The Game of Gods and Ghosts

The ending of this article is similar to a paragraph in the first chapter. They both say that the occurrence of an event is ordinary and ordinary, and the world will not change because of it, and it will remain the same world. This article seems to have many hidden points, as if the mind-reading god concluded that the female ghost told a lie, but the female ghost seemed to have no reason to risk her own life to tell this lie. The king of hell is so cowardly and logically should not find out for the female ghost, and he can actually escape. It feels like this paragraph is a game, a game set by the king of hell himself. Also, the CEO and Dao should have known each other in the past life. Dao was a Buddha, and the CEO should be an evil ghost. Dao stabbed the president in the back and killed him. The president said he didn't want to kill Dao to get revenge on Dao, but the president still wanted to take revenge on Dao. Then he must have decided on a way to get revenge on Dao. As for the final decision to never meet Dao again, the article mentioned that Dao practiced Buddhism in his previous life, and that the King of Hell was also a Buddhist. There should be some connection between this, and according to the identity of the CEO, Dao should have been very powerful in his previous life, but the King of Hell had no feeling for the sword. Isn't this a little confusing? In short, I feel like the title of the book is a game between gods and ghosts playing against swords. Then, there is a little doubt in this book, that is, does the sword attack or receive? The copywriting says that the master is the recipient, but it feels like the knife is the attack. The maintenance contract says that the knife should be on top, and the reaction of the knife later on should be excessive indulgence, but the copywriting is that the master is the recipient.

So (*￣m￣) this book is not interesting at all╮(╯_╰)╭Is it about watching a person return to normal after being teased by ghosts and gods? Or are you lamenting the impermanence of life?

Are you so bad at writing articles?

Where was the leg broken, in the middle or at the top of the thigh?

A lame person should have both legs. If one leg is missing, he should be said to be a disabled person. Moreover, in this situation, in the eyes of the public, it is impossible to drive a car.