The last post here and some others in the blogosphere has brought me this thought regarding the need to pigeon-hole all things (and people) Buddhist in some kind of quasi-scientific nomenclature. We are people, not geological specimens.
This intensive categorization can get to the point of absurdity. For instance I might have to label myself as a white, expatriate, Canadian, heterosexual, originally-working-class-but-now-middle-class, university-educated, female, non-ordained-long-time-convert-Soto-Zen-Buddhist-occasionally-leaning-to-Rinzai-with-mixed-practice-including-Pure Land and Tibetan religiously-oriented-though-not-discounting-secularist overtones looking to meet…(long list of criteria). It’s Buddhism, not an ad for a fantasy one night stand on Craig’s list.
This is how Buddhism is appearing to converts in countries where Buddhism has recently been transplanted. But if you look at a bigger picture historically this is the microcosmic view of the macroscopic picture of Buddhist history. (sort of like Chaos math and fractals-zoom in zoom out-same patterns)
Patchwork blanket of a practice- are they just as good as the factory made? Or was there even a “factory-made” Buddhism?