Going without the words "mi wile"

[jan musi pi len noka]

mi ante e nimi mi. tempo pini la ni li jo e sona lili. ken la ni li jo ala jo e sona mute?

[janKipo]

tenpo tu la mi ante e nimi mi. tempo tu la ni li jo e tan. taso mi sona ala e ni: ni li jo asla jo e sona.

[jan musi pi len noka]

tenpo tu la mi ante e nimi mi. tempo tu la ni li jo e tan. taso mi sona ala e ni: ni li jo ala jo e sona.

mi lukin ala oko e nimi sin sina. seme li ante?

nimi suli li "equanimitiy" kepeken Enli. ni li "pilin pi ale sama" anu ijo ante. mi sona ala.

tu la sona suli li "equanimity is a treasure (money) for a Buddhist" taso mani li jo e sona pi wawa suli sama ni: ni li sike lili pi kiwen suno jelo.

[janKipo]

taso sina toki e nimi 'sama ale'. taso tenpo kama pini la mi sona ala e nimi sin kin.
mi ante e nimi mi lon. mi jo e nimi mute lon ilo sona. mi ante ala e ni. mi pali kin e nimi sin.

[janKipo]

tp is meant to be a practical language and, therefore, totally unfit for talking philosophy (Thank you, Jeeezus!). Of course, people always try to do it anyhow and get a certain distance down the line but then run into the fact that tp is no good for splitting even boulder, let alone hairs (e.g., what Buddhists want is probably closer to ataraxy than eqanimity, but try saying that in tp).

[jan musi pi len noka]

ken la ataraxi li pilin sama kiwen.

ken la toki pona li ike tawa toki pi sona olin pi ma Elena.

ken la jan pi nasin Puta li ken toki e kulupu nimi ni. kulupu nimi li lawa pi jan sin pi nasin Puta.

kulupu nimi pi nanpa wan li ni. "o moli ala"
kulupu nimi pi nanpa tu li ni. "jan li pana ala e ijo la o kama jo e ijo ni pi jan ante"
kulupu nimi pi nanpa tu wan li ni. "ike la o unpa ala." anu "o unpa ala"
kulupu nimi pi nanpa tu tu li ni. "o toki e lon taso"
kulupu nimi pi nanpa luka li ni. "o moku ala e telo anu kasi anu ijo nasa ni. ni mute li kama e lawa insa pakala."

anu

o moli ala o unpa ala o kama jo ike ala o toki ike ala o moku ike ala.

anu

o moli o unpu o kama jo ike o toki ike o moku ike ala.

[janKipo]

I suppose 'moli' is transitive "kill" with the object (ali) omitted.
'kama jo ala'
The last line is a string of separate sentences; the 'ala' doesn't cover them all, only the last.
The line before that is also a string of separate sentences and also needs appropriate punctuation.
There is nothing interestingly Buddhist about this list; any mildly ascetic religion will come up with the same. Translating the Four Noble Truths or the Eight-fold Path or the pansil int tp seems an unreasonable stretching of its resources.

[jan musi pi len noka]

There is nothing interestingly Buddhist about this list; any mildly ascetic religion will come up with the same. Translating the Four Noble Truths or the Eight-fold Path or the pansil int tp seems an unreasonable stretching of its resources.

This is the five precepts, which is like Buddhism for illiterate peasants who just don't get the philosophy stuff. Its is also the first 5 of the 200-some rules that monks are supposed to follow. All of this of course is Theravada tradition. In Thailand, the laity will also follow the first 8 rules for a two week stay at a monastery. Obviously all of these rules are more about an orderly sangha and less about how the world really is and how to reach nirvana.

I think o chains can be one sentence, o is just an overlay over li.

jan li moku li pona e sama li lape.
jan o moku o pona e sama o lape.

As for modifiers, there's only so many possibilities:
they're local. Modifies only the last. Leads to extra verbosity, modifiers must be repeated.
they're global. Modifies all previous in a list of a similar sort.
they're neutral/must be resolved pragmatically. modifies one or more of the preceding. A semi-pidgin like tp would be expected to have more neutral constructions and more phrases that have to be resolved pragmatically/by context.

[janKipo]

True enough, but still not particularly Buddhist.
Actually, o appears to be a subject replacement which, like 'mi' and 'sina', does without 'li'. But that is speculative, since the facts can be explained either way. But even given that we don't get the 'ala' covering all any more than 'ala' in the last VP in a 'li' string does. I agree that this would occasionally be a nice thing to have, but I don't quite see how to get it -- indeed how to distinguish the various 'ala's altogether ("un-", "not", whatever you want for the long version -- how do we do that in English, if we do?). I have (logician that I am) thought of allowing 'ala' before 'la' as a general negation of all that follows "It's not the case that:" (this is suspect, but I still like it. In your case, handy for string of prohibitions: the 10 start with a 'lo' and run on -- except for that bit about parents.)
I suppose tp's 'ala' is neutral, but even that has some restrictions, i.e., to the syntactic unit in which it occurs (of course, that is usually open to a range of choices) and it may be the case that there is some single item that a string of imperatives or VPs all belong to. But that doesn't give what you want, but a disjunction, which allows you to violate all but one of the prohibitions and still be in the clear, You want the negation distributed to each component, and that is hard to work out as an interpretation of a single negation at the end -- or at the beginning. You need to conjoin all the parts by 'anu' to get what you want and that raises other problems.