On comparative religion

by Naomi

This week I attended a public lecture here in Edinburgh entitled ‘Teaching the Abrahamic Religions: A Subversive Enterprize?’ delivered by Guy Stroumsa, Professor of the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, University of Oxford. Stroumsa’s basic argument appeared to be that studying the three “Abrahamic” traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) together presents certain dangers but is nonetheless a compelling and worthwhile approach. It set me wondering about what scholars of South Asian religions can learn from such endeavours and vice versa.

One of Stroumsa’s most forceful points was that we must be aware of the difference between comparative religion and interfaith discourse. The latter, he argued, is interested in commonalities, whereas the academic enterprise of comparative religion focuses upon differences. Reflecting on my own approach, I would prefer to say that I use the commonalities to explore the differences. So, for example, in my recent work on stories of karma and rebirth in Buddhist and Jain texts I look at how a very similar set of doctrines concerning cosmology, ethics and soteriology play out rather differently in the narratives. And in this project we are using common characters, roles and genres to explore the ways in which three traditions developed in dialogue with and opposition to one another.

Stroumsa argued that one of the dangers of the comparative approach is a tendency to crystalize the traditions, to take a snapshot of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and therefore to simplify them. He suggested that the most productive form of comparative religion is that which focuses on moments of transformation and pays attention to specific historical contexts. His advice applies equally to scholars of South Asian religion: Brahmanical Hinduism (or whatever else we want to call it), Indian Buddhism and Jainism are three traditions that are – like the “Abrahamic” traditions – linked both structurally and historically. They are therefore asking to be studied together. Yet such a comparative study must situate itself in a specific historical context in order to avoid essentialising the three traditions.

Maybe scholars of the “Abrahamic” traditions can learn something from scholarship on South Asian religions, which benefits from being largely free of the theological investment and interfaith motivation that have tended to accompany the former. With a strong historical focus, albeit one that is rather broadly conceived, my hope is that this project will bring about similar benefits to those highlighted by Stroumsa, namely a more complete picture of religious development and a better appreciation of the ways in which religious traditions change and interact over time.

3 thoughts on “On comparative religion

  1. Chris

    Hi Naomi – sounds like this was a fascinating and relevant lecture. Where did it happen by the way, and how did you find out about it? I’d have loved to have been there.

    Reply
    1. naomiappleton Post author

      Hi Chris – Sorry you missed it – it was advertised through a university email to all staff in the School, and was also on the Uni-wide lecture list. I think it was part of the events schedule for the new Network in Jewish Studies.
      All the best,
      Naomi

      Reply
      1. Chris

        Ach well – just exemplifies my ambiguous position as a student at Lancaster trying to take advantage of everything Edinburgh has to offer🙂 Thanks Naomi!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s