This is a wonderful and insightful book. It really brought the precepts alive for me in a thoughtful and practical way. I have read through it twice and am amazed at how much more I picked up from second reading. It has been absolutely helpful, a real gem, and a very good read to boot!

I did not read the book but partecipated just last weekend to a retreat held by her (actually by the time-keeper as she sat with us just very rarely, but anyway...) and so I was astonished to read in the editorial review that the book is about "precepts": moral precept one might think, or is it?

The question rises from an answer she gave to me to a question of mine on a speech of hers. Basically the speech talked about the zen version of letting go and she used the example of the requirement to be perfect and the sorrow resulting from the inability to be so, but she extendeded also the argument to telling lies.
So I commented that what she was talking about refers to the "absolute level" while on the "conventional level" the unpleasant feeling received after having committed something bad is actually wholesome as it gives direction to one's own life and so a line must be drawn according to moral.
Her answer was quite astonishing: she started correctly dividing remorse by guilt - I do not think this difference is often spelled in her teachings, though; then the added that what she taught was not "nihilistic" - latins say "scusatio non petita accusatio manifesta"; and ended making a queer reference to "what you call moral"; like she called moral behaviours in some other ways; perhaps bothering stuff, pupils losing artifacts, money losers... still I had not a chance to ask her for a clarification as she stopped there the question&answer time.

As for the retreat: pain, pain and again pain and no insights. I was very happy to return to my vipassana mediation at home.