why is buddhism not always thought to be a religion?

Whether Buddhism is a religion or not really depends how you define 'religion'. Buddhism is not a religion if you define religion as relating to God. Buddhism is a religion if you define religion as dealing with transcendence, or absolutes.

Buddhism is unique among the world's major religions in that it doesn't fit into any Western categorisation well. It has philosophical aspects. It has psychological aspects. It has religious aspects. It has educational aspects. It has cosmological aspects. It has moral aspects. You might choose to focus on just one of those aspects if you have an agenda, but you deny the true scope of Buddha's teachings. Take it for what it is: an anomaly that resists attempts at classification.

Buddhism has no central deity or supreme being as the creative and judging force behind the manifestation of all that exist and so it is considered by most to be a lived philosophy.

Buddhism only has two direct teachings, i.e., the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path, and each has the option of choosing to follow the same or not, just as each may add his or her own personal understanding of the true nature of reality (and should add their own understanding).

No god, no dogma, no tenets, no judgment and no condemnation usually means no religion.

namaste

This is a good thing, because it is not. It is freer, more, well, 'casual' than other philosphi/religious attempts. What status does 'religion' get you anyway? Responsible for most of the war and violence over hundreds of years?

Criteria are a hooded robe and charisma.

dw