>>7520
>It was the reason for the "not interpreting the law" demand
That is a Chinese thing btw. Their entire legal system has that too. Only the mandarins are allowed to know the law so they can operate and make judgements by that while commoners are not even allowed to know what is written in it they should know it by customs. If they knew the laws they would try to circumvent it but if they don't know it then they have no choice but behave as good as they can so they will not have to face the mandarins. Not to mention they are advised to solve every issue locally and not disturb the officials at all with their nonsense. Ofc nowadays it somewhat changed but they are still advocated to upkeep a bug mentality no matter what.
>where you are not to take any FD text and say "this text means..."
Then the english or any translation is already heresy. As usual.
>but you must say "it is my personal understanding that..."
Yeah as much as that part is true it just makes me aware that the author does not have the confidence in his own words. There is a point where you have to put down your foot and know that you are applying the law and there is no way you are misinterpreting it. But at that level you are channeling the law and not "interpreting it" (because that is what Jews do all the time and this is why all laws are shit nowadays). Learning to feel confidence not because of my own arrogance but because it is backed by a "form of truth" took me quite the time.

>It is common practice for modern people to talk as if they "know" for a fact what is meant by some ancient text - he doesn't do this.
Psychology was weirder back then. Saying anything for sure was dangerous because you write a book and you will have more critics in the next 2 year shitting on you than actual people reading you. If you are making a "law" then people have to either accept it or reject it. This is why applying higher principles is always better because everyone is already under a higher principle but usually in a faulty or mismanaged state.

Also a question. Li said his 3 law bodies will protect every student. Was it mentioned what are those?
Didn't really read it properly through because the book pissed me off. When he mentioned past examples and other interesting trivia it was okay but when he started to talk about the practices and other things I felt that some force within me is getting angry. >>7521
>rendered the NWO world wide legal system ineffective as of today
I always found it funny that the USA is rarely accepting UN resolutions. Wonder where is the "legal" system is even physically manifested for them. The I can do anything and you can't do shit lol is not exactly a "legal" system. There is a reason why benevolence needs to be included in every lasting law system in several ways.