Scholars of religion have always been fascinated by asceticism. Some have even regarded this radical way of life-- the withdrawal from the world, combined with practices that seriously affect basic bodily needs, up to extreme forms of self-mortification --as the ultimate form of a true religious quest. This view is rooted in hagiographic descriptions of prominent ascetics and in other literary accounts that praise the ascetic life-style. Scholars have often overlooked, however, that in the history of religions ascetic beliefs and practices have also been strongly criticized, by followers of the same religious tradition as well as by outsiders. The respective sources provide sufficient evidence of such critical strands but surprisingly as yet no attempt has been made to analyze this criticism of asceticism systematically. This book is a first attempt of filling this gap. Ten studies present cases from both Asian and European traditions: classical and medieval Hinduism, early and contemporary Buddhism in South and East Asia, European antiquity, early and medieval Christianity, and 19th/20th century Aryan religion. Focusing on the critics of asceticism, their motives, their arguments, and the targets of their critique, these studies provide a broad range of issues for comparison. They suggest that the critique of asceticism is based on a worldview differing from and competing with the ascetic worldview, often in one and the same historical context. The book demonstrates that examining the critics of asceticism helps understand better the complexity of religious traditions and their cultural contexts. The comparative analysis, moreover, shows that the criticism of asceticism reflects areligious worldview as significant and widespread in the history of religions as asceticism itself is.

The comparative method is an integral part of religious studies. All the technical terms that scholars of religion use on a daily basis, such as ritual, hagiography, shrine, authority, fundamentalism, hybridity, and, of course, religion, are comparative terms. Yet comparison has been subject to criticism, including postcolonialist and postmodernist critiques. Older approaches are said to have used comparison primarily to confirm preconceptions about religion. More recently, comparison has been criticized as an act of abstraction that does injustice to the particular, neglects differences, and establishes a mostly Western power of definition over the rest of the world. In this book, Oliver Freiberger takes a closer look at how comparison works. Revisiting critical debates and examining reflections in other disciplines, including comparative history, sociology, comparative theology, and anthropology, Freiberger proposes a model of comparison that is based on a thorough epistemological analysis and that takes both the scholar's situatedness and his or her agency seriously. Examining numerous examples of comparative studies, Considering Comparison develops a methodological framework for conducting and evaluating such studies. Freiberger suggests a comparative approach - which he calls discourse comparison - that confronts the omnipresent risks of decontextualization, essentialization, and universalization. This book makes a case for comparison, arguing that it is indispensable for a deeper analytical understanding of what we call religion. The book is intended to enrich the practice of both aspiring and seasoned comparativists, stimulate much-needed further discussions about comparative methodology, and encourage more scholars to produce responsible comparative studies.

When scholarship presents the histories, belief systems, and ritual patterns of specific religious groups, it often privileges victorious and elite fractions of those communities to the detriment and neglect of alternative, dissonant, and resurgent voices. The contributions in this volume, which include case studies on various religious and academic contexts, illustrate the importance of listening to those alternative voices for the study of religion. At the same time, they are meant to honor Professor Ulrich Berner, on the occasion of his 65th birthday, and the inspiration his plurality approach gives for studying religion and religions. As the book shows, following this approach brings to light numerous religious beliefs and practices that were neglected by previous scholarship, and it exposes the discourses, conflicts, and power relations in each particular context. It forces scholars to study religion as an ever-contested and dynamic process rather than a static institution, as it is normally conceptualized by dominant religiouselites. The chapters in this book deal with the contested category 'religion'; the plurality of voices in religious, cultural, and ethnic encounters; alternative voices within specific religious traditions; and plurality in the study of religion itself. They demonstrate that listening to alternative voices is not only interesting but methodologically essential for a better understanding of religion.

Auf den ersten Blick ist die asiatische Religionsgeschichte reich an Begegnungen von Religionen. Buddhismus, Hinduismus, Daoismus, Konfuzianismus, Shinto und andere Religionen koexistierten in bestimmten Regionen und Epochen, setzten sich miteinander auseinander und beeinflussten sich gegenseitig. Diese Darstellungsweise ist allerdings recht abstrakt und sagt wenig daruber aus, wer oder was sich bei einer Religionsbegegnung eigentlich begegnet. Was genau ist in einem spezifischen historischen Kontext mit Religionsbegegnung gemeint? Welche Prozesse sind zu beobachten? Und welche Konsequenzen hat eine genaue Analyse solcher Prozesse fur die religionswissenschaftliche Theoretisierung von religioesen Identitaten und sozialer Dynamik? Die Beitrage in diesem Band diskutieren diese Fragen anhand von konkreten historischen Fallen aus verschiedenen geographischen Regionen: Sudasien, Sudostasien, Zentralasien und Ostasien. Sie zeigen, dass der Begriff Religionsbegegnung zwar nicht irrelevant ist, dass aber die jeweiligen Grenzen zwischen Religionen in jedem konkreten historischen Kontext unterschiedlich bestimmt werden koennen. Es muss daher fur jeden Fall genau untersucht werden, was Begegnung fur die religioesen Menschen und Traditionen bedeutet.