"If you allow evil, you will be punished; if you cause harm, you will go with it. This is not a good deed, this is not a good category. Those who cause harm will be punished together, and those who cause harm will be expelled. If they are not expelled, they will be punished. This has been true since ancient times. Resolved."

——This is Ding Qi’s answer to Bai Shaoliu’s hypothesis just now.

Lin Taiwei violated the common punishment commandment. The evidence is conclusive and Lu Gaogan broke it. There is no doubt about it.

If Lu Gaoqian was threatened and forced by Lin Taiwei, worried about his own safety and did not dare to report Lin Taiwei, this is another situation.

This often happens in reality. When someone sees a gangster committing murder, he does not dare to stand up and stop him. When he discovers clues that the gangster is committing evil, he does not dare to report it to the police, fearing that the gangster will harm him.

But Lu Gaoqian does not belong to this situation, nor should he be this kind of person.

Lu Gaoqian is a Kunlun monk and a disciple of Yuanshuo Clan, one of the thirteen major sects of Kunlun. Analogous to the above situation, he is equivalent to a civil servant "within the system", such as a police officer.

In the situation at that time, Lin Taiwei was injured after killing Hou Nianming. Even if he was not injured, Lu Gaoqian's cultivation level was much higher than him. Lin Dawei could not threaten Lu Gaoqian at all, and Lu Gaoqian could completely restrain him on the spot.

However, Lu Gaoqian let Lin Taiwei go and concealed it, allowing him to violate the common punishment.

When you have both responsibility and ability, you allow others to do evil and ignore it. If everyone does this, it will endanger everyone, and this is causing disaster.

If you allow evil to happen, it will happen to you; if you allow misfortune, you will join in the misfortune.

No matter what his motives were, Lu Gaoqian was not qualified to forgive Lin Taiwei. If the perpetrators were not even punished, how could people stop him?

This kind of thing has not happened in the world of spiritual practice since ancient times. The predecessors have long discussed it closely, and the punishment for this situation has also been decided: those who cause trouble will be punished together, and those who cause trouble will be expelled together.

Needless to say, there is no need to mention mutual execution. There are several forms of so-called mutual expulsion. The most important one is to abolish one's cultivation and expel one from the sect.

For Dacheng monks, whose level of cultivation cannot be destroyed by others, they can be allowed to proclaim their divine energy and magical power and exile themselves from the world, or they can choose to close the barrier of life and death and never appear in the world again.

What if he is just an ordinary person with no cultivation? This question is beyond the scope of discussion.

At this point, there is no doubt about how Lu Gaoqian should be punished.

If Lu Gaoqian had let Lin Dawei go thirty years ago and deliberately concealed his evil deeds, but had done nothing else, the Kunlun Alliance would have expelled the Communists after finding out. But in fact, Lu Gaoqian was even worse, and used this to suppress and drive Lin Dawei. If Taiwei continues to do evil, we should all be punished!

Bai Shaoliu asked again: "Don't you hear that 'put down the butcher's knife and become a Buddha immediately'?"

Hua Zhenxing almost wanted to find a chair to sit down again. Can Bai Shaoliu ask such a question? Of course, this is not what he asked himself. It represents someone's point of view or follows the previous assumption.

This round of questioning has gone beyond the scope of joint punishment, and is not only talking about Lin Dawei and Lu Gaoqian, nor even just monks, but extends to wider world affairs.

Suppose that Lu Gaoqian let Lin Taiwei go because he was out of pity. Lin Taiwei cried bitterly and vowed to change his past, sincerely repent, and never do such a thing again.

The matter has already happened and is irreversible, so why risk Lin Taiwei's life again? If he changes his mind from now on, is it worth saving?

Ding Qi's answer was actually to sing a verse: "After punishment, you will become an immortal, and you will become a Buddha in prison. Put down your butcher knife, and please imprison yourself first. If you don't cross the sea of ​​suffering, there is no talk of Samadhi. If the Buddha does not go to hell, who will go to hell."

Hua Zhenxing suddenly became interested again and stood up straighter. Because of the sravaka wisdom in Teacher Ding's words, he did not fully understand it despite his cultivation and knowledge.

What does it mean to become an immortal after being punished and become a Buddha after being imprisoned? Hua Zhenxing just had a vague feeling about it, but he couldn't figure it out.

Are these two monks debating the scriptures? There were also Buddhist monks present, but neither Bai Shaoliu nor Teacher Ding were monks. They didn't seem to be debating the meaning of the scriptures, they seemed to be just borrowing words.

Hua Zhenxing understood some of the other words.

Putting down the butcher's knife in ordinary people's understanding may mean that the murderer no longer kills. There are many reasons for this. For example, he is too old to lift the knife, the wind is too loud and he dare not anymore, he regrets that he no longer wants to kill, and the person he wanted to kill has already been killed.

There is no need to kill anyone anymore.

But from the perspective of spiritual practice, neither of these situations means putting down the butcher's knife.

People are very familiar with a kind of Buddhist allusion, such as a certain great warlord who committed many murders and a great knight who was famous all over the world. One day, he suddenly got tired of the imperial supremacy, fought in the world, and decided to convert to Buddhism...

This kind of story can also add some old material. The hero was awakened by a certain old monk's words, and he suddenly realized that from then on, there was one less butcher in the world and one more monk under the green lamp.

So here comes the question. The butcher is not evaluated here, only the behavior of the old monk is evaluated. Is he a good deed or an evil deed?

Sravaka wisdom is related to everyone’s cognition, so in the ears of Hua Zhenxing, Teacher Ding gave two examples. The first example was actually Jin Datou from the Feiso Gang Datou Gang.

Suppose that before the emergence of the new alliance, Jin Datou came to Dongguo for a trip, happened to walk into the Jiulin Temple in Wucheng, met three old monks, was enlightened by them, and realized his past mistakes.

So Jin Datou became a monk in Jiulin Zen Monastery. His bald head was ready-made and did not need to be shaved, or he found a serious job in the local area, such as delivering couriers, part-time Buddhist chanting, and volunteering. In short, he never returned to the Datou Gang to be the leader...

The second example is a serial murderer from Dongguo. He went to Jiulin Temple, found three old monks, confessed his identity and crimes, expressed his willingness to repent, and hoped to hide in the temple. Then he was killed by the old monks.

Taken in.

What is the difference between these two examples? The difference is not only whether order exists, but whether procedural justice can be achieved? What is more important in the eyes of the monk is the reason why the old monk did what he did and the resulting results.

Let’s look at the first example first.

At that time, Feso Port was in a state of collapse of order, and there were countless Jin Datou openly existing. Jin Datou's purpose was not to escape punishment. No matter whether the old monk persuaded him or not, the officials of Jili Kingdom and Dongguo would not arrest him.

The old monks of Jiulin Chanyuan could not change the current situation of Jili Country, and the neighborhood of Feisuogang was not under their control. They only advised Jin Datou to change his ways, or at least stop doing evil things.

The stories of great warlords and great knights mentioned above basically fall into this situation. There is no order to punish them, otherwise they will go to jail where they should go, and temples are not the place where they should come.

For the three old monks, this was a good deed within their capabilities.

As for the second example, the old monk’s purpose is to help fugitives avoid punishment, and his behavior is to harbor fugitives. This is an extremely standard evil behavior!

Of course, the three old monks should be taken away by the police station together. If this temple, which deliberately harbors fugitives, is not sealed, the police will be derelict in their duties!

If we talk about repentance, prison is more suitable for atonement; if we talk about praying to Buddha, hell is more suitable for chanting sutras. As for salvation, this is salvation, not only for the butcher, but also for the innocent people.

Some people may want to ask again, what if the fugitive had no choice but to commit the crime, or was wrongly accused? This situation is not covered by this question.

Hearing this, Hua Zhenxing was a little confused. Teacher Ding kept asking why he always gave questions to the old monks at Jiulin Temple in Wucheng. Is it just to bully them for not being here today?

In fact, Bai Shaoliu's question represents how many people misinterpret metaphysical enlightenment as metaphysical sophistry, and misinterpret their delusional thoughts, malice, and self-grain as actual criminal behavior.

In fact, the very act of "putting down the butcher's knife" includes the act of facing one's guilt calmly. Hua Zhenxing understood, but was still a little surprised. He wondered why such a simple truth should be asked in this situation.

?

The discussion went smoothly at this point. Bai Shaoliu and Teacher Ding were asking questions one after another. Everyone present had different opinions, but no one interrupted.

At this time, someone suddenly said: "Leader Mei, fellow Taoists, I have something to say."

According to the reputation, the speaker was Zhou Rong, the deacon of the Zhenhua Sect, a capable female cultivator. In this Kunlun Alliance investigation, she was also responsible for the analysis and summary of various information. This should be related to her profession. In the world,

Just a lawyer.

Ume Yeshi: "Fellow Taoist Zhou, please speak."

Zhou Rong: "Leader Mei mentioned yesterday the destruction of Dingfengtan. Let's not talk about Lu Mubai's subsequent actions. Before he started fighting with Shang Haiping, he actually did not touch Shang Haiping's family.

After he accidentally killed Shang Haiping, he did not touch Shang Haiping's family.

Let’s talk about what happened to Lin Taiwei this time. Let’s not talk about thirty years ago, but only talk about what he did the day before yesterday. From beginning to end, Lin Taiwei did not really touch the families of the two Taoist friends Shibuquan and Shang Ni.

Can his words be undone before he is acted upon? Judging from this alone, should we all be executed together?"

Zhou Rong asked a very special question. She used Lu Mubai and Mrs. Lin as examples and pointed out a specific situation.

Judging from the facts, Lu Mubai did not touch Shang Haiping's family. Later, the Shang family was assassinated by Ling Jiwei, the great magician of Gambistine. These became the handle for Ling Jiwei to blackmail Lu Mubai.

As for Lin Taiwei, he only sent a text message containing the identity information of Shi Buquan's children and their grandmother and grandfather. In fact, he did not actually touch the family members of Shi Buquan and his wife.

Should people be punished for things they just said but did not do? Even if they are punished, is it necessary to implement it according to the standard of "the whole world will punish them together"?

In other words, if you are jointly hunted down by the Kunlun Alliance just for saying something good, is the "sentencing" too severe?

Hearing this, Hua Zhenxing couldn't help but frown secretly. This is just changing the concept. How could anyone ask such a question on such an occasion? At the Zhengyi Sanshan Meeting 1,200 years ago, Patriarch Zhengyi should have

It was made very clear.

But looking at today’s format, I still have to take it out and talk about it again!

The times are progressing, and the achievements of future generations will always be higher than those of the predecessors. But don’t forget that the progress of future generations is also based on the achievements of the predecessors. The achievements of each era are not created by the contemporary people from scratch.

Created out of thin air.

With the development of the times, some things that do not meet the requirements of the times need to be eliminated and changes need to be made, but this does not mean that the achievements of predecessors will be completely negated and the cornerstone of development will be shaken.

This is not progress, but regression. The progress of the times is not inevitable. Where there is progress, there may be regression, and there may even be decline, collapse and destruction.

For example, in Hua Zhenxing's eyes, the fact that Fang Wai Sect has replaced Yuan Shuo Sect and become one of the twenty-five executive sects of the Kunlun League is a kind of progress and even a major breakthrough change.

But what does it mean when someone brings up the topic of sharing the punishment?

Just listen to Mei Yeshi's answer: "Words are actions, and punishing them together means admonishing them. Otherwise, there is no need to set a warning. It is our responsibility to punish them together, not someone else's right."

Hua Zhenxing was introduced by Guangren to how Patriarch Zhengyi preached the common punishment. In comparison, Ume Yeshi's answer today did not have any brilliance and seemed smooth. Maybe it was because the occasion and the audience were different.

Umenoishi first pointed out the concept that speech itself is a kind of behavior, not another thing independent of behavior.

The reason why many times we refer to "words and deeds" together and emphasize the difference between "how to say" and "how to do" is because speech is a unique behavior and sometimes cannot determine the outcome of the behavior.

People's wishes may not always come true, and what people say may not always come true. Even Dacheng Zhenren can't do it, even if they are sincere.

Speech is only part of the entire behavioral process and does not represent the entire behavior. But on the contrary, we cannot deny the fact that speech is also a part of behavior.

Speech itself will also have consequences, and if there are consequences, you must bear responsibility.

Then Ume Yeshi emphasized that the main purpose of joint punishment is to establish precepts for words, focusing on this special behavior, and there is a premise that both parties to the behavior are monks.

It does not define the behavior between ordinary people, nor does it define the behavior between monks and ordinary people. It only establishes precepts between monks and monks.

The content of the common precept is very simple, that is, no matter any conflict occurs between monks, they must not threaten each other's family members.

This statement is very clear. It is not even allowed to threaten, let alone harm. There is no concept of "the speaker has no fault" in sharing the punishment.

Why is the decision so harsh? Because both parties involved are monks, there is no way to prevent or stop this kind of behavior. Once it occurs, it will cause serious consequences.
To be continued...