EARLY BEGINNING OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
EARLY BEGINNING OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION
INTRODUCTION
This
paper is an exploration into the various factors and persons that were
responsible for the establishment of the department of Science of Religion with
special reference to the contributions of Max Muller who was called the Father
of comparative religion. First part of the paper is focused on the factors.
Second part considers the early founders. And the third par concentrates on the
contributions of Max Muller.
1 SCIENCE OF RELIGION
Although humanity and
religion are coeval, there had been attempts, perhaps amateur or ostensible, to
acquire knowledge about religions other than one’s own[1],
from the first century of Christian era.
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.
1.1 Factors
Responsible for the Emergence of Science of Religion
Several
factors were responsible for the dawn of this new discipline, science of
religion. 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.
1.1.1 Reformation
Although the years
between 14th century and 17th century[2]
are called as reformation period, E. O. James[3]
and Waardenburg[4]
limit this period 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 irrespective of their validity. It was only because of the effects of
reformation, scripture and rituals or church practices were questioned. Consequently scripture was studied with the
aid of all the critical methods of learning available then.
The spirit of
critical study continued in the subsequent centuries. For example 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 emerged 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 enabled the
west to come in contact with other ways of behavior, thought, and belief; and
demanded broadening of their view of human nature, culture and religion.[7] As a result, there arose a serious interest
to learn about the life and practices of the new people. This new interest encouraged further
explorations into 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 later the priests corrupted it. They also popularized the natural religious
quality of humanity against the prevalent idea of revealed religions. [9]
The Deists’ idea of natural religion was struggling to sail through because of
the dominance of the church and less acceptance among the people. Nevertheless, Deistic thoughts survived, and
contributed 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
Thomas L. Benson
writes that, “Scientific and intellectual developments of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries provided the model for new approaches to the study of
religion.”[10] Scientific developments, particularly
Darwin’s theory of evolution had greater impact upon the development of
religion as an independent discipline of study.[11] It influenced the thoughts of many great
scholars essentially those who advocated anthropological perspective. They
developed their insights in the light of ‘linear development of things’. It was commonly assumed that everything,
including religion, was moving towards perfection. This notion is very vivid in the works of
many later day scholars of religion. Added to this assumption was the critical
reasoning prevalent in the academic circles.
1.1.5 Travel Accounts
After the
geographical discoveries, 18th century witnessed the descriptions of
religion by several travelers. These
accounts are not systematic in their presentation. Only a few such works were
published. One among them was the work
of Charles de Brosses (1709-1777).[12] For him, Fetishism was the earliest form of
religion.[13] Commenting on his theory F. Max Muller writes
in his Origin and Growth of Religion “all nations, he holds, had to begin with
fetishism, to be followed afterwards by polytheism and monotheism.”[14] After explaining Brosse’s idea of fetish[15]
Muller argued “there is no fetish without its antecedents, and it is in these
antecedents alone that its true and scientific interest consists.”[16]
Another such work was
that of Meiners (1747-1810). He accepted
the theory of fetishism but went beyond it and ‘stressed the role of human
imagination in the development of religious worship’.[17]
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.”[18] The traces for a later psychological approach
to the study of religion could be found in his work.
Whatever may be the
limitations or criticisms leveled against these initial ventures, the fact
remains that, they had sown the seed for the growth of the ‘Science of
religion’. In these works there are
allusions to the early anthropological, sociological and psychological approach
to the study of religion, respectively.
1.1.6 Decipherment of Ancient Texts
According to Max
Muller “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.”[19] 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.”[20] He also found similarities between the Indian
Myths and Greek, Roman and Biblical.
Through his studies many came in contact with Indian religions and
opened up possibilities for further research in 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’.[21] Similar to the impact of the theory of
evolution on the study of religion, the results of the study of languages
became a reality in the life and contributions of Max Muller. In fact it was this philological research
that ultimately constituted the Scientific Study of religion.
1.1.7 German Philosophers
Thomas L. Benson
writes “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.”[22] 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.[23] They suggested that religions have a
historical existence and that religion cannot be studied apart from history.[24] Their two significant insights 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 an openness to remote, ancient, mystical, and folk culture and
religion.”[25] 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.[26] Hegel’s contribution is also noteworthy. “For
Hegel the concrete history of religions is the realization of the abstract idea
of religion.”[27] The third scholar in this brief list is
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.[28] In general, Romantic Idealism considers,
religion had a common origin, whether it was fear or feeling.
1.1.9 Myth and Folklore
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.
Waardenburg writes, “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.”[29] Wilhelm Mannhard (1931-1980) was a scholar of
European Folk-lore.
In summary Kuncheria
Pathil states, “the contact 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.”[30] S. Radhakrishnan limits the sources of
influence 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.”[31]
1.2 Early Founders
Max Muller, in his Introduction
to the Science of Religion stated, “the Emperor Akbar may be considered the
first who ventured on a comparative study of the religions of the world.”[32]
Nevertheless the real vision for the establishment of an independent discipline
for the scientific 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. According to Waardenburg “He was one of the
first to offer a historical survey of a number of religions based on study of
source materials.”[33] In the words of Thomas L. Benson “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.”[34] The impact of evolutionary thought also
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.”[35]
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.[36] 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.”[37] Two points are clear. One is that he applied
historical approach and the other is that, he felt the need for more approaches
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.”[38] “Besides historical work in his field, he was
primarily interested in systematic classification.”[39] He is one of the first scholars to speak of
phenomenology of religion as a special branch of the study of religion.[40] It is suggested that his inadequate knowledge
of language[41]
caused him inaccessible to the original sources. Hence he concentrated less on history and
more on classification of religion.
1.3 MAX MULLER
The most important of
the founders of 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.”[42] According to professor J. G. Arapura, without
Muller, there could not have emerged the separate discipline for the scientific
study of religion: “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.”[43] Muller declared his commitment and vigor for
the establishment of a discipline for the scientific study of religion, as the
new science would change the aspect of the world.[44]
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.”[45] 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. R. W. Brockway writes “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.”[46]
The aim of
establishing the new discipline for the scientific study of religion is summed
up by Eric J. Sharpe 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.”[47] 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’.
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 could be applied for the study of religions. R. W. Brockway says “Muller approached the
study of religion from his knowledge of Sanskrit and other ancient languages.”[48] 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.”[49] 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.”[50]
Muller’s option for
the use of comparative philological 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.”[51] 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
“Our customs and traditions are often founded on decayed and misunderstood
words.”[52]
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.”[53] He further, tells in very authentic tone that
if we want to understand ancient religion, we must first try to understand
ancient language.[54]
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 their substance
by means of natural phenomena, and their terminology by what he called a
‘disease of language.”[55] J. G. Arapura writes, “Mythology, which was
the bane of the ancient world is in truth a disease of language.”[56] 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.”[57]
Understanding myths
play significant role in the understanding of religions is clearly indicated by
Eric J. Sharpe: “Hence it was and is necessary to penetrate the myths in order
to reach the heart of the religion which they conceal.”[58] 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 necessary that
the expression “Science of Religion” is made clear. “Science of religion” is the direct
translation of the German expression ‘Religionswissenschaft’. Max Muller coined this term.[59] He used this term to denote the new
discipline, which he established. It
only points to the scientific or systematic study of religions.
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. 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.
It is historical because, his intention was to trace the history of the
origin of religions by going back, from the present data.
Today the terms
‘Science of Religion’, ‘comparative religion’ and ‘history of religions’ are
used without much distinction, implying just what Muller intended by the term
science of religion. Regarding,
‘comparative religion’ J. N. D. Anderson contends, “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.”[60] He further says, “as such, comparative
religion is simply one aspect of the study of religion.”[61] He was concerned with the common tendency of
many to quickly be immersed in comparison of religions, without adequate
knowledge of 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.”[62] 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.”[63] Further danger of misunderstood and misused notion
of comparative religion is clearly brought out by Frank Whaling that
One of the reasons 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.[64]
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 of religion or ‘comparative religion’ for
short is really a phrase to indicate the study of religion in so far as the
student is not confining his attentions to single case-study.”[65]
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 lost.
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.”[66] 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.”[67]
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.”[68] Yet human beings have objectified religious
experience to the position of studying it as a subject. “The science of religion investigates
religious conception, values and behavior.”[69] 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.”[70] 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.”[71] 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.”[72] 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. Though, they look different in expression all
of them are legitimate from varied perspectives. For Waardenburg the central task is ‘the
understanding of other religious’.[73] More understanding of other religions may not
be of any help unless it is related to religions as a whole. Y. Masih in his A Comparative Study of
Religions points out that “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.”[74] 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. For
him, the purpose of Scientific work on religion is entirely and necessarily to
influence religion itself.[75] 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.”[76] 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. It is stated “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.”[77]
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.”[78] This view too limits itself with
constraints. It looks for the basic
structure of the religious phenomena.
This is not a healthy demand. An
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.”[79] Similar view is 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.”[80] The author has retold the original vision of
the science of religion as expected by Max Muller himself.
1.3.8 Objections to 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.”[81]
“Another objection is
that comparison means resemblance, and if one religion is like another, what
happens to the claims of superiority and uniqueness.”[82] 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.”[83]
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 doorsteps 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.”[84] 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 type of religions, 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.”[85] 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’.[86]
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.”[87] According to him it helps grasping the
original nature of religions.
The second reason is
that it helps to understand humanity. 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.”[88]
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 all we can do is to
follow it up to its origin, and then try to comprehend it in its later
historical developments.”[89]
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.”[90] He has assigned names to these three
manifestations. “I shall distinguish
these three divisions as Physical Religion, Anthropological Religion, and
Psychological Religion.”[91]
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.”[92]
As intended, Muller has reached his
final destination of finding the origin of religion.
Various factors and persons have
contributed to the establishment of the ‘Science of Religion’. While science of
religion has benevolent objectives, there are objections to it as well. If
religions are studied as the founding parents envisaged, the end result would
be harmony and fellowship among religions. Although the scientific study of
religions is now well developed than originally intended, it needs to be
pursued with due respect to the plurality of faith traditions and to the
underlying principle of religious harmony among adherents of diverse faith
orientations.
By
Dr. S.Robertson
Serampore College
Religion and Dialogue
[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]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.8.
[11]
E.O. James Comparative Religion, Op. Cit., p.16.
[12]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.8.
[13]
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.
[14]
Ibid., p.59
[15]
Ibid., p.66.
[16]
Ibid., p.98.
[17]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.8.
[18]
Ibid., p.8.
[19]
Ibid., p.8.
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
Ibid.
[22]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.65.
[23]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 7.
[24]
Ibid., p.9.
[25]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.65.
[26]
Ibid., p.66.
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 13.
[30]
Kuncheria Pathil, “Scientific Study of Religions : Some Methodological
Reflections”, Journal of Dharma, Vol.XXI, No.2, April-June 1996, p. 163.
[31]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1933, p. 13.
[32]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition,
London, 1882, p.209.
[33]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 98.
[34]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[35]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 98.
[36]
Ibid., p.97.
[37]
Ibid., p.100.
[38]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[39]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.105.
[40]
Ibid., p.105.
[41]
Ibid., p.15.
[42]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s methodology of mythology”. Journal
of Dharma, Vol.II, No.4, October 1977, p.368.
[43]
J. G. Arapura, Religion as Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative
Phenomenology of the Spirit, Mouton & Co., Netherlands, 1972, p.31.
[44]
Arie L. Molendijk, “Tiele on Religion, Nvmen, Vol. XLVI, No.3, 1999,
p.237.
[45]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[46]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s Methodology”, Op. Cit., p.368.
[47]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History, Duckworth, London,
1975, p.40.
[48]
R. W. Brockway, Op. Cit., p.368.
[49]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p. 29.
[50]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p. 85.
[51]
Ibid., p.86.
[52]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, 1979, p.385.
[53]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition,
London, 1882, p.32.
[54]
Ibid., p.198.
[55]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.85.
[56]
J. G. Arapura, Op. Cit., p.27.
[57]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.69.
[58]
Eric J. Sharpe, Op. Cit., p.43.
[59]
R. W. Brockway, Op. Cit., p.108.
[60]
J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity and Comparative Religion, Reprinted,
Tyndale Press, London, 1972, p.7.
[61]
Ibid., p.7.
[62]
Ninian Smart, Phenomenon of Religion, Mac Millan, London, 1973, p.41.
[63]
Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.350.
[64]
Frank Whaling ed., Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2
Volumes, Volume I: The Humanities, Mouton Publishers, Berlin, 1984,
p.166.
[65]
Michael Pye, Comparative Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials, David
and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1972, p. 8.
[66]
Frank Whaling ed. Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.371.
[67]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.13.
[68]
Ursula King, “The debate about the science of religion”, edited by Frank
Whaling, Vol.I, Op. Cit., p.131.
[69]
Ibid., p.131.
[70]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Translated and edited, Duckworth London, 1977, p.88.
[71]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition,
London, 1882, p. 53.
[72]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Op. Cit., p.91.
[73]
Waardenburg, Vol. I, Op. Cit., p.513.
[74]
Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions, Motilal Banarsidars, Delhi,
reprinted, 1993, p.13.
[75]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, Op. Cit., p.63.
[76]
Ninian Smart, Religion and Truth: Towards An Alternative Paradigm for the
Study of Religion, Mount Publishers, The Hague, 1981, p.148.
[77]
Thomas L. Benson, Op. Cit., p.64.
[78]
Kuncheria Pathil, Op. Cit., p.163.
[79]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1933, p.16.
[80]
E. O. James, Op. Cit., p.18.
[81]
S. Radhakrishnan, Op. Cit., pp. 15,16.
[82]
Ibid., p.16.
[83]
Ibid., p.16,17.
[84]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, Op. Cit., p.8.
[85]
Waardenburg, Op. Cit., p.85.
[86]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.141.
[87]
Waardenbugr, Op. Cit., p.88.
[88]
Eric J. Sharpe, Op. Cit., p.44.
[89]
F. Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, Op. Cit., p.21.
[90]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, Op. Cit., p.164.
[91]
Ibid.
[92]
F. Max Muller, Physical Religion, First Asian Reprint, Asian Educational
Services, New Delhi, 1979.
Comments
Post a Comment