Buddhism and Buddhist

What is Buddhism?
Buddhism is a religion and a philosophy proposed by Siddhattha Gotama in northeastern India in the sixth century B.C. As it gradually extended through central and eastern Asia, Buddhism became a major religion and played, right from its very beginning, a significant role in the spiritual, social and cultural life of that continent. For the strong emphasis it places in introspection and mind states, numerous scholars consider Buddhism a kind of psychology system rather than (or in addition to) a religious creed or a school of philosophy.

Who is Siddhattha Gotama?
Siddhattha Gotama (563 B.C.-483 B.C.) is the Buddha, the thinker who developed a doctrine, both theory and practice, which leads to the cessation of suffering, and upon which all branches of religious Buddhism are built. Tradition assigns a variety of names to Siddhattha Gotama, being the most common the Awakened one ("awakened" is the best translation for the word “buddha”, more precisely “mentally awakened”), the Perfect one, the Sage of Sakya (the Sage of the Sakyan clan), the Blessed One and, of course, the Buddha.

Suffering
Emotional suffering (or just “suffering” as explained below) is one of the most important notions in Buddhism. Suffering, according to the Buddha, is the full range of human dissatisfactions ranging from the simple everyday imaginary worries through the unexpected mood slumps and melancholies to the most intense and harmful obsessive anguishes, phobias and depressions. I reserve the word "suffering" (with no adjective as I use it most of the times) to refer to mental disharmonies or “emotional suffering”; I use the word “pain” to imply manifest ache or “physical suffering.” The latter is most often inevitable; the former is always optional. Suffering is what the Buddha sets out to eliminate. The original body of doctrine that Siddhattha Gotama builds is commonly known as the Teachings. The written Teachings (the Teachings as appear in the sacred texts) consist of a set of lessons—a few doctrinal concepts, some practical instructions, a lot of examples, many parables—which establish the application of the Natural Order to human conduct. The practical Teachings are a set of instructions to eliminate suffering; the theoretical Teachings are the doctrinal concepts behind such instructions. Both practice and theory are plain common sense. The practice refers to the day-to-day way of living for not to suffer; the theory is the recollection of the lessons of experience with which the Teachings are related.

In spite of the precision of the Buddha’s proposal (crystal clear: the elimination of suffering), the practical directness of his Teachings, and the firmness and intelligibility of his doctrine, common people generally find Buddhism obscure and difficult. Why is this so? This happens because religious Buddhism is surrounded by misunderstandings, distortions and a huge aureole of myth and mystery. The reasons behind all this puzzlement are multiple. The body of the whole philosophical doctrine, which has exploded notwithstanding the Teachings’ simplicity, is abstract; the variety of schools, high in number and confusing in minutiae; the multicultural influences, excessive; the rituals of some sects, weird; the size of the sacred literature, gigantic; the translation of the original sacred text, complicated.

At the other end, within the large number of texts attributed to the Buddha (but the authorship of which, in its vast majority, belongs to his followers, some of whom lived centuries after him), there exists a small core of simple notions which, with a high degree of certainty, was indeed structured and preached by the Sage of Sakya. This core is what I call, as many authors do, the basic Teachings. (When I simply say “Teachings” I mean the basic Teachings, the same way as I when I say “suffering” I mean emotional suffering). Rather than penetrating the arduous doctrine of Buddhism (which is well beyond my capacity), the purpose of these writings is to demystify and "de-myth-ify” the Teachings of the Buddha, presenting them with all its beauty and in all its simplicity.

This said, there is one key factor that needs to be established right away: At the heart of this matter and a key factor in what I want to communicate, it is the recognition that the Teachings are remarkably and fundamentally practical; they are about doing (or restraining from doing), not about believing; they are in themselves evident truths, not dogmas of faith; they are to observe and feel, not to speculate and wander.

The semantics of several languages endorses the practical character of the original Teachings. From the perspective I want to explain the Buddha’s message, the word "Buddhism" should not really exist and the word "buddhist" should have a different meaning. Buddhism is indeed a religion; the Teachings of the Buddha are not. As a way of living, the Teachings have nothing in common with the dogmatic systems that entail beliefs or affiliations.

While very different in their purpose, the Teachings are more similar in format and application to personal productivity manuals (such as The seven habits of highly effective people) than to a religious doctrine. In spite of the success of Stephen Covey's proposal, the developer of The seven habits, I have never heard the expression "coveyism.”

Buddhism and Buddhist
The word “Buddhism” is an invention of Western scholars, states Stephen Batchelor, Scottish writer, translator of Tibetan texts, Buddhist monk for ten years and today a lecturer of a non-affiliated Buddhism. The word “Buddhist” does not exist in Tibetan language, says Lama Surya Das, American lecturer, an active Buddhist monk, also a writer and translator of sacred books. According to him, Tibetans use a word roughly equivalent to “insider” (defined as somebody who looks inside for existential meaning), when they want to refer to what we westerners call “buddhist.” In this context, “insider” has no connotation whatsoever of pursuit of beliefs or affiliation to sects. ,

Let me move now to English, a language in which, fortunately, I do not need to rely on Eastern linguists. The suffix 'ist" is added to words to form nouns of two kinds. The first one relates to people who hold inclinations, partisanships or biases (altruist, socialist, sexist). The second one refers to those who do something (a machinist who operates a machine, a botanist who studies botany, a pianist who plays piano). Nouns in the first group represent qualitative attitudes or beliefs that cannot be easily measured or modified. Nouns in the second group involve activities the performance of which can be improved with the continued practice. With the repetition of the activity, a machinist is more qualified, a botanist is more competent, and a pianist is more skilled.

Grammar in hand, the noun "buddhist" belongs to the second group, with machinist, botanist and pianist, since it has no similarity to altruist, socialist or sexist. Buddhist is, or should be, the person who practices the Teachings of the Buddha. Strictly speaking, Buddhist “practitioner” is redundant while buddhist “theoretician” (devout, faithful, adept…) is meaningless. Acknowledging the term "practitioner" is not a precise word for the meaning of performer or doer, I use it to refer to the person who puts the Teachings into action. (Ignoring their connotation of “adherent” or “believer” and in the absence of better words, I also use words such as disciple, apprentice or student—think of the learning of a craft skill—to refer to people who practices the Teachings).

Abiding once more by semantics, if there is no machinism, botanism or pianism, there should neither be “Buddhism.” ''Nobody listened to the Buddha, that is why there is Buddhism" said J. Krishnamurti (1895-1986), the eminent twentieth century Hindu philosopher. And the same way as excellent machinists, botanists and pianists do not require creeds to excel in their tasks, genuine Buddhists do not need metaphysical beliefs or strange ritualistic feats to be accomplished practitioners; they only must practice a “something.” If they practice seldom, results are poor. If they practice a lot, progress is remarkable. If they practice permanently, they become virtuosos. And similarly, as operating instructions, botanical sciences and musical theory are crucial for machinists, botanists and pianists, also respectively, the Teachings, those aspects of nature and experience that relate to the instructions to live, are the only important matter for the Buddhist practitioner.

Needless to say, the above interpretations are presented exclusively to insist and emphasize the practicability—the “doability”—of the Teachings. In spite the accuracy and robustness of any semantic analysis, the meanings of words in any language cannot be modified by decree or will, no matter how inappropriate they sound; that is why language academies seldom succeed in their preaching. Words have the connotation people and cultures decide, not the one etymology and grammar suggest. Buddhism is, in the eyes of the entire world, the great twenty-five-century old religion. This is its first meaning for most everybody. Where Buddhism and Teachings coincide (the latter are a subset of the former), the terms are totally interchangeable. It is as a religion that Buddhism has had an extraordinary impact in all cultures it has penetrated. I expect, however, that over time “Buddhism” will acquire also the meaning that best describes it, the one intended by its originator and the one the Teachings explain. And I also hope that at some point "Buddhist" will reflect more the sense of disciplined practitioner and less that of narrow-minded believer. While humankind is in much need of more honest right doers there are too many fanatics and sect followers doing wrong in the name of their faith.