Talk:Middle Way

Introduction to The Middle Way

The Ancient Concept of The Middle Way hello!

“The Middle Way” is one of the most ancient concepts of meditation in the world even before the Buddha time. Long lost to humanity, it was rediscovered by Buddha more than 2,500 years ago.

Lord Buddha referred to “The Middle Way” as a path that leads to enlightenment by avoiding the two extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. And from avoiding both extremes, one will gain vision and knowledge that leads to Peace, Supreme Knowledge and Enlightenment.

However, according to many well-known Meditation Masters, the real knowledge of meditation practice on the path of “The Middle Way” had been lost from this world for about 500 years after the passing away of the Lord Buddha.

The Re-discovery of The Middle Way

“The Middle Way” concept of meditation became lucid and more practical to meditation practitioners again in 1916 after the attainment of “Dhammakaya” of Luang Pu Wat Paknam (The late Abbot of Wat Paknam), a renowned Buddhist Monk and a celebrated Meditation Master.

Luang Pu is the one who laid his life down in the condition of gaining the supreme truth of The Lord Buddha. In 1916, at the age of 33, he had sat down in the posture of meditation and made a vow that he would never rise up again and sat till death if he could not find the supreme truth of the Lord Buddha. And with his strong determination, he meditated the whole night until he finally revealed the real path and the body of supreme truth, “The Middle Way and The Dhammakaya”.

To the anonymous editor who wrote the above:

It is wonderful that you have found a meditation practice that you have found fruitful. It sounds too like you have found a medtiation teacher (and his followers) who are charismatic and have some knowledge of the DhammaVinaya. (For instance, your second paragraph above is accurate.)

Please recognize though that it is not unusual for a Buddhist monastic or former monastic to create an idiosyncratic or specialized mediation style that has given them special experiences and that thousands of people have subsequently found enormously beneficial. To see truly popular examples of such, for instance, please see Jack Kornfield's "Living Dharma: Teachings of Twelve Buddhist Masters" (1996). (And, honestly, when I myself first started my Theravada practice, it was under the instruction of a deeply loving former Theravada monastic who now teaches an amalgam of Buddha Love/Jesus Love.)

Please also recognize that the narrative you have associated with this specialized meditation style is certainly not consistent with the Buddha's Dhamma and that it is not widely accepted by Buddhists. While, for instance, the use of the phrase "Middle Way" to describe your teachers' style is "catchy" and "clever," it would be misleading to attempt to convince others that this is the real Buddhist notion of Middle Way. Personally, I feel that your statements above -- which, by the way, have a pleasant neutral tone to them -- attempt to convey that this idiosyncratic meditation style is consistent with ancient teachings, but there appears to be no proof of this. Thus, your putting such forth in this manner appears, at best, naive and, at worst (and I hope you can understand how others might see it this way), disingenuous. (For WP readers who are new to Buddhism, the following WP articles convey more traditional and authentic Buddhist meditation practices: Buddhist meditation, Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta, Vipassana, Samatha, Metta, Shikantaza, Zazen, Koan, Mandala, Tonglen and Tantra.)

So, please stop trying to incorporate words (as well as blatant advertisements) associated with this non-traditional practice in this encyclopedia article. I would like to suggest that such text might be more appropriate in an article on your particular Wat or community.

May you be well and happy,

LarryR 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Essence of Dhammakaya

The word “Dhammakaya” is an ancient word means the Body of Enlightenment (Dhamma means the truth or the enlightenment and Kaya means body). This term was found many places in many old Buddhist scriptures both in Theravada and Mahayana schools. It is not the new term or new theory from the Teaching of the Lord Buddha.

Dhammakaya is the body that transformed Prince Sidhatta to The Lord Buddha. The enlightenment of the historical Buddha is explained as his mind became perfectly refined and purified to the same level of the refinement and purity of the Dhammakaya, and thus attains the body of enlightenment. The Dhammakaya is therefore seen as central to the Teaching of the Lord Buddha.

Dhammakaya is a source of peace, wisdom and true happiness, exists in all human beings and can be attained through the process of self-refinement and self-purification.

Dhammakaya Meditation Technique

Dhammakaya Meditation Technique was rediscovered by Luang Pu Wat Paknam, the late Abbot of Wat Paknam. With his great work of meditation, he found that the station of stillness or the gateway of The Middle Way is at “The Center of the Body” around two-finger width above the navel. And the center of the body is the best point that any meditation practitioner should lay the mind down upon.

The technique is simple but effective. Just keep your body and mind relaxed and maintain your attention slightly at the center of the body. Once you touch or feel the station of stillness at the center of your body, you will experience inner peace, true happiness and the transforming power that Dhammakaya Meditation can provide for every aspect of your life.

Although Dhammakaya Meditation was developed as a technique by the Lord Buddha, its practice is not limited to Buddhists. The practice has nothing to do with any organized religion or sectarianism. For this reason, it can be freely practiced by everyone without conflict due to race, creed or religion. People from many religious backgrounds have experienced the benefits of Dhammakaya Meditation and have found no conflict with their profession of faith

Please find more story of Middle Way Dhammakaya Meditation from: http://www.dhammakaya.or.th http://www.meditationthai.org http://www.suanpetchkaew.com Or Samarth Pochachan info@mcc.co.th

Please see the prior entry's discussion regarding non-traditional practices.

Since this is a talk page, blatant advertisements and misappropriated concepts will not be deleted. But for non-Buddhists who might happen upon this entry and think there is an element of ancient authority to it, please understand that there is not.

This is not to say that this entry's meditation practice might not be an effective meditation practice -- it is similar to many other practices. For instance, the "two fingers above the navel" instruction sounds similar to a traditional Zen instruction of "two fingers below the navel," although admittedly the former might be aiming at the diaphragm whereas the latter aims for the hara. Truthfully, dozens of points in the body can be chosen. The Thai Forest tradition identifies six or seven. I also remember a Buddhist monk talking about his first teacher using the hands as a point of mediation.

Regardless, to claim that such an idiosyncratic practice is associated with the ancient notions of the Middle Way does a disservice to Wikipedia readers and, many would say, does a disservice to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. (Traditional Buddhist would label such as "wrong view.")

Best wishes,

LarryR 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Orthodoxy

I was not aware that the Middle way was the same as the Eightfold Path, or at least sufficiently similar to justify the phrase "It however would be more accurate to see it as another name for the Noble Eightfold Path", regardless of the quote supplied to justify it.

Removed text:

It however would be more accurate to see it as another name for the Noble Eightfold Path.

"The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. And what is that middle way? It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say, right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana." Gautama Buddha from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

I am removing both and invite comments on the matter below. Rentwa 14:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed a see also link to the Third way which has nothing at all to do with the Middle Way. Rentwa 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent article expansion

Over the last day and a half, I expanded this article to the point of nearly re-writing it. Up until yesterday, the article had the following text:

The Middle Way or Middle Path (Sanskrit Madhyama Marga, Pali Majjhima Magga) is the Buddhist philosophy expounded by Gautama Buddha. Sometimes summarised as the practice of non-extremism; a path of moderation away from the extremes of self-indulgence and opposing self-mortification. This path was first articulated by the Buddha in the second verse of his first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

Right now, the article looks like this[1].

Honestly, in my mind, when I've passed over this article in the past, I felt this initial text was sufficient and did not feel compelled to do any massive editing. But then, during the last week, I saw the above text doubled in size due to a retreat-center advertisement and associated text that, from the stance of Buddhism's 2500 year tradition, misappropriated the concept of "Middle Way" for a non-Buddhist meditation practice reportedly developed last century. So, to put it nicely, I decided that the best way to address such a misrepresentation of this core Buddhist concept was to expand this article with accurate (to the degree I'm capable and inclined to do) information that proportionally represents this 2500-year-old concept. (Though, admittedly, I'm embarrassingly weak on Mahayana/Vajrayana material. I'd be grateful for any intelligent expansion of this pitiful section.)

In so doing, against my editorially conservative instincts (that is, I try to avoid changing what others have justifiably written), I significantly rewrote the above original text. Here, I want to explain why I felt it was important to do so.

1. Changing "(Sanskrit Madhyama Marga, Pali Majjhima Magga)" to "(Skt.: madhyamā-pratipad; Pali: majjhimā patipadā)"

Frankly, I intuited that the Pali for "Middle Way" was also "Majjhima Magga" (probably because of "ariya aṭṭhangika magga," the Noble Eightfold Path) but I checked the Dhammacakka Sutta and the PED and two other Buddhist dictionaries and they all say that it's actually: madhyamā-pratipad and majjhimā patipadā. The PED also indicates that "patipada" is a synonym for "magga" but, in the seminal sutta, it was patipada that was used. (If I find a sutta that mentions "majjhima magga" then I'll add it back in.)

2. Eliding "expounded by Gautama Buddha"

I'm not sure that the Madhyamaka (or even the Zen) notions of "Middle Way" can be traced back to the Buddha but, instead to Nagarjuna. Thus, I moved the attribution to the Buddha to the Theravada-specific section.

3. Changed "Sometimes summarised" to "In general"

The introductory paragraph, especially after the recent major expansion, is necessarily a summary, thus to explicitly state so is redundant. Additionally, the stated summary does not need to be qualified by "sometimes" -- it has universal applicability and is supported by Kohn (1991). The phrase "In general" was additionally added to contrast with the next paragraph's phrase, "More specifically."

4. Changed "self-indulgence" to "sensual indulgence"

This better aligns with the actual Pali (kama [senses] vs. atta [self]). Moreover, when we look at Buddhist concepts such as attachment, I think it is more meaningful to talk specifically about the pleasure-creating six sense bases instead of an abstract notion of "self."

5. Elided "Buddhist philosophy"

I think this might be the most controversial edit. What ultimately led to my removing this was that, after making all the aforementioned changes, the term "Buddhist philosophy" appeared onerous and somewhat redundant. Moreover, frankly, I believe that many Theravada Buddhists might balk at this Western terminology since the Pali canon's "Middle Way" is really about finding happiness and liberation (perhaps more "Buddhist psychology," although even that misses the mark) as opposed to an attempt to articulate universal metaphysical truths. I was hoping that as long as I left the Category "Buddhist philosophical concepts" at the bottom of the page, people who are inclined to view this "philosophically" won't mind this deletion.

6. Moved information regarding the Dhammacakka Sutta

This was text I added to the singular initial paragraph back in mid-November (though I subsequently saw that another editor attempted to add similar information previously). Because this information is specific to the Nikayas, I moved this to a subsection in the expanded article (which I subsequently saw was in line with Rentwa's prior recommendation).

I think this covers it. Any questions or protests or feedback, please let me know here or on my talk page. Thanks. With metta, LarryR (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [Updated 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)]

Nibbana?

In the second quoted paragraph in the first section, not including the intro, the word 'Nibbana' is used. Is this word in use? Or is it an error/vandalism? J Milburn 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking (instead of just editing away, as some do :-) ). "Nibbana" is Pali for "Nirvana" (which is a Sanskrit word). If you click on the wikilink for "Nibbana" in this article, it will lead you to an article entitled "Nirvana" which states in its first sentence:

Nirvāṇa (Devanagari निर्वाण, Pali: Nibbāna निब्बान -- Chinese: 涅槃; Pinyin: nièpán, Japanese: nehan, Korean: 열반, yeol-bhan, Thai: Nibpan นิพพาน ), is a Sanskrit word from India that literally means extinction (as in a candle flame) and/or extinguishing (i.e. of the passions).

Generally, it seems to me that when people write about Theravada Buddhist beliefs or the Pali canon, they will use the Pali word "Nibbana." In this article's first introductory paragraph, I chose the word "Nirvana" because overall this article is intended to be pan-Buddhist (that is, including Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana perspectives) and, for English-speakers, the word "Nirvana" is hopefully recognizeable. However, in the Theravada section, for the aforementioned reasons, I did not alter Piyadassi's use of the word "Nibbana" and I perpetuated it elsewhere in the Theravada-specific section of the article.

I hope this sounds reasonable. If not, please let me know here or on my talk page. Thank you again. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Middle Way" vs. "Middle way"

I just re-capitalized the first letters of "Middle Way" and "Middle Path" because this is the way these phrases appear in the referenced source texts by Harvey (2007) and Dhamma (1997), respectively. Also a quick review of the first few pages of a Google search on "Middle Way" suggests that majority of non-WP, Buddhism-related pages capitalize this phrase's initial letters (although this is far from universal). So, while I think this article should maintain capitalization of the initial letters, I'm wondering if this means that this article should be moved over the redirect Middle Way? Thanks for any feedback, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahayana

There's hardly anything about this. In particular, no evidence is given to support the claim of the 1st para that the term is used in different senses between it & Theravada. Peter jackson (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article identifies that, in the Pali Canon, the phrase "majjhimā paṭipadā" refers to a middle path between practicing self-mortification and dwelling in sensual pleasure. The referenced Mahayana uses are different, e.g., Nāgārjuna seems to use it to define a path between eternalism and annhilationism, and Tendai between Mahayana notions of "emptiness" and some form of materialism.

Given your concern, to further assess this article's intro's claim against the actual texts, later today I'll scan the Pali Canon (e.g., La Trobe U. search -- these are matches of the nominative case -- I've yet to find any matches on other declensions, e.g., -aya, -o, -aṃ -- though if you know of Pali-canonical passages using a non-nominative case, I'd very much appreciate your identifying them) to see if there are Pali-canonical uses similar to those identified here by Mahayana schools. I'll report back here (and perhaps include a related note in this article) about any results of this search.

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re. eternalism - This is four years old, and I don't want to resurrect a zombie but eternalism is a misnomer. Please look at the extensive discussion that includes this point at Talk:Madhyamaka .But in brief, Candrakīrti says: When knowing selflessness, some eliminate a permanent self, but we do not consider this to be the basis of the conception of "I" It is therefore astonishing that knowing this selflessness expunges and uproots the view of self. (Madhyamakāvatāra 6.140). 'permanent self' being clearly a reference to 'eternalism'. Indeed, there is plenty of strong evidence to show that it is essential existence (or inherent existence, or innate existence, or objective existence - all of which are considered synonyms by Madhyamikas) (20040302 (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Eternalism is widely used in this context as well. But in any case, it should go without saying that you should not be altering direct quotes from source texts.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Canonical instances of majjhimā paṭipadā

Based on the aforementioned search of the SLTP Pali Canon for majjhimā paṭipadā, the following suttas were identified:

• Mv I, 6, 17-18 (English trans.) - same as SN 56.11

• MN 3 (Eng. trans.) - again equates majjhimā paṭipadā with the Noble Eightfold Path (though does not identify why the "Middle Path" uses the word "middle," i.e., between what antipodes)

• MN 139 (Eng. trans.) - an elaboration on SN 56.11's core text regarding majjhimā paṭipadā (as well as other things)

• SN 42.12 (Eng. trans., SLTP 41.1.12) - includes SN 56.11's core text regarding majjhimā paṭipadā followed by an elaboration on praiseworthy and reproachable aspects of a lay and ascetic lives.

• SN 56.11 (e.g., Harvey, 2007) - the touchstone text re: middle path between lives of sense-pleasure and self-mortification, instantiated by the Noble Eightfold Path.

• AN 3.157 - 3.163(?) (Eng. trans.; in SLTP Pali, starting at 3.6.1) - In general, as with SN 56.11 and the other suttas, it defines majjhimā paṭipadā as the middle path between indulging in sensual pleasures (which in this translation is referred to as "the hard way") and self-mortification ("the wasting away method," somewhat graphically described). The first sutta of this group then identifies the middle path with the the four satipatthana (in Pali, 1st para.); the second sutta (SLTP 3.6.2) with the Four Right Exertions; and so on, including what appears to be all seven sets of the Bodhipakkhiyadhamma -- in other words, culminating (SLTP 3.6.7) in the Noble Eightfold Path.

There are two references to the Visuddhimagga in the above-mentioned La Trobe U. search. While I'm late for an important call right now, I'll look into those Vsm texts in the next couple of hours -- perhaps these will provide the expected link between the Theravada and Mahayana conceptuatlizations.... With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Vsm refs to majjhimā paṭipadā

Based on the above-mentioned La Trobe U. search (using the nominative of majjhimā paṭipadā), the Visuddhimagga (Vsm) includes two instances:

• Vsm. VII, 75: in the section on "Recollection of the Dhamma," on why it is "Well Proclaimed" (svākkhāto), it essentially identifies the "noble path" (ariyamaggo) with majjhimā paṭipadā

• Vsm. XVII, 22-24: in a section discussing the meaning of paticca-samuppada, para. 24 states (from the Nanamoli 1999 BPE ed., p. 531):

The two [words, i.e., paticca and samuppada] together: since any given states are produced without interrupting the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole expression 'dependent origination' (paticca-samuppada) represents the middle way, which rejects the doctrines, 'He who acts is he who reaps' and 'One acts while another reaps' (S.ii.20), and which is the proper way described thus, 'Not insisting on local language and not overriding normal usage' (M.iii.234). [Boldface added.]

Well, this latter citation could perhaps be used to support that a (post-canonical) Theravada source provides an elaboration upon majjhimā paṭipadā in a manner consistent with Nagarjuna. (Given that the Visuddhimagga was written centuries after Nagarjuna, is it possible that the Visuddhimagga and its predecessors incorporated Nagarjuna's thinking?) I guess one possible question is does this latter citation's reference to majjhimā paṭipadā necessarily refer to the "Middle Way" ... but Harvey's at least seems to think so....

Okay, Peter, you're right!

Given the latter citation in the Visuddhimagga and Harvey's text (is it possible Harvey based his text on the Visuddhimagga regarding this and simply extrapolated back to the Suttapitaka?), in the next two days, I'll try to change this article's intro (and other text) so that it does not suggest a dichotomy as it does now. Or, of course, Peter or anyone else, feel free to do so before/in tandem with me.

Peter, was this what you were getting at? If so, thanks for pointing the way. Otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks again (GTG),
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Partly as suggested above, I've added text that identifies that in the Pali commentaries (Spk., Vsm.) the term "Middle Way" is used to refer to dependent origination's path through eternalism and annihilationism; and, I've modified the intro to show that this viewpoint is not only part of Mahayana/Vajrayana views but also this later Pali literature. I hope this is satisfactory. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is four years old, and I don't want to resurrect a zombie but eternalism is a misnomer. Please look at the extensive discussion that includes this point at Talk:Madhyamaka (20040302 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Kaccayanagotta Sutta 12.15

'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle...[2]

I keep this page on my watchlist and saw that User:Mitsube was trying to contribute to the article's lead section that the Pali Canon mentions a middle way between the extremes of existence and non-existence. Sure, the Sutta quoted above doesn't say "middle way," but I don't think it's much of a stretch either. Maybe I'm missing something in this debate? Otherwise, what middle is it talking about if not the middle way? So if the Pali Canon, as cited above, shows that the middle way refers to more than just avoiding the extremes of sensual indulgence and asceticism, then perhaps this could be cited in the "Theravada contexts" section (if not the lead)? Emptymountains (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is in the "Theravada contexts" section. Please read the subsection Middle_way#Dependent_Origination. The pull quote in English and in Pali is from this sutta. Check out Middle_way#cite_note-8. Because, as indicated in the end note, this phraseology is used in a number of different suttas and because most people don't recognize the Samyutta Nikaya suttas by name (given that they are short and often redundant), I didn't bother putting SN 12.15's title in the main text and left it in the end note with the further contextualization. Since it sounds like this is something to which you are really attached, so we could helpfully get beyond this, I'll change the current sentence:

in this passage from the Samyutta Nikaya

to

in this passage from the Samyutta Nikaya's Kaccānagotta Sutta

Okay? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add:

(a) Mitsube, I apologize for using all caps in one of my prior Edit Summaries. I didn't mean to shout. Somehow this matter has brought out the self-righeousness in me which is very unbecoming, especially for a Buddhist. So I ask your forgiveness and understand if you are disinclined to give it.

(b) Emptymountains, thanks for taking this matter to the talk page and for taking time to elaborate. I meant to do this but excused myself by thinking I didn't have time. Your doing so has been very helpful. I very much appreciate it.

(c) If the above fix I (grouchily -- sorry again!) implemented is not satisfactory, let's discuss it further. I'll try to better embody the precepts.

Thanks and apologies again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you don't know much about it. First of all, it is spelled Kaccaayanagotta. Second, this sutra inspired Nagarjuna's MMK. It is the only sutra referred to specifically in the MMK. The MMK is the seminal work of Mahayana philosophy. This is stated clearly by both Kalupahana and Lindtner (Lindtner's Master of Wisdom page 323, Kalupahana's work in multiple places). To quote Kalupahana,

Two aspects of the Buddha's teachings, the philosophical and the practical, which are mutually dependent, are clearly enunciated in two discourses, the Kaccaayanagotta-sutta and the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, both of which are held in high esteem by almost all schools of Buddhism in spite of their sectarian rivalries. The Kaccaayanagotta-sutta, quoted by almost all the major schools of Buddhism, deals with the philosophical "middle path", placed against the backdrop of two absolutistic theories in Indian philosophy, namely, permanent existence (atthitaa) propounded in the early Upanishads and nihilistic non-existence (natthitaa) suggested by the Materialists.

Now let us see what you removed.

In later Theravada texts as well as in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, the Middle Way refers to direct knowledge that transcends seemingly antithetical claims about existence; this idea is also found in the Canon.

The "idea" clearly refers to the preceding phrase: "direct knowledge that transcends seemingly antithetical claims about existence." I do not know why you had such a hasty, excessive reaction to this. I am going to try to make this sentence easier to understand (I am not a native English speaker so I may not have done the best job) and with the citation. Mitsube (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube,

I am not sure whether or not to take seriously your claim about my supposed ignorance exemplified in your entry above on my "mispelling." You indicate the the Sutta is not spelled Kaccānagotta (as I spelled it) but as Kaccaayanagotta. Assuming that, for a moment, you are sincere about your claim, then let me educate you that "ā" and "aa" are equivalent. They are both meant to represent what is referred to in English as the "long a." The former method of representation is probably the most frequently found (for instance, in the SLTP edition of the Canon at http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisamaya-Samyutta/02-Aharavaggo-p.html) but not readily represented using English keyboards and typical default fonts (hence the use of the {{IAST|}} template around the ā). The latter method is known as the Velthuis Method and is easier to type in and more readily represented with default fonts, but less widely used. A thoughtful comparison of methods written up by John Bullitt can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/learningpali.html#coping.

While I am familiar with Mahayana concepts at various levels and Nagarjuna in a general way, my strong knowledge base is in the Pali Canon. This is why I created this article's "Theravada contexts" section, rewrote the intro but left the "Mahayana contexts" virtually empty. If you'd like to see what this article looked like before I spread my ignorance here, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_way&oldid=76119577 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middle_way&oldid=91125963. And, of course, if you'd like to share your knowledge in the "Mahayana contexts" section, please do.

FWIW, I've no problems with your latest addition (please use Edit Summaries though).

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem for me in the Theravada contexts section (excluding its own subsections) is the seeming contrast between "In Theravada Buddhism's Pali Canon..." vs. "Later Pali literature..." It gives the impression that the Canon presents the middle way only in terms of sensual indulgence and asceticism, as if the Pali Canon does not talk about a middle view between existence and non-existence (i.e., that the latter is only to be found in "later Pali literature" such as "the [Canon's] commentaries"). So while the Sutta may be cited later in this artcile, this section as it stands is potentially misleading. Is this section only about the phrase "the middle way," or about the middle way in general? Thank you for your time. Emptymountains (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Emptymountains -

For me, a significant problem to avoid is leaving one the impression that when the Pali suttas discuss the Middle Way (majjhimā paṭipadā) they are referring to the Madhyamaka and subsequent Mahayana conceptions. If one were to carry such an impression when reading Pali suttas, it would lead to misconstruals.

If I may point out, if you are familiar with Pali to some degree (I am only at an elementary level), you can see that even the root terms of these two expressions — majjhimā paṭipadā ("middle way") and majjhena dhamma ("teaching by the middle") — are different; that is, the former is based on majjhima ("middle" or "medium" as in "first-middle-last," e.g., see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:3769.pali) while the latter is the instrumental of majjha (often meaning "in-between," e.g., see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:3763.pali). As general terms, and especially in translation, this might not appear as much, but add this to the second term (paṭipadā and dhamma) being completely different and the contexts being significantly different and I think one can readily infer that these terms had different semantic frameworks for their speaker (whether that was the Buddha, a redactor or some combination).

An additional value of keeping this distinction between what is said in the Pali Canon and its subsequent elaboration it that it underscores the history of ideas. When did "teaching by the middle" first become the "Middle Way"? Was it Nagarjuna? Was it another scholastic? I think such is an important thing to ponder and while, obviously, I don't have the answer, I think clearly delineating points on this evolutionary development are beneficial to readers looking for such answers.

Another benefit to this (and forgive as I now summarize due to time constraints), when I first read Harvey, I thought he was indicating that the term "Middle Way" was used in this context in the Canon itself; so, when I then read Gethin and the Pali text itself, I was confused by Harvey's statement. When I realized that Harvey's general terminology allowed for the inclusion of the Pali commentaries, Harvey suddenly made sense and, for me at least, his scholarly integrity upheld. Thus, by showing that this phrase is not in the Canon but in the commentaries, I think it brings clarity to the reading of some secondary sources.

So, in short, I think the distinction is very valuable. Perhaps I missed your point? Perhaps you would like to see more added to reflect that the concept is in the Canon though not associated with the later terminology? Perhaps Mitsube's recent addition addresses such?

Thanks again for your kind and patient exploration. GTG, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Emptymountains -

Please let me quickly try again. Perhaps one way of looking at your concern is to say that a preponderence of this article appears to be about the Theravada/Pali Canon contextualization of "Middle Way" while the Mahayana world and much university scholarship clearly associates this term with the transcending of seemingly diametrically opposed views. If this restatement of your view (at least in part?) is correct, I can understand it. For this matter, for a long time I've hoped (and even fruitlessly solicited help from others) that someone would fill in the Mahayana section. If one did so, I could even see moving the "Mahayana contexts" section above the "Theravada contexts" section. I know of course I could go to the library, study up and rehash the relevent material here, but couldn't some one else who more deeply cared about and practiced Mahayana Buddhism do so better?

Is this your core concern? Really GTG :-) - Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps our focus should not be on the word middle but on the word way. User:Mitsube mentioned "the philosophical and the practical" as the two aspects of Buddha's teachings. Perhaps in regards to the way of practice the Suttas say "the middle way," while in regards to philosophy the Suttas say "teaching by the middle" (since philosophy is more of a seeing than a practical doing). But here's another angle: I think you agree that the phrase "the middle way" appears as such in the Canon, in Buddha's first discourse no less. Since the eightfold path includes "right view" as part of the middle way, then why cannot we consider avoiding extreme views (e.g., existence vs. non-existence) to be part of that middle way? In other words, right view--as part of the eightfold path--is subsumbed under the middle way, so maybe we're making too much of the distinction between "the middle way" and "teaching by the middle"? Please write back when you have time. Emptymountains (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned that the intro was implying that the philosophical middle position was absent from the Canon, when in fact its presence there has played a huge role in subsequent Buddhist thought. About the spelling, you spelled it wrong here. Please note that there is a "y". Maybe your haste in reverting and claiming that others have made mistakes is due to the fact that you feel some degree of ownership for this article. Or perhaps I am having trouble communicating. Mitsube (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply because of its concreteness and simplicity, please allow me to address the spelling issue first. Mitsube, I apologize, I didn't appreciate what you were focussing on for you to come to your erroneous conclusion.

Here, again, is a link to the Sinhalese SLTP edition of the Pali Canon that contains the sutta in question: http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisamaya-Samyutta/02-Aharavaggo-p.html; search for sutta "1. 2. 5." Here, as an alternate source for the Pali Canon, is the Burmese CSCD page: http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0302m.mul0.xml; look for sutta #5. You'll see on both of these pages that the spelling is: Kaccānagottasuttaṃ. For readability here, given the norms of representations in English, I separated Kaccānagotta and sutta and changed the latter from the accusative to the nominative. If you're inclined to look at English translations, in Bodhi's translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, he also uses the title Kaccānagotta (p. 544). Clearly, Mitsube, contrary to your repeated contention, Kaccānagotta is a valid spelling of the sutta's title.

FWIW, it does appear that an earlier PTS redaction (Feer, 1925?) of the Canon did insert the "ya" given the spelling in Walshe's translation on ATI at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html. I don't know what the more recent PTS Samyutta Nikaya redaction has and I'm having trouble accessing the World Tipitaka page to determine their spelling. Was the Walshe article the basis for your spelling?

Emptymoutains -

I appreciate the thought you're giving this. Perhaps we can examine some of them separately? You write:

"... Perhaps in regards to the way of practice the Suttas say 'the middle way,' while in regards to philosophy the Suttas say 'teaching by the middle' (since philosophy is more of a seeing than a practical doing)."

I think this is a very creative and possibly meaningful way of framing what is said in the Canon, especially for a Mahayana audience. Can we agree though that this framing you provide is not actually in the Pali Canon itself? That is, to the best of my knowledge, none of the suttas ascribe to the Buddha or one of his disciples or anyone else the notion that the "teaching by the middle" reflects the Canon's "philosophy" of the "middle way." For us to include such an idea here would be introducing our own creative ideas and, I suspect, a Mahayana POV. Is it not best to let the suttas in question, so often referenced, speak for themselves on this matter?

You also write:

"...Since the eightfold path includes 'right view' as part of the middle way, then why cannot we consider avoiding extreme views (e.g., existence vs. non-existence) to be part of that middle way? In other words, right view--as part of the eightfold path--is subsumbed under the middle way, so maybe we're making too much of the distinction between 'the middle way' and 'teaching by the middle'?

Maybe my way of understanding what you write is wrong, but I think I read you saying essentially that, according to the Pali Canon: "middle way" -> Noble Eightfold Path -> Right View -> "teaching by the middle"; thus, the "middle way" conceptually refers to "teaching by the middle." Honestly, if this is what you mean, I truly enjoy the way your mind works! There are various concerns I think that arise from this but I think, purely from a logical standpoint, one can deduce from this chain that the "teaching by the middle" falls under the Pali Canon's notion of the "middle way," but to say that the former is the same as the latter I think goes beyond pure semantic logic. Does what I write here make sense? Or, perhaps, if I have misinterpreted and unintentionally misrepresented what you were saying, you can help clarify it further for me. I'd appreciate it.

Emptymountains, it sounds like you have a strong intuitive understanding that the "middle way" means what Nagarjuna and those after him meant it to mean. I can appreciate this very much. But is it possible that the Pali Canon actually says something somewhat different? And, if so, is that okay?

Again, I appreciate your kindness and patience. Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. The sanskrit has a "y". I did not know there were alternate spellings in Pali. I continue to strongly object to the idea (if you have it, I'm not sure if your revert was based on a misreading or not) that the philosophical middle position is not in the Canon. We have a reliable source saying it is certainly. The Theravada official view might be that there is no permanent self as is written here. The statement "I have no self" is a false nihilistic view as rightly noted by the Buddha. We must be careful here. Is it the Theravada view that "I have no self" or is it the Theravada view that the statement "I have a self" is inappropriate? The latter clearly the spirit of the Buddha's teachings and is identical to Nagarjuna's formulations. Mitsube (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What you refer to as the "philosophical middle position" is in the Canon though there the specific idea is not called the "Middle Way" but "teaching by the middle." Is not the article clear about this?

You expressed continued uncertainty about the reverts, so I feel obligated to rehash them some here. The initial edit you made was to add to an intro paragraph:

"This idea is found in the Canon's Kaccayanagotta Sutta."

When I reverted it, the Edit Summary states: "revert well-intentioned edit -- please read WP:LEAD -- the intro summarizes the main text which mentions the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (and other suttas) and also contextualizes the information". That is, I was concerned that you were adding extraneous detail to a lead section and that this particular detail involves a significant amount of contextualization so as not to mislead WP readers. Part of the reason for being sensitive to this distinction is that when one reads, for instance, Harvey on this issue, I recall that Harvey could readily leave one with the impression that this idea is in fact called the "Middle Way" in the Pali Canon. This is problemmatic because then when one reads, for instance, Gethin or the actual Canon itself, you see that this is not so. By correctly identifying where in the Theravada literature this idea is given this title, Harvey and other secondary works make more sense.

The second revert was a grayer case -- I should have taken it to this talk page and appreciate EmptyMountains' having done so.

As indicated above, I think your third edit attempt was most successful and did not revert it (though, personally, I think it provides an end note that should go further down in the main body, but such is not worth a continued edit war). As for your simultaneously deleting the edit I inserted to attempt to resolve this matter, it appears your knowledge was limited in this particular facet (as mine is in so many areas) and I sense that your motive might have been, understandably, partly retributive. I hope you have found some peace in this extended dialogue. Be well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have. Thank you for your time. It was not retributive. I did not know that the spelling you had used was also correct. Could we agree to use the "y" as this is closer to the Sanskrit and is used in the prominent treatments of the MMK, and is the version that you are using at ATI? I am quite concerned that wikipedia is putting a sharper split between Mahayana and Theravada than is real. Kalupahana has drawn attention to the fact that modern scholarship has missed the fact that the philosophy is the same, and in fact all stems from the Canon. This is not due to any fault on their part. This may be why I was confrontational. Now I know that you know what you are talking about and I won't be so emotive next time we butt heads. Also I have been involved in my first edit war recently over at Indian religions with nationalist trolls which conditioned me to try to nip this in the bud. I should have known that this would not be like that. "before I spread my ignorance here." Funny. Metta, Mitsube (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope my new edit is in agreement with your desire here; if not, please change it as you see fit. Edit wars elsewhere definitely affect all of us, so I certainly understand and regret the degree such may have colored my interaction here. I sincerely look forward to a time when Theravada and Mahayana are more united, in amplification of the Truth. Metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only one person I know of who actively uses both in his writings. That is B. Alan Wallace. He uses the psychological approach of the Theravada quite nicely to complement some Tibetan ideas. I believe Thich Nhat Hanh might use Theravada ideas as well, I will have to find out. He and Rahula have noted that the philosophy of the Mahayana comes from the Canon so that's a good sign. We would need more leaders like that who are willing to consider that the Mahayana might have stated things in a better way sometimes for some people on the one hand, or to say that the Mahayana treatment of some things has strayed too far from the truth in the Canon, for another. Also Theravada Abhidhamma is coming under criticism even now from Western converts, and Pure Land ideas are being transmuted to more here and now versions in Taiwan. There is some hope, but Buddhists need to put aside the labels they give themselves in their heads for real progress to be made. The greatest thing that could happen is that some Theravada abbots would come together and recognize an ordination of Theravada bhikkhunis by Zen nuns. That needs to happen. That would be a huge step forward in many ways. Mitsube (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A helpful link to look at [3]. Emptymountains (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note 13 (Bodhi, 2005, p. 315)

During fruitful on-going talk-page discussion with Mitsube, the idea of more extensively quoting from Bhikkhu Bodhi in order to better contextualize SN 12.15 has come up. To allow for this possibility, as well as to allow for others to assess the elision decisions I made when including Bodhi's text in an end note to this article, I'm including here the whole two paragraphs that Bodhi includes in his "In the Buddha's Words" (2005), Chapter IX, pp. 315-316, regarding SN 12.15 (a similar statement by Bodhi can be found in his translation of the "Samyutta Nikaya," 2000, pp. 521-522):

Several suttas hold up dependent origination as a 'teaching by the middle' (majjhena tathāgato dhammaṃ deseti). It is a 'teaching by the middle' because it transcends two extreme views that polarize philosophical reflection on the human condition. One extreme, the metaphysical thesis of eternalism (sassatavāda), asserts that the core of human identity is an indestructible and eternal self, whether individual or universal. It also asserts that the world is created and maintained by a permanent entity, a God or some other metaphysical entity. The other extreme, annihilationism (ucchedavāda), holds that at death the person is utterly annihilated. There is no spiritual dimension to human existence and thus no personal survival of any sort. For the Buddha, both extremes pose insuperable problems. Eternalism encourages an obstinate clinging to the five aggregates, which are really impermanent and devoid of a substantial self; annihilationism threatens to undermine ethics and to make suffering the product of chance.

Dependent origination offers a radically different perspective that transcends the two extremes. It shows that individual existence is constituted by a current of conditioned phenomena devoid of a metaphysical self yet continuing on from birth to birth as long as the causes that sustain it remain effective. Dependent origination thereby offers a cogent explanation of the problem of suffering that on the one hand avoids the philosophical dilemmas posed by the hypothesis of a permanent self, and on the other avoids the dangers of ethical anarchy to which annihilationism eventually leads. As long as ignorance and craving remain, the process of rebirth continues; kamma yields its pleasant and painful fruit, and the great mass of suffering accumulates. When ignorance and craving are destroyed, the inner mechanism of karmic causation is deactivated, and one reaches the end of suffering in saṃsāra. Perhaps the most elegant exposition of dependent origination as the 'middle teaching' is the famous Kaccānagotta Sutta, included here as Text IX,4(4)(d). [Boldface in original.]

If one is inclined to include more of this text in this article, it's fine with me, though I think the material not currently included goes beyond what is called for in this article. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this quote. Harvey says:

It can thus be said that, while an empirical self exists - or rather consists of a changing flow of mental and physical states which neither unchangingly exists nor does not exist - not metaphysical Self can be apprehended.

page 33 of The Selfless Mind. Then,

"It is a curious fact that the early Suttas see even Annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of s/Self, as tied up with belief in a Self."

(page 39 of The Selfless Mind.) I think that that is a key idea and explains the Sabbasava Sutta's warning against thinking "I have no self." It explains why he did not flat-out say "there is no self" also, though he did say that self "cannot be apprehended" which has a different shade of meaning. Harvey seems to agree with TB to some extent:

One uses 'not-Self', then, as a reason to let go of things, not to 'prove' that there is no Self. There is no need to give some philosophical denial of 'Self'; the idea simply withers away, or evaporates in the light of knowledge, when it is seen that the concept does not apply to anything at all, or, as the Suttas put it, when it is seen that everything is 'empty' of Self. A philosophical denial is just a view, a theory, which may be agreed with or not. It does not get one to actually examine all the things that one really does identiy with, consciously or unconsciously, as Self or I.

I think that other people who thing that "atta" is in the Buddha's thought a philosophical "no-go" area have also missed the point. I will add this material in some form at some point. Mitsube (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm supprised that little info about....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=middle+way+Gautama&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en --58.38.43.67 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

but

plenty info about http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=middle+way+Nagarjuna&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en

Why is that...???--58.38.43.67 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Issue With The Triangle Metaphor

The introduction used the following metaphor of a triangle to present the Middle Way.

The middle path does not mean a mid point in a straight line joining two extremes represented by points. The middle path represents a high middle point, like the apex of a triangle. Thus the high middle point is more value filled than a mere compromise.

That first sentence about not meaning a "mid point" is okay, but I disagree strongly with the characterization of a "high middle point" as a better term. This "high middle point" immage is just another version of the error of a "mid point." The characterization of the Middle Way as a triangular apex is really a "third way" image not a Middle Way image. The traditional image of the Middle Way is the lute string that won't produce a harmonious sound when it is tuned either too loose or too tight. In some stories hearing a lute player on a boat was the real life experience that opened up the meaning of the Middle Way to Buddha as he sat by the river. As the image of the tuned lute string indicates, the Middle Way is dynamic, not static as suggested by a "high middle point" image. Based on these concerns I've edited the above sentences to read:

The middle path does not mean a mid point in a straight line joining two extremes represented by points. The Middle Way is a dynamic teaching as shown by the traditional story that the Buddha realized the meaning of the Middle Way when he sat by a river and heard a lute player in a passing boat and understood that the lute string must be tuned neither too tight nor too loose to produce a harmonious sound.

(Gregory Wonderwheel (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC))

Page move

This phrase is capitalized as "Middle Way" almost universally, both here at Wikipedia and in other sources. I propose to move this page to Middle Way (over the redirect that exists there). I believe it was created with a lowercase 'w' by accident and this accident should be fixed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you and came here for the same purpose. Jack1956 (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Objections to assumptions made in this article

This article has been edited entirely on the assumption that the concept of the Middle Way must be described and verified in traditional Buddhist terms. However, the Middle Way is also a philosophical and practical idea that can be understood universally, in terms beyond the Buddhist tradition. It happens to have been articulated and promoted by the Buddhist tradition, but that doesn't mean that it should be understood solely in those terms. By way of comparison, the concept of love is central to Christian tradition, and this point would be noted in any article about Christian doctrine. However, if someone added a section that was not referred to Christian sources in an article on love, it would not be justifiable to delete it just on those grounds. I expect that if I were to add a section on the Middle Way beyond the Buddhist tradition to this article, which even defines the concept solely in terms of traditional Buddhism, it would be deleted by the other contributors. But the Middle Way is no more the monopolistic property of the Buddhist tradition than love is solely the property of Christianity.Evenbalance (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to 'Middle Way'

As the editors above mention, the common name is capitalized 'Middle Way'. I tried to move it but there is already a redirect. If there is no objection can someone who knows how to work around the code for the redirect please move the page name? Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:12 1 November, 2014 (UTC)

Tony Hawk

I'm not a personal friend of Mr. Hawk, but I suspect that the assertion in the first sentence of the paragraph under "Noble Eightfold Path" is inaccurate. As of 1/14/2015 it reads:

"The term Middle Way was used in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the first teaching that Tony Hawk delivered after his awakening."

There is a citation to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyutta_Nikaya, which doesn't mention Hawk.

I'm posting to request that someone with more knowledge or Wikipedia editing experience than myself rectify this humorous falsehood. If I were to edit it myself, I'd probably just replace Tony Hawk with "Jolly old Buddha" which is probably just as bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.160.151.53 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed it. JimRenge (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert

This edit revrted my re-ordering of the info in this article. I see no rationale for having two sections on Mahayana, not for including a section called "Common Elements of Buddhism" which is about elements from the Theravada Pali canon and Theravada Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middle Way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329025311/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329025311/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middle Way. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801091439/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801091439/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)