The Middle Way

[Shoshin]

Hi,

I'd like to share a reflection based on my very limited understanding of the Middle Way and I'd be grateful if someone can share their insights or reflections.

Today I read: "The middle way describes the middle ground between attachment and aversion, between being and non-being, between form and emptiness, between free will and determinism". In these dichotomies, I see the Middle Way as a natural, absolute, resting point between two natural, absolute, extremes. (I hope that my use of the words "natural" and "absolute" here makes sense. I'm sure there is a more "Dharmasy" way of expressing it, but I don't know it).

But sometimes I see the concept of Middle Point applied to matters of human behaviour and ethics, and for a long time I've felt discomfort at this way of applying the concept: When it comes to human behaviour and ethics, I don't think there are natural, absolute, extremes. A behaviour that seems extreme in one cultural and historical context can be seen as a moderate behaviour in another context. Therefore, the solution to ethical dilemmas cannot be found at the middle point between what, in our place and time, are considered to be two extremes .
For example, nowadays, slapping a child on their face because they didn't do their homework would be seen as an extreme behaviour in many European countries. Allowing the child not to do their homework would be the other extreme, and the middle point would be talking to the child or not allowing them to play until they finish their homework.
In my grandmother's time in Spain, slapping a child on their face would have been seen as a very mild behaviour, as the usual punishment (therefore the middle point) was to hit the child's hand several times with a ruler. One can imagine what the extreme behaviour would have been.

I've seen the concept applied to very important matters, and it concerns me a bit. In matters of ethics I believe that if we want to strive to behave with as much compassion and equanimity as we are capable of, we need to see beyond relative extremes.

I lack the knowledge and ability of other members of the sangha to express myself in ways more aligned with the Dharma but I hope that I'm making my point.

I'll be grateful for any opinions and reflections, for any insights on how my reflections align, or not, with the Dharma and on vocabulary and expression tips to express it all in a more "formal" way.

Gassho,
satlah

[Chikyou]

When it comes to things like, whether or not to eat meat, I choose the middle way: cut out most meat, eat fish and vegetarian, and importantly, if my usual strict by this society’s standards diet would be a problem for someone else (requiring them to make a separate meal for example) I break my diet without guilt, because not care a problem for others is more important than not eating meat in that moment.

When it comes to things like not hitting children, though, to me there is no middle way. There’s no “hit the children but only a little” in my mind. There are times when violence is unavoidable (self defense when de-escalation has failed) and then I suppose the middle way between letting them hurt you and killing them would be inflicting just enough damage to get away safely and no more. In these cases, the middle way would be about restraint, not about inflicting harm for the sake of not being too nice, if that makes sense.

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[Shinshi]

Someone will come along with a much better response I am sure but I'll offer this. To me the middle way resides within yourself - not in your cultural context. So, for example, if you believe that slapping a child in the face is not morally correct. Then that is your perspective from your current understanding - the belief is a manifestation of your experience in life. The middle way would be about how do you deal with the situation as it arises. If you see a person slap a child in the face do you scream at them and tell them they are evil? Do you just walk away? Or do you try to find a middle way to discuss the issue with them.

So the middle way is navigating the things that arise in your life. Not taking a middle way compared to how the world around you behaves.

At least that is how I see it today.

Gassho,

Shinshi

[Jundo]

Ah, let me walk right down the middle about the "Middle Way."

The teaching of "Middle Way" actually has a couple of different meanings in Buddhism. One is about the philosophical stance of Buddhism compared to other Indian religions and philosophies of the time. That meaning is a bit beyond your question, Shoshin, so I will not go into detail. I will just say that other Indian philosophies tended to be based in religious idealism (e.g., the world of the spirit/Brahma is real and eternal while this earthly world is not) or very materialist (there is only this material world, and it lacks particular meaning beyond that.) Buddhism leaps through that dichotomy. That is the part of the Jack Kornfield quote you posted that touches on "between being and non-being, between form and emptiness, between free will and determinism."

However, you ask about the ethical and lifestyle aspects. This had to do with the Buddha's original path where he left the worldly life of pleasures in the palace (one extreme), then tried various paths of extreme denial and self-punishment (not eating, holding the breath!) in order to find liberation ... the results seen here:
. image.png

But Buddha finally rejected that path and said that Buddhism takes a Middle Path between such extremes, neither indulging in excess (especially not indulging in what is harmful), but neither avoiding what is healthful and moderate for body and mind. So, for example, we eat ... but neither starving nor in excess, and instead what is healthy and "enough."

On matters of ethics, Mahayana Buddhist Precepts have been described as like guideposts, with some clear black and whites on the edges, but some gray areas between that people need to determine by their own heart. It is something like the fencing around a wide cow field, with certain conduct obviously bad, but much between for each cow to choose. For example, physically abusing children, starting a war solely for purposes of territorial conquest, killing civilians for strategic reasons, setting arson fires for fun, taking addictive drugs to the point that it ruins ones health or selling those drugs to others that might ruin their health, etc. might all be seen as pretty clear cut "black." We might say that there is little room for "cultural relativism" and personal preference.

However, maybe a light "spank" on the butt could be acceptable in some cultures, and not harmful psychologically to the child. A war to free slaves, or needing to steal bread to feed the poor might be more acceptable, especially if there are no other alternatives. Moderate social drinking might be okay if no addiction issues or vehicle driving. Our aim is to minimize hate, anger and violence, excess desires to the point of trapping the mind and damaging the body, divided thinking such as jealousy and bigotry, etc. Where to draw the line is more fluid, but the person in their heart should know what is right when it feels mild, moderate, peaceful, healthy, non-violent, etc.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah