Is Buddhism a religion, a philosophy or a psychology? Can one take only the psychological practices?

All three words are European categories, and none of them covers Buddhism completely. The Buddha himself calls his teaching the sum of the Dhamma (one might say, theory and practice) and the Vinaya (the code of discipline).

In its structure Buddhism is closest to a religion. There is a formal phrase of entry, the so-called “refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha”; a monastic community with its rule; a multi-level cosmology with various worlds and the concept of rebirth; veneration and offerings; and there is a final goal - nibbana, the fading of craving, hatred and delusion, the final cessation of suffering. One could dismiss this whole list as a cultural-historical shell, yet the Buddhist suttas (MN 117, for example) explicitly count the denial of the fruit of deeds (that is, of the law of kamma), of other worlds and of spontaneously born beings as wrong view.

There is plenty of philosophy in Buddhism too (and even psychology: modern cognitive behavioural therapy overlaps with Buddhism in many ways). The suttas argue, take apart other positions, warn that faith, tradition and reasoning are not enough by themselves for categorical certainty (MN 95). Yet reasoning for reasoning’s sake is not particularly welcomed. In MN 63 the monk Malunkyaputta threatens to leave unless the Buddha answers ten questions: whether the world is eternal or not, finite or infinite, whether the life principle and the body are identical, and four options about the existence of the Tathagata after death. The Buddha compares him to a wounded man who will not let the surgeon pull out the poisoned arrow until he learns the caste, name, clan and height of the shooter and the make of the weapon and the arrow: he will die without ever finding out. Many philosophical and existential questions the Buddha deliberately leaves undeclared - without, however, pronouncing them meaningless. It all comes down to the main goal of Buddhism - release from suffering. If some questions or discussions do not lead to dispassion, peace, cessation, direct knowledge, awakening and nibbana, then spending the time of a limited human life on them is not particularly efficient.

A detailed analysis of the contents of the mind and of its training is in the suttas as well - for example, the well-known triad on thoughts (MN 18, 19 and 20):

• MN 18 introduces the notion of mental proliferation, or rumination;
• MN 19 describes how the bodhisatta before his awakening divided thoughts into two classes - sensual, ill-willed and cruel ones versus thoughts of renunciation, goodwill and harmlessness - and drew the rule: whatever a person frequently thinks about, to that his mind inclines;
• MN 20 then gives five remedies against unwholesome thoughts: switch to a wholesome object, consider their danger, pay them no attention, still the very production of thoughts and, as a last resort, suppress the mind by force of will.

Identifying all this with modern psychology is not warranted, but the overlaps are obvious.

Borrowing individual Buddhist practices without the framing content is entirely possible - moreover, it will often be helpful in working with strong emotions, developing compassion, concentration and sensitivity. What matters is to understand that in this form they will not amount to the full Buddhist path. Virtue, concentration and wisdom (sīla, samādhi, paññā) are three parts of the Noble Eightfold Path and three parts of one and the same indivisible training. Without kamma and rebirth, for example, the word “liberation” does not instantly lose its meaning: the fading of craving, hatred and delusion the suttas describe here-and-now as well. But the scale, and our attitude to the practice, will obviously change. And it is precisely with mind, intention and faith that Buddhism works. A teaching wrongly grasped can wound, like a snake held ineptly.

Where to read: MN 63, MN 22, MN 117; on working with thoughts - MN 19 and MN 20; on the grounds of confidence - MN 95.