The Dalai Lama’s way of meeting conflict rests on a foundation of nonviolence, compassion, and reasoned dialogue. Violence, in his view, does not resolve tension but perpetuates cycles of harm and retaliation, so he consistently advocates peaceful means, whether the disagreement is personal, political, or religious. This commitment is not merely strategic; it is grounded in a recognition of interdependence, where harming others ultimately harms oneself. He therefore emphasizes seeing the shared humanity of all parties, including critics and opponents, and encourages looking beneath their actions to the fears and suffering that may be driving them.

Compassion, however, does not mean passivity or naivety. He distinguishes between opposing harmful behavior and dehumanizing the person who performs it, encouraging forgiveness of individuals without abandoning the pursuit of justice or truth. This stance is supported by a strong emphasis on inner work: anger, hatred, and attachment are understood as fuels of outer conflict, so he teaches practices of mindfulness, analytical reflection, and emotional regulation to transform these forces before engaging in difficult conversations. In this sense, “inner disarmament” becomes a precondition for genuine outer peace.

In practical terms, he advocates patient, honest dialogue and negotiation, seeking common ground and balanced solutions that avoid extremes. His well-known “Middle Way” approach to political disputes exemplifies this preference for compromise that acknowledges the legitimate concerns of all sides rather than insisting on absolute victory. He encourages examining the root causes of conflict—ignorance, greed, and anger—and addressing them through education, ethical cultivation, and the development of a broader, long-term perspective that considers the welfare of future generations.

Throughout, he resists demonizing any group, discouraging “us versus them” narratives and instead inviting people to see adversaries as, in a sense, teachers who reveal one’s own impatience and latent aggression. This perspective fosters personal responsibility: before blaming others, one is urged to examine how one’s own attitudes and actions may contribute to discord. By grounding responses to conflict in shared humanity, secular ethics, and disciplined self-reflection, his approach seeks not only to resolve particular disputes, but also to transform the mental and emotional patterns that give rise to conflict in the first place.