(4) Not committing a destructive action when love and compassion call for it

As I was reading the notes on 6 paramitas, I stumbled upon the following section of ethical self-discipline. One of the
Four Faulty Actions That Concern Situations in Which Our Main Consideration for others Is "not committing a destructive action when love and compassion call for it". It is said that for the welfare of others, one may have to commit unwholesome actions such as taking life, stealing, adultery, lying, speaking divisively, using harsh and cruel language, or chattering meaninglessly. One should act without any emotion of anger, desire, or naivety about cause and effect but only motivation to alleviate suffering of others.

I find this is not possible. How can somebody kill if there is no anger towards the victim? How can somebody commit adultery without having lust?Please help me if I missed anything here. As far as I understand morality is the foundation of the path to awakening. When the morality is weakened, how one can develop compassion for sentient beings. Also I find it is contradictory to the fundamental teaching of working selflessly for the welfare of others when one is killing someone for the sake of another sentient being.


The "expedient means" excuse has been adopted by many dastard teachers to "screw" the flock sexually, financially or otherwise, for theirs was "crazy wisdom" and they were "imparting initiations". Clearly, that's a weak spot in the entire Mahayana architecture of belief.
About killing without hatred, here speaks Joseph Campbell:
Let me tell you one story here, of a samurai warrior, a Japanese warrior, who had the duty to avenge the murder of his overlord. And he actually, after some time, found and cornered the man who had murdered his overlord. And he was about to deal with him with his samurai sword, when this man in the corner, in the passion of terror, spat in his face. And the samurai sheathed the sword and walked away. Why did he do that?


JOSEPH CAMPBELL: Because he was made angry, and if he had killed that man then, it would have been a personal act, of another kind of act, that’s not what he had come to do.
Also, there is a Tibetan story.
A saintly hermit in a cave receives food from neighboring farmers.
One day the impeccable hermit tries to rape the family's daughter as she brings him food.
She runs away and tells her mother who rebukes her and enjoins her to go back to the hermit and to do exactly as he says, which she does:"there must be a reason why he acted that way".
She back the daughter goes and submits to the hermit who, this time, remains unperturbed:"that's too late" he quips.
He explains that the impious abbot of a nearby monastery had died.
His spirit hovered nearby, burdened by the bad karma of his greed.
The hermit hoped to give the spirit a chance of human rebirth with the rape attempt (compassion).
The occasion lapsed and now the abbot was reborn to two donkeys that were copulating nearby instead.