In this paper we are trying to enlighten Corbin's phenomenology by a comparative approach and considering the relations of Corbin's basic problems of phenomenology i.e. " consciousness ","being ","time" and "phenomenology as a method" and those of traditional phenomenology(Husserl and Heidegger). So doing, we will speak of these problems' history in traditional phenomenology and then investigate Corbin's insights in these problems. The conclusion of this comparative approach is clarifying the differences between the two. So it can be said that Corbin's phenomenology is in nature different from what is called phenomenology. In other word its theological schema is so heavy that Corbin's "Tawil" can be hardly same as phenomenology. What is coming is an investigation in the relationships of these problems and what we know about phenomenological tradition.

Various methodologies have been proposed for phenomenology as a qualitative research method. This diversity can be divided into two main approaches: descriptive phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology. In this article, while emphasizing the inseparable link between philosophy and method in phenomenology, an attempt is made to explore the philosophical foundations of hermeneutic phenomenology and to trace this link in the research process. Accordingly, we first refer to the historical contexts of the emergence of phenomenology, and clarify the relationship between hermeneutic phenomenology and descriptive phenomenology, then Through the discussion of the views of Heidegger and Gadamer, it is shown that philosophical foundations in the method of hermeneutic phenomenology play an active role throughout the research process and give structure and direction to how we deal with issues and problems in research. Openness to the phenomenon and being in constant dialogue with it, is the most important feature of this method that as a praxis, from the moment of choosing the subject and encountering the research literature and theories to collecting and analyzing data and writing the research, it is always present and guides in the research.

Most of scientists of religion sometimes consider Chantepie de la Saussaye to be the founder of the phenomenology of religion. This study first explains Chantepie's view of the phenomenology of religion, and while analyzing the phenomenology of Chantepie's religion, which lies between the philosophy of religion and the history of religion, believes that the critique of the phenomenology of Chantepie's religion in general is self-critical. The most important critique of Chantepie's phenomenology of religion is that it did not deal with the essence of phenomena and the nature of religion. His phenomenology is the classification of phenomena with a non-historical perspective. By reflecting on Chantepie’s ideas, this article proves that Chantepie pays attention to the special nature of religion. Contrary to the criticisms leveled at him that his phenomenology is merely descriptive, Chantepie has in fact studied two basic aspects of religion, namely its essence and manifestations. This paper explores and then evaluates this critique, and finally distinguishes that critics measure Chantepie's phenomenology of religion in terms of Husserl's philosophical phenomenology; while Chantepie, by emphasizing ritual phenomena, seeks to understand the nature of religion and the sacred as the essence of religions.

It is more than two decades that some new traditions (other than analytical tradition) have emerged in the philosophy of science. One of these traditions is the hermeneutic phenomenological approach to philosophy of science which is the extension of phenomenological movement in the field of philosophy of science. This article tries to explain the hermeneutic phenomenological approach to philosophy of science، itsrelationship with positivist and post-positivist thoughts and its use in qualitative research. In explaining hermeneutic phenomenology، the views expressed by Professor Patrick Heelan have been used.

“Phenomenology of film” could be defined in the field of philosophy of film, which itself is a growing subfield of contemporary philosophy of art. According to current essay, it is clear that Hermeneutic- Phenomenology, declaring by Heidegger and expanding by Gadammer, has more possibilities for thinking in contrast to the classic Phenomenology, growing by Husserl and many of his followers. Hermeneutic-Phenomenology in the line of the unity of Heidegger’s thought shows the unity of the relations between man and Being in a resonating way. Attending phenomenology of art in Heidegger reveals proper notions (such as world) which could be used for phenomenologically thinking about the truth of cinema. Gadammer, too, applies Heidegger’s phenomenology of art as a model of understanding, but not exactly going on his way. Some inquiries using phenomenology for film theory such as Allan Casebier, Daniel Yacavone and Malin Wahlbergs attempt to show not enough succeed, because of the problems such as lack of illuminating the cinema in itself, lack of paying attention to the cinematic capacities of other theories, and lack of passing the current subjective way of thought. Criticizing many views about Heidegger and film also shows rare attention to the way in which Heidegger suggests to think, and instead using Heideggerian concepts to define cinema. Some of these views including many philosophical essays about thin, red, line are only attempts to show probable philosophical as well as poetic capacities of cinema and not examining and declaring the way these capacities absolutely may be. While some other writers as Robert Sinner brink pay attention to cinematic technique more and try to clear a Heideggerian point of view according to his opinions about technique, arts, poetics, etc.; he also cannot explain how the cinema has the ability to be poetic, while his interpretation about Heideggerian poesies is awfully wrong. But, followingHermeneutic-Phenomenological way to think about cinema, attending inspirations from Heidegger in concepts such as technology, world, Dasein, world-picture etc. helps to enclose the truth of cinema. This essay comes close to cinema in a hermeneutical manner, to see cinema, movie or film -as what it really is – and not from the viewpoint of its theories. Therefore the authors explicated Heidegger’s main viewpoints about Gestell, Gebild etc. and came close to the truth of it. Although this may not be enough, and the cinema should be interpreted according to its history. Finally, using Gadammers term, game, unfolds cinema as a technological world, sharing by both filmmakers and viewers, considering a determinate culture - a definitive world - for ordinary viewers of movies, who look for entertainment in watching motion pictures. This article does not necessarily deny the probable capacity of movies for representing several thoughts and values - regarding Heidegger’s authentic Dasein or world - after the mentioned conditions.

Traditionally, art has been one of the "fundamental issues of phenomenology"; therefore, it can be used as a criterion for the comparison of two kinds of phenomenology. Our task is to juxtapose these two phenomenological approaches with aesthetic criteria. By studying Martin Heidegger's perspective of a work of art (the Greek temple) and comparing it with Henry Corbin / Qazi Sa’id Qumi's insights about an Islamic building (Kaaba), we point out some of the similarities and differences between these two kinds of phenomenology. Then we will conclude that Corbin's phenomenology has been so distant from the phenomenological tradition, that we can call it phenomenology only in a different meaning: and that Corbin's approach is more about Islamic wisdom than traditional phenomenology.

The relationship between Corbin's phenomenology and the traditional phenomenology and his contribution in shaping the phenomenology movement are subjects of discussion that usually has been assumed; And there is no serious investigation in this area; although it can illuminate evaluations about the methodological value of Corbin's investigations in Iranian- Islamic studies.
In this paper, by concentrating on two fundamental problems of Heidegger and Corbin's thoughts i. e. "being "and" time ", we try to approach to a comparative insight about them. Analyzing Corbin's thinking about being and time in relation to Heidegger's thought reveals fundamental gaps between the two, which more than anything origins from Corbin's deep interest in Iranian- Islamic thought.
In this paper, after an analysis of being and time in the philosophy of Heidegger and Corbin, we compared those viewpoints and have shown that the differences between the two, originate from deeper methodological distinctions.

Phenomenology of religion، especially in 20th century، as a method or an approach in study of religion، was applied like a Supplementary method for history of religion to discover a unit “essence” from plural phenomena. On the other hand، for commitment to methodology basics is required _ which is mostly influenced by Edmund Husserl`s phenomenology _ “reality” of religion is considered as an intersubjective reality that is substantively different from theological reality. In this essay، it is attempted to explain the distinction between firstly “essence” and “reality” of religion in phenomenology of religion and secondly phenomenological and theological reality of religion by expressing distinctions and similarities of phenomenology of religion and phenomenology of Husserl. In Conclusion، it is pointed that paying no attention to this important distinction leads to failure in religious studies، including phenomenological studies.