In the last chapter, I wrote a sentence in the book in the Chenghuang Entrance Examination: If you have a heart, you will be good, but you will not be rewarded for being good. Evil is not done without intention, although evil is not punished.

As a result, this sentence attracted everyone's discussion, and it also extended the gold belt of murder and arson, building bridges and paving roads without corpses, or something. You know, I only let Zhang Tong use the second half of this sentence, intentionally doing evil and unintentionally doing evil.

Of course, many people criticize whether this statement is correct or not, whether it should be judged whether it is good deeds regardless of the heart. All I can say is that this sentence needs to be read in conjunction with its original full text.

This section of intentional doing good and unintentional evil is from Liaozhai Kao Chenghuang. Inside, the king of Hades and Guan Erye set up an assessment because the city god was vacant in a certain place. Let those who are already dead be tested to see who can inherit the throne.

The function of the Chenghuang is to determine the good and evil of what a person does during his lifetime. Then report to the underworld, and let the underworld consider whether the person should be reincarnated as a beast or a human after death. Originally, these stories and these words are magical realism, and you can't judge whether this sentence is good or bad just by looking at one sentence.

Of course, in terms of modern Chinese and the current social structure, it is inevitable that good deeds will be rewarded. For example, there are incentives for encouraging wealthy people to donate, such as donations to charitable foundations that are tax-deductible or something. We should support these initiatives, even if it's just for tax-deductible donations.

Of course, we need to resist fake donations or the like for tax exemptions. For example, a wealthy businessman, A, made a charitable foundation B by himself in order to be tax-exempt, and then A donated the money to B, and A was tax-free, but B was actually A's property. Actually, A didn't do anything. Although B sometimes does a little good deed, it is completely out of proportion to the preferential treatment given to it by society and the state. In fact, the rich businessman A relied on B to devour social resources more unscrupulously, and although in the name of a philanthropist, in fact he received a return far higher than he deserved.

He invests one, but demands that society reciprocate ten for his "good deeds". So is his goodness still good? Or is it just another cruel exploitation of the people at the bottom under the cloak of "goodness". In fact, in addition to tax exemption, will a wealthy businessman get more preferential treatment? In all sorts of ways? He may hold high the banner of charity to make huge profits for himself.

According to one example, when a country is at war for many years, some countries donate $100 million a year to country H. They are talking about how charitable they are, how great they are. But in reality, they sell up to a billion dollars of arms to country H every year. They manipulate the armed forces of country H to fight to the death. Their donations are nothing more than a means to better invade and seize the resources of country H. It can be said that if these countries were far away from country H, then the war would not have begun. So are these goodness still good?

I think everybody thinks differently because my way of thinking is probably different from everybody. That's why I'm writing this paragraph. I don't think this phrase is simply literal. It's supposed to be about these hypocrisies. These are hypocrisies worse than evil. This is my understanding, maybe different from everyone else. That's why I've opened a special chapter to explain it, and I hope you understand.

I think this is what it means to be good with a heart, but not to be rewarded. It is these disgusting hypocrisies that are resisted, and the "goodness" that is more harmful than good.

I don't understand why so many people are so excited about this sentence, I haven't thought about it so much. So, please don't think so much. I guess that's what it means to have a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand people.

I don't think there is any need to question my three views on my book. I was almost sprayed like a by a bunch of people in my last book, even though I doubt how they determined that a was a.

。

Originally, the second chapter was almost finished, and it took a lot of work to explain it. I don't think you need to doubt my three views and motives for writing the book, it's meaningless. It's just that we think in different directions. Above, thank you for your support