I understand the issue of the use of terms and how they can be charged for different people or different contexts. Many of my co-practitioners do not define themselves as Buddhist despite taking refuge in triple gem, despite practicing sila, samadhi & panna. Some years ago i relented because it was just much more easier to tell people 'I'm buddhist' or talk with other buddhists. There was at least a frame of reference from which communication could begin. And I figured that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, farts like a duck, then it must be a duck. My co-practitioners who didn't define themselvs as Buddhist, were really just applying a different label to themselves, whether it was 'meditator', 'vipassana meditator', 'old student' or 'not a buddhist'. These days I do use the term 'buddhist' to describe myself with ease having realised that some of my past attitude towards the term was really about some negativity I had.
So again, 'religion' is a term of convenience. As I have mentioned above and elsewhere, it doesn't contain the range and depth of experience that I would like in a term. But the term is a convenient launching place for more meaningful communication.
Good luck with the naming. No doubt it will be a very valuable experience to explore the notions of religion, transcendence and wisdom in depth.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
(Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • •
e: [email protected]