In Buddhism refuge is taken in the Buddha (ultimate authority), the Dharma (the nature of reality or metaphysics), and the Sangha (tribe).

Fits the ppp perfectly.

I haven't argued against the idea that some individual's regard for Buddhism is to some extent influenced by subjective feeling. In fact, in my opinion, that has been the obstacle all along. I've not denied the lack of objectivity. Indeed, I've alluded to it on several occasions, only to be attacked for doing so with claims that I'm baiting or trolling.

But surely you are trolling. Why keep sniping away when you already agree that whether Buddhism is a religion is a matter of definitions? We all agreed about this days ago.

In Buddhism refuge is taken in the Buddha (ultimate authority), the Dharma (the nature of reality or metaphysics), and the Sangha (tribe).

reply="praxis;466844"]

It would be impossible to know what the Buddha's teachings mean without knowing they are true, so the word 'authority' here should be treated with caution. Clearly Buddhists believe he knew his onions, but most of them are still in the process of discovering what they mean. When they discover this, they will know whether he was an authority. . .

only to be attacked for doing so with claims that I'm baiting or trolling. — praxis

Dear mods, could you please close the forum and erase all the backups so that praxis will have to infect some other site? Thank you!

Well, almost. You are not claiming to be an authority, a leader, a teacher etc. Should you ever do so I will visit your Walgreens and subject you to a ceaseless barrage of annoying customer complaints — Hippyhead

Such is life in a scientific and capitalistic America. And yes: a lot of it is really recognizing the limitations of whatever we're attached to, and going beyond it.

Maybe we should thrash this one out properly on a separate thread. — FrancisRay

I don't know. It may insert something good into the Philosophy or Religion thing. I'm not keen the dichotomy, but it seems to be useful for some to whatever extent (I'm mostly just concerned with the way it limits our own understanding, application, or even treatment of practice). And really: over and over your posts are suggesting that I probably don't understand metaphysics; like with koans, it's not because you said I'm wrong, but because what you're saying is going beyond my understanding. So my inference is that I don't understand it fully!

It seems that a theme over the past couple of days for me is that we all have our logical ways of thinking, and although they aren't ultimately a refuge they can be useful, but our own attachment to our own views may lead us to just throw out all other considerations out the window. It seems that certain logical approaches, theories, or whatever you want to call them, are like mathematical formulas we don't understand. If we don't understand them, of course we won't be able to use them properly and we might dismiss them as utterly useless.

So I think it would be good to clear up confusion in that area.

In Buddhism refuge is taken in the Buddha (ultimate authority), the Dharma (the nature of reality or metaphysics), and the Sangha (tribe). — praxis

Perhaps questionable in the language, but not totally wrong. Those are the external refuges, and the externals ultimately can't be relied on. Therefore we must also take refuge in the inner Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. That is, we take refuge in awakening, truth, and integrity (noting there is no single correct interpretation of this, it usually falls somewhere along those lines). Ajahn Lee offers some really interesting words on that, where actually each refuge is in a way pointing to the same thing, just from a different angle (and after all it is in reference to a multifaceted gem).

That is, we take refuge in awakening, truth, and integrity (noting there is no single correct interpretation of this, it usually falls somewhere along those lines). — TLCD1996

In truth it’s authority, metaphysics, and solidarity. If it were otherwise Buddhism would have been abandon centuries ago, because out of the millions of practitioners there are only 7 known successes stories, only 7 Buddha’s. No one would use a “medicine” that has such an infinitesimal cure rate unless the medicine fulfilled some other need.

In truth it’s authority, metaphysics, and solidarity. If it were otherwise Buddhism would have been abandon centuries ago, because out of the millions of practitioners there are only 7 known successes stories, only 7 Buddha’s. No one would use a “medicine” that has such an infinitesimal cure rate unless the medicine fulfilled some other need. — praxis

No, no, no! There's much more. Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Sao, Ajahn Khao, Ajahn Maha Bua, Ajahn Thate, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Khinaree, Ajahn Tongrat, Ajahn Pannavaddho, Ajahn Liem (a recent example)... Xuyun from the Chinese tradition... these are some examples of "success stories", or even just great teachers. You're probably not interested but if anyone else is, their stories and teachings are there.

these are some examples of "success stories", or even just great teachers. — TLCD1996

So not much difference between the cessation of sufferings or Buddhahood and a great teacher? And what’s the difference between the 7 Buddha’s and those you mention?

I don't know a whole lot about the other Buddhas, but so the theory goes: a Buddha is an Arahant, one who has put an end to their suffering, but by their own efforts without any guidance on the eightfold path. Those other Buddhas, or the future Buddha to be, would only arise after a "Buddha era" has passed (when the dhamma teachings have disappeared in the world), however I have heard that private Buddhas may arise, particularly in very special circumstances (and they don't teach). Non-buddhas who are awakened are called Arahants.

The names I listed refer to those who have been suggested to have reached a certain level of awakening. Since a vinaya rule forbids against speaking of one's attainments, these Ajahns have not declared themselves arahants, though in a controversial event Ajahn Maha Bua did (I think somewhat indirectly; maybe others have as well, but not to my memory). And beyond these people, of course the Buddha had his Arahant disciples.

Any way, in the circumstances we are in, lay followers are not expected to worship teachers. Many due do, particularly in Thailand, however from what I've seen and heard (edit 2: and experienced!!!), respecting teachers comes from faith and observations/experiences of their conduct. There does not seem to be an established sort of "guru" treatment where the Guru is supposed to be treated like a God or supreme being. Many forest teachers I'm aware of discourage speculation regarding attainments, emphasizing observation and reflection over their teacher's conduct.

I don't know a whole lot about the other Buddhas, but so the theory goes: a Buddha is an Arahant, one who has put an end to their suffering, but by their own efforts without any guidance on the eightfold path. Those other Buddhas, or the future Buddha to be, would only arise after a "Buddha era" has passed (when the dhamma teachings have disappeared in the world), however I have heard that private Buddhas may arise, particularly in very special circumstances (and they don't teach). Non-buddhas who are awakened are called Arahants.

The names I listed refer to those who have been suggested to have reached a certain level of awakening. Since a vinaya rule forbids against speaking of one's attainments, these Ajahns have not declared themselves arahants, though in a controversial event Ajahn Maha Bua did (I think somewhat indirectly; maybe others have as well, but not to my memory). And beyond these people, of course the Buddha had his Arahant disciples. — TLCD1996

So, a few more than 7 but still an infinitesimally low number, and the 7 did it on their own? The efficacy of the teaching is appalling. Point is, if it were about awakening, truth, and integrity, as you say, then it seems like the best course would be to abandon the teaching and search for a better way.

Refuge in authority, metaphysics, and solidarity would be consistent with the results.

Any way, in the circumstances we are in, lay followers are not expected to worship teachers. Many due, particularly in Thailand, however from what I've seen and heard, respecting teachers comes from faith and observations/experiences of their conduct. There does not seem to be an established sort of "guru" treatment where the Guru is supposed to be treated like a God or supreme being. Many forest teachers I'm aware of discourage speculation regarding attainments, emphasizing observation and reflection over their teacher's conduct. — TLCD1996

Buddha is the ultimate authority in Buddhism.

Point is, if it were about awakening, truth, and integrity, as you say, then it seems like the best course would be to abandon the teaching and search for a better way. — praxis

I'm good lol. Since a lot of the efficacy of Buddhism actually lies within us (hence the purpose of inner refuges), and since the origin of suffering also lies within us, Buddhists (at least the ones I know and learn from) believe that if something isn't working, it's best to look inward rather than outward. Sometimes new teachings or perspectives can help (if they don't confuse us even more), but often we don't need to look that far for solutions, we just need to let go of the problems inside. If we do that, outside problems don't really matter that much, because we have our inner refuges; it doesn't matter if people around us aren't enlightened, because at least we have a good means of finding ease for ourselves. The decision to not care so much about the (non-)enlightenment of our teachers can lead to a great deal of self-confidence.

we don't need to look that far for solutions, we just need to let go of the problems inside. If we do that, outside problems don't really matter that much, because we have our inner refuges; it doesn't matter if people around us aren't enlightened, because at least we have a good means of finding ease for ourselves. — TLCD1996

Buddhism is about the cessation of suffering and not merely finding inner ease. There are secular ways of finding ease for ourselves that doesn’t rely on externalities.

Buddhism is about the cessation of suffering and not merely finding inner ease. There are secular ways of finding ease for ourselves that doesn’t rely on externalities. — praxis

The cessation of suffering is the foremost ease, because it is unconditioned. Given that it is reached by means of the eightfold path, which itself is conditioned and without a doubt bound with happiness (to be found within the results virtue, concentration, and insight), the path to the end of suffering is a path of gradually refined happiness. Secular means are not mutually exclusive from this and could fall under the category of virtue (e.g. right livelihood means we take on a means of gaining a livelihood which is virtuous and blameless). Even so, this still has its sources within, because it is by our own understanding and effort that we adopt, maintain, and refine such a livelihood. That's Right Effort: to abandon the unskillful, prevent the unskillful from arising again, cultivate the skillful, and maintain the skillful. Skillful, being a translation of kusala, can also be synonymous with "wholesome", which may illustrate to some the extent to which the term is related to well-being.

Noting that Right effort falls under the category of concentration and precedes right mindfulness and follows right livelihood, there is a connection between one's virtuous action/livelihood and one's ability to cultivate right effort and maintain a focused attention on the aspects of our experience that are pertinent to the path (satipatthana, namely). And given that right mindfulness precedes right concentration which is defined as jhana (which are in turn progressively refined states of well-being devoid of the hindrances), we can trace deep inner ease straight to our actions. And given that concentration precedes knowledge and vision which precedes dispassion and release, we can also trace release to our actions.

So it all starts with our actions. Thus another notable aspect of the Thai Forest tradition is an emphasis on practical applications of the teaching in daily life, that is, our virtue (sila), but to support (not to discount) the other factors. Thus the "vinaya" of "dhammavinaya" is absolutely crucial and Buddhism is not merely a matter of faith, yet nonetheless practice is motivated by faith.

Buddhism is not merely a matter of faith, yet nonetheless practice is motivated by faith. — TLCD1996

No one has claimed that it’s only faith. Not sure what that even means.

No one has claimed that it’s only faith. Not sure what that even means. — praxis

Even so, some people may feel uncomfortable having faith in something they don't know. Sometimes the issue of faith weighs over their minds; maybe they forget about the teachings of insight, or maybe they have something against faith. People who tend to equate religion to something like "all faith and no reason" may be inclined to think that Buddhism is a matter of faith, perhaps faith in the Buddha as a savior or even rituals as a savior. Maybe they have the wrong idea that their practice entails absolute faith right from the get-go with no questions asked regarding basic principles, their teachers, or the Buddha.

In such a scenario it might be helpful to remind them that actually, you start right where you are; practice according to your understanding, ask questions, and learn from the results of your practice. Thus faith is to be exercised and examined, the result being understanding, which increases faith - not just in the teachings, but one's own efforts and ability to affect good and bad qualities within.

No one has claimed that it’s only faith. Not sure what that even means.
— praxis

Even so, some people may feel uncomfortable having faith in something they don't know. Sometimes the issue of faith weighs over their minds; maybe they forget about the teachings of insight, or maybe they have something against faith. People who tend to equate religion to something like "all faith and no reason" may be inclined to think that Buddhism is a matter of faith, perhaps faith in the Buddha as a savior or even rituals as a savior. Maybe they have the wrong idea that their practice entails absolute faith right from the get-go with no questions asked regarding basic principles, their teachers, or the Buddha. — TLCD1996

As I've pointed out, considering the extremely dubious success rate of the cessation of suffering everyone should seriously question their faith in Buddhism, from the get-go to wherever they are. As I've said, inner ease that doesn't rely on externalities can be had via secularity.

should seriously question their faith in Buddhism, — praxis

Totally.

Seriously questioning one's faith in Buddhism is a really good part of the practice. I've done it a good few times. It's a pretty natural aspect of having faith. I think it's actually one way to know you're learning. And after a crisis, one may find that their intention is even stronger and more clarified.

I'm wondering what kind of inner ease which doesn't depend on externals but can be found via secularities are you referring to?

To those interested

I've arrived at, what to me is, an interesting and also profound conclusion. First things first, "religion", is the wrong word and, dare I say, the prolonged, anticlimactic, ongoing discussion proves this point. "Religion" - the word - is, even if intepreted in the most charitable manner, actually a layman's approximation, liable to be misunderstood in every way imaginable. The word, "religion", is a slippery customer and just won't cut it if we're to answer the question in the OP in a meanignful way.

What are our options here then? This question has an answer that's so obvious that it slips under our radar with ease. The answer, the alternative, is philosophy. If there's anyone at all that can come up with the term that fits the bill insofar as my inquiry is concerned, it's got to be a philosopher worth faer salt.

To cut to the chase, let's look at some philosophical terms that the man on the Clapham omnibus knows like the back of his hand viz. theism and atheism.

The term theism derives from the Greek theos or theoi meaning "god" or "gods". — Wikipedia, Etymology Of Theism

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that religion when put under the well-trained philosopher's micrcoscope reveals its true form, its essence as it were, and that, as the chosen etymology proves, is that religions are about gods - beings as such, usually with the responsibility of both generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation.

Buddhism has no god or gods. Before you raise the objection that there are gods in Buddhism, remember Buddhist gods aren't the source of our morals; in fact they differ from us only in terms of how happy they are and how long they live - basically they're extremely long-lived, extremely happy versions of humans and that's just sad if anything.The Buddha, for some reason, for better or for worse, kept a close and careful watch over his metaphysical claims - I suppose he tried his best to keep the metaphysical content of now his philosophy rather than religion to a bare minimum.

What say you? :chin:

I think that quote could be used to suggest that Buddhism is not (a)theistic, and although concepts in general may seem to be slippery in some ways, it seems that one could call Buddhism a religion:

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. — Wikipedia

Or a philosophy, albeit with a certain twist:

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. — Wikipedia

Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements and so you could say it's both (though some people may really be insistent on placing it under one label and sticking with it). But if you consider the cultural origins of the terms (my knowledge is limited but it seems they were in use long before The West came into contact with The East), it might be worth considering that Buddhism is neither (opting for Dhammavinaya).

I'm wondering what would be the intention behind such a categorization, though; it seems like that would play a role in coming to something of a conclusion. Why are we stuck on these two terms if they both seem to be inadequate?

Or a philosophy, albeit with a certain twist:
Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
— Wikipedia

Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements — TLCD1996

Then Buddhism studies, is concerned with worldly affairs, and doesn't contain truths but only theory.

Then Buddhism studies, is concerned with worldly affairs, and doesn't contain truths but only theory — praxis

Yes, usually academic studies on Buddhism are focused more on theory (even perhaps theory of practice). Schools usually aren't teaching you how to practice dhamma, to my understanding. But is it worldly? I think that would depend on the content. I've never taken a Buddhist studies course so I wouldn't know for sure.

"Worldly" in Buddhism refers to concerns/intentions with worldly affairs such as gains, honor, fame, pleasure, etc. at their heart. If these things are used in accordance with the path, though, they're headed in the direction of "living in the world, but not of it."

You misunderstand, no philosophy teaches truth, it studies fundamental questions, etc, so to say that Buddhism is philosophy is to say that it does not teach the truth but merely theorizes.

You misunderstand, no philosophy teaches truth, it studies fundamental questions, etc, so to say that Buddhism is philosophy is to say that it does not teach the truth but merely theorizes. — praxis

Well, the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth; if you teach about that, you're teaching the truth (until you start saying things that undermine the path to that cessation of suffering). Therefore Buddhists may say that a class teaching about Buddhism is teaching about things which are true, to a greater or lesser extent. After all, even dry theory can be used as a starting point for practice (but it's difficult).

You seem to make an interesting point that since Buddhism doesn't only theorize and proclaims to teach truth, perhaps it is not a philosophy at its heart; a philosophy class which teaches of Buddhism would undermine its claim to truth and render it a philosophy which is only theory. Right?

But to say Buddhism "incorporates" philosophy may be rephrased: Buddhism contains elements which would render it similar to a philosophy such as an attempt to answer questions and provide a framework for thinking and practicing. But in other ways it departs, such as the incorporation of devotional practices or practices which are neither devotional or thought-based, and the formation of community).

Well, the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth; if you teach about that, you're teaching the truth (until you start saying things that undermine the path to that cessation of suffering). — TLCD1996

Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible.

Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible. — praxis

In what way would one show that something is true philosophically?

Thank you for the definitions of religion and philosophy.

Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements and so you could say it's both (though some people may really be insistent on placing it under one label and sticking with it) — TLCD1996

I think you're spot on. What is intriguing here is that no religion, save Buddhism, shares this quality, the quality of being, in one sense, a religion, and in another sense, a philosophy.

Dhammavinaya — TLCD1996

What's that?

I'm wondering what would be the intention behind such a categorization, though; it seems like that would play a role in coming to something of a conclusion. Why are we stuck on these two terms if they both seem to be inadequate? — TLCD1996

My intent here is twofold:

1. Answer the question that I posed in the OP viz. is Buddhism a religion or philosophy? This so that we can clear up the misconception that people have regarding Buddhism that shows in attitudes captured by statements like, "Buddhism is just another religion." or "Buddhism is my religion", etc. Buddhism is so much more, a conclusion you, yourself seems to have arrived at in our discussion.

2. By acheiving 1, to expose, perhaps "reveal" is a better word, the, now, patent, truth that philosophies that are geared toward answering one of the top questions in philosophy viz. "what is the good life?" eventually become religions, religions in the sense of the definition you provided. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that what are actually philosophies get lumped in with what are true theistic traditions, mainly the Abrahamic triad. This is a grievous error with what are truly horrible consequences - for instance Buddhism can become, has been, both a perpetrator and a victim of religious violence. The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean.

Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible.
— praxis

In what way would one show that something is true philosophically? — TLCD1996

What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience. Apropos...

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that religion when put under the well-trained philosopher's micrcoscope reveals its true form, its essence as it were, and that, as the chosen etymology proves, is that religions are about gods - beings as such, usually with the responsibility of both generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation. — TheMadFool

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that “generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation” don’t need to be... Godified. What matters is that it comes from an authority with supernatural access to this knowledge/experience.

You know that karma/postmortem rebirth are integral to Buddhism, right?

The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

Not at all, Aristotelianism, Humanism, and Schopenhauerism do not rely on an authority with access to supernatural knowledge/experience.

What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience. — praxis

Yet Buddhism doesn't really fall neatly into this either. Of course some Buddhists may do this, but accepting the Buddha's words as absolute truth would bar development on the path; having rigid and unchanging preconceptions about anything in practice limits one's capabilities and often sets up many obstacles along the way (in the form of ideas), thus viewpoints aren't necessarily to be "accepted" as they are "respected" and agreed upon, but tested along the way and abandoned when necessary. This is for the sole purpose of coming to the Buddha's insights into the Four Noble Truths (as accepted possibilities built on the assumption that "suffering arises and ceases therefore there must be a cause and an ability to understand suffering and that cause, and supposing the cause is a matter of habit then the cause can be abandoned"), which aren't in any way supernatural (if I understand the word and its usage correctly). Although the Buddha is said to have built upon the merit accumulated through past lives (which can be called supernatural), what he really did was exercise Right Effort, which is what we are able to do as well (which may explain why a Buddha is an Arahant but an Arahant is not necessarily a Buddha).

On that note rebirth is accepted similarly, not as an absolute but as a possibility (and for different reasons). Same with karma, however research of the suttas and practice itself should yield an understanding that karma isn't totally supernatural at all; karma is literally "intention" (cetana) that yields corresponding results, not just in terms of rebirth but also worldly results and mental results. It's a complicated web of cause and effect wherein there is a distinction between "Wholesome" (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion) and "unwholesome" (greed, hatred, delusion), the understanding of which is resultant of making the delineation and testing it through cultivation of the former sort and thorough investigation of both intention and consequence.

The result of holding to a view but being able to question it while putting it into practice is that one is able to investigate it in a manner not necessarily limited to debate or pondering, so that one may come to a personal understanding of it.

Saying this, going back to what I said about a class teaching about Buddhism: That such a class would be teaching "truth" is a matter of my own conviction and perhaps the conviction of other Buddhists; along similar lines I was once told to be mindful of how one treats a collection of suttas because "they're the truest teachings you'll ever hold"; yet this was not necessarily to be accepted immediately as an unquestioned order (authority may imply absolute power). It's not necessarily meant to say that they are teaching something which is absolutely true on that grounds that it is Buddhism, but rather that a Buddhist would declare it truthful teaching based on the extent to which it describes the Buddha's positing of suffering, an origin, a cessation, and a way leading to cessation. This point is mostly of interest to practitioners, I think, but would be illustrative of faith as a kind of confidence and trust, which is said to be deepened by the aforementioned realizations gleaned by personal investigation. And in that sense, going back to inner refuges, the authority would be those insights, particularly the insights which actually result in abandonment of the causes of suffering (and the fetters of becoming which are bound with a certain level of ignorance and craving). The dhammavinaya is, in a sense, not just prescribed but realized and strengthened in those insights.



I talked a bit about dhammavinaya here and there in the thread, but basically it's what the Buddha called his dispensation: dhammavinaya, teaching/doctrine and discipline. The teachings being the four noble truths, khandhas, three characteristics, dependent origination, etc., and the discipline being that which comes as both cause for and result of understanding doctrine. In the vinaya you have rules against violence and killing, among other things, and these disciplinary constraints are deemed essential for the refinement of virtue (particularly the 5 precepts) which is in turn deemed essential for the development of concentration and wisdom. Thus the dhammavinaya is a threefold training in virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and it's something of a feedback loop where wisdom nourishes virtue and so fourth. Maybe one could call it a discipline built on an acceptance (but not an absolute or incontrovertible acceptance) of the teachings.

By acheiving 1, to expose, perhaps "reveal" is a better word, the, now, patent, truth that philosophies that are geared toward answering one of the top questions in philosophy viz. "what is the good life?" eventually become religions, religions in the sense of the definition you provided. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that what are actually philosophies get lumped in with what are true theistic traditions, mainly the Abrahamic triad. This is a grievous error with what are truly horrible consequences - for instance Buddhism can become, has been, both a perpetrator and a victim of religious violence. The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

Are you saying that the intention is to try and illustrate how Buddhism can shift (or has shifted) from Philosophy to Religion?

What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience.
— praxis

Yet Buddhism doesn't really fall neatly into this either. — TLCD1996

You wrote:

the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth — TLCD1996

You are saying that what he found was the truth. Are you saying now that what he found may be false?

which can be called supernatural — TLCD1996

You agree that it can be called supernatural.

So in all honesty, Buddhism does meet these criteria.

No and no.

Please define supernatural.