This article is based on the Teacher’s Address to the AGM of the Western Chan Fellowship on 23rd March 2013.
The Buddha's Life
As we all know, the Buddha was born as a prince and to encourage him to remain in the palace and become the next king his father ensured that he lived a life full of luxuries and indulgences. But he became very concerned about the issue of human suffering and he left the palace setting out on his spiritual journey. He visited many teachers and learned and practised many forms of meditation, but did not feel that he had penetrated to the root of suffering. He tried ascetic practices in quite an extreme way, including fasting to the extent of emaciation. He became very weak and at risk of dying. He did not sense that he was yet near reaching his goal, and he accepted some milk and rice and broke his fast, later sitting on a mat of soft grass under the Bo tree. It was here that he adjusted his meditation and where he broke through to Enlightenment.
The Middle Way
From this story, we take the concept of the ‘Middle Way’, of not falling for extremes. We can learn from the specific example presented that we should aim not to fall either for the extreme of self-indulgence or the other extreme of self-mortification. However, we should take this as just one example of a wider principle and develop this much further.
What is the problem with extremes? Usually they indicate a strong attachment to oneself, to one’s self-concern. In this example, we easily can see the self-attachment in someone who emphasises self-indulgence. Perhaps egotism is a little harder to discern when looking at someone who emphasises self-mortification, but it is there in the form of strong belief that 'I' know the way, 'I' am confident in my path, 'I' am not open to other views. This is a lack of openness, a fixed and narrow view which is rooted in individual opinion and self-seeking goal-orientated behaviour.
One way of understanding the Middle Way is as above to find the mid-point between two extremes, a point of balance, to be moderate. But we can also look at it in a more sophisticated way and consider it in terms of encompassing opposites, of seeing the wholeness and unity of the situation. We can use an example such as looking at two of the Paramitas which could appear as opposites, vigour and patience.
An extreme of patience might be inaction, laissez-faire, or even self-indulgent laziness and an extreme of vigour might be egotistic forcefulness. The first level of understanding of the Middle Way would be helpful in pointing us towards the importance of balance, of finding a way to apply appropriate energy without anxiety and undue self-concern. But the deeper understanding guides us towards seeing that self-concern is the issue, and that if we can drop this then there is no opposition between patience and vigour, we can be fully relaxed and non-attached to outcomes at the same time as applying full effort – we can find the perfection (Paramita) of full expression of both patience and vigour.
We are familiar with this as it applies to other pairs of apparent opposites. The Silence and the Illumination of the meditative practice of Silent Illumination are not opposites between which we seek a mid-point, nor are they even two – they are attributes of one state in which both attributes can be fully realised simultaneously, if we are free of self-concern. We may find it difficult to find the unity in form and emptiness, they appear as opposites, but from the perspective of no attachment to self, the mind of no-self, these two apparent ‘opposites’ are encompassed as one reality. Similarly, for wisdom and compassion, for arrogance and meekness, and more, we can apply this to any pair of apparent opposites.
It is not that we take two opposites and unify or integrate them to make them one. It is that we drop self-concern and then we are able to see the unity that was there all along though it appeared divided due to self-attached mental processes.
Consider whether an extreme position is ever appropriate. Remember the phrase from Dogen: "When the opposites arise, the Buddha mind is lost".
Living the Middle Way
Understanding the Middle Way like this allows us to progress beyond merely doctrinal understanding to take this principle into our practice and our lives and our activities.
In our practice we can observe how we tend to lean one way or another, towards one extreme or another, for example towards quietism or towards intellectualism, or towards striving or passivity. In the mindfulness of our practice both on the cushion and in our daily lives we have the opportunity to notice ourselves doing this and to observe that the pull is one of self-concern. This approach should be applied to meditation methods and to our 24/7 daily life practice.
Failing to apply this understanding leads not only to poor meditation but may actually be harmful to the practitioner. Some extremes lead us to deviate a long way both from the Path and from normal life, and in misunderstanding the importance of the Middle Way we may even reinforce our errors by regarding them as good and dedicated practice. A specific example of this is what is known as ‘spiritual bypassing’, a term coined by John Welwood (Welwood 2011) whereby we idealise the practice and avoid full participation in our lives and what needs to be done in them.
This may be accidental but may even be done somewhat deliberately and consciously by those who use their ‘practice’ as a tool to avoid dealing with difficulties in their life. They excuse themselves from addressing any messiness in their lives by citing and prioritising a higher ideal – the realisation of their practice. They overlook that the fruit of practice should be realisation of human potential, not suppression of human life. They idealise, perhaps even idolise, some anticipated future Enlightenment as being the solution to their problems, overlooking that for practice to lead to Enlightenment we must take responsibility for the cleansing of our vexations. Avoidance or suppression of vexations is not the path to Buddhahood.
The opposite, denying the spiritual urge, is not the solution either, this would be to attach to 'my' life and concerns as primary and demote the task of paying attention to making ourselves good for others as well as for ourselves.
Either extreme involves dividing practice from life, and setting them in opposition, and thus is 'losing the Buddha mind'. A clue that we are falling for this trap is to notice whenever we have a tendency to turn a blind eye, to withdraw, to blank out, any kind of avoidant behaviour or attitude whether in relation to ourselves or to others. This act of avoidance, or one of preference, implies that we have created a split in the mind between opposing demands on our attention and we have sided with one of them. To progress in practice and in life we need to heal such splits, and the first step is to notice the fracture and our tendency to sustain it. We should adjust our practice and our way of living, so that practice informs our life and is grounded in it - the whole of it. If that is difficult, we should investigate the sense of attachment that binds us to one direction and challenge the associated self-concern.
Relationships
We also should apply this analysis and practice to our relationships, to other people, to other beings, to the environment, and even to created things such as organisations.
How much of our concern in our relationships is for what we gain and how much for what we give? How much is a manifestation of self-concern and how much a matter of compassion and love? Crucially, how are these working together, are they in tension or in balance, are they divided or are they as one?
Too easily, we attach to protecting our own, our self, our family, and deny our responsibility to others. But also too easily we may fall the other way, denying ourselves and our loved ones in the name of outward action for others. Can we catch this tendency in ourselves and rebalance the extremes, both in the sense of finding a mid-point between extremes, but also of finding the unity of all which heals the split which created this tension between inner and outer.
As members of the WCF we can also consider our relationship to WCF as an organisation. WCF has the role of providing services to the public, of educating the public about Buddhism and offering retreats and so on. As members, do we contribute too much to this project, creating organisational attachment and perhaps risking burnout, or do we not contribute enough owing to feeling held back by the busy demands of family and work in our lives? A Middle Way is found not by a mathematical calculation and apportioning energy between competing demands but by realising the wholeness in our relating to the many demands on our attention.
The public are consumers of our offerings, but as WCF members we also have the role of ‘consumers’, for example in attending as participants in WCF retreats and other events. How do we balance our ‘taking’ from WCF, which might feel selfish, and our contribution to WCF, which might be compassionate but which might also be driven by egotistic attitudes such as seeking approval of others? We may be able to offer time, money, knowledge and skills, and support to fellow practitioners, but we also have other demands on all of these resources. How do we check that we are in balance in this important area of our lives and what resistance do we feel to making adjustments – investigate that resistance, it reveals attachment. Find your way through to making use of WCF as an organisation to support both your own practice and the practice of others.
Organisations
We can take this analysis one step further and consider not only our own personal issues but those of organisations with which we are involved, for example the WCF. An organisational sense of ‘self ’ can cause trouble in the same way as our own personal sense of self, by distorting activities and priorities due to self-concern. Organisations may behave in self-concerned and selfish ways, for example by losing connection with their original objectives as they diversify into activities which may be popular or profitable but which are unrelated or even contradictory to the founding principles of the organisation, or in being over-concerned about organisational details. This is over-institutionalisation, the organisation protecting its own existence at the cost of its own values. But the opposite extreme is also troublesome. When an organisation does not take care to make itself useful for its intended purpose, exhibiting institutional under-concern, e.g. by not making use of opportunities, or insufficient planning ahead, or ineffective organisational structures, leading to being less effective or failing. As the members of WCF, we are the ‘managers’ of WCF – do we consider that WCF is on course between these extremes, or do we see adjustments being necessary for WCF to fulfil its objectives, and how do we see our role in enabling and supporting these adjustments?
Bodhisattva Path
The Bodhisattva path is not an abandonment of personal practice, and neither is it a compromise, practising half for self and half for others. It is a Middle Way path practising both wholly for others and wholly for self – there is no opposition between these two. If when considering the Bodhisattva Path and helping others you feel a sense of tension, or imbalance, or sacrifice, then investigate and release the self-concerned attachment which is pulling you off-centre.
Apply this principle to all aspects of your life, to your practice, to your personal and work life, to public interactions and roles, and to any organisations with which you work including the WCF. In this way, your practice and your life will be most effective and most beneficial and fulfilling for yourself and for others.
References
Welwood, J. (2011) Human Nature, Buddha Nature: On spiritual bypassing, relationship, and the dharma. An interview by Tina Fossella. John Welwood: Integrating Western Psychology and Eastern Spiritual Wisdom http://www.johnwelwood.com/articlesandinterviews.htm
