The main idea of the film is that an atheist is disrespectful to God, and then his shop collapses and is on the verge of bankruptcy. So as to sue the gods, and in turn sue the gods' agents in the world-the temple. The reason is that his wife donated money to the temple every year, and God did not bless him.
He pointed out the condition of the temple (the part I remembered):
1: The monks said that they can communicate with the gods to guide the behavior of the believers, and the ultimate goal is to collect money.
2: Beggars and other wealthy people are not allowed to enter the temple. Does the god serve the wealthy?
3: The monastery has a high income and supports a large number of monks and clergy. At the same time milk was poured into the ditch, and there were people dying of starvation outside the door.
4: The monks silently recite the scriptures, but they may not be able to explain the meaning. (It's ridiculous, but this is the truth) The
plot is different, let's just talk about the above four. Take Buddhism as an example.
1: The fundamental tenet of Buddhism is to save oneself, not others. Even if a Buddhist disciple walks into the empty door, they are only washing their souls for themselves. I don't think that Buddhist personnel have the function of fortune-telling, let alone the supernatural power to change the fate of others.
2: I heard that the incense of the Lama Temple is very strong this year, and the incense is also not cheap. The sesame oil money is not less donated, right. Most temples across the country are like this. Nowadays, in Japanese temples, Shangxiang does not charge money. The money in the merit box is not only voluntary donation, but people in difficulties can even take some money out of the box for emergency and put it in the mainland, which is probably unimaginable.
Speaking of the merit box, the original intent was that the rich should give away their property and not be burdened by the yellow and white things, so the mood was relaxed. But now the people who worship Buddha are often corrupt officials and profiteers. They donate some money to achieve a psychological balance, and I don’t know how much money I can make when I look back. It would rather be accompanied by nightmares every night.
The gods in the play also mentioned that the people who burn incense are just an exchange of benefits. For example, the god of burning incense wants to bless my son to go to university and find a good job. Profiteers pray not to be caught, and corrupt officials pray not to report. There is too much information of this kind, do the gods have the time to take care of it?
3: Most monks now live in temples and even have party organizations in them. Their income includes tickets, selling Buddhist supplies, donating money from pilgrims, and so on. There are still some ascetic monks in India, and Japanese monks are also traveling. But in China, are there monks who travel thousands of miles to save the world? Is there a monk who eats a hundred food and wears a sackcloth? Can a person who does not have alms and cannibalism obtain Mahayana Buddhism?
4: It's hard for me to say anything. The evil spirits have invaded the temple, dressed in robes, distorted the scriptures, and bewitched all beings.
So should we stop having faith? No. The reasoning explained in this very funny movie is very close to my previous thoughts. The answer is that everyone has faith, and atheism itself is also a kind of faith. When the protagonist's lawsuit was won, people angrily wanted to kill the clergy, and turned to worship the protagonist as a god, and erected a statue for him. So gods are man-made, and there is no god without man. Mao Zedong was once revered as a god, and the old man who opposed him was the enemy of the people. Since then, the large-scale production movement, the large-scale steel-making movement, and the big pot of rice have also caused the great famine. Then came ten years of catastrophe, with countless unjust cases, most of which were accusations of counter-revolution. Besides, it seems to digress, well, let's get back to the discussion. People need to have gods before they can feel spiritually safe. This god can be recognized, or it can be yourself.
Fear yourself, restrain yourself, and dominate yourself. I personally like Buddhism very much, but I study it more as philosophy rather than worshiping a certain bodhisattva.
A widely circulated saying in Zen is "Don't set up characters, don't teach others." The characters are the scriptures, and the inheritance does not depend on the scriptures, and the scriptures are just one of the ways to reach the other side. If you can perceive sentient beings, why rely on words? So there is the Buddha's finger on the bright moon, and people only see the finger. Only by jumping out of the scriptures can you "point directly to the human heart and see nature as a Buddha." I have read the "Heart Sutra" countless times, with hundreds of words, and every time I feel it, I feel that the essence of Buddhism is dialectical philosophy.
People often see the "effect" without reflecting on the "cause". I think religion can exist because people have this need. But what do you think of people’s beliefs now? The vast majority of them are not devout believers in Buddhism, but all kinds of desires, and they can obscure their conscience and vain morality in the face of money. Because of the money, our food is not safe, the environment is extremely deteriorating, and the experts on TV are full of lies and deceitful advertisements.
Morality has fallen to this point, what is the use of asking God? It's better to do what you can and should do. .
View more about OMG: Oh My God! reviews
