Comparative Religion

The use of the comparative method in religious studies was a logical step in the development of science at the end of the 19th century. In those years, a whole series of such disciplines arose, for example, comparative linguistics , comparative mythology , or comparative anatomy , the object of study of which was a form , and not a function that had existed before ^[2] .

Comparative religion, as a term and as an entity , was proposed to the scientific community on February 19, 1870 by a scholar of German origin, Max Müller ( German: Max Müller ). Then at the Royal Institute of London, he gave the first lecture on the comparative study of the major religions of the world ^[3] . He examined the development of religion by analogy with the development of language and thinking, noting their genetic connection, confirming the findings with significant historical material. According to M. Muller, the religious consciousness of people was formed in an evolutionary way, moving "from bottom to top." That is, from the cult of visible nature and beyond, in accordance with the improvement of intelligence, to the veneration of God as a spirit ^[4] . In his studies, M. Müller identified three linguistic and religious development centers: Aryan , Semitic, and Turanian . A comparison of the sacred texts of different religions revealed and made it possible to study the general that is inherent in the specificity of religion as a whole, as a sociocultural phenomenon. A peculiar result of his work was an aphorism expressing the importance of comparative religious studies ^{[2] [5]} :

The subject of study of comparative religion - part of religion as a science, is a systematic comparison of the doctrines and practices of world religions. They usually mean religions classified geographically as Middle Eastern (including Zoroastrianism , Iranian , Abrahamic ), Indian , African , American , classical Hellenistic , East Asian and Oceanian religions ^[6] . Revealing the fundamental similarity of the phenomena of these beliefs led to the conclusion that there are no unique religious facts or phenomena inherent in only one historical religion ^[1] .

From the point of view of the methodology of the natural sciences, comparison, in fact, takes the place of experiment in religious studies. On its basis, scientific hypotheses are built, tested and refined. However, comparisons cannot be absolutely accurate, as they are based on analogies . In other words, comparisons always require contextual historical and cultural refinement ^[7] .

Studies of comparative religious studies provide rich material for studying the general nature of people's attitude to such concepts as sacred, supernatural, spiritual, divine ^[8] .

Some Features of Using Comparisons in Religious Studies

The success of using any comparative method depends on the unification of observation methods, including standardization of the initial data and the results obtained ^[9] . In religious studies, a number of rules have developed, some of which are as follows:

• Different religions should not be compared with each other as a whole. For example, Buddhism and Christianity as such. The futility of this approach is shown by Udo Tworushka ( German: Udo Tworuschka ) in the book "Methodological approaches to world religions" ^[10] .
• Comparisons must always take into account religious diversity. That is, for example, it is considered not just a Christian text, but an Orthodox, or not just an Islamic community, but a Sunni , etc. ^[10]
• Comparisons should be made within the same structural layers. In each religion N. Smart ( English N. Smart ) identifies six: doctrinal, mythological, ethical, ritualistic, social and social institutions and religious experience. For example, comparisons of Islamic, Buddhist, Christian understanding of deity, or ideas of salvation can be made in the doctrinal layer ^[11] .
• Comparisons should take into account that certain phenomena of religion are only part of the whole that gives them a characterizing coloring. It is not enough to simply describe the observed facts. It is necessary to understand religious intentions . For example, in comparing Christian and Buddhist monasticism, similar elements clearly appear - asceticism, celibacy, the rules of social life, contemplative life, work, etc. But, these religions have an important difference - Christian monasticism arose as "ascetic enthusiasm", but not as indispensable salvation condition ^[7] .

Separately, it should be emphasized that the comparison process should eliminate confusion between analogy and homology. In other words, it is necessary to distinguish between phenomena similar, or similar in purpose, from phenomena similar only in appearance, but different in meaning. This was first noticed by Heinrich Frick ( German: Heinrich Frick ) in his book Comparative Religious Studies (1928) ^[12] .

• Religious Studies
• Comparative method
• Comparative mythology
• Sacred texts
• Religion List
• Superecumenism

• Leeuw G. Einfuhrung in die Phanomenologie der Religion. - Munchen: Verlag von Ernst Reinhardt, 1925 .-- 161 S.
• Ratschow CH Methodik der Religionswissenschaft // Enzyklopadie der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Arbeitsmethoden. 9. Lieferung: Methoden der Anthropologie, Anthropogeographie, Volkerkunde und Religionswissenschaft. Munchen: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1973. S. 347-400
• Sharma A. To the things themselves: essays on the discourse and practice of the phenomenology of religion. - Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2001 .-- 311 p.