The Days of Opening a Restaurant on an Abnormal Earth

In the last chapter, I wrote a sentence in the Liaozhaizhiyi high school entrance examination of Chenghuang: Do good with your heart, but you will not be rewarded for being good. If you do evil unintentionally, you will not be punished even though you are evil.

As a result, this sentence aroused everyone's discussion, and it also extended the golden belt of murder and arson, repairing bridges and paving roads without corpses and so on. You know, I only let Zhang Tong use the second half of this sentence, doing evil intentionally and unintentionally.

Of course, many people criticize whether this sentence is correct, and whether it should be discussed whether one should do good deeds regardless of one's heart. I can only say that this sentence needs to be read in conjunction with its original full text.

This passage of intentionally doing good and unintentionally doing evil comes from Liaozhai Kaochenghuang. In it, Yan Wang and Guan Erye set up an assessment because there is a vacancy for the city god of a certain place. Let those who are already dead come to the assessment to see who can inherit the position of God.

The function of the city god is to judge the good and evil of a person's actions during his lifetime. Then report to the underworld to let the underworld consider whether this person should be reincarnated as an animal or a human after death. Originally, these stories and these words are magical realism, and we cannot judge whether a sentence is good or bad just by looking at it.

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

Of course, we need to fight against bogus donations or things like that that come out for tax exemption. For example, rich businessman a sets up a charitable foundation b for tax exemption, and then a donates the money to b. a is tax-free, but b is actually a's property. Actually a does nothing. Although b sometimes does a little bit of good deeds, but it is completely out of proportion to the benefits given to it by the society and the country. In fact, rich businessman a relied on b to devour social resources even more recklessly. Although he was in the name of a philanthropist, in fact, the reward he got was far higher than what he deserved.

He puts in one but asks society to pay back ten for his "good deed". So is he good or good? Or it is just another cruel exploitation of the bottom people under the cloak of "goodness". In fact, besides tax exemption, will wealthy businessman A get more preferential treatment? All kinds? He may hold high the banner of charity to seek huge profits for himself.

According to an example, a certain country h has been in war all year round, and some countries donate 100 million US dollars to country h every year. They are saying how charitable they are, how great they are. But in fact, they sell as much as one billion U.S. dollars of arms to country h every year. They manipulated the armed forces of country h to kill them. Their donation is just a means to better invade and seize the resources of country h. It can be said that if these countries are far away from country h, the war will not start. So are these good still good?

I think everyone thinks differently, because my way of thinking may be different from everyone else. That's why I wrote this paragraph. I don't think this sentence is purely literal. It's supposed to be about these hypocrisies. This hypocrisy is worse than evil. This is my understanding, it may be different from others. That's why I opened a special chapter to explain, I hope everyone understands.

I think this is what it means to do good with one’s heart, but not to reward one’s kindness. It is these disgusting hypocrisies to resist, the "goodness" that does more harm than good.

I don't understand why many people are so excited about this sentence. I haven't thought about it that much. So, please don't think too much about it. I guess this is the so-called: There are a thousand Hamlets in the eyes of a thousand people.

Three thoughts on my book? I don't think there is any need to question it. In my last book, I was almost sprayed by a group of people as the Madonna whore, although I doubt how they judged the Madonna whore.

.

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