What is the Middle Way?

[Nikolai1]

Michael - so there is a certain irony around our opinions.  We hold them lightly, we see that there is a lot to be said against them.  Tomorrow, and what tomorrow brings, may mean that I no longer have the same opinion?

[Michael Sternbach]

Michael - so there is a certain irony around our opinions.  We hold them lightly, we see that there is a lot to be said against them.

 

Nevertheless, we should be steadfast in our opinions. Like a good actor playing his role convincingly.

 

Tomorrow, and what tomorrow brings, may mean that I no longer have the same opinion?

 

Yes, it may.

[Nikolai1]

Nevertheless, we should be steadfast in our opinions. Like a good actor playing his role convincingly.

There is something very beautiful about this combination of conviction and flexibility.  To see clearly the truth that we need to speak and to speak it with passion...and then to forget it!

[Michael Sternbach]

There is something very beautiful about this combination of conviction and flexibility.  To see clearly the truth that we need to speak and to speak it with passion...and then to forget it!

 

The only truth you must not forget is that the path is narrow. That's why the Buddha said: "Watch your feet."

Edited November 3, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nikolai1]

It's like an art - the highest art! It's knowing when to speak truth; it's knowing when yesterday's truth is today's falsehood, and that today's falsehood may well be tomorrow's truth.

 

This Middle way, this attitude, seems to just cut through every intellectual debate that has ever existed.

 

I love Buddhism sometimes!

[Michael Sternbach]

What you choose to believe doesn't need to be the truth, as long as it's your truth.

[Nikolai1]

What you choose to believe doesn't need to be the truth, as long as it's your truth.

It takes a lot of courage and a lot of conviction to follow our truth, does it not? We all yearn for the security that we used to have in our youth - when our truth was the same as everyone else's.

 

One way out of this is to seek power - to set the truths for yourself and then get everyone else to agree with you.

 

But yes, the highest most stable way is to know your own truth, and that is enough for you, because it is yours, and because what is yours is also Divine and therefore doesn't need others to endorse it.

[steve]

The Middle Way is literally unthinkable.  It is what we are following when thoughts cease to guide our action.

 

But why does this bring us peace? 

 

When we stop trying to conceptualize, we can connect with what is, as it is, without the intellect getting in the way.

For me, the intellectual conclusion that all positions lead to error, the resolution to give up grasping for a position, in and of itself does not bring peace. 

It allows the mind to let go of the conceptual framework and directly connect.

When we develop confidence in this connection, trust in this connection, without the intellectual interference, we can begin to rest.

When we truly feel it's support, the connection, we feel as if we are coming home after being lost for a long time, this brings us peace.

At least that's sort of how I feel. 

[Michael Sternbach]

It takes a lot of courage and a lot of conviction to follow our truth, does it not? We all yearn for the security that we used to have in our youth - when our truth was the same as everyone else's.

 

One way out of this is to seek power - to set the truths for yourself and then get everyone else to agree with you.

 

But yes, the highest most stable way is to know your own truth, and that is enough for you, because it is yours, and because what is yours is also Divine and therefore doesn't need others to endorse it.

 

Brilliant exegesis of what I said. Thanks.

 

And as you said, what is true today does not have to be true tomorrow. Every day has its own truth. (Alright, now I am exegeting.)

[Nikolai1]

It allows the mind to let go of the conceptual framework and directly connect.

When we develop confidence in this connection, trust in this connection, without the intellectual interference, we can begin to rest.

When we truly feel it's support, the connection, we feel as if we are coming home after being lost for a long time, this brings us peace.

At least that's sort of how I feel. 

Yes, I understand what you are saying and the peace that you talk about is the peace that comes when we are able to rest in our hearts - a coming home and a never again leaving of home.  The peace in our hearts is always at hand.

 

I am wondering whether this can be understood also as a gradual path, which is how the ancient Greek philosophers seemed to talk about it.  The peace grows inside of us as we learn to detach ourselves from more and more of the disturbances that assail our life.  We may not be awakened to any Divine Self, and yet the practice of sceptically analysing our opinions will bring a forefeeling of that peace that comes upon awakening.

 

It's a kind of a defence of the intellectual way, which perhaps too often gets a bad reputation.  The intellect, well applied, will gain us much valuable peace but if we wish to awaken we must turn against it and mortify it. Too often I think people take only this second message and forget the good old-fashioned virtue of philosophy.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes, I understand what you are saying and the peace that you talk about is the peace that comes when we are able to rest in our hearts - a coming home and a never again leaving of home.  The peace in our hearts is always at hand.

 

I am wondering whether this can be understood also as a gradual path, which is how the ancient Greek philosophers seemed to talk about it.  The peace grows inside of us as we learn to detach ourselves from more and more of the disturbances that assail our life.  We may not be awakened to any Divine Self, and yet the practice of sceptically analysing our opinions will bring a forefeeling of that peace that comes upon awakening.

 

It's a kind of a defence of the intellectual way, which perhaps too often gets a bad reputation.  The intellect, well applied, will gain us much valuable peace but if we wish to awaken we must turn against it and mortify it. Too often I think people take only this second message and forget the good old-fashioned virtue of philosophy.

 

It's not a matter of turning against the intellect. That would be the intellect turning against itself. How can peace result from that? But sometimes it's good to silence it for awhile. It is a sword that should not be overused but used in a wise and balanced fashion - guided and supported by the forces of the unconscious.

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[RigdzinTrinley]

regarding Phyrroism and madhyamika - I met a beautiful scholar from stanford (was is stanford?) ... his name is Matthew Neale and actually he wrote his PhD on Phyrroism and Madhyamika. I still wait for that paper, I asked him to send me a PDF of it... he said is still not ready - or ready enough, I think I will ask him again soon, your threat inspired me, I can send you the paper if he is Ok with me sharing it (if I ever get my hands on it)

 

you asked about peace in the context of madhyamika

 

peace means freedom from all conceptual elaboration, that is also the meaning of dharmakaya

for example you use madhyamika reasoning into reality - lets say the reality of your body. a body appears through the force of dependend origination in our conciousness if we now investigate "how does the body appear"

 

we grasp at the body as being "whole, singular and I or at least mine" - if we start investigating we find out that the body is made out of parts - so its not singular

 

if I ask you if your hand is your body - you can basically say yes or no. the first answer would lead to another question: well if the hand is your body what happens if I cut of your hand? do you have two bodies now? or did you become bodyless?

 

If you say no - the hand is not the body, its a only a part then from there we can see that a bunch of "not the body" seem to make up a body

 

similarely if we see 20 pieces of a tree layed out on the floor - they made up a tree once but each of those pieces individually do not constitute a tree

 

again I could point to a nice big part of the trunk and ask "is this a tree?" well the answer would be that its not a tree, its only a part - all those twenty parts are "not a tree", again 20 non trees seem to make up a tree (its actually absurd if you think about it)

 

so only if the tree is in a certain shape do we call it a tree

 

same with the body (similar at least, body is more tricky because there is more clinging towards the body)

 

anyway if you analyse like that you only find parts - but not a singular and whole body

 

even if there is still this clinging towards a singular body then I could ask you " well is there one body pervading your whole anatomy (all those parts), or is there a whole body in each of those parts individually?"

 

in the first case we can check the hand again - there must be a corresponding pervasive body abiding in the hand - but we only find the hand - no body whole and singular abiding in it.

 

in the second instance - if there is a whole body in each part of the body individually, that would mean as many parts as we posit that many bodies we have - thats absurd as well, because I think or cling to my body as singular

 

now where is that body?

 

its not in the parts, the parts are parts and not a singular body

 

but then could there be a body that is other then its parts? no obvisouly not - that would only be an idea, an imputation without any reality

 

so the body must be the collection of those parts - but then again a collection is just a label - its a mental concept and not a real entity

 

so the body is not one with the parts of the body nor is it different, nor is it the collection of parts - what is it then?

 

it has no substance - its just a conventionality, a concept - ultimately there in no such thing as a real body

 

if one would see that directly in meditation - how "body" is not established as anything at all - at that moment also the investigating mind becomes unborn because the basis of investigation vanished

 

who would see what?

 

that is called peace in madhyamika - no concepts of the body being existant or non existant, both existant and non existant or neither existant and non existant remain

 

"body" wouldn't be observed at all and neither would there be an observing conciousness (because there is no object that serves as the basis for the conciousness to arise) that would be peace in the madhyamika sense

 

or something like that....

 

only talking about it doesn't really do the trick - its important to read, read and read the great treatises with a teacher, and then apply apply and apply them in meditation and see what happens to your life

 

is there less clinging, less resulting suffering? is your mind becoming less stuffed with concepts about "how it is"; "how it should be and why it is not how it should be" etc

 

then I would say those meditaitons do their work - and lead to peace of hte dharmakaya

Edited November 3, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[Nikolai1]

It's not a matter of turning against the intellect. That would be the intellect turning against itself. How can peace result from that? But sometimes it's good to silence it for awhile. It is a sword that should not be overused but used in a wise and balanced fashion - guided and supported by the forces of the unconscious.

 

Yes, for me mortifying the intellect means seeing that its deductions are not universally valid but only momentarily or provisionally valid.  Perhaps the mortified intellect needs a new name: intellect becomes Wisdom.

 

It is with our wisdom that we can refer to the unconscious and be guided and supported in that moment.  Or maybe it's clearer if we just make wisdom and the unconscious the same thing!

Edited November 3, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Apech]

Lovely thread - enjoying reading it.  Sounded almost Shakespearian at one point - not sure why.

[RigdzinTrinley]

we could say that what we work with in life is mere concepts, we think we perceive real enteties, real stories with happy endings or not so happy endings or just horrible endings - but actually we just perceive our imputed labels, thats in a way all we got

 

conventional (relative) reality is just that: mental concepts, labels we impute on reality - thats called the confused appearances of samsara

 

why confused?

because under investigation the base for the labels (body parts etc) are neither "out there" nor "in here" we can't find them - still till we get rid of all mental habits - dependently originated illusion like phenomena appear - dreamlike suffering hurts and it seems like its better to be free of it, dreamlike happiness feels pleasant and seems like to be nice to have around. Actually suffering and happiness are just labels without true existence as well - so the scriptures say "why exhauste yourself trying to avoid the one and get the other?"

 

but mental habits are powerful and the underlying subject/object habit is most powerful

 

I go sleep this is all making me feel rather strange - shakespearian is a good word for my feeling

Edited November 3, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[Apech]

"why exhaust yourself trying to get the one and avoid the other"

 

- I like that.

[steve]

Yes, I understand what you are saying and the peace that you talk about is the peace that comes when we are able to rest in our hearts - a coming home and a never again leaving of home.  The peace in our hearts is always at hand.

 

 

I am wondering whether this can be understood also as a gradual path, which is how the ancient Greek philosophers seemed to talk about it.  The peace grows inside of us as we learn to detach ourselves from more and more of the disturbances that assail our life.  We may not be awakened to any Divine Self, and yet the practice of sceptically analysing our opinions will bring a forefeeling of that peace that comes upon awakening.

 

It's a kind of a defence of the intellectual way, which perhaps too often gets a bad reputation.  The intellect, well applied, will gain us much valuable peace but if we wish to awaken we must turn against it and mortify it. Too often I think people take only this second message and forget the good old-fashioned virtue of philosophy.

 

We can divide practice into three paths (somewhat of an artificial division but useful nonetheless).

The gradual path of sutra which is also known as the path of renunciation which is more focused on the intellectual work.

The rapid path of tantra, the path of transformation, which has striking similarities to Daoist cultivation methods.

The non-path of dzogchen, which is simply to rest and let everything be as it is.

 

So for sure, one can take a gradual path. It generally only gets a bad reputation by people who are impatient and looking for shortcuts. Those folks tend not to stick with any path, in my experience. I think we all experience that at some point in our lives.

 

There is much value in study and philosophy and this brings us back to the OP. The middle way can also be applied to this question - we need to study and we need to know when to let go of that. Sometimes we get too wrapped up in the theory, sometimes we get lost in experience. The middle way for me is about finding balance.

[C T]

a taster of Nagarjuna's Middle Way doctrine: 

 

Nagarjuna discusses the notions of change by examining one concrete example: motion and rest.

• He breaks down the verb into its three components of
  1. the verb in the abstract,
  2. its subject,
  3. and its sphere of activity, in this case motion, the mover, and the space within which motion occurs.

The concept of "movement" is dissected and scrutinized to demonstrate that the three categories of the verb, its subject, and its sphere are all untenable.

• There is indisputably a perception of action, but this perception cannot be explained in a way that withstands logical inspection.
• First, a span of time is necessary for activity to take place. Activity, of any kind, requires a process of changing physical position or changing attributes. This change requires a temporal extension, for an instantaneous change would be tantamount to the complete disappearance of one thing and the appearance in its place of a wholly new thing. Nagarjuna first points out that to speak of motion in the present requires isolating the present moment. Movement in the past or in the future obviously does not constitute present moving; neither the "has moved" nor the "will move" is presently moving.
• When, though, did the motion of the presently-moving object commence? Prior to its commencement it was the "will move," but a "will move" is not moving. "How could there be a movement in the not [yet] moved?" he asks.

 

• Note: karika II.13

• Likewise, movement is not initiated in the "has moved," for the "has moved," by definition, is not partaking of present movement. Further, movement does not commence in the "presently moving," for this is already moving — an action cannot begin anew in a place where it is already present. The exact commencement of motion can never be perceived, for, no matter how infinitesimally small the atomistic division of time, there will always be one point at which the object is not yet moving. "When the commencement of movement is not being perceived in any way, what is it that is discriminated as the moved, the present moving, or the not [yet] moved?"

 

Note: karika II.14

Thus movement can only be perceived in the present moment, and the activity's necessary time span is lost. With the loss of temporal extension, the verbal activity becomes unfathomable, and hence unreal.

Even assuming that one could still speak of motion even when confined to a single present moment only, one now has the problem of what moves. By definition, only a mover can partake of movement. Likewise, separated from a mover, there can be no such thing as movement in the abstract. The relation between these two, the moverand the fact of its movement, is logically meaningless. To say that a mover moves is redundant and superfluous. To say that a non-mover moves is to state a contradiction. But these are the only two options, for, "other than a mover and a non-mover, what third party moves?"

Note: karika II.8

It may sound reasonable to say that it is a mover who partakes of movement. But it is not appropriate to speak of a mover without movement for, if it does not move, then by what is it a mover? Either option creates a disjunction between the subject and its action that is unacceptable.

 

The subject of motion is only half the story. One must further examine the lack of motion, or rest. The problems encountered by the issue of rest are identical as those faced by motion: a mover is not stationary, for this is a contradiction, a non-mover is not stationary, for this is a needless tautology, and there is no third party that is stationary. Further, a mover cannot come to rest, for it would then cease to be a mover. If a mover were to become a "rester," then its identity would change and it would no longer be the same subject; there would be the dissolution of the moving object and the instant creation of the stationary object.

 

The obvious objection to the above arguments is to say that they assume an untenable identity of a mover and its movement. This identity should be replaced with a concept of difference, the opposition could declare: the mover is not the same as its movement, but merely possesses movement. If this were so, though, then movement would exist in the abstract and be independent of the mover. There would be motion but nothing moving. Another problem of isolating the subject from its movement is that this subject is not perceived in any way. This subject devoid of attributes, what Western philosophy calls the "bare particular," would be a metaphysical creation produced purely by the imagination, for it could never be experienced. Nagarjuna closes this section with the summary statement that neither motion, nor the mover, nor the space moved in is evident.

Note: karika II.25

He has up to this point not offered an explicit discussion of the spatial dimension, but he states that the reality of space is to be negated in the same way that motion and rest were.

 

The reader is at this point likely to be left with the thought that Nagarjuna was a rampaging nihilist. All concepts are being summarily denied for some obscure and perverse purpose. Admittedly, this is a conclusion that has occasionally been drawn by admirers and detractors alike, both ancient and modern. However, while it is not yet clear what Nagarjuna's intent is, it is likely not one so simple. He appears to be negating, not the reality of subject and object and their attributes, but rather just some way of thinking about them. Regarding the topic of this section, he wrote "The view that movement is identical with the mover is not proper. The view that the mover is different from motion is also not proper."

Note: karika II.18

It remains to be seen, though, what view is proper.

 

 

by fully comprehending the Middle Way in the manner it is meant to be comprehended, the comprehender will come, by virtue of intense examination, to fully realise that all the things we assume as giving us identity, which inadvertently prop up and solidifies the I, Me & Mine notion, do not possess any intrinsic and substantial existence - and to this end, if one were to be completely courageous, will encounter the reality that even the comprehender does not exist from its own side, and is as much a made-up prop as anything else. Once this is acknowledged, what remains other than an unconfined awareness which is not dependent on a subject/object dichotomy. The gradual wearing away of habits which prop up this dichotomy requires that one remains vigilant and adopts an unflinching and constantly examining awareness, without actually forming any conclusions, much less opinions and views.

This vigilance in introspection, as well not disregarding extrospection, one that is not aimed at arriving at fixed points no matter how temptingly subtle and revealing one's realizations get (reminiscent of not falling under the spell of Mara), is basically what the Middle Way doctrine is about. It does not in any way deny the usefulness of conclusive and factual data; however, such, according to Nagarjuna, are bound to the premise of relative 'truths', while the positionless view of Madhyamika ultimately leads to Prajna, intuitive insight born from perfected wisdom which has no opposites and is independent in totality of even the subtlest division. Because it (the insight gained) is complete, total, and without opposite, it is perfectly balanced, and thus is always at rest... perfectly peaceful. Hence the term Madhyama... which simply means, 'Middlemost'.

(my very limited understanding)

Edited November 4, 2015 by C T

[RigdzinTrinley]

C t in my limited view "nailed it"

 

Let's wrap it up and go home boys

 

And c t BTW what u think is the best book on the karikas?

 

I saw that Thomas doctor translated the old Tibetan translation and commentary by one of the lotsawa (can't remember his name)

 

Its a massive tome - I want to buy it but is it any good

 

Do you know?

 

EDIT: after reading your post again I would like to say that to find out if madhyamika has a proper view or not it might be interessting to read miphams beacon of certainty

 

its one of the questions raised and answered, I did not receive teachings on that text so I wont write about it here, I do share what my lamas told me on the matter - If you want to talk about a madhyamika view then that would be freedom of all conceptual elaboration (thats the meaning of dharmakaya as well)

 

if that can be called a view? well what to say....

Edited November 4, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[Nikolai1]

Perhaps the middle way in its highest formulation is just the transcending of opposites, whether in thought or action. Whenever we follow a 'this' and avoid a 'that' we are straying from the narrow path.

[RigdzinTrinley]

as I love to hear my voice (or read my scribbles) ->

 

the middle way in it's highest formulation might be non abiding Nirvana (the one beyond the two extremes of samsara/nirvana)

 

the union of appearance/emptiness

 

freedom from all conceptual elaboration etc.

 

also I feel the pairs of opposites are not a real problem, short/long is not a problem as long as we don't think there is an ultimately short or long phenomena (I remember being 16 years old and having all sorts of complexes about a certain maybe not long enough thing betwenn my legs )

 

same with subject/object - once we fully understand that its just an apparition, a dream, mirage, hologram etc. then it looses its spell on us

 

doesn't mean it stops dancing! - Longchenpa wrote a whole book on that fact called "resting in Illusion" - once you fully realize its all a dream, an illusion then you can truly rest "in" illusion!

 

I asked one lama about "how the madhyamikas not refute the self as a mere label on the conventional level"

 

He said that the self as a mere label can't be refuted because it arises if you want it or not as long as the causes and conditions are complete it will arise - just like an elephant created in a magical show will arise as long as the causes and conditions are assambled and complete

 

same with this feeling of "I"

 

to come back to the example he said if you would fully understand that the magic elephant is just magic, just a hologram then why would you be afraid of it? It is not real after all!

 

same with the "I" - if we truly understand how it is just a label - and that labels have no existence themselves, we would be liberated

 

remember the robe in the dark example? its like that

 

So I guess, I GUESS!!! that subject arising and perceived object arising is not in itself the problem - its just how conventional reality functions - problem is thinking its really happening, if we would fully comprehend the dreamlike arising of perceiving subject and perceived object then there is no problem and we can enjoy the magic show

 

that is what I guess, I will actually ask my lamas about that and let you know ias soon as I know

Edited November 4, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[C T]

 

 

And c t BTW what u think is the best book on the karikas?

 

I saw that Thomas doctor translated the old Tibetan translation and commentary by one of the lotsawa (can't remember his name)

 

Its a massive tome - I want to buy it but is it any good

 

Do you know?

Afraid i dont, Rigzin Trinley, but if you manage to eventually buy it, please let us know how useful it gets to be for you.

 

and also i cannot say which is the best book on the karikas. I guess its up to the individual to find resonance with the different commentaries available. Personally i find 'The Adornment of the Middle Way' & 'The Great Secret of Mind' quite perfect for contemplating Nagarjuna's teachings on Madhyamika, although the latter is not specifically confined to Nagarjuna's work, i found it helpful when studied in tandem with The Adornment of the Middle Way. 

 

There are some really good papers on Naga's works written by various scholars on the net if anyone is really interested to pursue understanding in this particular body of teachings. 

 

All the best. 

 

[Apech]

For what it's worth I found a non- Buddhist book 'Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy' by Ramakrishna Puligandla very helpful because it allowed me to put Nagarjuna in the context of those other views he was critiquing.

 

In fact my understanding of Buddhism generally increased vastly once I understood what Samkhya, Yoga Philosophy and Vedanta were all about.  Particularly Nagarjuna is often portrayed as being up against Advaita Vendanta (although I am very sceptical as to if this is actually historically true) ... but once you begin to understand the difference between these two views you start to 'get it' on both.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Apech

[RigdzinTrinley]

Yes I second Apech, its very important to learn the different tenet systems - and like I mentioned earlier when the madhyamika starts to be understood to a certain degree, and one can start using it for practice on the cushion and off the cushion, then I think even western philosphy can be fun to look at

 

I want to share a beautiful quote from the pali canon:

 

 

Māra:

"By whom was this being created?

Where is the living being's maker?

Where has the living being originated?

Where does the living being

cease?"

 

Sister Vajirā:

"What? Do you assume a 'being,' Māra?

Do you take a position?

This is purely a pile of fabrications.

Here no living being

can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,

there's the word,

chariot,

even so when aggregates are present,

there's the convention of

a being.

For only stress is what comes to be;

stress, what remains & falls away.

Nothing but stress comes to be.

Nothing ceases but stress."

Then Māra the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "Vajirā the nun knows me" — vanished right there.

Edited November 4, 2015 by RigdzinTrinley

[Bodhicitta]

Firstly, the Middle Way is not for worldly folk.  Buddha in his first sutta, said the Middle Way is for those who leave the home life as monks.  It is the Eightfold Path.