If the enemy binds you and forces you to apostasy. You just want to die quickly, but you can't. The enemy wants a statement of your apostasy, and wants you to spit on the icon and trample on a row of footprints. If you are loyal and unyielding, the enemy will insult and torture many innocent people to death one by one. Just let you watch, just let you watch, their deaths are the price of your piety. As long as you apostasy, they and you will be released. Ask, you at this time, choose: A: Continue to be pious and pray for the dead. B: Apostasy, spit on the icon, step on the footprints. What do you choose?
I've seen this work for half a year, and I was troubled at the time, and I didn't write a word of notes. For the past six months, the scene lingers, entangled and lingering. I know that I am facing an inner choice, and I must give myself an answer. Now that I write down this note, I know that with my current sentiment, it is far from enough to answer. The sacrifice is worthwhile, but there is no sacrifice in this option. There is only superlative apostasy, and paralyzing piety. Putting yourself in the situation, choosing to put it in front of me, as an Oriental, I will also turn to apostasy. The author interprets the religious views of the Orientals, and kidnap two European figures to prove the position of the work. I want to know how Westerners think about this issue. I don't know for the time being, I will only talk about mine. Is it because of the lack of love that we are pious to God, or is it that under the guidance of God, we know how to love. This is a question of what love and faith are first. After successive deaths of innocent people, if you continue your piety, every time the head falls, you firmly believe that they are closer to heaven. Then the bottomless colic in your heart becomes vain. Later, you agreed with this kind of vain, and your desire for a destination in heaven was defeated by the burden of suffering in the world. You have endured the shame of apostasy and saved the humble lives of the faithful. Is the endless love here more reckless and more "reasonable" than previous beliefs?
With "Silence" as an explanation, and another "Deep River" as an explanation, the author has abandoned the belief in God beyond the West and heaven; what he agrees with is the love of inheritance in the human world and the Eastern style. I deeply agree. Sometimes I tell people: I don’t need to go to church. I think I am a kind and good person. Feeling comfortable, sometimes I feel that this thinking is indeed a higher level than the believer. But love also has its drawbacks, which is a chronic disease of the East. This is the question I thought of later. Love is indeed selfless, but the selfless release of love has its inevitable limitations, hierarchies, and instability. Limitation of love: I think this is what I love. The three-character "I think" puts love in the small world of self-knowledge, because I love you, and I think that the restraint of you is love for you The transmission of the control, then the restraint will also have its rationality. Level of love: who I love, I love everyone and involve all living beings, but I must also start with the people closest to me, the old and the old, the old, the old, the old, the old Besides being old and unable to love, as for the aging of people, and the aging of people, it is even more careless for him. The politics of in-laws in the Eastern society, and the fashion of being easy to do things with relatives, contradict this country of great love, and its ills and ills that run counter to modern civilization. Instability of love: the person who writes the song is poignant, and the person who listens to the song is the most ruthless. Love without a pillar of faith can only be ignorant and prosper at an age that is ignorant of the world. The ethics of historical time and space cannot tolerate the proliferation of love. Love songs can only be a pastime, love songs cannot withstand practice. Jia Baoyu was crazy, and in the end he made it back into a cold stone. Under faith, the limitations and hierarchy of love no longer exist. There is an ethical basis for the equality of all beings here. The Father in heaven is the Father of all people. Only he is capable of caring for and loving everyone. In contrast, the peace of mind that occurs in love is actually justified by how vulnerable it is.
Love and faith, which is the first question. Maybe we can generalize the two, love is in faith, and faith is in love, is this problem not a problem? In "Deep River", the author presents the image of the Hindu Madonna, an old woman who has experienced the suffering of the world, is old and ugly, with shriveled breasts and a python on her body. I think she is the final answer of Endo Zhousaku: There is no other shore after death, and life is full of vicissitudes. People know how to bear the sufferings of the world and achieve superiority in sufferings, so that the soul can be connected to the illusory silent universe and be peaceful for a lifetime. In other words, turn the argument back to "The Silence": You came into this world, suffered the suffering of apostasy, and the suffering of loving others. This is the meaning of life, and there is nothing else. Did I make it clear? Actually, I still don't understand. But for the question at the beginning of the notes, I still chose B.
ps: The "Silence" incident is actually not uncommon in human history. Let me give you two examples: 1: The scene of the Cultural Revolution criticizing the monk: "What kind of Buddhist scriptures, all shit" 2: I heard that a certain university in China stipulates that if there is one person in the same class If you believe in Christ, all students in the class are not eligible for scholarships.
View more about Silence reviews
