Karma in Lawyers' Dharma

[saidevo]

The concept of fair justice involves lawyers defending adharmic people, uttering blatant lies cooked up by crooked research, even betraying the nation's culture, values and integrity. Any other profession seems to provide a choice between being fair, foul or fiendish.

How does karma affect the lawyers in their professions? The concept of fair justice is time immemorial, so somebody must have played the lawyer's role in the ancient and not so ancient days before today's jurisprudence came into enforcement.

What do our scriptures like Manu Smriti say on this subject?

[sm78]

Its often a crook vs another crook and in a particular case there can be only one party which has the just claims (whether they are crooks in person or not). Lawyers can still take the side of the just against the unjust.

Though I am not a lawyer but I do know one very closely, and it seemed that option of choosing between fair, foul and fiendish is much more clear and straight forward in that profession. In comparisson I spend my day in front of a computer, play with numbers and pretend (i don;t personally, but most do) that we are doing something useful for ourselvesand others (which is a big big lie) , absorb or least pretend to absorb load of corporate junk and gyans...all of which only can accomplish one thing ~ making me more worthless as a person.

In the temporal battle between just and unjust, good and evil which the human birth enforces on us, that we all must fight at some level, it is far better to be in centre of the battle ground and choose a side, than sitting on the fence and predenting we are better off. Sitting on the fence doesn't help the good, and the bad lot know we are no threat, hence helps them in a way.

One cannot stay out of kurukhestra without becoming a Dhritarastra, and i hope most people would agree (in theory at least) that the last thing one wants to be.

Anyway we hardly discuss karma, nyay and niti in this forum and people might find this boring and useless...but i thought i should paste my views to saidevo's question when i have one.

[saidevo]

Namaste Singhi Kaya.

I had in mind Sri Fali S. Nariman, one of the most eminent legal counsels of India--a 'legal eagle' as they are appropriately called, when I thought up the OP.

This man, a legal luminary of the Supreme Court of India, is in an unenviable position today: He is the defence counsel in the case against Kanchi Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Sarasvati as well as the prosecution (Central Government) counsel in the Rama Sethu case!

With due respects to this senior counsel who would be eighty as the year 2009 dawns, I am surprised that a man of his stature and age could take up the two cases, where he defends Hindu dharma in the Sankaracharya case and pooh-poohs it in the other, in terms of the Hindu perspective. Even if his motive might be purely professional, should he have no regard to the Sanatana Dharma behind the Rama Sethu case, specially when it involves the tradition, culture, history and values of the country?

He made Supreme Court sit up and take notice and say that there was 'prima facie no case' against the Sankaracharya, on the very first day it came up for hearing. In the Rama Sethu case, IMHO, he is only making a farce of his legal fame: in the SC hearing yesterday he trumpetted on behalf of the Central Government, "Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed." When the bridge is not there, there is no question of destroying it, so the project can proceed as envisaged, he argued, claiming that Kama Ramayana (Tamil) and Padma Purana had references to that effect.

Experts are of the opinion that there Nariman has not properly acquainted himself with over 8000 pages of evidence and arguments and case laws already submitted in the case that seek to prove that the bridge was constructed by Lord Rama, that was used as causeway until a cyclone in the year 1480 caused breaches in the bridge and submerged the bridge and that a Shiva linga was installed right in the middle of the bridge and has been worshipped all along, and above all, that the project would be an environmental disaster if implemented and that instead of generating the profit estimated, it would only generate loss. (for details, please check http://www.kanchiforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2078&start=600)

The question is: what drives high-profile people like Fali Nariman to take up such controversial cases that seek to destroy Hindu dharma? Professional excellence? Monetary prospects? Lack of religious belief (Parsis hightly respect and follow Hinduism)? Personal considerations overshadowing national dharmic interests? What about the karma such people would be subject to by such actions?

[sm78]

Namaste,

My reply was just generic w.r.t lawyer profession which I feel offers a clear choice between good and evil (as per own's concience).

I am not sure of Mr Nariman's motivation as I have never studied him, but in all probability he like most is only concerned about himself ~ money, fame, favours and whatever else.

I am not sure of the exact details of treatment recieved in paraloka for taking the side of evil in ihaloka. But since we don't know our future and remember our past (births), I don't really understand how it matters.

[saidevo]

Namaste Singhi Kaya.



My reply was just generic w.r.t lawyer profession which I feel offers a clear choice between good and evil (as per own's concience).


I am sure it does, but somebody need to represent the adharmic people caught in litigation, don't you agree? Can a highly-dharma conscious person take up their case with no strings of karma attached? Or only people who are less-enlightened but highly professional in worldly life would be destined to take up their cases, thereby giving momentum to the World-Process?

According to Theosophy, worldly knowledge--Ars and Science--is a faculty of the mind. Though Buddhi is always at the back to caution and give advice, mind steeped in the professionalism of worldly knowledge just moves on. Such people, Theosophical literature says, who have developed their mental bodies highly and kept their emotions in control, would reside in the highest of the four rUpa (formful) sub planes of the mental world, in their afterlife. People who are guided by Buddhi have developed their causal bodies well, so they have nothing to do with forms so they go to reside in the first three sub planes--the arUpa (formless) planes of the Mental World (heavens, svarga, whatever other name).

And then, in their next birth, the professionals would be born in suitable situations to continue their professional life. Perhaps this is the reason we see child/young prodigies of worldly knowledge. The wise people would also be born in suitable, lofty situations conducive to further progress.

The afterlife of Duryodana enjoying a high position in Svarga is a case in point. Narada Muni says to Dharmaputra, "The brave Duryodhana has attained his present state by force of kshatriya dharma."

Kanchi Paramacharya once narrated how KarNa, the king of generosity, suffered from hunger in Svarga, for the simple reason he did not give any anna dAnam (charity by feeding) in his earthly life.

Dharma and karma are exacting: karma in physical life and dharma in afterlife. No one can escape their strictures.