan de Gruyter, 1988, p.156.
[138]
F. Max Muller, Theosophy or Psychological Religion, Collected Works of F.
Max Muller, Asian Educational Service, New Delhi
[139]
S. Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd., London
[140]
S. Radhakrishnan, Religion and Society, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London
[141]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religions, New Edition, London
[142]
Eric J. Lott, “The Science of Religion in an Indian Theological Context”, Bangalore
Theological Forum, Vol.XIII, No.4, Oct-Dec., 1985, p.1.
[143]
Frank Whaling, “The Study of Religions in a Global Context”, Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Frank Whaling,
Volume I: The Humanities, Mouton Publishers,
Berlin
[144]
S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu of Life, Third Indian Reprint, Blackie &
Son Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Blackie House, Bombay
[145]
S. Radhakrishnan, Religion & Society, Op. Cit., p.18.
[146]
L. W. Grensted, The Psychology of Religion, Oxford University Press, New York
[147]
Gustan Mensching, Structures and Patterns of Religion, Translated by F.
Klimkeit and V. Srinivasa Sarma, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1976, pp.319,320.
[148]
L. W. Grensted, Op. Cit., p.15.
[149]
J. G. Arapura, Religions as Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative
Phenomenology of the Spirit, Mouton & Co., Netherlands, 1972, p.39.
[150]
K. P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, Punthipustak,
Calcutta
[151]
Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “The Study of Religion and the Study of the Bible”, Journal
of the American Academy of Religion, Vol.XXXIX, No.2, June, 1971, p.131.
[152]
Frank Whaling, Vol.I., Op. Cit., p.403.
[153]
Eric J. Lott, “Approaching Religious Tradition”, Religious Traditions of
India, Indian Theological Library, 1988, p.29.
[154] S. Israel , “An integral approach to the study of
Religion: Insights from an Indian Christian perspective”, Bangalore
Theological Forum, Vol.XIX, No.2, April-June, 1987, p.104.
[155]
Eric J. Lott, “The Science of Religion in an Indian Theological Context”, Bangalore
Theological Forum, Vol. XVII, No.4, October-December, 1985, p.3.
Comments
Post a Comment