Two of the world’s most distinguished thinkers are Gothama Buddha (also known as Siddharta Gautama and Buddha Shakyamuni) and Aristotle, both who lived almost 2500 years ago but whose wisdoms are still – at least some of them – actual in the contemporary, largely globalized and modernized world and societies.
There are a lot of aspects that can be emphasized in this regard, but I will only briefly look upon one particular component. That is, the so called the golden mean (영어) or middle way, and which one of these – Aristotle’ or Buddha’s interpretations of this very same phenomenon – that seems most relevant today.
Since Buddha’s teachings are linked to particular historical, cultural, political and social conditions that shaped what are now known as Nepal and northern India, his understanding of the middle way is intimately connected to on one hand Brahmanism, which nowadays is understood as a proto-Hinduic tradition, and the Brahmans are still considered to be the highest caste in the varna hierarchy; and Sramanism. With regard to the latter, he searched for an intermediary way or balance between the Brahmanic priesthood’s caste and ritualistic decadence, and the severe asceticism of what is usually understood as Sramanism. In the modern era one can distinguish traits and tenets of Sramanism in Jainism in particular, which has about five millions adherents.
Of course, Buddhas’s teachings are also related to ‘super-natural’ phenomena and/or exaggerations with regard to extreme asceticism (meditating while fasting), but the main point is that these ideas have shaped the Buddhist monastery. It differs from one main branch of Buddhism to another, and from one sub-branch within the respective main branch to another (and perhaps also to some extent from one monastery to another), but generally speaking Buddhist monks are not allowed to eat at all after noon, which reflects upon the historical Buddha’s understanding of ‘the middle way’ or golden mean. It is a pre-modern form of intermittent fasting, although not at all linked to physical exercise of the modern sort. Instead Buddhist monks meditate all day long.
Aristotle’s idea of the golden mean (also understood as ‘the middle way’, or the intermediary level between different extremes) is also related to particular historical, cultural, political and social conditions. He lived and did mostly dwell in Athens in Greece, a city-state. Needless to say, his teachings are not connected to contemporary fitness and wellness, but – particularly in The Nikomachean Ethics – he still discussed the physical abilities and nutrional dimensions of human existence:
But though our present account is of this nature we must give what help we can. First, then, let us consider this, that it is the nature of such things to be destroyed by defect and excess, as we see in the case of strength and of health (for to gain light on things imperceptible we must use the evidence of sensible things); both excessive and defective exercise destroys the strength, and similarly drink or food which is above or below a certain amount destroys the health, while that which is proportionate both produces and increases and preserves it.
With the uttermost respect for Buddha and early Buddhism, I nevertheless think that Aristotle’s general guidelines are more appropriate regarding both physical exercise, recovery and nutrition. I am indeed found of intermittent fasting, but if one exercises in the afternoon or evening it is much more reasonable to eat most of one’s total daily intake of calories at later times of the day. For that reason, I would rather reverse the Buddhist eating schedule so to speak, from before noon until afternoon.
It is notable that in East Asian traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism, one can find largely congruent ethical elements and guidelines, and some of Aristotle’s ideas have of course also shaped Christianity and Islam.
In Sweden people do often call the equivalent of the golden mean ‘lagom’, but this word has actually another meaning for me than for many other people, which I have explained in an earlier post.
Två av världshistoriens mest distingerade tänkare är Buddha Gautama (även känd som Siddharta Gautama och Buddha Shakyamuni) och Aristoteles, vars idéer – eller i alla fall några av dem – alltjämt är aktuella och applicerbara på moderna och nutida förhållanden, trots att de är nästan 2500 år gamla. Det finns mycket att säga om detta, och många tänkbara aspekter att belysa, så jag ska därför bara kort ta upp en sådan, nämligen frågan om “den gyllene medelvägen”.
Eftersom buddhismen är knuten till särskilda historiska, kulturella, politiska och sociala betingelser, innebär Buddhas förståelse av den gyllene medelvägen en mellanposition mellan brahamanismen – i dag förstådd som dels en tradition kopplad till hinduism, samt relaterad till det högsta kastet inom denna religion och i Indien som land – och sramanismen, som i sin tur innebär en oerhört sträng, så gott som svältaktig asketism.
Budda – efter att ha upplevt båda – vände sig mot båda positionerna, som han såg som två negativa ytterligheter, och ansåg att man måste vara i alla fall något så när mätt för att kunna meditera men samtidigt inte ge efter för de fysiologiska och mentala begären, inklusive mat och sex. Därför får munkar bara äta fram till och med middag, och därefter meditera under en fasteperiod som varar under resten av dygnet.
Aristoteles – vars filosofi inte heller kan förstås utan att ta hänsyn till historiska, kulturella, politiska och sociala faktorer som påverkade dåtidens Aten – syn på den gyllene medelvägen, och därmed strävan efter en konstruktiv balans i tillvaron, framstår dock i jämförelse med buddhismen som mer världslig och även mer applicerbar på nuvarande förhållanden beträffande kost, träning och sömn.
Det hela påminner en del om det svenska begreppet “lagom”, men jag själv har en annan syn på detta än många andra. Detta eftersom det “normala” i dag är att äta skräpmat och ofta hamna på kaloriöverskott, vilket är en väldigt ny företeelse i den mänskliga historien och på många sätt en negativ utveckling.
Noterbart är att man kan hitta liknande förhållningssätt inom östasiatiska traditioner som konfucianism och taoism, samt inom kristendom och islam – två religioner som delvis har påverkats av Aristoteles idéer.