Ball of Honey Sutta, Pt. 2

I teach a doctrine which is free of conflict. What does he mean by this? And why answer in that way? He answered in other ways at other times when asked about his teachings.

For one thing, the Buddha was a skilled rhetor. He modified what he said to people depending upon the situation. For him, this was a matter of wisdom, of "right" or "wise speech"--"samma vaca."

The Pali Canon defines wise speech in this way:

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
— SN 45.8

And the Buddha offers five "tests" for determining what is or is not wise speech:

Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

— AN 5.198

He elaborates on these five factors in a discourse (sutta) devoted completely to wise speech:

[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
— MN 58

In this last case, these guidelines for wise speech arise after a rival of the Buddha's has tried to trip him up, to cause him to utter unwise speech by having someone ask him, "would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?" According to the rival, if he says "yes," then he is no different from "run-of-the-mill people." If he says "no," then he can be refuted by bringing up the evidence of Devadatta (a former follower of the Buddha who had since left the sangha and had tried to kill him): "Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours" when the Buddha pronounced Devadatta to be "headed for destitution."

So when he was asked that question, the Buddha responded like any vir bonus dicendi peritus:

there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that

And so he offers the guidelines: Is it spoken at the right time? Is it true? Is it beneficial? Is it agreeable (or spoken with affection)? Is it spoken out of good will?

Why does he then not answer Dandapadi, Mr. Stick-in-Hand? No doubt because it would not have been beneficial, given the timing. Dandapadi wanted to fight, to have a nice conceptual argument. That wouldn't have been beneficial to the ultimate goal of awakening. It would have been simply idle chatter.