What do you think?
Rate this book
Lectures on the Science of Religion: With a Paper on Buddhist Nihilism: And a Translation of the Dhammapada or Path of Virtue...
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
318 pages, Paperback
First published August 8, 2015
16 people want to read
About the author
F. Max Müller
1,595 books132 followersFriedrich Max Müller, K.M. (Ph.D., Philology, Leipzig University, 1843)—generally known as Max Müller or F. Max Müller—was the first Professor of Comparative Philology at Oxford University, and an Orientalist who lived and studied in Britain for most of his life. He was one of the founders of the western academic field of Indian studies and the discipline of comparative religion. Müller wrote both scholarly and popular works on the subject of Indology and the Sacred Books of the East, a 50-volume set of English translations, was prepared under his direction.
Müller became a naturalized British citizen in 1855. In 1869, he was elected to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres as a foreign correspondent. He was awarded the Pour le Mérite (civil class) in 1874, and the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art the following year. In 1888, he was appointed Gifford Lecturer at the University of Glasgow, delivering the first in what has proved to be an ongoing, annual series of lectures at several Scottish universities to the present day. He was appointed a member of the Privy Council in 1896.
His wife, Georgina Adelaide Müller was also an author. After Max's death, she deposited his papers at the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Müller became a naturalized British citizen in 1855. In 1869, he was elected to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres as a foreign correspondent. He was awarded the Pour le Mérite (civil class) in 1874, and the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art the following year. In 1888, he was appointed Gifford Lecturer at the University of Glasgow, delivering the first in what has proved to be an ongoing, annual series of lectures at several Scottish universities to the present day. He was appointed a member of the Privy Council in 1896.
His wife, Georgina Adelaide Müller was also an author. After Max's death, she deposited his papers at the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 21, 2019
This certainly was worth reading. Friedrich Max Muller was quite a scholar and was rather instrumental in the school of the philosophy of religion. He actually had attended some of the lectures of Friedrich Schelling, so at a certain point must have been influenced by him, but eventually he apparently took issue with Schelling's interpretation of religion.
The first work included here is called Lectures On The Science of Religion, but it would more appropriately be called Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. It's not science as we have come to know it. It is more like scholarship with some philosophical extrapolation. I did find his theories on the origin of Indo-European monotheism really fascinating. Also, his thesis that Buddhism was not originally nihilistic was entirely convincing. Later forms of Buddhism undeniably did see Nirvana as being a state of utter nullification, but the early Pali texts show with little doubt that this was not the understanding of Siddhartha Gautama and the earliest Buddhists. There seems to be evidence that Buddhism was, at least in principle, atheistic from the beginning, but the nihilistic aspect was late. Muller also shows convincingly that many later Buddhists who were separated by time and place from the earliest Buddhists, had little regard for the original meaning of certain words that probably had their origin in Hindu thought; and early Buddhism almost certainly retained those meanings among the earliest followers of Siddhartha. With the spread of Buddhism, the original Hindu source for much of Buddhist thought was lost. Syncretism with local Asian religions (e.g. the Bon religion among the Tibetans and Taoism among the Chinese) influenced the subsequent varieties of Buddhism. The first Buddha probably held many of the same views as Hindus of his day. His view of Buddhahood seemed to be the biggest source of departure from Hindu religion. In principle, Siddhartha probably accepted the divinity of the Hindu gods, but he regarded any Buddha as their equal. This was also ultimately the source of Buddhist atheism. No supreme God was believed in or acknowledged in any real way. It seems that, at least in principle, Dharma was originally superior to an individual Buddha, but later Buddhist thought seems to have held that Dharma, Sangha and an individual Buddha, are all facets of each other, with none being superior. One has a tendency to wonder where the source of unity and ultimate order is found in this composite.
Muller offers his own translation of the Dhammapada here. I think the translation is fairly good. I have read the Dhammapada before and I have no real issue with Buddhist ethics (indeed, I have noted the parallels with Christian ethics). That said, I totally disagree with Buddhist metaphysics. I find it difficult to even reconcile Buddhist ethics with Buddhist metaphysics (e.g. nihilism). Some of the issues I have with Stoicism are mirrored in Buddhism. I don't personally believe that living a totally dispassionate life is possible, let alone desirable (irony very much intended here). The Buddhist and Stoical solution to the problem of emotion, passion, desire, et al, is simply to remove all indiscriminately. To me this is like cutting off a finger because of a splinter. Sure, the splinter is removed, but so is your finger and all its utility with it. Not all desires and/or passions are the same. Their focus and use often is the deciding factor in whether a particular desire and/or passion is good or evil. I feel that control of these modes speaks of a much higher nature than the total eradication of these modes. I can't see how the Buddhist focus on compassion, or the Stoical focus on joy, can be reconciled with an absolutely apathetic state. Love is certainly not a negative. Anyone who claims that it is is incredibly deluded. Apathy can never breed compassion, it can only breed indifference to everyone and everything. Due to this inconsistency, I can admire Buddhist ethics, but I must reject Buddhist metaphysics as being utterly contradictory and inconsistent.
All and all an interesting book. I do recommend it, even though I must admit my appraisal does come from a somewhat biased disposition. I would never claim to find all religions and all philosophies of equal value, and that may make me biased, but there is always a rational reason behind my rejection of certain ideologies. And, after all, I don't deny that I am a Christian—albeit a rational one.
The first work included here is called Lectures On The Science of Religion, but it would more appropriately be called Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. It's not science as we have come to know it. It is more like scholarship with some philosophical extrapolation. I did find his theories on the origin of Indo-European monotheism really fascinating. Also, his thesis that Buddhism was not originally nihilistic was entirely convincing. Later forms of Buddhism undeniably did see Nirvana as being a state of utter nullification, but the early Pali texts show with little doubt that this was not the understanding of Siddhartha Gautama and the earliest Buddhists. There seems to be evidence that Buddhism was, at least in principle, atheistic from the beginning, but the nihilistic aspect was late. Muller also shows convincingly that many later Buddhists who were separated by time and place from the earliest Buddhists, had little regard for the original meaning of certain words that probably had their origin in Hindu thought; and early Buddhism almost certainly retained those meanings among the earliest followers of Siddhartha. With the spread of Buddhism, the original Hindu source for much of Buddhist thought was lost. Syncretism with local Asian religions (e.g. the Bon religion among the Tibetans and Taoism among the Chinese) influenced the subsequent varieties of Buddhism. The first Buddha probably held many of the same views as Hindus of his day. His view of Buddhahood seemed to be the biggest source of departure from Hindu religion. In principle, Siddhartha probably accepted the divinity of the Hindu gods, but he regarded any Buddha as their equal. This was also ultimately the source of Buddhist atheism. No supreme God was believed in or acknowledged in any real way. It seems that, at least in principle, Dharma was originally superior to an individual Buddha, but later Buddhist thought seems to have held that Dharma, Sangha and an individual Buddha, are all facets of each other, with none being superior. One has a tendency to wonder where the source of unity and ultimate order is found in this composite.
Muller offers his own translation of the Dhammapada here. I think the translation is fairly good. I have read the Dhammapada before and I have no real issue with Buddhist ethics (indeed, I have noted the parallels with Christian ethics). That said, I totally disagree with Buddhist metaphysics. I find it difficult to even reconcile Buddhist ethics with Buddhist metaphysics (e.g. nihilism). Some of the issues I have with Stoicism are mirrored in Buddhism. I don't personally believe that living a totally dispassionate life is possible, let alone desirable (irony very much intended here). The Buddhist and Stoical solution to the problem of emotion, passion, desire, et al, is simply to remove all indiscriminately. To me this is like cutting off a finger because of a splinter. Sure, the splinter is removed, but so is your finger and all its utility with it. Not all desires and/or passions are the same. Their focus and use often is the deciding factor in whether a particular desire and/or passion is good or evil. I feel that control of these modes speaks of a much higher nature than the total eradication of these modes. I can't see how the Buddhist focus on compassion, or the Stoical focus on joy, can be reconciled with an absolutely apathetic state. Love is certainly not a negative. Anyone who claims that it is is incredibly deluded. Apathy can never breed compassion, it can only breed indifference to everyone and everything. Due to this inconsistency, I can admire Buddhist ethics, but I must reject Buddhist metaphysics as being utterly contradictory and inconsistent.
All and all an interesting book. I do recommend it, even though I must admit my appraisal does come from a somewhat biased disposition. I would never claim to find all religions and all philosophies of equal value, and that may make me biased, but there is always a rational reason behind my rejection of certain ideologies. And, after all, I don't deny that I am a Christian—albeit a rational one.
Displaying 1 of 1 review