Buddhism is not a religion

The word “religion” is a teaching term based on a sect, and I remember hearing that it was originally a word referring to Buddhism.

It probably means that there are religions with teachings that worship the object of worship, and there are also religions that practice ascetic practices aimed at searching for the truth or enlightenment.

Postscript 9th (Sun)
Excuse me,
If you look at the thank you comment section, it seems that the theme has deviated from the first question.
The content is very interesting, and it's a waste,
Why don't you ask new questions?

Kisui-sama

This is Kawaguchi Hidetoshi. This is my humble answer to the question.

Certainly, there are a number of clear points in Buddhism that are different from other religions. Denial of the Creator, empty views, etc.

Furthermore, Buddhism is not just about believing, and as it is also called “self-lighting,” one must actually walk that path, the path of Buddhism.

As often stated by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his puja, “We should not accept the teacher's teachings with only respect, but we should also accept the teacher's teachings in such a way that goldsmiths carefully examine whether the money they handle is real or fake by burning, cutting, and polishing that money,” and it is something I want to proceed with confidence while firmly examining each teaching critically, rationally, and logically I'll do it.

Kawaguchi Hidetoshi Gassho

This is because the word religion is originally a Buddhist term. It's a word that can also be found in old scriptures.
It's not that Buddhism isn't a religion, but “the image of the word religion has changed” since religion was applied to the translation of religion in the 20th century.
The original meaning of religion is “teaching.”

Please pass on this kind of thing to future generations.

appending

Buddhism has gods. This is Tenbu. Tenbu are the Vedic gods in India, and there are 8 million gods in Hinomoto.

> Using mantras (makoto)
without incident
Don't beg
Something to have is good, at least
You should give everything of yourself
Precisely because of these three things
Hitohito to the Gods
Get closer
(Tomomatsu translation “Hakkyu Sutra” 224)

These are the words of the Buddha in the Primitive Sutras. Certainly, faith in God is not central to Buddhism. However, the Buddha mentioned the gods over and over again, not limited to this one.
The appeal of Buddhism is the “breadth of the bosom,” and the characteristic of Buddhism is the “middle path.” Extreme ideas such as whether to blindly believe in God or completely deny it are attitudes that are most contrary to the Buddha's teachings.

Also, because of “the breadth of his pocket,” “he sometimes denied faith, sometimes recommended faith, and preached his teachings according to the other person's point of view” is the Buddha's “anti-aircraft sermon.” And sects are an extension of that.

Among them, “Buddha denied God. The best way to learn is to patchwork by cutting out only a part, saying “those who affirm distort the Buddha's teachings,” and above all else, it is the way to learn that distorts the Buddha's teachings.
Unfortunately, the trend of being cool if you only criticize it like that became popular in the latter half of the 20th century... Unfortunately, it's better to get rid of all the books you own right now. It is a product of the Last Law.

I read your question.
As a side note, as Gan Honshi says, the Japanese word “religion” originally means “teaching” of “sect,” which means truth, and Professor Nakamura Hajime points out that it comes from Buddhism.
However, it was adopted and used as a translation of “religion” at the end of the Edo period. “Religion” means “connecting God and people,” so as you say, Buddhism is excluded from the meaning of the word religion used today. Actually, it seems that Buddhism is not viewed as religion in America.

Apart from that, the only thing that bothered me since the previous question is that passages and ideas from the Mahayana sutras are quoted as arguments to talk about Buddhist thought in its entirety.
I have no intention of demeaning or accusing you, but I'm sorry if you made me feel bad.
Of course, the Mahayana sutras are also Buddhist sutras, and I think they show the ideas of Shakyamuni. Also, there is nothing wrong with treating the Mahayana Sutra as an individual belief or using the Mahayana Sutra as an argument when talking about Mahayana Buddhism, saying “What is Mahayana Buddhism?”
However, there is still a problem when talking about Buddhist thought in general, “What is Buddhism?”

There are still differences of opinion among scholars as to whether there is continuity or disconnection between early Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism, but as a common understanding, the Mahayana Sutras were established far behind the early scriptures such as the Pali Five, and they are not treated philologically as Shakyamuni's words. Since the early sutras are thought to have been established 100 years after Shakyamuni's death, it is impossible to say that all of them are direct accounts of Kaneguchi, and places where teachings from the outside world are mixed have also been pointed out. Nevertheless, since there are no other sutras that were established ahead of time, the early sutras are far superior as an argument for talking about Buddhist thought in general.

The monks answered in this hasunoha answer questions related to Buddhist thought and Buddhist studies while taking that point as an assumption, with some consideration.
Excuse me, but in your case I felt like that wasn't taken into account at all.
Because of that, you can feel confused about the answering monk's answer, and you probably felt that you didn't mesh with yourself.
If you take that into consideration, I think the exchange will be more consistent.
I'm sorry for the rude answer, but I would appreciate it if you could give it some thought.

appending
There is a character limit, so please ask a new question.

That's because the English word “religion” and the Japanese word “religion” have different meanings. So it's natural for Westerners to say “Buddhism is not a religion.” That's because “religion” in English means “connection with God.”

appending
I'm sorry for bothering you, but please excuse me for talking just a little bit. In reply to Mr. Daiji, “It seems that Japanese Buddhism allows denial of “reincarnation,” which is the root of Buddhism.” However, reincarnation is not at the root of Buddhism. It is a Brahmin ideology that has existed since before Buddhism.
The Buddha preached against chance, so in order to get rid of the other person's suffering and worries, he preached using the reincarnation story to someone who should have preached using the reincarnation story, and preached without using it to someone who should preach without using the reincarnation story.
I think what was important for the Buddha was to save the person in front of him from suffering, worry, and despair, and have them live positively.

appending
If you're not negative about Brahmanism, Buddhism wouldn't have been born in the first place. I'm glad the Buddha also stayed in the Brahmin religion. The Buddha denies Brahmin religion, although not everything. For example, they also advocate equality in relation to the caste system. However, if you simply deny it, no one would listen to people who had a preconceived idea of Brahmanism at the time. Therefore, I explained Buddhism to people in an easy-to-understand manner, saying that the true Brahmin is this kind of person.
Also, for people who are likely to have prospects, I recommend that they practice ascetic practices, leaving the next life unrecorded.
It seems that they think that if they deny reincarnation, they have no choice but to die, but that's not the case, and the Buddha's stance is basically that you should learn by practicing while you are alive. However, they also talk about the afterlife, such as reincarnation, to people who are unlikely to be able to do that, and they are explaining that they can walk a better path.
In other words, depending on your partner, there are cases where you dare to explain reincarnation, and there are also cases where you don't dare to explain it. I think the Buddha's aim goes further than that.