Nel 1990 si tenne a Roma il XVI Congresso del I.A.H.R. che ebbe come tema la nozione di "religione". Venne particolarmente analizzato l'uso di tale termine da parte degli studiosi di lingua europea nei rapporti con le culture non europee e viceversa.

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.

A Comparative Study of Religions has been written by a scholar who has occupied himself with the subject of religion for over fifty years. But no finality can be claimed. e reason is that religion deals with what is transcendent in the sense that it deals with what man is going to be. Advaitism terms this futuristic end as becoming Brahman, Jainism as regaining one Ís pristine glory, theists as becoming gold fit for heaven. However, Bergson and other evolutionists would say that religion is a collective and cooperative effort of men to become gods. This simply means the divinising of man what Aurobindo calls 'supermind'. They refer to a state beyond human ills, beyond human infatuation and beyond the befogging of human intellect. This is known in Jainism as sarvajnata. One thing is clear that fighting with other human beings in the name of religion is subhuman. As religious men, we are fellow travellers in the direction of the realm of spirit. Here the nomenclature of Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc., ceases to be meaningful. Of course, we have to go very far and we have not made any beginning yet. However, at present, the advaitic principle of differences Brahman can serve the purpose of harmonizing all religions. Here we have adopted this principle. Secondly, the key concepts of different religions have been shown to mingle with one another.

From Gods, to ritual observance to the language of myth and the distinction between the sacred and the profane, Religious Worlds explores the structures common to all spiritual traditions.

It was Max Müller who coined the famous motto of the comparative study of religion "He who knows one, knows none." Since its first beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, the history of religions has always somehow invoked comparative insights as its very raison d'être. The nature of these insights has been under constant debate and at times, scepticism and devastating critique of the more pretentious comparative projects made regionally specialized studies seem the only legitimate enterprise within the discipline. The fact remains, however, that the major general issues addressed by historians of religions are rooted in considerations of a comparative nature. The dossier of papers from an international conference held at the University of Copenhagen discusses tradition as well as new approaches to the fundamental issues of the aim, scope and validity of comparative studies in history of religions. No longer bound to monolithic visions of history and human nature, these papers critically explore the limits and the roles of comparison in the study of religion.