Does Buddhism transcend national law?

Ficus_religiosa

The question is quite simple: If the parliament in your country carries out a law which demands an action of the citizens which would mean breaking a Buddhist rule (say, "do not harm any living being" but you have to kill an invasive species of rodent upon sight), which rule would (and should) one adhere to?

being

Are there any such laws anywhere?
I myself would rather ignore such a law, than do something, that is not wise. Not because I am a Buddhist (I don't tag myself as such anyways) or not because there are "rules" in Buddhism against it.
But just basic reasoning. A law that binds me to kill is not a law worth abiding. -_-

caz

Not killing...

Ficus_religiosa

I do not think there are laws like that anywhere. The example was inspired by a recent "free for all" on a certain Chinese, dog-sized predator which has invaded my country and threatens several other species because it will eat anything and reproduces at an alarming rate (you have to be a licensed hunter to shoot it though).

I admit that it would be possible to think up other, and better examples.

I would choose the "not kill"-option too, by the way

Nirvana

Somewhat marginal to your question is the issue of the Buddhist warrior, or Samurai. I don't think people's religious fervor could fairly be impugned simply by their serving in the armed forces, and if a war breaks out...

I certainly don't think the Lord Buddha ever meant that whole populations should allow themselves to be overrun and slaughtered by invading hordes, either.

Self-defense and defense of loved ones imposes its own set of common-sense rules, although they may be difficult to deal with and leave scars on us for life.

Not killing, under any conditions, is simply not a sustainable way of life. I don't think that Buddha's mission was to diminish life, but rather to make it more abounding in joy and purpose. These two things —joy and purpose— are really not authenticated by anything other than themselves —certainly not by any rigid stance of "Thou shalt not..."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Only conscience can "transcend" law, not creeds or doctrines. It is sincere motivation by and adherence to these things that truly binds, not just mere "going along." Just blindly following is neither reflective, deep, or truly sincere, and is really a bit of a cop-out in the end. In other words, unless we truly have the substance of the Teaching in our Hearts, we may just be employing It to our own advantage when able. Thus can and does the secular law decree.

Cloud

OP: Well as to the simple post-title "Does Buddhism transcend national law?"... that depends on who you ask. To a nation, no law except its own matters; and its laws may or may not be tied to a religion (i.e. USA founded on Christianity). Our own view of right and wrong and/or our religion, whether correct or not, hold little ground in this respect.

As to the longer part... Buddhism is a dynamic system that allows for its adherents to make judgment calls. We kill every day, be it plant or animal life, to survive. Life feeds on life -- this is the way of things. The Buddhist way is to introduce an all-encompassing compassion for other lifeforms combined with clear discernment (wisdom) of reality. If a situation came up where it would be "more" right to kill an animal, such even that a nation as a whole would be forced to act, then it would be a question that each Buddhist; indeed each human, must answer for themselves.

dorje

If the animal threatens the wellbeing of the human population, I would think it's logical to follow the law.

DaltheJigsaw

caz namyaw wrote: »

Not killing...

Yep!:)