Is Buddhism religion or a philosophy?

I keep seeing this type of question in a Facebook Buddhism group that I'm not very active in, and since an answer doesn't really fit in a post comment I'll write a longer one-page version with my own opinion.  To skip ahead to the answer:  to me Buddhism isn't a religion or a philosophy, it's something closer to a practical version of psychology.  Some context applies before getting to that part though. 

I tend to agree with a lot of other answers that come up in Buddhism groups, but the form and tone of those vary a lot.  Input written in a form closer to a koan (logic puzzle) seems less practical, to me.

Of course Buddhism is also a religion; I'm part of a Thai Buddhist family now, living in Bangkok, and there are monks and temples around.  I ordained as a Thai Buddhist monk here once for two month, and was married in a Buddhist religious ceremony.  To be clear this post isn't supposed to be about self-promotion; I wrote about those subjects, so I'll mention them here, but this is about explaining my general understanding of Buddhism.  I studied some philosophy and religion in degree programs too, but I'm not positioning myself as some sort of subject expert here; I'm just interested in Buddhism.

right after the ordination ceremony (with more on that experience here)

my son once spent two weeks as a novice monk once too (which I wrote about in my tea blog)

As I'm taking the question the title question is really asking something else, more specific, if Buddhism at its core, or as the Buddha taught and intended it, is one of these things over the others.  Any answer would be speculation; it would involve that given person's ideological preference and personal understanding.

At this point some Buddhists reading this might naturally claim that Buddhism isn't an ideology, it's more a methodology, a reductive sort of approach to human experience, so it's not fair to call interpretation of the ideas an ideology.  That matches up with my take.  That also folds in some bias for how the ideas are arranged, regardless of how categories work out, so one has to be careful with that sort of line of reasoning. 

Maybe it works to "sweep away" the framework of the ideas by setting them aside as they are practiced and have fulfilled their function, but it's not clearly a given.  Maybe Buddhism is really an odd form of experiential process or approach that tidies up lots of surplus of other ideas, framing, preconceptions, and assumptions, but to some extent that could also be part of an ideology, even if someone is sure they experience it as something else.


Let's back up a bit, and cover how I'm using terms and categories. 

Religion is designed to explain things using variations on conventional forms, first causes (what made the universe), after life schemes (where do we go when we die), metaphysical structure (is there a permanent soul or not), and so on.  Morality / ethical codes factor in; that's essentially always a core component.

a Thai wedding ceremony.  there were monks chanting in a different part.

Philosophy is something else; it uses ideas to examine human worldviews and forms of perception, and essentially assumes that reason can sort things out, to some degree.  Even in forms where reason isn't assigned some all-illuminating role it's still reason that's describing the usefulness and limitations of reason, for example in relation to other aspects of experience (about direct experience, tied to causal issues and themes, framing meaning--whatever else it is).  To some extent even a personal philosophy that wants to limit and tear down the role of reason is still going to need to use the concepts--reason itself--towards that end.  Ethics also comes up here, but the groundwork needs to be relatively rational, or at least functional, not based on external authority.


Buddhism isn't these things, at its core.  To be clear this is just my take, and I won't be citing any scripture to support it, or even delving into ever-lower levels of supporting broad points made with finer levels of explanation.  It's a methodology that lets you simplify how you experience reality.  To some extent there may be some best-case, very simple, and relatively direct form of experience, but at least initially it's as well to not tie up too much goal-orientation or mental energy in figuring out what that form might be like (enlightenment).  It's just a set of tools to help simplify things, and that's enough.  Later on forms of experience would probably vary from initial practices and perspective changes.

The 8-fold path should be familiar; without some core concepts like that to work with it would be hard to put together any starting-point opinion about what might be going on.  While one explores those sorts of ideas it's best to keep in mind that even though some teachings are said to be the original words of the Buddha we've inherited those across time.  Swap out the meaning for suffering (or dukkha) just a bit and you might lose a lot of the original point. 

That's not an abstract guess at how variations might go; I think this is a core problem with modern interpretations.  If you swap back in "dis-satisfaction" for suffering per my take that's going to work much, much better.  Dis-satisfaction is unsatisfyingly vague, but that makes it work all the better as a place-holder, since understanding of these sorts of ideas are supposed to be iterative.  It's all not something one would "completely get" on one read.

It's not so simple to explain how it all works, but why not go there, with the clarification that this will be a limited start, not an explanation. 


One sub-theme is about how reality is really structured.  It's just not a model, more a description of ordinary forms of error (how reality is assumed to be, but really isn't, at least related to certain assumptions not being as functional as they seem).  That makes it negative, in the sense of describing what isn't, not necessarily related to what is bad, which again could be a bit unfamiliar.  It's not so bad thinking that you are made up of a permanent, real self; there's just a lot of function to be had in questioning that and setting it aside, at least temporarily and to a limited extent.  Anyway, to switch back to pointing out general themes here I'm talking about the one part that is made up of the ideas about reality, that one branch.

Then there is mindfulness (momentary awareness practice), and meditation (hard to describe what that's all about in a few words), both of which go along with the ideas, and support them.  Obviously these things are experiential.  A moral code works along with the rest; in some way it makes sense and is functional to observe an externally-derived set of guidelines related to not causing others harm, and so on.  While the first part (the last paragraph) made it sound a little like a philosophy, except for the deconstruction angle, these last three subjects fall a lot closer to religion. 

Mindfullness is a bit of a twist in relation to how Christianity is described in teachings and practiced, but to be clear Jesus did emphasize that the religious practice he was talking about dealt a lot with how people act moment to moment.  It wasn't something you would set aside until Sunday morning, as he was framing it, to have the slate wiped clean again by some religious representative then.

To some extent you have to "buy in" to try it out (the practice of Buddhism), and it's not exactly a rapid process.  Different people would connect to the different parts in different ways, through a different order of engagement, with some parts leading to others essentially for all forms of that experience.  It seemed like that might be missing "valid forms" of that experience, didn't it?  I think if a practice of Buddhism helps someone then it is valid, even if they've skipped parts and have some ideas or themes dead wrong.  Those types of gaps are just definitely not going to help with "getting far" with it (not that it's a contest).  I'll cite an example, nothing so direct, but a subject I've kept coming back to considering.

the temple where my son and I ordained at night

A friend of mine rejected alcoholism to lead a life not based around that drug, only to become a stoner, to replace it with marijuana consumption.  I did the same in my 20s; I had drank a lot and then was stoned a lot.  Her mantra is "progress not perfection," which kinds of works in a limited sense.  It's not supposed to be a statement of Buddhist intention or guiding principle (she doesn't see herself as Buddhist, as far as I know, or influenced by the ideas, practicing theme, etc.), it's just something she says.  It's not exactly a core teaching to not get stoned (that specific restriction), but in most forms Buddhism does get around to mentioning that drug use is not ideal.  Drugs and alcohol cut someone off from directly experiencing their reality; it's them + the drug instead.  More or less Buddhism is about getting out of your own way, not letting preconceptions and abstract ways of structuring ideas remain problematic, and to lighten attachments, in some limited form or range of forms.

Is the problem clear in this?  The drug is probably limiting her, in some sense; base reality isn't good enough, and it requires adjustment.  As a former marijuana user I have my own understanding of why that's a problem for this case and drug, but it's as well to keep that vague and general here. 

Everyone who went through long term dependence on drugs or alcohol (as I did), or different forms of those, gets that making even a moderate form of adjustment to reality often isn't a stable solution.  Sure, people base their lives around it, and in some cases that goes well enough.   Drinking alcohol a little every other day for the rest of your life is fine, to a limited degree.  To me it's not ideal, but it's close enough to normal and "not negative" that we can set the difference aside.  The other problem is that she is setting up a distinction between things being better than they were 20 years ago, and still never managing to get close to some optimum, which she's not even heading towards.

What would be the problem with this "perfection?"  It's implied that striving towards some form of ideal life is itself an obstacle to be avoided.  Rigid restrictions, removing freedoms, could be worse than any potential gains from removing dependencies; it's something like that.  I get the sense that it's not supposed to make tons of sense; it's just a personal approach to life theme.  Which is fine.  It doesn't match conventional understandings of Buddhism very well but it's not supposed to.

It probably sounds like I'm saying that someone couldn't get stoned every day and be a "good Buddhist," or that if they did try to pair those two directions they would contradict each other.  To me I guess that's true.  It's really not about weed, or whatever else, being so destructive, or counter-productive, its more about a problem with someone heading in two different directions at the same time.  If you walk North-East you'll never really go towards the North or the East, but head out somewhere in between.  If the idea is to avoid going West that's probably close enough. 

To me Buddhism is really Buddhism to the extent that it helps you and improves your life; back to the claim it's practical psychology, or a form of self-help, if one would rather.  It's not so much about crossing a finish line of "being enlightened."  As you get further the form changes (as I've experienced it), and value increases, but then lots of things are like that.  If you exercise a little you barely get past working out how to not get injured, and don't make a start on flexibility or strength improvements, never mind cardiovascular health, or stress reduction benefits.  If you eat fruits and vegetables 2 or 3 times a week that can help, but the rest of your diet remains a much more significant factor.

Maybe there's a contradiction in that take on drug use and how practicing only a little Buddhism is valid, isn't there?  I'm saying that making consumption of weed a priority in your life would run counter to putting into practice the exploration and application of Buddhism, and then I'm also saying that someone doing a little of both could be ok for them.  Different people would take it all in different ways.  My friend is right that setting a distant and seemingly impossible goal as the main driver may not be as effective as embracing ongoing change.  It's a little different to change just a little and then say "this is where I want to be; enough with the self-improvement" related to Buddhist practice making that more continuous.


If you think Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, versus what I'm describing it as, then you might be inclined to take it in different ways altogether.  If it's taken as something to be "thought out" then momentary practice could be de-emphasized.  If practice of conventional morality is going to be good enough, along with doing some chanting or whatever else, that might work well pursued part-time.  The starting point matters; how one takes it all.  It's probably as well to be open to shifting those underlying premises over time, just in case.  Obviously I'm seeing the side related to experiencing Buddhism as a formal religion.  To be clear I was only a monk for two months, but I do live in Bangkok now, for the last dozen years, a part of a Buddhist family and Buddhist society.

my daughter (now 6) showed me how to meditate ("tam samadhi") recently; it was cool

All of this probably captures enough of how I see it.  None of it is really supported here, by core text citation, or detailed explanation that could be even a little convincing.  I once pursued Buddhism as religion and philosophy in university studies, obtaining two degrees in the process, and it soured me a little in setting it all up like a research paper project.  That's not a bad approach though; it's a good way to sort through a range of different ideas presented in different ways.  It just doesn't make much sense without a lot of emphasis on personal life-practice and perspective.

You either try it and parts work for you or you might as well be reading Scientology (which actually is kind of interesting; it sounds like it should work, but it probably doesn't).  If you put neither in practice you might as well be binge-watching television show seasons on Netflix, or reading about rock climbing without ever rock climbing, whatever it is.  The ideas can be pleasant in some formulations though, so maybe just leaving it as that, as an un-examined form of poetry, could make for an aesthetic experience.  To me that's not really Buddhism then, but in some much more limited sense it still might be.

Buddhism as religion, philosophy, psychology, or other

The question of what no-self means goes straight to the issue of the context in which Buddhism is being interpreted, which I’ve only said a little about before.  Two friends have made comments that demonstrate this issue:


1.  related to common sense a self must exist in some form, because the continuity of who we are essentially defines one real person as existing, both as a physical and a mental entity, as a relatively continous perspective, history, collection of attitudes and preferences, relationships, etc.  Of course if self is only interpreted as a collection of elements that all change over time that's still sort of the point.  What "real" in "real person" means is the question.

2.  related to other Indian philosophy Buddhism is a rejection of the philosophical position declaring atman is real (or instead asserting "anatman," or that there is no permanent, enduring self).  It's not really different than the first point except that in one case there is a real self observed because of common sense and everyday experience and the other relates to different old forms of Indian philosophy.  Philosophy and common sense don't necessarily need to overlap a lot, though.


Atman is essentially “self,” but maybe that’s not so simple.  The concept of soul could relate here, and exactly what is meant would almost surely shift depending on the way other philosophical concepts are arranged (assuming it's taken to be philosophy).  All of this is complicated from being a debate conducted 2500-2600 years ago, so the modern form is almost certainly not exactly the same.  Western philosophy is something else entirely, itself occurring in different forms, and Western religion something else again.  The short version is that at least in part the Buddha was probably rejecting schools of thought that said self (atman) is real, although in other core teachings he wouldn’t accept either “self” or “no-self” as a good answer.


So before I say more about self and no-self related to these two points, in the next blog entry, I’ll back up and fill out these contexts a little as a necessary background for different answers.

Main branches of Buddhism

It would be easy to overgeneralize Buddhism even taken in different senses since there are several different main branches of Buddhism (three are usually described, but even that may be too simple), and different schools or specific traditions within those.  These would refer back to different core teachings, and mix with cultural aspects and beliefs, and the conclusions or specific teaching points and related practices would therefor vary.


I’m not really the best person to fill in this section since I’m not a historian of Buddhism (I’ll get to the contexts that I have related to) but here is a sketch to show what I meant.  If someone is interested the main Wikipedia article is a decent starting point, with lots to read beyond that.

credit Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

1.  Theravada:  the oldest or original main branch, the division that Thai Buddhism is a part of, along with closely related regional traditions in Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar.  Sri Lanka is the other notable location for this tradition (but again, what do I know).  One interesting aspect of this tradition is there is a Buddhist cannon, in the main form in Pali language, of received teachings and texts including essentially all we have of direct teachings from the Buddha himself (aside from possible later discoveries, which I really won’t get into).

The tradition was oral for centuries so it seems possible these teachings shifted a bit, but the story is they didn’t, that chanting really is effective word for word preservation.  It’s my impression (based on studying Christianity as religion in school) that those New Testament texts and content changed a lot over the first half a century, based in written works, but it’s hard to say how that informs a likelihood of these early Buddhist teachings as shifting.  An official selected cannon also is likely to have sifted and rejected some content, a process more familiar from Christianity, and it’s very difficult to say what ideas or content was circulating then that didn’t make the cut.



2.  Mahayana:  a later tradition or wave of Buddhism.  Why waves, or branches, why the discontinuity?  That’s yet another good question I won’t really answer.  But we see how modern Christianity has shifted over the last half a century and extrapolating that it’s easier to imagine that a tradition could change, or split, or even go relatively dormant and then start again in a different form.  Chinese Buddhism (Chan) and Zen, the closely related Japanese branch, are the forms we’re most familiar with, but then these relate to ideas mixed with other traditions, especially Taoism (which is nice).  My understanding is that this branch originated within India, as the first branch did, and there are lots of great stories about what different emperors or individuals did related to the developments.

A religious historian could say a lot more.  It seems as well to at least mention Bhodidharma, for being such an influential, interesting and semi-mythical character, who deserves further reading in Wikipedia type sources or any number of other places Google turns up.

http://faculty.luther.edu/~kopfg/referenc/buddhist.html

One might naturally wonder how the two branches relate, and how the new context could tie back to anything but the same original teachings.  My impression (versus an informed understanding) is that there was a substantial break related to new teachings re-surfacing, but don't take my word for it, read up a bit.

Also one needs to bear in mind that the way Buddhism is structured any one enlightened teacher is a completely valid reference source, so if someone made claims from that stated context to re-interpret Buddhism in a modern form (now one that’s something on the order of 800 years old, but modern awhile ago) then that still does work.  More on all this in a later section on Buddhism as religion versus other interpretations.


3.  Vajrayana:  More of the same from Mahayana; new texts can be found or drafted, with new Masters, new interpretation, and spread to new places.  Under this branch we get a very interesting tradition in Tibet, with lots of different mystical connections (like Tantra—a few nice twists there) and a return to an academic philosophical tradition in addition to a monastic based religion.


4.  Other:  really seems there should be some way to capture how the last few centuries have progressed, doesn’t it?  In a way the whole point of those branches seemed to be the emergence of major traditions though, and what’s going on with New Age in America or elsewhere really isn’t that (no offense intended).  All the same I’m sure there are interesting other groupings or interpretations out there, or else I wouldn’t have just written a “4,” even if I’ve got nothing substantial to say here.

Buddhism as religion, philosophy, psychology, other

This is really my main point for this post, so I'll try to get on with it.

Buddhism as religion

That’s what those branches essentially were, broad groups of religious traditions.  But different people were interpreting Buddhism as other things at the same time, even related to those traditions and some of the same content.  “Popular Buddhism” must surely be a new thing related to how we are taking it, ideas that mix in, but surely not new related to someone going in that direction.  It’s hard to say what the Buddha intended because he seemed to be presenting ideas in different contexts, which would be quite appropriate since surely there wasn’t just one main context to work within at his time either.

Wat Pho, where I ordained!  (credit www.bangkok.com)

In my own experience, relating only to the Thai tradition, and not intended as a summary of that tradition, a lot of the focus within a religious context is on the rituals, moral codes, meditative components, and other practices that are derived from the teachings.

In case you weren't believing that last claim...

A monastic tradition is the main sub-set of that here (in Thailand), but of course it all relates back to everyone else that is Buddhist as well, or most people here.  It might sound like I’m saying philosophy or everyday interpretation drops out, and of course I’m not; that’s part of it.  But to the average person those are secondary to the acts of going to the temple for ceremonies or advice and how everyday observances relate, for example the degree to which they follow the five precepts (main restrictions, for example not to kill).


The philosophy does tend to get minimized for the average person that accepts Buddhism as their own religion (per my experience).  They don’t struggle to learn the background of early Indian philosophy, competing schools, and all the core concepts (Pali terms that come up, like atman or vasana), although the general background does come up.  Christian awareness of the New Testament and how it relates to the older teachings is a good parallel; who really studies all that.  Some do, and it informs more of the perspective of priests and ministers and such, but what the average person works with is a bit general.  That's not such a bad thing, until they seem to have lost track of even that.

Buddhism as philosophy

I should start by saying I had some bad experiences with modern analytic philosophy education (philosophy as logic puzzles or arguments that don’t relate to ordinary experience at all) so I could be a bit biased against this general direction.  It wasn’t just a bad class either, or several, but I’ll leave that personal history aside for now.

Philosophy is an interesting subject.  For us in the West it started with the Greeks asking questions about the meaning of life and more specific questions about the nature of reality and self.  Plato telling us his take on Socrates' teachings (who didn’t write them down) is the main starting point, but that was based on a number of Pre-Socratic sources and schools of thought, which we have only fragments of now (like“you can’t step in the same river twice,” by Heraclitus), but there must have been a lot more development we’ve just lost track of given the dating (roughly the time of the Buddha, or way back).

Indian philosophy is a different thing.  The emphasis on different historical schools of thought is different, and their use of formal logic was a bit developed compared to Western ideas, which did get around to that more later.

This is where I might say a number of random sampled ideas from different positions except the last class I took on Indian philosophy and last books I read were a long time ago.  Suffice it to say they argued about things like if the self is real or not real.  What they meant by self would have depended on lots of other context, the way they arranged lots of other ideas.  It wasn’t exactly religion, and not exactly meant for guidance of an ordinary person making ordinary life decisions either; it was abstract—philosophy.  One might argue that assumptions of this sort underpin everyday worldview (a philosopher might), or a different philosopher might be fine with completely separating the two.

I have no idea how integrated the two different scopes were 2500 years ago in India, or how religious beliefs and contemplative traditions (meditation) interrelated.  It’s really not that interesting to me either; that reconstruction project would seem unlikely to ever circle back to my own everyday experience.

The modern Western division is more about two different main schools setting up different approaches and frameworks for ideas (Analytic versus Continental; but why read up on that, watch it explained on YouTube).  To some extent there is a parallel debate on particular points about Realism versus Nominalism, or how “real” some abstract ideas of entities really are.  What is meant by “real” is quite diverse and complicated, even mind-numbing, so I’ll leave it at that (no link; knock yourself out on Google-searched articles if you like).

Related to Buddhism and Indian philosophy, as these relate to Western philosophy, and referencing back to the earlier chart of main branches, only some parts of these are seen as having philosophical components that relate to modern philosophy.  Strange, right?  It means most aren't formulated in terms of logic and arguments.  The main one usually referenced is the work of Nagarjuna in the Madhyamika school of Mahayana (really interesting stuff, if a bit abstract and technical).  Yogacara is likely to also have components that are framed in terms Western philosophy could appreciate and work with but might have just not been as fashionable in relation to people taking these up, or it could be something about what they actually said.

Tibetan Buddhism is another interesting exception here.  In that chart it's listed as "Tantric," which invokes images of Hollywood stars participating in exotic sex practices, and that must be part of it.  There is also very technical, logical, and developed Tibetan Buddhist philosophy, nothing about seemingly sordid mystical practices, and of course the Dalai Lama ends up writing popular books that aren't really examples of either.

Buddhism as psychology

To me this is where it gets interesting.  Buddhism can also be interpreted as a description of how reality works, not really in the sense of a set of abstract ideas being interpreted against other dominant sets of abstract ideas, but in terms of experienced reality.  This gets closer to modern psychology, how we see the ego versus id or superego, and on from there and to later forms and models.

One interesting difference is that the Buddha—in some teachings—was quite clear about limiting his teaching to what was useful, and leaving aside parts of theories and explanations that wouldn’t really apply in practice, so he didn’t seem to be sketching out any sort of model of reality, be it philosophical or psychological.  He also said a broad range of different things, so everyone can make of Buddhism what they like and find some early teaching justification for that.  Since a lot of the vast Pali cannon isn’t translated into teachings that can be accessed in English, or other modern languages, that process will just keep unfolding over time.

Just starting with the idea of no-self, only a little, not in detail yet, we see how a positive model, a description of what is, might not be part of the approach at all, at least related to that one concept.  One more nice blog link gets back to that subject, no-self,, but I'll return to it again myself later.  There are other parts of other teachings that do go more in that direction, describing reality a little, but to me it’s also possible to drift towards a general interpretative stance that accepts the teachings are to be practical guidance, not a model, an idea that is very plainly stated in some early references.  This leads to a final category of what Buddhism can be taken as, although there could as easily be others.

Buddhism as self-help

www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/the-thought-manifests-as-the-word/

I’ve intentionally embraced a context description here that reaches towards a lot of diverse ideas in modern times, some of which are a bit fuzzy or even of dubious purpose.  Buddhism wasn't exactly ancient self-help, of course.  Which to reference as an example of the modern adjusted forms: cults, accepted popular authors, or something like Scientology?  For each tree is known by its own fruit, as they say (Luke 6:44),  so unless people are committing suicide or attacking other unrelated independent thinking it seems best to just let them be, but also as well to be careful about the sources, what comes from what.



The idea of real versus non-genuine Buddhism is a different thing than someone offering their own thoughts on interpretation of general concepts, of course.  In the fake quote cited in the previous picture, the sentiment is fine but it just wasn't a teaching of the Buddha.  Per that author, Bodhipaksa:  We can be fairly sure the Buddha never said this, although we can be equally sure that he said things like this.  The actual passage is so nice that although it's not a real quote of the Buddha, and doesn't have a lot to do with this blog content, I'll repeat it here anyway:

The thought manifests as the word;
The word manifests as the deed;
The deed develops into habit;
And habit hardens into character.
So watch the thought and its ways with care,
And let it spring from love
Born out of concern for all beings.


I'm definitely not trying to put words into the Buddha's mouth in this blog, or create definitive interpretations.  I'm just talking around some ideas, my own limited understanding.  It doesn't hurt to compare Buddhism to self-help, there's just limitations in context analogy in doing so.


The next related question might be about the form of what the Buddha intended; was this a set of teachings for the masses, or only for monks and other contemplatives?  Or both?  Did it need to be tied to a complex description of reality to function (a metaphysics), or did it not?  To what extent to the branches of the eightfold path represent parts of the same journey one person would need to take to find the value, or to what extent could someone “walk” one branch and not the others?  To that last question it seems like some degree of mixing must be required; how know what the practical aspects mean without some theory, or how to lead a life of appropriate practice without embracing some element of the moral code, and so on.

I’ll cut this short but clarify this is generally how I’m trying to interpret Buddhism; as practical guidance that applies to everyday life and can help modify an ordinary worldview.  It’s about introspection, and changing perspective, or at least that seems clear enough to me.  That’s not really the most common take on Buddhism, and for many it’s more or less completely invalid, or else at least missing a lot of the point.  So be it; maybe I’m dead wrong.  Per my wife that would be consistent with my approach to a lot of other everyday subjects, and my conclusions.

My wife is Thai, and Buddhist, by the way, but has nothing at all to say about core teachings.  She learned all that in a class in grade school but it’s essentially gone now.  Buddhism here ties to religious rituals, and the daily life practices should relate to the lay-person precepts (funny how that works out), and they do see the contemplative aspects as relevant to both monks and lay-people to some extent, so the theory creeps back in there a little.  Monks are sometimes very familiar with core teachings and the Buddhist cannon, or some others not so much.

"Smorgasbord" faith (not a description that's derogatory to everyone):  how to pick which parts to embrace

Just by reading fuzzy and personal interpretation themed blogs like this one one could hardly pull together what aspects should be relevant or not, never mind what was original.  Personal preference also doesn’t seem like a great guide, since past bias towards some context may turn out to be a start mostly in the wrong direction.

An example might help here:  Christianity is often interpreted so that faith is one main aspect, or even the main aspect.  Taken one way, what you do can be seen as secondary to what you believe, because God or Jesus can forgive any lapses in actions but not a limited faith (acceptance of certain ideas).  Of course all this could be seen as a bit less relevant since I'm claiming Buddhism could possibly be valid as religion, or as a few other things instead.

Of course this analogy with Christianity is open to debate, and Christians definitely wouldn’t generally see it that way, that actions are relatively irrelevant (or most probably wouldn't).  All the same if this type of context or approach is translated to Buddhism the limited scope of applicability seems to not hold at all, for any of the different contexts I’ve described.  Buddhism as religion would be more likely to accept that effective rituals are more important, along with a sum of actions, so that merit and karma relate to what you do, not what you think.  Philosophy is obviously about what you think, and to some extent psychology, while the “self-help” context sort of depends on how one is taking it.  Regardless of emphasis all wouldn't seem to claim one is "doing Buddhism" without more than one part involved, part of the original message.

Seems like I may have dropped out even a glance at what “New Age” contexts are about but I suppose it’s not my place to say.  As I take it those really do generally share my own take on trying to make Buddhism apply to everyday life so I’m sympathetic, even if I have to be skeptical of the effectiveness of crystals or wary of angels creeping back into the set of ideas, or even worse, aliens.  But I’ve been to Sedona a few times so I can meet people in the middle a little with all that, I’m just equally agnostic about a lot of ideas, reincarnation / rebirth and others that are less mainstream.

In the next entry I’ll get back to how I see no-self as being a different issue in these different contexts.