今天发现，其实穿高跟鞋的人永远是在走下坡路。看一下她们脚的角度就知道了。

接着再来谈谈《达芬奇密码》中的一个细节：

"The Bible represents a fundamental guidepost for millions of people on the planet, in much the same way the Koran, Torah and Pali Canon offer guidance to people of other religions. If you and I could dig up documentation that contradicted the holy stories of Islamic belief, Judaic belief, Buddhist belief, pagan belief, should we do that? Should we wave a flag and tell the Buddhists that we have proof the Buddha did not come from a lotus blossom? Or that Jesus was not born of a literal virgin birth? Those who truly understand their faiths understand the stories are metaphorical."

If the story did exist that Buddha had not come from a human womb, but had sprung from a lotus flower, it would be as... er, irrational (let me not say "preposterous"), for want of a better word, as that famous Christian myth.

But to my knowledge, which is infinitely finite I have to concede, that so-called story about Buddha's holy, uncontaminated origin is not a widely known one. I believe most Buddhists and those who have a rudimentary knowledge of Buddhism are aware that he was a prince, born of a very human father and a very human mother (a mortal king and his equally mortal queen). Yes, he did seem to have a penchant for lotus flowers or for sitting on one, but I don't believe there was any serious attempt to celestialise his parents or to simply negate his earthly lineage and supersede it with the object of his floral preference.

The author's religious inclination is rather apparent. By the look of it, while he was exploding the "immaculate conception" myth of Christianity, gingerly, he was also trying to drag other religions down with it. Perhaps to strike a balance.

Sigh, Dan Brown 哪，Dan Brown，做人要“吼”道！