Don’t worry— this isn’t another post about Madhyamaka.
The Pārāyanavagga is a fascinating collection of poems, one of the most rich and beautiful in the entire Pāḷi canon. There’s one passage in particular which has poked the consciousness of Buddhists through the millenia to today, whispering away about different interpretations and nuances in the text. And that is from the Questions of Tissa-Metteya:
Ko ubhantamabhiññāya majjhe mantā na lippati? […]
Kodha sibbanimaccagā?
Snp 5.3
We find a discussion of the passage at AN 6.61, the Majjhe Sutta. There is a parallel Chinese sutra at SA 1164. We discussed some of the interpretations there beginning in this comment with the great help of @cdpatton and @knotty36 . Thank you!
I’ll try to keep this post short. Both Venerables Sujato and Bodhi translate this line on ‘majjhe’ similarly: ‘the middle.’ Likewise, in the discussion on the passage at AN 6.61. Ven. Sujato says:
“But what is one end? What’s the second end? What’s the middle?”
AN 6.61
This is problematic, because some of the interpretations in the Pāḷi sutta make less sense. For example, the Buddha said that he intended ‘the cessation of contact’ (phassanirodha) as the ‘middle.’ And yet, normally this would refer to the goal of the practice. In fact, the commentary to the Majjhe Sutta agrees, and states that by ‘cessation of contact’ the Buddha refers to Nibbāna. Likewise, there is one mendicant who interprets the “middle” as ‘sakkāyanirodha.’
And yet other interpretations seem to take the middle to be something ordinary, like the present (life) or consciousness. These indeed are normal things that the discourses say one should not attach to. Why the difference in structure of the interpretations?
I suggest that ‘majjhe’ here should be read as ‘between,’ not as ‘the middle.’ The idea is that the stitching of craving ties up the two ends, so that one is caught between them. We are caught between two things, meaning caught in that duality. In this sense, if you were to remove the connecting seams which tie the two ends together, you would be freed from that duality.
However, ‘between’ can also mean in the middle of the two ends, as in “the middle.”
When we read the passage like this, I think that AN 6.61 and the commentary make much more sense. Nibbāna is “in the middle” of the two ends if you don’t get stuck between them, going from one to the next. On the other hand, one could say that the present life is “between” the past and future, so one should not stick to it.
I think that the Pāḷi has this ambiguous double sense, which different mendicants were taking differently at AN 6.61. But all of them make sense of the word ‘majjhe.’ Just not so much ‘the middle.’ Here is a draft translation to show what an alternative would look like:
“Venerables, in the ‘Way to the Far Shore,’ in the ‘Questions of Metteyya,’ the Buddha said:
‘Whichever thoughtful person
who, having known both ends,
is not stuck between them:
They, I say, are a Great Person
who has escaped the seamstress here.’
But what is one end? What is the second end? What is in-between? …” […]
“Contact is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. And the cessation of contact is in-between.” …
“The past is one end. The future is the second end. And the present is in-between.” …
“Substantial reality is one end. The origin of substantial reality is the second end. The cessation of substantial reality is in-between.” …
Let me know if this makes sense, both in terms of Pāḷi and in terms of meaning.