But what do you mean by someone turning the topic to joint punishment and abstinence?
Listening to Mei Yeshi’s reply, "It is my responsibility, not someone’s, to make a joint punishment or to make a joint punishment."
At that time, Zhengyi, the founder of the school, was told by the audience in Hua Zhen that he had been widely introduced. Compared with Mei Yeshi’s answer today, he appeared to be four-stable, which may be due to different audiences on the occasion.
Mei Yeshi first pointed out a concept, speech body is doing one thing, not something independent of it.
So many times, we call "words and deeds" and emphasize the difference between "how to say" and "how to do" because speech is a unique line, and sometimes it can’t determine the result of the line.
People’s wishes may not always come true, and people’s words may not always come true, even Dacheng real people can’t do it, even if they mean it.
Speech is a part of the whole process, but it doesn’t mean the department. On the contrary, we can’t deny the fact that speech is also a part of the line.
Speech can also have consequences, and if there are consequences, you must bear the responsibility.
Then Mei Yeshi emphasized that the joint punishment precept is mainly to say that the precept is focused on this special line, and there is a way forward where both parties are monks.
It does not define ordinary people, nor does it define monks, ordinary people, and monks set precepts.
It is very simple that the monks should not threaten each other’s relatives and families in case of conflict.
This statement makes it very clear that you can’t even threaten, let alone talk about what hurts. There is no concept of "the speaker has passed"
What is so strict? Because both parties are monks, this kind of behavior is prevented from appearing by preventive law, which will have serious consequences
For example, A and B compete for a magic weapon. A says to B, "If you don’t give me the magic weapon, your family will get sick!" He didn’t say anything. I’m going to kill your family. Just give me a hint
What can B choose? Will he continue to fight for this magic weapon or keep his family safe?
If you choose the latter, it is equivalent to succumbing to the other party’s blackmail; If you choose the former, you will face a moral dilemma and become a magic weapon regardless of the safety of your family.
If you look at the cause and the root, you shouldn’t do this.
Someone is going to say that B can choose to fight A hard on the spot! But not everyone has the courage to fight hard. What’s worse, B may not be an opponent of A. Even if the strength is equal, it may not be guaranteed that A will be killed and A will not escape.
Some people may come up with a bad idea. If A says so, then B can also say the same thing. For example, A says that if B doesn’t quit the competition, he will kill B, and B also says that if A dares to do so, he will kill A.
Isn’t there a better suggestion in the world to play the prisoner’s dilemma of two vicious people? What’s the worst result? All the relatives and family members of A and B deserve to suffer?
The question comes back again. Even if B gets a manicure in the most ideal mode and immediately shoots A to death, then he still has to face Zhou Rong’s question just now. Why did B kill A just because he said hi?
In the face of this question, does B defend itself?
The information contained in Mei Ye Shi Wen’s wisdom is much more complicated than that described.
For example, when listening to Hua Zhen’s trip, there is another possibility. For example, Fu Lingke went to Mei Yeshi and asked Mei Yeshi to kill Hua Zhen’s trip or he would kill Mei Yeshi’s family.
This kind of thing is absurd, and it is almost impossible to appear in reality. It is just a hypothesis.
Mei Ye Shi Xiu can shoot Fu Lingke on the spot, but Fu Lingke also told Mei Ye Shi that he didn’t shoot him, and his accomplices would immediately start work if he wanted to die.
So what about Mei Yeshi? Do you choose to protect your family or protect your life?
If you think so, you will fall into the trap of thinking-the trap of thinking drawn by Fu Lingke, but why should you follow the idea drawn by such people?
The reality is very simple. Mei Yeshi has to protect his family to hurt Hua Zhen’s trip. It is his duty to stop Fuling’s trip.
The monk can never understand the ordinary people when he says such a thing, because they are not ordinary people, and they can improve themselves as soon as they say it, especially if Brother Dacheng says it, he will do it.
If he really wants to be an ordinary person, he can’t guard against it
Hua Zhen suddenly remembered that old man Yang had given him a warning. If a gangster pointed a gun at you, you should never bet on whether there was a bullet in the gun or whether the marksmanship was accurate enough.
This principle is not only suitable for being pointed at the client by a gangster, but also for the police to rush to the scene to watch the crowd. A monk is equivalent to a gun. When he makes such a threat, he must never look at his mouth.
To set up a collective punishment precept is to jump out of this trap of thinking and try to keep all monks away from this dilemma. Its main significance is not to punish them afterwards.
If the purpose is to punish the loose ring afterwards, it is enough. There is no need to set up a joint punishment ring specially. Draw a red line in advance. This red line must not touch anyone and die together.
Mei Yeshi’s words should be white enough, but Zhou Rong still asked, "I still have a puzzle about Mei’s leader. In those days, Lu Mubai’s words about Lin Taitai had been exported the day before, but he was already in a dead end."
Can’t there be a better solution to this problem if you can fight with trapped animals or kill people or be restrained and turn around?
It has been thousands of years since the so-called collective punishment precept was established. Today, there are still people who violate it, such as Lu Mubai and Mrs. Lin. This is still investigated. How many are there?
Lu Mubai was therefore controlled by Ling Jiwei, and Lin Tai was therefore controlled by Lu Gao Qian, and then the disaster was even greater. The joint punishment and warning did not prevent the behavior from being subject to greater evil, so that it could be avoided? "
Zhou Rong and Dacheng Xiu, of course, didn’t master the spirit, let alone smell the wisdom and magical powers, so she just spoke normally but surprised Hua Zhen’s smell.
Hua Zhenxing was not surprised by Zhou Rong’s problem, but surprised that someone would say such a thing! It’s like discussing 140 difficult operations in college mathematics class, which gives people a sense of absurdity.
Perhaps it was because of my career that I saw Zhou Ronghua really inexplicably that I remembered Dong Zegang.
In the name of "how to better implement the precept of collective punishment", Zhou Rong tried to make a suggestion to Hua Zhen. It seems that this is to blur the rules and increase the human operation
As soon as Mei Yeshi arrived at the debate on words and deeds, Zhou Rong demonstrated on the spot how Zhou Rong’s statement was aimed at better implementing the joint punishment. Of course not!
From saying, knowing, doing, knowing, knowing, from violating the principle of total punishment to not punishing in a certain situation, it depends on how the person who has the power to punish or not punish at that time.
Zhou Rong also implicitly questioned the necessity of joint punishment. It has been more than 1000 years, but it has not stopped people from constantly violating the joint punishment.
In this case, is it necessary to punish the ring together?
Some views are not worth refuting, and it should not appear on such an occasion. Since ancient times, the law has banned the killing of Gu, but people have committed crimes since ancient times.
You can easily come to the conclusion that the law against killing has not prevented murderers from appearing in the world, but you can’t draw another conclusion from this that the law against killing is unnecessary.
Because nothing happened, people can’t see it, and because of the joint punishment, the monks are greatly reduced to threaten each other and exercise everyone’s worries. This has long been the consensus of Kunlun practice circles
Zhou Rong probably felt that this statement was inappropriate, and the wind changed again-is it necessary to amend the collective punishment?
She is still Lu Mubai, for example, who has already faced the situation of universal punishment before it has really caused serious consequences, but will be forced to a larger foe or have to be restrained by others.
The implication is, is it too strict to punish together now? This question is more confusing, which really represents that some people want to bring rhythm.
At this time, someone suddenly said, "Drunkenness makes young cows play young crops. If you can do it by law, will it be a day?" It’s hard to climb the cloud path but it depends on the farmer for a few pennies! "
The one who followed the direction was Tao Ran-ke, the leader of Sanxiu from Kunlun Wonderland and the highest-ranking monk in the field.
Then another population said, "After Huan Hou was terminally ill, he doubted that the world would ask for medicinal moxibustion to learn longevity in this life, so he saw things and thought about things?"
The speaker is a Taoist temple dragon watcher, Yang Jidao, who is also the owner of this place.
Minstrel deacon Qiu Ye also said, "Spring sowing grain and wheat make a living by weaving and weaving to keep out the winter cold. I don’t think you say that the disaster is a meal."
Hua Zhen has never seen this scene before. Is it that Zhou Rong’s words ignited everyone’s enthusiasm for innovation? In fact, these poems are all called prophetic poems or prophetic poems.
Hua Zhen trip almost came to the fun, but after all, he didn’t have the mouth to get a song. He has made up his mind to try not to talk as much as possible today. Besides, he is not good at it, and he has to continue to study.