/
Search results


Самарина Т. С. Методологические основы религиоведческого исследования в концепции Фридриха Хайлера // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2013. Вып. 1 (45). С. 57-67.
PDF
The issue of methodology in the study of religious phenomena appears as problematic to those Russian experts who deal with the scientific study of religious phenomena. On the other hand, western European researchers have already made much positive progress in this direction. This article attempts to define the principles which guide the scholar in the study of religion as found in the work of the renowned German scholar Friedrich Heiler. The author’s starting point is Heiler’s fundamental concept which permeates all his work and is most clearly defined in his last monograph: «Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion». Heiler gives several pointers to students of religion: attention to detail, a fi rm grounding in the core matter of the object to be studies, and at the same time a comprehensive and panoramic view of religion and religious phenomena as a whole. The author concludes that Heiler’s protracted study of both Christianity and the Eastern religions led him to regard the phenomenological method as the most eff ective. The author presupposes a negative reception of this method by Russian students of religious phenomena due to the fact that the latter are too unfamiliar with Heiler’s work and conclusions.
Ф. Хайлер, Н. Зёдерблом, И. Вах, сравнительное религио- ведение, феноменология религии, психологическое религиоведение, феномено- логический метод, методология религиоведения, теология, религиозный опыт, молитва, священное.
1. Vinokurov V. V. 2010. Struktura svjashhennogo mira v fenomenologii religii Fridriha Hajlera (The Structure of the Sacred World in F. Heiler’s Phenomenology of Religion). Puncta, no. 9, pp. 175-177.
2. Davydov I. P. Sovremennye problemy metodologii religiovedenija (Contemporary questions of the methodology of the religious studies), available at:www.sfi.ru/statja/sovremennye-problemy-metjdologii-religiovedenija
3. Dzhejms U. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta (The Varieties of Religious Experience). Moscow, 1993.
4. Kabo V. Proishozhdenie religii: Istorija problem (Origins of the Religion: History of the problematics), available at: http://aboriginals.narod.ru/origins_of_religion10.htm
5. Krasnikov A. Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedenija (Methodological problems of the Religion). Moscow, 2007.
6. Pylaev M. A. Kategorija «svjashhennogo» v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka (Category of the “Sacred” in the 20 c. Phenomenology of Religion, Theology and Philosophy). Moscow, 2011.
7. Pylaev M. A. Zapadnaja fenomenologija religii (Western Phenomenology of Religion). Moscow, 2006.
8. Alles G. D. 2010. After the Naming Explosion: Joachim Wach's Unfinished Project. Hermeneutics, Politics, and the History of Religions, pp. 51-78
9. Misner P. (Hrsg). Briefwechsel, 1909–1931: Friedrich von Hügel — Nathan Söderblom — Friedrich Heiler. Paderborn, 1981.
10. Heiler F. Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion. Stuttgart, 1961.
11. Heiler F. Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung. München, 1920.
12. Heiler F. Die Buddhistische Versenkung. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. München, 1918.
13. Pye M. 2010. Friedrich Heiler. Klassiker der Religionswissenschaft, pp. 277-289.
14. Schimmel A. 2005. Friedrich Heiler. Encyclopedia of religion 6.
15. The future of religion: An Inerview with Ninian Smart, available at: http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/smart.html
16. Waardenburg J. 1992. Friedrich Heiler und die Religionsphänomenologie — eine kritische Würdigung. Marburger  Universitatsreden, no. 93, pp. 27-51.
Самарина Т. С. Фридрих Хайлер и психология религии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2014. Вып. 4 (54). С. 83-96. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201454.83-96
The author examines the work of the celebrated German religious researcher Friedrich Heiler in relation to the problematic surrounding the psychology of religion. Heiler himself subtitled his first classic work, Prayer , with the words a study of religious-history and of religious-psychology . This presumably meant that he considered himself a student of the psychology of religion. The author contrasts Heiler’s ideas on this subject with those put forward by his contemporaries, all of whom studied the psychology of religion: William James, Evelyn Underhill, and Sigmund Freud. The author’s analysis reveals that Heiler was very familiar with the studies produced by several early students of the psychology of religion: Leub, Starbuck, and Sabbate. He often employs them to glean examples for his own research but does not take any of them seriously. James’ division of religious believers into the twice-born and the once-born has similarities with Heiler’s own types of mystic and prophetic religiosity. There are also many similarities between the theory of mystical ascension proposed by Evelyn Underhill and the examples of religious mysticism proposed by Heiler. While analyzing the phenomenon of matrimonial mysticism, Heiler often refers to elements of Freud’s psychoanalysis, thinking it adequate to explain certain erotic elements inherent in religious reflection, but at the same time, unable to explain the religious phenomenon on the whole.
Friedrich Heiler, William James, Evelyn Underhill, Sigmund Freud, the phenomenology of religion, the psychology of religion, religious experience

1. Dupré L. 2005 “Mysticism” in: Encyclopedia of religion, Thompson Gale, 20052. vol. 9, pp. 6340–6354.
2. Heiler F. Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung, München, 19213.
3. Heiler F. 1954 “Der Gottesbegriff der Mystik” in: Numen: International review for the history of religions, 1954, vol. 1, pp. 161–183.
4. Heiler F. Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion, Stuttgart, 1961.
5. Pfister O. Bankrott eines «Apostels»: eine vorläufige Schlußabrechnung mit dem Ex-Sadhu Sundar Singh und Prof. Dr. Friedrich Heiler,Görlitz, 1928.
6. Anderhill Je. Misticizm: Opyt issledovanija prirody i zakonov razvitija duhovnogo soznanija chelovechestva in: http://psylib.org.ua/books/andev01/txt08.htm.
7. Dzhejms U. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta (The Varieties of Religious Experience), Moscow, 1993.
8. Meshherjakov B. G., Zinchenko V. P. Bol'shoj psihologicheskij slovar' (Big Psychological Dictionary), Moscow, 2002.
9. Samygin S. I., Nechipurenko V. N., Polonskaja I. N. Religiovedenie: sociologija i psihologija religii (Religious Studies: Sociology and Psychology of Religion), Rostov, 1996.
10. Tereza Avil'skaja. Vnutrennij zamok (Teresa of Ávila The Interior Castle), Moscow, 1992.
11. Flurnua T. 2008 “Principy religioznoj psihologii” (Principles of Religious Psychology) in: Religo: Al'manah Moskovskogo religiovedcheskogo obshhestva, Moscow, 2008, vol. 1/1, pp. 203–222.
Самарина Т. С. Из истории исламоведения: А. М. Шиммель и классическая феноменология религии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2017. Вып. 71. С. 89-103. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201771.89-103
This article analyses key works of the well-known classic of Islamic studies A.-M. Schimmel and demonstrates that in her legacy the methodology of classical phenomenology of religion has found its fresh application to the study of Islam. The article focuses on essential points of A.-M. Schimmel’s biography that had infl uenced her academic career, and then analyses her phenomenological approach showing how she builds a system of description of Islam by means of systematising religious phenomena that proceeds from external forms (material objects) to the centre of religion, God. Phenomenological analysis of Islam provides a base for comprehensive understanding and description of religious phenomena, starting from the perception of stone, holiday, clothes, myth in minds of ordinary Muslims. Schimmel’s phenomenological approach to Islam takes into account the specifi city of lived religion prior to the emergence of this trend. A.-M. Schimmel’s legacy therefore fits in the context of contemporary religious studies. The second part of the article examines the influence of leading scholars in phenomenology of religion (Mircea Eliade, Gerardus van der Leeuw, Friedrich Heiler) on A.-M. Schimmel. It is concluded that the positive reception of her work among scholars of Islam and among Muslims themselves suggests that the language of the phenomenological description is the language of religious dialogue.
phenomenology, religious studies, Islam, mysticism, A.-M. Schimmel, M. Eliade, G. van der Leeuw, F. Heiler

Die Religionen der Menschheit in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Stuttgart, 1962.
Eliade M., Aspects du mythe, Paris, 1963.
Eliade M., Aziatskaia alkhimiia, Moscow, 1998.
Eliade M., The Myth of the Eternal Return: Cosmos and History, Princeton, 1971.
Heiler F., “Der Gottesbegriff der Mystik”, in: Numen: International review for the history of religions, I, 1954, 161–183.
Heiler F., Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung, München, 1920.
Heiler F., Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion, Stuttgart, 1961.
Wedemeyer C., Doniger W., eds., Hermeneutics, Politics and the History of Religions, Oxford, 2010.
Leaman O., “Deciphering the Signs of God: A Phenomenological Approach to Islam by Annemarie Schimmel”, in: British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 23, 1 (May, 1996), 96–97.
Leeuw Van der G., Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Religion, München, 1925.
Leeuw Van der G., Phänomenologie der Religion, Stuttgart, 1956.
Leeuw Van der G., Religion in Essence and Manifestation, Princeton, 2014.
Librande L.T., “Deciphering the Signs of God: A Phenomenological Approach to Islam by Annemarie Schimmel”, in: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 64, 3 (1996), 672–674.
Hall D., ed., Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice, Princeton, 1997.
Mahmutcehajic R., Bosnia the Good: Tolerance and Tradition, Budapest, 2000.
Mehdi I., “Annemarie Schimmmel: On Deciphering The Signs Of God”, in: Iqbal review: Journal of the Iqbal Academy Hyderabad, 12, 2, Nov., 2003, available at: URL: http://www.jaihoon.com/349.htm
Mujiburrahman, “The Phenomenological Approach In Islamic Studies: An Overview of a Western Attempt to Understand Islam”, in: The Muslim World. 91, 3–4, 2001, 425–449.
Nasr S. H., The Need for a Sacred Science, New York, 1993.
Netton I. R., “Deciphering the Signs of God: A Phenomenological Approach to Islam by Annemarie Schimmel”, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 6, 3, 1996, 418–420.
Otto R., Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen, Breslau, 1917
Pylaev M. A., Zapadnaia fenomenologiia religii, Moscow, 2006.
Martin R. C., ed., Rahman F., Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies: Review Essay in Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Oxford, 2001, 189–202.
Samarina T. S., “Fenomenologiia religii F. Khailera”, in: Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Seriia 7, 2, 2016, 22–33.
Schimmel A.-M., A life of learning, New York, 1993.
Schimmel A.-M., As Through a Veil: Mystical Poetry in Islam, New York, 1982.
Schimmel A.-M., Das Thema des Weges und der Reise im Islam, Düsseldorf, 1994.
Schimmel A.-M., Deciphering the Signs of God: A Phenomenological Approach to Islam, Albany, 1994.
Underhill E, Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness, New York, 2002.
Waardenburg J., “Islam. Historical, social, and political perspectives”, in: Religion and reason, Berlin, 2002.
Waardenburg J., „Islamisch-Christliche Beziehungen. Geschichtliche Streifzüge“, in: Religionswissenschaftliche Studien, Band 23, Echter; Würzburg, 1993.
Wheeler B. M., “Deciphering the Signs of God: A Phenomenological Approach to Islam by Annemarie Schimmel”, in: History of Religions, 36, 3, 1997, 283–285.
Samarina Tat’iana
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 12/1 Goncharnaia, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation;
Email: email: t_s_samarina@bk.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Самарина Т. С. Дизайнерский проект феноменологического понимания религии: компаративистика Ф. Макса Мюллера // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2018. Вып. 78. С. 121-131. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201878.121-131
This article provides grounds for the idea that the comparativist project of F. Max Mueller had laid the foundations of phenomenology of religion. Max Mueller formalised the general principles of the new science of religion, having taken away the straightforward apologetic content from the comparative principle and defending the idea of existence of religious studies as an independent discipline, the subject of which is religion itself, the task of a religious scholar being to see religion through the eyes of a believer. In all religions, Max Mueller saw a certain hidden unity; it is the presence of this unity that had been making possible the translation from the language of one culture into the language of another. Max Mueller follows Schleiermacher asserting the existence of the primordial sense of the Infi nite that underlies any religion. According to Mueller, religious comparativism should serve the purpose of updating Christianity; the latter should not be the dominant religion but a new religion expressing all religions of mankind simultaneously. It is the comparativism that came to be the methodological ground for phenomenology of religion. The article draws the conclusion that the comparativist project of F. Max Mueller contained the main features of the future phenomenology of religion, namely empathy, the idea of deep unity of religious traditions, the practice of religious comparative studies, hidden theological background.
Friedrich Max Mueller, Friedrich Schleiermacher, phenomenology of religion, comparative religious studies, empathy, intention
  1. Allen D. (2010) “Phenomenology of religion”, in: The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion: 2nd Edition, 2010, pp. 203–224.
  2. Chaudhuri N.C. (1974) Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor the Rt. Hon. Frederick Max Müller. London.
  3. Heiler F. (1921) Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung. München.
  4. Heiler F. (1926) Christlicher Glaube und Indisches Geistesleben: Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya, Sadhu Sundar Singh München.
  5. Heiler F. (1967) “Meine ökumenischen Begegnungen“, in Vom Werden der Ökumene: Beiheft zur Ökumenische Rundschau, no. 6.
  6. Krasnikov A. N. (2007) Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedeniia [Methodological Problems of Religious Studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Kristensen W. B. (1960) The Meaning of Religion. The Hague.
  8. Leeuw G. (1933) Religion in Essence & Manifestation: A Study in Phenomenology. New York.
  9. Molendij k A. L. (2016) Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East. New York.
  10. Müller F. M. (2017) “The Comparative Study or Religion”, in Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion: Aims, Methods, and Theories of Research. Introduction and Anthology: 2nd Edition. Berlin, pp. 87–93.
  11. Paden W. E. (2010) “Comparative Religion”, in The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion: 2nd Edition, pp. 225–242.
  12. Roscoe P. (2009) “The Comparative Method”, in The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. New York, pp. 25–46.
  13. Ryba T. (2006) “Phenomenology of Religion”, in The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. New York.
  14. Samarina T. S. (2017) “Fenomenologiia religii i filosofskaia fenomenologiia” [Phenomenology of Religion and Philosophical Phenomenology”]. Voprosy filosofii, 2017, vol. 4, pp. 61–71 (in Russian).
  15. Sharpe E. J. (1965) Not to Destroy but to Fulfil: The Contribution of J. N. Farquhar to Protestant Missionary Thought in India before 1914. Uppsala.
  16. Shokhin V. K. (2016) Filosofskaia teologiia: dizainerskie fasety [Philosophical Theology: Designers’ Facets]. Moscow (in Russian).
  17. Strenski I. (2015) Understanding Theories of Religion: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. New York.
Samarina Tatiana
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9888-0872;
Email: t_s_samarina@bk.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Самарина Т. С. Об историографии феноменологии религии: критический эскиз // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2019. Вып. 82. С. 131-141. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201982.131-141
This article continues the discussion initiated by M. A. Pylaev in № 80 (2018) of St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies. Taking into account historical data, this article proposes to distinguish: 1) phenomenology of religion in its proper sense which was shaped within the Dutch tradition and whose aim was to study and systematise religious phenomena, this systematisation being carried out with no relationship to the question about the essence of religion (with no religious study in the fi eld of philosophy), 2) the second tradition (noumenological) that is primarily typical of the German phenomenology of religion, where the study of religion was carried out on the principle of considering the phenomenon in its relationship with its essence. This article analyses the tropos of the “theological subversion” of phenomenology created in Russian religious studies as well as the statement that phenomenology of religion came to be marginal (theological) religious studies sui generis, which does not accord with the opinion of the most part of foreign historians of religious studies, who claim that phenomenology of religion has for a long time been not marginal but, in fact, the only form of religious studies per se.
phenomenology of religion, religious studies, theology, comparative religious studies, history of religious studies, Friedrich Max Mueller
  1. Allen D. (2010) “Phenomenology of Religion”, in J. R. Hinnel (ed.) The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. 2nd Edition. London; New York, pp. 203–224.
  2. Alles G. (2010) “The Study of Religions: the Last 50 Years”, in J. R. Hinnel (ed.) The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. 2nd Edition. London; New York, pp. 39–55.
  3. Bleeker K. (2014) “Fenomenologicheskii metod” [Phenomenological Method]. Religiovedcheskie issledovaniia, vol. 1–2 (9–10), pp. 41–59 (in Russian).
  4. King R. (1999) Orientalism and Religion. Postcolonial Theory, India and ‘The Mystic East’. London; New York.
  5. Krasnikov A. (2004) Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedeniya [Methodological Problems of Religious Studies]. Blagoveshchensk (in Russian).
  6. Kristensen W. (1960) The Meaning of Religion. Hague.
  7. Leeuw G. van der. (1933) Religion in Essence and Manifestation: A Study in Phenomenology. New York.
  8. Molendij k A. (2016) Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East. New York.
  9. Molendij k A. (2005) The Emergence of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands. Leiden.
  10. Paden W. (2010) “Comparative Religion”, in J. R. Hinnel (ed.) The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. 2nd Edition. London; New York, pp. 225–242.
  11. Patton K., Ray B. (2000) “Introduction”, in K. Patton, B. Ray (eds.) A Magic Still Dwells: Comparative Religion in the Post-Modern Age. Berkeley.
  12. Pylaev M. (2018) “Prolegomeny ko vsyakomu budushchemu religiovedeniiu, mogushchemu vozniknut’ v kachestve hristianskogo religiovedeniia” [Prolegomena to any Future Religious Studies that may Appear as Christian Religious Studies]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 80, pp. 119–126 (in Russian).
  13. Roscoe P. (2006) “The Comparative Method”, in R. A. Segal (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. New York, pp. 25–46.
  14. Ryba T. (2006) “Phenomenology of Religion”, in R. A. Segal (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. New York, pp. 91–122.
  15. Samarina T. (2017) “Fenomenologiia religii i fi losofskaia fenomenologiia” [Phenomenology of Religion and Philosophical Phenomenology]. Voprosy filosofii, vol. 4, pp. 61–71 (in Russian).
  16. Samarina T. (2018) “Dizainerskii proekt fenomenologicheskogo ponimaniia religii: komparativistika F. M. Miullera” [Designer Project of Phenomenological Understanding of Religion: F. M. Mueller’s Comparativism], in: Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 78, pp. 121–131 (in Russian).
  17. Shokhin V. (2018) “Opredeleniia misticheskogo: pervyi opyt ekspozitsii” [Definitions of the Mystical: the First Experience in their Exposition]. Filosofiia religii, vol. 1, pp. 7–29 (in Russian).
  18. Strenski I. (2015) Understanding Theories of Religion: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York.
Samarina Tatiana
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9888-0872;
Email: t_s_samarina@bk.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Самарина Т. С. Мистицизм и рациональное в наследии Р. Отто // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2020. Вып. 90. С. 68-84. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202090.68-84
This article addresses the legacy of Rudolf Otto, the most famous German phenomenologist of religion. First of all, it characterises his critics and shows that they all find the religious theory of R. Otto and his concept of mystical experience built around a religious experience that departs from rational schemes, which indicates its link to the psychological description of religious experiences by W. James. Further, referring to the works of R. Otto Kantisch-Fries’sche Religionsphilosophie und ihre Anwendung auf die Theologie: zur Einleitung in die Glaubenslehre für Studenten der Theologie (1909), Das Heilige (1917), and West-Östliche Mystik: Vergleich und Unterscheidung zur Wesensdeutung (1926), the article refutes claims of these critics. The article also examines Otto’s comparative analysis of the two mystics: the Indian philosopher Shankara and the German mystic Meister Eckhart. Otto observes that the numinous aspect, imposed on the metaphysical systems of Shankara and Meister Eckhart, turns the metaphysical systems into mystical. The article examines the methodological question of R. Otto if it is possible to speak of mysticism as a whole and discusses his division into two types, i.e. the mysticism directed inward, and mysticism directed outward. Besides, the article raises the question of to what extent it is possible to consider Otto a follower of F. Schleiermacher. It is concluded that Otto’s system cannot be called irrationalism; on the contrary, he sharply opposes all forms of irrational knowledge that reduce all religious life to emotions and experiences.
phenomenology of religion, religious studies, comparative religion, mysticism, metaphysics, irrational, R. Otto, Shankara, M. Eckhart, I. Kant, J. Fries
  1. Barnes L. (1994) “Rudolf Otto and the Limits of Religious Description”. Religious Studies, 30 (2), p. 219‒230.
  2. Frolov A. (2011) “Germenevticheskie podstupy k Sviashchennomu R. Otto” [Hermeneutical approaches to the Sacred by R. Otto]. Filosofiia religii. Al’manakh 2010‒2011 [Philosophy of Religion: Almanac 2010‒2011]. Moscow. P. 429‒442 (in Russian).
  3. Isaeva N. (1991) Shankara i indiiskaia fi losofi ia [Shankara and Indian philosophy]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. James W. (1993) The Varieties of Religious Experience. Moscow (Russian translation).
  5. Kant I. (1965) Die Metaphysik der Sitten. Moscow (Russian translation).
  6. King R. (2013) Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and “The Mystic East”. New York.
  7. Krasnikov A. (2007) Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedeniia [Methodological problems of religious studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Meister E. (1991) Predigten. Moscow (Russian translation).
  9. Meister E. (2001) Von Abegescheidenheit. Moscow; St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
  10. Nosachev P. (2018) “Mnogoobrazie misticheskogo: «mistika» i «mistitsizm» v zapadnom ezoterizme kontsa XIX — nachala XX veka” [The varieties of the mystical: “mystic” and “mysticism” in the Western Esotericism of the late 19th — early 20th centuries]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, 2(1), p. 5‒29 (in Russian).
  11. Otto R. (1920) Das Heilige. Breslau.
  12. Otto R. (1926) West-östliche Mystik: Vergleich und Unterscheidung zur Wesensdeutung. Gotha.
  13. Otto R. (1936) The Idea of the Holy. London.
  14. Otto R. (1988) Aufsätze zur Ethik. München.
  15. Otto R. (2008) Das Heilige. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
  16. Pylaev M. (2000) Fenomenologiia religii Rudol’fa Otto [The phenomenology of religion of Rudolf Otto]. Moscow (in Russian).
  17. Pylaev M. (2006) Zapadnaia fenomenologiia religii [Western phenomenology of religion]. Moscow (in Russian).
  18. Schmidt E. (2013) “The Making of “Mysticism” in the Anglo-American World: From Henry Coventry to William James”, in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Christian Mysticism. Malden. P. 452‒472.
  19. Shokhin V. (2016) “Filosofskaia teologiia i promezhutochnaia versiia ishvaravady” [Philosophical theology and the intermediary version of Īśvaravāda]. Voprosy filosofii, 9, p. 138‒147 (in Russian).
  20. Shokhin V. (2017) “Real’nost’ i «zapakh real’nosti»: advaita na puti k stratifi katsionnoi ontologii. Shankara. Brakhmasutra-bkhash’ia. Chkhandog’opanishad-bkhash’ia”. Perevod s sanskrita i primechaniia V. Shokhina [“Reality and “a Smell of Reality”: Advaita on the Way to a Stratifi ed Ontology”, Shankara, “Brahmasutra Bhashya”, “Chandogyopanishad Bhashya”, translation and commentary by V. Shokhin]. Voprosy filosofii, 10, p. 182‒198 (in Russian).
  21. Shokhin V. (2018) “Opredeleniia misticheskogo: pervyi opyt ekspozitsii” [Defi nitions of the mystical: the first experience in their exposition]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, 1 (1), p. 7–29 (in Russian).
  22. Stace W. T. (1961) Mysticism and Philosophy. London.
  23. Strenski I. (2015) Understanding Theories of Religion: An Introduction. Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
  24. Taves A. (2009) Religious Experience Reconsidered, A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton.
  25. Vysheslavtsev B. (1928) “R. Otto West-Ostliche Mystic”. Put’, 13, p. 106‒109 (in Russian).
  26. Waardenburg J. (2010) Reflections on the Study of Religion: Including an Essay on the Work of Gerardus van der Leeuw. Vladimir (Russian translation).
Samarina Tatiana
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9888-0872;
Email: t_s_samarina@bk.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
Самарина Т. С. Нейронаука и религиозный опыт: границы интерпретации // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2023. Вып. 107. С. 146-152. — Rev. op.: McNamara P. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Religious Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. 264 p.
PDF
Samarina Tatiana
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9888-0872;
Email: t_s_samarina@bk.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.