The middle path

So I have been told by a surprising amount of diverse sources that the middle path (knowledge) is the most useless one of all and that one must choose between the steretypical white(RHP) and black (LHP). People seem to think as if it is right out of a movie you must be a noble shaman or a left hand path type sorcerer to make any progress in the mystical or philosophical paths. They see the sorcerer (Sithist) as being cunning having faith in himself and the other path as being humbly wise and having a faith in the Universe. I personally like to have a balance of a rainbow of emotions and paths within me and not be limited to the archaic ideals of white, gray, and black. Why do many people (neophytes and experienced lords and magi alike) feel this way and do you think there is any truth to there way of thinking?

BrotherRemus wrote:
I personally like to have a balance of a rainbow of emotions and paths within me and not be limited to the archaic ideals of white, gray, and black.

Me too. I can't see how exclusion of any aspect of reality can bring wisdom, though I can respect whatever path anyone else may choose it just couldn't work for me. If there are aspects of being we will not face what does that make us? Ours is the path with no name because it shifts and changes as we tackle what arises and learn and grow through it. Our paths may differ, or even clash from time to time but that essence is what we have in common.

Why do many people (neophytes and experienced lords and magi alike) feel this way and do you think there is any truth to there way of thinking?

You would have to ask them why. Perhaps that is exactly where they need to be, or perhaps they are limited. Some are, they seem to be seeking a sense of rightness in order to place others in the wrong. I don't know exactly where they imagine that will take them. But others who make these seemingly more limited choices find the depths in their own way. The ones who are truly travelling are obvious generally, whatever their chosen path. There are some who do on all paths. Ask one of them.

Fata Morgana wrote:

BrotherRemus wrote:
I personally like to have a balance of a rainbow of emotions and paths within me and not be limited to the archaic ideals of white, gray, and black.

Me too. I can't see how exclusion of any aspect of reality can bring wisdom, though I can respect whatever path anyone else may choose it just couldn't work for me. If there are aspects of being we will not face what does that make us? Ours is the path with no name because it shifts and changes as we tackle what arises and learn and grow through it. Our paths may differ, or even clash from time to time but that essence is what we have in common.

Why do many people (neophytes and experienced lords and magi alike) feel this way and do you think there is any truth to there way of thinking?

You would have to ask them why. Perhaps that is exactly where they need to be, or perhaps they are limited. Some are, they seem to be seeking a sense of rightness in order to place others in the wrong. I don't know exactly where they imagine that will take them. But others who make these seemingly more limited choices find the depths in their own way. The ones who are truly travelling are obvious generally, whatever their chosen path. There are some who do on all paths. Ask one of them.

The last magus I talked to about the subject claimed at all times "one must be practical and focused. [on a particular path]"

Furthermore most orders, groups, cabals, etc teach "white" magic and philosophy before anything else. They teach discipline and respect, and even respecting those who don't share your moral, ethical, or philosophical opinions !

Finally he told me the middle-way is usually lazy and is just an excuse to "acquire second-hand ideas."

BrotherRemus wrote:

Finally he told me the middle-way is usually lazy and is just an excuse to "acquire second-hand ideas."

It would depend upon what someone meant by 'middle path'. It's not a term I would ever use because it implies exclusions as much as so called dark or light paths do, a sort of sneaking between both and avoiding all. Whereas the one I see most of us using here is, as mentioned before, an immersion, an embracing of all with no exclusions. So it could be a 'middle path' is exactly what this person was describing, but I don't think anyone here would adhere to such a limiting way.

This seems to me a huge part of why it can be so difficult to communicate on these matters. What words mean to one person might be something quite different to another.

Fata Morgana wrote:

BrotherRemus wrote:

Finally he told me the middle-way is usually lazy and is just an excuse to "acquire second-hand ideas."

It would depend upon what someone meant by 'middle path'. It's not a term I would ever use because it implies exclusions as much as so called dark or light paths do, a sort of sneaking between both and avoiding all. Whereas the one I see most of us using here is, as mentioned before, an immersion, an embracing of all with no exclusions. So it could be a 'middle path' is exactly what this person was describing, but I don't think anyone here would adhere to such a limiting way.

This seems to me a huge part of why it can be so difficult to communicate on these matters. What words mean to one person might be something quite different to another.

You are exactly right. Middle path to me is balance and is the heart of many religions neopagan, buddhist, or whatever.

BrotherRemus wrote:

Fata Morgana wrote:

BrotherRemus wrote:

Finally he told me the middle-way is usually lazy and is just an excuse to "acquire second-hand ideas."

It would depend upon what someone meant by 'middle path'. It's not a term I would ever use because it implies exclusions as much as so called dark or light paths do, a sort of sneaking between both and avoiding all. Whereas the one I see most of us using here is, as mentioned before, an immersion, an embracing of all with no exclusions. So it could be a 'middle path' is exactly what this person was describing, but I don't think anyone here would adhere to such a limiting way.

This seems to me a huge part of why it can be so difficult to communicate on these matters. What words mean to one person might be something quite different to another.

You are exactly right. Middle path to me is balance and is the heart of many religions neopagan, buddhist, or whatever.

Perhaps the stereotyping comes from what is instantly noticeable in people associated with these "paths": the white wizards are passionately selfless and moral, the dark sorcerers are hell-bent on power, but the middle pathers are found meditating under a tree.

Of course, it's a stereotype, and does not apply to anyone really. People are people, and someone who is undisciplined and unfocused will be just as much in any path they choose. The path chosen does not grant anyone any special discipline. One traces out their own path.

And by the way, the "middle path" seems to me the one which requires the most discipline. How on Earth does one manage not to get lost in the utter confusion that comes from removing labels and embracing everything?

Manu wrote:How on Earth does one manage not to get lost in the utter confusion that comes from removing labels and embracing everything?

I think it depends on your personality as much as anything. I imagine for some it must be very hard, if not impossible. For me it seems logical because there reality lies. To leave anything out, to close my mind to some aspect of being which may well come and bite you because you're not paying attention to it, seems far more confusing to me. I feel far safer without blinkers.

Of course alongside that there are personal preferences. Removing labels and embracing everything doesn't necessitate then doing everything even if it doesn't suit. Surely by opening our eyes to what is, and allowing that to continue (I doubt however far we open we will ever see it all) we can make far more informed choices, discover what works for us, how others operate and so on.

Manu wrote:

BrotherRemus wrote:

Fata Morgana wrote:

BrotherRemus wrote:

Finally he told me the middle-way is usually lazy and is just an excuse to "acquire second-hand ideas."

It would depend upon what someone meant by 'middle path'. It's not a term I would ever use because it implies exclusions as much as so called dark or light paths do, a sort of sneaking between both and avoiding all. Whereas the one I see most of us using here is, as mentioned before, an immersion, an embracing of all with no exclusions. So it could be a 'middle path' is exactly what this person was describing, but I don't think anyone here would adhere to such a limiting way.

This seems to me a huge part of why it can be so difficult to communicate on these matters. What words mean to one person might be something quite different to another.

You are exactly right. Middle path to me is balance and is the heart of many religions neopagan, buddhist, or whatever.

Perhaps the stereotyping comes from what is instantly noticeable in people associated with these "paths": the white wizards are passionately selfless and moral, the dark sorcerers are hell-bent on power, but the middle pathers are found meditating under a tree.

Of course, it's a stereotype, and does not apply to anyone really. People are people, and someone who is undisciplined and unfocused will be just as much in any path they choose. The path chosen does not grant anyone any special discipline. One traces out their own path.

And by the way, the "middle path" seems to me the one which requires the most discipline. How on Earth does one manage not to get lost in the utter confusion that comes from removing labels and embracing everything?

I would like to add that without some balance between "light and dark" and between wisdom/knowledge and power/activity a person can become mentally unstable or a pathetic dilletante amateur pretender.