Changing Poison into Medicine

Changing Poison into Medicine

The process of changing poison into medicine begins when we approach difficult experiences as an opportunity to reflect on ourselves and to strengthen and develop our courage and compassion. Suffering can thus serve as a springboard for a deeper experience of happiness. From the perspective of Buddhism, inherent in all negative experiences is this profound positive potential." Changing Poison into MedicineSGI members often speak of "turning poison into medicine" when they describe how their Buddhist practice has enabled them to transform a difficult, negative or painful situation into something positive. In its most fundamental sense, "changing poison into medicine" refers to the transformation of deluded impulses into enlightenment. 

The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom, attributed to the third­century Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, compares the Lotus Sutra to "a great physician who changes poison into medicine." This is because the Lotus Sutra opens the possibility of enlightenment to people whose arrogance and complacency had caused them to "scorch the seeds of Buddhahood." In earlier sutras such people had been condemned as being incapable of becoming Buddhas. An important implication of this principle, thus, is that there is no one who is beyond redemption. In his writing, "On First Hearing the Teaching of the Supreme Vehicle," Nichiren develops this idea, stating that by using the power of the Mystic Law of Nam ­myo ho ­renge ­kyo, one can transform the three paths of deluded impulses, karma and suffering into the three virtues of the Buddha, i.e., the Dharma body, wisdom and emancipation. This can be understood to mean that any unfavorable situation can be changed into a source of value. More fundamentally, it is by challenging and overcoming painful circumstances that we grow as human beings. How we respond to life's inevitable sufferings is the key. Negative, painful experiences are often necessary to motivate us. One Buddhist scripture describes illness as awakening the desire to seek the truth. Likewise, people have been inspired to a lifetime commitment to peace and justice by their experience of war and injustice. 

The process of changing poison into medicine begins when we approach difficult experiences as an opportunity to reflect on ourselves and to strengthen and develop our courage and compassion. The more we are able to do this, the more we are able to grow in vitality and wisdom and realize a truly expansive state of life. Suffering can thus serve as a springboard for a deeper experience of happiness. From the perspective of Buddhism, inherent in all negative experiences is this profound positive potential. However, if we are defeated by suffering or respond to challenging circumstances in negative and destructive ways, the original "poison" is not transformed but remains poison. Buddhism teaches that suffering derives from karma, the causes that we ourselves have created. The Buddhist teaching of karma is one of personal responsibility. It is therefore our responsibility to transform sufferings into value­creating experiences. The Buddhist view of karma is not fixed or fatalistic­­even the most deeply entrenched karmic patterns can be transformed. By taking a difficult situation­­illness, unemployment, bereavement, betrayal­­and using it as an opportunity to deepen our sense of personal responsibility, we can gain and develop the kind of self­knowledge from which benefit flows. Buddhism teaches that self- knowledge ultimately is awareness of our own infinite potential, our capacity for inner strength, wisdom and compassion. This infinite potential is referred to as our "Buddha nature." 

The original meaning of the phrase "to turn poison into medicine" relates to this level of self-knowledge. In the "Belief and Understanding" chapter of the Lotus Sutra, Subhuti and others of the Buddha's long­time disciples respond to the prophecy that another disciple, Shariputra, will attain the ultimate enlightenment. The disciples admit that they had long ago given up on becoming Buddhas themselves, but that on hearing the teaching of the Lotus Sutra they renounced their earlier stance of resignation and spiritual laziness: "Their minds were moved as seldom before and danced for joy." Nagarjuna and T'ien­t'ai  therefore compare the Buddha to a good doctor capable of turning poison (the laziness and resignation of the aged disciples) into medicine (a sincere aspiration for the ultimate enlightenment of Buddhahood). This teaching of the possibility of profound transformation makes Buddhism a deeply optimistic philosophy. This optimism propels Buddhists as they seek to transform the negative and destructive tendencies within their lives as well as those in society and the world at large.

What is the collegium system?

                                            What is the collegium system?

It is a system under which appointments and transfers of judges are decided by a forum of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It has no place in the Indian Constitution.
What does the Constitution actually prescribe? Article 124 deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges. It says the appointment should be made by the President after consultation with such judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court as the President may deem necessary. The CJI is to be consulted in all appointments, except his or her own.
Article 217 deals with the appointment of High Court judges. It says a judge should be appointed by the President after consultation with the CJI and the Governor of the state. The Chief Justice of the High Court concerned too should be consulted.
How and when did the other system evolve? The collegium system has its genesis in a series of three judgments that is now clubbed together as the “Three Judges Cases”. The S P Gupta case (December 30, 1981) is called the “First Judges Case”. It declared that the “primacy” of the CJI’s recommendation to the President can be refused for “cogent reasons”. This brought a paradigm shift in favour of the executive having primacy over the judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years.
How did the judiciary come to get primacy? On October 6, 1993, came a nine-judge bench decision in the Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India case — the “Second Judges Case”. This was what ushered in the collegium system. The majority verdict written by Justice J S Verma said “justiciability” and “primacy” required that the CJI be given the “primal” role in such appointments. It overturned the S P Gupta judgment, saying “the role of the CJI is primal in nature because this being a topic within the judicial family, the executive cannot have an equal say in the matter. Here the word ‘consultation’ would shrink in a mini form. Should the executive have an equal role and be in divergence of many a proposal, germs of indiscipline would grow in the judiciary.”
How final was this? Justice Verma’s majority judgment saw dissent within the bench itself on the individual role of the CJI. In a total of five judgments delivered in the Second Judges case, Justice Verma spoke for only himself and four other judges. Justice Pandian and Justice Kuldip Singh went on to write individual judgments supporting the majority view. But Justice Ahmadi had dissented and Justice Punchhi took the view that the CJI need not restrict himself to just two judges (as mentioned in the ruling) and can consult any number of judges if he wants to, or none at all.
For the next five years, there was confusion on the roles of the CJI and the two judges in judicial appointments and transfers. In many cases, CJIs took unilateral decisions without consulting two colleagues. Besides, the President became only an approver.

What was done to deal with the confusion? In 1998, President K R Narayanan issued a presidential reference to the Supreme Court as to what the term “consultation” really means in Articles 124, 217 and 222 (transfer of HC judges) of the Constitution. The question was if the term “consultation” requires consultation with a number of judges in forming the CJI’s opinion, or whether the sole opinion of the CJI constituted the meaning of the articles. In reply, the Supreme Court laid down nine guidelines for the functioning of the coram for appointments/transfers; this came to be the present form of the collegiums.
Besides, a judgment dated October 28, 1998, written by Justice S P Bharucha at the head of the nine-judge bench, used the opportunity to strongly reinforce the concept of “primacy” of the highest judiciary over the executive. This was the “Third Judges Case”.
What are the arguments against the collegium system?
Experts point to systemic errors such as:
* The administrative burden of appointing and transferring judges without a separate secretariat or intelligence-gathering mechanism dedicated to collection of and checking personal and professional backgrounds of prospective appointees;
* A closed-door affair without a formal and transparent system;
* The limitation of the collegium’s field of choice to the senior-most judges from the High Court for appointments to the Supreme Court, overlooking several talented junior judges and advocates.
What moves were taken to correct these?
The Law Commission in its 214th Report on ‘Proposal for Reconsideration of Judges cases I, II and III’ recommended two solutions:
* To seek a reconsideration of the three judgments before the Supreme Court.
* A law to restore the primacy of the Chief Justice of India and the power of the executive to make appointments.
What is the suggested alternative to the collegium?
A National Judicial Commission remains a proposal. The Constitution (98th Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the NDA government in 2003. It provided for the constitution of an NJC to be chaired by the CJI and with two of the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court as its members. The Union Law Minister would be a member along with an eminent citizen to be nominated by the President in consultation with the Prime Minister. The Commission would decide the appointment and transfer of judges and probe cases of misconduct by judges, including those from the highest judiciary.