The Middle Way

originally posted by: namelesss
"The 'Middle Way' is equidistant to all Perspectives."

Got a flash from that idea: imagining a particle suspended in a multi-pole magnetic field. Whenever the magnets are shifted around, or new magnets added or subtracted, the particle glides into a new position in a fresh point of balance, reacting to the new subtleties of the altered overall EM field.
-
Another, unrelated idea: is that the absolute extremities of black and white, are to be avoided. The good/safe areas are the gray in between.
Therefore: the grayer the better!

a reply to: namelesss
Let's just try to play with the idea of the middle way, what if we take it to the extreme and polarize the middle? For example, the fence sitters as oppose to taking sides or standing up to an issue, what will be the middle then? Do we choose or choose not to choose? What will be the middle ground? These are the questions. Like Hamlet's Dilemma 2.0?

By taking the middle way, don't we risk the possibility of getting lost in the midst of it? Pun intended. Is the proverbial journey more important than the destination?

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: namelesss
Let's just try to play with the idea of the middle way, what if we take it to the extreme and polarize the middle? For example, the fence sitters as oppose to taking sides or standing up to an issue, what will be the middle then?

I'm unsure of your meaning.
If one 'polarizes' the 'middle', it will no longer be the 'middle!
Redefining something makes it something 'else'.
Think of the polarity;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics
The greater your Knowledge/experience of one Perspective, the more ignorant of others.
The more ignorant of the opposite Perspectives, and their equal validity, the more atrocity you'd be willing to commit in defense of that Perspective. To see both equally valid prevents such insanity.
All 'polarities/dualities' are resolved in the where they all coincide; the middle; equidistant from all Perspectives.

Do we choose or choose not to choose? What will be the middle ground?

There is no 'choice'.
By definition, the 'middle' is central to extremities..

By taking the middle way, don't we risk the possibility of getting lost in the midst of it? Pun intended.

It seems to me that the greater the Perspective in all directions, the less the chances of getting 'lost' in any single one.

Is the proverbial journey more important than the destination?

'Journey' and 'destination' are merely two opposite Perspectives of the One Reality!
Heads and Tails = same One Coin. *__-

Illustration;
Seven blind men surround and touch/examine an elephant. The one touching his tail exclaims that it is like a hairy snake... etc... That perspective is actually correct, but it is also quite limited. If the man wished to move the elephant to the other side of a wall, he might be led to think that he can get it through a small hole in the wall. Obviously, he will run into trouble and, perhaps, frustration and anger...
All the time he has been arguing with the others around the elephant regarding their 'perspectives'. Ego declares 'rightness' which gives rise to 'wrongness', and everyone knows that 'I' cannot be 'wrong'.. etc...
The other fellows around the elephant are finding the same problems of 'their' perspective.

All perspectives are correct, all are limited/incomplete (some more so than others).

If one of the men listened to the others and accepted the testimony (tentatively, of course) of another, experience will show that there will be less 'problems' with the elephant, the larger the perspective (inclusive of other perspectives rather than egoically contesting them).
The 'sum' of two perspectives = one new unique 'wider/deeper' perspective. Still limited/incomplete, but more 'useful' than either one of the component perspectives.

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

The 'Middle Way' sees all Perspectives equally, without discrimination.

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: namelesss
"The 'Middle Way' is equidistant to all Perspectives."

Got a flash from that idea: imagining a particle suspended in a multi-pole magnetic field. Whenever the magnets are shifted around, or new magnets added or subtracted, the particle glides into a new position in a fresh point of balance, reacting to the new subtleties of the altered overall EM field.

I Love it!
Perhaps that has something to do with every point in the Universe being it's Center! *__-

On second thought, for there to be a shift on one side of the polarity, there must be a shift on the other!
There is a balance to be maintained!
Like the figure '8', the central point in the figure remains central to an 'infinite' cloud of opposite polarities/Perspectives, on 'infinite' axes...

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"

Another, unrelated idea: is that the absolute extremities of black and white, are to be avoided. The good/safe areas are the gray in between.
Therefore: the grayer the better!

IF 'safety' were your primary concern.
And it could still be debated, for instance the damage from the deadly boredom of eternal 'grey'!
I'll take pain before grey! *__-

But... you speak as if we actually have any 'choice' in the matter! ;^]

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: namelesss

In nature, some things are known to occur in discrete amounts, whereas others appear to be continuous.

Yes, you are talking 'mirages', 'appearances'.
What 'appears' to 'thought/imagination' as continuous, has been shown by QM to be quantized, discrete.

The 'appearance' of 'time' 'appears' to flow in some continuous wave, upon the crest of which, somehow, we delicately balance in an ever moving 'Now!'!

I am thinking that we have drifted...
later

a reply to: namelesss
Before we go too deep into the discussion, what I mean is in the practical context of the fence sitters as those who try examine the different perspectives as a guide to their actions or inaction. What will be the point of symphatizing or even empathizing with opposing views if it will only lead to inaction? What will be the difference between those that are apathetic about the issues, thus won't do anything and the latter?

It's more like the synthesis being the new thesis as oppose to the antithesis which is taking a stand not out of ignorance but because the opposing issue will affect their lives. Today's moderates will be the future radicals or today's radicals will be the future moderates. As you pointed out from Nothin's comment:

... for there to be a shift on one side of the polarity, there must be a shift on the other! There is a balance to be maintained!

I'm just trying to identify the middle ground in this scenario. What you speak of is the ideal that we should strive for, I'm just trying to point out the practical side.

What do you mean by there is no 'choice' and:

IF 'safety' were your primary concern. And it could still be debated, for instance the damage from the deadly boredom of eternal 'grey'! I'll take pain before grey! *__- But... you speak as if we actually have any 'choice' in the matter! ;^]

Between black and white, theoretically there could be infinite shades of gray. More often than not, I find myself in the dark gray areas or the off white scale depending on the issues.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: namelesss
Before we go too deep into the discussion, what I mean is in the practical context of the fence sitters as those who try examine the different perspectives as a guide to their actions or inaction. What will be the point of symphatizing or even empathizing with opposing views if it will only lead to inaction? What will be the difference between those that are apathetic about the issues, thus won't do anything and the latter?

First, I see no need for manically 'doing' something just for the sake of doing.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of that which gets 'done' in the name of one Perspective over another might have best been left undone!
If you sufficiently examine 'all Perspectives', you will remain motionless, which is not inherently a 'bad thing'.
Knowing too much to play the game can often be perceived as 'apathy' by the game players.
A matter of Perspective.

It's more like the synthesis being the new thesis as oppose to the antithesis which is taking a stand not out of ignorance but because the opposing issue will affect their lives.

I understand selfish gain is most often a motivating factor, but I am talking about the 'Middle Way, where there is no 'selfish gain', because there is nothing to be 'gained', and no 'self' to possess it.
Yes, in the world of vain, ignorant, unEnlightened humanity, people are 'doing' all over the place.
Perhaps way too much.
Enlightenment/ the Middle Way, is not logical.
To the extent that we live the Middle Way, we actually 'do' very little; we don't need to serve the ego and ignorance.

Today's moderates will be the future radicals or today's radicals will be the future moderates. As you pointed out from Nothin's comment:

... for there to be a shift on one side of the polarity, there must be a shift on the other! There is a balance to be maintained!

I'm just trying to identify the middle ground in this scenario. What you speak of is the ideal that we should strive for, I'm just trying to point out the practical side.

There is much vaguery, and I'm having a difficult time responding clearly.
Perhaps if you gave me a specific hypothetical?
Perhaps 'voting'? Would that be fair?
The less you know, the more likely you would vote.
Equidistant from all Perspectives makes voting much less likely.
Traditionally, the Sages were not 'doers', unless sharing Wisdom is considered 'doing'.

What do you mean by there is no 'choice' and:

IF 'safety' were your primary concern. And it could still be debated, for instance the damage from the deadly boredom of eternal 'grey'! I'll take pain before grey! *__- But... you speak as if we actually have any 'choice' in the matter! ;^]

Between black and white, theoretically there could be infinite shades of gray. More often than not, I find myself in the dark gray areas or the off white scale depending on the issues.

I mean that there is no 'choice' in who and what we are, and how that manifests from moment to moment.
No 'choice', no 'free-will'.
But I think that I might understand you about the 'grey' (I might have responded to a misunderstanding of your meaning); Grey would be the 'Middle Way' between black and white. Metaphor...

a reply to: namelesss
I've been intrigued by The Book of Fudd since last year, is there a pdf version available on-line? Where can I buy it? Is there a dumbdown version of it- The Book of Fudd for Beginners: A Practical Guide for Everyday Living?

My apologies if I can't make my points clear. I appreciate your effort to answer all my questions. I'm not in any way opposed to the middle way as you have explained it or as I understand it. I'm beginning to think that either way it won't matter to you where I stand... not that it matters.

To be appreciative, more tolerant to others views can make us kinder to one another but we're not all destined to just sit in lotus position, contemplate the universe and watch this world go up in flames. I would imagine that even the sages eat, sleep share their knowledge (to those who care to seek it) among other things every once in a while. Pardon the sarcasm to illustrate my point.

What's the point of accumulating all these perspectives, realizations and revelations if we can't apply it to improve our lives in a sense that we will be paralyzed by the immensity and complexity of our situations and do nothing?

If

Enlightenment/ the Middle Way, is not logical. To the extent that we live the Middle Way, we actually 'do' very little; we don't need to serve the ego and ignorance.

Can't we examine it logically why it is not logical?

Yes voting is a fair example which boils down to two choices, to vote or not to vote, no middle ground... and speaking of choices, what do you mean by:

... there is no 'choice' in who and what we are, and how that manifests from moment to moment. No 'choice', no 'free-will'.

I'm just trying to figure things out with your help of course, I will now stop asking you with further questions and try to figure this out by myself. Thank you for starting this thread and your patience.

About the gray being the middle way... well, nevermind.

Myself I meditate with Mandalas in mind as I have found the experience quite interesting in relation to my spiritual development. My interpretation of the Buddhists path to enlightenment is to understand that reality as is commonly understood is secondary to what can be related to beyond that. Therefore the response in mediationis to diminish in every context and to the best of ones ability the relevance of what we in general understand with the senses.

Alternatively there exists the conclusion.

That our ability to perceive and interact with reality as we commonly understand
fall into the category of being, "Mirrors to the Soul".

What we perceive commonly represents clues to meaning in respect to all things. And that what is inherent to nature is inherent due to the fact that perspectives have meaning as an avenue to enlightenment for the sake of discussion.

Lets discuss the middle way or alternatively the middle ground in relation to these two points.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: namelesss
I've been intrigued by The Book of Fudd since last year, is there a pdf version available on-line? Where can I buy it? Is there a dumbdown version of it- The Book of Fudd for Beginners: A Practical Guide for Everyday Living?

I Am the Book of Fudd.
It is a growing living book that I release into the net as I write it and as it gets constantly updated... to the moment!
I do have it basically written into an actual book form, but it seems so dead that I have just transitioned from updating it, which would be a perpetual process that no one will read, or this living, online book that is, essentially, nameless.

My apologies if I can't make my points clear. I appreciate your effort to answer all my questions. I'm not in any way opposed to the middle way as you have explained it or as I understand it. I'm beginning to think that either way it won't matter to you where I stand... not that it matters.

All Perspectives are 'valid/Reality'.
It really doesn't necessarily matter where you 'stand', as you'll be standing in a different 'place' a moment from now!
Besides, being 'opposed' to the Middle Way is like being opposed to North! Or water... *__-

To be appreciative, more tolerant to others views can make us kinder to one another but we're not all destined to just sit in lotus position, contemplate the universe and watch this world go up in flames.

The Middle Way is lacking in discrimination, not action. Lacking in 'agenda'.
One can go about one's natural needs, naturally. Our 'needs' are few, our discriminating desires are many. Without attaching to any particular Perspective, we become all Perspectives.
I will draw water from the well, when necessary, but I will not harm you for your water. All 'harm' is Self harm!

I would imagine that even the sages eat, sleep share their knowledge (to those who care to seek it) among other things every once in a while. Pardon the sarcasm to illustrate my point.

Of course, as I said, we all go about our daily lives, reflecting who and what we are at the moment!!

What's the point of accumulating all these perspectives, realizations and revelations if we can't apply it to improve our lives in a sense that we will be paralyzed by the immensity and complexity of our situations and do nothing?

The understanding of Reality always improves our lives.
We fly airplanes rather than drive Flintstone-mobiles, we wash our hands before eating because we discovered bacteria. We learn more how Reality 'works', and we change with the new awareness.
If we find/become Love, we might still eat meat, but we are less likely to torture it first, less likely to cause harm to the environment. We don't cause undue distress to those we Love.
So, like everyone, the Sage might make pottery for a 'living', but he will be Honest, Compassionate, Charitable, Faithful, Happy... (all Virtues of Love) in all his dealings with 'others'.
And when the needs are cared for, the 'doing' becomes 'Being', equally valuable.

If

Enlightenment/ the Middle Way, is not logical. To the extent that we live the Middle Way, we actually 'do' very little; we don't need to serve the ego and ignorance.

Can't we examine it logically why it is not logical?

All 'logic' is based on false assumptions. All logic/thought is 'duality'!
Unconditional Love/Enlightenment is the experience/Knowledge of 'monality', the One!
To be Known, it must be experienced.
Experiencing 'thought' is the experience of 'duality'.
Thus logic, eventually, must give way to experience.
When you get to the bottom of the rabbit hole, to pass through the door, one must leave all else behind, all thought, all logic, all rules, all Reality as you know it...

Yes voting is a fair example which boils down to two choices, to vote or not to vote, no middle ground...

I see the "two choices" as Trump or Hillary. To not engage is a 'middle way', not to support any 'evil'.
Besides, as I said, I know how this show ends, and there is not anything that anyone can do to 'change' anything!
Things are going to have to get 'worse' before they get better.
Should I vote for the 'worse' to get it over more quickly?
Vote for the 'less worse' to prolong the agony?
Not anything can be done to change a whit of it!

and speaking of choices, what do you mean by:

... there is no 'choice' in who and what we are, and how that manifests from moment to moment. No 'choice', no 'free-will'.

I mean that we really have no 'choices' in life, even though we 'feel' and 'think' that we do.
That the totality of who and what 'we are', each and every moment of Universal existence, manifests in our behavior, our words, even our thoughts!
Killers kill. The next moment that 'killer' might be a potter, making pottery.
Another moment he's a daddy. Another moment, a killer, again... Who and what you are, manifests into your 'reality'.
We are somewhat like pieces in a jig-saw puzzle, imagining that we can all change shape at will.
If even one piece had that 'choice/free-will, the entire puzzle would have to change accordingly!
For me to 'change' anything, I'd have to (considering that all is One) change the entire Universe!

I'm just trying to figure things out with your help of course, I will now stop asking you with further questions and try to figure this out by myself. Thank you for starting this thread and your patience.

About the gray being the middle way... well, nevermind.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions!
Anytime! *__-

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

The term "Middle Way" was used in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the first teaching that the Buddha delivered after his awakening. In this sutta, the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation, between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. This, according to him, was the path of wisdom.

Or maybe it meant to be as Buddha described it? A place in between 2 dualistically opposed extremes instead of all perspective that can be quantified.