The fact that the Buddha didn’t take a stand on any of these issues, however, did not mean that he praised all those who refused to engage in debate. As we have seen, he did debate others on topics that were central to the issue of putting an end to stress. And he was particularly critical of those who refused to take a stand on the question of which kinds of action were skillful and which were not, as this question was the central issue that any responsible teacher should address.
“There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman doesn’t discern as it has come to be that ‘This is skillful,’ or that ‘This is unskillful.’ The thought occurs to him: ‘I don’t discern as it has come to be that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful.” If I—not discerning as it has come to be that “This is skillful,” not discerning as it has come to be that “This is unskillful”—were to declare that “This is skillful,” or that “This is unskillful”: That would be a falsehood on my part. Whatever would be a falsehood on my part would be a distress for me.
Whatever would be a distress for me would be an obstacle for me.’ So, out of fear of falsehood, a loathing for falsehood, he does not declare that ‘This is skillful,’ or that ‘This is unskillful.’ Being asked questions regarding this or that, he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-wriggling: ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’
[The second and third cases concern contemplatives or brahmans who don’t declare what is skillful or unskillful out of fear of clinging or fear of interrogation by “contemplatives & brahmans who are pundits, subtle, masters of debate. Like hair-splitting marksmen, they prowl about, shooting (philosophical) standpoints to pieces, as it were, with their dialectic.”]
“As for the fourth… There is the case where a certain contemplative or brahman is dull & exceedingly stupid. Out of dullness & exceeding stupidity, he—being asked questions regarding this or that—resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-wriggling: “If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not. If you asked me if there isn’t another world… both is & isn’t… neither is nor isn’t… if there are beings who wander on… if there aren’t… both are & aren’t… neither are nor aren’t… if the Tathāgata exists after death… doesn’t exist after death… both exists & doesn’t exist after death… neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’” —
DN 1