John Tan wrote:  

Intuiting the middle path of buddhism via Prajna.

It is not easy to grasp the "Middle Way" of Buddhism, for it is not a conceptual midpoint between two opposing views. Rather, it must be intuitively realized through the wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā).

For instance, when we observe how seamlessly experience unfolds with changing conditions — as if mind and matter dance in perfect coordination without any separation — the habitual tendency is to assume that such intimacy must arise from a shared substance, a unifying essence. This is the reflex of reification.

However, through the penetrating insight of prajñā, we come to see that this seamlessness does not arise from a common underlying essence, but from the emptiness of inherent boundaries. What appears as continuity is not the result of an indivisible oneness, but the absence of any independently existing edges to begin with.

In this light, the heart intuits the Middle Way — not as a static center or a compromise between views — but as a dynamic openness that does not rest on any essential foundation. It is through recognizing the non-arising of borders that the Middle is felt, directly, without grasping.

Take the simple example of “left” and “right” in my previous.  Conventionally, they seem to refer to distinct positions, spatial opposites — as if there is some boundary, some inherent line that divides them. Yet upon analysis, we find no such boundary that can be located, no intrinsic dividing line, no essential base that gives either side its identity. Still, their functionality remains entirely intact. We turn left or right, navigate streets, orient ourselves in space — all without ever requiring any inherently existing division between left and right.

Not only are meaning and function preserved, but causal efficacy — the ability to respond, coordinate, and act — unfolds effortlessly. There is no need for a substance in between, no carrier of a signal, no bridging essence. And yet, everything flows in harmony.

This is the profound taste of the Middle Way: causal coherence without inherent causes, relational meaning without intrinsic reference points, seamless connection without binding substance. It is the insight that emptiness does not collapse function, but liberates it from the burden of having to be something in order to work.

In this, we recognize: the world is not stitched together by substance, but dances in the openness of dependency and designation, free from all foundations. The seamlessness is not evidence of an underlying unity — it is the mark of non-arising boundaries.

This is the magic of emptiness — that which dissolves the need for foundations, yet does not destroy function. Through this wisdom, we come to see that the seamlessness of experience does not imply substance, but reflects the emptiness of boundaries. The intimacy between phenomena is not the product of merging into oneness, but of never having been divided to begin with.

As this insight matures, the entire field of experience becomes pervaded by a profound openness — without boundary, without base, without center or edge. One senses an intimacy throughout, not by collapsing distinctions, but by seeing through their reified edges. Appearances remain diverse, but the felt sense of separation dissolves. What remains is vibrant clarity everywhere, alive in its responsiveness, yet free from the need to anchor in anything fixed.

This is the Middle Way — not between two poles, but beyond them, precisely because it is neither-nor, and yet fully present. It is the path of directness, openness, and luminous functioning, liberated from extremes not by suppression, but by wisdom’s gentle cut through illusion.

The Error of Substantial Unity

A common mistake arises when the seamlessness of experience is misinterpreted as evidence of a singular substance behind appearances. The intimacy between mind and matter, or between self and world, is often mistaken as proof of an underlying oneness — a foundational unity that binds all things together.

But this view is precisely what the Middle Way dismantles. It is not that things merge into a unified ground; rather, the seamlessness is possible because no fixed boundary exists between them. The apparent continuity of experience is not due to a shared substance, but to the complete absence of self-existing borders. The mind’s compulsion to find something “underlying” is a reflex born from ignorance, not insight.

To abide in the Middle is to be free from the need to ground experience in either multiplicity or unity. This openness does not collapse distinctions but allows them to function fluidly without the need for inherent separation or identity.

Dependent Arising as the Language of Emptiness

Dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) expresses this middle way with precision. It reveals how all phenomena arise in mutual dependence, without any need for inherent existence. Things do not exist independently, but neither do they arise from nothing. They function because of their relations, not because of a core essence.

Take again the example of left and right. Their existence depends entirely on mutual designation. Remove one, and the other vanishes. And yet, we turn left and right every day without confusion. Their function is real, but not rooted in anything independently real.

Likewise, the sound of a bell arises not from the bell alone, nor from the ear, nor from air vibrations alone. It arises from a complex interplay of conditions. But when heard, the sound is vivid, clear, real in experience — and yet, try to find where the sound “truly” resides, and it eludes grasp. This unfindability is not a defect; it is the very mark of emptiness.

When understood properly, dependent arising is not a mechanical process of cause and effect but a luminous, participatory, and intimate unfolding of appearance, where function and clarity emerge without requiring a base. This is the elegance of the Middle Way: reality functions, radiates, and responds without the burden of being anything in itself.