is there any relationship between secular law, the precepts and karma?

[dawn of peace]

According to The EBT, there were some instances that The Buddha used secular law or local customs of ancient India to teach the dharma and explain the precepts. there are at least two of five precepts were interpreted based on customs and law in ancient India. for example, the monks who stolen things would commit major offense if the things they stolen worth five masakas or more, which was considered to be serious crime, and could be put to death according to the law of ancient India. also, the third precept, sexual misconduct mean having sexual relationship with women who were protected by other people, which was according to the law of ancient India that men had right over their wife and daughters, and the agency of women were not even considered. non consensual sex by itself technically was not considered to be broken the secular law of ancient India, and this became unlawful only if the women were belonged to other men.
could secular law or local customs directly or indirectly have influence on the working of the karma? could breaking the secular law by itself cause bad karma?

[PadmaVonSamba]

could breaking the secular law by itself cause bad karma?

That would depend entirely on
the motivation behind the action.
Otherwise, “by itself”, no, there is no connection.

Keep in mind, a secular law can be identical to a religious law. In the United States, murder is both a felony legally, and for those who follow almost any religion, a sin. But in the U.S., you can’t pass a law on account of it being a religious sin.

I think the Buddha did tell his followers, in general, to obey local laws and customs. Many of the rules set by the Buddha were meant to protect the sangha. Monks were wanderers. If wandering monks has a reputation as thieves or whatever, probably the only offerings they would receive would be rocks thrown at them. The prohibition against monks touching women came about because of a scandal. According to what a Thai monk told me, one of the Buddha’s followers followed a woman to a dimly lit temple and (at least) groped her. Whatever the fallout was from that, it was enough for the Buddha to tell monks they couldn’t even touch a woman at all. The Thai monks I know won’t even shake hands with females.

[Kim O'Hara]

could breaking the secular law by itself cause bad karma?

That would depend entirely on
the motivation behind the action.
Otherwise, “by itself”, no, there is no connection.

Keep in mind, a secular law can be identical to a religious law. In the United States, murder is both a felony legally, and for those who follow almost any religion, a sin. But in the U.S., you can’t pass a law on account of it being a religious sin.

I think the Buddha did tell his followers, in general, to obey local laws and customs. Many of the rules set by the Buddha were meant to protect the sangha. Monks were wanderers. If wandering monks has a reputation as thieves or whatever, probably the only offerings they would receive would be rocks thrown at them. The prohibition against monks touching women came about because of a scandal. According to what a Thai monk told me, one of the Buddha’s followers followed a woman to a dimly lit temple and (at least) groped her. Whatever the fallout was from that, it was enough for the Buddha to tell monks they couldn’t even touch a woman at all. The Thai monks I know won’t even shake hands with females.

But also -

... non consensual sex ... became unlawful only if the women were belonged to other men.

But I think you will find that women nearly always 'belonged to' or 'were under the protection of' other men - their father before they were married, their husband after they were married.
And if their father or husband was dead or absent, guardianship passed on to another male in the family. Even a young son could become head of the family - legally, at least.
This is still the pattern in many parts of the world, and in fact it was the pattern in English and colonial society (inculding USA) until relatively recently. Women could not legally own property in Australia until some time early in the 20th century, for instance.

Please note that I am not saying any of this was okay!


Kim

[dawn of peace]

Keep in mind, a secular law can be identical to a religious law. In the United States, murder is both a felony legally, and for those who follow almost any religion, a sin. But in the U.S., you can’t pass a law on account of it being a religious sin.

I think the Buddha did tell his followers, in general, to obey local laws and customs. Many of the rules set by the Buddha were meant to protect the sangha. Monks were wanderers. If wandering monks has a reputation as thieves or whatever, probably the only offerings they would receive would be rocks thrown at them. The prohibition against monks touching women came about because of a scandal. According to what a Thai monk told me, one of the Buddha’s followers followed a woman to a dimly lit temple and (at least) groped her. Whatever the fallout was from that, it was enough for the Buddha to tell monks they couldn’t even touch a woman at all. The Thai monks I know won’t even shake hands with females.

I had read the writing of Ven Pandita (a theravada monk in Myanmar tradition ) According to Ven Pandita, The Buddha choose to use local customs at that time in some occasions when it was helpful to his mission, but in other occasion, he reject the local customs if it was unhelpful to his mission.

in one of Ven Pandita's paper' he wrote:

Having ideals out of the reach of people in general, the Buddha is like a mature adult, and people are like children who the former has to teach. He cannot expect children to act
like adults, but as an adult, he also cannot see any real significance in, nor entertain real preferences over, the toys
that children hold in great value. What he will do is: to adapt his teaching methodology to children and teach them how to play with their toys, but with a different purpose. While children aim to get maximum fun when they
play with their toys, the adult’s purpose in teaching them how to play is to develop their physical and mental
faculties.It is the same with the Buddha. He was ready to teach anyone of any social status and of any particular walk of life,but only with a clearly-defined objective, i.e

in his another paper, he wrote:

Here, I must note that there are admittedly many cases where the Vinaya has accepted legal concepts from secular law; for instance, in the rule on theft itself, the stolen object, to incur the Ultimate Defeat, must
be a valuable worth at least five māsakas, an amount corresponding to the royal law of the Māgadha country (Vin III 45, 47; Horner 1: 71, 75).Perhaps this is why Varado states: “So, for monks, vinaya [sic.] is not a
replacement for law, but an addition to it, a fact established in vinaya [sic.], where the Buddha, referring to the legislative system of the day, said, ‘I allow you, monks, to obey kings’ (Vin 1.138).”However, “using” secular law when it is convenient to do so and subservience to it are different things. The Buddha might choose to use
secular law when it was helpful to his mission, but might choose to differ
in other occasions.

does Mahayana Buddhism agree with this?

[Queequeg]

Consider Nagarjuna's counsel to a king.

Secular law matters because that is the basis of order, and without order, the practice of Buddhism is very difficult if not impossible

Secular law and sila have parallels because their aims are similar - pacification.

They digress because they have dissimilar aims - secular society aims for material prosperity and relative happiness. Buddha, on the other hand, taught renunciation and transcendent liberation.

They may differ in terms of the level they aim at. Secular law aims primarily at the social level. Sila is primarily an individual training. Arguably, a Buddhist ruler would aim to establish a social order conducive to individual training.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Here, I must note that there are admittedly many cases where the Vinaya has accepted legal concepts from secular law; for instance, in the rule on theft itself, the stolen object, to incur the Ultimate Defeat, must be a valuable worth at least five māsakas, an amount corresponding to the royal law of the Māgadha country (Vin III 45, 47; Horner 1: 71, 75).Perhaps this is why Varado states: “So, for monks, vinaya [sic.] is not a replacement for law, but an addition to it, a fact established in vinaya [sic.], where the Buddha, referring to the legislative system of the day, said, ‘I allow you, monks, to obey kings’ (Vin 1.138).”However, “using” secular law when it is convenient to do so and subservience to it are different things. The Buddha might choose to use secular law when it was helpful to his mission, but might choose to differ in other occasions.

does Mahayana Buddhism agree with this?

There’s a lot of ambiguity here. What does “use” mean, for example?

How does the concept of ‘law’ and the enforcement of law actually manifest in real life at, say, 3:00pm on a Tuesday in India, 2500 years ago? Nobody can really say. If the law says a thief must pay a fine of 10 coins, how do monks do that? Buddha’s monks didn’t carry or handle money.

There was one basic criteria for what the Buddha regarded as useful: whether it lead toward realization or not. In practical terms, following public law should keep you out of jail or being punished or executed, which are things which cause mental anguish and are probably not helpful towards the cessation of suffering. So that would be a good reason to advise monks to obey local laws.

As I mentioned, the Buddha didn’t want monks creating a bad reputation for monks. If a hundred guys with robes and begging bowls suddenly wander into your village one morning, they’d better make a damned good impression. So, again, obey local laws.

But I don’t think there’s any example of the Buddha saying, for example, “The public law says alms begging should not start before sunrise, therefore, because it is public law, it shall also be vinaya law”. I don’t think there were ever any “therefores” in this regard.

There is no particular significance with regard to whether secular law is referred to or not with regards to the vinaya. It’s the same as kosher law, workplace regulations, or any other system of rules that function within a subset of society.

[Queequeg]

It is worth considering the ten reasons the Buddha gave for promulgating the Vinaya.

This blog post covers basics.

http://dilbhadramaharjan.blogspot.com/2 ... es-to.html

You could take that and consider the various theories on government in ancient India. In general, there was a sense that sovereigns were responsible for the peace and prosperity of their communities. The text I referred to, Nagarjuna's counsel to a king, is helpful to get an idea of what the Mahayana view on government is. Basically, Nagarjuna says that a sovereign's responsibility is to create the social and material conditions conducive to the spiritual advancement of the members of the community.

I think there is something in the ancient Indian ideals for government that touch on karma due to the fact that the idea was an integral aspect of the idea of what a human being is. It's natural, I think that sila and legal codes might have similarities, for the reason I pointed out above.

Years ago, I found a book on government and Buddha's teachings in a book shop in Varanasi. Unfortunately, I was robbed on a train and lost the book before I could get into it. I've searched for the title since, but have been successful. It looked interesting and wish I still had it.

I did a master's thesis comparing human rights and Buddhist ethics. My conclusion agreed with Damian Keown - there are no rights in Buddhism. Sila is a code of individual discipline and duties and does not really contemplate individual rights and privileges that can be enforced against others to compel their actions or restraint. FWIW.

[Astus]

could secular law or local customs directly or indirectly have influence on the working of the karma? could breaking the secular law by itself cause bad karma?

If one has done something bad there is naturally a fear of being found out (AN 6.45), and recollecting one's virtues, living free of fear brings about calm.

[Bristollad]

Could secular law or local customs directly or indirectly have influence on the working of the karma? could breaking the secular law by itself cause bad karma?

One of the groups of people who are unable to hold ordination vows is traditionally said to be those from the Northern Continent. The explanation given is that they have no concept of personal property. Since there is no property which is theirs, they never form the intention to steal. Since they never form the intention to steal, they are unable to hold the vows to refrain from stealing, hence they can't ordain. Interestingly, the same logic is given for why those who have no sexual desire are unsuitable as well.

So, you could look at that and say that since there are no local laws against stealing, they don't generate that karma. But that still feels a little shakey to me. It's more that the lack of local laws against stealing reflects their mind state. It is their lack of intention to steal that leads to them not generating the unskilful karma from stealing, not the lack of a law against it.

Whether or not breaking secular law would generate unskillful karma would depend on the intention behind that action IMO. If it's done out of anger, desire or ignorance, then sure. If an action is motivated solely by bodhicitta, even if it breaks a secular law, I don't think so.

However, since almost every intentional action of our body, speech and mind at the moment is mixed with anger, desire or ignorance to some degree, it's probably better to follow local laws and customs as much as we can.

[Aemilius]

In this life we all belong to a particular biological entity called population, which is to some extent equivalent with a country and/or state. We do not exist outside of a population, country or state. Laws are concerned with the continued existence of the population, country and state. Populations have the nature of competing with each other. They also destroy other populations quite uninhibitedly, which is the normal state in the evolution of species and in the evolution of populations. This activity is regarded "good" in the values of a population and in the "values" of evolution.

Atleast in theory Buddhism rises above the view that one is merely a member of a given population. For example because we are born an infinite number of times as members of different species and different populations.
And also because self-identity means that we feel that we belong to such and such a population, to such and such country, clan and state. Atleast in theory Buddhism teaches non-self. However you may want to define and understand it, in this context ?

[HauntedHotel]

One of the groups of people who are unable to hold ordination vows is traditionally said to be those from the Northern Continent. The explanation given is that they have no concept of personal property. Since there is no property which is theirs, they never form the intention to steal. Since they never form the intention to steal, they are unable to hold the vows to refrain from stealing, hence they can't ordain.

Do you have a source for this or which vinaya this is in?

[Bristollad]

One of the groups of people who are unable to hold ordination vows is traditionally said to be those from the Northern Continent. The explanation given is that they have no concept of personal property. Since there is no property which is theirs, they never form the intention to steal. Since they never form the intention to steal, they are unable to hold the vows to refrain from stealing, hence they can't ordain.

Do you have a source for this or which vinaya this is in?

This is from the Mulasarvastivadin vinaya full ordination procedure. Before taking full ordination, one is asked a series of questions to which one must be able to truthfully answer, "No." One of those questions is whether you are from the Northern Continent. The explanation above is the teaching I received explaining why that question is asked.