user12949: I want to know that what is Buddhism and is it a religion or just a philosophy or a exercise ?
I really want to know more about it , is there a book about learning Buddhism?

user471: I would say Buddhism is a religion based on this definition of "religion" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
  beliefs, and practices

Buddhism also meets this dictionary.com definition of "religion":

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed
  upon by a number of persons or sects

Buddhism is not a religion based on the definitions of "religion" that depend on God, supernatural power, faith in God or worship.
A classic book for a beginner to read is "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, which can be downloaded here.
Two good beginner articles to read are The Buddha and His Dhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi and An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

user14564: Originally Buddhism is not a religion. Only in the past few hundred years that Buddhism gradually becomes a religion. If we could break from the notions of superstitions, we could actually benefit a lot from learning the teachings of the Buddha, that the principle of Buddhism is to help all beings to resolve delusions to attain happiness and enlightenment, to eliminate suffering, to gain serenity and purity of mind.
Buddhism is the most virtuous and perfect education directed by Buddha Sakyamuni to all sentient beings in the universe. It is an education of the wisdom and understanding of life and the universe. In regards to time, it encompasses the past, present, and future. In regards to space, it encompasses everything from our daily lives to the infinite universe. It is not a religion. If one says the teachings of Confucius concerns one lifetime, then the teachings of the Buddha cover infinite lifetimes.
The Buddha taught us that perfect wisdom and virtue are innate to all beings. The sutras, the recorded teachings of the Buddha, tell us that "all sentient beings can attain Buddhahood." and "every being possess the wisdom and virtuous character of the Buddhas in nature. However, due to our discriminating and wandering thoughts and attachments, which are the root cause of all sufferings and disasters, we have temporarily lost our original Buddha nature. Thus, we continue being born into the endless cycle of birth and death."
The more we rid ourselves of the wandering thoughts and attachments, the more we will experience freedom from suffering, and the more wisdom and enlightenment we will uncover. Once we completely free ourselves from discriminating and wandering thought and attachments (our fixations to certain ideas or objects), we will regain our lost Buddhahood, our original perfect enlightened state, and our self-nature Buddha.
Most importantly, the Buddha introduced to us the Western Pure Land of Amida Butsu (or Amitabha Buddha). This Western Pure Land was created by Amitabha as an ideal place of cultivation for all sentient beings. For those who are born in the Pure Land will no longer be subject to reincarnation within the six realms.  This means once we are reborn in the Pure Land, we will be free from the endless cycle of death and birth. Not only that, we will also attain perfect enlightenment and Buddhahood by hearing the teachings of Amitabha in the Western Pure Land. Buddha Sakyamuni has encouraged us numerous times (mentioned in numerous sutras) that we should make a vow to be reborn into the Western Pure Land by practicing the Buddha-name Chanting method. As we are very lucky to learn about the name of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land in this lifetime, it is very possible for us to achieve perfect enlightenment and Buddhahood in one lifetime.
For those interested, the goal of Buddhism as an education is well explained on this site of What is Buddhism.
​For those interested in the Buddha-name Chanting, here is the simple practice of Amitabha Buddha chanting explained.

user7611: Based on the historical evidence it looks like Buddhism was really the first real complete religion in history contrary to the popular media portrayal or what many of these other answers claim.
There's no scholarly consensus on what defines a religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion).
But looks like almost every post-Buddhist religion in the area was heavily influenced by Buddhism (including possibly Christianity and Islam too)...the Sammasambuddha Gautama originated all types of ideas and concepts influencing everyone around.
Sammasambuddhas are fully enlightened and also the best teachers...they seem to originate religions.
Look at history:

Buddhism originates around the 6th Century BCE
Indo-Greeks (particularly Dharmaguptaka school) spread Buddhism around the world
Concepts found primarily only in early Buddhism start appearing in post-Buddhist Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and other post-Buddhist religions

Buddhism probably also influenced many other religions unrecorded the influence is unknown but Buddhist relics have been discovered in Hellenistic Egypt.
The majority of world religions don't have detailed debates, explanations, rules, and more than 10,000 suttas they are more like vague practices or beliefs and leave a lot of questions unanswered whereas in Buddhism only a few things are unclear or unanswered.
So it's debatable if other religions are really religions rather than just vague beliefs or practices.
It seems more rational to argue that almost every other world religion is not really a religion...there's no real detail or explanation in most religions just vague beliefs and ideas.
The Vinaya contains hundreds of rules seems like nothing like that is found in any pre-Buddhist religion so in reality Buddhism is the first real religion!
Remember Gautama Buddha was a Sammasambuddha who is fully enlightened and also a supreme teacher, his promise as stated in DN 16:

‘Evil One, I will not become fully extinguished until I have monk
  disciples who are competent, educated, assured, learned, have
  memorized the teachings, and practice in line with the teachings. 
Not until they practice properly, living in line with the teaching. 
Not until they’ve learned their tradition, and explain, teach, assert,
  establish, disclose, analyze, and make it clear. 
Not until they can legitimately and completely refute the doctrines of
  others that come up, and teach with a demonstrable basis.’ (DN 16)

A Sammasambuddha is the supreme teacher (the distinction between a paccekabuddha, arahant, and Sammsambuddha).
This is more like the exact opposite of the popular media portrayal clearly showing Buddhism as the first real religion.
This makes Buddhism distinctly different from other religions which aren't really religions but more like vague beliefs or practices...their teachers never claimed to be supreme teachers or to know much and many never explained anything.
The Sammasambuddha Gautama is the real father of all dhammas...you can clearly see from history almost every post-Buddhist religion being influenced by Buddhism.
It amazes me that such a Super-Being existed in human history...

user-1: The answer to this q should be short and sweet.
The primary and agreed upon definition is as follows:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
If you agree with the Buddhist concept that reality is a democracy, then no Buddhism is not a religion. There is no superhuman controlling power, nor gods/goddesses. Unless you count yourself, because the the world is in your mind, and you in the world, in other words you're literally creating everything perceived. But this is stretching the definition, so let's stick with No.
Moving onto the the next most utilized meaning, we find religion is a "Particular system of faith and / or worship". Again, Buddhism does not require faith or worshiping anything. So again, No.
Finally there's religion's ancillary definition, which reads "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". So obviously Buddhism can easily fall under this descriptor, however since the two most popular definitions don't fit in with Buddhism philosophy, the answer remains, No.

user-1: The word "religion" in Latin means "to bind" usually in the context of taking up a practice or being under a contract.  More generally, it refers to binding as in the act of tying or securing.  It's virtually identical to the Sanskrit word "yoga" which literally means to "yoke" as you would yoke an ox to a plow.
Buddhism is almost unarguably a yoga in the Vedic sense.  It is a practice and a rule of training.  For that reason, I would say it is also faithful to the etymology of the word "religion".

user43: Is Agile Software Development a religion? For some people it may indeed look that way... Do you believe in Agile? Do you subscribe to its system of values, its activities, its daily rituals?
Is Ecology a religion? Do you believe in the global warming?
Is democracy a religion? Do you believe in diversity?
Something may feel like a de-facto religion even without the supernatural stuff. Instead, it seems like every time there's an ethical system of sufficient complexity, some people see it as simply the right thing to do and others see it as a religion.
I suppose it has to do with their level of insight into the principles of that system. The clearer the principles are to someone, the less they see it as a religion, and vice versa.
Which means that to whatever degree Buddhism is lost to confusion and superficial parroting, that's the extent to which it becomes a religion.
Just like Agile Software Development, for some people Buddhism simply makes sense, other people find it puzzling just like the outsiders are puzzled with Agile or with Eco-movement etc., and yet other people happily parrot it at the superficial level, without actually understanding its meaning and purpose. For the first group, Buddhism is not a religion, for the other two, it clearly is.

user19759: What people regard as "Buddhism" might be a re-ligion, the again and again falling bond by unskilful identification, good householder.
In regard of what the Sublime Buddha left behind, called Dhamma-Vinaya (not Buddhism), this does actually "Legion" and not re-legion (binding again). It's a legion, one which wasn't one bond before. And to be clear, this legion has also a community, the community of Monks of which is the legion, followed and supported by devoted Lay people who kee this Legion present and alive in the world by material needed means. The Legion, Bound, Sangha and the devoted lay follower forn what is called "Buddha-Parisa" the gathering around the Buddha.
Of what vegetates around outside the Legion, the Parisa, being not this Dhamma-Vinaya, but uses much of that for gains, this is common known as Buddhism, one of the never ending Religions, re-bonds, again ad again.
Books, btw., are not really a means of this Legion, as it requires the bond to teacher on stage, the bond to master, to become part of it. So good to look out for a rightly walking Sangha rather to invest time and effort into gain of books.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

user7309: The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method.
The Buddha's primary insight was acknowledging that all observed phenomena are conditioned and impermanent. This is not a speculation, but an observation. The reasoning then goes through the logical inference of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness, stress/suffering - impermanent things cannot be permanently satisfactory), bringing around the doctrine of non-Self, anatta - which does requires faith in that the direct observation of this truth is only available upon enlightenment, or the ceasing of mental fermentations.
The Kalama Sutta and MN27 offer direct evidence that the Buddha's message was closer to a scientific method than a religion, though one with a soteriological goal.

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.'

(the above does still feature the wise, but not as absolute arbiters of right or wrong actions - that arbiter is solely the individual living his own practice, the wise offer previously gained experience, and are more accurately guides)
The similarities or differences between the modern scientific method and religions in general is what sources they accept for stated truths. Pramanas are a helpful guide for Hindu religions, but can be extrapolated to the Judeo-Christian world a bit. 
Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link. Buddhism does not. Aside from direct perception as in MN27, inference is used in a limited way - as above when going from impermanence to non-Self, an inferred knowledge is gained about the nature of 'things', but this is not directly observed until nibbana, and inferred truths are not given any great weight within the scriptures. In addition, inferred truths can only arise from individually observed principles, so they rest on a base that is less prone to doubt than inferred truths resting on the base of prophetic statements etc.
Faith is required by a person who reads the Dhamma with respect to impermanence, if they at first disagree with it, and later non-Self, because gaining direct insight into this truth takes much more time and practice. Faith, so long as it starts from a verifiable base, is not by definition religious.
If you want the spiritual side, go to the source and read the Pali canon or Agamas (Chinese line), these are the closest you will get to the Buddha's direct words. There is philosophy, to the limit that it is a useful tool for gaining insight into things as they are, more often though it offers more practical lessons helping one aim for pacification of mind.
If you want the philosophy first, read Mulamadhyamakakarika - it is the culmination of Buddhist philosophical analysis. This is written 600-700 years after the Buddha, so is a more rigorous analysis of the above canon's statements on anatta. 
It is, of course, possible to elevate Dhamma, 'things as they are', into a religion, and layties that have accepted Buddhism have often merged their cultural identities with the Buddha's message. But, to quote MN22, which sums up the process: 

“And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose
  burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root …so that it is no longer
  subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one
  whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.
“Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati
  seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.
“So saying, bhikkhus, so
  proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse
  Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’
“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the
  cessation of suffering. If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass the
  Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account feels no annoyance,
  bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honour, respect,
  revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that
  account feels no delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others
  honour, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the
  Tathāgata on that account thinks thus: ‘They perform such services as
  these for me in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.’

Religion - more broadly, any ideology - in my mind, ask for blind faith. The Buddha's message was only about dukkha and how be free of it. His method requires each individual to follow their own path, with an observer verifiable rationale behind it - blind faith never features.

12949: <p>I want to know that what is Buddhism and is it a religion or just a philosophy or a exercise ?</p>

<p>I really want to know more about it , is there a book about learning Buddhism?</p>
 471: <p>I would say Buddhism is a religion based on this definition of "religion" from the <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Merriam-Webster dictionary</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
  beliefs, and practices</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Buddhism also meets <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this dictionary.com</a> definition of "religion":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed
  upon by a number of persons or sects</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Buddhism is not a religion based on the definitions of "religion" that depend on God, supernatural power, faith in God or worship.</p>

<p>A classic book for a beginner to read is <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B008YE8B1E" rel="nofollow noreferrer">"What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula</a>, which can be downloaded <a href="http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/What%20the%20Buddha%20Taught_Rahula.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>

<p>Two good beginner articles to read are <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel433.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Buddha and His Dhamma</a> by Bhikkhu Bodhi and <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">An Introduction to the Buddha, Dhamma, &amp; Sangha</a> by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.</p>
 14564: <p>Originally Buddhism is not a religion. Only in the past few hundred years that Buddhism gradually becomes a religion. If we could break from the notions of superstitions, we could actually benefit a lot from learning the teachings of the Buddha, that the principle of Buddhism is to help all beings to resolve delusions to attain happiness and enlightenment, to eliminate suffering, to gain serenity and purity of mind.</p>

<p>Buddhism is the most virtuous and perfect education directed by Buddha Sakyamuni to all sentient beings in the universe. It is an education of the wisdom and understanding of life and the universe. In regards to time, it encompasses the past, present, and future. In regards to space, it encompasses everything from our daily lives to the infinite universe. It is not a religion. If one says the teachings of Confucius concerns one lifetime, then the teachings of the Buddha cover infinite lifetimes.</p>

<p>The Buddha taught us that perfect wisdom and virtue are innate to all beings. The sutras, the recorded teachings of the Buddha, tell us that "all sentient beings can attain Buddhahood." and "every being possess the wisdom and virtuous character of the Buddhas in nature. However, due to our discriminating and wandering thoughts and attachments, which are the root cause of all sufferings and disasters, we have temporarily lost our original Buddha nature. Thus, we continue being born into the endless cycle of birth and death."</p>

<p>The more we rid ourselves of the wandering thoughts and attachments, the more we will experience freedom from suffering, and the more wisdom and enlightenment we will uncover. Once we completely free ourselves from discriminating and wandering thought and attachments (our fixations to certain ideas or objects), we will regain our lost Buddhahood, our original perfect enlightened state, and our self-nature Buddha.</p>

<p>Most importantly, the Buddha introduced to us the Western Pure Land of Amida Butsu (or Amitabha Buddha). This Western Pure Land was created by Amitabha as an ideal place of cultivation for all sentient beings. For those who are born in the Pure Land will no longer be subject to reincarnation within the six realms.  This means once we are reborn in the Pure Land, we will be free from the endless cycle of death and birth. Not only that, we will also attain perfect enlightenment and Buddhahood by hearing the teachings of Amitabha in the Western Pure Land. Buddha Sakyamuni has encouraged us numerous times (mentioned in numerous sutras) that we should make a vow to be reborn into the Western Pure Land by practicing the Buddha-name Chanting method. As we are very lucky to learn about the name of Amitabha Buddha and the Pure Land in this lifetime, it is very possible for us to achieve perfect enlightenment and Buddhahood in one lifetime.</p>

<p>For those interested, the goal of Buddhism as an education is well explained on this site of <a href="https://amitabha-pureland.wixsite.com/buddhism/goal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">What is Buddhism</a>.</p>

<p>​For those interested in the Buddha-name Chanting, here is the simple <a href="https://amitabha-pureland.wixsite.com/amtb/chanting" rel="nofollow noreferrer">practice of Amitabha Buddha chanting</a> explained.</p>
 7611: <p>Based on the historical evidence it looks like Buddhism was really the first real complete religion in history contrary to the popular media portrayal or what many of these other answers claim.</p>

<p>There's no scholarly consensus on what defines a religion (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion</a>).</p>

<p>But looks like almost every post-Buddhist religion in the area was heavily influenced by Buddhism (including possibly Christianity and Islam too)...the Sammasambuddha Gautama originated all types of ideas and concepts influencing everyone around.</p>

<p>Sammasambuddhas are fully enlightened and also the best teachers...they seem to originate religions.</p>

<p>Look at history:</p>

<ul>
<li>Buddhism originates around the 6th Century BCE</li>
<li>Indo-Greeks (particularly Dharmaguptaka school) spread Buddhism around the world</li>
<li>Concepts found primarily only in early Buddhism start appearing in post-Buddhist Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and other post-Buddhist religions</li>
</ul>

<p>Buddhism probably also influenced many other religions unrecorded the influence is unknown but Buddhist relics have been discovered in Hellenistic Egypt.</p>

<p>The majority of world religions don't have detailed debates, explanations, rules, and more than 10,000 suttas they are more like vague practices or beliefs and leave a lot of questions unanswered whereas in Buddhism only a few things are unclear or unanswered.</p>

<p>So it's debatable if other religions are really religions rather than just vague beliefs or practices.</p>

<p>It seems more rational to argue that almost every other world religion is not really a religion...there's no real detail or explanation in most religions just vague beliefs and ideas.</p>

<p>The Vinaya contains hundreds of rules seems like nothing like that is found in any pre-Buddhist religion so in reality Buddhism is the first real religion!</p>

<p>Remember Gautama Buddha was a Sammasambuddha who is fully enlightened and also a supreme teacher, his promise as stated in DN 16:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>‘Evil One, I will not become fully extinguished until I have monk
  disciples who are competent, educated, assured, learned, have
  memorized the teachings, and practice in line with the teachings. </p>
  
  <p>Not until they practice properly, living in line with the teaching. </p>
  
  <p>Not until they’ve learned their tradition, and explain, teach, assert,
  establish, disclose, analyze, and make it clear. </p>
  
  <p>Not until they can legitimately and completely refute the doctrines of
  others that come up, and teach with a demonstrable basis.’ (DN 16)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A Sammasambuddha is the supreme teacher (the distinction between a paccekabuddha, arahant, and Sammsambuddha).</p>

<p>This is more like the exact opposite of the popular media portrayal clearly showing Buddhism as the first real religion.</p>

<p>This makes Buddhism distinctly different from other religions which aren't really religions but more like vague beliefs or practices...their teachers never claimed to be supreme teachers or to know much and many never explained anything.</p>

<p>The Sammasambuddha Gautama is the real father of all dhammas...you can clearly see from history almost every post-Buddhist religion being influenced by Buddhism.</p>

<p>It amazes me that such a Super-Being existed in human history...</p>
 -1: <p>The answer to this q should be short and sweet.</p>

<p>The primary and agreed upon definition is as follows:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"</p>

<p>If you agree with the Buddhist concept that reality is a democracy, then no Buddhism is not a religion. There is no superhuman controlling power, nor gods/goddesses. Unless you count yourself, because the the world is in your mind, and you in the world, in other words you're literally creating everything perceived. But this is stretching the definition, so let's stick with No.</p>

<p>Moving onto the the next most utilized meaning, we find religion is a "Particular system of faith and / or worship". Again, Buddhism does not require faith or worshiping anything. So again, No.</p>

<p>Finally there's religion's ancillary definition, which reads "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". So obviously Buddhism can easily fall under this descriptor, however since the two most popular definitions don't fit in with Buddhism philosophy, the answer remains, No.</p>
 -1: <p>The word &quot;religion&quot; in Latin means &quot;to bind&quot; usually in the context of taking up a practice or being under a contract.  More generally, it refers to binding as in the act of tying or securing.  It's virtually identical to the Sanskrit word &quot;yoga&quot; which literally means to &quot;yoke&quot; as you would yoke an ox to a plow.</p>
<p>Buddhism is almost unarguably a yoga in the Vedic sense.  It is a practice and a rule of training.  For that reason, I would say it is also faithful to the etymology of the word &quot;religion&quot;.</p>
 43: <p>Is Agile Software Development a religion? For some people it may indeed look that way... Do you believe in Agile? Do you subscribe to its system of values, its activities, its daily rituals?</p>
<p>Is Ecology a religion? Do you believe in the global warming?</p>
<p>Is democracy a religion? Do you believe in diversity?</p>
<p>Something may feel like a de-facto religion even without the supernatural stuff. Instead, it seems like every time there's an ethical system of sufficient complexity, some people see it as simply <em>the right thing to do</em> and others see it as a religion.</p>
<p>I suppose it has to do with their level of insight into the principles of that system. The clearer the principles are to someone, the less they see it as a religion, and vice versa.</p>
<p>Which means that to whatever degree Buddhism is lost to confusion and superficial parroting, that's the extent to which it becomes a religion.</p>
<p>Just like Agile Software Development, for some people Buddhism simply makes sense, other people find it puzzling just like the outsiders are puzzled with Agile or with Eco-movement etc., and yet other people happily parrot it at the superficial level, without actually understanding its meaning and purpose. For the first group, Buddhism is not a religion, for the other two, it clearly is.</p>
 19759: <p>What people regard as &quot;Buddhism&quot; might be a re-ligion, the again and again falling bond by unskilful identification, good householder.</p>
<p>In regard of what the Sublime Buddha left behind, called <a href="https://sangham.net/en/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.intro#intro1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhamma-Vinaya</a> (not Buddhism), this does actually &quot;Legion&quot; and not re-legion (binding again). It's a legion, one which wasn't one bond before. And to be clear, this legion has also a community, the community of Monks of which is the legion, followed and supported by devoted Lay people who kee this Legion present and alive in the world by material needed means. The Legion, Bound, Sangha and the devoted lay follower forn what is called &quot;Buddha-Parisa&quot; the gathering around the Buddha.</p>
<p>Of what vegetates around outside the Legion, the Parisa, being not this Dhamma-Vinaya, but uses much of that for gains, this is common known as Buddhism, one of the never ending Religions, re-bonds, again ad again.</p>
<p>Books, btw., are not really a means of this Legion, as it requires the bond to teacher on stage, the bond to master, to become part of it. So good to look out for a rightly walking Sangha rather to invest time and effort into gain of books.</p>
<p><em>[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]</em></p>
 7309: <p>The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method.</p>

<p>The Buddha's primary insight was acknowledging that all observed phenomena are conditioned and impermanent. This is not a speculation, but an observation. The reasoning then goes through the logical inference of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness, stress/suffering - impermanent things cannot be permanently satisfactory), bringing around the doctrine of non-Self, anatta - which does requires faith in that the direct observation of this truth is only available upon enlightenment, or the ceasing of mental fermentations.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kalama Sutta</a> and <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn27" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN27</a> offer direct evidence that the Buddha's message was closer to a scientific method than a religion, though one with a soteriological goal.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted &amp; carried out, lead to harm &amp; to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.'</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(the above does still feature the wise, but not as absolute arbiters of right or wrong actions - that arbiter is solely the individual living his own practice, the wise offer previously gained experience, and are more accurately guides)</p>

<p>The similarities or differences between the modern scientific method and religions in general is what sources they accept for stated truths. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pramanas</a> are a helpful guide for Hindu religions, but can be extrapolated to the Judeo-Christian world a bit. </p>

<p>Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link. Buddhism does not. Aside from direct perception as in MN27, inference is used in a limited way - as above when going from impermanence to non-Self, an inferred knowledge is gained about the nature of 'things', but this is not directly observed until nibbana, and inferred truths are not given any great weight within the scriptures. In addition, inferred truths can only arise from individually observed principles, so they rest on a base that is less prone to doubt than inferred truths resting on the base of prophetic statements etc.</p>

<p>Faith is required by a person who reads the Dhamma with respect to impermanence, if they at first disagree with it, and later non-Self, because gaining direct insight into this truth takes much more time and practice. Faith, so long as it starts from a verifiable base, is not by definition religious.</p>

<p>If you want the spiritual side, go to the source and read the <a href="https://suttacentral.net/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pali canon</a> or Agamas (Chinese line), these are the closest you will get to the Buddha's direct words. There is philosophy, to the limit that it is a useful tool for gaining insight into things as they are, more often though it offers more practical lessons helping one aim for pacification of mind.</p>

<p>If you want the philosophy first, read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mulamadhyamakakarika</a> - it is the culmination of Buddhist philosophical analysis. This is written 600-700 years after the Buddha, so is a more rigorous analysis of the above canon's statements on anatta. </p>

<p>It is, of course, possible to elevate Dhamma, 'things as they are', into a religion, and layties that have accepted Buddhism have often merged their cultural identities with the Buddha's message. But, to quote <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN22</a>, which sums up the process: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose
  burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root …so that it is no longer
  subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one
  whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.</p>
  
  <p>“Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati
  seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.</p>
  
  <p>“So saying, bhikkhus, so
  proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse
  Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’</p>
  
  <p>“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the
  cessation of suffering. If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass the
  Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account feels no annoyance,
  bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honour, respect,
  revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that
  account feels no delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others
  honour, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the
  Tathāgata on that account thinks thus: ‘They perform such services as
  these for me in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.’</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Religion - more broadly, any ideology - in my mind, ask for blind faith. The Buddha's message was only about dukkha and how be free of it. His method requires each individual to follow their own path, with an observer verifiable rationale behind it - blind faith never features.</p>
