The Easy Patient, the Good Nurse, and Causes of Long Life
GilānavaggoThree sets of five from the Gilāna Vagga — qualities of a patient who is easy to care for, qualities of a good…
Paṇḍito vata bho
The wanderer Ājina says his companion, called Paṇḍita ("the wise"), has devised five hundred lines of questioning to defeat other sects. The Buddha describes several kinds of people who crush others' statements and are all hailed by their listeners as "truly wise", then concludes that what must be known is what accords with the Dhamma and what is beneficial.
In the Ājina Sutta of the Paccorohaṇī Vagga, Book of the Tens, Aṅguttara Nikāya, a wanderer named Ājina visits the Blessed One and says a fellow wanderer of his is called Paṇḍita because he has thought up five hundred lines of questioning for use against followers of other sects, who, when questioned, know they have been refuted. In some Pali editions the wanderer's name is Ajita.
The Buddha asks the monks whether they remember the grounds of being wise, then explains: someone crushes an unprincipled statement with an unprincipled statement; someone crushes a principled statement with an unprincipled one; someone crushes both with an unprincipled one; all three delight an unprincipled assembly. Someone crushes an unprincipled statement with a principled one but delights an unprincipled assembly; and someone crushes a principled statement with a principled one, delighting a principled assembly. In every case the listeners raise a great clamour: "He is truly wise!"
He concludes that what is contrary to the Dhamma and what accords with it, what is harmful and what is beneficial, should be known, and one should practise what accords with the Dhamma and is beneficial: right view through right freedom. This page follows the Thai Royal Edition and the Siam Pali edition, which have five cases; an English translation based on another Pali edition has only the first three.
The wanderer is proud that his companion devised five hundred lines of questioning, so that followers of other sects know they have been refuted. That is why he is called wise among them.
Notice whether you consider someone clever because they win arguments, or because they help people understand things more accurately.
Someone crushes an unprincipled statement with an unprincipled one, delighting an unprincipled assembly, which clamours that he is wise.
One person out-arguing another doesn't make the winner right. Both may be wrong.
Someone crushes a principled statement with an unprincipled one, and an unprincipled audience still hails him as wise.
When you see a reasonable person mocked into silence, don't conclude they were wrong. Go back to what they actually said.
Someone uses an unprincipled statement to crush both principled and unprincipled statements, and an unprincipled audience still clamours that he is wise.
Be wary of someone who wins every debate no matter what the other side says. The ability to crush is not evidence of being right.
Someone crushes an unprincipled statement with a principled one but delights an unprincipled assembly, which also clamours that he is wise.
Even when you are right, if your supporters cheer out of spite, take care that their noise doesn't push you to speak more harshly than needed.
Someone crushes a principled statement with a principled one, delighting a principled assembly, which also clamours that he is wise. The discourse does not elaborate on this case.
Debates between people who both have good reasons do happen, but even then, what to keep is the content, not who won.
In every case the audience raises the same great clamour: "He is truly wise!" Praise can arise whether or not the statement accords with the Dhamma.
Don't use likes, shares or applause in a meeting room as the test of which idea is right.
The Buddha concludes that one should know what is contrary to the Dhamma and what accords with it, what is harmful and what is beneficial, and practise what accords with the Dhamma and is beneficial. Wrong view through wrong freedom are contrary to the Dhamma; right view through right freedom accord with it.
After watching an argument, ask two questions: was what I heard accurate, and would applying it lead to good results?
Online, whoever hits back hardest often gets the most likes. This discourse shows that applause can arise in every case: when wrong beats wrong, when wrong beats right, and even when right wins. Applause only tells you the audience is pleased, not who is right.
The discourse does not explain each case further, but read alongside its conclusion, it shows that what deserves attention is the content of a statement, whether it accords with the Dhamma and leads to good results, not who crushed whom.
Before joining an argument, ask yourself whether you are looking for the truth or for applause. If it's the latter, stepping back costs you nothing.
Tap to read the actual passage on the page cited.
Three sets of five from the Gilāna Vagga — qualities of a patient who is easy to care for, qualities of a good…
Seven stages of purification handed on like seven relay chariots — each exists for the next, none is the goal …
The brahmin Mahāgovinda helps King Reṇu keep his promise to share the kingdom with his friends and divides the…
Four things rarely obtained — human birth, staying alive, hearing the true Dhamma, and the arising of a Buddha…