Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy?

Whether or not Buddhism is a morality revolves around the contestation of whether or not it is a school of thought instead. This presents myriad problems of logic, as as yet the translations of religion and ism atomic number 18 themselves a point of contestation. There is the school of thought that defines religion as a belief system, a firm ascription to a set of rules and extremity truths that thitherfore make religion of whatever kind dogmatic. To use this definition is to make Buddhism anything but a religion, as Buddhism essentially discourages any virtuoso of rigidity in any belief system.It even does not advocate the supremacy of its own doctrines the 4 noble truths, the 5 Skandhas, the eight-fold path. There are no parameters. The early(a) thought line on religion defines it as a search for transcendence a quest for an existence, purpose and say-so higher than oneself, as advocated by the likes of Karen Armstrong. In this wizard, Buddhism is a religion because it gossipks to roleplay those who practice it to a new, profound realization of themselves and the world around them to see the world as it is, which is the Buddhist idea of realization.This probably explains wherefore there are quite a number of brands of Buddhism. Still, others wonder wherefore anyone should be distinguishing between religion and philosophy. According to some, this distinction is a plumb new phenomenon, as recent as the 18th century. Throughout history, it is argued, philosophy and religion slang been intertwined take Platos Euthyphro for example. In it, the virtue of morality is inextricably argued from a standpoint of what the gods believe is right or wrong, even though the whole discourse follows logic.Similar observations can be made in the Epistles of Apostle Paul in the New Testament. Distinguishing the two, it is said, betrays our own biases rather than clarifies things. Dogmatism v. rationality In following up on the more popular definition of religi on being a set of beliefs, and consequently inherently dogmatic, religion has been criticized as being irrational that one is required to have combine in absolute truths that not notwithstanding make little sense to him, but provide no means by means of which they can be proven factual or otherwise.I this sense, religion is superstitious and irrational, throwing a pull into attempts at objective human reasoning. Religions after all, have been the source of the superior conflicts in world history, more fierce than quests for imperialism or economic dominance. In contrast to religion by popular definition, Buddhism encourages objective discourse through reason in a quest for truth, i. e. it is philosophy, just like Plato and Aristotle practiced it.This is however complicated by the fact that tour some brands of Buddhism, such as Zen, do not ascribe to a deity, others actually do have absolute truths. But then again this might only fuel the argument that it is not a religion, seeing as there is no unifying commonality as is common in other religions Christ in Christianity, Mohammad in Islam, etc. Mysticism Allowing someone to give away their own truth wherever they will is to tell them that whatever rush will take you to your destination, and most Buddhist practices have inevitably cease up in mysticism.Hence, when one asks what Buddhism is, in many cases they are told that they have to experience it, as words cannot sufficiently explain it. This trait is inherently religious rather than philosophical. In the latter, one must be unambiguous, while in the former, things like faith, revelation and prophecy are cornerstones. Being mystical, therefore gives Buddhism the appearance of religion rather than philosophy. All in all, I figure Buddhism is what one makes it.