SCIENCE OF RELIGION
SCIENCE OF RELIGION
History
testifies to the fact that no human being ever lived without adhering to some
form of religiosity. It also confirms the
fact that, at least from the first century of the Christian 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.
1.1 Factors Responsible for the Beginnings of Science of Religion
Several
factors were responsible for the dawn of science of religions. 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.
Connected
to these developments were the pioneers who were responsible for the founding
of this new discipline, science of religion.
Among them Max Muller deserves special attention.
1.1.1 Reformation
Although
the years between 14th century and 17th century[2]
are termed 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, rituals or church practices came under critical
questioning. Scripture was studied with
the aid of all the critical methods of learning available then. This had paved way for a new kind of openness
in matters of religion.
In
the same spirit many biblical scholars in the 19th century studied
the Bible using historical critical method.
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 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
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 westerners with
the fact of 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 other 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 the 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 traditional idea of revealed religions.[9]
The Deists’ idea of natural religion was struggling to assert itself
against the dominance of the church and its less acceptance among the
people. Nevertheless, one of the
important aspects of the religion of the Enlightenment that, ‘it was at least
sincere in its devotion to the virtue of tolerance’[10]stood
out. It is indeed a great landmark in
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
There
is no doubt, scientific and intellectual developments of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries provided the model for new approaches to the study of
religion. Particularly the theory of
evolution had greater impact on the development of religion as an independent
discipline.[11] To be specific, it influenced the thoughts of
many great scholars, particularly those who advocated the anthropological
perspective. It suggested a linear development of things. It was assumed that everything was moving
towards perfection. This idea of a
linear progress is vivid in the works of many later day scholars of religion.
1.1.5 Travel Accounts
After
the geographical discoveries, 18th century witnessed the description
of religions by several travel accounts.
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, “all nations, he holds, had to begin with fetishism, to be followed
afterwards by polytheism and monotheism.”[14] 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.”[15]
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’.[16]
Similar account was given by Benjamin Constant y de Rebeque (1769-1830). According to Waardenburg, “for Constant,
religion is essentially a feeling which is the very foundation of man’s
nature.”[17] Traces of a later psychological perspective
for the study of religion could be found in the work of Constant.
1.1.6 Decipherment of Ancient Texts
In
the words of Waardenburg “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.”[18] 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.”[19] He also found similarities between the Indian
Myths and Greek, Roman and Biblical. His
studies in the language also made Indian religions available to others. Thus there was a 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’.[20] In reality it was this philological research
that ultimately constituted the scientific study of religion.
1.1.7 The Enlightenment Philosophers
Another
impetus for the science of religion was the insights of the enlightenment
philosophers. For example “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.”[21] Having taken into consideration the plurality
of religions they viewed religions as the outgrowth of a natural reasonable
religion or as the natural outcome of the general manifestation of Divine
grace.[22] Their important contribution to the study of
religion was that religions have a historical existence and that religion
cannot be studied apart from history.[23] The two significant insights these
philosophers supplied to the later scientific study of religions were, the
common origin of religions and the concept of historical development of
religions.
1.1.8 Romantic Idealism
Romantic
idealism too influenced the consideration for the scientific study of religion.
It is maintained that “as a reaction against Enlightenment thought, it
emphasized individuality, feelings, and imagination, and it urged openness to
remote, ancient, mystical, and folk culture and religion.”[24] One of its proponents was Friedrich
Scheliermacher (1768-1834), a protestant theologian who assigned religion
primarily to feeling, i.e. the feeling of absolute dependence.[25] Another significant contribution was made by
Hegel. For him, ‘the concrete history of religions is the realization of the
abstract idea of religion’.[26] 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.[27]
The valuable insight 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. It is said “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.”[28] Wilhelm Mannhardt (1931-1980) was a scholar
of European Folk-lore.
While
all these developments find acknowledgment[29] Dr. S. Radhakrishnan limits the sources of
influence upon the study of religion to two.
In his own words “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.”[30]
In nutshell, the coming into being of the science of religion was due to the
confluence of a variety of insights.
1.2 Pioneers
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.”[31] 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 . In fact “he was one of the first to offer a
historical survey of a number of religions based on study of source materials.”[32] It 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.”[33] The impact of evolutionary thought is found in
his ideas.[34]
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.”[35] He advocated a kind of historical method.[36]
From
the above sketch it is very clear that Tiele wanted to try the historical
method for the systematic study of religion.
In the end, he seems to suggest that historical approach alone may not be
adequate to study the 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 . It is observed that “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.”[37]
He is one of the first scholars to speak of phenomenology of religion as a
special branch of the study of religion.[38] It is pointed out that his inadequate
knowledge of language[39]
hampered accessibility 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). 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.”[40] According to professor J. G. Arapura, without
Muller, there could not have emerged a separate discipline for the scientific
study of religion. He maintained that
“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.”[41] Muller declared his commitment and vigour for
the establishment of a discipline for the scientific study of religion because
it was expected that the new science would “change the aspect of the world.”[42]
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. [43] He was interested on the archaic forms of
religion in order to find the origin of religion. It is said “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.”[44]
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.”[45] 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 detail in the following
passages.
1.3.1 Language
Max
Muller’s studies of Indo-European languages using the comparative method
convinced him that a 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.”[46] 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.”[47] His ever-growing interest was to find out the
original forms of religions.
Muller’s
option for the use of comparative philology 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.”[48] Muller
gave the same verdict to all religions, irrespective of their status. For him, perhaps, all religions contained
same form of truth. Hence, Muller says
in his Natural Religion that “our customs and traditions are often
founded on decayed and misunderstood words.”[49]
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.”[50] He further, affirms the same in a very
authentic tone that if we want to understand ancient religion, we must first
try to understand ancient language.[51]
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.”[52] 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.”[53] The concept of Muller’s ‘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.”[54]
Understanding
myths play a significant role in the understanding of religions. Eric J. Sharpe
writes “hence it was and is necessary to penetrate the myths in order to reach
the heart of the religion which they conceal.”[55] Max Muller was thus the pioneer to investigate
myths in order to find out the hidden meanings of the words applied.
1.3.3 Science of Religion
“Science of Religion” is the direct
translation of the German expression ‘Religionswissenschaft’. Max Muller coined this term.[56] He used it 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
approach. Comparative because of the
varieties of data found from various religions and branches of study. 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 also historical because, his intention was to trace the history of
the origin of religions by going back, from the present data.
Often
the expressions ‘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.
It is essential to note that it is not ‘religion’ itself which is
‘comparative’, but the method of study and approach.[57] Further, comparative religion is simply one
aspect of the study of religion.[58] In the words of Ninian Smart “quite often
what is meant by ‘comparative study of religion’ is typological phenomenology.”[59] For Smart 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 hitherto proved
the greatest danger to the Science of Religion.”[60] Frank Whaling perceives the possibility of
comparative method being misused to demonstrate that one’s own theological position
was superior, fuller, or more than mundane compared with that of others.[61]
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.”[62]
Along
with comparative method Muller also used the historical method. The purpose was to find the origin of
religion on the basis of available data.
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.”[63]
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’. Today the expression ‘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
Ursula
King writes “the ‘faith of the believer’ can no longer be a legitimate subject
of the science of religion.”[64] In reality, “the science of religion
investigates religious conception, values and behavior.”[65] In the words of Ernst Troeltsch “its great
question is the question of the nature of religious phenomena, the question of
their epistemological and cognitive import, the question of the value and the
meaning of the great historical religious formations.”[66] 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 places more importance on the scriptures of religion, but with caution
that “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.”[67] Going behind this warning 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.”[68] 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. For Waardenburg, the central task is ‘the
understanding of other religious’.[69] Y. Masih, in his A Comparative Study of
Religions states “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.”[70] Though seemingly an unattainable task this is
what the scholars of religions in general are striving for.
For
Ernst Troeltsch ‘the purpose of Scientific work on religion is entirely and
necessarily to influence religion itself’.[71] Perhaps, he was concerned with the
reformatory work required on the part of many religions including Christianity
to which he belonged. Ninian Smart
writes “an important task in the building of a science of religion is to
collect the various key materials which recur in differing religious
environment.”[72] He wanted to investigate the interaction of
such materials in diverse religions.
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
Generally,
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. However, 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.”[73] As this view looks for the basic structure of
the religious phenomena, this is not a healthy demand. On the contrary, Dr. Radha Krishnan expects
that “for a scientific student of religion is required to treat all religions
in a spirit of absolute detachment and impartiality.”[74] A similar view is found in the writing of E.
O. James that the “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.”[75] In fact, this stance reflects the original
vision of the science of religion as echoed by Max Muller.
1.3.8 Objections to the Study of Religion
Dr.
Radha Krishnan gives at least three reasons as to why there are objections to a
scientific study of religion. These are,
seemingly, the fear inherent among those religious people who claim absolutism
or superiority. In his own words “one
reason for this is that the scientific study of religion is imagined to be a
danger to religion itself.”[76]
In his view “another objection is that comparison means resemblance, and if one
religion is like another, what happens to the claims of superiority and
uniqueness.”[77] 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.”[78]
Max
Muller had perceived this objection in advance and had 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.”[79] It is time that the discipline of religion
looks beyond the simple objections to fulfill its task of presenting useful
facts in order to facilitate a peaceful co-existence among people of different
faiths.
1.3.9 Origin of Religion
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’.[80] For him 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.”[81] 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.”[82]
In
the words of Muller, “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.”[83]
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.”[84] Muller has assigned names to these three
manifestations. He maintained that “I
shall distinguish these three divisions as Physical Religion,
Anthropological Religion, and Psychological Religion.”[85]
Muller
wanted to show that these three aspects are found in every religion though the
amount of importance attributed to a particular manifestation may vary. 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.”[86]
[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 (New York:
Oxford
University Press, 1977), pp.431-432.
[3] E.
O. James, Comparative Religion, First Published as University Paper back
(London :
Methuen
& Co. Ltd., 1961), p.15.
[4]
Waardenburg, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, Aims, Methods
and Theories
of
Research, I: Introduction and Anthology (Paris: Mount, 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 ( New York: Meridian
Books, 1958) , p. 9.
[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 (Varanasi
[India]: Indological Book House, 1964), p.56.
[14] Ibid.,
p.59
[15] Ibid.,
p.98.
[16]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p.8.
[17] Ibid.,
p.8.
[18] Ibid.,
p.8.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21]
Thomas L. Benson, op. cit., p.65.
[22]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p. 7.
[23] Ibid.,
p.9.
[24]
Thomas L. Benson, op. cit., p.65.
[25] Ibid.,
p.66.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p. 13.
[29]
Kuncheria Pathil, “Scientific Study of Religions : Some Methodological
Reflections,” Journal
of
Dharma, Vol.XXI, No.2 (April-June 1996), p. 163.
[30]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1933), p.
13.
[31]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition (London : 1882), p.209.
[32]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p. 98.
[33]
Thomas L. Benson, op. cit., p.69.
[34]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p. 98.
[35] Ibid.,
p.97.
[36] Ibid.,
p.100.
[37]
Thomas L. Benson, op. cit., p.69.
[38]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p.105.
[39] Ibid.,
p.15.
[40]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s methodology of mythology”. Journal
of
Dharma,
Vol.II, No.4 (October 1977), p.368.
[41]
J. G. Arapura, Religion as Anxiety and Tranquility, An Essay in Comparative
Phenomenology
of the Spirit (Netherlands
: Mouton & Co., 1972), p.31.
[42]
Arie L. Molendijk, “Tiele on Religion, Nvmen, Vol. XLVI, No.3, 1999,
p.237.
[43]
Thomas L. Benson, op. cit., p.69.
[44]
R. W. Brockway, “A Critique of Max Muller’s Methodology”, op. cit., p.368.
[45]
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion, A History (London:Duckworth, 1975), p.40.
[46]
R. W. Brockway, op. cit., p.368.
[47]
J. G. Arapura, op. cit., p. 29.
[48] Waardenburg,
op. cit., p.86.
[49]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, First Asian Reprint (New Delhi : Asian Educational
Services,
1979) , p.385.
[50]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition (London : 1882), p.32.
[51] Ibid.,
p.198.
[52]
Waardenburg, op. cit., p.85.
[53]
J. G. Arapura, op. cit., p.27.
[54]
Thomas L. Benson, op. cit., p.69.
[55]
Eric J. Sharpe, op. cit., p.43.
[56]
R. W. Brockway, op. cit., p.108.
[57]
J. N. D. Anderson, Christianity and Comparative Religion, Reprinted (London : Tyndale
Press,
1972), p.7.
[58] Ibid.,
p.7.
[59]
Ninian Smart, Phenomenon of Religion (London: McMillan, 1973), p.41.
[60]
Max Muller, Natural Religion, op. cit., p.350.
[61]
Frank Whaling ed., Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion in 2
Volumes,
Volume I: The
Humanities (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), p.166.
Abbot:
David and Charles, 1972), p. 8.
[63]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, op. Cit., p.13.
[64]
Ursula King, “The debate about the science of religion”, edited by Frank
Whaling, Vol.I, op.
cit., p.131.
[65] Ibid.,
p.131.
[66]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion,
Translated
and edited (London: Duckworth, 1977), p.88.
[67]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, New Edition (London , 1882), p. 53.
[68]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, op.
cit., p.91.
[69]
Waardenburg, Vol. I, op. cit., p.513.
[70]
Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions, (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidars, reprinted, 1993),
p.13.
[71]
Robertmorgan and Michael Pye, Ernst Troeltsch: Writings on Theology and
Religion, op.
cit., p.63.
[72]
Ninian Smart, Religion and Truth: Towards An Alternative Paradigm for the
Study of Religion (The
Hague :Mount Publishers, 1981), p.148.
[73]
Kuncheria Pathil, op. cit., p.163.
[74]
Radhakrishnan, East and West in Religion (London: George
Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1933),
p.16.
[75] E.
O. James, op. cit., p.18.
[76] S. Radhakrishnan , op. cit., pp. 15,16.
[77] Ibid.,
p.16.
[78] Ibid.,
p.16,17.
[79]
F. Max Muller, Introduction to the Science of Religion, op. cit., p.8.
[80]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, op. cit., p.141.
[81]
Waardenbugr, op. cit., p.88.
[82]
Eric J. Sharpe, op. cit., p.44.
[83]
F. Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, op. cit., p.21.
[84]
F. Max Muller, Natural Religion, op. cit., p.164.
[85] Ibid.
[86]
F. Max Muller, Physical Religion, First Asian Reprint, (New Delhi : Asian Educational
Services,
1979.)
Comments
Post a Comment