What is the Middle Way?

[Nikolai1]

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.

Have you got a reference thanks?

[Apech]

The Buddha also taught lay people.

 

In his time the duties of the householder (his target audience) were so onerous that it would have been impossible to practice.  these days we live lives of comparative leisure and so becoming a monk is not so necessary.  And even in the old days many great masters e.g. Milarepa were not ordained.

[Bodhicitta]

Recall the context; Buddha was teaching his five friends who embraced the severe ascetic way which Buddha found out would not work.  Here is the Wheel of the Dhamma sutta - his first teaching.

 

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut001.htm

[Nikolai1]

Where does it say that the Middle Way is not for worldly folk?

[Apech]

Where does it say that the Middle Way is not for worldly folk?

 

 

Early Buddhism was very popular with the emerging merchant class in Ancient India precisely because he was not ascetic and other worldly - why he even gave financial advice, advice on business conduct and praised wealth.

[Bodhicitta]

Where does it say that the Middle Way is not for worldly folk?

 

Your first post asked what is the MW - this sutta tells you.  The 8-fold path is designed for sramanas or monks, thus logic says it was not designed for lay people.  Of course what lay people want to practice is up to them.

 

That does not mean Buddha did not teach lay people, only that he emphasized other teachings for us.  See Access to Insight website for such teachings best suited for lay people.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Bodhicitta

[Nikolai1]

Where does it say it's designed for monks? It doesn't say that at all, anywhere!

[Bodhicitta]

Where does it say it's designed for monks? It doesn't say that at all, anywhere!

 

"And what, bhikkhus, is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision ... which leads to Nibbana? It is this noble eightfold path..."

 

Bhikkhu = monk

[Seeker of Wisdom]

"And what, bhikkhus, is that middle way awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision ... which leads to Nibbana? It is this noble eightfold path..."

 

Bhikkhu = monk

The suttas refer to awakened laypeople, therefore laypeople can practice the 8fold path and become awakened. Consider 'right livelihood': if the 8fold path is only meant for monks and nuns, there would be no need to mention this, as surely livelihood would already be a factor taken care of.

 

The view that laypeople should only make merit, support monastics and forget about awakening themselves is supported nowhere in the suttas, and contradicted by 'right livelihood' being listed in the 8fold path in the first place.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Bodhicitta]

I did not mean and did not write that lay people cannot practice the 8-fold Path.  Only that it was best trod by sramanas, for whom all the elements were designed.  There are two kinds of each of the 8 factors, mundane and supra mundane.

 

Also right livelihood means more than the type of job.  For example - In the Majjhima-Nikaya, No. 117, it is said: ‘To practise deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery, usury: this is wrong livelihood.’  These activities have been practiced and are done even today by corrupt monks.

[MooNiNite]

The Middle Way = Creating balance in one's life, and then cultivating. 

 

What the middle way isn't = going into a cave and meditating, ashrams..

[RigdzinTrinley]

One second there:

 

Ma khyab! Or in English: no pervasion there dear mooninite

 

Why? Because what you say would mean that milarepa and longchenpa and many others didn't understand and practice the middle way correctly

 

If going to a cave to meditate on emptiness (the great middle way beyond all conceptual extremes) is not the middle way well then I'm confused! The great lineage of Indian and specially Tibetan masters who realized and expounded the middle way would be wrong (because they spend time in a cave)

 

I was in sankhu many times and there is a cave where nagarjuna did retreat

 

But well nagarjuna couldn't have practiced the middle way because he spend time in a cave?

 

If you go to a cave to "not deal with any of this s*&%" but anyway end up meditating on strawberry ice cream ok - that's not the middle way

 

Sorry my argumentative Indian philosopher side went a bit out of hand here

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I did not mean and did not write that lay people cannot practice the 8-fold Path.  Only that it was best trod by sramanas, for whom all the elements were designed...

The way your earlier posts were phrased seemed to imply that laypeople couldn't practice the 8fold path, but thanks for the clarification. I agree that monastic life is a very conducive environment - it's just logical, they're not doing much but practice so progress should be quicker.

 

The Middle Way = Creating balance in one's life, and then cultivating. 

 

What the middle way isn't = going into a cave and meditating, ashrams..

I can see why you'd say that, but for people utterly dedicated to awakening, long retreat and even monasticism becomes a reasonable decision because practice is their top priority. What if you really have no ambitions in the world?

 

Buddha taught balance between asceticism and indulgence, but as other posters have said - what we consider 'middle' might not be 'middle' by his standards. It would be very convenient indeed for us if a modern Western lifestyle just happened to be the one best suited for awakening. We can't just redefine terms to fit what we'd like to be true.

[Michael Sternbach]

The Middle Way will mean something different for each individual.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nikolai1]

I can see why you'd say that, but for people utterly dedicated to awakening, long retreat and even monasticism becomes a reasonable decision because practice is their top priority. What if you really have no ambitions in the world?

 

This is a very insightful comment in my opinion.  When enlightenment becomes our top priority, our lifestyles can become tantamount to monasticm, even if we don't formally take vows or enter an institution.  We don't need to be told to renouce worldly ambitions because they are already renounced.

 

For such a person the effort must be made in the oppsoite direction.  The effort is to stay engaged in the world, because there is hardly any opportunity to leave it.

 

The effort of combining practice with the role of an economically active 'householder' taxes us just as much as any monastic Rule does.  It is an unspoken imperative for each individual: the need to earn, to buy food, to pay rent..in industry that we have little interest or ambition.  It is truly mortifying.  The monk has none of these worries.  They won't end up on the street. But they do have the worry of subjecting the will in order to pray every hour and so on.

 

There is a nice Middle Wayness even to this argument.  For the true seeker the monastery is just like the world, and the world is a kind of monastery.  

Edited November 5, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Bodhicitta]

To  clarify more; here is Bhikkhu Bodhi from his Buddha's Words book (108-9) pointing out the exalted status of the 8-fold path for the few, yet offering Buddha's teachings for the many.  He breaks it down into three motives for three groups of humans:

 

"As the king of the Dhamma, the Buddha takes up the task of promoting the true good, welfare, and happiness of the world. He does so by teaching the people of the world how to live in accordance with the Dhamma and behave in such a way that they can attain realization of the same liberating Dhamma that he realized through his enlightenment. The Pali commentaries demonstrate the broad scope of the Dhamma by distinguishing three types of benefit that the Buddha's  teaching is intended to promote, graded hierarchically according to their relative merit:

 

1. welfare and happiness directly visible in this present life (dittha-dhamma-hitasukha), attained by fulfilling one's moral commitments and social responsibilities; 

2. welfare and happiness pertaining to the next life (samparayika-hitasukha), attained by engaging in meritorious deeds; 

3. the ultimate good or supreme goal (paramattha), Nibbana, final release from the cycle of rebirths, attained by developing the Noble Eightfold Path.

 

While many Western writers on Early Buddhism have focused on this last aspect as almost exclusively representing the Buddha's original teaching, a balanced presentation should give consideration to all three aspects. Therefore, in this chapter and those to follow, we will be exploring texts from the Nikayas that illustrate each of these three facets of the Dhamma."

[forestofemptiness]

That may be true if you ignore the entire Mahayana and Vajrayana, which constitutes about 2/3 of practicing Buddhists in the world. Renunciation is not the focus nor necessarily desirable in other vehicles.

 

 

That does not mean Buddha did not teach lay people, only that he emphasized other teachings for us.  See Access to Insight website for such teachings best suited for lay people.

[forestofemptiness]

I think we tend to build myths of the monastic lifestyle. I've known Korean monks in the U.S. who took full time jobs to support themselves. Other monks have spent years living as homeless wanderers. Some monks have vested their lives in a sangha only to watch it collapse financially on the verge of their retirement. 

 

I've known many monks who say that they are so busy, they have little time for formal meditative practice, outside of daily chants and rituals. I've also heard from several Asian masters that Westerners have more time to study and practice given our educational and technological advantages in some regards. Keep in mind that the average lay person in the Buddha's time worked incredibly long and hard days, and had very little means to extend light into the night the way we do. Also, literacy was extremely low, so studying wasn't even an option for most. Technologically, we wield more raw human power than the ancient kings. 

 

So I think it's more about the individual. I'm sure we can also practice much, much more than we do, but we work with our circumstances. 

 

The effort of combining practice with the role of an economically active 'householder' taxes us just as much as any monastic Rule does.  It is an unspoken imperative for each individual: the need to earn, to buy food, to pay rent..in industry that we have little interest or ambition.  It is truly mortifying.  The monk has none of these worries.  They won't end up on the street. But they do have the worry of subjecting the will in order to pray every hour and so on.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Bodhicitta

 

 

1. welfare and happiness directly visible in this present life (dittha-dhamma-hitasukha),attained by fulfilling one's moral commitments and social responsibilities; 

2. welfare and happiness pertaining to the next life (samparayika-hitasukha), attained by engaging in meritorious deeds; 

3. the ultimate good or supreme goal (paramattha), Nibbana, final release from the cycle of rebirths, attained by developing the Noble Eightfold Path.

I recognise these groups but would describe them according to spiritual aspiration rather than outer behaviours like being in a monastery or not.  So it follows that a person could be a monk, and yet be in group 1 if they are only there because it is what their parents wanted for them, or because the monastery offers a very comfortable standard of living.

 

So group 1 is by far the largest group and contains most everyday people.  They abide by the laws of the land, and even try not to lie and steal when there is no danger of getting caught.  Group 1 forms because of the basic moral instincts of most people, and their natural desire for social harmony.

 

Group 2 contains fewer people and these are more noticeably religious.  They go above and beyond the basic precepts and go to great lengths to do good things in the world for people in the world.  A major part of their motivation comes from the benefits that will accrue to them: an auspicious next birth, or salvation and a place in heaven.  They act IN the world for the sake of the afterlife - a mixture of the worldly and the religious mindset.

 

Group 3 are aiming for awakening in the here and now.  They do good works, not because they wish for anything in return, but because good works issue naturally from them as they align more and more with wisdom.  These people are naturally aware of the suffering that comes when we attach to viewpoints and so living the Middle Way is both a need and an aim.

 

As I said, outwardly you could have monks in Group 1 and householders in Group 3.  What is important is inner aspiration.

[Apech]

That may be true if you ignore the entire Mahayana and Vajrayana, which constitutes about 2/3 of practicing Buddhists in the world. Renunciation is not the focus nor necessarily desirable in other vehicles.

 

 

Even in the vajrayana you renounce the eight worldly dharmas.

[forestofemptiness]

Not necessarily. 

 

Even in the vajrayana you renounce the eight worldly dharmas.

[Apech]

Not necessarily. 

 

 

What do you mean?

[forestofemptiness]

I mean in the sense that there are the paths of renunciation, purification, transformation, and self-liberation. 

Edited November 5, 2015 by forestofemptiness

[MooNiNite]

One second there:

 

Ma khyab! Or in English: no pervasion there dear mooninite

 

Why? Because what you say would mean that milarepa and longchenpa and many others didn't understand and practice the middle way correctly

 

If going to a cave to meditate on emptiness (the great middle way beyond all conceptual extremes) is not the middle way well then I'm confused! The great lineage of Indian and specially Tibetan masters who realized and expounded the middle way would be wrong (because they spend time in a cave)

 

I was in sankhu many times and there is a cave where nagarjuna did retreat

 

But well nagarjuna couldn't have practiced the middle way because he spend time in a cave?

 

If you go to a cave to "not deal with any of this s*&%" but anyway end up meditating on strawberry ice cream ok - that's not the middle way

 

Sorry my argumentative Indian philosopher side went a bit out of hand here

 

Cave meditation is for people who have already attained awakening. 

They have already transcended the human plane. 

[MooNiNite]

The way your earlier posts were phrased seemed to imply that laypeople couldn't practice the 8fold path, but thanks for the clarification. I agree that monastic life is a very conducive environment - it's just logical, they're not doing much but practice so progress should be quicker.

 

 

I can see why you'd say that, but for people utterly dedicated to awakening, long retreat and even monasticism becomes a reasonable decision because practice is their top priority. What if you really have no ambitions in the world?

 

Buddha taught balance between asceticism and indulgence, but as other posters have said - what we consider 'middle' might not be 'middle' by his standards. It would be very convenient indeed for us if a modern Western lifestyle just happened to be the one best suited for awakening. We can't just redefine terms to fit what we'd like to be true.

Those people, unless they have extremely good karma and are somehow providing for themselves while they are on the retreat will not experience experiential realization. I doubt they will even reach intellectual realization.

 

Buddha taught, "rely on noone and no thing."

 

The yogis teach, "kundalini does not move without karma yoga."

 

The Universe has two important qualities: Self-Reliance and Movement.

 

There are exceptions depending on age and circumstances surrounding destiny. 

 

We are talking about ascension here, literally transcending one's humanity, it doesn't come without taking responsibility.