I have a question about taking sides in conflicts based on this sutta from the suttanipata:
"Having untied the knots here in the world,
the sage takes no side among factions.
Peaceful among the peaceless, equanimous,
they don’t grasp when others grasp.
Having given up former defilements
and not making new ones,
not swayed by preference,
nor a proponent of dogma,
that wise one is released from views,
not clinging to the world,
nor reproaching themselves.
They are remote from all things
seen, heard, or thought.
With burden put down, the sage is released:
not formulating, not abstaining, not longing.”
Snp 4.13
My question is: is there never a time where it is appropriate or necessary to take side in a conflict? What if there is a clear power imbalance and that power is being used to violently oppress another person or group of people?
This sutta appears to be talking about an arahat, and I suppose an arahat would already know the suffering in the world and know not to get involved in a conflict. There are also stories of the Buddha intervening in wars to a degree so I’m wondering what the distinction between involving yourself in a dispute “skillfully” vs “unskillfully,” if there is such a thing.
Yes, that story. I have also heard a story about the Buddha intervening in a war twice but did not stop it the third time, but I’m not sure if it has a sutta reference or is just a story that developed later.
The Buddha still intervened in the war but in a nonviolent way. In the case of a situation like a bully (be it a person or a country) that is abusing their power over others, should we not take the side of the oppressed in that situation? That doesnt mean we have to hate or kill the bully, but I’m not sure appealing to the morals and preaching nonviolence will actually make a difference to a person or group that doesn’t care, especially when someone else is actively being hurt.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the context of the Snp 4.13 I posted, but it seems to imply that taking sides shouldn’t be done. To me, that doesnt always seem to be the most kind and gentle thing, so I wanted to hear others opinion on this.
There are many possible responses to this.
One can be that prior to full awakening we all have views to one degree or another.
It depends on whether our responses, “taking sides” as you wrote, are rooted in metta, compassion, and wisdom or in anger, greed, and/or a strong sense of “I.”
If we see someone, for example, physically harming a child, we may “take sides” in attempting to stop the abuse while acting from compassion.
We don’t have to hate the abuser, even as there may be strong disagreement with their attitudes and actions.
The less “I” involved, the “purer” the response will be.
Until we’re arahants, our kamma will be grey-ish. We do the best we can as we progress in the practice.
See AN4.237 and MN57.
Hi. Possibly the sutta should be examined for context. At least the opening verses of the sutta read to be about conflicts over petty philosophical arguments (rather than about all types of conflicts).
Regarding those who maintain their own view,
arguing that, ‘This is the only truth’:
are all of them subject only to criticism,
or do some also win praise for that?
For example, if a wife & a husband have a conflict over the husband wanting to go out & get drunk, as a Buddhist, obviously, if required, you would support the wife.
I agree! Sometimes I hear people in Buddhist circles say that we shouldn’t hold to “fixed views” which means we can’t really say if things are good or bad. To me it seems quite clear that some actions are right or wrong given the context of the Eightfold Path and the teaching of karma.
That’s kind of where this question stemmed from and I was wondering if any such argument could be made from the EBTs, and this passage seems to almost support it but not quite
Thanks, I think you’re right! I think overall its about how the arahant would not need to take sides regarding philosophical debates because their view is purified. I’m not sure if the “not taking sides” thing applies to all circumstances.
An example that comes to mind is Ajahn Brahm going against the Thai monk council in order to ordane nuns. In a sense, he “chose a side,” but he sides with the Buddha and Dharma so you can’t reallg go wrong there.
It is not about ‘taking sides’ - its about skillful and unskillful actions and consequent results (AN3.65).
One ‘takes sides’ based on views. Views are based on information - gathered either first or second hand - and interpretation. Since one never has all the information (else one would be omniscient!) and one is prone to misinterpretation (because of the defilements), one should formulate a view keeping in mind that one could be wrong. At the least, one should not be attached to that view, and be willing to change it in the light of evolving evidence (AN 10.93).
There are 10 courses of Right (Skillful) and Wrong (Unskillful) Action in any situation (AN10.176, AN10.217 - AN 10.223). When one sticks to Right Action, the results are expected to be beneficial both for oneself and others. Of course, one should keep a close watch to the results as they present themselves, and in case things don’t go as expected, one should re - evaluate one’s actions (MN 61).
I find Bhante Sujato’s introductory note on the Suttanipāta quite informative, including his discussion of Snp4.11-13.
At a high level he explains:
The Suttanipāta has a unique structure. It is comprised of poems , that is, coherent sets of verses, some of which have a slim narrative background in prose.
So we’re not really in much of a narrative setting when it comes to the Snp.
Re: Snp4.11 Quarrels and Disputes he says:
Presented as a dialogue with an unnamed interlocutor, the Kalahavivādasutta offers some of the most complex and demanding philosophy of the Aṭṭhakavagga (Snp 4.11). The questions and answers unfold deeper and deeper levels of the Dhamma, ultimately leading to a mysterious expression of profound transformation.
Then, moving into Snp4.12 he says (my bold):
The Cūḷabyūhasutta continues the theme of views and disputations (Snp 4.12). The title of this sutta and the next echo the military theme of the Pasūrasutta, by implication comparing the disputing parties as armies arrayed for battle. This military imagery, however, is only in the titles and does not appear in the suttas themselves.
Then we come to Snp4.13:
Where the Cūḷabyūhasuttam discusses the question of the diversity of views and the unity of the truth, here the focus shifts to the consequences of attachments to views.
This supports faujidoc1’s comment; it reinforces Dunlop’s to read these suttas in context.
I don’t consider Snp4.12-13 especially helpful for discerning what the Buddha taught about taking sides in a conflict – especially one that is highly contentious and perhaps with catastrophic repercussions.
As an aside, I appreciate Snowbird’s reference to the commentary which is itself an interesting study on conflict over water resources:
As the Teacher surveyed the world at dawn and beheld his kinsmen, he thought to himself: “If I refrain from going to them, these men will destroy each other. It is clearly my duty to go to them.” Accordingly he flew through the air quite alone to the spot where his kinsmen were gathered together, and seated himself cross-legged in the air over the middle of the river Rohiṇī. {3.256} When the Teacher’s kinsmen saw the Teacher, they threw away their weapons and did reverence to him. The Teacher said to his kinsmen: “What is all this quarrel about, great king?” – “We do not know, venerable Sir.” – “Who then would be likely to know?” – “The commander-in-chief of the army would be likely to know.” The commander-in-chief of the army said: “The viceroy would be likely to know.” Thus the Teacher put the question first to one and then to another, asking the slave-laborers last of all. The slave-laborers replied: “The quarrel is about water, venerable Sir.”
Well, no surprise that the slave-laborers who are doing the manual work are pretty concerned about access to water. Compared to the nobility who, apparently, were accustomed to having a regular supply of water brought to them – as if it were just magically available at will.
Here’s a graphic of where these two kingdoms were located and you can see the river separating them.
Anyway, I can’t imagine the Buddha telling the slave-laborers to get over it and just go thirsty. Along with all the other repercussions of not having access to water.
The Discuss & Discover forum has lots of existing threads that speak to the question of morality and ethics in the face of contentious (and potentially horrendous) circumstances. If you use the search engine, that will get you started. Something like “morality justice” or similar.
The Buddha dishes out lots of straight talk about courage to speak the truth, for example. And there are examples where people just didn’t approve of what he said and left disappointed because it didn’t confirm their biases.
Well, with all due respect for the people in those circles, I think that’s hogwash. That’s manipulating things to support an existing bias, IMHO. Moreover, I think we all carry epistemic debt, through kamma and culture and so forth, which we are obliged to pay back to others through rigorous self-evaluation, reflection, and change of beliefs.
