Theravada and Secular Law

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?

Do Theravadins have to obey the law of the land even if the law is discriminatory?

Yes
2
15%
No
5
38%
Not sure
6
46%
 
Total votes: 13

User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Theravada and Secular Law

Post by seeker242 »

chownah wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:32 pm I agree with you completely that if a persons actions are consistent with the law then they are "not breaking" the law but I think there is a distinctly differnt meaning when it comes to "obeying" and "following" the law.
I don't think there is a different meaning because I did not intend for there to be a different meaning. :smile: Obey can mean "comply with a order" but it can also mean "behave in accordance with". In Oxford English dictionary, obey and follow are synonyms, which means they can be used interchangeably with the same meaning.
chownah
Posts: 8940
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Theravada and Secular Law

Post by chownah »

seeker242 wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:02 am
chownah wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:32 pm I agree with you completely that if a persons actions are consistent with the law then they are "not breaking" the law but I think there is a distinctly differnt meaning when it comes to "obeying" and "following" the law.
I don't think there is a different meaning because I did not intend for there to be a different meaning. :smile: Obey can mean "comply with a order" but it can also mean "behave in accordance with". In Oxford English dictionary, obey and follow are synonyms, which means they can be used interchangeably with the same meaning.
I was responding to the OP's poll question. I think I was clear about how I was defining "not break", "follow", and "obey" to mean different things. I also said "my comment might not quite fit correctly into the ongoing discussion" to indicate that I was taking a different tack from other posts (for instance your posting) but that I thought that the point I was pointing to was worth discussing. I guess you don't see the point I am trying to discuss or perhaps you do see it but don't want to discuss it.....either way is fine with me. You seem to be just talking about doing things which do not violate the law while I am trying to talk about the different things which can guide our actions......for instance if someone is acting in a way which does not violate a law just because it is a law and so must not be violated is very much different in my view from someone who is acting in a way which does not violate the law because of their moral discernment which would guide them to that same action regardless of what the law proscribes.

If you are not interested indiscussing this then that is fine with me.
chownah
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Theravada and Secular Law

Post by sentinel »

In many countries killing animals is legal , gambling businesses is legal or their laws are in favor of certain races and it might appear one is accepting it indirectly without voicing against it which means obeying the laws however that does not mean one is agreeing with it .
You always gain by giving
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Theravada and Secular Law

Post by seeker242 »

chownah wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:21 pm
I was responding to the OP's poll question. I think I was clear about how I was defining "not break", "follow", and "obey" to mean different things.
You were responding to my comment as you quoted my comment. And I was saying they don't mean different things, they mean the same thing.
Post Reply