Almost Buddhist - 戲‧論

以前每天都看一位居士的臉書有關佛法的分享，獲益良多，每天都當作是對自己的一種鞭策跟提醒。所以她告別臉書之後，我感覺有點失落，不過我覺得，離聚本是常道，有同修的分享勉勵雖好，但道還是要自己去修，路還是要自己去走的。如果不真幹，就算擁有再多的佛學知識，也是毫無利益！ 看著皈依証，心裡慚愧非常。雖然皈依多年，但其實我還沒有真正皈依。皈依佛，就是要「覺」，但我還睡得很香，不肯醒來；皈依法，就是要「正」，但我還有太多的邪念，正念的時間少得可憐；皈依僧，就是要「淨」，但我依舊齷齪邋遢，基本五戒根本沒有做到。皈依只是形式，我還在佛門外徘徊！ 再看皈依証上的法名「雄慧」，更是愧疚欲泣。我既沒有擔起復興佛教、教化眾生的勇氣，也沒有那種智慧才能。回想這些年來的學佛經歷，我想起了弘一法師參考古詩而給自己取的別名「二一」，說他自己是「一無是處人漸老；一錢不值何消說」。「二一」是對我過往學佛的一種非常正確的概括，也是對我往後學佛的一種非常有用的提醒，以及鞭策：提醒我學佛要常生慚愧心，鞭策我要把「一無是處，一錢不值」轉成「一心念佛，一生成就」。 放不下熟悉依賴的東西，就難免心隨境轉，隨業受生。告別 David Lee 是我應該去做，去學習的。我們都忘了本來是誰，卻以為自己就是誰。但說到底，誰是誰都不重要，因為本來就沒有誰啊！

★★★★☆ 聽老一輩人說，以前毛澤東時期，各家門都是不上鎖的，鮮有人偷東西。雖說那個時代政局不穩，科技落後，但人心還算單純贛直，要不毛澤東也不能輕易煽動人心，搞出個文化大革命來！所以我相信戲裡馮婉瑜 ( 巩俐 ) 的家門常年不鎖也不丟東西。如今科技進步了，人心卻蠱惑了，到底時代是進步了，還是退步了呢？ 〈歸來〉是張藝謀的新作，以文革為背景，隱約可以感受到對那個瘋狂時代的控訴，但重點還是擺在人與人之間的情執，描寫陸焉識 ( 陳道明 ) 與馮婉瑜之間「這麼近卻那麼遠」的無奈和痛苦。相比讓我淚流滿面的〈 我的父親母親 〉，這次張導刻意不煽情，很多情節都是點到即止，但給人的感受依然強烈，配合朗朗的鋼琴聲，幾次讓我強忍淚水。例如兩人在火車站「你認識我，我不認識你」的擦肩而過；還有在鋼琴旁「似曾相識漸轉陌生」的擁抱……巩俐的演技堪稱神級，演而無演，自然流露內心的執著與掙扎，令人印象深刻！ 所謂「情不重不生娑婆，愛不深不墮輪迴」，情執是輪迴的動力，我們之所以生生世世不能擺脫輪迴，就是因為我們始終看不破、放不下。我們看自己多情，正常啊；佛菩薩看我們多情，可憐啊！看破放下不是要你做一個無情的木頭人，什麼都不做。事可以照做，只是心不要去執著，但我們凡夫很難做到事理無礙，不被境界所迷。度他即是自度，這是佛菩薩的境界，我們求不得，最妥當的還是先求自度，再來度他。但在末法時期，我們都不求自度，何況度他？如馮婉瑜，病了不自知，忘記了應該記得的，卻記住了應該忘記的。我們此等「背覺合塵」的人，病了卻自我感覺良好，反倒覺得那些「背塵合覺」的人有病，顛倒啊！ 感人細膩的〈歸來〉讓我再次感受到情執的折磨與可怕。佛陀盼我們回歸自性，了悟宇宙人生的真相，希望我們早日「歸來」，但我們卻喜歡在外尋尋覓覓、自討苦吃，忘記了原來我們早有一個溫暖圓滿的「家」！

★★☆☆☆ In case you don’t know, Noah is a descendant of Adam and Eva, a task-doer instructed by God to build an ark so as to survive the flood that was supposed to wipe out all the sinful men on Earth, and also the proof of God’s imperfection, because if God was so perfect, he wouldn’t have created such an imperfect world where imperfect beings like Adam and Eva would be easily tempted to fall. And he wouldn’t have regretted it and wanted to flush us all away and start it all over again using the flood. I can’t help but wonder what was really going wrong with God and Noah since they all seem pretty fickle. ‘Noah’ is nothing dramatic or biblical but a plain story of love and forgiveness. Acting and special effects are not impressive though. I don’t have a slight idea what’s really going on in ‘Noah’s Ark’, so I’m a bit surprised when Noah says he’s told to start a new world without men after the flood. Meaning he’s supposed to bury himself and his whole family as well. Not a sing

★☆☆☆☆ Honestly I can’t make head nor tail of ‘Under The Skin’ that some consider hideously beautiful. Well, I don’t understand how something hideous could be beautiful or beautiful be hideous at the same time, but I guess that’s how people feel about art films in general. Anyway it seems bizarrely stupid to me, probably because a) I’m no fan of Scarlett Johansson; b) it delivers no story but a lot of make-no-sense stuff, and quiet still moments; c) nothing thrilling going on really like there’s supposed to; d) the underscore indeed pretty disturbing; f) last but not least, I was never warned that art films are not necessarily beautiful. That they could be rather gloomy-doomy in fact! ‘Under The Skin’ is obviously too abstract and bleak for me. It really gets under my skin and makes me feel a bit uneasy since I’m convinced that this is a big bad world full of big bad wolves. The good are few. The bad are a lot. Suppose we can still tell the good from the bad!