Faculty of Religious Studies

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ARISTOTLE’S DOCTRINE OF

THE MEAN AND THE BUDDHA’S MIDDLE PATH

Yearly Paper
Bachelor in Christian Studies

First Year

By
HAN ZAW HTUN

Supervisor:
PROF. FR. EDMOND EH KIM CHEW (OP)

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Portfolio Module

In the Faculty of Religious Studies
University of Saint Joseph, Macau
May 2021
 ENDORSEMENT

I certify that this report is solely my work, I, the supervisor, believe that this
and that it has never been previously Annual Paper is ready for assessment, and
submitted for any academic award. reaches the accepted standard for the
Bachelor in Christian Studies

Student: HAN ZAW HTUN Supervisor: PROF. FR. EDMOND EH

KIM CHEW (OP)

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor Professor, Fr. Edmond Eh Kim
Chew (OP) for his support, guidance, help and patience during my research.

In addition, my special thanks go to my brothers in the community who helped me in many

ways for this research paper.

ii
 Table of Contents

ENDORSEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1. Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean ........................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER 2. The Middle Path of Buddha (Majjhima-patipada) .............................................................. 4
CHAPTER 3. Aristotle and The Buddha Compared ................................................................................. 7
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 10

iii
INTRODUCTION
Leading a good life is the ultimate purpose of human existence. But what characterizes

a good life? What is really important in the pursuit of a good life and how are we to achieve it?

The attempt to explore these questions will be done by comparing the two philosophical

traditions of Aristotle and Buddha. They have different conceptions of good life in terms of

eudaimonia and nirvāṇa. ‘Eudaimonia’ in Aristotelian ethics is the state of living well. It is the

highest human good that is desirable for its own sake. ‘Nirvāṇa’, the goal of the Buddhist path,

is the ultimate spiritual goal and marks the extinction of desire, hatred, and ignorance and,

ultimately, of suffering and rebirth. What is shared in common in the two different conceptions

to achieving the end is the observance of the mean which is described as a virtuous life by

Aristotle and the Noble Eight-fold Path by the Buddha. The main aim of the paper is to compare

Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean and Buddha’s middle path which is crucial to achieve a good

life.

A good life is made up of different components such as knowledge, virtue and caring

relationships. But it is important to note that different people have different ideas about what a

good life is. To have a good life for Aristotle is the final end of human life which is to flourish

and to live well. It consists all the real goods that correspond to our natural needs, accumulating,

over the course of our lives and the chances of having good lives are increased by cultivating

good habits. In the Buddhist tradition, to lead a good life is to see life for what it is, to

acknowledge the inevitability of death and ultimately to follow Buddha’s teachings which

helps one to be free from suffering. Aristotelian tradition is that reason serves as a guiding

principle for a person to live a life of excellence so as to be rational whereas Buddha teaches

that realization of emptiness vital for the cessation of the suffering is what enables man lead a

good life.

1
CHAPTER 1. Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean
The idea of the mean can practically be found in all the branches of Aristotle’s doctrine,

from ontology and metaphysics to ethics and politics. In this paper, the emphasis will be made

on the ground of ethics regarding the pursuit of a good life. The doctrine of the mean is one of

the most discussed aspects of Aristotle’s Ethics, which holds that every virtue is “a mean

between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.”1 Crucial to his idea is observing

moderation or striving for a balance intended to serve the best interest of oneself and others.

The mean between two vices of excess and deficiency is just the right amount of some action

or feeling. According to Lysenko, the mean characterizes “something continuous, existing in

the form of arithmetical progression, as well as of something dynamic, changeable and

complex.”2

Aristotle develops this doctrine in the course of his discussion of virtue in Book II of

the Nicomachean Ethics. There he writes that “every virtue causes its possessors to be in a

good state and to perform their functions well. The virtue of eyes, for instance, makes the eyes

and their functioning excellent, because it makes us see well; and similarly, the virtue of a

horse makes the horse excellent, and thereby good at galloping, at carrying its rider, and at

standing steady in the face of the enemy. If this is true in every case, the virtue of human being

will likewise be the state which makes a human being good and makes him perform his function

well.”3 Thus, it is vital, according to his ethics, to live a life of excellence as it is the

characteristic of a virtuous person that makes him good and perform his function well.

1
Nicomachean Ethics, II, 6, 1107a4.
2
Viktoria Lysenko, The Difficult Task of Hitting the Mean: Aristotle’s Mean (Mesotes) and Buddha’s
Middle Path (Majjhima Patipada) (Academia), chapter 11, p, 136,
https://www.academia.edu/8123801/The_Difficult_Task_of_Hitting_the_Mean_Aristotle_s_Mean_and_the_Bu
ddha_s_Middle_Path (accessed on 15 February 2021).
3
NE, II, 6, 1106a17-24.

2
 But how does virtue relate to the mean? The account of virtue in relation to the mean

is summarized as follows. “Virtue, then, is a state that decides, consisting in a mean, the mean

relative to us, which is defined by reference to reason, that is to say, to the reason by reference

to which the prudent person would define it.”4 The main idea in this context is to make oneself

rational and to keep reason intact. Aristotle introduces this idea by philosophizing medical

concepts of his day. Bodily health is a matter of observing a mean between extremes of excess

and deficiency which is for example avoiding too much food or exercises and vice versa. Here,

the middle is something relative to the individual capacities of men. The same holds in

temperance, bravery, and the other virtues. “Temperance and bravery, then, are ruined by

excess and deficiency, but preserved by the mean.”5

Aristotle differentiates the mean into two kinds: with regard to objects and with regard

to us. The former speaks of a middle in a purely mechanical way: “By the intermediate in the

object I mean what is equidistant from each extremity; this is one and the same for all.”6 It is

also known as the mean of arithmetic proportion. The mean in this kind is a fixed point from

two opposed extremes. The mean in the latter case is not one and the same for everybody. It is

relative to us specifying the individual capacities of men and their particular circumstances.

What virtue demands is not a fixed point but our acts and emotional response should be within

a certain delineated range. Therefore, anyone who wants to be virtuous must decide for oneself

what is good or bad in any given situation. This is the type of mean that Aristotle points out to

achieve the end. It is an extreme with respect to the highest goal concerned. The mean as far

as it is concerned with the highest value “tends to be the utmost good, the symbol of plenitude

and excellence, the highest self-sufficient goal.”7

4
NE, II, 6, 1107a1-3.
5
NE, II, 2, 1104a26.
6
NE, II, 6, 1106a30.
7
Viktorio Lysenko, p, 139.

3
CHAPTER 2. The Middle Path of Buddha (Majjhima-patipada)
The Middle Path was first taught explicitly by the Buddha. It is his first teaching offered

in his first sermon, and the basis of his practical method in meditation, ethics and wisdom. The

Path in the sermon reads as follows: “These two (dead) ends (anta), monks, should not be

followed by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is, among sense-pleasures,

addiction to attractive sense-pleasures, low, of the villager, of the average man, not connected

with the good; and that which is addiction to self-torment, ill, not connected with the good.

Now, monks, there is a middle course, fully awakened by the Truthfinder, making for vision

(knowledge of the truth), making for knowledge, which conducts to claiming (of the passions),

to super-knowledge (abhiñña), to awakening (sambodhana), to nirvāṇa.”8 It generally refers to

avoid the two extremes of practical life: sensual indulgence on the one hand and severe

asceticism on the other.

The Middle Path is a mean to investigate and penetrate the core of life with an upright

attitude for the attainment of nirvāṇa where one has the realization of emptiness resulting the

end of suffering. It represents a distinct theory and way of practice exclusively to Buddhism.

The relationship between thought and behavior, behavior and its consequences are hugely

emphasized in Buddhism. Having mastered the principles of human behavior, the Buddha

taught the two characteristics of the Middle Path: the Middle Path of Dependent Origination

and of the Noble Eightfold Path. The former serves as theoretical guidance explaining the

process of human activity. The latter deals with personal practice and experience.

The basic principle of the law of Dependent Origination as expressed in Majjhima

Nikaya9 is “When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not; This

ceasing, that ceases.” It explains the creation, cessation, and existence of all phenomena and

8
Mahavagga: The Book of the Discipline, vol. 4, trans. I.B. Horner (London: Luzac & Co, Pali Text
Society, 1962), 17.
9
A Buddhist Scripture, the second of the five nikayas.

4
all things. Besides, it shows the way of liberation that corresponds to the Law of Cause and

Effect. Understanding the Law of Dependent Origination leads us to the realization of the truth

of impermanence, egolessness, and the nature of emptiness of all things which finally leads to

nirvāṇa, the ultimate realization of liberation. Upon realizing the Law of Cause and Effect,

Dependent origination avoids the attachment to the two extremes of permanency and egotism

that results from being ignorant and perverted. Things rises and fall because they are

conditioned by the Law of Cause and Effect. The truth to be found is the nature of emptiness

not the attachments to the extremes thinking that something really comes into existence or

something really ceases.

In the Dhamacakkappavattana Sutta10, the Buddha describes the Noble Eightfold Path

as the middle way of moderation between the two extremes of indulgence in sensual pleasures

and self-mortification. "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that—producing

vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to

Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right

action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.”11The translated

word “right” that represents the Eightfold Path refers to the Sanskrit stem “sam.”It seems to

be eight commands of duty ethics but it is better to be seen as virtues, i.e., dispositions to act

in certain ways under certain conditions. A. J. Bahm observes that “sam” “is not a mere,

narrow, or exclusive middle but a broad, ambiguous, inclusive middle.”12 Therefore, the virtues

of the Eightfold Path are seen as dispositions developed over a long time exercising constant

adjustments with a view to changing conditions and different extremes.

10
A Buddhist text considered to be a record of the first sermon given by Gautama Buddha.
11
Irv Jacob, The Path to Nirodha: Why and How of Meditation (Author House, 2012), 277.
12
A. J. Bahm, Philosophy of the Buddha (New York: Harper, 1958), 82.

5
 The Noble Eightfold Path, corresponding to the theoretical wisdom of the law of

Dependent Origination, teaches us to be normal and reasonable in our speech, action,

determination, emotion, and so on. The Middle Path, whereby theory and practice merge into

one under the truth of emptiness, emphasizes the unity of wisdom and faith. This is the

uniqueness of Buddha’s teaching.

6
CHAPTER 3. Aristotle and The Buddha Compared
Almost two centuries before Aristotle, the Buddha held that morality had its source in

human nature. Aristotle viewed morality as dependent largely on reason while the Buddha as

linked interdependently to meditation and insight and wisdom. This chapter is dedicated to

examining the Middle Path that promotes the conceptual differences of good life in terms of

eudaimonia and nirvāṇa between the philosophical and ethical frameworks of Aristotle and the

Buddha.

Both the Middle Path and the doctrine of the mean were introduced in order to reach

perfection. First, the two perfections differ in the sense that while the Buddha aims at achieving

nirvāṇa in the soteriological sense, Aristotle provides guidelines for attaining eudaimonia or

happiness. A life of activity in accordance with virtue leads one to happiness. Attaining

happiness is grounded on habituation and dispositions to act virtuously. The Buddha leads his

followers to a path of salvation where one is freed from the suffering of karmic rebirth. One is

going to be free from karma by observing the middle path which is the realization of emptiness.

This is to be attained when one is no longer attached to existence or non-existence and to

permanence or change. For Aristotle, achieving such perfection is applied in the course of one’s

life which completes upon death. It can be seen that “the Buddha’s aim in his ethics is more

radical than that of Aristotle; it is to root out the ‘defilements’ and transform the ego, by re-

aligning it through the realization of selfishness and the meditative disciplines.”13

The similarity lies by the fact that both of them lead to designated goals which is the

natural end for human beings. Happiness or eudaimonia through the exercise of virtue is the

goal of human life for Aristotle. The Buddha has an end to attain nirvāṇa through the exercise

of compassion. Thus, they share a common ground in teleological nature. It can also be said

Anne Muldoon, “A Comparison of Aristotelian and Buddhist Ethics and the Implications for a Moral
13

Way for Young People” (Master of Philosophy., University of Glasgow, 2008), 60.

7
that they are similar because both are grounded on the perfectibility of human nature. A

considerable common ground is found between the moral perspectives of Aristotle and the

Buddha. They both advocate a moral perfection of the person that involves moral, intellectual

and emotional training.

The second prominent difference is the metaphysical notions of “self-centeredness” and

“other-centeredness.” For Aristotle, virtuous actions are being done for the sake of the

community, that is the polis in order that the individuals may flourish. According to Muldoon,

“one of the most significant features of Aristotelian flourishing is that it is a dual,

interdependent process between self and others.”14 Contrary to Aristotle, the Buddhist identity

is of self and oneness. A devout Buddhist aims to acquire meditative cultivation for the sake

of his/her own purification. He is striving for his own attainment of nirvāṇa while in relation

with others.

The third difference is how the Mean or the Path is achieved. For Aristotle, the aim of

acquiring virtues is achieved by means of one’s reason. “It is the agent’s reason which forms

and informs both the moral virtues, which equip us for successful social relations within a

civilized society, and the intellectual virtues, which enable our successful engagement in

rational enterprises.”15 Thus, virtue is acquired through the formation of moral and intellectual

virtues by a process of practical and reflective training initiated by the moral habituation in

early childhood. With reference to reason, one’s virtuous character is achieved through practice

and habituation. The Buddha, on the other hand, emphasizes compassion through the

realization of selfleness and meditation. To acquire the genuine realization, one needs wisdom

which is a special kind of knowing. Wisdom cannot be achieved through practice or

habituation. Thus, the path is achieved by one’s deep understanding.

14
Ibid, 61.
15
Ibid, 62.

8
Conclusion
The characteristics of a virtuous person is to live a life of excellence enabling him good

and perform his function well. The life of activity in accordance with virtue makes us lead a

good life. The Buddha concept of middle-wayed view expressed in the practice of the Noble-

Eightfold Path is to be seen as virtues avoiding the different extremes in changing conditions.

What makes the two philosophical traditions different is attaining eudaimonia and nirvāṇa. A

careful analysis of these doctrines leads to the realization that they resemble at the formal level

because both of them express moderation to achieve a specific goal. Aristotelian concept of the

mean is the virtue acquisition so that we have habits to perform the excellent actions. The

Buddha’s middle path leads to the ultimate realization of emptiness which is essential to

extinguish suffering in our life. Aristotle is more socially oriented and the emphasis the

cultivation of behavior. Buddha examines the spiritual well-being of our existence and the

mean has to do with inner cultivation.

Different people give different arguments about leading a good life. A good life to my

understanding is a life without self-deception which is true to ourselves and true to others. At

times, I used to identify a good life to be a happy life. Studying what a good life is like from

the two different traditions gives me new insights that help cultivate the spiritual wellbeing and

behavior. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean teaches us that a life of rational activity in accordance

with virtue is essential to achieve the end of eudaimonia. A good life is to live a life of

excellence and to be a virtuous person. The Buddhist tradition helps us realize the reality of

human suffering and the importance of inner cultivation and spiritual healing in order to see

the truth of impermanence, egolessness and the nature of emptiness.

9
Bibliography
Books

Bahm, A. J. Philosophy of the Buddha. New York: Harper, 1958.

Horner, I. B. Mahavagga: The Book of the Discipline. Vol. 4, Pali Text Society: London: Luzac
& Co., 1962.

Irwin, Terence. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Translated with Introduction, Notes, and

Glossary. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1999.

Jacob, Irv. The Path to Nirodha: Why and How of Meditation. Author House, 2012.

Internet Material

Lysenko, Viktoria. The Difficult Task of Hitting the Mean: Aristotle’s Mean (Mesotes) and

Buddha’s Middle Path (Majjhima Patipada), Academia.

https://www.academia.edu/8123801/The-Difficult-Task-Of-Hitting-The-Mean-

Aristotle-s-Mean-And-The-Buddha-s-Middle-Path.

Unpublished Material

Muldoon, Anne. “A Comparison of Aristotelian and Buddhist Ethics and the Implications for

a “Moral Way” for Young People.” Master Degree of Philosophy, University of

Glasgow, 2008.

10