The Buddha advises that the middle way be taken. The discussion around the middle way sounds to me like a "it is not needed to be so krass" type view on asceticism. But is it still beneficial for enlightenment? Or does the Buddha actually mean to say that asceticism will hinder you from approaching stream entry?

Does the middle way -- **between annihilationism and eternalism** -- apply to objects? Like a mountain, will it either exist forever or be destroyed, or is it too the middle way? > The expression “middle way” refers to the Buddhist understanding of > practical life, avoiding the extremes of self-denial and > self-indulgence, as well as the view of reality that avoids the > ***extreme positions of eternalism and annihilationism***. That is one way of reading the meaning of 'middle way'. Do objects -- supposing they exist -- we have consciousness of have substance, according to any Mahayana Buddhists? That seems to ask the same question, I'm not sure.

I read this: > In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill > him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from > yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion." Should we kill illusions of Buddha? I do wonder, in the time of Buddha, some people wanted to kill him — perhaps this too is a reason I ask, although that may have been for many reasons.

Buddha used to teach always follow middle path. Don't you think life is not middle . For example he slept for only 2 hours and many others story which is extreme in some sense.

So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

I am recently observing the effects of "asceticism" or in my case, simply reducing food/taste related pleasures. I know the Middle Way in Buddhism advocates avoiding the both the extremes of asceticism and indulgence in sense pleasures. However, I find that in contemporary Western society, there is a significant lean towards sense pleasures and material comforts. Given the prevalence of indulgence in things like food, luxury, entertainment, and other sensual pleasures, I’m curious about the role of asceticism for lay practitioners today. 1. How should lay practitioners approach ascetic practices in the context of modern Western society? 2. Is there a recommended balance between asceticism and engaging with the comforts of modern life? 3. What specific ascetic practices can be beneficial for lay practitioners to help reduce attachment to sensual pleasures and support their spiritual growth? Any answers/opinions are appreciated. Thanks!

Buddhism is often said to prescribe a middle way - avoiding ascetism on one hand, and avoiding indulging in sense pleasures on the other. What are some of the **arguments** that Buddhism offers against the efficacy of ascetism (denial of sense pleasures) to bring lasting happiness?

I often find that in real life people I know are doing things in a "wrong" way. By this I not only mean profound things related to Dhamma, but also small everyday things. Because of these small things, which are most often due to a small gap in their understanding, they keep suffering in a worldly manner. Example clip I feel compassion for them and I feel that only if they could simply know the right thing their particular problem would go away and they will get some peace of mind. With this in mind (mostly) I try to gently tell them what the cause of the problem is... but I have found it unfortunately that 99% of them not only not act, but even not think about my words. It has caused me suffering, I'm not sure how... maybe because I'm not being taken seriously even though I'm telling something very important to them... anyways so I wanted to ask if what I am doing is incorrect, or maybe it is correct but it is impractical, or I'm doing something wrong somewhere? I feel like I should stop helping but then I think even if it makes me lesser in others' eyes, it is worth it if it helps them. Do you experience this situation in people surrounding you? How do you find a middle ground... like have you stopped helping thinking that they cannot comprehend at once deep insights? Any responses are appreciated. PS: Sorry, if my english is bad.

How to apply eight fold path to the wholesome act as meditation of three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa) of all existence and beings, namely impermanence (aniccā), non-self (anattā) and unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha)?

I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance. If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear. Where is the middle path in this? Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self? Again, where is the middle path in this?

My husband’s parents are very abusive now and in the past. Recently they’ve started bringing me into the mix, and so my husband decided to cut them out of our lives. They still text me to curse our marriage and say awful things about both of us. I know that filial piety is very important, but what if it’s an abusive situation? Does Buddhism teach anything about this?

Anyone knows where I can find an english translation of Moggaliputta’s work “Kathavatthu” (The Points of Controversy) where he somehow “saved” the Buddha’s message of the middle way contained in the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, which then later has been rejected by Theravada and Mahayana schools but flourished under Nagarjuna?

[SN 12.15](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html) says, > 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle We know that by the Buddha's time, the early Upanishads propounded some sort of "everything is existence" or "everything is the Self" doctrine. But who propounded the latter doctrine ("Everything doesn't exist") in the Buddha's time? Certainly not Carvakas or Lokayatas, who were simply materialists. So who exactly was propounding this during the Buddha's time?

It it well known that Tientai teaches the identity of the mundane and real truths. - In its complete teaching, what is being equated? Is it equating the **real truth** of the *separate teaching* with the complete teaching's **mundane truth**? The so called "separate teaching" is what Yogacara and Hua-yen Buddhists claim, and Zhiyi says (translated by Swanson) says that therein:

All the teachers and people I have read, talked with and listened to, emphazises that Buddhism is the Middle Way. Is this the right way to see it? If so, what is the most important or central aspect of The Middle Way?

If something is both relatively and ultimately correct can it still be false in the center ? I'm looking for a "yes" from any extant or historical tradition.

I guess (perhaps I'm wrong) that humans and life in general tend toward [homeostatis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis) -- i.e. wanting to stay the same as before -- and not just physically but socially and mentally too, e.g. to keep what you have and avoid what's new. An "avoiding extremes" doctrine might encourage that. The [theory of 'flow'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)) in psychology suggests that people want to engage in activities which are not too boring but also not too challenging. I think that school-teachers are aware of that phenomenon, and school-children become trained (habituated) to it. But however useful or pleasant that may be, perhaps that (i.e. the pursuit or maintenance of that 'flow' state) is just samsara. Does Buddhist doctrine challenge this? Or endorse it, use it? Wikipedia says, > In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time. > > Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in 1975, the concept has been widely referred to across a variety of fields (and is particularly well recognized in occupational therapy), though **the concept has existed for thousands of years under other names, notably in some Eastern religions, for example Buddhism**. > > The flow state shares many characteristics with hyperfocus. However, hyperfocus is not always described in a positive light. Some examples include spending "too much" time playing video games or getting side-tracked and pleasurably absorbed by one aspect of an assignment or task to the detriment of the overall assignment. In some cases, **hyperfocus can "capture" a person**, perhaps causing them to appear unfocused or to start several projects, but complete few. Can you comment on either of the highlighted statements from a Buddhist perspective? Also perhaps this is related to my previous question, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31442/254 -- I guess that 'flow' might help you to do things, even useful things, even things you might not do otherwise, like your maths homework at school -- I'm not sure it's a useful tool (or habit) for handling aversion however, i.e. any activity which takes you "out of the zone" is something you might avoid.

I'm familiar with the concept of the middle way and how Buddhism is neither Eternalism nor Nihilism. Not being Eternalism seems straightforward to me - all things are impermanent. However Buddhism not being Nihilism takes a bit more thought, for me anyway. So can anyone state for us why Buddhism is not Nihilism? When we start to get into concepts like voidness and emptiness it can start to seem like it is edging towards it. When I practice it seems like anything but Nihilism. However I think I would struggle to write down why that is. Just to clarify the question could we take the existential view of nihilism so quoting from wiki > life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

This is really confusing to me. Buddha himself was an ascetic, and his teachings seem to imply that the path to nirvana is attained through renouncing one's worldly possessions. Isn't this in direct contradiction to the Middle Way?

It is commonly known that the Buddha decided that asceticism does not lead to enlightenment, but less common is the reason why given. From Ajahn Brahm's book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond , it appears as though the Buddha abandoned asceticism because eating well was necessary to pursue the jhānas and the Middle Way: > once the Bodhisatta realized that jhāna was the way to enlightenment > (MN 36,31), he immediately recognized that it was impractical to > attain jhāna with an emaciated body so began eating well. Where in MN 36 do we find this reasoning? Is there general agreement in Buddhism that this is indeed why the Buddha decided to give up asceticism?