" Buddhist is a form of philosophy nevertheless most people consider it as a form of religion. As far as I concerned, I would say, "It is neither philosophy nor religion." Buddhism is Buddism itself, it could not be defined as anything else. Buddhism is neither Theism nor Atheism. It refers to neither God nor Gods. On the other hand, it did not say God doesn't exist either. Anyway it is not mainly focusing on that phenomenon instead it focuses on, "Braking thru illusion then we see reality." It teaches us how to have good living (being) and understand the world as reality. What is the reality then? According to Buddhism stand point, what that we see around us is not real, it is only perception therefore reality is beyond perception. Perception deludes us to illusion. Illusion is normal state of the mind that percieves the world around us. To brake through illusion, we need to understand basic concept of nature which part of it was found by Buddha, the great philosopher. To say, Buddism is one of the way to enlightenment. "

As we can look at most religion, it grounds on faith other than reason. On the other hand, the interesting thing about Buddhism is that it is different. In Buddist's Doctrine, reason comes before faith. The great one, the Buddha, said that when one listens to him one does not have to believe what he said, instead one listen then one have to think before make up any conclusion by oneself. Therefore to consider one as a real Buddist, one must know that reason comes before faith.
For me, Buddhism is a rational religion and as rational as scientific thought. Around 2500 years ago ( the same time as Socrates of the Western, and the former of Taoism in China Lao Zhu we can refoer to as the first axail age, of course, refers to the period approximately 500 B.C., spread two or three hundred years in either direction, in which the world had seen, in succession, the appearance of famous philosophic giants), the Great Buddha was trying to find so-called universal truth of mankind which he found The Four Facts of Change at first as the base of the Buddist thought. The first of all is the fact that we, humans, have to be born or the birth. Second, we are growing and getting older as the time goes by. This change naturally changes us physically and mentally. Third, change because of illness. This change bring suffer and sorrow to us mankind. The last is the death which we all have to face. All these four facts of changes is undeniable to us mankind.From The Four Facts of Change, the Buddha set it as the basic concept of Buddist Doctrine. He stated that all things are uncertain to us and especially us mankind.

To deeply view throught the Four Facts of Change in Buddhist standpoint, we have to understand to concept of emptiness. Heart Sutra, term of emptiness is most important whose deep meanings are incalculable. Heart Sutra thus: "Form or corporeality is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form: and so on." To say, Form is emptiness, and emptiness is indeed form, emptiness is not different from form, form is not different trom emptiness. What is form that is emptiness, what is emptiness that is form. Like change, what is change really? How can one know that there is such a change? Is what we face fact or illusion? What is emptiness? How does one define emptiness? What is form? How does one define it?
Buddhist define emptiness as a state of one's mind. Once one's mind is empty then one can know the world clearer, deeper, and better. In contrast, if there are so many things in one's mind just like a teacup which is filled with tea. How can one get some more new things into one's mind without emptying out the old things? Just like, how can one fills more tea into the teacup which is already filled up? Emptiness is the space that we use to fill more things. That is one of the most important of Buddhist concept. One might empty out one's mind by meditation which is the greatest tool used by the Buddha.
According to emptiness or nothing of Buddist Doctrine, it is the same concept as zero concept which was discovered in India prior to the sixth century A.D. It was utilized in Arabia where algebra and logarithm developed and arrived in Europe in the thirteenth century A.D. to further develop mathematics as we know it today. Although it is acknowledge and emphasized that the zero simplified calculation and recording processes, replacing the abacus, there are little, if any, allusions to the value and strength of the zero in an equation as depicting the foundation of mathematical thinking. My personal feelings on the matter is that the discover of the zero- concept in the mathematics is not simply a shift in the calculation proces from the abacus but that a deeper meaning lies in the fact that, philosophically, the equation expresses man's fundamental mode of thinking, i.e., it reveals, as it is, the nature of the structure of the mind- base. Put it another way, the zero-concept does not simply refer to nullity or nothingness but, most significantly, because of it, everything is possible and, contrarily, if it were not present nothing would materialize. Thus, it is extremely important to recognize this realiaztion of the mind-base.
Buddhist philosophy and, at the same time, express the standpoint of that epistemology based on the realization of the mind-base. More specifically, it means that without form, there would be no epistemic function of feelings, imagery, and so forth. And vice versa, without the epistemic function of feelings, imagery, and so forth, there would be no form. Philosophy is the pursuit of many diverse ways of thinking, man's ideas, and, in this sense, it is the science of ideas. To be sure, man's way of thinking will differ in accordance with differences based on history, environmental conditions, and cultural tradition. Contemperary Western philosophy, especially existentialism, has come quite close to Eastern views on the philosophy of human nature, in the function of epistomology.In other word, the realization of 'emptiness' was lacking, and the situation remained similar to the period prior to the discovery ot the Comprehensive must be considered a great advancement, but it fell short of the Eastern concept of emptiness as it still carried the notion of an ontological being and could not rise above the currents of Western thought.
In this situation, the zero is never meant as a nonbeing (nothingness). In other words, the emptiness of prajna-intuition and the discovery of the mathematical zero concur in that they are dichotomous opposition between being and nonbeing.