| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Work in Progress -- Please feel free to comment and/or ask questions that may help me explain my thoughts more clearly. | |
<
< | [Title of Essay] | >
> | [Empty Title] | | | -- By MohitGourisaria - 21 Feb 2010 | | | 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. And thus, I shall do my best to expound its meaning through the lens of Buddhism. | >
> | 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 limitation of mental exercise should be, on the contrary, eschewed. Instead, by understanding (and treating) the law as a Buddhist would, we may further social and human progress while freeing ourselves from the suffering and the anxiety that law can bring. | | | | | | Law – a Channel for Freedom, Not Human Suffering
| |
<
< | The study of law – just like the study of the Bible or the Quran – is designed to lead to freedom. The texts of law are comparable to the dharma (teachings) of the Buddha. The only difference is that the Buddha, being wholly bereft of ego, was able to admit that the dharma fades away once one has begun to comprehend the conditionality of human suffering and has started on a path to perfection and freedom – the ultimate truth. The institutions of law on the other hand, obtaining validity through the manifestation of their egos, espouse a hallowed notion of the law. We are labeled at every step – public interest, international private sector, 1L/2L/3L, unemployed, utilitarian, and the list goes on. This serves two purposes: first, it enables the higher powers to package us in convenient boxes so that our fates may be easily determined, rewards conveniently distributed, and statistics favourably reported; and second, it leads to our suffering, which, as Arnold hints, is imperative for our manipulation. | >
> | The study of law – just like the study of the Bible or the Quran – should lead to freedom. The texts of law are comparable to the dharma (teachings) of the Buddha. The only difference is that the Buddha, being wholly bereft of ego, was able to admit that the dharma fades away once one has begun to comprehend the conditionality of human suffering and has started on a path to perfection and freedom – the ultimate truth. The institutions of law on the other hand, obtaining validity through the manifestation of their egos, espouse a hallowed notion of the law. We are labeled at every step – public interest, international private sector, 1L/2L/3L, unemployed, utilitarian, and the list goes on. This serves two purposes: first, it enables the higher powers to package us in convenient boxes so that our fates may be easily determined, rewards conveniently distributed, and statistics favourably reported; and second, it leads to our suffering, which, as Arnold hints, is imperative for our manipulation. | | | Why then do we indulge in (and even propagate) our own suffering? I do not know. | | | A legal education is seen as an end, and much is made of the three years we spend in law school. Law school is merely an opportunity – a boat that bears us in a transient journey from one shore to another – that has no utility beyond what it confers upon us – access to a farther shore. | |
<
< | We are not in law school. We are in life. And law school happens to be a part of it for some of us. Once we have seen the larger truth, which may be impossible given our egos and entitlements, the law school phenomenon will become insignificant. Once this has become insignificant, there will be no need to incessantly refresh the webpage containing our grades, or to measure our self-worth in terms of numbers or percentiles. | >
> | We are not in law school. We are in life. [Professor Moglen] And law school happens to be a part of it for some of us. Once we have seen the larger truth, which may be impossible given our egos and entitlements, the law school phenomenon will become insignificant. Once this has become insignificant, there will be no need to incessantly refresh the webpage containing our grades, or to measure our self-worth in terms of numbers or percentiles. | | | | | |
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. | |
<
< | Language, no matter how well-written, is ambiguous. Intent, where there was any, is almost impossible to determine. Thus, we have half-a-dozen principles of constitutional construction, which conflict more often that they agree. But there should be no shame in the fallacy of the Constitution – it is not a real thing. However, those that worship it may consider this blasphemy. | >
> | Language, no matter how well-written, is ambiguous. Intent, where there was any, is almost impossible to determine. We have half-a-dozen principles of constitutional construction, which conflict more often that they agree. There should be no shame in admitting to the fallacy of the Constitution – it is not an unconditional thing. | | | It is important to not lose our way when dealing with humbug labels such as federalism, state sovereignty, plenary power, and so on. The particular words are not important. Yet considerable time is spent analyzing each comma, each period, as though the Framers (as read by the interpreters) wrote in one unified, perfect style. I do not know what the Framers had in mind. But I am certain they did imagine future scholars would spend lifetimes debating over words (that will remain ambiguous no matter how often one imposes one's interpretation upon them) rather than utilising the Constitution, with its shortcomings, to achieve a better Union.
|
|