^
However, I still stick with the assertion of it being a spiritual path, but not necessarily "religious." It's very individualized, which to me is the opposite of how I think of organized religion.
Then we come back to the definition of "religion", which is variable; the defniitions posted by Devil, for me, are not complete. For me, religion in its essence IS spirituality. That is the core of every religion: personal experience, individual transcendence. The very word Religion can be traced back etymologically to mean re-bonding; and that would be, re-bonding with the essence of life, which is internal; thus all religion starts with spirituality.
Because that re-bonding experience is too abstract for most people, all kinds of beliefs, customs, traditions are pasted on top of that core experience, and thus we have the superimposition of
externalised religion, which is what most people understand under the definition.
In effect, it's hard to discuss Eastern religions with Westerners, since there are certain pre-conceptions and presumptions that are immediately latched onto the Eastern principles, which simply don't hold true.
I'm not a Buddhist but I have occasionally visited the Buddhist temple north of London for meditation, and I know many Buddhists and it's always a joy to see the core correlation between Buddhism and Hinduism, and for that matter Taoism. All of these religions are built on the assumption that man has to turn inwards to find Truth; that God is not some white-bearded entity sitting up in heaven judging us but right here and now, within consciousness itself; that consciousness itself is the key to religion. That heaven and hell are all in the mind.
As I understand it, it's a religion that was built off a philosophy. One can practice either, though the religion is specifically at odds with some of the philosophical underpinnings. Like most religions.
My bold.
This is the difference between Eastern and Western "philosophies". Eastern philosophy, or teaching, is based on
practice, ie, direct experience; turning the mind within to find the truth of one's own being. It's not conjecture or cognitive; and approaching it from a purely rational, analytic (Western!) mindset is futile. Somebody who merely talks philosophy wothout trying to actually
practice it is, in Eastern religions, just playing mind-games. You have to go there. You can't just talk about it. That's why I mostly keep away from the god-threads!
The reason I say this is the fundamental belief that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, who is known in Hindu religion to be the god of all gods. Even though the Buddhists don't believe in the plethora of the Hindu gods, they believe in Vishnu and that Buddha was his most enlightened, spiritual form in which he bore all truths.
Hindus believe that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, like Rama and Krishna and the others. This is a
Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one. Then again, Vishnu himself is not God. The idea that Hinduism has many gods is just another Western misconception. In the final analysis Hinduism too teaches that there is nothing outside consciousness; that God, the self and the universe are all nothing but consciousness. The many gods, the rituals, the various manifestations of religions are all only props, which help the mind to turn away from the material and to the spiritual. Once it can do that unaided, once it is strong and unwavering, the props are unnecessary. Till then, they are helpful.