My person thought it's possible good to count and remember the reaction of Dhammikas when "fellows" get in conflict. Not taking side, what are the useful supports in regard of conflicts in other single relations?

While common fools, group-identifying, increase conflicts, how does a wise give helpful support for all? How do faithful householder, faithfull Brahmans, wise recluse, pull out nourishment of heat?

2 Answers 2


What ever reason, what ever one might feel right in his ways or wrongly treated: A Dhammika advices to abstain from wrong doing, reminds that letting go leads to peace. Gives comment-less what's needed: dwelling, food, medicine, cloth. A wise person does not take side, does not give any anchors that conceit and heat can grow, either on this or on the other side. A wise person reminds on the root thinking which leads upward and beyond and remembers that to take on it is nothing one should demand from others but ones own goodness and liberating way:

"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."
AN 10.176

While the fools take side, even provide means for killing each other for their own sake, gains, impure and defiled, the wise person, having not only done his duties in this way, but acted like a Brahma, takes then leave, renounces in the forest, becomes even one never to return again in this world, letting the world burn in accordance to beings own kamma.

Saying so, it's time to leave the slaves of their desires, unwilling for any skilful efforts, here behind with this gift of Dhamma, providing with deathlessness.


The Path of Buddha-Dhamma has three aspects, namely:

  1. sila (morality)
  2. samadhi (concentration)
  3. panna (wisdom).

For example, DN 31 says the duty of bhikkhus is to teach laypeople sila (morality).

Therefore, in many cases of conflict, the solution is morality rather than abandoning self-identifying.

For example, the corrupt monk teaches laypeople to do evil that monks are forbidden from doing, such as making false declarations about superhuman states, such as jhana. This example is about sila (morality). Its not about self-identifying. Fake overestimated jhana is fake overestimated jhana regardless of self-identifying with it. Here, the solution is to abandon false speech rather than to abandon self-identifying.

In summary, in DN 16, the Buddha taught his good disciples refute (annihilate) heretics with wrong view. This is about morality (speaking the truth about the Buddha's Teaching) rather than about self-identifying. The fool with wrong view that also mistakes vibhava for non-identification (atammayata) still goes to hell. In hell, the heat is very hot.

  • 1
    I was trying to see the answer to the question, "how does a wise give helpful support?" From the way the answer started, I thought the answer might be going to say "morality" (so maybe it started well); and then, that the summary of next paragraph about so-called evil might be "no lying" and no deception about "jhana" (less on-topic but still ok). But to my ear though the last paragraph about annihilating heretics sounds like fanning conflict -- the opposite of denourishing heat -- and being self-righteous about "speaking the truth about the Buddha's Teaching", i.e. māna,
    – ChrisW
    Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 4:42
  • sorry but your comment is wrong Chris. Refuting heretics is about upholding truth, as my answer said. That is why DN 16 literally says to refute false doctrines. Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 4:50
  • 1
    If in DN 16 you're referring to the Buddha's talking to Mara, he says per Ven. Sujato's translation "refuting the doctrines" -- that's not "refuting heretics" (let alone trying to annihilate them) -- I think the difference is important.
    – ChrisW
    Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 4:56
  • Same same just different words - refute & annihilate appear to be synonyms. For example , there is a suttas where the Buddha calls himself an annihilator. Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 4:58
  • 1
    I meant I think that there's an important difference between refuting a doctrine and refuting a person.
    – ChrisW
    Commented Mar 2, 2022 at 4:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .