Go Undefined

At some level, this is an absurd exhortation. All human communication depends on definitions. I assume, if you read what I write, you believe that we agree sufficiently on the definitions of the words I use that the meaning you derive from my writing is reasonably similar to the meaning I intend. This can be a vexed issue. Legal scholars debate it actively, since the law is nothing but a set of definitions, and lawyers and judges get paid to arrive at and enforce public definitions of the words in laws and contracts.

One way to understand the Buddhist path is as a rule strongly suggesting deep suspicion about any human definitions, which are the only kind we know and use regularly.

This at least suggests that on the Buddhist path, we can’t be too strict about enforcing rules, since we can’t be too sure about what they mean.

Borrowing from the U.S. legal system, promulgation and intelligibility are requirements for fair, just laws. The Supreme Court has struck down laws as “void for vagueness.” They may refuse to decide cases for “lack of justiciable standards,” which is a fancy way of saying that they cannot…