Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is it the middle path to be a monk?
Sunspot5254
Explorer
I've been thinking about this for weeks. What are your thoughts on this? I understand why they do it and at one time I thought that it was something I would've liked to do. However, can't that fall into the category of an extreme?
0
Comments
I think it depends on the person. As a mom of 3 kids, for me to become a nun would be an extreme. But it might not be for everyone else. Sometimes, I'd love to run away and be a monastic, lol. But I also know it would be an escape and would never work out. This life, monastic is not my path. Maybe it was before, maybe it will be again. But not this time.
Extremes or the middle path between them generally refers to the scale of an attitude. Monks or lay people can be anywhere on that scale at anytime.
The eightfold path is the middle way.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html
@Sunspot5254 @karasti - It is so nice to know that buddhist may have something in common in aspirations. I too sometimes question myself, why is it that there is something inside of me that attracts monastics. The only answer I could find, is that probably in the previous lives we all been in monastics.
I find it no more strange but rather thankful that in this lifetime we are drawn into what seems just continuation of the practice from previous lives. Maybe next life or not we will be in monastic life, well it doesn't matter. What is important is we know that living in the present moment, we can expect that "unfolding" towards enlightenment.
May all beings be happy.
Yes.
As @how mentions there are extreme lay people. Extremely Middle Way people may have no interest in Dharma or be on other paths to moderation.
I would suggest following or involvement in happiness through samsara is completely unbalanced or extreme, yet it is the way of the world. No laughing please.
Avoiding Dukkha for self and others is not the norm. The norm for those on the path is extreme balance.
oh ... and Hi
I think a lot of the middle way is pointing to going with the naturalness if life as a wave.
Not a crest and not a trough, just one wave. Understanding this and relating it to life.
Like binge eating for pleasure or not eating to weaken the body to release the inner spirit.
Both are extremes .
Middle way would be to eat to sustain the body in a healthy way.
Being a Monk isn't an extreme. Being a Monk is a choice. Just as being a layperson - is a choice.
There are extremes in all walks of life, but each walk would benefit from finding its own 'Middle Way'.....
If you haven't been to the extremes how do you know where the middle ground is?
Very true. Some experience in life seems necessary to have the desire to transcend. However there are souls at different levels and so all may not need the experience of this lifetime. A monk is different from a lay person but both can attain to the jhanas per Buddha.
@Sunspot5254 -- From my point of view, you are bang on.
A monk once asked a Zen master, "What is the middle way?" The teacher replied, "It means the extremes." This may sound like some spiritual 'deep thinking' or 'profound understanding,' but I think that if anyone actually practices, the common sense will assert itself.
Be a monk...
Be a layman...
Just be good at it.
@SpinyNorman
For some, this saying shows that everything has the potential for teaching the Dharma while for others, this view simply justifies the distance they travel off the middle path.
The middle way is actually an endless razors edge that practitioners walk upon, either continually turning their feet in "s" curves to recross it as they move forward upon the path
or
tread in circles of different sizes endlessly recrossing back and forth the same edge, the same place on the path with little forward movement to notice.
Either way.....
extreme here, is just the degree to which one's toe protrudes off that edge or how little compassion one tends to foster for that state.
since creation has there been a need for a monk, since there was a Buddha was there a need for a monk. Do you feel that way in a warm home or in a green field. Taking all your focus back will only rott your teeth out if you don't take care of yourself.
In Buddhas time it wasn't the extreme between a monk and a lay person. It wasn't the extreme between eating pizza and eating rice. In Buddhas time starving yourself and inflicting harm on your own body being in elements and my imagination runs wild. So now we think giving up pizza is not the middle road. the middle road is to not be beholden to craving yet not letting your austerity sap your strength you need to meditate.
I wonder though if for some people the middle way becomes an excuse not to take risks, or an excuse not to commit to practice.
@SpinyNorman
The middle way could be folks not taking risks that threaten their ability to stay on the middle way. A pretty acceptable practice for many monks.
If you are thinking about folks being complacent where an action is called for, then you are defining the middle way and the extremes by that which is stationary compared which that which is active...which doesn't accurately define the middle way.
&
Folks who can not commit to practice, actually take a more extreme path away from commitment than the middle way.
A monk's life is the middle way, according to the Buddha's definition of "middle" because the Buddha uses enlightenment as the frame of reference for "middle". If you use a different frame of reference for middle, then of course the definition of middle will be different.
If one uses their own definition of "middle" then of course the middle will be a different place depending on the person because the frame of reference is different. For example, if one is strongly attached to sensual pleasures like eating good food, then eating only once a day, just for nutrition, would be called extreme. But according to the Buddha, that's not an extreme. Starving yourself would be the extreme. Eating tons of food for pleasure would be the extreme.
The Buddha's definition of middle is defined according to what will bring "Unbinding" or enlightenment. Whereas some individuals definition of middle is defined according to they want and what they don't want. They're completely different frames of reference. If you don't use enlightenment as the frame of reference, then you will essentially be comparing apples to oranges when you try to compare the Buddha's middle way to one's own perception of what is "the middle". Some people consider drinking no alcohol, at all, to be extreme. Some people consider celibacy to be extreme. But the Buddha doesn't consider those extremes because he's using a different frame of reference. If you use your own attachments and desires as the frame of reference, instead of enlightenment, then celibacy could easily be called "extreme".
@seeker242 that is exactly what I was trying to explain albeit poorly.
I think you would know the middle way when you see it, that is when you see the last noble truth of the way to the cessation of dukkha.
I think for monks, they most probably don't view being a monk as extreme. As a non monk/nun... it's too extreme for me though!
Alan Watts "Desire" and the middle way...