The root of everything is in the character, is this the so-called "don't think"?

But how can you analyze this without thinking about it?

It doesn't matter, why do I have to explain other people's words, it's my business.

There are no students to teach, and no one else needs to be convinced, so I can understand it myself.

Yuan Changwen propped his hands on the window frame, as if he felt better, and the suppressed emotions gradually dissipated.

Who knows what else will happen in the future?

All I need to do now is look for the terrain. Really, it should be instinctive or something, just like a child has an innate sensitivity to right and wrong.

When I grew up, I was used to judging right and wrong from what was in front of me, and choosing words and deeds according to the limitations in my head.

How can I see the terrain?

Hehe, goodness is like water, I didn't expect that I would become good.

However, when he knew that he could use his brain, the whole person suddenly relaxed.

I'm not done yet, get up and keep going!

Yuan Changwen thought of the various religions of the empire, some of which were emerging sects, and some of which had been handed down from the era of the home planet. It seems that everyone is describing something that emphasizes that reality is not real, and then telling people that they can be saved by following the doctrine.

Shit!

The saint in all religions is a subtle misdirection. Both Jesus and Buddha were misleading about their religion and about the world.

The premise, of course, is that Jesus and the Buddha have indeed gone to the "real" position, are indeed not manipulated by the characters, and have already killed the characters.

Well, there are two main aspects of this subtle misdirection.

One, the individual still exists, we see Jesus seeing the Buddha, they still have an individual, they have a role. We will think that the so-called "real" is to make ourselves more perfect, that is, to let this character see through some things.

But in fact, it's about slashing the character, and you can't keep the character at all. The role of Yuan Changwen has nothing to do with me, whether it is from the physical or thinking level, it has nothing to do with it.

Second, about kindness and compassion, the Lord is merciful, and I am the Buddha with mercy, these two sentences are the biggest misleading. We think that in order for a person to be "true", one must be kind and must be merciful. Moreover, if a master is not merciful or compassionate, then he must not have come to the "truth".

In fact, truth is definitely not kindness and compassion. Because both of these are artificially distorted and belong to the elements of limitations, they cannot be true. For example, a master can't pour tea on the side of the road at will, it's so uncivilized, everyone will chuckle in their hearts when they see this behavior of the master, this guy is probably a fake.

And a master of fairy wind and bone, full of benevolent smile at any time, who can't raise half of his anger for anything, and who is compassionate, may be sought after by most people.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with everyone chasing beauty, but defining this beauty as real is completely the opposite direction.

Going back to the example of the master pouring tea indiscriminately, "uncivilized" is an artificial setting, which is a kind of distortion. If the master still has these things in his head, and is still relying on this shit to drive his words and deeds, then the master has definitely not gone to the "truth".

Water flows according to the topography and may nourish all things, but it can also cause floods that kill millions of lives. If we see it from our perspective, which has nothing to do with goodness at all, how can such a being be real? Water doesn't think, it doesn't define itself, it just flows according to the terrain.

The primary purpose of religion is to survive, to ensure its own existence. If there is a conflict with the propagation of doctrines, then religions will try to preserve themselves and then think about preaching doctrines and so on.

For example, Buddhism emphasizes the universality of sentient beings, so when there is a contradiction between Buddhism's own survival and the purification of sentient beings, perhaps the authorities do not want to see Buddhism preaching the Dharma or something like that? Will Buddhism continue to purify sentient beings at the risk of being slaughtered, or will it temporarily close the temple and not accept incense from anyone?

Historically, are there still few examples of Buddhist monastic closures?

So, since the primary purpose of religion is to ensure its own existence, in order to achieve this, all the saints of all religions are glorified. Jesus was merciful, Buddha was merciful, and it seemed that all the goodness of the world was concentrated in them. And believers are like a flock of sheep that have been driven out, moving in the direction of this share for no apparent reason.

Good is good, but it's not real.

No one would ever record that the Buddha plucked his nose or that Jesus had diarrhea today. It seems that the mere mention of this makes people feel disgusting, and then a lot of emotions overshadow reason. But, on the merits, didn't the Buddha pluck his nose? Jesus never pulled thin?

Just the facts?

Yuan Changwen suddenly found that he had never really understood this sentence. When you were in the empire, when you said the four words "just about things", it was not "about things on the matter" at all, but on a comparison of power with each other, which was the key to convincing others.

Your own opinions are always distorted, and you will always use a small part of the information to draw baseless affirmations. Everything is categorized, this is good, this is bad, this is good, and that is evil.

After killing the character, there is naturally no self-definition, and there will be no distinction. Then, along the terrain, the master may kill people, and the master will also be uncivilized, no one can say. If a master preaches that he will never do anything bad in his life, then he must not have come to the "truth".

Bad things? Who defines bad things? Is the definition of bad things that the master follows the same as everyone else or is his own idea? If he is the same as everyone else, then the master is just a person who has been kidnapped by the mainstream morality. If you are defining yourself, then why is it the same as everyone else's definition?

In addition, if we define good and bad by ourselves, what should we use to define good and bad? Isn't it through the eyes of others to define good things and bad things? Even if a paranoid person has to define good things as bad things, pointing to a deer as a horse, he also chooses words and deeds within a certain limited framework. As long as it doesn't flow along the terrain, then it's in the control of the character.

Again, how do I know if I'm following the terrain with this option?

Yuan Changwen frowned and thought carefully, because if this problem is not solved, it is very likely that it will be used by the character. Become another new self-definition, "Hey, Lao Tzu is just uncivilized, you know a fart, this slash, this is real, this is according to the terrain, you are all scum." ”

The mind can't know this, because of limitations, the amount of information in the brain is only so little, how can it be summarized into a set of rules, "if so, then it is along the terrain, if so, it is controlled by self-definition", this is impossible, it is all speculation and distortion of opinion.

Perhaps, just know.