It seems to me that the first two are out of ignorance and boredom, because the world they see has nothing to do with their own inner real needs; the third is out of madness; and the fourth and fifth are , respectively, one is out of the outward responsibility of life, and the other is completely just for oneself. Undoubtedly, most of the first ones are us the general public, the second ones can be called artists, the third ones are the lost souls in the post-industrial age, the fourth ones are moralists, and the fifth ones are practitioners Cultivator, that's what I'm talking about here.
"Wildness With My Heart", also known as "Wild Survival", the English name is "into the wild". I like this movie very much. When I see the English word "into the wiad", I always think of an essay "Into the Wild" by Zhang Wei that I read in high school. An exceptionally beautiful prose comparable to the Temple of Earth. However, Zhang Wei's "merging into the wild" is to regard the earth as the hometown of the spirit of resisting the rampant material civilization of modern times. The "Into the Wilderness" of "Wildness With My Heart" is to completely get rid of modern civilization and culture, and restore the most naked and essential relationship with nature at the beginning of human beings.
Chris has been a very strict person with his own behavior since he was a child. At the same time, he is also an extremely intelligent person. When he graduated from college, his grades in all subjects were A or above. With his grades, he can enter Harvard Law School. He continued his studies, but one day after graduation, he ran away suddenly without noticing anyone. Before leaving, he burned all his money and all the documents that could prove his identity, and these Things are the necessary conditions for him to constitute a "social man". By removing a person's "social attributes", he is determined to become a pure "natural person". He can no longer rely on "society" to obtain the conditions for survival. The scene where he burns money and documents also makes me want to go to the scene where a protagonist in the TV series "West Street Boys" is standing on a high building and tearing off the Cambridge (or Oxford?) diploma in his hand, because he is also prepared. To live another life.
At this time last year, when I returned to Chengdu and had a drink with a few college classmates, a classmate talked about a movie he had seen recently, which is this one. He talked about the content, and I felt very I like it, this kind of film is very suitable for my taste. That is to walk outside the mainstream of moral consciousness and ideological forms of the times and society, and explore another kind of truth that is more secret but actually more real. Compared with his "social attributes", his protagonist is not great, but selfish, not sentient, but "unfeeling", not mature, but half-finished. And this kind of content seems to have caught my heart as a person who is always repressed by "work" and "social game rules". However, when I asked him what the name of the film was, he forgot. So it took me a lot of effort to find it out.
Chris abandons all those external things, and walks "naked" alone, seemingly in search of a kind of freedom, a kind of absolute freedom of his own spirit, such as his mad fascination with Jack London , to be the king of his own spiritual kingdom; on the surface, it seems to be an "anti" civilization, abandoning a modern civilization and entering an era of primitive people. For example, he refuses any money and relies on himself to hunt and eat, even if Faced with the situation where a whole head of bison was destroyed by flies and gangrenous insects, the firewood for the barbecue was still unable to burn, and he was unwilling to use any combustion accelerant. This seems to be very similar to Lao Tzu's return to nature and the utter abandonment of wisdom in the universe. However, all of this is actually not the most essential thing. In my opinion, the most essential thing is to practice and complete a kind of personal absolute idealized existence of life. And not just looking for freedom, or simplicity and naturalness like Lao Tzu. On the contrary, it is possible that what he seeks is "unfreedom". Life under the norms of ideas is also "unfree". But it is necessary.
why would you said this? Because abandoning a person's "social attributes" and retaining only a pure form of "natural person" may be just an idea, and having only this idea and implementing it thoroughly becomes a kind of A single absolute idea, and such a existence becomes a single absolute idealized existence. If you live like this all your life, it will become a life of a single absolute idealized existence. So is such a life possible? Is such a life possible? This is what Chris is about to experiment with. The results show that it is feasible to a certain extent. Why to a certain extent? Because after all, Chris, he still has to get dressed, he still has to hunt with a shotgun, he still has to ride in the rapids with a skateboard, he still has to hitch a ride, and he still has to live in an abandoned "RV" in the wilderness. , or use a plant atlas to find edible plants when there are no animals to fight, and all these actually have obvious "social attributes".
Thoreau was another figure he was fascinated by. Thoreau was also close to "nature", Thoreau spent two years briefly practicing his philosophy of life in a wooden house on the shore of Walden Pond. Thoreau is looking for a balance between Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy. Western philosophy focuses on progress, while Eastern philosophy focuses on elimination. However, both sometimes go to extremes. Thoreau tried his best to reduce his acquisition and dependence on material conditions, and only maintain the necessary living conditions, so as to save energy on such low-level activities, so that more energy can be spent on more advanced activities. mental activity. What Thoreau is looking for here is freedom. In a sense, Chris is no different from Thoreau, and is also seeking absolute freedom of inner spirit, but still has to rely on extremely subtle material conditions, rather than being completely independent, and still needs to be a half-hearted absolute Idea Survivor.
Chris eventually died of a careless reading of a picture book and ate a poisonous plant. However, this fallacy of his death is actually not more about proving the impracticability of such a kind of life, but a perfect ending for this kind of life. Because in any kind of life, death means completion, not impracticability, and finally being forced to change course due to fear or for some other reason on the way is truly impracticable, such as a criminal's reinstatement. If Chris lives to middle age, he may not change his ways. Because there are so many uncertainties in life.
And Chris was not without struggle. He hoped to get a bed in an almshouse, but when he was on the street, through the glass window of a restaurant facing the street, he saw a young man of his age. Wearing a suit and tie, he was eating while talking with a few men and women from the so-called elite or middle class who looked like him, with a dashing expression and self-satisfaction. He saw his own shadow in that person. , If he hadn't left, and according to the trajectory of ordinary people's life, he should be like that. At this moment, he saw himself sitting there and turned away in disgust, returned to the shelter and immediately packed up a few pieces of broken luggage, told the staff member in the shelter that he didn't want to go to bed, left, and continued his super ronin. Life. And such a struggle actually confirms his identity as a practitioner. We need to constantly get rid of our weaknesses and desires.
Chris's abandonment of "social attributes" and living in the form of a "natural person" is an idea, but it does not mean that there is only one such idea, but Chris happened to choose this one. To practice, is to live a single absolute idealized existence. Here, it must be either one or the other. You can't say that this can be called practice. Because to practice it requires a complete set of worldviews. It must exclude any idea that contradicts or conflicts with the idea he practiced, so it must be only a single absolute idea, so that it can be a complete worldview A logical self-consistency, a definite answer to the question. And all this has nothing to do with right or wrong, only with practice, only with the practice of ideas. It is impossible for you to say "the monks are compassionate", and "the wine and meat pass through the intestines, and the Buddha remembers it". If you do, then you may be a good person or a wise person, but you cannot be called a Buddhist with a clear and strict teaching. In a sense, practice is a one-dimensional behavior. This is why almost every practice has many disciplines.
There are many kinds of practice, and they are everywhere. You can choose any way to practice. For example, if you are a man and a heterosexual, you can choose not to be close to women all your life. For example, you can choose not to wear black all your life. You can choose not to drink any beverages for the rest of your life and only drink water. You can choose to get up every morning and say to the wall 50 times "the mountains end in the daytime, the Yellow River flows into the ocean", or even more bizarre, don't let Touch the fingers of your left hand to your right leg, or don't let the fingers of your right hand touch your left leg, etc. These, except for the first one, which is not close to women (for heterosexual men), the other ones don't seem to be very difficult on the surface, but if you can practice it for a lifetime, no matter how difficult and difficult the situation is If you don't break the precepts, that is a very remarkable practice.
Therefore, in practice, there is no fixed law. The only fixed law is that you must have a single absolute concept that can be logically and self-consistently cannot be changed or compromised at any time. And Chris's single absolute idea is to be a "natural person" who has abandoned "social attributes". Therefore, he is called a practitioner. "Practice" I use to oppose those who "reclusive (reside)", because he is not living in seclusion in one place, but basically "acting" all the time. Essentially he is open to the world , rather than being closed to the world like the hermits. But in fact, both belong to the same "cultivator", pursuing a single absolute concept, the purpose is to keep a "precept" in the heart forever, so that one can have rules to follow , to set a code of conduct for oneself, rather than to submit to the outside world forever, in a sense and to a certain extent, to implement the autonomy and completeness of one's own life. And the existence of "precept" means to achieve "unfreedom" The perfect combination of "freedom" and "freedom". A
monk is neither a revolutionist nor a moralist, because all his actions are specific and only allowed to be implemented to himself, and are not allowed to be forcibly promoted to others. , then the qualifications and jurisdiction of a cultivator have overflowed, and he has become a revolutionary and a moralist. If a revolutionary and a moralist go to extremes, "killing 100,000 people every day is for a better tomorrow of the world", that is to make people It is a terrible disaster. Therefore, what cultivators can only practice is a kind of "individual" life based on a single absolute ideal. Everything can only be implemented into one's own specific individuals, and cannot be turned into revolutionary teachings. Therefore, I think that every A monk's premise must first be a liberal. Whether it is a practitioner or a hermit. The roof of the world is the same as the roof of your home. Writing this, I think of Chris My sister, I think since her brother left, maybe in her future life, when she faces every man in her life, maybe she will have a benchmark for a man like her brother. Some things cannot be changed.(March 7, 2009)
View more about Into the Wild reviews
