Phena wrote:Succinct: characterized by clear, precise expression in few words.
For several centuries now, the primary senses of the word have had chiefly to do not with clarity, but with shortness
, whether in connection with terseness of expression, brevity of time, or even the skimpiness of one's garments...
- “Apollo himselfe loveth brevitie, and is in his oracles verie succinct and pithy.”
(Holland, tr. of Plutarch’s Moralia; 1603)
“With the rope round their neck, their destiny may be succinct!”
(Thomas Carlyle, The French Revolution; 1836)
“She exchanged her stole, or loose upper garment, for the more succinct cloak and hood of a horseman.”
(Walter Scott Castle Dangerous; 1831)
Phena wrote:I think that describes my question quite well,
Given your failure to supply the necessary stipulations that would make it answerable, I submit that the adjective that best describes your question would be ṭhapanīya
— “to be set aside”.
Phena wrote:but I can see Bhante you are getting caught up in the "laws of the land" aspect rather the ethical dimensions.
Then you must have overlooked the fact that in my maiden post
to this thread (in reply to Steve’s query about how our forum members decide what’s right for themselves) I took my stand upon the ethic of reciprocity — an unimpeachably ethical criterion and one of which the Buddha himself was clearly an advocate (e.g. in chapter 10 of the Dhammapada).
Furthermore, throughout my posts the fallibility of secular human law is something of which I’ve been fully cognizant, hence my drawing attention to the commentators’ prioritising of the judgment of the wise.
Phena wrote:Laws of the land are a often a shallow representation of ethics and indeed can run contrary to sound ethical positions. It’s a poor yardstick.
It is undoubtedly an imperfect yardstick but nonetheless a basically rational one. The second precept is broken only when what is taken is truly the property of another. To whom or what, then, should we turn for our definition of what qualifies something as being someone’s property? The laws of the state are prima facie the most obvious answer, given that the existence of a state (i.e. of a set of enforceable legal rights) is a precondition of property in any form.