The idea that Buddhism is the “Middle Path” because it teaches one not to overstrain the body became the prevailing view in modern Buddhism.
For example, Ajahn Amaro expresses similar views.
«In Buddhist commentary and traditional stories, the monk who lost his eyesight while undertaking severe ascetic (dhutanga) effort is Venerable Cakkhupāla. He pushed his meditation practice to the limit through the rainy season, refusing to lie down to fulfill the sitter’s practice (nesajjikanga), which led to blindness, but simultaneously resulted in his attainment of full enlightenment (Arahantship).»
«The Buddha explained the deed he did in the past which caused his loss of sight in the present.»
If this monk burned away his bad karma without stopping his ascetic practice, despite the illness that arose, then by this view, how is his behavior no different from ascetics of other traditions?
It is definitely the goal of any ascetic practice not to create or endure pain, because there are many more effective ways to cause pain to the body than abstaining from food and remaining in a motionless posture. So, such an interpretation of the behavior of ascetics of other traditions, such as burning bad karma by experiencing pain, does not correspond to reality.
If ascetic practices described in the Canon are, at times, extreme in nature then where do such interpretations—unsupported by the text of the Canon—come from?
Venerable Eye Protector went blind from overexertion. Sorry, but I can’t help it. I think the redactors of Dhammapada commentary were pulling leg here. As a rule, I take commentary with a grain of salt. If it is useful, then accept it. If not, just ignore it.
This story is so similar to Mahayana version of Ven Anuruddha. He went blind due to overexertion. Whereas you don’t find this story in Pali Sutta Pitaka, well, at least I’m not aware of it.
Venerable Chakkhupala is far from the only instance of extremism. For example the story of Venerable Subha who voluntarily gave up her eye.
One can go very far with such an approach. In any case, the compilers of Dhammapada were far closer to an understanding of original Buddhism than people today. The Buddha did not speak Pali. According to the latest linguistic research, only a few suttas can be traced back to the time of the Buddha. Likewise, it seems reasonable to me that those incapable of performing such traditional Buddhist ascetic practices are also incapable of truly appreciating their their benefits or harms.
BTW, the Pāli word paṭipadā does not mean “path” or “way” (as a physical chunk of space to be traversed); it primarily means, rather, practice, course ofconduct, practice, behaviour, esp. good, approved behavior.
So it would be “way”, “path”, or “course” in the sense of a “way of practice”, “path of conduct”, etc.(so only in a metaphorical/derived/indirect sense).
Besides the two extremes mentioned in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta between sensual pleasure and self mortification, the middle is also mentioned in a different context in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, Samyutta 12.15.
Ete te, kaccāna, ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathāgato dhammaṁ deseti
(avoiding both extremes the Tathagata teaches the dhamma by means of the middle)
where then the Dependent Origination formula is taught to counteract the ideas of eternalism and annihilationism.
(Sorry- I see Sphairos had mentioned that just above as I was typing my response !)
I do not fully grasp the nuances of the translation, but the underlying meaning suggests a type of fatigue self-induced rather than caused by the sense organs. These “extremes”—such as sensory happiness and self-induced fatigue—are not opposites in the way black and white are, because sensory pleasures can also lead to fatigue.
In terms of meaning, this does not appear to be about avoiding ascetic practices, but rather about avoiding the loss of vital energy or strength; after all, the Buddha describes his victory over Mara in Sutta Nipāta 3.2 Padhānasutta not as a result of having ceased his ascetic practices.
Problem can be stated by question: “Does the Buddha condemn all asceticism?” And immediately we can see that the question belongs to category of questions which has to be analysed before answering it,
The second type of question (that answerable after analysis) can be regarded as a dialectic, one side of which is hidden or partly hidden, both sides of which need bringing clearly to light, and one whose ambiguity should be displayed didactically. Whether it can then be answered, or partly answered, unilaterally is here of secondary importance. The important thing is not to “buy a pig in a poke” by answering unilaterally a question one has not yet fully understood. The doubleness of the dialectic involved, until it has been brought to light by analysis, lurks concealed, can be harmful, and mislead.
Nanamoli Thera
And it depends on what background the question is seen. As far as Buddha’s Teaching goes, there is only one tragedy in human life, to be born as ignorant and to die without understanding of Dhamma. So if ascetic practice lids to understanding of Dhamma, one should not hesitate to accept and practice it even if it is associated with extremely painful feelings.
‘Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up on my body, but my energy shall not be relaxed so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, manly energy, and manly persistence.’ MN 70
Or as Sutta says metaphorically:
“**Bhikkhus, suppose there were a man with a life span of a hundred years, who could live a hundred years. Someone would say to him: ‘Come, good man, in the morning they will strike you with a hundred spears; at noon they will strike you with a hundred spears; in the evening they will strike you with a hundred spears.396 And you, good man, being struck day after day by three hundred spears will have a life span of a hundred years, will live a hundred years; and then, after a hundred years have passed, you will make the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths, to which you had not broken through earlier.’
“It is fitting, bhikkhus, for a clansman intent on his good to accept the offer. For what reason? Because this saṃsāra is without discoverable beginning; a first point cannot be discerned of blows by spears, blows by swords, blows by axes. And even though this may be so, bhikkhus, I do not say that the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths is accompanied by suffering or displeasure. Rather, the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths is accompanied only by happiness and joy. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.**
SN 56 : 35
So one should examine certain practices, and while they may seem associated with painful feelings, nevertheless if with them unwholesome states diminish in him and wholesome states increase, there is no reason to avoid them.
The problem is that the same practice suitable for one, may not be so good for another.
Also, one should be aware that what for bhikkhus in Buddha’s time was just healthy and pleasant style of life may seem to moder man self-mortification.
In discussion with certain monk he dismissed night meditation on the ground, that sleep during night is very healthy for the body, according to modern medicine. I am not sure if this is so, but even if it is true, body itself should be seen as a disease, so what’s the point if it would live few years more?
Then the Blessed One spent most of the night seated [in meditation], and the venerable Pukkusāti also spent most of the night seated [in meditation]. Then the Blessed One thought: “This clansman conducts himself in a way that inspires confidence". MN 140
Also, certain things we don’t need to discover for themselves. It is good to know history of monastcism, what practices are quite common generally, not only in the Buddha’s Teaching. One of them is reduction of amount of food. I don’t mean here eating one time a day, since there monks who follow that discipline, and they are still fat. Accepting painful feelings (hunger) we gain energy, sexual thoughts diminish and hindrance of sloth and torpor disappear.
Middle Way not necessarily means moderate way, it merely means that self-mortification just for the sake of self-mortification is fruitless.
IMO, ordinary (Jain/Hindu/etc) style Asceticism conflates the needs of the body with the desires of the mind. And they believe that sallekha (effacement/ mortification) of the needs of the body is equivalent to the effacement of the self. This mistaken view arises on the basis of identifying the body as the self.
The Buddha’s approach is quite different - he focuses on effacing the desires of the mind (MN8).
To do this, we need to differentiate the genuine needs of the body from the desires of the mind. The body needs to be maintained to the extent that it functions well enough and for long enough to allow us to permanently free the mind of its defilements (hopefully within this lifetime! ) . The mental defilements that are the focus of our work are to be curbed by a wise approach to the needs of the body (MN 2).
Ascetic practice is useful only when it is imbued with wisdom (MN 101). Thus the buddha says
AN10.94
When undergoing certain mortifications, unskillful qualities grow while skillful qualities decline. I say that you shouldn’t undergo those mortifications.
When undergoing certain mortifications, unskillful qualities decline while skillful qualities grow. I say that you should undergo those mortifications.
Hence the key question one should ask with regard to any ascetic practice is
What skilful qualities have the potential of increasing as a result of this practice?
and as a safety measure, we should consider
What are the unskilful qualities that this practice, followed unwisely, may generate?
and one should know this by checking again and again…
AN10.51
Am I often covetous or not? Am I often malicious or not? Am I often overcome with dullness and drowsiness or not? Am I often restless or not? Am I often doubtful or not? Am I often irritable or not? Am I often corrupted in mind or not? Am I often disturbed in body or not? Am I often energetic or not? Am I often immersed in samādhi or not?
My point was not so much whether the Buddha encouraged ascetic practices, but rather how much and why we imitate understanding, knowledge and authority.
Doesn’t it seem strange to you that the Buddha himself told that his Teaching was understandable only to a select few, while today a huge audience is almost entirely convinced that they have comprehended its essence? People, of course, have not become any wiser, and their achievements along this path remain very modest.
Very likely that the question here is not about balancing between asceticism and pleasure at all, but rather about the internal (self) and external (sensual pleasure) causes of fatigue. And this changes the picture a lot and is more consistent with content of the Canon.
Hinduism did not yet exist in the time of the Buddha. What you portray as the views of Jainism or Hinduism bears no relation to reality. In any case, before making such claims, you ought to cite an original Jain or Hindu text that addresses the matter.
It is incorrect to regard a simple common-sense principle—such as “if something is beneficial, increase it; if it is detrimental, decrease it”—as exclusively Buddhist, or a path to liberation.
Only by repeatedly examining what seems obvious to you can you understand the difference between belief and actual knowledge or experience.
One possesses additional criteria that allow for a sober assessment of one’s own abilities. Becoming enlightened is a far rarer occurrence than, for instance, becoming an eminent physician or a martial arts master. And if you lack the requisite qualities—the kind that would enable you to master even simpler skills—then you are unlikely to succeed in meditation or the study of texts.
To properly gauge how far our own representation might diverge from what the Buddha meant when he spoke of the “Self” or the “Middle” I would like to quote an excerpt from the book of Richard F. Gombrich, How Buddhism Began.
"In the Taittiriya Samhita, one of the recensions of the Black Yajur Veda, are instructions for building a fire altar. The sacrificer is told to lay in the middle a brick which is smeared with dung, ‘for truly, dung is the middle of the self. It is with his self that he lays the fire. He who knows this comes to be in the other world with his self’ (V, 3, 5, 2). The word I have translated ‘self ’ is atman; the reference is clearly to a physical body. In the middle of the body are faeces; he who understands this is re-embodied in heaven.
In one text in the Pali Canon (SN III, 144), the Buddha holds up before some monks a pellet of cow dung. (The commentary (SA II, 324) seems a bit shocked that he should be handling dung and suggests that he produced it there and then by supernormal power.) He has just said – as so often – that nothing in the five groups of components of a person (khandha) is permanent, stable, exempt from change. Showing the dung pellet, he says that one does not acquire a self even of this size which is permanent, etc.; if one did, one would not live this holy life to destroy suffering. He goes on to talk of a former life in which he was an emperor; but now that glory has all passed away.
I suspect that the Buddha is here alluding to the Vedic doctrine. This is made the more likely, it seems to me, by the somewhat awkward phraseology of the Pali. The self in Pali is usually atta, but here the word used is attabhava, which commonly means the body, or rather the person, in a particular life. What I have translated as ‘one does not acquire a self’ is in Pali attabhava- patilabho natthi; the P.E.D. translates attabhava-patilabho ‘assumption of an existence, becoming reborn as an individual’. It is not quite logical to say that the assumption of a particular physical existence is not permanent and liable to change; obviously that predicate applies to the physical existence, not to the assumption. But if the words are alluding to a doctrine about creating a physical existence in the next world, an existence which is in some sense the same as one’s present self, the use of this vocabulary becomes transparent."
Myself, I assume that many disciples of the Buddha were converts from other ascetic traditions, and they continued their old practices to one extent or another. The Buddha was himself a member of the ascetic tradition before his awakening and had practiced such things, as the story goes, which didn’t result in the breakthrough he was pursuing. But that doesn’t mean some of the disciples weren’t still influenced by those practices. Mahakasyapa was apparently well-known for adhering to a strict form of asceticism, and there are sutras praising him for this. There was clearly a tension inside the Buddhist tradition over the issue. Some sources criticize it, other praise it.
I think the Jain tradition is probably one of the better sources for what the other ascetic traditions were like. They thought the various forms of mortification that an ascetic endures were a natural way to cleanse the soul of impure passions through cultivation of patient acceptance. There’s a lengthy section on the subject in Nathmal Tatia’s translation of the Tattvartha Sutra. It actually doesn’t sound that different from Buddhist asceticism, but with Jain religious ideas like the soul and its corruption by past karma, which must be eliminated through austerities. This is the source of the generalization that we see in most commentaries about the Buddhist “middle way.” There was a concept of eliminating karma through mortification among Jains, but it was only part of the justification for such practices. There was also the basic idea that “suffering builds character” in the sense that the practitioner trains themselves to be patient and have a non-harmful attitude in the face of discomfort.
Where do the interpretations come from is beyond the point, in my opinion. Let the scholars talk about that.
What is true is that the common interpretation of the middle way as the “moderate way” is indeed incorrect. I base this conclusion on first, it would not be original for the Buddha to preach a moderate way between extreme sensuality and extreme ascetism, and second, the idea that sensuality is bad only when it is extreme (and ascetism is bad only when extreme) is obviously at odds with the Buddha’s teachings. Besides overlooking the correct path, the Middle Path, this idea also overlook the whole problem with the idea of “extremes”. For someone who has this view, this extremes can only be seen as externally. No matter your predisposition, your inclinations, the extremes are an outside reference that one can avoid by looking outside. So, the extreme of sensuality is the same for everyone, and the extreme of ascetic practices is the same for everyone.
It is by the same attitude that one does not admit initially their problem with alcohol, since they don’t drink everyday, and one cup, one bottle is not enough to affect them, without realising that exactly because one cup, one bottle does not affect them that they have problems with alcohol.
In this case, for someone like the Buddha or someone close to him in attainment even a tiny amount of sensuality is extreme, so they don’t accept none, but for the common puthujjana having sexual relations is ok, it appears that it don’t affect them. In the same way ascetism. For someone who is accostumed to eating their daily nutritious meal several times a day, it is extremely hard to eat one meal a day, let alone a one low nutritious meal. For a person who eats high calory food several times a day it will be already uncomfortable to eat only nutritious food, let alone eating only untill noon.
The Buddha describes many ascetic practices when criticizing the other extreme, and the point of them is not that they are extreme. Let me give some examples:
They eat once a day, once every second day, up to once a week, and so on, even up to once a fortnight. They live pursuing the practice of eating food at set intervals.
They tear out their hair and beard, committed to this practice.
They constantly stand, turning down seats.
They squat, committed to the endeavor of squatting.
The disciples of the Buddha that practice the dhutangas also eat only once a day and even are commited to not lying down never again. Nevertheless the Buddha said that his practice is the middle practice.
The Buddha said this:
“Don’t indulge in sensual pleasure, which is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And don’t indulge in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One understood the middle way of practice, which gives vision and knowledge, and leads to peace, direct knowledge, awakening, and extinguishment.
That is, the middle path is not the moderate way between extreme sensuality and extreme asceticism, but sensuality and asceticism in any shape or form ARE the extremes.
So, how can we understand the ascetic practices that the Buddha recommended? Although I would not discard that there are ascetics that believe that through pain one extinguishes their “sin”/bad kamma, the problem with ascetic practices cannot be that one feels discomfort/pain/suffering through them. Since in the Path, going against the stream, one will feel such things too.
The problem also cannot be exactly in the specific practices done, since as I showed above, some ascetic practices that the Buddha labeled the wrong way are practices that are practiced by people on the correct path too.
It can only be in the attitude that one is having while doing those practices. That is, both of these extremes are extremes because they miss the same thing: right view. And, what is right view? Knowing kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. The Buddha’s path is about cultivating and mantaining kusala, and giving up and not cultivating akusala. Whatever training or practice that is is only correct when it is based on this.
So, if I eat only before noon, is not that by doing this that kusala is cultivated and akusala is not cultivated. One can even eat one time a week and akusala will keep growing and resting on your mind. But, by eating only before noon, that can be a training ground for my mind. And the possibility of a training ground should be emphasized in this case. Simply because it won’t depend on what you think it is appropriated out of nowhere or because someone said so, but because only when the mind goes out of its comfort zone can one train it. If it is delighting in it, if it is comfortable in it, if it finds safety on it, then it is the time to move on, to push the cord a little more.
That is why I find it strange when people mention the “too tight-too lose” cord simile under the view that extreme sensuality and extreme asceticism are the problem. A slightly lose cord is already bad, a “slightly too tight” cord is already bad. A proper tension, the right tension should be exerced, but it needs to have tension.
Asceticism is about ignoring the context of the right tension to allow a training ground for the mind, and overstep the need of the practice. For example, the Buddha in multiple occasions did things not allowed in dhutanga practice, but he was the foremost in the Path. Why? Because his mind did not need these. Mahakassapa was the foresmost in ascetic practices. Why? Because his mind required these, he knew his mind, its inclinations etc.
Strange? Not really… Ignorance is the norm and thinking that one knows what one does not know is part of ignorance. Why is that so is also irrelevant for me. But, obviously, one should realize that if one does not have right view one does not understood the suttas yet, and one cannot correctly practice yet, so any practice whatsoever should be done in the assumption that one can be wrong. That is, if one is not a sotapanna and beyond, one does not have right view, one is not practicing in the Path, one cannot be properly called a Buddha’s noble disciple, one is not part of the Noble Sangha, and one has probably a lot of work to do than one even realize. All of which are not what the common buddhist person think of themselves.
I hope I contributed in the discussions somehow. Be well.
Eating once a day is a moderate practice compared to starving oneself to death eating once a week or only a grain of rice a day, etc. as it is commonly said about the Buddha when he gave up that practice and then attained awakening. As I said, there were clearly Buddhists who were very critical of these types of ascetic practice, if not the Buddha himself. Otherwise, they would not have such stories as the Buddha nearly dying needlessly or those long almost ridiculing lists of practices by other ascetics.
Which Buddhists refused to ever lay down again? That’s a new one to me, I’d appreciate an actual reference for that claim. Last I checked, giving sleeping quarters and bedding to monks was one of the common forms of dana that the laity provided along with food, clothing, and medicine. Sounds to me like most monks were laying down on a regular basis.
I don’t know about ‘ever again’, but sleeping sitting up is one of the 13 optional austerity practices (dhutaṅga) listed in the Visuddhimagga.
Sitter’s Practice (nesajjik’anga)
see:
PTS Dictionary:
“Nesajjika Nesajjika (adj.) [fr. nisajjā] being & remaining in a sitting position (as an ascetic practice) A iii.220; Th 1, 904, 1120; Nd2 587; J iv.8; Pug 69; Vism 79; Miln 20, 342. The n-˚anga is one of the dhūtanga-precepts, enjoining the sitting posture also for sleeping, see Vin v.193, Vism 61, & dhūtanga.”
If you take the descriptions/examples of ascetic practices that the Buddha criticizes everytime he talks about these three paths, you see that, as I showed, it is not only these extremes that he considered ascetic practices. Eating once a day, for example, is in one of the examples of ascetic practices that he mentioned. However, he encouraged people to eat once a day as a practice on the Path, so something other than the external act of “eating once a day” must differentiates the ascetic practices criticized by the Buddha and the practices praised by the Buddha.
My point is that the Middle Path is not about doing the practices and hoping that just by doing these practices one will be training in the Path, because even if someone eat more than once a day, for that person it might be ok, however, what works for another person might not work on you.
Furthermore, take an untrue person who is very learned … who is an expert in the monastic law … who is a Dhamma teacher … who dwells in the wilderness … who is a rag robe wearer … who eats only almsfood … who stays at the root of a tree … who stays in a charnel ground … who stays in the open air … who never lies down … who sleeps wherever they lay their mat … who eats in one sitting per day. They reflect: ‘I eat in one sitting per day, unlike these other mendicants.’ And they glorify themselves and put others down on account of that. This too is a quality of an untrue person. A true person reflects: ‘It’s not because of eating in one sitting per day that thoughts of greed, hate, or delusion come to an end. Even if someone eats in more than one sitting per day, if they practice in line with the teaching, practice properly, and live in line with the teaching, they are worthy of honor and praise for that.’ Keeping the practice to themselves, they don’t glorify themselves and put others down on account of their eating in one sitting per day. This too is a quality of a true person.
Thanks. Certainly there was also the desire to sleep as little as possible, that comes up quite often, so dozing off while sitting would be a natural thing to happen. Still, monks were allowed to sleep laying down.
Along the same lines, owning only a single robe was considered moderate compared to going naked like an animal living in the forest, which was a practice listed by Jains, and which was attested to by Greeks when they first encountered Indian ascetics. These were real things. Buddhist asceticism may seem extreme to us today, but they were actually “dialing it down” as it were because the Buddha realized there’s a point at which there is nothing gained by tormenting yourself just to prove that you can endure it.
) . The mental defilements that are the focus of our work are to be curbed by a wise approach to the needs of the body (MN 2).
