The eighth of December is the observance of Śakyamuni Buddha’s enlightenment, Shaka-Jōdō-e in Tendai. An important aspect of that occasion is the teaching of the Middle Way (Madyamā-pratipad), a path of moderation of away from extremes.
Siddhārtha Gautama was a śramaņa (wandering ascetic) with three gurus (spiritual guides) before he sat under what is now known as the Bodhi Tree in Bodhgaya, Bihar, India. His decision to sit in meditation until he attained enlightenment was guided by the recognition that he was searching for the true nature of reality. What he had experienced during his life as an indulged prince and the six-year spiritual sojourn after he abandoned that life had not brought him the peace he sought. He had practiced the extremes of indulgence and deprivation.
This was further emphasized when he left the final guru and five companions to bathe in a stream, a purification of sorts. He crossed over to the far bank where he met a village milkmaid named Sujata who offered him a bowl of rice gruel. This was the first real food he had accepted in years. It restored his body to good health. This act of kindness and the wholesome food provided him the strength to sit in meditation that led to his awakening. I also speculate that this act of kindness and sustenance may have been a seed within his consciousness that influenced that which led to the revelations he later recounted.
The Middle Way is understood in many ways in Buddhism. As previously mentioned Madyamā-pratipad. Remarkably it is Madhyamaka, the Middle School founded by Nāgārjuna in the 2nd century, as well as other important philosophies that developed over time. Most notably it is in the Three truths, the third of which is the Middle Way or the Mean between number one the truth of Śūnyatā (emptiness) – all things are devoid of inherent existence) and number two, the Provisional – the mundane world in which all things are products of causal process.
Śakyamuni Buddha was reflecting on the need for the middle way in relation to his spiritual aspiration. However, as can be seen the middle way expanded to encompass many related concepts, and on to the more practical – a way of living. Let’s look at an example.
Applying this to the world we live in there are a number of issues to which this may apply. The most immediate is the colloquial use of the term ‘freedom’. As in freedom of speech. Does this include unrestrained freedom of speech? No.
Courts have ruled that shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no threat is a danger to the occupants and is not covered by freedom of speech. Yet social media is largely unregulated in the U.S. and many things worse than shouting fire in a crowded theater occur on a daily basis on the internet.
What about the 2nd amendment right for a regulated militia to bear arms – guns. That, by contrast has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be unassailable. Here I am not arguing the constitutional law, that is for those more knowledgeable. What I am pointing out is that this is an extreme.
According to Max Fischer and Josh Keller in the New York Times (11/7/17), “Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.
Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.
Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence”
Personally, I am not against rifles for hunting, or handguns for people who are legitimately are in need of them. In 2020, there were 15 million hunters in the U.S. If each of these people had, let’s say two rifles each that would be 30 million rifles, and no assault rifles. Let’s provide a similar number of guns for those who have a legitimate need for handguns. That would be another 15 million or 30 million guns altogether. With a current U.S, population of about 333,327,000, that would be .09 handguns per person in the U.S. The website American Gun Facts claims there are over 393 million guns owned by civilians in America today, or 120 firearms for every 100 citizens.
Pew Research Center indicates that There was a total of 45,222 firearm deaths in the US in 2020. That’s significantly more deaths by gunshot than traffic fatalities, 38,824 lives. Is this unfettered ‘freedom’ worth the cost of so many innocent lives?
The Middle Way would be to recognize legitimate uses for firearms. In Japan there are provisions for hunters and target shooters to own and possess firearms. It has a long list of tests that applicants must pass before gaining access to a small pool of guns. But it is a carefully monitored process. Japan is a country of more than 127 million people, but it rarely sees more than 10-gun deaths a year.
I recognize that changing American culture, corporate greed, and political opportunism, regarding firearms may be virtually impossible. I used the forgoing as an example of extremist thought in daily life.
One of my heroes is Martin Luther King Jr. Today we observe his life in January each year because of his contributions to civil rights. At the time of his assassination, by a rifle, he was widely derided by many in the African American community because he was too moderate, not sufficiently radical. Sixty-three percent of white Americans claimed he was too militant. A Harris Poll at the time of his death claimed a disapproval rating of 75% by Americans. He was too moderate by some and too extreme by others. His legacy is that of a person who pushed the boundaries, peacefully and assertively, in order to stand up for the common person, of any color. He followed the Middle Way.
The Middle Way often means making compromises to change things incrementally. It means trying to get things done by civil discussion, by consensus rather than force. The Middle Way is not passive, that is also an extreme. To not do something when there is a clear need is passivity and complicity. Whether we are dealing with racism, the environment, or any of the many issues we face.
Reflecting on Martin Luther King Jr. and Śakyamuni Buddha we have models of the Middle Way. Do we choose to follow their examples, do we advocate for the most radical solution, do we solve the problem by not thinking about it, ignoring it, or do we skillfully work (upāya) with compassion (karuṇā) advised by wisdom (prajña)? That is the Middle Way in both spiritual terms and in our everyday life.
With Love and Gassho. . . Monshin