Different approaches to the study of religion
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
CHAPTER 1
CHAPTER 2
The second new addition is
Diffusionist school. It insists upon the
necessity of studying various cultural circle or layers which could have been
caused by small migrations. This will
answer the question of similarities in cultures in different religions. These later developments have emerged in
reaction to the earlier armchair anthropologists.
CONCLUSION
Religion and Dialogue
Religion and Dialogue
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
Different approaches to the study of religion
INTRODUCTION
This paper is an attempt to evaluate the current
perspectives used for the scientific study of religion. The words perspective, Method and approach
are used interchangeably. Similarly the
expressions science of religion, comparative religion and history of religions
are used almost synonymously except when applied to denote specific
perspectives. Another aspect to be noted
is that no systematic effort is made to define religion, even though the paper
is devoted for methodology. The reason
for doing so can be vivid as the discussion proceeds. It is to be noted that all the specific terms
mentioned here are explained in the appropriate places as the work progresses.
The first part of the work is an
exploration into the various factors which were responsible for the emergence
of the science of religion. While
discussing the pioneering work for the founding of a separate discipline, more
attention is given to the valuable contributions of Max Muller who was called
as the Father of comparative religion.
Only an evaluation of the
prevailing perspectives used for the scientific study of religion can help the
student of religion to choose the right direction. This is done in the second part. In this process the major anthropological
theories about the origin of religion can be discussed. Sociological perspective can help furthering
the knowledge about religion.
Historical-phenomenological perspectives are studied to show their
distinctive contribution to the study of religions. Psychological perspectives can be studied to
understand another specific dimension of religion.
Third part is an evaluation of
the existing perspectives. This is done
to examine the issues faced by the different perspectives in studying
religion. The common issues which would
require the attention of every scholar of religion can be of great help and
interest for the scientific study of religion.
The science of religion certainly
is a promising field of study. It can be
very relevant in a country like India where almost all the major living
religions are thriving side by side.
Thus the fourth part of the study is an attempt to trace all the
valuable insights from the scientific study of religion and to examine their
significance for an appropriate Indian perspective for the study of religion.
Owing to the nature of the
research paper, the first two parts are lengthier than the last two. Because the first two chapters are devoted to
present a form of historical details, while the other two are meant for evaluation
and analysis of the whole development.
SCIENCE OF RELIGION
1.1 Factors Responsible for the Beginnings of Science of Religion
History testifies to the fact
that no human being ever lived without adhering to some form of religiosity. It also confirms that, at least from the
first century of Christians era 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
germination of a new discipline for the systematic or scientific study of
religions in the later part of the 19th Century. Several factors were responsible for the dawn
of this new discipline. They were:
reformation, geographical discoveries, deists, scientific and intellectual
developments, travel accounts, decipherment of ancient texts, the enlightenment
philosophers, romantic idealism and studies in myth and Folklore.
In the second part a
consideration of the pioneers who were responsible for the founding of this new
discipline, science of religion, can be made.
Thirdly a concentrated effort is required to appreciate the untiring
contributions of Max Muller for the science of religion.
1.1.1 Reformation
Although the years between 14th
Century to 17th Century[2]
are called as reformation period, E. O. James[3]
and Waardenburg[4] limit
this duration to 16th and 17th centuries and perceive the
impact of reformation upon the study of religions. Their perception can be justified because
till the emergence of reformation the scripture of Christianity was far beyond
the reach of ordinary people. religious
practices were carried out without any questions regarding their validity. It was only because of the effects of
reformation, scripture was rituals or church practices were questioned. Consequently scripture was studied with the
aid of all the critical methods of learning available then. This paved way for a new kind of openness.
In the same spirit many biblical
scholars in 19th Century studied the Bible using historical critical
methods. Julius Welhausean (1844-1918)
an Old Testament scholar asserted that ‘Torah cannot actually have been given
by Moses’ and also a specific date cannot be assigned to it.[5]
Similarly from the New Testament
point of view “A Scholar like David F. Strauss (1808-1874) had concluded that
the whole life of Jesus was a myth: that, as a historical person, he never
existed.”[6] There was an intense quest for historical
truth about the life of Jesus. The
application of historical critical method for the study of scripture itself
was, in fact, a courageous act, well ahead of time.
1.1.2 Geographical Discoveries
Along with reformation, another
factor that contributed to the zeal for the study of religion was the
geographical discoveries of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These discoveries confronted western man with
the fact of the other ways of behavior, thought, and belief and required
broadening of the western centered view of human nature, culture and religion.[7] Consequently there arose a serious interest
to know the life and practices of the new people. this new interest encouraged further
explorations and details about the so far unknown people and their practices
including religions.
1.1.3 Deists
During 17th and 18th
centuries deists also contributed to the systematic study of religions.[8] They were of the opinion that, the original
religion was good and pure, it was only latter the priests corrupted it. They also popularized the natural religious
quality of humanity against the traditional idea of revealed religions.
The new turn
rested on the idea of a common human nature from which religious beliefs arise,
eliciting universal agreement. In its
Deistic form natural religion was acclaimed to be independent of and superior
to revealed religion, and unlike medieval or modern notions of a natural
knowledge of divine things, to be a prologue to or an alternative of
revelation.[9]
The Deist’s idea of natural
religion was struggling to sail through because of the dominance of the
church. Further, there was less
acceptance among the people. “However
lukewarm and superficial was the natural religion of the Enlightenment, it was
at least sincere in its devotion to the virtue of tolerance”.[10] It is indeed a great landmark of the history
that the Deistic thoughts survived all calamities and supplied the fundamental
insight, the ideal of natural religion, to the yet to be established new
discipline for the scientific study of religion.
1.1.4 Scientific and Intellectual Developments
Scientific developments,
particularly the theory of evolution propounded by Darwin had greater impact
upon the development of religion as an independent discipline.[11] The Principle of evolution dominated the
thoughts of many great scholars, particularly those advocated anthropological
perspective.
“Scientific and intellectual
developments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries provided the model for
new approaches to the study of religion.”[12] The major insight of this particular
influence was the linear development of things.
it was assumed that everything was moving towards a perfection. Further there was critical reasoning in the
academic circles. The influence of
linear progress is very vivid in the works of many later day scholars of
religion.
1.1.5 Travel Accounts
After the geographical
discoveries, 18th century witnessed the descriptions of religion by
several travel accounts. These accounts
are not systematic in their presentation of the matter. Only a few such works were published. One among them was the work of Charles de
Brosses (1709-1777).[13] For him, Fetishism was the earliest form of
religion.[14] Commenting on his theory F. Max Muller writes
in his origin and growth of religion that “All nations, he holds, had to begin
with fetishism, to be followed after words by polytheism and monotheism”.[15] Brosse’s idea of fetish is clearly described
by Muller as “ ‘These fetishes’, he says, are anything which people like to
select for adoration a tree, a mountain, the sea, a piece of wood, the tail of
a lion, a pebble, a shell, salt, a fish, a plant, a flower, certain animals… or
anything like these.”[16] Muller’s argument was that “There is no
fetish without its antecedents, and it is in these antecedents alone that its
true and scientific interest consists.”[17]
Another such work was that of
Meiners (1747-1810). He accepted the
theory of fetishism. But went beyond
fetishism and ‘Stressed the role of human imagination in the development of
religious worship’.[18]
Similar account was given by
Benjamin constant y de Rebeque (1769-1830).
“For constant, religion is essentially a feeling which is the very
foundation of man’s nature.”[19] The traces for a later psychological
perspective for the study of religion could be found in the work of Constant.
Whatever may be the limitations
or criticisms leveled against these initial ventures, the fact remains that,
these preliminary works had sown the seed for the growth of a latter huge tree
called, the ‘Science of religion’. In
these works there are allusions to the early anthropological, sociological and
psychological perspectives for the study of religion.
1.1.6 Decipherment of Ancient Texts
“Side by side with the travel
accounts of living people, it was the discovery and decipherment of ancient
texts that opened a field of research on as yet largely unknown religions.”[20] William Jones (1746-1797) studied Sanskrit
and compared it with certain European Languages. He “… discovered structural similarities
between the two groups of languages and concluded that they belong to one
linguistic family.”[21] He also found similarities between the Indian
Myths and Greek, Roman and Biblical. His
studies in the language also made Indian religion available to others. Thus there
was scope for further research on Indo-European linguistics and
mythology through comparative studies.
Another notable scholar in this
period and field was Jean Francois Champollion (1790-1832). He was the ‘decipherer of the ancient
Egyptian hieroglyphic script’.[22] Similar to the impact of the theory of
evolution on the study of religion, the results of the study of languages were
made visible in the very life and contributions of Max Muller. Why stop with that it was this philological
research that ultimately constituted the Scientific Study of religion.
1.1.7 The Enlightenment Philosophers
“While the Philosophers of the 18th
century Enlightenment in France (e.g., Voltaire) viewed religion as the
invention of cunning priests to secure there fears and superstitions, German
philosophers were venturing toward a broad and deep understanding of the
variety of religions and their historical development.”[23] The broadened out look of these philosophers
may be the outcome of the geographical discoveries. Having taken into consideration the plurality
of religions they viewed religions as out growth of a natural reasonable
religion or as the natural outcome of the general manifestation of Divine
grace.[24] Their contribution to the study of religion
was the important idea that religions have a historical existence and that
religion cannot be studied apart from history.[25] The two significant insights these
philosophers supplied to the later scientific study of religion were, the
common origin of religions and the concept of historical development of
religions.
1.1.8 Romantic Idealism
“Another important German
contribution to modern approaches to religion was Romantic idealism. As a reaction against Enlightenment thought,
it emphasized individuality, feelings, and imagination, and it urged and openness
to remote, ancient, mystical, and folk culture and religion.”[26] One of its proponents was Friedrich
Scheliermacher (1768-1834), a protestant theologian who assigned religion
primarily to feeling that is the feeling of absolute dependence.[27] Another great contribution was made by Hegel.
“For Hegel the concrete history
of religions is the realization of the abstract idea of religion.”[28] The third scholar in this brief list was
Vico. Vico (1668-1744), the Italian
philosopher held that, ‘fear of a superior power’ was the origin of
religion. He perceived this development
from polytheism to a spiritual monotheism as a gradual process ruled by divine
providence.[29]
Probably, the Romantic idealism
could be treated as more philosophical in out look. The valuable knowledge that the later
scholars of religion could avail from this school of thought, again was that,
religion had a common origin, whether it was fear or feeling.
1.1.9 Myth and Folk-lore
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.
Their significance in the study of religion is said as, “History of
religion could now use not only mythology but also folk-lore to its advantage,
in this sense Mannhardt had much influence on a scholar like James G-Frazer.”[30] Wilhelm Mannhard (1931-1980) was a scholar of
European Folk-lore.
In summary according to Kuncheria
Pathil, “The contract of the West with Islam, the revival of classical
antiquity in Renaissance with its aftermath of humanism, and the geographical
discoveries of the 15th and 16th centuries with their
subsequent colonial and missionary conquests, gave impetus to the study of
religions of other lands and peoples.”[31] Dr. S. Radhakrishnan limits the sources of
influence upon the study of religion to two.
“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.”[32]
1.2 FOUNDERS
Max Muller, in his Introduction
to the Science of Religion stated that “The Emperor Akbar may be considered
the first who ventured on a comparative study of the religions of the world.”[33] It is true.
Nevertheless the real vision for the establishment of a independent
discipline for the scientistic study of religion was the product of later part
of the 19th century.
One of the pioneers of “Science
of Religion” was Cornelis P. Tiele (1830-1902) of Holland. “He was one of the first to offer a
historical survey of a number of religions based on study of source materials.”[34] The method adopted by him for such a survey
is said, “Tiles combined historical work in ancient Near Eastern religions with
a systematic interest in religious phenomena and a philosophical search for the
essence of religion.”[35] The impact of evolutionary thought reflects
in his ideas. “In his general view of
religion he stressed the evolution of the ‘religious idea’ through the
historical forms of religion which represented different stages.”[36] The reason assigned by him for the scientific
study of religion was quite simple.
In the Elements of the Science
of Religion he asserted that religion is investigated ‘in order to learn
something about it, in accordance with a sound and critical method, appropriate
to each department.”[37] He advocated a kind of historical
method. Still he said “Yet I believe
that the science of religion requires a broader foundation than history in the
ordinary sense of the word.”[38]
It is very clear Tiele wanted to
experiment historical method for the systematic study of religion. In the end, he seems to suggest that
historical perspective alone may not be the adequate method for the study of
religious phenomena. Two points are
clear. One is that he applied historical
approach and the other is that, he felt the need of more perspectives for the
better understanding of religious phenomena.
Another pioneer who contributed
to the development of the scientific study of religion was Pierre D. Chantepie
de la Saussaye (1848-1920) of Netherlands.
“Chantepie, in his classic Manual of the Science of Religion (1887-1889),
made an elaborate classification of religious phenomena (Sacred stones, trees,
animals, places, times, persons, writings, communities and the like), a
forerunner of later phenomenologies of religion.”[39] “Besides historical work in his field, he was
primarily interested in systematic classification.”[40] He is one of the first scholars to speak of
phenomenology of religion as a special branch of the study of religion.”[41] It is suggested that his inadequate knowledge
of language[42] caused
him inaccessible the original sources.
Hence he concentrated less on history and more on classification of
religion. Thus he was very closely
associated with the founding of the Phenomenological school of religion.
1.3 MAX MULLER
The most important of the
founders of a separate discipline called ‘Science of religion’, for the
systematic study of religion was the Oxford Sanskritist Friedrich Max Muller
(1823-1900). He was called the father of
comparative religions. R. W. Brockway
says “Max Muller’s Essay in Comparative Mythology (1856) was the
earliest significant discussion of comparative religion and it could be said
that Muller was the father of Religionswissenschaft or Religious
studies.”[43] According to professor J. G. Arapura, without
Muller, there could not have emerged the separate discipline for the scientific
study of religion. It is said “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.”[44] Muller declared his commitment and vigour for
the establishment of a discipline for the scientific study of religion as the
new science would “change the aspect of the world.”[45]
Basically Muller was a
philologist. In his study of languages
he used comparative method. The same
method was later applied to the systematic study of religion. It is said as “Muller’s wide knowledge of
Indo-European languages, his comparative approach to philology and extension of
that method to the study of religion, and his eloquent advocacy of that study
as a scientific discipline prepared the way, during his life time, for the
establishment of Chairs in the new field in leading European Universities.”[46] He was interested on the archaic forms of
religion. The reason was that, he wanted
to find the origin of religions from the study of archaic forms. “Interested in archaic forms of religion, he
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.”[47]
The aim of establishing the new
discipline for the scientific study of religion is summed up as “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.”[48] In the Natural Religion Muller said,
‘I want, if possible to show you how the road which leads from the Science of
Language to the Science of Mythology and to the Science of Thought is the only
safe road on which to approach the science of religion’. This will be discussed in details in the
following passages.
1.3.1 Language
Max Muller’s field of interest
was philology. His linguistic studies of
Indo-European languages using comparative method convinced him that similar
method can be applied for the study of religious. R. W. Brockway says that “Muller approached
the study of religion from his knowledge of Sanskrit and other ancient
languages.”[49] In the words of J. G. Arapura “Max Muller
considers comparative philology as both a tool and model for research in
religion. Language and religion are two
phenomena that have the closest similarity with each other both originating in
the instinctual life of man and exhibiting a remarkable continuity of
development.”[50] His ever growing interest was to find out the
original forms of religions. Regarding
his conviction for the commitment, it is said “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.”[51]
Muller’s option for the use of
comparative phological method for the study of religion is well explained in
his Chips from a German Workshop as “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.”[52] The same verdict, Muller gave to all
religions, irrespective of their status.
For him, perhaps, all religions contained same form of truth. Muller says in his Natural Religion that
“Our customs and traditions are often founded on decayed and misunderstood
words.”[53]
Having understood the difficulty
of explaining the ancient concept using modern languages Muller says “Nay, I
believe it can be proved that more than half of the difficulties in the history
of religion owe their origin to this 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.”[54] He further, tells in very authentic tone that
if we want to understand ancient religion, we must first try to understand
ancient language.”[55]
1.3.2 Myth
Muller’s philological skills
necessitated him to consider myths from the same perspective. In the words of Waardenburg “Myths being in
his view primarily poetry and phantasy Muller tried to explain there substance
by means of natural phenomena, and their terminology by what he called a
‘disease of language.”[56] Similar view about Muller is expressed by J.
G. Arapura, that “Mythology, which was the bane of the ancient world is in
truth a disease of language.”[57] The concept of ‘disease of language can be
explained as “His much-criticized summation of Myth was the result of metaphors
derived from impressive experience of natural phenomena and then the taking the
figurative for the real.”[58]
Understanding myths play
significant role in the understanding of religions is clearly indicated by Eric
J. Sharpe thus “Hence it was and is necessary to penetrate the myths in order
to reach the heart of the religion which they conceal.”[59] Max Muller was the pioneer to investigate
myths in order to find out the hidden meanings of the words applied.
1.3.3 Science of Religion
Max Muller, starting from science
of language passed through mythology and
now is in the science of religion, before reaching the final destination –
origin of religion. Before going any
further it is unavoidable that the expression “Science of Religion” made
clear. “Science of religion” is the
direct translation of the German expression ‘Religionswissenschaft’. Max Muller coined this term.[60] He used this term to denote the new
discipline which he established. It only
points to the scientific or systematic study of religions the subject matter.
The method Muller adopted in the
science of religion was comparative and historical. Comparative because of the varieties of data
found from various religions and branches of study. He recommended this method from his earlier
experience of philological studies using comparative method. His assumption was that if comparison of
languages could facilitate a common origin, the comparison of data from
religions should also yield such useful result.
In short, Muller advocated comparative and historical method in science
of religion. It is historical because,
his intention was to trace the history of the origin of religions by going back, from the present
data.
It was unfortunate that today the
terms ‘Science of Religion’, ‘comparative religion’ and ‘history of religions’
are used without any much distinction, implying just what Muller intended by
the term science of religion. They are
used interchangeably. It is appropriate
to quote J. N. D. Anderson here to confirm the above view. “Strictly speaking, the very term is, of
course, a solecism, for it is not ‘religion’ itself which is ‘comparative’, but
the method of study and approach.”[61] In fact Anderson is alluding to the current
misuse of the term comparative religion.
He further says that “As such, comparative religion is simply one aspect
of the study of religion.”[62] He was very keen to indicate the nominal
tendency of many to quickly be immersed in comparison of religions, without
adequate knowledge to what they really mean in their specific context. In the words of Ninian smart “Quite often
what is meant by ‘comparative study of religion’ is typological phenomenology.”[63] For him this is against what he calls the
historical phenomenology.
Max Muller himself perceived such
misuse and said “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.”[64] Further danger of misunderstood and misused
notion of comparative religion is clearly brought out by Frank Whaling that
One of the
reason why the term ‘comparative religion’ came under suspicion was its implied
connection with theology. According to
this view 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.[65]
To use the method of comparison
meaningfully as Muller intended, it is worth mentioning Michael Pye. In his Comparative Religion he states
“The comparative study 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.”[66]
Along with comparative method
Muller also used historical method. The
purpose was to find the origin of religion on the basis of available data. It is different from the strictly historical
method called Religionsgeschichte (historical study of Religions). But later the original intention was
last. In the words of Ninian Smart “To
complicate matters, it has become usual to substitute the phrase history of
religions for the comparative study of religion.”[67] Muller himself said “… 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.”[68]
Again it needs to be stressed
that Muller used comparative historical method for the scientific study of
religion. Later these two methods were
used as synonym for the expression ‘Science of Religion’. Because of the unscrupulous use of
comparative method, the expression comparative religion is almost
vanishing. Because of the ambiguities
and disadvantages of the two expressions ‘Science of religion’ and ‘comparative
religion’, today the term ‘history of religion’ is used in the place of
‘science of religion’ for the systematic and scientific study of religion.
1.3.4 The Subject for the Science of Religion
Like other subjects, religion
cannot be squared out from the very life of human beings. It is integral part of humanness. It therefore, cannot be studied subjectively
i.e. “The ‘faith of the believer’ can no longer be a legitimate subject of the
science of religion.”[69] Yet human beings have objectified religious
experience to the position of studying it as a subject. The ‘science of religion’ studies this
subject matter. “The science of religion
investigates religious conception, values and behavior.”[70] Ernst Troeltsch has explained it as “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.”[71] It does not focus upon the essence of
religion nor does it creates a new religion.
In brief, the subject of the science of religion is the objectified
subjective experience of human beings.
1.3.5 Data for the Science of Religion
Max Muller, from philological
perspective, gives more importance to the scriptures of religion, but with
caution. “To the student of religion
canonical books are no doubt, of the utmost importance, but he ought never to
forget 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.”[72] Going behind this 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.”[73] For the present student of religion apart
from these two, the practical utility of religions in every day life should
become a datum.
1.3.6 The Task of the Science of Religion
The task of the science of
religion has been termed diversely by scholars.
Through, they look different in expression all of them are legitimate
from varied perspectives. For
Waardenburg the central is ‘the understanding of other religious’.[74] More understanding of other religious may not
be of any help unless it is related to religions as a whole. This is pointed out by Y. Masih in his A
Comparative Study of Religions as “In the opinion of the author of this
book, 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.”[75] Though he is dreaming of an unattainable task
this is what the scholars of religions in general are striving for.
Another dimension of the task of
scientific study of religion is highlighted by Ernst Troeltsch as “The purpose
of Scientific work on religion is therefore entirely and necessarily to
influence religion itself.”[76] Perhaps, he was concerned with the
reformatory work required on the part of many religions including Christianity
to which he belonged. A more moderate
and useful task of the scientific study of religion is found in the work of
Ninian Smart that “An important task in the building of a science of religion
is to collect the various key materials which recur in differing religious
environment.”[77] He wanted to investigate the interaction of
such materials in diverse religions.
From religious point of view, it is almost clear that a simple formula
of unity is out of place. What is
envisaged is to see how similar materials are present in diverse religious
expressions. Such an approach could
promote healthy inter-religious understanding, without insisting upon unity or
without causing damage to any particular religion.
1.3.7 Pattern of Study
Most of the religious studies
were carried out by missionaries or missionary minded Christians. Their aim was to exhibit the view that their
own religion was true and superior. The
philosophers who were interested on the study of religions heed their own
reservations. “The ‘true believers’
studied religions only to laud the superiority of their own and to depreciate
those of others, while the skeptics started with the preconception that all religions
were false and entertained a simpleminded theory of the nature and origin of
religion.”[78]
Because of the increasing amount
of religious knowledge, the traditional narrow or too general perspectives of
religious studies have been ignored and more charitable expectations have
penetrated into the realm of scientific study of religion. Kuncheria Pathil has rightly indicated that
“Today these ‘one-track schemes of development’ have been discarded by most of
the scholars and emphasis has been placed on understanding the uniqueness of each
religion and discovering the basic structures of the religious
phenomena.”[79] This view too limits itself with
constraints. It looks for the basic
structure of the religious phenomena.
This is not a healthy demand. A
open expectation is declared by Dr. Radha Krishnan that “For a scientific
student of religion is required to treat all religions in a spirit of absolute
detachment and impartiality.”[80] Similar view if found enhanced in the writing
of E. O. James that “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.”[81] The author has retold the original vision of
the science of religion as expected by Max Muller himself.
1.3.8 Objections of the Study of Religion
Dr. Radha Krishnan gives at least
three reasons as to why there are objections for the scientific study of
religion. These are, seemingly, the fear
inherent among those religious people who claim absolutism or superiority. According to him “One reason for this is that
the scientific study of religion is imagined to be a danger to religion
itself.”[82]
“Another objection is that
comparison means resemblance, and if one religion is like another, what happens
to the claims of superiority and uniqueness.”[83] A third objection is given as “Again, it is urged, 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.”[84]
Of course these are genuine fears
as long as people were not aware of what was happening around the world. As every form of knowledge is available at
the door steps of every individual, scientific knowledge of religions too
should be. It can strengthen and widen
the relationship between different religious communities, which were hostile so
far on account of non availability of scientific knowledge of religions.
Max Muller had perceived this
objection in advance and answered it 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.”[85]
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 faith.
1.3.9 Origin of Religion
Starting from language and passing through mythology,
Muller established the science of religion.
Through the science of religion, he, clearly draws every one’s attention
to two vivid objectives. One is the
origin of religion and the other is the types of religion, as he understood.
Waardenburg summarizes Muller’s
view of the origin of religion as “Religion proper would have started with an
‘immediate perception of the infinite’ through nature apart from the senses and
reason.”[86] This may be an inadequate way of summing up
Muller’s understanding of the origin of religion because for Muller, not only
nature, but man and self also are the great manifestations. But the presentation of the idea of the
‘immediate perception of the infinite’ also finds support in Max Muller. Muller in his Natural Religion says
that my chief endeavour 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’.[87]
According to Max Muller there are
three crucial reasons for tracing the origin of religion. The first one is found in his Chips from a
German workshop, as quoted by Waardenburg “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.”[88] According it helps grasping the original
nature of religions.
The second reason is that it
helps to understand man himself. It is
summarized by Eric J. Sharpe as “To Max Muller, the attempt to understand
religion was an attempt to understand men, and an attempt, to persuade men to
understand one another.”[89]
In the words of Muller, it
enables us to see the development of religions.
“Religion is something which has passed, and is still passing through an
historical evolution, and al we can do is to follow it up to its origin, and
then try to comprehend it in its later historical developments.”[90]
From the scientific study of
religions 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.”[91] He has assigned names to these three
manifestations. “I shall distinguish
these three divisions as Physical Religion, Anthropological Religion, and
Psychological Religion.”[92]
He wanted to show that these
three aspects are found in every religion.
The amount of importance attributed to a particular manifestation may be
varied. In his Physical Religion it
is stated that “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.”[93] As intended, Muller has reached his final
destination of finding the origin of religion.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
‘Science of Religion’ was the fulfillment of a long
awaited and hard-labored efforts of many scholars. This fulfillment, in fact was the beginning
for all the later developments in the field of religion. Many branches of learning began to
concentrate on the study of religion. As
a result many perspectives were developed.
In this section efforts will be taken to summarize historical,
phenomenological and psychological perspectives. First of all each perspective will be defined
and then the prominent proponents or theories will be evaluated.
2.1 ANTHROPOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Anthropology is devoted to the study of human beings.[94] 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’.[95] From religious points of view the
Anthropologists do not confine to only major religions, they study the beliefs
and practices of all human societies.
Along with and subsequent to Muller many Anthropologists
used their methods for the study of religion.
They were mostly influenced by the evolutionist ideology propounded by
Charles R. Darwin. Most Anthropologists
used their data for tracing the origin of religions. Notable among them was Edward Burnett Tylor.
2.1.1 Animism
“E. B. Tylor (1832-1917) an English ethnologist was one of
the first scholars to apply evolutionary concepts to the study of religions,
and is generally regarded as the founder of the Anthropological study of
religion.”[96] Tylor used comparative method to trace the
origin of religion from primeval man to the civilized man of his time. “The result was that he could indeed present
a survey of the total history of man and his culture, going back from the
present to the past.”[97] He wanted to prove that religion was not the
result of any revelation or supernatural
intervention. Such a conviction was the
result of using the evolutionist principle.
“the very doctrine of evolution functioned, so to say, as a basis for
the rejection of any supernaturalism, thereby rendering possible a scholarly
study of religion.”[98]
Tylor was popularly known for his theory of animism. Animism is “The belief that al living
beings and natural phenomena that appear to move or have life (Sun, Moon,
Rivers, etc.) have individual spirits (animae), some or all of which are
appropriate objects of worship.”[99]
For Tylor, ‘the earliest stage of religion’ ‘consisted in
the belief in souls, present not only in human beings but in all natural
organisms and objects’. “Out of this
came the concepts of the separable human soul, whether in sleep or in death,
and of the pan-psychic aspect of the natural world; and thereby of the
religious beliefs and customs associated with them.”[100] Commenting on the theory of animism, Eric J.
Lott says that “Thus Tylor saw earlier animistic experience as the irreducible
and original source of later religious life.”[101] This in brief was what Tylor wanted to
convey. His theory was criticized by Max
Muller and R. R. Marett.
2.1.2 Animatism
R. R. Marett (1866-1943) an English anthropologist and
disciple of Tylor proposed a theory of the origin of religion called
‘animatism’ or dynamism or pre-animism.
In his attempt to go beyond Tylor, Marett argued that belief in souls or
spirits is the result of reasoning.
Before reasoning, there could have been another stage which he called animatism. That is “He contended that at the beginning
of man’s religious development there was what he called a ‘super naturalistic’
stage, in which man recognized an impersonal religious force which was rather
felt than reasoned out.”[102]
It needs to be remembered that Tylor did not attribute
supernatural element to the origin of religion.
In contrast to Tylor Marett proposed a ‘super naturalistic’ stage in the
origin of religion. The animatism of R.
R. Marett is explained by E. O. James as “Before man began to speculate about
dreams and visions, and formulate ideas concerning heroes and ancestors, he
appears to have been aroused by deeper emotions in the presence of inexplicably
and awe-inspiring phenomena.”[103]
Animation is a
stage in which men responded with awe and wonder to an impersonal supernatural
force they experienced as present in extraordinary natural phenomena, events
and persons.[104] This supernatural force was worshipped as Mana
by the Melanesian islanders. Mana
means ‘undifferentiated impersonal supernatural force’.[105] In short animatisms is belief in Mana. For Marett this was the first stage of
religion. In the words of Eric. J.
Sharpe Marett chose to apply the Melanesian term mana to the Phenomenon
of impersonal power, supposedly experienced by primitive man, and claimed this
to be a source of belief in spirits, gods, and ultimately God”.[106] It is called pre-animism because it refers to
a stage preceding to the belief in animism.
This theory deserves positive consideration for attempting to
conceptualize a formless supernatural force.
Definitely Marett had gone beyond his Master to find his animatism.
2.1.3 Manism (Ancestor – Worship)
Hebert Spencer (1820-1903) an
English man proposed that ancestor worship is the beginning of religion. This he derived from man’s belief in spirits
or ghosts. “From the belief in ghosts,
he asserted, came ancestor-worship, the original religious cult.”[107] In the words of Muller, for Spencer ‘the root
of every religion is ancestor-worship’.[108] Of course, let it be remembered the Muller
never accepted Spencer’s view. In order
to understand Spencer’s theory further Waardenburg’s comparison is handy. According to him “For Spencer, religion
started with the cult of ancestral spirits (manism) with the assumption 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.”[109] E. O. James makes the point more clear as “on
the same animistic stratum Herbert Spencer rested his ghost theory in the
belief that the idea of God and religion as a whole could be derived from the
propitiation of the other-self of distinguished ancestors.”[110] E. O. James is right in evaluating the theory
of Spencer as not much different from the theory of animism.
2.1.4 Supreme Beings of High Gods
In contrast to the
anthropologist whose theories were dominated by evolution, Andrew Langh
(1844-1912, Scotland) proposed that the primitives believed in Supreme beings
or high gods and that could be the earliest form of religion. He was sure that belief in Supreme Beings or
High Gods is prior to animism. His
dissatisfaction on the theory of animism is found in his the making of
religion as “The Supreme Being, thus
regarded, may be (though he cannot historically be shown to be) prior to the
first notion of ghost and separable souls.”[111] His grievance was that, the earlier theories
could not do any justice to the religious dimension of human beings. So he suggested that ‘parapsychology has more
to say about the nature and origin of religion than rationalistic
anthropological theories.”[112] Spencer’s theory was later considered as
primitive monotheism. Along with Marett
Langh has also explored the possibility of ‘Something beyond’ which influences
the religious attitude of the primitives.
Probably, he was not refined as to the nature of these beings.
2.1.5 Magic
“James G. Frazer (1854-1947,
Glasgow) argued that religious activities and attitudes were preceded by the
practice of magic.”[113] He affirmed that the earliest stage was a
pre-religious one of magical thought and practice (when the aim was to Master
the external environment through human powers), while the succeeding religious
stage involved the propitiation and conciliation of superhuman beings upon whom
man was believed to be dependent.”[114] It is often debated whether religion and
magic exist side by side or the one precedes the other. Many do not agree that magic was prior to
religion. The general view is that both
magic and religion function side by side in religion.
Apart from these traditional
anthropologists who have done in depth study on the various aspects of human
culture (cultural anthropology), now there are at least two more
varieties. One is the Social
anthropology. Social anthropology
emphasizes on the functional aspect of religion. For social anthropology religion is one of
the institutions like other social institutions. Social anthropology also stresses the
importance of the scholar to be a participant observer in the society studied.
The general criticism against
the anthropological perspective 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 a hidden agenda like the missionaries. Amidst the criticisms, the anthropologists
who had ventured into the risk of proposing theories about the origin of
religion should be positively credited.
Because they had given a good start, of course courageous. The subsequent scholars can explore new
dimensions of investigations in the study of religion.
2.2 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Having examined the
contributions of the great anthropologists, now it is appropriate to study the
sociological perspective of religion. In
order to evaluate the contribution of sociological perspective to the study of
religion, a general understanding of sociology of religion is called for. In the first place, therefore, definition,
Task, Concern, Method and understanding of religion etc. can be discussed. After referring to the later developments in
this branch of learning, three of the leading scholar’s contributions may be
evaluated.
2.2.1 Definition
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.”[115] The original aim of sociology was to find out
the ‘scientific account of the laws underlying the social fabric’.[116] “It is an essential postulate of sociology
that a human institution cannot be based on error and falsehood, otherwise it
could not have lasted.”[117] In brief, the main area of investigation for
the sociologist of religion is the inter-relatedness between society and
religion.
2.2.2 Task
Coming of the task of
sociologist of religion from the individual point of view “A sociologist of
religion studies the processes by which religion enters into human interaction
and how the interaction of men influences religion.”[118] This task is empirical in nature. Further, it is appropriate because of its
intention to clarify the influence of religion on individuals on the one hand
and the influence of people on religion on the other. 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.”[119] Here, how society influences religion, as
religion influences organizations, is barely touched upon. A genuine sociologist of religion should
focus upon the two dimensions.
2.2.3 Concern
A brief look at the concerns of
the sociological approach to the study of religion will shed further light on
its importance. One of the chief
concerns is to evaluate the impact of religiosity on individuals and
society. “The sociology of religion does
not concern itself with the truth or worth of the supraempirical beliefs upon
which religion rests. It is concerned
with the effects of these in the historical experience of men and in the
development of human societies.”[120]
Harvey Carrier, confirms this
concern further by saying ‘sociology from its very birth showed itself
immediately concerned with the role and the function of religion in the
dynamism of societies.”[121] An opposite concern is expressed by Daniel L.
Hodges that “Although social Scientists rarely say so explicitly, most of them
believe it is scientifically illegitimate to include as propositions any
statements about the supernatural in the theories which attempt to explain or
predict religious behavior.”[122] This negative concern needs further
clarification. Even if general
sociologist want to study society and its institution, they cannot ignore the
impact of religion on the society or society’s influence on religion. If they ignore this aspect, their study on
society will be incomplete. Without
reference to some form of supernatural element (except Hinayana Buddhism and
Jainism) religion cannot be treated in any subject. No exception to sociology as well.
2.2.4 Method
As to the method of studying
religion from the sociological point of view it needs to be remembered that “As
a social science sociology must take a naturalistic approach to the study of
religion, but it must also remain sensitive to those areas where men take
diverse points of view based upon their commitments of faith.”[123] Of course, although sociology does not pass
judgment upon questions of faith itself, it offers valuable empirical data for
a better understanding of religion from sociological point of view.
2.2.5 Religion
The common understanding about
the origin of religion in the sociological perspective of religion is that , it
is the product of society. Accepting
this view has its own constrains. “If we
adopt an interpretation of religious beliefs and organization as products of
underlying social forces, then the most plausible view of religious movements
is that they are off-shoots or appendages of more substantial shifts in the
infra-structure of society.”[124] This will be clears when the relation between
religion and the society is verified further.
There is a close relation between religion and society. “We cannot understand the inner from a
society unless we understand its religion.”[125] This sound to suggest that the society is
being influenced by religion. In any
case whether society influences religion or the opposite, is a difficult task
for the sociologist of religion to investigate.
Similarly a verification of the
relation between religion and culture can supply more details as to whether
religion or society precedes to influence each other. According to Christopher Dawson “A fully
developed culture involves a spiritual organization, and it is by this
spiritual organization that the essential form of the culture is most clearly
recognized.”[126] Further “The whole history of culture shows
that man has a natural tendency to seek a religious foundation for his social
way of life and that when culture loses its spiritual basis it becomes
unstable.”[127] Dawson’s first insight clearly alludes to the
precedence of religion over culture. The
second insight seems to suggest that man makes culture and seeks for religious
sources to strengthen it. In any case
Dawson perceives that religion influences culture and not vice versa.
2.2.6 Functional Theory
According to functional theory
no human society exists without some form or religion. Religion has a or many function in the
society. “It is an axiom of functional
theory that what has no function ceases to exist. Since religion has continued to exist from
time immemorial it obviously must have a function, or even a complex of
functions.”[128] According to this theory, religion
influences the society. It admits that
religion involves ‘belief in and a response to some kind of beyond’. This belief in and response to some kind of
beyond may be the origin of religion.
Then this religion influences the society. “Religion in terms of functional theory
becomes significant in connection with those elements of human experience which
derive from the contingency, powerlessness, and scarcity fundamentally
characteristic of the human condition.”[129] Thus it is clear that form sociological point
of view, religion influences the society.
Another development to be just
noted is that “Modern sociological approaches to the study of religion have
shown that religion cannot be understood as an extra-social phenomenon which
will diminish in the course of social evolution.”[130] This is in keeping with the original
commitment of sociology as a social science, in relation to religion. Thus the controversy over the precedence
continues. Modern approaches concentrate
on structure, symbol or sign and system.
2.2.7 Max Weber (1864-1920, Germany)
He was a pioneer of the
sociology of religion. “The credit for
having been the first to conceive of a systematic sociology of religion belongs
to Max Weber.”[131] For him, religious behavior can be understood
only through its meaning for the individuals concerned “The external courses of
religious behavior are so diverse that an understanding of this behavior can
only be achieved from the view point of the individual concerned – in short,
from the view point of the religious behavior’s “meaning” (Sinn).”[132] In the words of Waardenburg, Weber used
historical and functional approach. He
also had a growing concern for ‘comparative studies’.[133] According to Weber, “The most elementary
forms of behavior motivated by religious or magical factors are oriented to this
world.”[134] There
was no other worldly expectation.
Those behaviors were mostly rational.
It was the out come of their ordinary experience in their day to day
affairs. Weber says that even the ends
of the religious and magical actions are predominantly economic.”[135] This notion is expressed by Waardenburg as
“Opposing current theories, Weber held that religion was first purposive and
only later become symbolic.”[136] Weber seems to convey the idea that religion
originated from the necessities of social life or society, which is the
position typical to sociologists.
2.2.8 William Robertson Smith (1846-1897, Scotland)
He was on Old Testament
scholar. His study of Semitic religion
revealed that Semitic religions have to be studied as a whole in their proper
context. His conclusions reflect the
committed sociological viewpoints.
“Taking up the concept of totemism – that is, the relation between a
social group and an organic species he asserted that the sacrifice of the
sacred clan animal among the ancient Semites established a communion among the
members of the clan and with the clan god through the consumption of the flesh
and blood of the animal. Thus sacrifice
was a social integrative and conservatively traditional act.”[137] He proposed a kind of linear evolution. According to him religion was part of the
social life. People unconsciously followed
the habitual practice of the society in which they live. He also makes a distinction between the
religious temper of ancient and modern people.
“To us moderns religion is above al a matter of individual conviction
and reasoned belief, but to the ancients it was a part of the citizen’s public
life, reduced to fixed forms, which he was not bound to understand and was not
at liberty to criticize or to neglect.”
In short Smith emphasized the social character of religion and asserted
that totemism was the most elementary form of religious life.
2.2.9 Emile Durkheim (1858-1917, France)
Following Smith’s totemism, he
‘associated totemism with the distinction between the realms of the sacred and
the profane’. For him religion is
inherently a social reality. “Sociologically speaking, religion is society
in a projected and symbolized form; the
reality which is symbolized by religion is a social reality. Consequently religion should be studied as a
response to specific social needs.”[138] Durkheim in his The Elementary Forms of
the Religious Life, 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.”[139] He says the idea of mystery was not given to
man. It is man who has forged it with
his own hands. The only difference
between religion and other institution is described as “Religion distinguishes
itself from other human institutions through its fundamental opposition between
the profane and the sacred, and the absolute separateness of the latter from
the former.”[140] This distinction too is man’s decision. E. O. James remarks that “Thus what man
really worships is society divinized, and since the totemic principle is the
god of the clan, the totemic sign is the rallying-point of collective emotion.”[141] In the same line K. P. Aleaz says “According
to Durkheim religion is the essence of the social bond.”[142]
Eric J. Lott argues that “There
is, in any case, insufficient evidence to support Durkheim’s belief that
religion is essentially and originally totemic.”[143] He thinks that Durkheim’s theory is the
result of a biased pre-conceived idea about religion. And such theories would harm the scientific
study of religion from sociological or any point of view.
2.3 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Before discussing historical
approach, the earlier remarks on the inter changeable use of the terms history
of religions and comparative religion in the place of science of religion need
to be re-called. These three terms were
used to denote the scientific study of religious phenomena as a whole. Today, the expression history of religions is
preferred to the other terms, for the all inclusive, all-comprehensive,
scientific study of religions which Muller applied as comparative-historical
method.
Here, when it is said historical
approach, it is different from the earlier history of religion. Historical approach is only one part of the
history of religions. It is in this
sense the expression historical approach is used here.
“In a genuine sense the Dutch
Scholar Cornelius Tiele may be regarded as its founder.”[144] The method applied in the historical approach
is a kind of methodological naturalism or gnosticism. It can be said as “This approach consisted of
gathering data from all times and places, arranging them systematically,
interpreting them within a strictly natural and human framework, exploring
their inner emotional aspects, and doing a comparative study to discover the
essential laws of the development of religion.”[145] One fact is obvious that, the historical
approach generally includes comparative method in its scientific sense. On the other hand
The protagonists of a strictly
historical approach emphasize the use of historical – critical methods, a
rigorous practice of philology and other subsidiary disciplines necessary for
the study of history, and insist on factual – descriptive expositions, not
infrequently accompanied by a minimum of interpretation as to the meaning of
the data presented.[146]
In order to avoid unnecessary
subjective elements in the process of study Max Muller suggest that “The
historian of religion must try to be as free as possible from all preconceived
opinions.[147]
Why historical method, is a genuine
question? The answer to this question is
found in the writings of Ursula king as “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.”[148] In fact this answer is a vivid testimony to
the strong intentions of the founders of the discipline for the scientific
study of religion. It is appropriate to
evaluate some of the positive effects of this particular approach to estimate
its use in the scientific study of religion.
Prospects
At the outset the historical method
is not confined to studying about superhuman beings alone. It also studies all religious practices and
manifestations in their proper contexts. Because every religious elements is,
significant only in its own proper context.”[149]
Robert D. Baired views historical
method on the basis of his definition of history “My functional definition of
history is that history is the descriptive study of the human past.”[150] This definition holds good if only religion
is treated as an integral part of humanity.
Muller’s preference for historical method is note worthy. For him “There is but one method that leads
to really trustworthy and solid results and this is the Historical Method.”[151] He also highlights the intention of
historical method as a method going back through various layers to find out the
real religious incident. For him, again,
historical school always takes note of the developments that have taken place
in the course of history. To put it in a
nutshell “The principle of the historical school is not to ignore the present,
but to try to understand the present by means of the past.”[152] In this venture, a historian might use myths
positively as data.
Limitations
Historical school is not fully free
from its limitations too. in general the
historical approach is burdened with surplus data without adequate
‘integration’. It is also commented for
its handicap of relating the acquired knowledge to wider questions and
concerns.”[153] Another basic comment is found in the words
of Eric J. Lott that “The historical conditioning to which all religions are
subject cannot be denied, but in so far as the historian looks only for
empirically verifiable reasons for events, it is questionable how far he is
able to investigate, qua historian, the essential inner meaning of any
religions tradition.”[154]
It is a serious comment because any
study of religion has to take into consideration the two dimensions of
religion. They are in the words of Otto,
rational and non-national. Lott was
concerned with the fact that some religions, like the primitive, are out of the
purview of historical data.
2.4 PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The anthropologist tried to grasp
religion through their study of ancient culture. The sociologists wanted to declare religion
as a social phenomenon. The historian of
religion attempts to trace the origin of religion using the available
data. These perspectives are generally
empirical in nature. It required lot of
field work and even language skills. On
the other hand phenomenologists depends upon the materials provided by these
scholars. The main task of
phenomenological perspective is to study the essence of religion. To do so the phenomenologists involve in
studying various structures of religion.
In order to have better understanding of phenomenological perspective a
general out line of phenomenology may be attempted. This would include definition, founder, task
and method of phenomenology. After that
the investigations of at least four leading phenomenologists and their data can
lay foundation for a meaningful evaluation of the subject.
2.4.1 Definition
Phenomenology has been variously
defined by scholars. Probably
consultation of a few definitions would be of great use in understanding what
is really phenomenology. According to K.
P. Aleaz “Phenomenology may be primarily understood as a systematic and
comparative classification of all religious phenomena.”[155] Another dimension of phenomenology is found
in the definition of J. G. Arapura that “Phenomenology is the systematic
discussion of what appears.”[156] A more useful definition is that “The
phenomenological method is a way of describing rather than a way of
explaining.”[157] This is describing the essence of the
phenomenon, within one’s own environment.
Thus phenomenology consists of classification of religious phenomena,
discussion of the phenomena and description of the phenomena.
2.4.2 Founder
The first person to outline the
principles of phenomenology was P. D. Chantepie de la Saussay. He dwelt on the ‘need for historical
investigation into religions traditions to move on to the higher plane of phenomenological
investigation of the essential inner structures of religion’.[158] It was Husserl who laid the basic
philosophical background to phenomenology in his Science of Pure
Consciousness. Two of his principles
dominate 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’. As a summary Eric J. Lott says
that “In any case the basic concerns of phenomenology, i.e., epoche and Einfuhlung
(empathy) in particular, have been accepted in religious studies generally,
certainly in comparative religion.”[159]
2.4.3 Task of Phenomenology
One of the major task of
phenomenologists is to ‘describe the essence of the phenomenon, and not to
“locate” it. “In other words he is
seeking the meaning or essence rather than cause or truth.”[160] He also has to describe the meaning of common
themes among religions, regardless of their historical tradition or geographic location’. J. G. Arapura explains the necessity of
taking symboly seriously by the phenomenologists. They have to interpret the symbols in a way
that enhances the self knowledge of human beings. “It
has been seen that every serious phenomenologist of religions takes a
deep interest in the symbol, though differences in interpretation prevail.”[161]
2.4.4 Methods
In their task of describing, the
phenomenologist employ a method called reduction or bracketing out. This they do in order to find out the real
meaning of the phenomena. “The
phenomenologists grasps meaning through intuition.”[162] Some phenomenologists, viewed phenomenology
as a method of organizing or classifying the data. Their method can be called as empirical
phenomenology. In the words of Ursula
King “The early phenomenology of religion was thus a discipline of
classification used by many different scholars.”[163] The fundamentals for the phenomenological
perspective are the two principles of Husserl i.e., epoche and eidetic
vision. The richest material for the
phenomenology of religion is supplied by religious acts, cults and
customs’. “At all events, the phenomenology
of religion must begin with the consideration of the different objects of
belief and of worship.”[164]
The positive aspect of phenomenology
is that it maintain objectivity. It also
insists upon ‘value-free, detached investigation’. The greatest impact of phenomenology as
highlighted by J. G. Arapura was that “The truly revolutionary aspect of the
phenomenological investigation of religion is that through it there has
implicitly taken place a shift from all other realms of reality to the realm of
consciousness as the primary focul point in the quest for religious essence.”[165]
Apart from the empirical
phenomenology there is historical phenomenology. “Religious phenomena are here systematically
studied in their historical context as well as in their structural
connections.”[166] The earlier phenomenologist were busy with
structures and pattern. But the modern phenomenologists, study the structures
and their connection in their specific historical context.
There are other phenomenologists who
propose a neo new style phenomenology.
It …“is moving from the search for timeless essences to a search for
meaning inside time”.[167] It is not just what it means, but what it
means to others. that is the intention
of the phenomena. The emphasis of the
new style phenomenology is then internationality. It is explained as “This primordial unity of
subject and object, thinker and thought about, is characteristic of
phenomenology.”[168] The point is that there must be an intention
between subject and object, and thinker and thought about. Thus the aim of the new style
phenomenological perspective is to trace the intention of the religious
phenomena.
2.4.5 Rudolf Otto (1869-1937, Germany)
The sub title given to his work The
Idea of the Holy was ‘An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea
of the divine and its relation to the rational’. This is the crux of Otto’s thesis. For him “An object that can thus be thought
conceptually may be termed rational.”[169] The opposite of what is said above is the
subject matter of Otto’s investigation.
About the non-rational he says “It will be our endeavour to suggest this
unnamed something to the reader as far as we may, so that he may himself feel
it.”[170] To explain the non-rational Otto has used a
Latin word, numinous. “The
numinous is thus felt as objective and outside the self.”[171]
The nature of the numinous is
explained as “Mysterium tremendum”, i.e., “Its nature is such that it grips or
stirs the human mind with this and that determinate affective state.”[172] It is mysterium. “Conceptually mysterium denotes merely
that which is hidden and esoteric, which is beyond conception or understanding,
extraordinary and unfamiliar.”[173] 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
emerging in the mind of primeval man, forms the starting-point for the entire
religious development in history.”[174]
Apart from ‘mysterium tremendum’,
the numinous is fascination. The
combination of these two are responsible for the development of religions. “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…[175] The relation between the rational and the
non-rational constitute the final meaning of the “Holy”.
For Eric J. Lott, the numinous, an
awe inspiring yet fascinating otherness, is the essence of religion according
to Otto. This aspect is in human
beings. “Religion, he argued, has its
own autonomous existence as a phenomenon in human experience.”[176] In the words of J. G. Arapura, “Otto’s theory
is that reason and its limits likewise being set aside, reality manifests
itself in consciousness by means of a peculiar means of apprehension called by
the name of the numinous sense.”[177]
He goes further and comment on Otto’s theory saying “His theory is the best we
have of an empirically grounded and philosophically articulated analysis of the
non-rational in religion.”[178]
To explain Otto further, “In modern
times it is Otto who squarely rests his philosophy of religion on the
distinction between the rational and the non-rational.”[179] To sum it up “Mysterium tremendum et
fascinans, these three words give in a nutshell Otto’s insight into the
non-rational element in our religious consciousness.”[180]
In spite of the greatness of Otto’s
theory, he was not left without any criticism.
A criticism that looks into the narrow aspect of Otto’s theory is that
“Instead of studying the ideas of God and religion Otto undertook to
analyze the modalities of the religious experience.”[181] Another, similar, but different in tone,
criticism is that “Otto is possibly obsessed by the idea of keeping the
numinous absolutely free from other human activities except religious.”[182]
There are another two
criticisms. One is by Radin.[183] It looks little negative. For him the “awesome” feelings described by
Otto is the result of ‘economic and psychic insecurity’. Otto did not grasp it because of his
theological and mystical background. A
harsh, but positive comment is that Otto’s Idea of the Holy is basically
a theological work or an inquiry into the psychology of religion rather than a
work in the history of religions.”[184]
2.4.6 Nothan Soderblom (1866-1931, Swedish theologian and historian of
religions)
His major contribution for the
phenomenological perspective of religious study 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. “Religious experience
marked by the presence of Holiness, was for him the heart of religion and hence
the central object of its study.”[185] His disciple Friedrich Heiler (1892-1967,
Germany) asserted that all religions are directed toward the Holy. For him prayer is an important aspect
religion. It is a proof for the
universal revelation of God.
“Accordingly, there can be no doubt at all that prayer is the heart and
center of all religion.”[186] Such universality is found in Soderblom as
well “Throughout his work he stressed the common religious search and striving
of mankind.”[187] Stressing this common core or focus will have
greater validity for the understanding of religion from a pluralistic point of
view. In fact, this is what the
scientific study of religion should strive for.
2.4.7 Gerardus Van der Leeuw (1890-1950, Holland)
He stressed the importance of
historical and exegetical studies for the phenomenological understanding of
religions. For him “Phenomenology seeks
the phenomenon, as such, the phenomenon, again is what appears.”[188] This is explained in his Religion in
essence and manifestation as “This principle has a threefold implication:
1. Something exists, 2. This
something appears, 3. Precisely because it ‘appears’ it is a ‘phenomenology’.[189] 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 – equivalent to Soderbloms “Holiness” and Otto’s
“the Holy” manifested in various types of objective forms and subjective
responses”.[190] For Leeuw, 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. In
praise of Leeuw, Eric J. Lott says that “It was the Dutch scholar Gerardus Van
der Leeuw who gave what has come to be seen as classical expression to the
phenomenological stance in attempting to investigate religion.”[191]
However, Leeuw was criticized for
relaxing his original insistence upon philology and history and devoting his
effort to the ‘discernment and presentation of timeless types, structures, and
essences. Above all “He propounded and
intuitive method for arriving at his types and structures, and far removed from
the empirical procedures practiced by modern science and scholarship.”[192]
Another phenomenologist by name
Joachim Wach (1898-1955) was interested on the understanding of the practice
and beliefs of all other cultures and religions. To do so he insisted upon the necessity of
some personal religious predisposition in the inquirer, apart from scholarly
procedures.
There is a dissatisfaction
prevailing about the phenomenologists discussed above. That is, “what is clear is that in the work
of Wach and his predecessors there had been a movement from purely historical
considerations of the various religions to a concentration on the structures of
religious experience.”[193] This shift is a reasonable one. in today’s context, the study of religion
should move further to investigate the role of religion in the lives of
individuals. Because, unless religion
contributes to the enhancement of life, it has no other role to play.
2.4.8 Mircea Eliade
He was a phenomenologist more
concerned with historical development of religions. His concentration was on the ‘archaic
expressions of religious experience’.
“He saw these expressions as archetypal responses to the presence of the
sacred in this worldly objects and in events that are regularly repeated within
a time frame that is cyclic rather than sequential.”[194] His ideas can be understood form his classic The
Sacred and the Profane. Here he
discussed that “Man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself,
shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane.”[195] With regard to the origin and development or
religion he said, “It could be said that 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.”[196] For him sacred and profane are two modes of
being in the world, rather, ‘two existential situations assumed by man in the
course of his history’. The same
experience of heirophanies have been variously systematized by religious men,
in the course of history. Eliade
deserves appreciation for solving the problem of repetition of rites and
rituals.
The view of Eliade are found
confirmed by Jay J. Kim that “IN THE BROADEST SENSE, the chronicle of man’s
religions is composed of hierophanies – the manifestations of the sacred in
whatever forms, at all times, and in all places… whether it be a hierophany in
a stone or in a person as in the case with Jesus Christ, the same dialectic of
the sacred must be operative.”[197] Of course Eliade’s view is more close to what
may be called a kind of revelation.
2.5 PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Psychology, in short, is the science
of mind. When it is used for the
scientific study of religions it has different connotation. According to Eric J. Lott, “In this case the
area of investigation will be primarily the mental states, motivations and
attitudes found in religious contexts.”[198] In other words, psychology of religion
investigates the psyche rather than religion as such. A little more scope is added to it by Erich
Fromm. For him, “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.”[199] It is broad enough, yet it should not be
considered that only two types of religion, as found above, exist.
At least, there are two tasks for
the psychology of religion. The first
cone is that “The psychology of religion looks within human experience to
understand what religion means to persons.”[200] It is more individualistic in nature. The next task for the psychologist of
religion is that it must explore man’s inner consciousness and never slacken in
his search for scientific means of doing so.”[201]
In order to carry out this task the
psychology of religion has applied a few method. “From the beginning, the psychology of
religion has been said to have two fundamental method: the observation of
religious individuals and the study of traditional content from the history of
religion.”[202] The same method is more conveniently
described by L. W. Grensted as “The methods employed by psychologists are those
of experiment and observation, with result capable of comparison and
statistical analysis, coupled with the reports given through introspection.”[203] Generally the psychological approach starts
from individual contrary to the other approaches which begin from group, tribe
or community. In order to substantiate
its findings “Psychology of religion goes to primitive cults and historical faiths
to secure data for its study.”[204]
Further, psychological approach to
the study of religions considers rituals seriously. Because observation on them reveals new
insights for the study of religion. It
is said that “compulsive neurotic patients exhibits numerous forms of private
ritual.”[205]
To understand a particular religious
behavior, it is important to investigate its motive. Because “Religious behavior springs from
conscious and unconscious motivation.”[206] The psychology which attempt to study such
motive is called dynamic psychology.
Descriptive psychology aims at understanding religious experience. It also tries to explain the connections
existing between various structures.
One has to be cautious that
psychological perspective is only one way of understanding the complex
religious phenomenon. In the words of
Paul E. Johnson, “Religious emotions, sentiments, and dispositions are
complex. No single feeling or meaning
characterizes all varieties of religious experience.”[207] This sense of limitation and an openness to
accept varieties of religious experience add strength to the glory of science
of religion.
2.5.1 William James (1842-1910, America)
“The most famous early attempt at a
psychological account of ‘Religious sentiments’ was William James’ Varieties
of Religious Experience.[208] It is because of this work, the psychology of
religion, gained momentum, during the early of the twentieth century. “He 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.”[209] Perhaps his description of religious
experience is the result of a pre-conceived idea of God. However, his exaltation of the religious
experience is remarkable. It says “The
essence of religious experiences the thing by which we finally must judge them,
must be that element or quality in them which we meet nowhere else.”[210]
For James, ‘a man’s religion
involves both moods of contraction and
moods of expansion of his being’. In
other words, it is, 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 own wards “The completest religions would therefore seem to be
those in which the pessimistic elements are best developed.”[211]
Evaluating the view of James, on
religious experience and religion, Waardenburg contends that, his reference to
unconscious has some relation to deeper layers of reality. Further, “He interpreted his cases apart from
their socio-cultural context and hardly went into religious history or
anthropology.”[212] It is true that James’ theory alludes to a
form of fundamental reality. This is
what made him to coin the title of his work as “Varieties of religious
experience.” Yet, the very title
acknowledges the firm commitment that a student of religion is excepted to
exhibit.
2.5.2 SIGMUND FREUD (1856-1939)
He was the founder of Depth
psychology. He discovered the existence
of the personal unconscious. “Freud
discovered the existence of an unconscious realm in man, related to his
personal history, and he was able to analyse the major force within this realm
and their influence on consciousness.”[213] “In Freud’s thinking 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’.[214] He held that what is repressed can be brought
into consciousness despite the resistance of the unconscious. According to Hans Kung. “His main insight was that all psychical
activity is at first unconscious.”[215]
For Freud, religion is the
projection of infantile dependencies upon imagined superhuman beings. The expressions of this dependencies, he
called, collective neurosis. He also
found that, there were many non-religious motivations, behind all religions
aspirations. He infantile dependencies,
or the obsessional childhood neurosis, Freud called, the “Oedupus
complex.” According to him ‘the Oedipus
complex is the core of every neurosis.”[216] 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.
Regarding the Oedipus complex, Mc
Cutchen remarks that “By contrast, I am suggesting a different intention:
Insofar as the father’s influence actually has been complex and not simply
authoritarian in our own times, our contemporary mythology, our stories of
encouragement, taken seriously may reflect this more complicated image.”[217] The theory of Freud is too atheistic in
content.
2.5.3 Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961, Switzerland)
His psychological method was called
‘Analytical Psychology’ in contrast to the psychoanalysis of Freud. For Jung, the psyche consists of two parts:
Consciousness and the unconscious. “The unconscious is older than the consciousness.”[218] Again he made a distinction between personal
unconscious and collective unconscious.
The earlier is explained by Freud.
For Jung, there is a collective unconscious, which is responsible for
the religious behavior. The difference
between personal and collective unconscious is that “It contrast to the
personal unconscious, which 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.”[219] The elements of the collective unconscious is
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. It looks like, as if Jung is suggesting that
there is some thing peculiar in humanity.
The bursting out of that something is responsible for the religious
behavior of human being.
CHAPTER 3
ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF
RELIGION
The scientific study of religion
confronts variety of issues as it sails through time. These issues will be outlined in this
section. For the sake of convenience
first, the issues faced by Max Muller’s perspective, Anthropological
perspective, sociological perspective, historical perspective, phenomenological
perspective, sociological perspective, historical perspective, phenomenological
perspective and psychological perspective can be highlighted. Following which, the general issues that call
for the attention of every scholar of religion may be listed. They are, 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 plurality of
perspective.
3.1 MÜLLER
Max Muller used his philological
skills for the scientific study of religion.
The method adopted to use these skills in the study of religion was
comparative – historical. His main
thrust was that, as there are commonness between languages, there must be
common elements in religions. He further
argued that the manifestation of infinite is found diversely among all
people. He assumed that the common
elements among religions could be traced through comparative method and this in
turn would enable to trace the history of the origin of religions. His view was not accepted by the later
scholars. The real issue is that tracing
the origin of religions is not a simple task.
Further Muller’s aim was to establish an independent discipline for the
scientific study of religion. He,
therefore, did not foresee the other difficulties which are confronted by the
modern scholars. One fact needs to be
stressed is that, Muller was open to accept the significant value of data
supplied by other branches of learning for the science of religion.
3.2 ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The issues faced by Anthropological perspective
to the study of religion exhibits further difficulties of studying
religions. One of the issues often
highlighted is that, the anthropologists mostly depended on empirical
knowledge. They did not penetrate into
the real religious realm which is beyond the empirical phenomena.
Another issue raised against the
anthropological perspective is that, many anthropologists have approached
primitive religions with hidden motives, like missionaries. Further most of the anthropological studies
were concentrated on the primitive religions.
They failed to examine the challenges facing the living religions.
A major issue, this perspective has
to face is, over generalization. The
anthropologists, having studied one or few primitive religions assert that their
theory alone can be the right one to trace the origin of religions. Other issue related to this is that, it has
to be accepted that one or few anthropologist cannot study the entire primitive
religious practices. Even though most of
the primitive religious data are in oral form, the anthropologist is
handicapped with language, at least at the stage of interpretation.
3.3
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Sociological have explained religion
as a social phenomenon. They see
religion as a social necessity. The real
issue in the study of religion from sociological perspective is whether
religion is responsible for the social institutions or the social structure is
responsible for the emergence of religion.
In other words, whether religion influences society or society
influences religion. The reason is that,
many religious experiences of individuals cannot be explained away by
sociological criteria alone. Many
sociologists perceive some form of
supernatural influence upon the religious behavior of people. This paradox demands deeper insight from the
sociologists of religion.
3.4
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Historical perspective is committed
to trace the historical development of religion starting from its beginning.
The issue is whether the historian of religion will be able to use the
abundance of available data to trace back the origin of religion. Indeed, it is too hard to perceive the past
with the present data. It will be
influenced by the values and personal experiences of the particular scholars
concerned. Hence the historical
perspective should explore the possibilities of presenting objective facts
which are not hampered with other personal influences.
3.5
PHENOMENOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Anthropologists and sociologists
accuse phenomenologist of their over dependence on the religious experience of
the people. The phenomenologists on the contrary accuse other s of not being
able to go beyond empirical verifications.
The phenomenologists are busy in finding out various structures, to find
out their similarity or differences from others. It involves removing of certain phenomena
from the original setting. The
enthusiasm of the phenomenologist is to find out the essence of religion. This is a crucial issue. Because what seems to be the essence of
religion may not find similar status in other religions. Further as pointed above, shifting religious
categories from their original context can lead the scholar to perceive
meanings different from what was really
intended.
3.6
PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The psychologists treat religion as
a purely human affair. They have
interpreted religion as a mental process or psyche. In contrast to the priority for collective
life of sociologists, psychologists draw their attention to individual
cases. Studying a few individual cases,
they conclude that, this psychic experience is common to humanity. And this common human nature is responsible
for the religious behavior of people.
The issue is that the simple to complex generalization has its own
limitations. Further the psychologists
of religion have not taken heed of any force other than human being to be the
cause of the religious behavior of
people. It requires serious attention
because this is what constitute the crux
of religious sentiment.
The General Issues
The issues faced by the traditional
perspectives on the study of religion are highlighted above. Now there are common issues which cannot but
capture the attention of every scholar of religion. They can be pointed out here below.
3.7
DEFINITION OF RELIGION
The major issue confronting the
study of religion is the definition of the term ‘religion’. No scholar was disinterested on proposing
some form of definition. Definition
abound. Interestingly, no two scholar
agree on any specific definition. Thus
the question is whether religion has to be defined or not before attempting to
study it. The drawback in defining
religion before investigation is that an inadequate definition of religion can
affect the scholar in examining all the available data. Secondly the very word ‘religion’ has become
bone of contention.
“Philological investigation of the
use of the word has revealed some interesting aspects of Roman religiosity,
which was characterized by a scrupulous attention to all signs or
manifestations of invisible powers or forces.”[220] Further studies about religion have proved
that there are religions even without any supernatural element. thus an open-ended perspective for the
definition will be of greater significance for the scientific study of
religion.
3.8
WHO SHOULD STUDY RELIGION?
The interest for the scientific
study of religion is predominantly a Western phenomenon. Most of the scholars pursued their studies
out of their sheer missionary interests.
Of course, now it is no longer the monopoly of the West. Scholarship in the field of religion is not
lacking in any continent. Yet the issue
is whether the insider or the outsider should study religion. Henry H. Presler says
In short, it seems to me that it is
not the insider nor the outsider upon whom we must depend for our information
about any particular religion. We should
depend rather on a man who resolutely espouses one religion or another, and who
has made the study of the other religions not only through a course of reading,
but a matter of at least vicarious personal experience.[221]
It should also be remembered that
there are advantages and disadvantages of studying religion either by the
insider or the outsider.
3.9
NATURE OF
DATA
When Max Muller began his
explorations in the field of religion, he was seeking and calling for more
materials for the scientific study of religion.
Now after more than a century, the scholar of religion is over burdened
with enormous amount of data. It is
because of the emergence of various disciplines and their commitment of study
religions from their own perspective.
Another reason for the mass of material is the rapid growth of science
and communication. Every finding is at
the door step of scholars. Thus the
question is 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 is suggested that “depending on the limits
set by the individual investigator, the study of religion may concentrate on a
single function or aspect of religion to the exclusion.”[222]
3.10
JUDGMENT OF VALUE
The chronic fear about the value
free judgment of religious data is another issue confronting the study of
religion. In any study of religion, the
experience and influence of the scholar play crucial role. It seems to be beyond probability to achieve
pure value free objectivity, in the study of religion. “The student may achieve technical competence
in respect of religious symbol-systems, but on the hermeneutical level the
value-free approach is simply unattainable.”[223] In the context of religious pluralism too,
value plays important role. In the
pluralistic perspective there is immense stress to respect the value of each
and every religion. Thus the study of value
judgment needs much attention. A
religiously pluralist country like India is devolved to honour the views of
scholars who are committed to their own religion, but treat other religions
with same dignity and good will.
Therefore a student of religion has to exhibit a more balanced attitude.
3.11
LANGUAGE
The earlier scholars have left with
us several terminologies. These
terminologies are great asset for the student of religion. The scholar should not fail to remember that,
all religious language, symbol, practice ect. are found meaningful only in
their proper context. When a primitive
concept is explained in the modern language, whether the real content and
implications are carried through is question that matters religious
studies. Because each term has its own
meaning for the specific context. To mention one example is that, the word God
means different things to different people.
In order to avoid this difficulty, textual study of the religious
traditions are encouraged. But how far a
scholar is equipped in the particular language is a matter of concern.
If it is said “when we study another
religion we have to become familiar with its language.”[224] It also needs to be said that “Where primal
religions are concerned, there are in general no written texts to be studied,
and the emphasis must lie elsewhere, in the function and transmission of sacred
tradition as a whole.”[225] Even in the case of unwritten sources, the
scholar will have the problem of describing the phenomena of religion. Unless apt language is not applied, the
reader may be misled.\
3.12
LIVING RELIGIONS
All traditional scholars were
concerned with primitive or archaic religions.
But today scholars show greater interest in the living religions. “It is perhaps here that the possibility of a
new break through is most likely to occur in future studies.”[226] Primitive religions did not possess
documentary evidences to prove their origin, development, faith, practice
etc. But living religions abound with
such details. Hence the study of living
religion requires new ventures. Here the
problem is not data or origin, but how different religions interact and exist
side by side in harmony by addressing to current issues. “The ‘one world’ in which we live, with its
close communications, makes nonsense of religious isolation.”[227] The issue is further highlighted by Ursula
King as “During the nineteenth century, scholars were fascinated by the
question of the origin and evolution of religion, now largely abandoned,
whereas twentieth century studies have been dominated by questions about the
nature and essence of religion and, more recently, its meaning and function in
society.”[228]
3.13
RESPONSE THRESHOLD
While studying the living religions
the scholar is confronted with new issues.
One such issue is called response threshold. To define it “The response threshold implies
the right of the present day devotee to advance a distinctive interpretation of
his or her own tradition. Often at
variance with that of Western scholarship – and to be taken entirely seriously
in so doing.”[229] It was not an issue in the classical study of
religions. They studied the religion of
past. Only specialist could challenge
their findings. But now, it is entirely
different. In the words of Michael Pye
“After all, unless one has an understanding of what a religion means to its
participants one cannot really be said to understand it fully.”[230]
3.14
OBSERVABLE AND NON-OBSERVABLE
The academic study of religion, now,
is generally concerned with observable data “And the observable includes
historical knowledge of the rituals, mythologies, religious communities, ideas,
teachings, institutions, arts, architecture.”[231] But religion is not limited to these
observable factors alone. Beyond the
observable there is an non-observable.
This is what really gives life to religion. Any religious study should take this
non-observable into serious consideration.
“It is the failure to recognize the difference between the observable
and the non-observable, confusing one with the other or by denying one in
behalf of the other, that confounds our understanding of religion.”[232] Of course this is related to the element of
Truth. It is a complicated matter yet
“Discovering the character of this transcendent focus comprises an important
part of the study of a religion.”[233] It should be admitted that this
transcendental focus cannot be discovered.
Yet the Focus, whatever name assigned, is part and parcel of every
religion. Investigating its influence on
the realm of religion is truly complicated issue.
3.15 HERMENEUTIC
Another important issue the science
of religion has to face is to derive at an appropriate. Hermeneutical principle. It is, because of the increasing amount of
data being gathered by various branches of studies connected with religion. Further, the multi religious context
definitely is in need of a relevant Hermeneutical principle. In the words of Ursula King, “Without some
kind of hermeneutic, some theory of understanding and interpretation, it is
impossible to systematically order and account for the variety of religious
data.”[234] Unless a relevant hermeneutic is used to interpret
the religious phenomena which is influencing human life at all levels, the
study of religion will not be in a position to experience its implications.
3.16 PLURALITY OF PERSPECTIVES
In the incipient stage the vision of
the founding fathers of the science of religion was establishing an autonomous
discipline for the study of religion. It
was because, they wanted to free religious study from the clutches of theology
and philosophy. Indeed, they were
successful. As the interest for the
scientific study of religion increased, many allied disciplines began to study
religions from their own perspectives.
They have contributed very useful and meaningful materials for the study
of religions. They cannot be ignored at
any rate. Now, there are scholars who
would prefer to call the study of religion as an area rather than a
discipline. The pertinent issue is
whether religious study could be ventured using single perspective or
multi-perspectives. The founders of the
discipline would have hesitated to opt for a multi-perspectives. Of course, they never unwelcome the data from
other disciplines. But things are
different with the present scholars.
The present scholars of religion do
not have a second thought to accept a proposal for a multi-perspectival approach
to the study of religion. In the words
of K. P. Aleaz “Majority of present day scholars are convinced about the
multi-methodic nature of the study of
religion.”[235]
Eric J. Lott contends that, ‘The
science of religion is a poly-methodic discipline, for religion is a
polymorphous subject’.[236] He also indicates that all perspectives need
not be credited evenly. Because
according to the subject and context the priority for the perspective would
change. Further, considering the complex
nature of religious phenomena, he says “such rich diversity calls necessarily
for investigation from a variety of
approaches”.[237]
Even if multi-perspectival approach
for the study of religion is agreed upon, the choice for the relevant
perspective looms large. The reason is
that a wrong choice of perspective or method would yield to the squabbling of
valuable religious data.
Ninian Smart goes little further and suggests for a combination of
three perspectives: “Actually there seems no intrinsic reason why the history
of religions and the sociology and anthropology of religion should not be
treated as a single investigatory enterprise.”[238] It is evident that compartmentalization of
learning is good for the development of knowledge only if the accumulated
knowledge is to be capitalized meaningfully, an integral approach is
unavoidable. This is the order of the
day. In fact all studies are aimed at
the supreme at the supreme goal of ‘Life’.
Hence anything that contributes to the realm of ‘Life’ cannot be left
out from the modern perspectives of Science of Religion.
CHAPTER 4
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INDIAN
CONTEXT
Inspite of the many outstanding
issues faced by the scientific study of religion, it offers many valuable
insights which are relevant for the Indian context. A review of such insights can widen the
horizon of religious understanding among people, particularly in India. Some such insights are discussed in this
section.
4.1 COMMON RELIGIOUS NATURE
The scientific study of religion
have proved that religion is not the birth right of a few people. it is common to all human being. No human being ever lived without some form
of religion for Max Muller, “We learn that no human soul was ever quite
forgotten and that there are no clouds of superstition through which the rays
of eternal truth cannot pierce.”[239] No ethnologist, nor anthropologist could find
any human race or culture without the trace of religion. Similarly the sociologist of religion found
the influence of either society on religion or religion on society, in all
parts of the world. The phenomenologists
have confirmed that some form of sacred focus is found in the religiosity of
the primitives. The psychologists termed
the religious behaviors as mental attitude and found it common to whole humanity.
India being a pluralistic
country-religion, culture, language etc. should take this common religious
nature of humanity seriously. Any
slackness in this regard, particularly in the religious realm would cause
unwanted tension among the religious communities. This is a telling lesson that every Indian
religionist learn from the scientific study of religions. This particular lesson could encourage people
to live harmoniously. It would enhance
unity and equality among the members of different faiths.
4.2 FREE SHARING AMONG RELIGIONS
According to Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
the Scientific study of religion help furthering ‘free sharing among religions
which no longer stand in uncontaminated isolation’.[240] This is true.
Earlier the Europeans considered that Christianity alone was the true
religion. All other religions were
inferior in nature. The famous
theologian Karl Barth said, Christianity alone is revelation and all other faiths
are religions. For him religions are
human attempt to capture God. Hendric
Kranmar followed the same dictum. Thanks
to the effort of scholars who have contributed to the free sharing among
religions. Today, particularly in India,
if any one wanted to practice religion in isolation without relating his/her
religion to the other religions, he or
she will find humiliated. This
humiliation can arise just by observing the day to day life of every
individual. For the Indian
multi-religious context this free sharing among religious communities is like a
boon from the scientific study of religions.
4.3 EQUALITY OF RELIGIONS
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan in his lecture
on comparative religion states that “Comparative Religion postulates that all
our faiths have some value.”[241] For him the purpose of the scientific study
of religion is not to demonstrate that a particular religion is superior to all
other. He also remarks that the
scientific study of religion has made ‘untenable the distinction between
religion of true and false’.[242] His seeming reaction to the finality claims
of western missionaries is quite obvious.
“Any religion which claims finality and absoluteness desires to impose
its own opinions on the rest of the world, and to civilize other people after
its own standards”.[243] Equality of religions is clearly stated by
Max Muller as
I wish we could explore together in
this spirit the ancient religions of mankind, for one feel convinced that the
more we know of them, the more we shall
see that there is not one which entirely false; nay, that in one sense every
religion was a true religion, being the only religion which was possible at the
time, which was compatible with the language, the thought, and the sentiments
of each generation, which was appropriate to the age of the world.[244]
Muller says further that, men are
not able to find the oneness, because each religion is conditioned and
controlled by the context in which it exists.
“The reason why people will not see the identify of a truth as
enunciated in different religion, is generally the strangeness of the grab in
which it is clothed.”[245] A country like India which shelters various
religions should not fail to gladly accept and follow this principle of
equality of religions. This can help
harmony among all genuine religious people, irrespective of the religion
adhered. The above mentioned
contributions of the science of religion have greater relevance to India and to
the world at large, from inter-religious understanding point of view.
4.4 RELIGIOUS STUDY IN INDIA
Eric J. Lott raised a question that
“There is no good reason why we should expect the study of religion in India to
proceed in exactly the same way as it is found in the West.”[246] It is genuine question, from India’s point of
view. India has a peculiar pluralistic
paradigm, particularly in the realm of religion. She has all the major living religions of the
world. It is apt to quote Dr.
Radhakrishnan to feel the significance of this aspect. he writes that “Among living religions still
further, there is non which has a Western origin.”[247] No doubt, these religions have existed
harmoniously. Nevertheless, frequently
exploding communal conflicts require greater contribution from the systematic
study of religion. The real nature of
each religions, and why they look differently needs to be brought home to
everyone. Studies to this effect has
started already. Frank Whaling writes
that “Advance in knowledge and understanding have emerged no merely from
western studies of and contact with other religious traditions, but also from
the work of scholars of other traditions who have studied there own culture and
reflected upon their contact with the west.”[248] Dr. Radhakrishnan makes a clear distinction
between the Eastern and Western contexts.
He says “In the history of human culture Asia and Europe represent two
complementary sides; Asia the spiritual and Europe the intellectual.”[249] The western way of learning is critical and
the eastern method of theology ran in an opposite direction.”[250]
It was already stated that, there
had been various attempts to define religion.
None of the definition was complete and all comprehensive. It may not be exaggerating to say that there
is no better definition for religion than that is common in India. In India religion is defined as a way of
life. Taking it to Hinduism. “Hinduism is more a way of life than a form
of thought.”[251] This can be substantiated from the knowledge
made available by the science of religion.
Man always had to face life. This
he did by confronting it or surrounding to it.
These patterns probably took the form of magic and religion. The process of repeating this peculiar aspect
of life later came to be called ritual.
Man always wanted to be free from any pain on hardship. This is inherent in saying that religion is a
way of life. Religion is thus man’s
constant attempt to face life in manifold forms.
Further, in the Indian context there
was never an attempt to separate religion from life. Every phenomenaon in life was viewed from
religious perspective. That is why it is
said “Religion should not be confused with fixed intellectual conceptions,
which are all mind-made.”[252] This is profound in stressing on
self-realization, or religious experience in India. Even the many religions were considered as
different roads leading to the same goal or different branches of a same
tree. This is the specific Indian
background that needs serious consideration while developing a right
perspective to study religions in India.
4.5 COMMON CONCERNS
The ever growing advancement in the
realm of knowledge reveals that “The growth of world population, the spread of
nuclear weapons, increasing pollution, the problem of world poverty, and the
diminishing of non-renewable energy resources affect the whole planet.”[253] Although Indian context is specific and
demands a dynamic perspective to study religion, the new method should be able
to relate itself to the wider global context.
It is obvious, that, problems that
affect, any part of the world would have its impact all over the world. The problems stated above is not the problem
of one nation, race or religion. They
should be the concern of all. As
religion holds key to the human decisions, developing of any new perspective
should take in to account the wider context in which India is located.
Calling attention to the demands
need for a profound change in many ways of life, Dr. Radhakrishnan says “Regard
for spiritual values, love of truth and beauty, righteousness, justice and
mercy, sympathy with the oppressed and belief in the brotherhood of man, are
the qualities which will save modern civilization.”[254] The modern
scholars of religion affirm that only by addressing to these common
concerns, religions can develop mutual co-operation. The specific multi-religious context demands
such a co-operation. Thus any religious
study in India should view these concerns benevolently.
4.6 UNITY OF RELIGION
The scientific study of religion
exposed another great insight called “Unity of Religion”. Unity of religion does not mean the
amalgamation of many religions. It means
essentially religion is one and the same for all. “The unity of religion in the variety of its
forms is what is presupposed by the science of religion.”[255] This insight is of immense help to the
specific pluralistic Indian context, similar idea is expressed by Gustav
Mensching as “We must, therefore recognize that a religious unity need not be
produced in one way or the other, but that there exists already a unity of
which men must only become conscious.”[256] This contribution of the scientific study of
religion is appraised by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan that “For any religious
internationalism, a study of comparative religion is the indispensable basis.”[257]
Taking this point chosen to India, particularly to Hinduism, he further says,
“The Hindu never doubted the reality of the one supreme universal spirit,
however much the description of it may fall short of its nature.”[258] In this regard, the scientific study of
religion will have to do much. It has to
being home the idea that religion was one and manifold forms are its existence
in diverse cultural contexts. This will
be immense help to the Indian context.
4.7 HUMAN CONCERN IN RELIGION
The scholars of religion have
enriched the treasure of religious knowledge by declaring that religon is for
man and any attempt to study religion is in fact the attempt to study humanity
itself. This is what meant when Jesus
said man is not for Sabbath. The focus
upon life is a significant study of religion.
L. W. Grensted says “No conception of religon satisfies the religious
man unless it is significant for the whole of life in all its details.”[259] Max Muller goes still far back and traces
even human influence in the formation of religion according to their
convenience, apart from the one original religions. He says, “To ignore that human element in all
religions is like ignoring the eye as the recipient and determinant of the
colours of light.”[260] Professor J. G. Arapura sets the goal of
scientific study of religion. For him,
finding out the integral relation between man and religion is the main goal of
science of religion. Without man there
is no religion. Apart from essence of
man there is no essence of religion.
For all human phenomena the one
that should be regarded unquestionable as the out growth of man’s engagement
with his own existence, in a problematic manner, is what is known as religion…
The problem of religion would become vastly complicated if it were to be
discretely separated from the problem of man because it has neither essence nor
existence nor any kind of being whatsoever apart from man. Nevertheless, the fact remains that no
phenomenon of man is so internal and so integral to him as religion.[261]
Focus upon “Life” should become key
to the understanding of religious phenomena in India. This is indirectly said by Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan as “When properly studied, Comparative Religion increase our
confidence in the University of God and our respect for the human race.”[262] The real struggle for life in India as
painfully acknowledge by Swami Vivekananda is mentioned by K. P. Aleaz as “On
20th September, 1893, Swami Vivekananda told the parliament that
religion is not the crying need of India because they have religion enough;
what is needed is material aid for the impoverished Indians.[263] Of course, this was his reaction against the
missionary activity of the Westerners.
But the point is clear that, if any attempt to conceptualize a new
perspective for the study of religions in India it should focus on life. Unity of religions and concern for life will not be relevant to any other
subject matter than to the scientific study of religions from Indian
perspective.
4.8 ELEMENTS IN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
The two fundamental aspects for the
scientific study of religions from Indian perspective are “Unity of Religion”
and concern for “Life”. Such an
approach can address to all chronic issues among the religions of India. The traditional interest of the scholars on
the origin of religion will not be of much help in the Indian context. In Indian context, the scholar is faced with
living religions. The chief concern of
Indian perspective should be bringing together of all religions for a mutual
co-existence, without attempting to attack, conquer or to swallow up other
religion. The co-operation of religion
can really focus on “Life” concerns of humanity. In this venture the field of scientific study
of religion will be so helpful.
The other elements are highlighted
here. One of the greatest changes that
has taken place because of the study of religions is summed up by Wilfred
Cantwell Smith as “Perhaps what is happening can be summed up most pithily by
saying that the transition has been from the teaching of religion to the study
of religion.”[264] In fact, he proposed dialogical perspective
for the study of religion. This is a
remarkable change. The study of other
religions encourage inter religious understanding against the traditional
method of finding fault and monopolizing a single religion.
4.9 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
In India is no distinction between
religion and philosophy. All philosophy
are based upon religion. That is why
there was a shift in Dr. S. Radhakrishnan’s approach to religion. “He approached religion from the viewpoint of
philosophy in contrast to the classical western approaches which had been more
inclined to stress anthropology, history, sociology, psychology, or
phenomenology.”[265]
Philosophy of religion is a branch
of philosophy. Its task is to verify
religious data systematically and logically.
The purposes of philosophy of religion is described by John Hick as “It
seeks to analyze concepts such as God, Holy, Salvation, worship, creation,
sacrifice, eternal life, etc., and to determine the nature of religious
utterances in comparison with those of everyday life, scientific discovery,
morality and the imaginative expressions of the arts.”[266] According to A. R. Mohapatra, “It is an
intellectual and logical interpretation of religious experience.”[267]
Eric J. Lott, has pointed out the
negative aspect of philosophical approach to religion as “The danger with any
philosophical approach to religion is that only the cerebral aspect of
religion-doctrine, belief-system, perhaps ethical perspectives-will be given
weight.”[268] However the scientific study of religion from
Indian perspective will have to face the issue of philosophical verification of
its data. Because in India, religions
and philosophy go hand in hand.
4.10 RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
Originally the scientific study of
religion was a drastic attempt to separate the study of religion from
theology. It was, successful,
indeed. In all aspects, there are
differences between theology and religion.
Theology concentrate on matters related to God and faith of a particular
tradition. On the other hand the scope
of religion is wide and it centers around humanity. Nevertheless, at present there is a growing
demand for the interaction between religion and theology. S. Israel says “Of course, there are many
perspectives from which religion has been interpreted; but new direction are
important for an integral approach, especially creative integration between
theology and the study of religion.”[269] Eric J. Lott says that “The prospects for
further creative interaction between the theological ‘Science’ and the ‘science
of religion’ look promising.”[270]
How, complementarity between
religion and theology can be effected, is clearly suggested by S. Israel as
“The science of religion can supply wide-ranging data which theology can make
use of for its own purification, more profound understanding of human life and
effective self-communication.”[271] Although the goals of religious studies and
theology are different, the interaction between them are inevitable.
Particularly a country like India
requires the close working of religion and theology. Any theologizing in India should account for
the plurality of faiths in India. Any
theology that fails to account so would be incomplete, inadequate and
inappropriate. This is possible only by
developing close cooperation between scientific study of religions and
theology. Science of religion can supply
adequate data for the Indian theologian.
Of course, this has to be considered even at the global level.
The scientific study of religions
can supply material for the feminist theology in India. The sociologists of religion have
investigated adequate data for the development of matriarchy in the process of
socio-religious developments. Similarly
other forms of feminine aspect of religion can be utilized by theology from the
study of religion. This type of
materials abound in Indian Religions.
Another current issue the Indian
theologians are facing is related to Dalit theology. About the possibilities of utilizing the
scientific tools of religion for the development of dalit religion and dignity
Abraham Ayrookuzhiel says “If we are serious about the 2000 – million strong
dalit community in India regaining their religious status, we should undertake
the study of dalit religious heritage both in its folk form and in its
historical form. Only am academic
community can take up such a task.”[272] It can be said that, in India, there is wide
scope for the co-operation or mutual working of between the two disciplines
will make theologizing in India more harmonious and more life focused.
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
id whether religion should 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 scholar of religion. The study of living religions face new issues
which were never problem to the scholar of primitive religions. To avoid all seeming hardships in the study of
religion a poly-methodic or multi-perspectival approach is the apt perspective.
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 can be lessened, if religions are studied scientifically and their
findings are made known to their adherents.
It will be promising to implement the ‘Science of religion’ in the
regular college curriculum. The Indian
pluralistic context demands that every citizen is aware to the findings of the
“Science of Religion”.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aleaz, K. P. : Hermonmy of
Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekanand, Punthi-Pustak, Calcutta,
1993.
Aleaz, K. P.: Dimensions of
Indian Religion, Study, Experience and Interaction, Punthi Pustak ,
Calcutta, 1995.
Anderson, J.N.D.: Christianity
and Comparative Religion, Reprinted, Tyndale Press, London, 1972.
Arapura, J.G.: Religions as
Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative Phenomenology of the Spirit, Mouton
& Co., Netherlands, 1972.
Baird, D. Robert: Category
Formation and the History of Religions, Mouton, Netherlands, 1971.
Benson L. Thomas: “Study of
Religion”, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol.14.
Bettis, Joseph, Dabney, ed.: Phenomenology
of Religion, eitht modern Descriptions of the Essence of Religion, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1969.
Bianchi, UGO: The History
of Religions, E. J. Brill, Leiden,
Netherlands, 1975.
Bouquet, A.C.: Comparative
Religion, Seventh Edition
Reprinted, Penguin Books, 1973.
Carrier, Herve, S.J.: The
Sociology of Religious Belonging, Darton,
Longman & Todd, London, 1965.
Clark, Walter, Houston: The
Psychology of Religion, An Introduction to Religious Experience and Behavior, Second Printing. The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1959.
Daniel, P.S., David C. Scott et
al., Religious Traditions of India, Indian
Theological library, 1988.
Davies, Brain: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, New Edition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993.
Dawson, Christopher: Religion
and Culture, Meridian Books, New
York, 1958.
Durdheim, Emile: The
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Translated by Joseph Ward Swain, Second edition, George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., London, 1976.
Eliade, Mircea: The Sacred and
the Profane, The Nature of Religion, Translated from the French by Willard
R. Trask, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1959.
Evans, Stephen, C.: Philosophy of
Religion, Thinking About Faith, Inter Varsity Press, USA, 1982.
Fromm, Erich: Psychoanalysis and
Religion, Fourth printing, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1952.
Graeve F. De: “Religion”, New
Catholic Encyclopedia: Vol.12.
Grensted, L. W.: The Psychology
of Religion, Oxford University Press, New York, 1952.
Hall, William, T. ed.: Introduction
to the Study of Religion, Harper & Row Publishers, 1978.
Hick, John: Philosophy of
Religion, Second education prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.
Honko, Lauri, ed.: Science of
Religion: Studies in Methodology, Proceedings of the Study Conference of the
International Association for the History of Religions, held in Turku,
Finland, August 27-31, 1973.
Hume, David: The Natural History
of Religion, Adam. Charles Black, London, 1956.
Idinopulos, A. Thomas, & Brain
C. Wilson, ed.: What is Religion? Origins, Definitions, & Explanations, Brill,
1998.
Jacobi, Jolande: The Psychology
of C., G. Jung, 1973 edition, Second Printing Yale University Press, 1974.
James, E. O.: The Beginnings of
Religion, Hutchinson’s University Library, London, No date.
James, E. O.: Comparative
Religion, First published as University paper back, Methuen & Co. Ltd.,
London, 1961.
James, William: The Varieties of
Religious Experience, Mentor books, New York, 1958.
Jevons, F. B.: Comparative
Religion, A Study of Man’s Attitude Towards God in the Religions of the World, Orient
Publications, Delhi, 1985.
Johnson, E. Paul: Psychology of
Religion, Abingdon-cokesbury Press, New York, No date.
Jung, Carl, Gustav: Psychology
and Religion, Third printing, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1961.
Kitagawa, M. Joseph, ed.: The
History of Religions Retrospect and Prospect, Macmillian Publishing
Company, New York, 1985.
Knudten D. Richard: The Sociology
of Religion An Anthology, Meredith Publishing Company, New York, 1967.
Kung, Hans: Freud and the Problem
of God, Translated by Edward Quinn, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1979.
Leeuw, Van der, G.: Religion in Essence and
Manifestation, Vol. 1, Reprinted, Translated by J. E. Turner, London, 1967.
Lott, Eric J.: Tradition,
Interpretation, Theology Religion, and the Study of Religion, Mouton de
Gruyter, 1988.
Malony, Newton, H. ed.: Current
Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion, William B. Eerdamans Publishing
Company, U.S.A. 1977.
Masih, Y.: A Comparative Study of
Religions, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, Reprinted 1993.
Maslow, H. Abraham: Religions,
Values and Peak-experiences, Ohio State University Press, Colubus, 1964.
Mensching, Gustav: Structures and
Patterns of Religion, Translated by F. Klimkeit and V. Srinivasa Sarma,
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1976.
Mohapatra, A. R.: Philosophy of
Religion, An Approach to World Religions, Second revised and enlarged
edition, Sterling Publishers, Pvt Ltd., New Delhi, 1990.
Morgan , Robert, and Michael Pye: Ernst
Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and Religion, Translated and edited,
Duckworth, London, 1977.
Muller, F. Max: Anthropological
Religion, Second AES Reprint, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1986.
Muller, F. Max: Physical
Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1979.
Muller, F. Max: Lectures on the
Origin and Growth of Religion, As Illustrated by the Religious of India, Indological
Book House, Varanasi (India), 1964.
Muller, F. Max: Theosophy or
Psychological Religion, Collected works of F. Max Muller, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, Reprinted, 1978.
Muller, F. Max: Natural Religion,
First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1979.
Muller, F. Max: Introduction to
the Science of Religion, New Edition, London, 1882.
O’ Dea, F. Thomas: The Sociology
of Religion, Prentic-Hall, Inc., 1966.
Otto, Rudolf: 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.
Parrinder, Geoffrey: Comparative
Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1962.
Pickering, W.SF.: Durdheim on
Religion, A Selection of Readings with Bibliographies, New translations by
Jacqueline Redding and W.S.F. Pickering, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,
1975.
Pye, Michael: Comparative
Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials, David and Charles,
Newton Abbot, 1972.
Radhakrishnan, S.: The Hindu View
of Life, Third Indian Reprint, Blackie & Son Publishers Pvt Ltd.,
Blackie House, Bombay-400001, 1979.
Radhakrishnan, S.: East and West
in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1933.
Radhakrishnan, S.: Religion and
Society, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1947.
Robinson, H. Theodore: A Short
Comparative History of Religions, Second Edition Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Ltd., 1951.
Sarma, Sibnath, ed.: Religious
Philosophy of Rudolf Otto, Ajanta Publications, Delhi, 1996.
Schneider, Louis: Sociological
Approach to Religion, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970
Sharpe, J. Eric: Comparative
Religion, A History, Duckworth, London, 1975.
Singh, Harbans, ed.: Approaches
to the Study of Religion, Guru Gobind Singh Department of Religious
Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala, Date not found.
Smart, Ninian: The Science of
Religion and the Sociology of Knowledge Some Methodological Questions, Princeton
University Press, USA, 1973.
Smart, Ninian: The Phenomenon of
Religion, Macmillian, London, 1973.
Swartz, J. Marc and David K. Jordan:
Anthropology: Perspective on Humanity, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1976.
Waardenburg, Jacques: Classical
Approaches to the Study of Religion Aims, Methods and Theories of Research I,
Introduction and Anthology, Mouton, Paris, 1973.
Wach, Joachim: Sociology of
Religion, Twelfth Impression, The University of Chicago Press, London,
1971.
Weber Max: The Sociology of
Religion, Translated by Ephraim Fishchoff, third printing, Beacon Press,
Boston, 1964.
Whaling, Frank, ed.: Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2 Volumes, Vol. 1: The
Humanities, Mouton Publishers, Berlin, 1984.
Whitehead, Alfred, North: Religion
in the Making, The Macmillian Company, New York, 1960.
Wiebe, Donald: Religion and Truth:
Towards An Alternative Paradigm for the Study of Religion, Mouton
Publishers, The Hague, 1981.
PERIODICALS (ARTICLES)
Ayrookuzhiel, Abraham: “A proposal
for the study of the Religious heritage of the Dalits: Some methodological
considerations”, Religion and Society, Vol.42, No.1, March 1995.
Brockway, R. W.: “A Critique of Max
Muller’s Methodology of Mythology”, Journal of Dharma, Vol.11, No.4,
October, 1977.
Cutchen, Mc. Leighton: “The Father
figure in Psychology and Religion”, Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, Vol.XL, No.2, June, 1972.
Hodges, L. Daniel: “Breaking a
scientific Taboo: Putting Assumptions about the supernatural into scientific
theories of Religion”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol.13,
No.4, December,1974.
Israel, S.: “An integral approach to
the study of religion: Insights from an Indian Christian perspective”, Bangalore
Theological Forum, Vol.XIX, No.2, April-June, 1987.
Kim, J. Jay: “Hierophany and
History”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. XL, No.3,
September, 1972.
Levine, P. Michael: “Deep structure
and the comparative philosophy of religion”, Religious Studies, Vol.28,
No.3, September, 1992.
Lott, J. Eric: The Science of
Religion in an Indian Theological Context”, Bangalore Theological Forum, Vol.XVII,
No.4, Oct-Dec., 1985.
Molendik, L.Arie: “Tiele on
Religion”, NVMEN, Vol. XLVI, No.3, 1999.
Pathil, L. Kuncheria: “Scientific
Study of Religions: Some Mythological Reflection”, Journal of Dharma, Vol.
XXI, No.2, April-June, 1996.
Platvoet, G. Jan: “Close Harmonies:
The Science of Religion in Dutch Duplex Ordo Theology, 1860-1960”, NVMEN, Vol.
XLV, No.2, 1998.
Presler, H. Henry: “How should we
study other religions?”, National Christian Council Review, Vol. LXXXI,
No.5, May, 1961.
Smith, Wilfred, Cantwell: “The study
of religion and the study of the Bible”, Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, Vol. XXXIX, No.2, June, 1971.
[1]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History Duckworth, 1975,
pp.1-26.
[2]
E.A. Livingstone ED., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1977. pp.431-432.
[3] E.
O. James, Comparative Religion, First Published as University Paper
back, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, 1961, p.15.
[4]
Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, Aims, Methods
and Theories of Research, I: Introduction and Anthology, Mount, Parries,
1973, pp.6,7.
[5] Ibid.,
p.21.
[6] Ibid.,
p.25.
[7] E.
O. James, Comparative Religion, Op. cit., p.16.
[8] Ibid.,
p.16.
[9]
Thomas L. Benson, The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.14, p.65.
[10]
Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture, Meridian Books, New York,
1958, p. 9.
[11]
E.O. James Comparative Religion, Op. Cit., p.16.
[12]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.8.
[13]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.8.
[14]
F. Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated
by the Religions of India, Indological book house, Varanasi (India), 1964,
p.56.
[15] Ibid.,
p.59
[16] Ibid.,
p.66.
[17] Ibid.,
p.98.
[18]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.8.
[19] Ibid.,
p.8.
[20] Ibid.,
p.8.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.65.
[24]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 7.
[25] Ibid.,
p.9.
[26]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.65.
[27] Ibid.,
p.66.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 13.
[31]
Kuncheria Pathil, “Scientific Study of Religions : Some Methodological
Reflections”, Journal of Dharma, Vol.XXI, No.2, April-June 1996, p. 163.
[32]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1933, p. 13.
[33]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition,
London, 1882, p.209.
[34]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 98.
[35]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[36]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 98.
[37] Ibid.,
p.97.
[38] Ibid.,
p.100.
[39]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[40]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.105.
[41] Ibid.,
p.105.
[42] Ibid.,
p.15.
[43]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s methodology of mythology”. Journal
of Dharma, Vol.II, No.4, October 1977, p.368.
[44]
J. G. Arapura, Religion as Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative
Phenomenology of the Spirit, Mouton & Co., Netherlands, 1972, p.31.
[45]
Arie L. Molendijk, “Tiele on Religion, Nvmen, Vol. XLVI, No.3, 1999,
p.237.
[46]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[47]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s Methodology”, Op. Cit., p.368.
[48]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History, Duckworth, London,
1975, p.40.
[49]
R. W. Brockway, Op. Cit., p.368.
[50]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p. 29.
[51]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 85.
[52] Ibid.,
p.86.
[53]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, 1979, p.385.
[54]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition,
London, 1882, p.32.
[55] Ibid.,
p.198.
[56]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.85.
[57]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.27.
[58]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[59]
Eric J. Sharpe, Op. Cit., p.43.
[60]
R. W. Brockway, Op. Cit., p.108.
[61]
J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity and Comparative Religion, Reprinted,
Tyndale Press, London, 1972, p.7.
[62] Ibid.,
p.7.
[63]
Ninian Smart, Phenomenon of Religion, Mac Millan, London, 1973, p.41.
[64]
Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.350.
[65]
Frank Whaling ed., Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2
Volumes, Volume I: The Humanities, Mouton Publishers, Berlin, 1984,
p.166.
[66]
Michael Pye, Comparative Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials, David
and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972, p. 8.
[67]
Frank Whaling ed. Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.371.
[68]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.13.
[69]
Ursula King, “The debate about the science of religion”, edited by Frank
Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.131.
[70] Ibid.,
p.131.
[71]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Translated and edited, Duckworth London, 1977, p.88.
[72]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition,
London, 1882, p. 53.
[73]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Op. Cit., p.91.
[74]
Waardenburg, Vol. I, Op. Cit., p.513.
[75]
Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidars, Delhi,
reprinted, 1993, p.13.
[76]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Op. Cit., p.63.
[77]
Ninian Smart, Religion and Truth: Towards An Alternative Paradigm for the
Study of Religion, Mount Publishers, The Hague, 1981, p.148.
[78]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.64.
[79]
Kuncheria Pathil, Op. Cit., p.163.
[80]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1933, p.16.
[81]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.18.
[82]
S. Radhakrishnan, Op. Cit., pp. 15,16.
[83] Ibid.,
p.16.
[84] Ibid.,
p.16,17.
[85]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, Op. Cit., p.8.
[86]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.85.
[87]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.141.
[88]
Waardenbugr, Op. Cit., p.88.
[89]
Eric J. Sharpe, Op. Cit., p.44.
[90]
F. Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, Op. Cit., p.21.
[91]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.164.
[92] Ibid.
[93]
F. Max Muller, Physical Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, 1979.
[94]
Marc J. Swartz and David K. Jordan, Anthropology: Perspective on Humanity, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1976, p.2.
[95] Ibid.,
p.3.
[96]
Thomas L. Benson, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 14, p.69.
[97]
E. O. James, Comparative Religion, First Published as University Paper
back, Methane & Co. Ltd., London, 1961, p.30.
[98] Ibid.,
p.31.
[99]
Marc J. Swartz and David K. Jordan, Op. Cit., p.664.
[100]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.70.
[101]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott, et al., Religious Traditions of India, Indian
Theological Library, 1988, p.21.
[102]
Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, Aims, Methods
and Theories of Research, I: Introduction and Anthology, Mouton, Paries,
1973, p. 257.
[103]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.39.
[104]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.70.
[105]
Marc J. Swartz and David K. Jordan, Op. Cit., p.663.
[106]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History, Duckworth, London,
1975, p.68.
[107]
Thomas. L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[108]
F. Max Muller, Anthropological Religion, second AES Reprint, Asian
Educational Services, New Delhi, 1986, p.127.
[109]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.29.
[110]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.37.
[111]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.240.
[112] Ibid.,
p.33.
[113]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott et al., Op. Cit., p.21.
[114]
Tomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.71.
[115]
Thomas F. O’ Dea, The sociology of Religion, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966,
p.117.
[116]
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.
[117]
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.
[118]
Richard. Knudten, The Sociology of Religion an Anthology, Meridith
Publishing Company, New York, 1967. p.26.
[119]
Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion, Twelfth Impression, The University
of Chicago Press, London, 1971, p.34.
[120]
Thomas F. O’ Dea, Op. Cit., p.117.
[121]
Herve Carrier S. J., The Sociology of Religious Belonging, Darton,
Longman & Todd, London, 1965, p.19.
[122]
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.
[123]
Thomas F. O’ Dea, Op. Cit., p.33.
[124]
Michael Hill, Op. Cit., p.125.
[125]
Christopher Dawson, Religion and Culture, Meridian Books, New York,
1958, p.50.
[126] Ibid.,
p.65.
[127] Ibid.,
p.217.
[128]
Thomas, F. O’ Dea, Op. Cit., p.4.
[129] Ibid.,
p.13, 14.
[130]
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, 1985, p.173.
[131]
Joachim Wach, Sociology of Religion, Twelfth Impression, The University
of Chicago Press, London, 1971, p.3.
[132]
Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion, Translated by Ephraim Fishchoff,
third printing, Beacon Press, Boston, 1964, p.1.
[133]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.352.
[134]
Max Weber, Op. Cit., p.1.
[135] Ibid.
[136]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.352.
[137]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.70.
[138] Ibid.,
p.301.
[139]
Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Translated
by Joseph Ward Swain, Second Edition, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London,
1976. p.2.
[140]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.45.
[141]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.52.
[142]
K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, Study, Experience and
Interaction Punthi Pustak, Calcutta, 1995. p.20.
[143]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott, et al., Op. Cit., p.17.
[144]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.34.
[145]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.64.
[146]
Frank Whaling ed., Vol.1. Op. Cit., p.36.
[147]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.88.
[148]
Frank Whaling ed., Vol.1. Op. Cit., p.37.
[149]
UGO Bianchi, The History of Religions, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands,
1975, p.49.
[150]
Robert D. Baird, Category Formation and the History of Religions, Mouton,
Netherlands, 1971, p.49
[151]
F. Max Muller, Physical Religion, Op. Cit., p.7.
[152]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.278.
[153]
Frank Whaling ed., Op. Cit., Vol.I, p.37.
[154]
K. P. Aleaz, Op. Cit., p.16.
[155] Ibid.,
p.15.
[156]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.49.
[157]
Joseph Pabney Bettis, ed., Phenomenology of Religion, Eight Modern
Descriptions of the Essence of Religion, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1969, p.6.
[158]
Eric J. Lott, Vision, Tradition, Interpretation, Theology, Religion, and the
Study of Religion, Mouton de Gruyter, 1988, p.179.
[159] Ibid.,
p.191.
[160]
Joseph Dabney Bettis ed., Op. Cit., p.10.
[161]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.39.
[162]
Joseph Dabney Bettis ed. Op. Cit., p.9.
[163]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.39.
[164]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.112.
[165]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.42.
[166]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.88.
[167]
K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, Study, Experience and
Interaction, Op. Cit., p.17.
[168]
Joseph Dabney Bettis ed., Op. Cit., p.11.
[169]
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, p.15.
[170] Ibid.,
p.20.
[171] Ibid.,
p.25.
[172] Ibid.,
p.26.
[173] Ibid.
[174] Ibid.,
p.29.
[175] Ibid.,
p.45.
[176]
P.S. Daniel, David C. Scott et al., Op. Cit., p.37.
[177]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.45.
[178] Ibid.,
p.46.
[179]
Sibnath Sarma ed., Religious Philosophy of Rudolf Otto, Ajanta
Publications, Delhi, 1996, p.76.
[180] Ibid.,
pp.97,98.
[181]
Mircea Eliape, 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.
[182]
Sibnath Sarma, ed., Op. Cit., p.15.
[183]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.74.
[184] Ibid.,
p.74.
[185] Ibid.,
p.74.
[186]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.461.
[187] Ibid.,
p.381.
[188] Ibid.,
p.42.
[189] Ibid.,
p.412.
[190]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.75.
[191]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott et al., Op. Cit., p.35.
[192]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.75.
[193] Ibid.,
p.76.
[194]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.76.
[195]
Mircea Eliade, Op. Cit., p.11.
[196] Ibid.
[197]
Jay J. Kim, “Hierophant and History” Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, Vol.XL, No.3, September, 1972, p.334.
[198]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott el at., Op. Cit., p.24.
[199]
Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, Fourth Printing, Yale
University Press, New Haven, 1952, p.52.
[200]
Paul E. Johnson, Psychology of Religion, A Bingdon – Cokesbury Press,
New York, No Date, p.15.
[201]
Walter Houston Clark, The Psychology of Religion, An Introduction to
religious experience and behavior, Second Printing, The Macmillan Company,
New York, 1959, p.29.
[202]
Frank Whaling, Vol.II, Op. Cit., p.48.
[203]
L. W. Grensted, The Psychology of Religion, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1952, p.17.
[204]
Paul E. Johnson, Op. Cit., p.16.
[205]
Erich Fromm, Op. Cit., p.31.
[206]
Paul E. Johnson, Op. Cit., p.221.
[207] Ibid.,
p.55.
[208]
P. S. Daniel, David C. Scott et al., Op. Cit., p.26.
[209]
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Mentor Books, New
York, 1958, p.77.
[210] Ibid.,
p.52.
[211]
William James, Op. Cit., p.139.
[212] Ibid.,
p.50.
[213]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.96.
[214]
Erich Fromm, Op. Cit., p.96.
[215]
Hans Kung, Freud and the Problem of God, Translated by Edward Quinn,
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1979, p.20.
[216]
Erich Fromm, Op. Cit., p.79.
[217]
Leighton Mc Cutchen, “The Father Figure in Psychology and Religions” Journal
of the American Academy of Religion, Vol.XL. No.2, June 1972, p.182.
[218]
Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C. G. Jung, 1973 edition, second
printing, Yale University Press, 1974, p.9.
[219] Ibid.,
p.35.
[220]
De Graeve, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.12, p.240.
[221]
Henry H. Presler, “How should we study other religions?” National Christian
Council Review. Vol.LXXXI, No.5, May 1961, pp.193, 194.
[222]
Thomas L. Benson, The Encyclopedia of
Religion, Vol.14, p.84.
[223] Ibid.,
p.84.
[224]
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.
[225]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.86.
[226]
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, 1984, p.149.
[227]
Geoffrey Parrinder, Comparative Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1962, p.21.
[228]
Ursula King, “Phenomenology” edited by Frank Whaling, Vol. I, Op. Cit., p.43.
[229]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.85.
[230]
Michael Pye, Comparative Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials, David
and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972, p.13.
[231]
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.
[232] Ibid.,
p.27.
[233]
Eric J. Lott, “Approaching Religious Traditions”, Religions Traditions of
India, Indian Theological Library, 1988, p.3.
[234]
Ursula King, Op. Cit., p.152.
[235]
K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, Study, Experience and
Interaction, Punthipustak, Calcutta, 1995, p.6.
[236]
Eric J. Lott, Op. Cit., p.13.
[237]
Eric J. Lott, Tradition, Interpretation, Theology Religion, and the Study of
Religion, Moutan de Gruyter, 1988, p.156.
[238]
Ninian Smart, “The Scientific Study in its Plurality”, Contemporary
Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2 Volumes, Vol., Op. Cit., p.372.
[239]
F. Max Muller, Theosophy or Psychological Religion, Collected Works of F.
Max Muller, Asian Educational Service, New Delhi, Reprinted 1978, p.23.
[240]
S. Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd., London, 1933, p.26.
[241] Ibid.,
p.18.
[242] Ibid.,
p.37.
[243]
S. Radhakrishnan, Religion and Society, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1947, p.52.
[244]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religions, New Edition,
London, 1882, p.190.
[245]
F. Max Muller, Theosophy or Psychological Religion, Op. Cit., p.11.
[246]
Eric J. Lott, “The Science of Religion in an Indian Theological Context”, Bangalore
Theological Forum, Vol.XIII, No.4, Oct-Dec., 1985, p.1.
[247]
S. Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, Op. Cit., p.46.
[248]
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, 1984, p.392.
[249]
S. Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, Op. Cit., p.43.
[250] Ibid.,
p.68.
[251]
S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu of Life, Third Indian Reprint, Blackie &
Son Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Blackie House, Bombay, 1979, p.55.
[252]
S. Radhakrishnan, Religion and Society, Op. Cit., p.52.
[253]
Frank Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.52.
[254]
S. Radhakrishnan, Religion & Society, Op. Cit., p.18.
[255]
L. W. Grensted, The Psychology of Religion, Oxford University Press, New
York, 1952, p.109.
[256]
Gustan Mensching, Structures and Patterns of Religion, Translated by F.
Klimkeit and V. Srinivasa Sarma, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1976, pp.319,320.
[257]
S. Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, Op. Cit., p.40.
[258]
S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life, Op. Cit., p20.
[259]
L. W. Grensted, Op. Cit., p.15.
[260]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, 1979, p.9.
[261]
J. G. Arapura, Religions as Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative
Phenomenology of the Spirit, Mouton & Co., Netherlands, 1972, p.39.
[262]
S. Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, Op. Cit., p.32.
[263]
K. P. Aleaz, Harmony of Religions: The Relevance of Swami Vivekananda, Punthipustak,
Calcutta, 1993, p.52.
[264]
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.
[265]
Frank Whaling, Vol.I., Op. Cit., p.403.
[266]
John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, Second edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1973, p.2.
[267]
A. R. Mohapatra, Philosophy of Religion, An Approach to World Religions, Second
revised and enlarged edition, Sterling Publishers Pvt, Ltd., New Delhi, 1990.
p.9.
[268] Eric
J. Lott, “Approaching Religious Tradition”, Religious Traditions of India, Indian
Theological Library, 1988, p.29.
[269]
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.
[270]
Eric J. Lott, “The Science of Religion in an Indian Theological Context”, Bangalore
Theological Forum, Vol. XVII, No.4, October-December, 1985, p.3.
[271]
S. Israel, Op. Cit., p.114.
[272]
Abraham Ayrookuzhiel, “A Proposal for the Study of the Religious Heritage of
the Dalits: Some Methodological Considerations”, Religion and Society, Vol.42,
No.1, March 1995, p.28.
Religion and Dialogue
Comments
Post a Comment