To Understand Buddhism and Philosophy, We Must Split "The Middle" in Two! The "Middle" Trap: Don't Confuse "Compromise" with "Transcendence" Horizontal Compromise vs. Vertical Transcendence: A New Tool for Understanding "The Middle Way" From Geopolitics to Enlightenment: The Fatal Misunderstanding of "The Middle"

 

To Understand Buddhism and Philosophy, We Must Split "The Middle" in Two!

The "Middle" Trap: Don't Confuse "Compromise" with "Transcendence"

Horizontal Compromise vs. Vertical Transcendence: A New Tool for Understanding "The Middle Way"

From Geopolitics to Enlightenment: The Fatal Misunderstanding of "The Middle"

 

In the Japanese language, the single character "中 (Chu)" encompasses a wide range of meanings: from "China (Middle Kingdom)" and "Centrism (Politics)" to the profound Buddhist concept of the "Middle Way." This linguistic overlap often causes confusion, leading people to mistake profound philosophical "transcendence" for mere political "compromise."

While English has different words for these concepts, the conceptual confusion persists. Often, the Buddhist "Middle Way" is misunderstood as a mere "average" or "balance between extremes." This essay argues for a clear distinction between the "Horizontal Middle" (compromise) and the "Vertical Middle" (transcendence) to truly grasp contemporary philosophy and geopolitical realities.

---

The Key to Understanding Buddhism and Contemporary Philosophy: Separating "The Middle" into Two Concepts

~ Are you confusing "Compromise" with "Transcendence"? ~

■ Introduction: Untangling the Misunderstanding of "The Middle" From the perspective of spreading contemporary philosophy and Buddhism, the greatest barrier is the ambiguity of the word "Middle." Terms like China (Middle Kingdom), Middle Way, Middle Ground, Golden Mean, Eclecticism, and Center all imply a "Middle," but they are used in two completely different senses. Confusing these leads to misinterpretations in both philosophy and politics.

■ 1. "The Middle" Should Be Clearly Divided into Two To use "The Middle" as a tool for modern thought, we must distinguish between Type A and Type B.

A. "The Middle" as Intermediate (Horizontal Middle)

• Meaning: The point between two extremes. Splitting the difference. Eclecticism. Balance.
• Image: The midpoint between the Right and Left wings. Lukewarm water between boiling and freezing.
• Weakness: Often perceived as "wishy-washy," "compromise," or "maintenance of the status quo."

B. "The Middle" as Core/Transcendence (Vertical / Meta Middle)

• Meaning: Integrating conflicting binaries (A and B) at a higher dimension. The essence that transcends contradiction.
• Origin: Nagarjuna’s "Madhyamaka" (Middle Way), Tiantai Buddhism’s "Three Truths," and the concept of "Middle Voice" (a state prior to the active/passive dichotomy) discussed by philosophers like Koichiro Kokubun.
• Strength: Not a compromise, but a "Third Correct Answer" or "Meta-cognition."

Contemporary philosophy and authentic Buddhism aim not for the compromise of A, but for the transcendence of B.

■ 2. Why This Distinction Matters It bears repeating: there are two distinct lineages of "The Middle."

• Lineage A (Eclectic Middle): The center of binary opposition, average, arbitration.
• Lineage B (Dialectical Middle): A "Meta-cognitive Middle" that observes the conditions making the binary opposition (Existence/Non-existence, Subject/Object) possible in the first place.

When arguments go in circles, it is usually because one side is talking about A (Compromise) and the other about B (Essence). acting as "traffic control" for these concepts drastically improves understanding.

■ 3. The Gap in "The Middle" Seen in Concrete Examples

(1) China: Geographic Center or Civilizational Center? When we hear "China" (literally "Middle Country" in Japanese/Chinese), we often imagine a geographic center. Historically, however, it refers to "Sinocentrism"—being the center of civilization, viewing surrounding nations as barbarians. In the Tang Dynasty, this view had a certain magnanimity (e.g., respecting India as "Tian-zhu," a higher philosophical center). However, modern China, especially post-Cultural Revolution, seems to have lost this traditional "noble" centrism and appears to be pursuing a mere hegemonic "centrality," confusing its own identity.

(2) The "Middle Way" in Politics: Compromise or Orthodoxy? Consider the recent political movements in Japan, such as the proposed coalition between the Komeito and the Constitutional Democratic Party, termed the "Middle Road Reform Alliance." Here, "Middle Road" likely refers to Type A (political compromise/centrism). Originally, in Nichiren Buddhism (the root of Komeito's backing organization), the "Middle Way" refers to Type B (Transcendental Truth based on the Three Truths). It is questionable whether modern political slogans or the interpretations by past religious leaders (like Daisaku Ikeda) truly grasped this high-level "Type B" meaning, or if they merely used the profound ring of the "Middle Way" for political positioning to attract the moderate demographic.

(3) "Half-baked" vs. "Adolescent Grandeur" "The Middle" can imply "half-baked" in a negative sense. Conversely, young people often find a mystical coolness in terms like "Middle Kingdom" or "Middle Way"—a sort of "sophomoric" (or Chu-ni-byo) fascination with grandeur. True intellectual maturity lies in possessing the balance of A (pragmatism) while maintaining the perspective of B (transcendence) in one's thinking.

■ Conclusion Do we perceive "The Middle" as a mundane "Compromise (A)" or as a highly intelligent "Transcendence (B)"? Distinguishing between these two is the key to unlocking the depths of contemporary philosophy and Buddhism for the world.