| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | This is not a spiel on how Tiger Wood’s “drifted away” from Buddhism. In fact, from the little I know, one cannot heal in counsel with the outside world. But that is not why I write today. | |
<
< | Each time I read a judge’s opinion, or try to make sense of some hallowed law review article, I feel that they are “empty.” This word cannot, for the present purposes, be understood with its Oxford Dictionary connotations. Thus, I shall do my best to expound its meaning through the lens of Buddhism. I do not propose that we interpret law using "Buddhist" principles of construction – such restriction in mental exercise should be, on the contrary, eschewed. Instead, by understanding (and applying) the law as a Buddhist would, we may further social and human progress while freeing ourselves from the suffering and anxiety that law can bring. | >
> | Each time I read a judge’s opinion, or try to make sense of some hallowed law review article, I have a sense that they are “empty.” This word cannot, for the present purposes, be understood with its Oxford Dictionary connotations. Thus, I shall do my best to expound its meaning through the lens of Buddhism. I do not propose that we interpret law using "Buddhist" principles of construction – such restriction in mental exercise should be, on the contrary, eschewed. Instead, by understanding (and applying) the law as a Buddhist would, we may further social and human progress while freeing ourselves from the suffering and anxiety that law can bring.
I must admit that most of what I write about is as incomprehensible to me, in its essence, as it may appear to you. Thus, I do not write from any point of vantage. Nonetheless, I have immense faith (sorry, no data) that an understanding of basic Buddhist philosophy can help us live as people who practice the law and not as "lawyers," as our egos would have it. The use of the word "ego" here, as you may have surmised, has unpleasant connotations. It stands for the idea that we are more than the conditions that produce us or that the self is something tangible or indestructible. It is an inflated sense of self-worth that makes us put a premium on our needs and fear anything such as failure (or death) that deflates (or demolishes) our idea of the self.
Let me open with what an Australian monk once said to me, "[let's not be] too bloody serious." | | | | | | | |
<
< | The Illusion of a Constitution
The Constitution is meaningless, until, of course, the omniscient Justices have spoken. Once they do opine, lo and behold, the Constitution is given its “true” meaning. There should be no shame in confessing to the fallacy of the Constitution – it is conditional, and of importance only when it guides the progress of the nation (as a whole).
We must not lose our way when dealing with humbug labels such as federalism, state sovereignty, plenary power, and so on. The precise terminology (that we obsess over) is not what matters. Yet considerable time is spent analyzing each comma, each period, as though the Framers wrote in one unified, perfect style. No, they were fallible human beings. I do not suppose they expected that future scholars would spend lifetimes debating over words (that remain ambiguous no matter how often one imposes an interpretation upon them) rather than utilising the Constitution, with its shortcomings, to achieve greater freedom.
| | | Conclusion
| | |
[I would like to sum Nona's and Devin's comments, which helped me as I edited the piece to increase clarity. Both were concerned with the meaning of the term "empty" and how we can utilise our understanding of it in practical terms. Nona expressed confusion over whether the "Dharma metaphor [should be applied] to a SCOTUS decision" and how the notion of fading away should be understood. Devin wanted a more detailed explanation of Buddhist philosophy but I found this difficult to achieve within our word limit -- briefing a concept would be misstatement on my part.] | |
<
< | I think the connection
between the discussion of constitutional interpretation and the rest
of the essay is obscure. If it needs to be part of the essay for the
essay to attain its objective, something should be said to show why.
If it is not necessary, I believe it's a
distraction.
The remainder of the essay has the inevitable internal contradiction
that it sounds like advice. Something to guard against putting
readers into a defensive posture by seeming to tell them from a
position of superior sanctity how to live would be helpful in the
first grafs. A word or two about ego might be appropriate; it's not
a negative word in our lexicon.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|