Why does the Buddha promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

Question

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?

Answer 1

But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extremism?

MN 36 says that when he was searching for enlightenment, he tried being an ascetic, but that didn't work (wasn't effective):

I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

It's this that he's referring to later, in SN 56.11:

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

That's in response to their accusing him of back-sliding.

I'm trying to say that "avoiding extremes" is not the goal-in-general, i.e. he doesn't avoid them because they're extremes -- he avoids them because they're ineffective.

You might see another example in AN 4.159 -- where he says that a little bit of conceit might be OK or even necessary (as a means), but he doesn't mind being categorical or absolutist about sexuality.

It's embedded in the monastic code that a (very) few possessions are "requisites". I think that's his criterion -- not "is it extreme?", but instead, "is it necessary, effective, beneficial, practicable?"

re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering ... can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people.

I might recommend again the "prosperity" book I mentioned in an earlier answer. In it the author (a Theravada monk living in Texas) says, something like, that the Buddha intended the two societies (lay and monastic) to co-exist and depend on each other.

That's not to say that all actual contemporary and historic Buddhist societies have always been perfect, but still.

Part of the reason I say this is because maybe he does recommend "harm reduction" (as you perhaps suggested he should), instead of a more "extreme" form, at least for laypeople.

Answer 2

The Middle Way is not literally "the middle" way. Meaning, its point is NOT to take a lukewarm middle between the extremes. Instead, The Middle Way is the "let's not oversimplify it" Way. It is "it goes deeper than that" way, the "this is how it really works" way.

In the eternalists vs annihilationists debate the middle way position is not "the soul gets to live several lives, more than one but less than infinity", it is that the causal chains are infinitely forking and joining, with no fixed entities to be found other than the abstractions we cling to.

The Middle Way between sensual hedonism and spiritual masochism is not "let's enjoy life but not overindulge", it is let's understand the psychological mechanisms behind suffering (attachment to concepts and expectations) and stop naively chasing the projections of our concepts and expectations in real life.

The Middle Way between "everything exists" and "everything doesn't exist" is not "some things exist", it is that phenomena are delineated by the observer, therefore existence depends on how we draw the boundaries.

And so on, every Buddhist "middle" is an invitation to look beyond the superficial, simplistic, overgeneralized — and explore the wild, awesome, amazing, magical reality beyond our childish conceptualization.

This pertains to suffering, too. First you need to understand what exactly Buddhism means when it says dukkha, it's not quite suffering, it is the actual in-the-moment experience of disharmony or discord. Second, that dukkha is not inevitable or necessary, just like infection is not inevitable or necessary. You can be methodical with your subjective hygiene just like you can be methodical with your physical hygiene. The cherry on the cake is the Buddha's realization that, in the final analysis, confusing our interpretation of reality with reality itself, and clinging to our interpretation despite reality being otherwise is the root cause of dukkha. Therefore, the Buddhism's solution to dukkha is not sterile avoidance of difficulties, rather, it is living in harmony with the actual reality beyond our expectations and interpretations. If you think about it, every interpretation is a simplification, and the middle way avoids getting stuck in any of them.

Answer 3

The goal of Buddhism is not The Middle Way of All Things.

Rather, the goal of Buddhism is complete liberation from suffering.

In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering.”
SN 22.86

The middle way between asceticism and hedonism was discovered by the Buddha to be the most effective way, in contrast to extremism.

The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism is part of the sublime truth that was discovered by the Buddha on anatta and dependent origination.

Not all things have a middle way.

For e.g. there is no middle way in telling deliberate lies. There's no such provision as telling a lie to save oneself or telling a lie with good intentions.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie."
Iti 25

Of course, one could still make broad interpolations like withholding the truth is the middle way between speaking the truth and telling lies.

The Middle Way is a technique with limited scope in Buddhism that is not meant to be generalized to all things.

Answer 4

Buddhists usually say that everything is the middle, rather than offering a middle way between good and bad. So while pain may serve a purpose (meditation can be hard work, even if it isn't mortifying), it is not usually thought to be good in itself, at least until we move beyond dualistic thinking, and then everything is really neither good nor bad (there are many such sutra references).

Think of the middle way as including everything as it is, without conceptual elaborations (such as... stealing is bad but can be good if someome needs the stolen antidote to stay alive... which may be the case but isn't liberation).

Anyway, the Buddha wanted to free us from suffering, and is not a sadist, so would not suggest needlessly hurting yourself.

IMVHO

Maybe I'll find a sutra quote.

Answer 5

In Early Buddhism, the term 'eternalism' refers the wrong view of a permanent 'self'. Refer to DN 1, which refers to continuation of a self after death; and refer SN 12.17 & SN 44.10, which simply refer to 'eternalism' as belief in a permanent self (unrelated to death).

Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be eternal... DN 1

Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. SN 12.17

In Early Buddhism, the term 'annihilationism' refers to the wrong view of a discontinued 'self'. Refer to DN 1, which refers to ending of a self at death; refer SN 12.17, which refers to 'annihilationism' as believing suffering is caused by others; and SN 44.10, which refers to 'annihilationism' as believing a self existed in the past but may not exist in the present.

Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way others proclaim the annihilation, destruction and extermination of an existent being. DN 1

But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism. SN 12.17

this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists...the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, ‘It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.’ SN 44.10

The heretical ideas exclusively about 'eternalism' referring to an afterlife vs the 'annihilationism' referring to no afterlife are, again, created by Buddhaghosa (the author of the Visuddhimagga) in his Theravada Commentary on DN 1. The second commentator named Dhammapala corrected Buddhaghosa's heretical commentaries but the worship of Buddhaghosa in Theravada continued to prevail. In summary, in Early Buddhism, the terms 'eternalism' & 'annihilationism' refer to two types of 'self-view' rather than are conflicting doctrines about an 'afterlife'.

Therefore, the Buddha's own approach is not a form of eternalism or annihilationism because the Buddha taught the doctrine of not-self (anatta).

---

---

In Early Buddhism, the complete eradication of suffering is real or a Noble Truth; therefore possible. If there was no Nibbana (end of suffering), there would be no Buddha and no Buddhism.

If we come from another (worldly) religion, we should not believe there is any other religion that comes anywhere near Buddhism. The Buddha did not evangelise his supramundane doctrine of Nibbana because it is simply beyond the capacity of most people who naturally are guided by craving. Nibbana is a superhuman (atikkantamānusakena; uttari vā manussadhammā) attainment in Early Buddhism therefore not a subject for the common worldling (puthujjana). The Middle-Way essentially starts as a life of celibacy, which is the definition of one of the Right Actions of the Noble Eightfold Path. In other words, there is no goal in Early Buddhism of re-orienting the entire society. Re-orienting the entire society was a goal of Moses, for example, in the Old Testament. But we can see how, according to the Old Testament and according to their mode of living today, this goal of Moses failed. The Old Testament continually mentions how those people rebelled against the Torah & fell out of the covenant.

---

---

In summary, in Early Buddhism, the term 'The Middle Way' refers to:

1. A Path of practise avoiding sensual pleasures and self-torture (SN 56.11). It is a Path of happiness or bliss based in the development of meditation "jhana", which is a pleasure far superior to any type of sensual pleasure (AN 2.64-76; MN 75). The problem with sensual pleasures is their pleasure diminishes, causing a search for other sensual pleasures; plus they involve many dangers, sorrows & traumas (MN 54; MN 13; MN 14; MN 75; MN 22).

2. A Path of not viewing life in terms of self (SN 12.15; SN 12.17). Instead, life is viewed as merely natural phenomena; and suffering is viewed as being caused by ignorance (rather than by selves or persons).

Answer 6

I think one of the misunderstandings with regards to the Buddha’s teachings is that he taught goody goody stuff that was neither observed nor verified by himself personally. An example of such teachings is given in the Dighajanu Sutta especially w.r.t to the four qualities that will lead to a person’s happiness and well-being in future lives.

I mean as ordinary human beings, how would anyone know what happens after death? This forces us to ask a very pertinent and critical question. Did the Buddha saw with absolute certainty what happened to people who behave in a certain way when they were alive and their subsequent destinations after they died? How is this related to the question of the Buddha’s seemingly contradictory teachings at times and its importance?

The only obvious answer is that the Buddha had the ability to see clearly the workings of karma better than any human beings, devas and so on. He knows the results of actions even if it only manifests several lifetimes later. This is where true believers and non-believers go their separate ways. As a result, his instructions can appear confusing. It’s like a traveller who is advised to take a left turn then a right and followed by a series of left and/or right. Why can’t we just travel straight? Because there is no path to the desired destination otherwise.

Underlying the purpose of the Dharma is always the same goal i.e. whatever leads to the long-lasting well-being and happiness of the follower. If a child is about to swallow some poison, we cannot adopt the Middle Way but to slap away the poison and reprimand the child harshly. If suffering here and now (e.g. putting up with difficulties in meditation or restricting indulgences in food or avoiding alcohol) leads to long-lasting well-being then it is encouraged by the Buddha. Similarly, the act of giving may appear asinine as you are asking a person to sacrifice their wealth, time and energy for nothing. But it is encouraged by the Buddha as it leads to future happiness. Thus, many of his teachings only makes sense if we view them in the context of his ability to see the consequences of actions decades, centuries and even aeons into the future.

Unfortunately, human beings are not really blessed with farsightedness, wisdom or conviction. More often, we tend to be short-sighted and blinded by greed; inclining towards ignoring dangers/warnings in our pursuit of immediate gains and short-term happiness. Sadly, this problem affects our world leaders as well. There are global problems threatening humanity today such as climate warming, pollution and loss of biodiversity yet we continue to drag our feet on possible solutions. Unlike the Buddha who appeared to flip flop but doing so with wisdom and foresight, we flip flop but doing so with greed and stupidity. Petrol was a brilliant discovery but burning fossil fuel is now condemned. Plastics was a great invention but microplastic pollution is now a health hazard. Clearing forests and jungles is a part of human progress but is now threatening humanity’s survival.

Likewise, the extremists in the world today are constantly trying to make everyone conform to their desires and leaving a path of destruction in their wake. If the Buddha is an extremist, I wish there are more such extremists in the world as they do not force their will or teachings on anyone but instead show a path that is well-illuminated with wisdom.