Is moderation actually a sign of wisdom?

Says:
Because it’s frankly absurd to equate passion with addiction...

I disagree. Passion and addiction share a common thread: they are both irresistible forces. They leave you feeling deeply driven by something, yet you can't quite pin down why—which leads to that sense of frustration I mentioned earlier.

Now, spiritual teachers will argue that passion is innate while addiction is manufactured. But let's be real: the human brain doesn't distinguish between the two. The same chemicals and hormones flood the system, triggering that rush of euphoria when we get what we want, and the same crushing lows when our object of desire—be it a person, a hobby, or even food—is out of reach.

The distinction is incredibly thin, existing only in the varying concentrations of those neurochemicals. It's no wonder people confuse them.

Furthermore, much of the difference lies in how we label things linguistically. On the surface, frustration, passion, and addiction seem distinct, but fundamentally, they are all part of the same spectrum of human experience. Trying to be overly moderate during your youth is just foolish; it’s dishonest, and you end up missing the very essence of being young. Conversely, failing to find moderation in middle age or later shortens your life—just when you should finally be settling the debts of your youthful follies and acting with maturity. This is the great struggle of our modern society, both here in the West and in the East: childhood traumas prevent us from seeing the world through adult eyes. We spend our lives still trying to prove ourselves, chasing maturity, terrified that if we lose that drive, that frustration, or that "addiction" to work and love, we might as well be dead.

It’s hard to see clearly when you’re standing right in the middle of the flames, isn't it?

Says:
If a child were reading this—someone "new" to these ideas—they would automatically feel as though you are condemning passion. You're assigning it such negative qualities...

That’s because children experience everything with pure passion. A child doesn't know how to be moderate. To be honest, I didn't get the impression that any purely negative traits were being assigned here...

none said:"DON'T OVERDO IT, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE BEING MODERATE."

...ility: "And even in moderation, one should be moderate." That was the exact thought I wanted to share before realizing someone had already beaten me to it. I can't quite place who said it, though—any chance of some enlightenment here?

Moderation is a true mark of wisdom, primarily because it doesn't shut anything out—except for the extremes. And moderation shouldn't mean stifling passion itself, much like what was mentioned earlier. In my view, we shouldn't try to suppress our passions; instead, we ought to experience them fully, embracing both the beautiful highs and the messy lows. Through that process, one eventually reaches a state of balanced calm, helping to mitigate the intense stress and frustration that seem to define our modern American lifestyle.

Passion is especially subjective, isn't it? It’s all about the internal intensity of an individual's experience, which makes it nearly impossible to compare one person's fervor to another's—some people just keep that fire tucked deep inside. To put it another way, a person can be incredibly passionate without being high-strung or temperamental. How often do we confuse those two traits? I'd argue they are conflated far more frequently than passion and addiction.

It’s not for nothing that people say, "You're wise beyond your years."

ravana said:Back during Buddha's era in India, extreme asceticism—intense self-denial and physical hardship—was actually quite trendy. But the Middle Way isn't about neglecting your body and mind through those kinds of extremes, nor is it an excuse to just indulge in worldly pleasures. Buddha’s teachings demand a significant amount of discipline and self-sacrifice. We shouldn't misuse the term "Middle Way" outside of the specific context and intention that Buddha intended. Do you really think a follower of Buddha, or generations of monks, would spend entire days in meditation and striving toward what Buddha achieved if they weren't driven by a profound longing for liberation?

I was actually wondering the exact same thing. Thanks for reading my mind and clearing that up. And while we're on the subject—wasn't the core essence of Buddhism centered around the reality of suffering in this world?

I’m right there with what Gaudrath said.
Just thought it was worth noting.😁

I don't get why people equate a lack of passion with being "dead inside." If you aren't feeling that constant burn—and it's not like you're struggling, either—it actually just means you've finally mastered your life.
At that point,
passion isn't missing; it's just unnecessary. You've reached a state of pure joy and creativity—where the imagination actually takes over—so what's the point of "passion"? Passion for what?

Whether you have passion or not is really just a byproduct of how you live and your level of consciousness.

Instead of forcing yourself to be something you simply aren't, you should focus on changing the underlying cause—the thing that creates that intense passion in the first place.

Rebecca Cox2 said:Passion is pretty much subjective—it’s all about how intense someone's internal experience is. It's tough to say if one person is more passionate than another since maybe they just keep it all bottled up inside. Basically, you could be incredibly passionate without being high-strung or temperamental. And honestly, as far as those two things overlap—tell me if I'm wrong—I’d argue they get mixed up way more often than passion and addiction ever would.

I catch myself wondering sometimes... can a person actually be super passionate without being temperamental? I don't really have an answer.

The way I see it, probably not. Feelings have their own physiological side to them, and I figure the intensity of what you feel should be proportional to the physical ways it shows up—stuff you could actually measure.

Maybe I just have a bias against people who keep their passions and feelings tucked away where nobody can see them? 😉

Animals just follow instinct, but humans actually have to shape their behavior through logic and awareness. Temperance gives you control over those impulses, letting reason take the wheel instead of raw instinct.
Self-mastery doesn't mean ignoring your needs; it just means you don't get buried by them or lose your way in them.
Temperance teaches self-control. Kids who are never taught how to say "no" to themselves—who just get everything they want on demand—never learn how to govern their own lives. It also teaches you how to rein in irritability. If you can't manage anger, or those petty grudges and thirsts for revenge, you end up in a constant cycle of arguments, fights, or worse, leaving your life entirely to chance.

Temperance frees you from the crushing weight of "I need" and "I must."
Greed and constant craving can blind you. That’s where temperance comes in, specifically regarding material things (like thinking you need one more car or another vacation home). It’s about pursuing success without becoming obsessed with ownership.
On the flip side, temperance can also swing toward unreasonable, unjustified deprivation. That isn't temperance at all.

plavva said:... because every passion needs to be reined in, according to Gaudrath.

Why? Isn't passion actually one of our most creative traits? I’m talking about positive passion—not just some physical release.

Passion usually follows an idea during its development or execution.
In most cases, intense emotional drive is what pushes people to act.
But sometimes, that same passion can cause tunnel vision. That kind of narrow focus can end up stalling long-term success.

Creativity is basically a mix of skill, personality traits, and motivational factors.
Creativity belongs to the individual; passion only connects to it if you view it as a driver.

Why is wisdom always tied to moderation—to finding that middle ground?

People often call moderation "the middle way."
It’s about avoiding extremes without handing you a rigid set of dogmatic rules to follow blindly.
In my view, there isn't one literal "middle path" that works for everyone. True moderation suggests that every situation is unique; you have to weigh your own values, your own capacity, and the specific circumstances at hand to make the right call.

Rebecca Cox2 said:Look. First off, what’s actually driving you to go hunting for some kind of "revelation"? It’s just this universal frustration felt by everyone in our society—whether they're out East or right here in the States—because nobody seems to know how to just exist in harmony with their surroundings or even within themselves. I think Jack Harris3 is one of the few people who’s actually caught on to that, and honestly, you're heading in the right direction too...

Honestly, he doesn't even get what he's writing about. 😂
Whenever I tell him that if you just live your life, everything will work itself out, he snaps at me. He argues that if you're "just living," then you aren't seeking anything, and if you aren't seeking, you won't find anything.
Then he goes on and describes some movie scene where Buddha is just lounging under a tree, buzzing around aimlessly, and suddenly "realizes" something.
And then he writes all this happy stuff about how Siddhartha let go of his passions and reached enlightenment.
But wait—what passion did Siddhartha actually have, if not the intense drive to find the "truth"?
So once he let go of that very pursuit, he succeeded.
Which basically means—once he stopped searching, sat under a tree, and simply "lived." 😁

Mr. Pes:
______________________________
What kind of passion could Siddhartha have possibly harbored if not for this relentless pursuit of "truth"?
And once he finally let go of that very pursuit, he achieved his goal.
Or rather—once he ceased searching entirely, he simply sat beneath a tree and truly "existed."
______________________________

Pes, please.🙂 😁

ravana said:Have you ever actually felt what it’s like to sit down for a massive meal after working hard outdoors all day? Or maybe just sinking into a steaming hot tub after an absolutely exhausting shift?

Look, I don't think that's an exaggeration. Now, if you were eating like that every single day without any fresh air or actual physical labor to back it up, then yeah, that would be overdoing it.

Mr. Pes said:Honestly, I don't think hollowviper72 understands a single word I'm saying. 😂
When I tell him that you just need to live your life and everything will work itself out, he snaps back at me—arguing that if you're "just living," you aren't actually seeking anything, and if you aren't seeking, you'll never find anything.
Then, he goes off on a tangent about some movie scene where Buddha is just lounging under a tree, buzzing around aimlessly, and suddenly has an "epiphany."
And then, all happy-go-lucky, hollowviper72 writes that—presto!—Siddhartha cast aside all passion and reached enlightenment.
But wait—what "passion" did Siddhartha have if not the intense pursuit of the "truth"?
The moment he let go of that pursuit, he succeeded.
Or, to put it another way—once he stopped searching, sat under a tree, and simply "lived." 😁

Well, my mistake. Siddhartha didn't stop his quest; he just chose to pursue it via the Middle Way.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but do you really believe someone who never even considered such a journey—say, some guy named Steve who spends his entire existence in a loop of breakfast-commute-work-lunch-news-sleep-breakfast—do you truly think that's enough to achieve enlightenment? Isn't that also an extreme, just a different kind? A non-pursuit? What does "just living" actually mean to you? To me, living without ever asking questions feels a bit like... well, like waiting for Godot.

hollowviper72 said:Actually, you've got it wrong. Siddhartha continued his search, but he did it by taking the middle path.

Correct me if I'm being totally off base here, but are you honestly suggesting that someone who hasn't even considered this whole quest—say, some guy named Steve who spends his entire life stuck in the loop of breakfast, commuting, work, lunch, reading the paper, sleeping, and repeating—that such a person can actually reach enlightenment? Isn't that just another extreme, just a different version of "not searching"? What does "just living" even mean to you? To me, living without ever asking a single question feels a bit like just... waiting for Godot.

hollowviper72, you’re missing the point entirely! People who spend their lives doing manual labor out in the fields are usually way healthier than people like you, me, or them, constantly hunting for "wisdom" and overthinking everything...
you can achieve enlightenment through fresh air and physical exertion just as easily as through deep contemplation. Just think about Narcissus and Chrysostom.

velvetpilot212 said:hollowviper72, I think you’ve got it wrong! Generally speaking, people who spend their entire lives working out in the fields are immeasurably healthier than those of us who spend our time constantly "searching" for wisdom and overthinking everything...
You can reach enlightenment through fresh air and physical labor just as easily as through deep contemplation. Just look at Narcissus or Goldmouth.

Now, don't get me wrong—I'm certainly not downplaying a hard day's work in the sun; honestly, one could find enlightenment while swinging a broom if they had the right mindset. But the *crucial* thing is that a person remains conscious of the search—that there is a genuine hunger for Truth within them. If that desire isn't there, then not only is the person lacking passion in their pursuit, but they've essentially buried the very idea of seeking deep inside themselves. That isn't the middle path. Simply drifting through life—that sort of inert "waiting"—is really just on the opposite end of the spectrum from passionate "seeking." In my view, both of these extremes pull us just as far away from Insight.

What I mean is, we really need to clarify what Mr. Pes actually means when he talks about "just living."

I have this feeling that true insight usually finds the people who aren't even looking for it

Everyone perceives the world through their own unique lens. There’s even this concept of "passive seeking," but let’s be honest—that’s still just a search by another name. You can't exactly walk a path if you haven't even realized it exists in the first place. And nothing happens by pure accident—not even enlightenment.

We have to keep in mind that the people we see around us—those who seem so enlightened or perhaps totally lost—are actually traversing a journey that spans hundreds, even thousands, of lifetimes. What we observe in our daily lives? That’s nothing more than the tip of the iceberg on that long, winding road... someone who stumbles upon enlightenment without any effort is simply someone who spent countless previous lives doing nothing but searching.

Without the quest, there is no destination.

hm... maybe we haven't quite understood each other. Or maybe we actually agree more than I thought?
Still, I don't really grasp this idea of "passive seeking" you're talking about—this notion that one must search while remaining conscious of the Put. How could someone like a small-town girl from rural Nebraska be conscious of the Put? The only paths she knows are the one leading up to the vineyard and the one heading down to the fields.

And that’s just part of her Put—even if she isn't quite grasping it right now. She’s just carving out her own path, moving along without really seeing or hearing what's happening around her... there was a time when she was even more disconnected than this, and eventually, there will be a time when she sees far more than she does today. This whole search is like a journey spanning lifetimes... we start off as children, driven by pure passion... then we transition into middle age, where that passion begins to settle into wisdom... and finally, we enter our later years, where wisdom itself gives way to true Insight.

People often say that the elderly and children are essentially the same. Perhaps the beginning and the end of any such quest actually converge at the exact same point...? Is enlightenment truly about discovering something entirely new, or is it simply the act of remembering something we once forgot? 🙂

I honestly think being self-aware and actually paying attention to the world around you matters a whole lot more than golf.