Skip to main content

Refuting historical school of law

 This school is taking average of past for future. it only works when the past is golden or for some wise not to to repeat what was wrong in the past. 

However, without realization of actual realities as prescribed by Upanishad, taking average like in natural sciences, it won't work. for natural objects got one reality and they are constantly following them hence by taking average of past they can rightfully come to best truth possible.

however, human realities is not that easy to average out. only outliers ever reach 3rd state and may <100 out of all human population in any time reach 4th state. Hence, average can never reach 3rd and 4th state of realities. 

Hence, historical school of law is not complete and is not good enough for way forward to reach ultimate human or universal reality.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hindu Jurisprudence- Smriti And some property law

I just don’t have the energy to write against the popular teaching (perhaps I have read the wrong books) that Hindu jurisprudence is contained within the Smriti, mainly the Manusmriti, and the property systems of the two schools — Mitakshara and Dayabhaga (I forget which region each school belongs to). But these are laws, not jurisprudence. I admit I do not know the subject of jurisprudence deeply — such a tragedy — but it seems to me these were laws made for the time and place according to the wisdom of the sages of that era. The Smriti writers themselves clearly said that the source of their understanding is the Veda. So, anyone who wants to understand exactly what truth Hindus hold must study the Vedas. Those who cannot may go through the Upanishads (major texts distilled by sages to teach the essence of the Jñāna part of the Veda). Those who still find that difficult may turn to the Mahabharata (which is in itself a “great battle” to understand), or they may study Mīmāṁsā, Nyāya-śā...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dharma - Nyaya

(To clear my thought process ) Dharma is that which bears, that which provides stability to a thing, a person, or a nation in motion. Nyaya is specific to the individual; A person who abides in Dharma may still be affected by the Adharma of another who fails to uphold it then the State/Society must inject Nyaya to tha specific person or group or even state. Jurisprudence (in my limited understanding and information ) could not ditinguish between these two concepts and confused it with morale, divine rule, command, society, economics etc. These two are related, but Dharma is what guides the Naya but here it has nothing to do with legal system, it is independent and move with truth, whereas Naya alone requires legal system. Hence, Jurisprudence has long divorced its essence of Dharma (somehow natural school using reason could hover around truth) and focus on legal system alone. ..................
Post a Comment
Read more

Vedas- The Ultimate -Darshan lets not say Philosophy it will be injustice to Great Sages

Vedas -Nobody knows what is it, it is praised by Sages of later dates hence people still praise it -I have not read any piece of paper (except the Secret of Vedas by Sri Aurobindo) which relates Vedas to Pshychology (which I think is still inadaquate (daring to challenge legend in my own foolishness)). 1.Some recites it like parrots 2. Some criticize it like Vedic sages were just fancy poets with lots of imagination 3. Some give it credit to later Vedantic development as part of Methods of Knowledge, which means Vedas are cave men and Vedanta were modern men 4. Some laugh about it since they worship Sun Moon lightening air etc. etc. Let me go one by one 1. reciting with full faith and accuracy have some benefits but it will limit to the level of brain only and that too for soothing purposes and other, which will produces mechanical results (results are bound to happen) 2. too poor may be who translated and criticizes it must lack knowledge of Vedangas, they were expert in musical no...
Post a Comment
Read more