user4841: I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. 
My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance. 
If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear. 
Where is the middle path in this?
Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self?
Again, where is the middle path in this?

user295: Assuming your main question is what is the middle path?
There paths can be viewed as:

Seeking pleasures to satisfy the sense bases
Seeking pain as means to eradicate past fabrication
Neither seek pleasure or pain but live peacefully with oneself and others (Middle path)

In the middle path comprises morality, mastery over the mind and wisdom.

1st you give up hurting others, hence establish in morality. (In many cases this is in seeking excessive worldly pleasures.)
2nd you develop mastery over the mind where you mind is devoid of clinging and craving, mindful on arising and passing of phenomena and focused on a wholesome object (like arising and passing of phenomena)
3rd you develop wisdom by seeing: 3 characteristics, some understanding or karmic formations (any metal volition gives a subtle sensation of what the sensation would be when the results ripens), 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination

When you are under attack this environment is conditioned by perhaps past Karma. At this point you are agitated as you are under attack. Loosing the balance of you mind will hamper your cause of action to get out of the situation. The best is to use a clever tactic or flee. If not perhaps attack but without hatred. (I guess in martial arts this is what is advocated.). Try keeping your calm by watching your breath and sensations. You can use the sensation you experience in such a situation to eradicate your past stock of Karma. When the situation was created your past karma is bearing fruit. If you do not create new karma by reacting to the sensation you experience in the situation you are not creating new karma which might bring about similar situations in the future. Also try some Metta towards them. This way you are handling the situation within the path. 
See @ChisW's and @ruben2020's answer to compliment.

user254: I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path.
I agree with ruben2020's answer, including with the statement that the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta has the original/classic way in which the phrase "middle way" is used. The same dilemma (i.e. the same two, specific extremes) is described in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search, in which the two extremes are described as,

living luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance
performance of austerities

Neither of those extremes were conducive to the Buddha's enlightenment.
Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance.
What would you think of advice such as, "Try not to be too selfish?"
That might be pretty radical advice but at least in theory I think not too difficult to understand.
There are supposed to be three aspects to Buddhism, i.e.

Virtue/behaviour aka sīla
Mind/concentration
Wisdom/views

An example of virtuous behaviour is dāna (generosity).
Sila is sometimes seen as a basis or foundation, e.g. without practicing enough virtue you can't concentrate or find peace in meditation, and can't find wisdom or have 'right view' i.e. see things properly.
Something else that might bring 'balance'; there are rules (aka 'precepts') of virtue for example,

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing

Or for example here is what the Dhammapada says,

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.
132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.

I suspect that you should be as non-violent towards yourself as you are towards other people.
Might that result in 'balance'?
If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear.
I see several possible ways to reply.

You're thinking "If" but you presumably don't in fact have a weapon pointed to your head. That idea of a weapon is no more than a fantasy.
The Buddha said that that there various questions which he wasn't going to answer ... and that not-answering is because his intention is to teach liberation from dukkha; however questions about the self lead towards a thicket of views and not away from dukkha
That the skhandas are fairly impermanent: each thought is here one second, and gone the next.
Saying that the self does or doesn't exist might be wrong, in the same way as saying that a tree does or doesn't exist might be wrong. More correct might be to say that it exists, but it's impermanent, and it's conditioned (not independent), also that it's a mental construct (who says exactly where the boundaries of 'tree' or 'self' are, where do they begin and end). Another way of putting it is that things exist but their existence is empty (suññatā)
There are other emotions/emotions which you can (or should) cultivate, other than fear and no-fear: including equanimity, loving-kindness, etc.

Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play?
Maybe a large role: because intention is related to karma or karma is driven by intention.
However karma is a complicated and/or confused subject.

user471: The middle path is not that which is in between two paths, rather it is usually a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.
One definition of the middle path comes in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.
Another definition of the middle path comes in the Acela Sutta  where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of dependent origination.
This idea is also similar to what is described as false dilemma in western philosophy, where you think that the solution must either be black or white, and nothing else. In reality, there could be more solutions than simply two extreme viewpoints. Wikipedia has the example of "either you are for, or against us". In reality, you could take other stands.
For e.g. in your example, you think you have two choices - either not defend yourself and take the bullet, or defend yourself and maybe even kill the attacker. But there could be a different solution, e.g. you could try to negotiate with the attacker and try to convince him that he could do better than to commit murder. In this way, you could actually help your attacker by providing him with the means to reform and improve himself.
And by the way, the Buddha doesn't teach that there is no self. A self definitely exists. It is just that the self is not permanent or absolute, and arises due to the inter-working of the senses, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Anatta means "not self" (not "no self") as in "all phenomena is not self". This again lies in the middle path (of dependent origination), rather than taking the extreme views (there is an eternal self vs. there is absolutely no self and no existence). I discuss this also in another answer.
The mistaken view is that because there is no self, it is ok to allow the attacker to kill you without any other alternatives. This is based on the extreme view of annihilationism, which is mentioned above.

4841: <p>I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. </p>

<p>My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance. </p>

<p>If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear. </p>

<p>Where is the middle path in this?</p>

<p>Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self?</p>

<p>Again, where is the middle path in this?</p>
 295: <p>Assuming your main question is what is the middle path?</p>

<p>There paths can be viewed as:</p>

<ul>
<li>Seeking pleasures to satisfy the sense bases</li>
<li>Seeking pain as means to eradicate past fabrication</li>
<li>Neither seek pleasure or pain but live peacefully with oneself and others (Middle path)</li>
</ul>

<p>In the middle path comprises morality, mastery over the mind and wisdom.</p>

<ul>
<li>1st you give up hurting others, hence establish in morality. (In many cases this is in seeking excessive worldly pleasures.)</li>
<li>2nd you develop mastery over the mind where you mind is devoid of clinging and craving, mindful on arising and passing of phenomena and focused on a wholesome object (like arising and passing of phenomena)</li>
<li>3rd you develop wisdom by seeing: 3 characteristics, some understanding or karmic formations (any metal volition gives a subtle sensation of what the sensation would be when the results ripens), 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination</li>
</ul>

<p>When you are under attack this environment is conditioned by perhaps past Karma. At this point you are agitated as you are under attack. Loosing the balance of you mind will hamper your cause of action to get out of the situation. The best is to use a clever tactic or flee. If not perhaps attack but without hatred. (I guess in martial arts this is what is advocated.). Try keeping your calm by watching your breath and sensations. You can use the sensation you experience in such a situation to eradicate your past stock of Karma. When the situation was created your past karma is bearing fruit. If you do not create new karma by reacting to the sensation you experience in the situation you are not creating new karma which might bring about similar situations in the future. Also try some Metta towards them. This way you are handling the situation within the path. </p>

<p>See @ChisW's and @ruben2020's answer to compliment.</p>
 254: <h3>I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path.</h3>

<p>I agree with <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8164/254">ruben2020's answer</a>, including with the statement that the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta has the original/classic way in which the phrase "middle way" is used. The same dilemma (i.e. the same two, specific extremes) is described in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search</a>, in which the two extremes are described as,</p>

<ul>
<li>living luxuriously, straying from his exertion, backsliding into abundance</li>
<li>performance of austerities</li>
</ul>

<p>Neither of those extremes were conducive to the Buddha's enlightenment.</p>

<h3>Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self. My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance.</h3>

<p>What would you think of advice such as, "Try not to be too selfish?"</p>

<p>That might be pretty radical advice but at least in theory I think not too difficult to understand.</p>

<p>There are supposed to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training" rel="nofollow noreferrer">three aspects to Buddhism</a>, i.e.</p>

<ul>
<li>Virtue/behaviour aka <em>sīla</em></li>
<li>Mind/concentration</li>
<li>Wisdom/views</li>
</ul>

<p>An example of virtuous behaviour is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%81na" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>dāna</em> (generosity)</a>.</p>

<p>Sila is sometimes seen as a basis or foundation, e.g. without practicing enough virtue you can't concentrate or find peace in meditation, and can't find wisdom or have 'right view' i.e. see things properly.</p>

<p>Something else that might bring 'balance'; there are rules (aka 'precepts') of virtue <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C4%ABla#Five_Precepts" rel="nofollow noreferrer">for example</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Or for example here is what <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the Dhammapada says</a>,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>129.</strong> All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.</p>
  
  <p><strong>130.</strong> All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.</p>
  
  <p><strong>131.</strong> One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.</p>
  
  <p><strong>132.</strong> One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I suspect that <em>you should be as non-violent towards yourself</em> as you are towards other people.</p>

<p>Might that result in 'balance'?</p>

<h3>If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear.</h3>

<p>I see several possible ways to reply.</p>

<ol>
<li>You're thinking "If" but you presumably don't in fact have a weapon pointed to your head. That idea of a weapon is no more than a fantasy.</li>
<li>The Buddha said that that there various questions which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">he wasn't going to answer</a> ... and that not-answering is because his intention is to teach liberation from dukkha; however questions about the self lead towards <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a thicket of views</a> and not away from dukkha</li>
<li>That the skhandas are fairly impermanent: each thought is here one second, and gone the next.</li>
<li>Saying that the self does or doesn't exist might be wrong, in the same way as saying that a tree does or doesn't exist might be wrong. More correct might be to say that it exists, but it's impermanent, and it's conditioned (not independent), also that it's a mental construct (who says exactly where the boundaries of 'tree' or 'self' are, where do they begin and end). Another way of putting it is that things exist but their existence is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">empty (suññatā)</a></li>
<li>There are other emotions/emotions which you can (or should) cultivate, other than fear and no-fear: including <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara#Exegesis" rel="nofollow noreferrer">equanimity, loving-kindness, etc.</a></li>
</ol>

<h3>Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play?</h3>

<p>Maybe a large role: because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intention is related to karma</a> or karma is driven by intention.</p>

<p>However karma is a complicated and/or confused subject.</p>
 471: <p>The middle path is not that which is in between two paths, rather it is usually a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.</p>

<p>One definition of the middle path comes in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta</a> where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.</p>

<p>Another definition of the middle path comes in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.017.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Acela Sutta</a>  where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48/471">dependent origination</a>.</p>

<p>This idea is also similar to what is described as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" rel="nofollow noreferrer">false dilemma</a> in western philosophy, where you think that the solution must either be black or white, and nothing else. In reality, there could be more solutions than simply two extreme viewpoints. Wikipedia has the example of "either you are for, or against us". In reality, you could take other stands.</p>

<p>For e.g. in your example, you think you have two choices - either not defend yourself and take the bullet, or defend yourself and maybe even kill the attacker. But there could be a different solution, e.g. you could try to <strong>negotiate with the attacker and try to convince him that he could do better than to commit murder</strong>. In this way, you could actually help your attacker by providing him with the means to reform and improve himself.</p>

<p>And by the way, the Buddha doesn't teach that there is no self. A self definitely exists. It is just that the self is not permanent or absolute, and arises due to the inter-working of the senses, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Anatta means "not self" (not "no self") as in "all phenomena is not self". This again lies in the middle path (of dependent origination), rather than taking the extreme views (there is an eternal self vs. there is absolutely no self and no existence). I discuss this also in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7989/471">another answer</a>.</p>

<p>The mistaken view is that because there is no self, it is ok to allow the attacker to kill you without any other alternatives. This is based on the extreme view of annihilationism, which is mentioned above.</p>
