Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:32 pm
thepea wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 8:04 pm
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:59 pm
I believe The Buddha said that the Sangha ought to obey the law of whichever country they are in. But what's that got to do with my point?
Laws are laws
Yes...
they must go through a parliamentary process
No. They might be a form of delegated legislation. In the UK these are normally termed "orders" or "regulations" or somesuch, but they have the force of law. And there is, of course, case law. No parliament required.
Acts, orders, mandates are asks not laws
I'm not sure of the terminology in Canada and elsewhere, but "Acts" are examples of primary legislation. And I'm not sure what you mean by "asks". They are not requests.
they require the active consent and participation of the individual
Delegated legislation and case law require no more active consent or participation than statutes.
If the individual is bound by the precepts these individuals have the duty to say no to any ask that goes against their morality.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "ask"; nor is it clear that individuals undertaking training precepts have any duties; nor that they are equated with "morality"; nor that such conflicts exist in reality.
Now is a monestery bound to follow an ask of a government according to the Buddha dhamma?
I don't know what the position in the
vinaya is, if any. But they are bound to follow laws, I would have thought, and most of them seem to do so without problems. But again, this term "ask"....
The base of law is keeping the peace of society.
The morality laid out by Buddha in the precepts is based on keeping a stable mental peace within and these are the basis for any law passed through parliament process. No government can pass a law which required a man to break any moral precept.
No laws can be created to force a man to:
Kill,
Lie,
Steal,
Have Sexual misconduct, or
Consume intoxicants.
But.... a government can create acts, orders and mandated and a variety of other named things which are “ASKS” of the public. For example an act of war can be created and one could be drafted into service. They can dress you, fly you across the earth to foreign land, they can put a gun in your hands and order you into battle to kill the enemy.
Nobody can force you to kill at war, this must be done by your own active consent and participation. If you choose not to kill you are guilty of no crime. Your fellow soldiers might get pissed at you but you have broken no laws only refused orders.
You can refuse any acts orders or mandates put forth by a government. You will not be charged with a crime.
Similarly in my case driving into a neighbouring prince when the political boundary was closed violated this mandate. But I was not arrested for this, I was arrested for failure to identify. But when confronted by police I was sitting in a cafe having a pepsi. I had no lawful reason to identify. So they used newly recruited private security without badge numbers to violate my freedom of anonymity and arrest me.
This is the difference between a law and any of the other terms used. You are not guilty of breaking a law if you say no to these.
So my question to you was monesteries are to follow laws but do they have a duty(moral responsibility) to carefully choose which acts orders and mandates they follow given that some require a precept breach?