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.
[62] Michael Pye, Comparative Religion An Introduction Through Source Materials (Newton
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

Popular posts from this blog

Religio-theo-dialogical Approach

TAMILS, TAMIL AND ĀLVĀRS

Brahma Samaj