The Middle Path

(Photo: My own, taken in Patan, Kathmandu. This is the Temple of One Thousand Buddhas. How's that for the thousand things?)

Before I read the section on the Four Noble Truths, I took a second to think about what those truths might be; I figured they would be along the lines of compassion, truthfulness, unattachment, etc; therefore, I was a little startled to see that each of the Noble Truths pertained directly to suffering. I think this perception I had hearkens back to our conversation last class, where John was talking about how damned cute Buddhist Monks typically are. It's easy to get caught up in the warm, happy, golden-lit side of Buddhism and forget about the negative things Buddhism addresses. Buddhists are, after all, human--since suffering is a huge part of the human condition, I shouldn't have been surprised to see it addressed so directly.

I've had the opportunity to work with a monk named Lama Tenzin a couple times, and one of the things he said that has stuck with me most strongly was this:

"If a butterfly lands in your hand and you try to hold onto it, you will crush and kill it; if you turn your hand upwards, however, the butterfly may linger. Learn to enjoy things while they last and allow them to pass in their time; if you spend all your time and will on making a good thing stay, you will distroy it. Allow things to happen naturally."

Not being gifted with eidetic memory, I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the gist. In Buddhist philosophy, as I understand it, all suffering is derived from desire. In our reading, this was called "craving" in the second Noble Truth; the want of "visual objects, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily impressions, and mind objects" that are "delightful and pleasurable" (page 39). But how is it possible to not want anything? To not want food, water, mental stimulation? It's a natural function of living, isn't it? That's why we have a class for Exibit Enrichment and Design here, because animals need stimulation to maintain mental health. So if it's so important, why does the Buddha teach against these desires?

This, I think, is the Middle Path that is mentioned a little later in the reading. If you poke around a bit more in this book, you'll find more mentions of the Middle Path. The overwhelming desire of input (be it food, objects, or other forms of stimulation) is never a good thing. We find this principle in Christianity as well--Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not indulge in gluttony, etc). While the complete nondesire of anything may be ideal, it is probably impossible to attain; Somewhere between these two extremes lies the Middle Path. A lot of what we've talked about in class ties into this...remember John's class that did the no-talking trips, and how they discovered how little really needs to be said? Complete silence wasn't dictated, but language wasn't superfluous either. That was perhaps a Middle Road.

I think the trick is to learn how to truly appreciate a good thing when it happens to you, without missing it when it's gone. If we could really love what we have, we wouldn't spend so much time looking for what we don't. It's hard; taking the bad with the good and not missing what's past is about the hardest lesson to learn as far as I can tell. But as I said before: In all things, balance.

To take over the universe...

Maybe its just my...creative way of thinking that led me to 29.

Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.

The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.

So sometimes things are ahead and sometimes they are behind;
Sometimes breathing is hard, sometimes it comes easily;
Sometimes there is strength and sometimes weakness;
Sometimes one is up and sometimes down.

Therefore the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency.

I agree, no one can take over or understand the universe. There is too much to it and not nearly enough time in our lives to understand anything but a small part of it. Even then I believe that some people understand less or more than others but whos to say what we believe is real or just parts of our imaginations?
The universe has a balance, and if someone were to "take over" it would disrupt that balance and everything would be thrown into chaos (even though I love that word, there's just something about it...). Therefore there is a sacredness to the universe, something so pure that no one can understand its purpose. If you change it, you ruin it and if you try to understand it you lose the true purpose. With everything good there has to be bad to balance it out. Strength and weakness; hard tasks and easy ones. If you seek out the balance then you wont reach one or the other extreme. Seek out simplicity and balance.
Taking over the universe would be a task in itself, most likely an unreachable one. But no one ever said anything about taking over the world...now thats a completly different matter.