The classical prisoner's dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "Prisoner's Dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).

The classical prisoner's dilemma (PD) is as follows:

Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?

The dilemma can be summarized thus:

	Prisoner B Stays Silent	Prisoner B Betrays
Prisoner A Stays Silent	Each serves six months	Prisoner A serves ten years Prisoner B goes free
Prisoner A Betrays	Prisoner A goes free Prisoner B serves ten years	Each serves five years

The dilemma arises when one assumes that both prisoners only care about minimizing their own jail terms. Each prisoner has two and only two options: either to co-operate with his accomplice and stay quiet, or to defect from their implied pact and betray his accomplice in return for a lighter sentence. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the accomplice, but each prisoner must choose without knowing what his accomplice has chosen.

In deciding what to do in strategic situations, it is normally important to predict what others will do. This is not the case here. If you knew the other prisoner would stay silent, your best move is to betray as you then walk free instead of receiving the minor sentence. If you knew the other prisoner would betray, your best move is still to betray, as you receive a lesser sentence than by silence. Betraying is a dominant strategy. The other prisoner reasons similarly, and therefore also chooses to betray. Yet by both defecting they get a lower payoff than they would get by staying silent. So rational, self-interested play results in each prisoner being worse off than if they had stayed silent. In more technical language, this demonstrates very elegantly that in a non-zero sum game a Nash Equilibrium need not be a Pareto optimum.

Note that the paradox of the situation lies in that the prisoners are not defecting in hope that the other will not. Even when they both know the other to be rational and selfish, they will both play defect. Defect is what they will play no matter what, even though they know fully well that the other player is playing defect as well and that they will both be better off with a different result.

The "Stay Silent" and "Betray" strategies are also known as "don't confess" and "confess", or the more standard "cooperate" and "defect."

One experiment based on the simple dilemma found that approximately 40% of participants cooperated (i.e., stayed silent).^[1]

Prisoner's Dilemma 囚徒困境

A real experience about the Game Theory of Prisoner’s Dilemma.

The story happened on last Friday. I traveled to a Vendor somewhere in China from Hong Kong. I have been visiting this vendor many times in the past month. The traveling time from custom building to the vendor is about 30 minutes by taxi. But the return trip will be a bit difficult because there is no direct taxi back to the custom building. At the area where the vendor located, there is a different kind of taxi (green in color). People have to take the green taxi first to another district and change another kind of taxi (red in color) to the custom building. The taxi operation is somewhat like that in Hong Kong. Taxi in green is only able to travel within the New Territories while Taxi in red is allowed to travel to everywhere in Hong Kong.

It is almost impossible to get a Taxi in red near the vendor’s location. So normally, visitors will call up a private car with driver to drive back to the custom building after finishing my work there This is so call "white label cab" and same as in Hong Kong it is against the local traffic law. However, the White Label Cab is more convenient and requires less time to go to the custom building. If I take the hard way, riding on green taxi and then change to red taxi, the trip may take up to 2 hours in order to arrive the custom building.

Last Friday, I called up a White Label Cab driver to pick me up at 18:00 near the vendor’s place as usual. After getting on the cab, I slept during the journey until the cab nearly arrived the custom building. I was waken up by a guy pounding on the car window. And he said he was a police officer of Traffic Control Unit. He asked me to leave the car and to present my Identity Card to him. Then, he took my Identity Card with him. He asked me how much I paid for the ride. Immediately, I was totally woke up and sensed that the Police Officer wanted to make a case of illegal ride of White Label Cab. So I told the office I did not need to pay for anything for the ride. This was just a friendly drive of my friend to the custom building. At that time, I still thought that this should be a small traffic case and would not cause too much trouble. In Hong Kong, this should be just a fix penalty to the White Label Cab driver and no penalty on passenger.

But unfortunately, this happened in China. The police officer took me back to a police car and directed the driver to follow him to a Police Station nearby. On the way to the Police Station, I kept on complaining that I was in a hurry back and they got no reason to hold me up. One of the Police Officers told me that once I revealed how much I paid for the ride, I would be released right away. At that time, I was just thinking about this "deal" and assessing how trustworthy the Police Officers could be. When we arrived the Police Station, the car driver and I were held in custody in different rooms inside the police station. This was the first time I was "arrested" in China and had to stay in an examination room alone to face cross-examination.

Then, the Game Theory about Prisoner’s Dilemma applied. A new group of 3 Police Officers with a video recorder and a booklet they called it a confession note. The chief officer was fierce and made very clear he would not believe one word I told them. He asked me how much I paid the driver again and again. I said it was only a friendly ride. He said it was not true and asked how I met the driver, and asked me to write down the name and where was the driver’s hometown. In addition, if I confessed that I hired a White Label Cab and signed my name on the confession note, I would be freed right away. If not, I had to prepare to stay in the examination room for the whole night. Certainly, I only knew the name of the driver and did not know anything about his life history. At that time, I was struggling in my mind. If I told the truth that I hired the White Label Cab, I may be able to get out of it but the driver would be penalized. The other possibility would be, if I admitted the car hiring, the driver and I would be penalized together. Then I recalled the Game Theory, especially the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The best solution of that kind of separate cross-examination should be that: both of the parties do not admit anything no matter what the alligator said.

After I wrote down the name of the driver, phone number and his hometown that I really didn’t know (I wrote down mine as his instead ^____^), the officer took my note to match with what the driver wrote down. Then, the officer became even more fierce and said there was nothing match on the note with the driver’s and accusing me that I was telling lies to them. Calmly, I told the officer, that was what I knew from the driver and I had no responsibility to check it was right or not. I kept on my statement that I needed to go as soon as possible. The officer seemed very dissatisfied and left the room with my Identity Card. He threw his last word to me that I had to stay there for the night as I did not tell the truth. I raised my voice and said I already told them what I knew and I re-iterated I needed to go with the intension to put pressure on them.

After the Police Officers left the room, I evaluated my situation in my mind and tried to figure out if my strategy was correct. After a deep thought, I decided to continue my denial approach as this should be the best way out according to the theory of Prisoner’s Dilemma. And I anticipated that the police officer would make me stay there for a long while in order to force me to admit. I was planning to phone to my Lawyer for help if I had to wait too long.

To my surprise, after the first group of officer left, in a minute or two, there came another Police Officer in uniform. He was much tender (playing the "good crop" role) and told me another story. He said the police was against those White Label Cab simply because of concerning the safety of the passengers. He told me that there was a guy from Hong Kong who was murdered few days ago because he got on a White Label Cab and not knowing where the driver took him. Then, he asked me again how much I paid for the driver. I insisted my story and re-iterated that I was in a hurry to go, in order to give him pressure. And I told this officer that, if the traffic and taxi arrangement was better in the area I came from, I did not have the need to ask the help from my friends to give me a ride. With this chance, I complained to the officer the traffic there should be improved and not to accuse people of riding White Label Cabs. He seemed a bit stuck with what I said and eventually asked me if I was willing to take any legal responsibility for what I told them. I avoided the word "any", but just said to him I told the truth and not sure the legal responsibility of the truth meant. Finally he walked away with my Identity Card.

Again I was not sure how long would it take. Another surprise to me, after a minute or two, another police officer appeared in the room and gave me back my Identity Card and told me to leave without signing anything. I picked up my Card and rushed to the gate. On the way, I met the driver and he shouted at me that we should have dinner after that. At first, I planned to leave the police station and headed to the custom building by taking another taxi outside. But as the driver made a dinner appointment to me, I would like to check with him what was going on his side. So I waited outside the Police Station because I also still wanted to pay him for the ride.

After a short while, the driver was also released from the Police Station and picked me up on the roadside. I said no need to buy me dinner and asked him to find a safe place near the custom building that I could pay him. At time, he was terrified and he showed tremendous gratefulness on me. After we sat down in a restaurant, he told me what would be the result if I admitted the case. He would be penalized for at least RMB30,000, his car would be took away and his driving license would be banned for 2 years. He said if not with my help, he would be dead this time and he insisted not to receive any payment from me. However, I said he drove me to the destination although bad things happened, yet still he should receive the money for his service. He also told me that the traffic police officers were recently very active in catching White Label Cabs simply because there were some sharing of interest between the Police and Taxi companies. As White Label Cabs took some business from the taxis, the taxi companies were putting pressure on the police to get rid of other drivers who ate up some of their profits.

Finally, the driver received his payment and I headed back to the custom building. The whole happenings just caused 20 to 25 minutes of delay. By the theory of Prisoner’s Dilemma, eventually I got through the difficulties.

Serenity Prayer

祈求上蒼賜我
寧靜的心接受無法改變的現實
勇氣去改變可以改變的事情
且有智慧明白兩者的分別

The Serenity Prayer is a prayer written by Reinhold Niebuhr on July 1, 1943. Early in World War II, the prayer was printed on cards and distributed to the troops by the U.S.O. However, the prayer is reported to have been used before that date in Twelve-step programs for those recovering from hurts, habits, addictions and hang-ups.



The Serenity Prayer

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;

Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.

Amen.

From Reinhold Niebuhr

　　

Let Opportunities Pass By

After reading the story about Tulipomania (鬱金香狂熱), I think the market will go up even higher (maybe HSI 35,000) in near future, not because of any rational reason. Even one Tulip flower could worth people to exchange it with a mansion and buckets of gold back in 1637. Nothing is impossible.

And 857 中國石油 may hit even higher in its price, no matter there is a fact that the world dependence on fossil oil should be dropping in future years.

At this situation, I am convinced the strategy for a sane person should be 持盈保泰. It may seem dumb while the market is still rising rocket high. But there is nothing more important to preserve the capital. Once we get hurt on our capital (earn with blood and sweat), we will never want to touch the stock market ever after.

Noone knows when will the music box stop and I am certain that I don't want to be the one who is holding it when it stop. The market will go the other way with funny reasons and once when it started, it is hard to turn back.

At this moment, saying all these seems like a fool, while others buying in are still making lots of money. I am learning the way of doing it: keep the cash and keep stocks with reasonable P/E, sit tight to let "opportunities" pass by. It is not easy with all the temptation out there .......

三浦綾子

成長在基督徒不受尊重甚至歧視的日本社會，30 歲受洗歸主，42 歲因「冰點」獲朝日新聞社舉辦的千萬日圓徵文小說首獎而成名；之後無論發表小說、散文或小品，皆堅持以基督徒身分從事基督教文學寫作為終身志業。77 歲離世 (1999 年 10 月 12 日) 前，日本北海道旭川市的「三浦綾子紀念文學館」亦及時完成，印証了她在日本文學界所獲之尊崇。

三浦綾子女士將近 40 年的寫作生涯中，有近 80 本的著作付梓，中文譯本亦有25冊；其中最讓讀者難忘的應是成名作「冰點」上下集了。

影響三浦綾子信仰與作品的特殊因素，是戰爭、長年臥病與戀愛婚姻經歷。二次大戰之前，她是認真教學而熱愛學生的小學教師；日本戰敗帶來社會價值觀的改變，促她信心破產，又因肺結核及併發脊椎慢性骨炎住院臥床達 13 年之久 (24 至 37 歲)。生病期間，關心帶領她信主的有基督徒男友前川正(因病早逝)，身為企業家的一對教會長老夫婦，以及後來娶她為妻的三浦光世等人。三浦光世不僅是疼愛綾子的終身伴侶與信仰導師，也是鼓勵她不因病弱之軀放棄寫作的最大支柱。否則像她這樣百病纏身的已婚女性 (後來陸續罹患紫斑症、帶狀泡疹、柏金森症等)，如何獲得文學殊榮？。當年由於三浦綾子的作品大受歡迎，光世不惜辭去自身職業，擔任妻子的祕書，使綾子能夠專心創作；這種胸襟與氣度，在東方男性之中的確絕無儘有啊！他們夫妻之間的恩愛，由「尋道記」及「我的婚姻日記」中可略窺一二。

三浦綾子作品的最大特色是：書中常見思考及討論人生真諦的雋語。筆者認為，東方文學名家之中，能夠如她一般揭櫫人類罪性而又指出憐憫與盼望之路者，的確微乎其微。此其為三浦綾子可貴之處，也是她對讀者最大的貢獻。

而「冰點」在日本是家喻戶曉的小說，是三浦綾子的第一部小說，三浦綾子出生於北海道，「冰點」的故事背景便是在北海道的旭川，一個看似美滿的醫師家庭，底下卻暗潮洶湧，夫妻彼此感情冷淡，妻子夏芝在丈夫不在家時，與啟造的下屬見面，兩人言談之間頗為曖昧，為了不讓小女兒打擾，將她打發出門，結果三歲的女兒橫死溪邊。

啟造知道夏芝的行為後，嫉妒、不滿的情緒在心中燃燒，夏芝提議想領養一個女嬰代替死去的女兒，讓他產生一個念頭：何不收養兇手的女兒？等到女孩長成，再告訴妻子真相，懷著報復的心理，啟造從朋友處抱回一個女嬰。

之後夏芝意外發現啟造的書信，才知道原來百般疼愛的女兒是兇手的女兒，她憤恨的想著，卻裝作若無其事，只是對女兒不再親切慈藹，就這樣，這個家庭各懷心事的生活著。已經成長的女孩陽子，和哥哥的朋友互有好感，夏芝不願看到陽子幸福，將真相脫口而出，也讓敏感的陽子選擇自殺。

三浦綾子是基督教徒，因此寫小說時，每個人都有原罪，以基督教教義來說，人都帶有原罪，我不是教徒，也不從宗教的角度談原罪。我從「人性」的角度來解讀，人性的弱點讓每個人都有內心陰暗的一面，讓人們傷害他人、也被他人所傷害。

這本小說從陽子的天真熱情到降至冰點：啟造嘴上說要愛敵人，卻對自己的妻子無法原諒，足見氣量狹小；夏芝扮演妻子及母親的角色，卻不安於家庭生活，十幾年後，看似平靜的家掀起風暴，陽子對生命不再有依戀，她終究成為冰河，表面結冰，冰層底下仍有水緩緩流動，但很緩慢、幾乎是不動的了。

陽子最終平安無恙，也讓寒風凜冽的冰點中，注入一絲溫暖。

　　

也許愛

好同學將要嫁人了，送她一首歌，一首有著很美歌詞的歌，把它譯為中文，希望她喜歡吧﹕

Perhaps Love 也許愛 (click here to listen the song)

也許愛　是安樂窩、庇護所
　　　　令妳舒適，暖妳心
　　　　在困厄中，孤單時
這愛的回憶會帶領妳回家

也許愛　是一扇窗、一扇門
　　　　邀妳進來，說從頭
　　　　在迷失中、傍惶時
這愛的回憶會引領妳渡過

有人說　愛輕軟如雲，又強韌如鋼
有人說　愛是種生活，更應去感受
有人說　愛是堅持不棄，卻又要懂得放手
有人更說　愛是一切
有人卻說　全不知道

也許愛　是一片汪洋
　　　　滿是矛盾，滿是痛
　　　　是酷寒中的一團火
　　　　是雨中的一閃雷電
如果　真有天長地久
如果　真會夢想實現
我回憶中的愛就仍只有妳



Perhaps love is like a resting place. A shelter from the storm. It exists to give you comfort. It is there to keep you warm. And in those times of trouble. When you are most alone. This memory of the love will bring you home.

Perhaps love is like a window. Perhaps an open door. It invites you to come closer. It wants to show you more. And even if you lose yourself and don't know what to do. The memory of love will see you thru.

Oh love to some is like a cloud. To some as strong as steel. For some a way of living. For some a way to feel. And some say love is holding on. And some say letting go. And some say love is everything. Some say they don't know.

Perhaps love is like the ocean. Full of conflict full of pain. Like a fire when it's cold outside. Thunder when it rains. If I should live forever. And all my dreams come true. My memories of love will be of you.

狂流

我現在的生活很簡單，簡單的像一首小詩。

有時候很快樂，常常發笑，
不是對人，而是對那微翠的青山，
和輕飄的白雲。想起荒唐的過去，

有時候很難過，也常常落淚。
當寂寞的黃昏，或者清冷的月色，
我站在窗前，看著山頭迷濛的霧，
想起那失落的夢……。

摘自『王尚義‧狂流』

　　

希望、回憶

天下只有兩種人。
譬如一串葡萄到手，一種人挑最好的先吃，
另一種人把最好的留在最後吃。

照例第一種人應該樂觀，
因為他每吃一顆都是吃剩的葡萄裡最好的；

第二種人應該悲觀，
因為他每吃一顆都是吃剩的葡萄裡最壞的。

不過事實上適得其反，
緣故是第二種人還有希望，
第一種人只有回憶。

摘自『錢鐘書‧圍城』

　　

Errors in Global Warming

An amateur meteorologist in Canada has embarrassed Nasa scientists into admitting that some of the data they used to show significant recent increases in global warming is flawed.

環保分子的「人為全球暖化理論」說，人類製造的二氧化碳是全球氣溫近年急升的元兇。這個粗疏的假設，一直缺乏嚴格的科學證據支持。峰迴路轉的是，最近卻有越來越多的證據顯示，所謂「暖化問題」可能真的只是「人為」，只是此「人為」並不是環保分子所指的「人為」罷了。

最近，加拿大博客兼業餘氣象研究員 Stephen McIntyre，在其網頁顯示一向支持「人為暖化論」的美國太空總署哥德研究所 (GISS) 及其領導人James Hansen，指出其數據一直錯誤地高估了美國近年的氣溫，結果 GISS 被逼承認錯誤，修訂了數據，其中包括將00至06年美國大陸的平均氣溫讀數調低了攝氏 0.15 度。

美國這 0.15 度的調整，對全球氣候來說看似「微不足道」(GISS 亦如是說)，但卻足以動搖一向被傳媒渲染的「全球暖化」童話故事。美國自上世紀二十年代以來才「暖化」了0.21度，現調低0.15度，即代表「暖化問題」忽然「紓緩」了三分之二﹗這位加拿大博客對改善「暖化問題」的貢獻，較任何環保分子都要大得多﹗

Extracted from YellowCow

如有興趣知道更多所謂的 Green House Effect， 可參閱以這個 TV Video；還有這個 CBS Report。

A Believer Without God

Mother Teresa
Her Darkness of the Heart - A Believer Without God

Extracted from "http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415-1,00.html"

Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979

On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the "Saint of the Gutters," went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. "It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,'" she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had "[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one." Jesus' hunger, she said, is what "you and I must find" and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world "that radiating joy is real" because Christ is everywhere — "Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive."

Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. "Jesus has a very special love for you," she assured Van der Peet. "[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak ... I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand."

The two statements, 11 weeks apart, are extravagantly dissonant. The first is typical of the woman the world thought it knew. The second sounds as though it had wandered in from some 1950s existentialist drama. Together they suggest a startling portrait in self-contradiction — that one of the great human icons of the past 100 years, whose remarkable deeds seemed inextricably connected to her closeness to God and who was routinely observed in silent and seemingly peaceful prayer by her associates as well as the television camera, was living out a very different spiritual reality privately, an arid landscape from which the deity had disappeared.

And in fact, that appears to be the case. A new, innocuously titled book, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday), consisting primarily of correspondence between Teresa and her confessors and superiors over a period of 66 years, provides the spiritual counterpoint to a life known mostly through its works. The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."

That absence seems to have started at almost precisely the time she began tending the poor and dying in Calcutta, and — except for a five-week break in 1959 — never abated. Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God. She is acutely aware of the discrepancy between her inner state and her public demeanor. "The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything." Similarly, she wonders whether she is engaged in verbal deception. "I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God — tender, personal love," she remarks to an adviser. "If you were [there], you would have said, 'What hypocrisy.'" Says the Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America and the author of My Life with the Saints, a book that dealt with far briefer reports in 2003 of Teresa's doubts: "I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense spiritual darkness. No one knew she was that tormented." Recalls Kolodiejchuk, Come Be My Light's editor: "I read one letter to the Sisters [of Teresa's Missionaries of Charity], and their mouths just dropped open. It will give a whole new dimension to the way people understand her."

The book is hardly the work of some antireligious investigative reporter who Dumpster-dived for Teresa's correspondence. Kolodiejchuk, a senior Missionaries of Charity member, is her postulator, responsible for petitioning for her sainthood and collecting the supporting materials. (Thus far she has been beatified; the next step is canonization.) The letters in the book were gathered as part of that process.

The church anticipates spiritually fallow periods. Indeed, the Spanish mystic St. John of the Cross in the 16th century coined the term the "dark night" of the soul to describe a characteristic stage in the growth of some spiritual masters. Teresa's may be the most extensive such case on record. (The "dark night" of the 18th century mystic St. Paul of the Cross lasted 45 years; he ultimately recovered.) Yet Kolodiejchuk sees it in St. John's context, as darkness within faith. Teresa found ways, starting in the early 1960s, to live with it and abandoned neither her belief nor her work. Kolodiejchuk produced the book as proof of the faith-filled perseverance that he sees as her most spiritually heroic act.

Two very different Catholics predict that the book will be a landmark. The Rev. Matthew Lamb, chairman of the theology department at the conservative Ave Maria University in Florida, thinks Come Be My Light will eventually rank with St. Augustine's Confessions and Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain as an autobiography of spiritual ascent. Martin of America, a much more liberal institution, calls the book "a new ministry for Mother Teresa, a written ministry of her interior life," and says, "It may be remembered as just as important as her ministry to the poor. It would be a ministry to people who had experienced some doubt, some absence of God in their lives. And you know who that is? Everybody. Atheists, doubters, seekers, believers, everyone."

Not all atheists and doubters will agree. Both Kolodiejchuk and Martin assume that Teresa's inability to perceive Christ in her life did not mean he wasn't there. In fact, they see his absence as part of the divine gift that enabled her to do great work. But to the U.S.'s increasingly assertive cadre of atheists, that argument will seem absurd. They will see the book's Teresa more like the woman in the archetypal country-and-western song who holds a torch for her husband 30 years after he left to buy a pack of cigarettes and never returned. Says Christopher Hitchens, author of The Missionary Position, a scathing polemic on Teresa, and more recently of the atheist manifesto God Is Not Great: "She was no more exempt from the realization that religion is a human fabrication than any other person, and that her attempted cure was more and more professions of faith could only have deepened the pit that she had dug for herself." Meanwhile, some familiar with the smiling mother's extraordinary drive may diagnose her condition less as a gift of God than as a subconscious attempt at the most radical kind of humility: she punished herself with a crippling failure to counterbalance her great successes.

Come Be My Light is that rare thing, a posthumous autobiography that could cause a wholesale reconsideration of a major public figure — one way or another. It raises questions about God and faith, the engine behind great achievement, and the persistence of love, divine and human. That it does so not in any organized, intentional form but as a hodgepodge of desperate notes not intended for daylight should leave readers only more convinced that it is authentic — and that they are, somewhat shockingly, touching the true inner life of a modern saint.

Prequel: Near Ecstatic Communion

[Jesus:] Wilt thou refuse to do this for me? ... You have become my Spouse for my love — you have come to India for Me. The thirst you had for souls brought you so far — Are you afraid to take one more step for Your Spouse — for me — for souls? Is your generosity grown cold? Am I a second to you?
[Teresa:] Jesus, my own Jesus — I am only Thine — I am so stupid — I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish — as You wish — as long as you wish. [But] why can't I be a perfect Loreto Nun — here — why can't I be like everybody else.
[Jesus:] I want Indian Nuns, Missionaries of Charity, who would be my fire of love amongst the poor, the sick, the dying and the little children ... You are I know the most incapable person — weak and sinful but just because you are that — I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?
— in a prayer dialogue recounted to Archbishop Ferdinand Perier, January 1947

On Sept. 10, 1946, after 17 years as a teacher in Calcutta with the Loreto Sisters (an uncloistered, education-oriented community based in Ireland), Mother Mary Teresa, 36, took the 400-mile (645-km) train trip to Darjeeling. She had been working herself sick, and her superiors ordered her to relax during her annual retreat in the Himalayan foothills. On the ride out, she reported, Christ spoke to her. He called her to abandon teaching and work instead in "the slums" of the city, dealing directly with "the poorest of the poor" — the sick, the dying, beggars and street children. "Come, Come, carry Me into the holes of the poor," he told her. "Come be My light." The goal was to be both material and evangelistic — as Kolodiejchuk puts it, "to help them live their lives with dignity [and so] encounter God's infinite love, and having come to know Him, to love and serve Him in return."

It was wildly audacious — an unfunded, single-handed crusade (Teresa stipulated that she and her nuns would share their beneficiaries' poverty and started out alone) to provide individualized service to the poorest in a poor city made desperate by riots. The local Archbishop, Ferdinand Périer, was initially skeptical. But her letters to him, preserved, illustrate two linked characteristics — extreme tenacity and a profound personal bond to Christ. When Périer hesitated, Teresa, while calling herself a "little nothing," bombarded him with notes suggesting that he refer the question to an escalating list of authorities — the local apostolic delegation, her Mother General, the Pope. And when she felt all else had failed, she revealed the spiritual topper: a dramatic (melodramatic, really) dialogue with a "Voice" she eventually revealed to be Christ's. It ended with Jesus' emphatic reiteration of his call to her: "You are I know the most incapable person — weak and sinful but just because you are that — I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"

Mother Teresa had visions, including one of herself conversing with Christ on the Cross. Her confessor, Father Celeste Van Exem, was convinced that her mystical experiences were genuine. "[Her] union with Our Lord has been continual and so deep and violent that rapture does not seem very far," he commented. Teresa later wrote simply, "Jesus gave Himself to me."

Then on Jan. 6, 1948, Périer, after consulting the Vatican, finally gave permission for Teresa to embark on her second calling. And Jesus took himself away again.

The Onset

Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.

So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
— addressed to Jesus, at the suggestion of a confessor, undated

In the first half of 1948, Teresa took a basic medical course before launching herself alone onto the streets of Calcutta. She wrote, "My soul at present is in perfect peace and joy." Kolodiejchuk includes her moving description of her first day on the job: "The old man lying on the street — not wanted — all alone just sick and dying — I gave him carborsone and water to drink and the old Man — was so strangely grateful ... Then we went to Taltala Bazaar, and there was a very poor woman dying I think of starvation more than TB ... I gave her something which will help her to sleep. — I wonder how long she will last." But two months later, shortly after her major triumph of locating a space for her headquarters, Kolodiejchuk's files find her troubled. "What tortures of loneliness," she wrote. "I wonder how long will my heart suffer this?" This complaint could be understood as an initial response to solitude and hardship were it not for subsequent letters. The more success Teresa had — and half a year later so many young women had joined her society that she needed to move again — the worse she felt. In March 1953, she wrote Périer, "Please pray specially for me that I may not spoil His work and that Our Lord may show Himself — for there is such terrible darkness within me, as if everything was dead. It has been like this more or less from the time I started 'the work.'"

Périer may have missed the note of desperation. "God guides you, dear Mother," he answered avuncularly. "You are not so much in the dark as you think ... You have exterior facts enough to see that God blesses your work ... Feelings are not required and often may be misleading." And yet feelings — or rather, their lack — became her life's secret torment. How can you assume the lover's ardor when he no longer grants you his voice, his touch, his very presence? The problem was exacerbated by an inhibition to even describe it. Teresa reported on several occasions inviting a confessor to visit and then being unable to speak. Eventually, one thought to ask her to write the problem down, and she complied. "The more I want him — the less I am wanted," she wrote Périer in 1955. A year later she sounded desolate: "Such deep longing for God — and ... repulsed — empty — no faith — no love — no zeal. — [The saving of] Souls holds no attraction — Heaven means nothing — pray for me please that I keep smiling at Him in spite of everything."

At the suggestion of a confessor, she wrote the agonized plea that begins this section, in which she explored the theological worst-possible-case implications of her dilemma. That letter and another one from 1959 ("What do I labour for? If there be no God — there can be no soul — if there is no Soul then Jesus — You also are not true") are the only two that sound any note of doubt of God's existence. But she frequently bemoaned an inability to pray: "I utter words of Community prayers — and try my utmost to get out of every word the sweetness it has to give — But my prayer of union is not there any longer — I no longer pray."

As the Missionaries of Charity flourished and gradually gained the attention of her church and the world at large, Teresa progressed from confessor to confessor the way some patients move through their psychoanalysts. Van Exem gave way to Périer, who gave way in 1959 to the Rev. (later Cardinal) Lawrence Picachy, who was succeeded by the Rev. Joseph Neuner in 1961. By the 1980s the chain included figures such as Bishop William Curlin of Charlotte, N.C. For these confessors, she developed a kind of shorthand of pain, referring almost casually to "my darkness" and to Jesus as "the Absent One." There was one respite. In October 1958, Pope Pius XII died, and requiem Masses were celebrated around the Catholic world. Teresa prayed to the deceased Pope for a "proof that God is pleased with the Society." And "then and there," she rejoiced, "disappeared the long darkness ... that strange suffering of 10 years." Unfortunately, five weeks later she reported being "in the tunnel" once more. And although, as we shall see, she found a way to accept the absence, it never lifted again. Five years after her Nobel, a Jesuit priest in the Calcutta province noted that "Mother came ... to speak about the excruciating night in her soul. It was not a passing phase but had gone on for years." A 1995 letter discussed her "spiritual dryness." She died in 1997.

Explanations

Tell me, Father, why is there so much pain and darkness in my soul?
— to the Rev. Lawrence Picachy, August 1959

Why did Teresa's communication with Jesus, so vivid and nourishing in the months before the founding of the Missionaries, evaporate so suddenly? Interestingly, secular and religious explanations travel for a while on parallel tracks. Both understand (although only one celebrates) that identification with Christ's extended suffering on the Cross, undertaken to redeem humanity, is a key aspect of Catholic spirituality. Teresa told her nuns that physical poverty ensured empathy in "giving themselves" to the suffering poor and established a stronger bond with Christ's redemptive agony. She wrote in 1951 that the Passion was the only aspect of Jesus' life that she was interested in sharing: "I want to ... drink ONLY [her emphasis] from His chalice of pain." And so she did, although by all indications not in a way she had expected.

Kolodiejchuk finds divine purpose in the fact that Teresa's spiritual spigot went dry just as she prevailed over her church's perceived hesitations and saw a successful way to realize Jesus' call for her. "She was a very strong personality," he suggests. "And a strong personality needs stronger purification" as an antidote to pride. As proof that it worked, he cites her written comment after receiving an important prize in the Philippines in the 1960s: "This means nothing to me, because I don't have Him."

And yet "the question is, Who determined the abandonment she experienced?" says Dr. Richard Gottlieb, a teacher at the New York Psychoanalytic Society & Institute who has written about the church and who was provided a copy of the book by TIME. "Could she have imposed it on herself?" Psychologists have long recognized that people of a certain personality type are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves. Gottlieb notes that Teresa's ambitions for her ministry were tremendous. Both he and Kolodiejchuk are fascinated by her statement, "I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before." Remarks the priest: "That's a kind of daring thing to say." Yet her letters are full of inner conflict about her accomplishments. Rather than simply giving all credit to God, Gottlieb observes, she agonizes incessantly that "any taking credit for her accomplishments — if only internally — is sinful" and hence, perhaps, requires a price to be paid. A mild secular analog, he says, might be an executive who commits a horrific social gaffe at the instant of a crucial promotion. For Teresa, "an occasion for a modicum of joy initiated a significant quantity of misery," and her subsequent successes led her to perpetuate it.

Gottlieb also suggests that starting her ministry "may have marked a turning point in her relationship with Jesus," whose urgent claims she was finally in a position to fulfill. Being the active party, he speculates, might have scared her, and in the end, the only way to accomplish great things might have been in the permanent and less risky role of the spurned yet faithful lover.

The atheist position is simpler. In 1948, Hitchens ventures, Teresa finally woke up, although she could not admit it. He likens her to die-hard Western communists late in the cold war: "There was a huge amount of cognitive dissonance," he says. "They thought, 'Jesus, the Soviet Union is a failure, [but] I'm not supposed to think that. It means my life is meaningless.' They carried on somehow, but the mainspring was gone. And I think once the mainspring is gone, it cannot be repaired." That, he says, was Teresa.

Most religious readers will reject that explanation, along with any that makes her the author of her own misery — or even defines it as true misery. Martin, responding to the torch-song image of Teresa, counterproposes her as the heroically constant spouse. "Let's say you're married and you fall in love and you believe with all your heart that marriage is a sacrament. And your wife, God forbid, gets a stroke and she's comatose. And you will never experience her love again. It's like loving and caring for a person for 50 years and once in a while you complain to your spiritual director, but you know on the deepest level that she loves you even though she's silent and that what you're doing makes sense. Mother Teresa knew that what she was doing made sense."

Integration

I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness — for I believe now that it is part of a very, very small part of Jesus' darkness & pain on earth. You have taught me to accept it [as] a 'spiritual side of your work' as you wrote — Today really I felt a deep joy — that Jesus can't go anymore through the agony — but that He wants to go through it in me.
— to Neuner, Circa 1961

There are two responses to trauma: to hold onto it in all its vividness and remain its captive, or without necessarily "conquering" it, to gradually integrate it into the day-by-day. After more than a decade of open-wound agony, Teresa seems to have begun regaining her spiritual equilibrium with the help of a particularly perceptive adviser. The Rev. Joseph Neuner, whom she met in the late 1950s and confided in somewhat later, was already a well-known theologian, and when she turned to him with her "darkness," he seems to have told her the three things she needed to hear: that there was no human remedy for it (that is, she should not feel responsible for affecting it); that feeling Jesus is not the only proof of his being there, and her very craving for God was a "sure sign" of his "hidden presence" in her life; and that the absence was in fact part of the "spiritual side" of her work for Jesus.

This counsel clearly granted Teresa a tremendous sense of release. For all that she had expected and even craved to share in Christ's Passion, she had not anticipated that she might recapitulate the particular moment on the Cross when he asks, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The idea that rather than a nihilistic vacuum, his felt absence might be the ordeal she had prayed for, that her perseverance in its face might echo his faith unto death on the Cross, that it might indeed be a grace, enhancing the efficacy of her calling, made sense of her pain. Neuner would later write, "It was the redeeming experience of her life when she realized that the night of her heart was the special share she had in Jesus' passion." And she thanked Neuner profusely: "I can't express in words — the gratitude I owe you for your kindness to me — for the first time in ... years — I have come to love the darkness. "

Not that it didn't continue to torment her. Years later, describing the joy in Jesus experienced by some of her nuns, she observed dryly to Neuner, "I just have the joy of having nothing — not even the reality of the Presence of God [in the Eucharist]." She described her soul as like an "ice block." Yet she recognized Neuner's key distinction, writing, "I accept not in my feelings — but with my will, the Will of God — I accept His will." Although she still occasionally worried that she might "turn a Judas to Jesus in this painful darkness," with the passage of years the absence morphed from a potential wrecking ball into a kind of ragged cornerstone. Says Gottlieb, the psychoanalyst: "What is remarkable is that she integrated it in a way that enabled her to make it the organizing center of her personality, the beacon for her ongoing spiritual life." Certainly, she understood it as essential enough to project it into her afterlife. "If I ever become a Saint — I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven — to [light] the light of those in darkness on earth," she wrote in 1962. Theologically, this is a bit odd since most orthodox Christianity defines heaven as God's eternal presence and doesn't really provide for regular no-shows at the heavenly feast. But it is, Kolodiejchuk suggests, her most moving statement, since the sacrifice involved is infinite. "When she wrote, 'I am willing to suffer ... for all eternity, if this [is] possible,'" he says, "I said, Wow."

He contends that the letters reveal her as holier than anyone knew. However formidable her efforts on Christ's behalf, it is even more astounding to realize that she achieved them when he was not available to her — a bit like a person who believes she can't walk winning the Olympic 100 meters. Kolodiejchuk goes even further. Catholic theologians recognize two types of "dark night": the first is purgative, cleansing the contemplative for a "final union" with Christ; the second is "reparative," and continues after such a union, so that he or she may participate in a state of purity even closer to that of Jesus and Mary, who suffered for human salvation despite being without sin. By the end, writes Kolodiejchuk, "by all indications this was the case with Mother Teresa." That puts her in rarefied company.

A New Ministry

If this brings You glory — if souls are brought to you — with joy I accept all to the end of my life.
— to Jesus, undated

But for most people, Teresa's ranking among Catholic saints may be less important than a more general implication of Come Be My Light: that if she could carry on for a half-century without God in her head or heart, then perhaps people not quite as saintly can cope with less extreme versions of the same problem. One powerful instance of this may have occurred very early on. In 1968, British writer-turned-filmmaker Malcolm Muggeridge visited Teresa. Muggeridge had been an outspoken agnostic, but by the time he arrived with a film crew in Calcutta he was in full spiritual-search mode. Beyond impressing him with her work and her holiness, she wrote a letter to him in 1970 that addressed his doubts full-bore. "Your longing for God is so deep and yet He keeps Himself away from you," she wrote. "He must be forcing Himself to do so — because he loves you so much — the personal love Christ has for you is infinite — The Small difficulty you have re His Church is finite — Overcome the finite with the infinite." Muggeridge apparently did. He became an outspoken Christian apologist and converted to Catholicism in 1982. His 1969 film, Something Beautiful for God, supported by a 1971 book of the same title, made Teresa an international sensation.

At the time, Muggeridge was something of a unique case. A child of privilege who became a minor celebrity, he was hardly Teresa's target audience. Now, with the publication of Come Be My Light, we can all play Muggeridge. Kolodiejchuk thinks the book may act as an antidote to a cultural problem. "The tendency in our spiritual life but also in our more general attitude toward love is that our feelings are all that is going on," he says. "And so to us the totality of love is what we feel. But to really love someone requires commitment, fidelity and vulnerability. Mother Teresa wasn't 'feeling' Christ's love, and she could have shut down. But she was up at 4:30 every morning for Jesus, and still writing to him, 'Your happiness is all I want.' That's a powerful example even if you are not talking in exclusively religious terms."

America's Martin wants to talk precisely in religious terms. "Everything she's experiencing," he says, "is what average believers experience in their spiritual lives writ large. I have known scores of people who have felt abandoned by God and had doubts about God's existence. And this book expresses that in such a stunning way but shows her full of complete trust at the same time." He takes a breath. "Who would have thought that the person who was considered the most faithful woman in the world struggled like that with her faith?" he asks. "And who would have thought that the one thought to be the most ardent of believers could be a saint to the skeptics?" Martin has long used Teresa as an example to parishioners of self-emptying love. Now, he says, he will use her extraordinary faith in the face of overwhelming silence to illustrate how doubt is a natural part of everyone's life, be it an average believer's or a world-famous saint's.

Into the Light of Day

Please destroy any letters or anything I have written.
— to Picachy, April 1959

Consistent with her ongoing fight against pride, Teresa's rationale for suppressing her personal correspondence was "I want the work to remain only His." If the letters became public, she explained to Picachy, "people will think more of me — less of Jesus."

The particularly holy are no less prone than the rest of us to misjudge the workings of history — or, if you will, of God's providence. Teresa considered the perceived absence of God in her life as her most shameful secret but eventually learned that it could be seen as a gift abetting her calling. If her worries about publicizing it also turn out to be misplaced — if a book of hasty, troubled notes turns out to ease the spiritual road of thousands of fellow believers, there would be no shame in having been wrong — but happily, even wonderfully wrong — twice.

逆向思維

「逆向思考」就是說一個人的思想模式，不能只有直線的，也不能只是單向的，凡事要從前後、左右、上下、正反等多方面去思考；也就是說，當事情陷入膠著狀態時，不妨換個角度來看，事情往往就會出現轉圜的餘地。所以逆向思考在中國又稱為水式思考，在西洋則稱 S 型思考。以下是一個有趣的例子:

一個老人走進一家銀行，來到信貸部坐下來。他身著豪華西裝、高級皮鞋，還有領帶和金領帶夾。

「我想借 1 美元。」老人對信貸部的職員說
「甚麼，1 美元？」
「對啊，可以嗎？」
「當然可以，只要有抵押，再多些也無妨的。」

老人打開豪華皮包，拿出一堆股票、債券等等，放在經理的桌上。「總共值 50 多萬美元，夠了吧？」

「當然！當然！不過，你真的只借 1 美元嗎？」
「是的，就 1 美元。」
「那麼年息為 6%，只要您按時付出利息，到期我們就退給您抵押品。」

老人辨完手續，拿了借來的 1 美元就準備離開銀行。

一直冷眼旁觀的分行行長，怎麼也弄不明白：有 50 多萬美元抵押品的人，為何來銀行商借 1 美元？於是他追上前去問個究竟。

老人笑道：「來貴行前，我問過好幾家金庫，他們保險箱的租金都很昂貴。所以啊，我就在貴行寄存這些証券，租金實在太便宜了，一年才 6 美分 ……」

所有「正常思維」的人，都會走同樣的路子并受到同種矛盾的限制：既然目的是寄存，但希望省錢，只能一家一家去詢問并比較租金高低；然而也自然有共同的擔憂，那就是寄存物品的保險系數，往往和租金高低成正比。

惟獨這位老人跨越了「正常」：改變思維方向，用「反常」的方法達到了「正常」的目的，而且將「租金」減少到幾乎等於零。

生活中許多事情也如此，尤其身處逆境，不妨換一種思維，或許就是另一片天空。

　　

Reverse Thinking

It is a story about a first year student who studied Philosophy in the University. He studied many different philosophies such as existentialism, structuralism, mentalism, dialectics etc, etc.

The year end final examination was coming. In the last lesson before examination, the professor said he would set a question that would cover all that the students had learnt during the whole year. The students went back and studied hard on all the theories they learnt during the year.

Eventually, the big day came. When the students received the examination paper, to their surprise, the question paper was printed with only one question - “WHY?” and there was a 100 pages answer book ready for each student. Most of students did not know how to answer the question.

After a week, the result of the examination came out. There was only one student get full mark. The professor explained to all his students: If they wanted to get full mark for this question, one way was to put down everything they leant this year about philosophy. That is almost impossible for a student to write down that much within 3 hours in the examination.

The other way to get full mark is: to put down the question or the answer “Why Not?”

　　

送別

整整兩年同窗苦讀，始終都有曲終人散的時候，這一日風雨如晦，心有所感，腦海浮現以下的一段文字：

送別
=======================

長亭外，古道邊，芳草碧連天；

　　晚風拂柳笛聲殘，夕陽山外山。


天之涯，地之角，知交半零落；

　　一杯濁酒盡餘歡，今宵別夢寒。


韶光逝，留無計，今日卻分訣；

　　驪歌一曲送別離，相顧卻依依。


聚雖好，別雖悲，世事堪玩味

　　來日後後相逾期，去去莫遲疑。

　　

Shadow Land - C.S. Lewis

前幾年在香港上映一部很有水準的片子「影子大地」，但沒多久就下片了，大概是因為香港對「影子大地」中的主人翁 C.S. Lewis 太陌生的緣故吧！

Lewis 是英國文學界，相當有名的作家、牛津大學教授、擁有暢銷著作作者等身份，能言善道，每回演講都吸引上千人聆聽，恭敬的筆記。他最擅長的演講題目是：「苦難的意義」，「神蹟是否可能？」「愛到底是什麼？」，再而肯定上帝的全能與愛。

其實 Lewis 的信仰歷程很迂迴。他從傳統基督教走向嚴苛的教義要求，走向追求靈異的神秘主義，又走向唯物無神論，再專研佛學，最後再回到基督教信仰，然後成為基督教的衛道者。

Lewis 曾跟隨邏輯學大師，所以很重視理性思辯，他衛道的方式也最擅長用理性思辯。這可從他的「如是基督教」「痛苦的奧秘」「神蹟」「人的見棄 」四本書看出來。這幾本書處理的是千古疑難：上帝為何存在？為何這位上帝必然是基督教信仰中的上帝？基督教的倫理是什麼？上帝的屬性包括三位一體是什 麼？上帝如果是全能全善，為何會有邪惡？為何會有痛苦？為何受造的人會有墮落？科學世代還會有神蹟？科學世代的危機為何？他反應敏捷，能迅速的指出別人陳述思想中不合邏輯之處，對自己的陳述也相當講求符合邏輯。在「如是基督教」一書中，我們會發現他是傳承「湯瑪斯阿奎納」的目的道德論證，但用的是現代的例子。而 Lewis 相當強調基督教信仰是符合理性的，反倒無神論或泛神論多神論是禁不起理性思辯的考驗。

儘管 Lewis 的邏輯思辯，如此嚴謹搖不可憾，但與他同學校的教授們，卻酷愛跟他爭辯，說他是用簡單的答案（邏輯），去面對一個複雜的問題。Lewis 很敢於面對挑戰，雄辯中經常處於贏的局面。不過，Lewis 最著名轟動國外的作品，卻是他的童話故事「那裏亞童話集」，這整套故事中又以「獅王、女巫、衣櫥」最有名。這整套童話，其實就是把他雄辯而堅信不移的信仰，用童話譬喻的方式描述出來。

所以「影子大地」電影一開始，我們就看到牛津大學幾位教授跟他台槓，談到他那裏亞童話集中的「獅王女巫衣櫥」不合邏輯：一個單身光棍老教授家，怎麼會有女人的皮大衣？飾演 Lewis 的Anthony Hopkins 則不直接回答這個問題 ，反而渾然忘我的，談起衣櫥裡的世界：「那是個充滿Magic 的世界 ... 。」

直到六十歲以後，Lewis 的理性思辯，突然面對到殘酷的考驗。他愛上了一個自美國來，名叫 Joy 的女詩人（Debra Winger 飾），又經歷了她的死。這女詩人是用她的人生，在詮釋 Lewis 最擅長的講題。她被丈夫拋棄，身邊帶個孩子、猶太人、破產。她活在苦難中，對愛卻完全沒有放棄，勇敢樂觀的面對她悲慘的人生。

電影中描述 Lewis 與 Joy 見面時的對話。Joy 說：「經驗是重要的。」 Lewis 說：「知識是重要的。」 Joy 說：「書本讓人安全。」言下之意，從書本中得知關於愛與苦難的知識，即或能辯倒群雄，卻是不真實的，因為當事者完全沒有經驗。

Lewis 其實已經愛上了她，但是卻不知道自己愛上了她。他盡一切可能幫助她，甚至跟她假結婚，好讓她可以在英國居留。但是，直到聽聞她得了骨癌末期那一刻，他才明白他有多愛她。於是他決定跟她再結一次婚，是在神、在人面前，正式定下的永不後悔的婚約。

Joy 的一生徹底經驗苦難，她嘲諷似的說，自己經驗的苦難是一點折扣不打的。但她的勇敢與樂觀，與她對苦難的熟悉，使她在面對苦難死亡時，比 Lewis 更早預備好。電影中描述有一次他倆愉快的出外旅遊，當時 Joy 病情控制的很好，Joy 在愉快的氣氛中跟 Lewis 談及死亡，Lewis 不願談，Joy 就跟他說：「現在的快樂中，一定蘊含未來的痛苦，這是生命的交易。」後來 Joy 病情復發，無法挽救，Joy 面對痛苦無比的 Lewis ，也勸他說：「你必須放手，讓我走，」 Joy 死前的最後一句話是：「 I am at peace with God 」。

反觀 Lewis，是在跟 Joy 的愛情與 Joy 的死亡中，才開始刻骨 銘心的經歷他最熟悉的「真愛」「苦難與死亡」「上帝是否存在？」「上帝是否全能良善？」「上帝為何對苦難置之不理？」「為何沒有神蹟？」。誠如 Joy 所說，書本、知識、理性，是「安全」的，經驗卻是痛苦無比的。 所有 Lewis 的講演，文字處理過的信仰真義，當他發現他必須「活出來」，卻在這過程中，他的信仰崩潰了。這就是他後期作品「卿卿如悟（ A Grief Observed) 」的內容。

「卿卿如晤」文章平實平淡，像小小的散文，完全失去他一向的犀利睿智，甚至在文章中潛藏著懷疑的哀傷，以及忿怒不平的情緒。再也沒有像他過往一樣，給予那麼肯定的答案。但是，這本書卻可以說是他最偉大的作品，沒讀完這本書，就無法完全理解 Lewis 所有精彩好文的深意。因為這本書「卿卿如晤」，讓我們對 C.S.Lewis 有全新的看法。Lewis 是在走盡思辯理性後，發現自己竟然有朝一日，對理性完全默然無語。信仰只剩下「啟示與信心」這麼簡單，又完全無法言說的境界。他說：現在爭辯都已無益，日子慢慢過去，上帝還是安慰了他。

為什麼上帝要容許 Lewis 在 60 歲以後，去經歷一個他曾爭辯無數，及早已知道答案的「提問」？

Lewis 在他出名的童話作品「最後之戰」中，有一段對新天新地的描述 ：「這個世界，是未來新天新地的 Shadow of Land。」

這卻恰好也說明了他的一生。理性的知識，是真實經歷的 Shadow of Land ，真實，是焚而不毀仍能存留下來的，無法思辯證明言說的「信心」。 Lewis 這一生，在上帝手中是個奧秘，上帝先讓他寫出他將要經歷的，再讓他從經歷中得知信仰的層層奧秘。他這一生就是一層層的 Shadow of Land ，死後在新天新地的與 Joy 相遇。即使現世，包括「卿卿如晤」，都是 Shadow of Land。

描述 Lewis 這則經歷的電影「影子大地」，原文就是「 The Shadow of Land 」，就是出自「最後之戰」中 Shadow of Land 的典故，Lewis 對 這一段的文學靈感，是出自聖經：「我們如今彷彿對著鏡子觀看，模糊不清，到那時就要面對面了。我如今所知道的有限，到那時就全知道，如同主知道我一樣 。」（歌林多前書十三：12 ）

　　

生命就是如此

什麼都沒有發生，
同時也什麼都無足輕重，
然後我們都發現 ......

原來生命就是如此。

痛

是不是將悲傷，好好的掩蓋著，
就不會覺得痛了？

是不是將心愛的人，安穩的埋藏在心裡，
就不會覺得想念了？

是不是在轉得很快的城市裡，跟著人群轉，
那不願再被想起的回憶，
就會漸漸被淡忘？
舊事都變成了想像？
一切都像沒有發生一樣？

可是你聽得見微風傳來的話語嗎？
你感受得到陽光的溫度嗎？
你看得見陌生人的笑容嗎？

一些很細微的事令我想起，
有時候，心裡涼涼的，感到有一點痛，
我沒有告訴人。

因為我仍然相信，
只要我一直把悲傷好好的掩蓋著，
我就不會覺得痛了。

　　

Type No. Six

Have quite an enjoyable chat with friends about the Enneagram Type No. Six last Saturday. Below is a brief summary about Type Six as if viewing from a Six:

The Questioner (the Six)
Questioners are responsible, trustworthy, and value loyalty to family, friends, groups, and causes. Their personalities range broadly from reserved and timid to outspoken and confrontative.

How to Get Along with Me

• Be direct and clear.
• Listen to me carefully.
• Don't judge me for my anxiety.
• Work things through with me.
• Reassure me that everything is OK between us.
• Laugh and make jokes with me.
• Gently push me toward new experiences.
• Try not to overreact to my overreacting.

What I Like About Being a Six

• being committed and faithful to family and friends
• being responsible and hardworking
• being compassionate toward others
• having intellect and wit
• being a nonconformist
• confronting danger bravely
• being direct and assertive

What's Hard About Being a Six

• the constant push and pull involved in trying to make up my mind
• procrastinating because of fear of failure; having little confidence in myself
• fearing being abandoned or taken advantage of
• exhausting myself by worrying and scanning for danger
• wishing I had a rule book at work so I could do everything right
• being too critical of myself when I haven't lived up to my expectations

Sixes as Children Often

• are friendly, likable, and dependable, and/or sarcastic, bossy, and stubborn
• are anxious and hypervigilant; anticipate danger
• form a team of "us against them" with a best friend or parent
• look to groups or authorities to protect them and/or question authority and rebel
• are neglected or abused, come from unpredictable or alcoholic families, and/or take on
• the fearfulness of an overly anxious parent
  

Sixes as Parents

• are often loving, nurturing, and have a strong sense of duty
• are sometimes reluctant to give their children independence
• worry more than most that their children will get hurt
• sometimes have trouble saying no and setting boundaries

To be continue ......

　　

Judgment 判斷

現代人似乎都不大喜歡為自己的行為或決定負責，是不是現代人都太傲慢 (arrogant)，還是太無知 (ignorance)，抑或不認為自己應該為自身的安危負責，往往因為準備不足，遇有事故，第一時間就是找人幫忙，隨之而來的就是投訴救援人員遲到，又或者抱怨其他人袖手旁觀。可是人們有沒有想過，在行事之前是否有估量過自己的能力，又有否會搜集多一點的資料，增加一點常識，以面對突如其來的困境，又或壓根兒避免身陷困境的機會，這樣才不會動不動，就動用大量社會或他人的資源，來滿足一己之私了吧。

今年初夏的一個週未，發生了一件小事情，令我再度沉思有關個人判斷與責任的問題。

事情的始末是這樣的，當天在會所的泳池內，有個小男孩，大約有八、九歲了吧，兩條手臂上戴著浮泡，原本在泳池中，載浮載沉，好不開心，不一會，他的媽媽，一個樣貌娟好的年青少婦，可能是想試試兒子的泳術是否有所精進了吧，把兒子戴著的浮泡除下，催促兒子由泳池的這邊，徒手游到另一邊去。當時我剛完成了當天的游泳練習，靜躺在泳池旁的沙灘椅上享受著刺熱的日光浴，小男孩的媽媽就站在我身旁不遠處，說老實我由於剛在水運動了三十多分鐘，雖然有點兒眼睏，但在看到男孩放棄手臂上的浮泡，多慮的本能令我不其然的，一直有意無意間地注視著那小男孩情況。

小男孩奮力的游了到對岸，但他的媽媽可能還想試試兒子的能力，兒子亦想表演給媽媽看看他的本事，於是又由另一邊游回來，可是這次，他們倆似乎都高估了小男孩的能力了，男孩游到中途，池水最深處，開始慌亂，吞了幾口水後，更形慌張，只見他的頭直往水中沉下去，兩手在水面上亂愰。在岸邊的媽媽看著兒子，此時亦慌亂起來，顯然她是不諳泳術，完全沒有想過下水救兒，當時救生員卻又相當遠泳池的另一角，小男孩由於已接近沒頂，再也無力叫喊，媽媽又似過於慌張，竟然沒有大叫，只懂在池邊直踩腳，忙亂間我連崩帶跳下了水，用已多年沒有應用過的拯溺技巧，把掙扎中的男孩托上水面，然後再把他帶到岸邊，可能已太久沒有救人了吧，過程中自己亦喝了不少池水。當把男孩救回岸邊後，男孩的爸爸剛巧來到泳池了，隨之而來就是媽跟爸的罵戰，當此情勢，我就悄然離開，旁邊外籍人士都豎起姆指向著我，反為當事人太專注在他們的爭吵中，已無暇顧及其他了。

離開泳池去更衣室的當兒，我一直在想，這件小童遇溺事件，原本應是完全可以避免的，設想媽媽若要測試兒子的泳術，她大可以沿著池邊，逐步引領兒子前進，這樣既可以使兒子不會鬆懈，又可以在遇上困難時，兒子便能立刻扶上池邊，這全在乎媽媽是否怠惰，又或者是對能力、環境的判斷出了問題。這件事件的發生，只是令我感到，現代城市人，似乎不欣賞判斷力，又或者已經失去了判斷力，把判斷應否進行一件事的責任，全都放在政府，又或者放在主辦單位上，自己對危險的標準，如有意外發生，主要的責任都會是他人的，而法庭過去十多年很多案例，都把賠償的責任大部份都放在第三者身上，當事人本身對自己沒有作出適當的衡量，反為責任最少。雖然我依然的相信，我們當中很多人都是相當刻己，但正正有少數人妄顧這些，結果所有人都受牽連，正是一人犯罪，千人受罰。

這引生出來還有一個有趣的現象，現在有不少人在進行郊遊、行山這些體力消耗大的活動時，都像不會選擇日子時間，在最炎熱的天氣，最惡劣的時份行山，記得我以前居所附近的流浪狗，也懂得在盛暑之時，不會作出遠行的決定，常常避在樹蔭，靜待炎夏過去，是不是現代人真的太傲慢，還是太無知，我也沒有答案了 ……

　　

等著我吧……

等著我吧──我會回來的 ......
只是你要苦苦地等待，
等到那愁煞人的陰雨，
勾起你的懮傷滿懷。

等到那大雪紛飛，
等到那酷暑難挨，
等到別人不再把親人盼望，
往昔的一切，一古腦兒拋開。

等到那遙遠的他鄉，
不再有家書傳來，
等到一起等待的人，
心灰意懶──都已倦怠。

等著我吧──我會回來的 ......
不要祝福那些人平安：
他們口口聲聲地說──算了吧，

等下去也是枉然！

縱然愛子和慈母認為──
我已不在人間；
縱然朋友們等得厭倦，
在爐火旁圍坐，
啜飲苦酒，把亡魂追荐……
你可要等下去啊！
千萬不要同他們一起，
忙著舉起酒盞。

等著我吧──我會回來的 ......
死神一次次被我挫敗！
就讓那不曾等待我的人，
說我僥幸──感到意外！

那沒有等下去的人不會理解──
虧了你的苦苦等待，
在炮火連天的戰場上，
從死神手中，是你把我拯救出來。
我是怎樣死裡逃生的，

只有你和我兩個人明白，

只因為你同別人不一樣，
你善于苦苦地等待。

摘自：康斯坦丁．西門諾夫 1941

Wait for me ......

Wait for me and I'll be back ……
But you have to wait with distress,
Wait till this sullen moody drizzle
With your gloom and rack

Wait till snowstorms seal the way,
Wait till summer's heat that ache,
Wait till others give up their hope on love ones
And put aside everything beyond the day.

Wait till no more mail
From home far far away
Wait till all others who stayed
Become frustrated with ennui.

Wait for me and I'll be back ......
Do not wish well for those
Who know so well the knack
Teach you not to stay and to forget

Let my mother and my lad
Believe that I was already dead;
Let my friends wait till weary,
At the fireside
Lift the wine of grief and clink
To my departed soul
Stop and make no haste to drink
Alone amongst them all
You have to hang on for me

Wait for me and I'll be back ......
Defeating death once again
Let those could not stay and wait
Said I was fluke and be amazed
For those who did not stay,
They will never recognize
That’s your wait with distress
In the midst of the battle blaze
Saved me from my fate.

How I escape from Azrael
Just you and I shall realize:
Cause you are not the same
You knew how to wait ……

譯於 2008 年4月18日, 星期五

Originated from Konstantin Simonov 1941

Жди меня, и я вернусь.
Только очень жди,
Жди, когда наводят грусть
Желтые дожди,
Жди, когда снега метут,
Жди, когда жара,
Жди, когда других не ждут,
Позабыв вчера.
Жди, когда из дальних мест
Писем не придет,
Жди, когда уж надоест
Всем, кто вместе ждет.
Жди меня, и я вернусь,
Не желай добра
Всем, кто знает наизусть,
Что забыть пора.
Пусть поверят сын и мать
В то, что нет меня,
Пусть друзья устанут ждать,
Сядут у огня,
Выпьют горькое вино
На помин души...
Жди. И с ними заодно
Выпить не спеши.
Жди меня, и я вернусь,
Всем смертям назло.
Кто не ждал меня, тот пусть
Скажет: - Повезло.
Не понять, не ждавшим им,
Как среди огня
Ожиданием своим
Ты спасла меня.
Как я выжил, будем знать
Только мы с тобой,-
Просто ты умела ждать,
Как никто другой.

Константин Симонов 1941

　　

產品的真正價值

磁式錄音帶是奠定我們公司日後營運的關鍵。至於硬體的機器構造，則簡直就是件完美的藝術品。雖然我們在一九五零製製造的錄音機體型笨重，但是它的功效卻如預期般奇妙。我當時信心十足，以為經過這段艱辛的嘗試，就可步上坦途，我們堅信，只要消費大眾看到它聽到它，訂單就會源源不斷地進來。

但是，一記晴天霹靂，把我們從美夢中驚醒。由於磁式錄音機太過於新潮，日本人都不知道它是甚麼，至於那些知道磁式錄音機作用的人，又沒有購買動機。顯然一般人並沒有把錄音機當做必需品，所以我們根本賣不出去。

於是我明白，空有超凡的技術和獨特的產品，並不足以維持企業的生存，你還必須知道怎樣把產品賣出去，也必須事先告訴潛在買主這件產品的真正價值何在。

摘自『盛田昭夫‧我與新力』

　　

巧用刷卡優惠規則賺現

　　據報道，楊惠如辦理了一家名爲中信銀的銀行信用卡賬戶，然後開始利用中信銀和電視購物頻道"東森購物台"的刷卡優惠規則，進行"倒騰"。

　　東森購物台推出了一項優惠活動，使用信用卡購買"東森禮券"，預付 19000 元新臺幣，就可買到 2 萬元禮券。如果禮券一年到期沒有用掉，可選擇兌換2 萬元等值支票，或換2 萬元等值提貨券，再加 4000 元購物折價券，也就是可以買到24000 元新臺幣的貨品。這樣算下來，光是一年後換回支票的獲利率，即高達 5% 以上，比銀行定存利息還高。同時，中信銀的客戶，只要每月預付800 元會費，即可享有刷卡消費紅利點數八倍送優惠，外加千分之二的電信回饋金。

　　 2005年 10 月，楊蕙如在中信銀開戶辦理信用卡，預付一年 9600元新臺幣的會費，與中信銀簽了一年合約，隨後向親友集資 600萬元存入戶頭，作爲提高個人信用額度以及做擔保，然後通過網絡刷卡，一下子把 600萬元全部換成東森禮券。

　　接著，她在拍賣網站上把東森禮券轉賣給親友，親友再公開拍賣，她再設法買回來，這樣不斷地買來賣去，楊蕙如的信用卡紅利點數迅速累積到 800 余萬點。她又以點數兌換銀行贈送的禮品，每 32 萬點紅利兌換一張長榮公司美國航綫頭等艙機票，再把換來的20 張免費機票，在網站上以每張 45000 元轉賣。後來中信銀允許客戶彼此轉讓紅利點數，她又在網絡上以1000 點折讓300 元現金的價格出手。

　　據楊蕙如自己估算，已獲利高達 100 多萬元新臺幣。

　　"卡神"開價百萬美元年薪

　　楊蕙如的賺錢之道爆料給媒體後，引起各方大肆報道，也惹來了銀行的惱怒。 1 月 10 日，中信銀宣布將立即停止這名客戶的信用卡使用，以維護銀行權益，及確保客戶正確使用信用卡工具的觀念。銀行的理由是，持卡人楊蕙如與親友間私下進行大額刷卡交易，藉以獲得高額信用卡紅利點數，再換取機票轉賣獲利，已涉嫌共謀欺詐行爲，根據相關規定，銀行可以降低客戶的額度或停止卡片使用。銀行還將保留法律追訴權。該銀行還停止了楊家爸爸媽媽和親戚總共 30來張信用卡。

　　後來此事鬧到臺灣省消基會，消基會指出，銀行預防性地對當事人及其父母停卡，屬于"行爲過當"，應立即恢復卡的使用。消基會說，任何制度的設計難免有漏洞，如果消費者按照游戲規則行事，得到了這樣的結果，不是消費者的錯。

　　不過，從小即是理財高手的楊蕙如操作此事的目標遠遠不是這 100 多萬新臺幣。由于與中信銀的糾葛轟動一時，楊蕙如名聲大振，網上紛紛贊她爲"卡神"，理財高手的形象迅速樹立了起來。有的金融保險機構有意攬她加盟，擔任財務顧問或信用卡代言人。楊蕙如却表示，要網羅她，至少要開出年薪 100 萬美元的條件。

BELIEF or TRUTH?

CONFUSION BETWEEN BELIEF AND TRUTH

"If a Religion is treated as a belief, I respect. If it is treated as truth, I protest"

To believe in something is not the same as knowing something.

Intrinsic to the concept of belief is implication that there is an opposite to belief, disbelief. Not everyone will believe something is true, but all sane and rational people will acknowledge an observable fact or truth.

I can claim that I believe that it will rain at 3:00 AM, six years from today, and someone may agree with me and believe the same thing. If I hold a rock, and drop it, all who are present will acknowledge that a rock had been dropped ... unless they are just choosing to be childish, whimsical, or are a philosophy major.

The difference between the matter of the rock and the matter of the rain, is the difference between an observable fact, and a thought accepted as a fact. One is present, provable, undeniable and concrete, the other, howsoever fervently believed, is not. The rain could come, my belief about it could be true enough, but there is no observable proof. There is nothing to point to, nothing to show, nothing to touch, nothing to smell, nothing to be experienced by the senses of myself or others.

The only way belief can be experienced is in the mind. Facts can be experienced both in the mind and by the senses ... and what is more, unlike a mental hallucination, the sensory experience can be shared with others.

It is a common error of human beings to allow belief, to allow a mental construct accepted on faith, to become so important, so obsessive, that it is taken as the same thing as fact. Indeed, there are many emotional reasons why a person might be driven to do this, but it still remains that any belief is purely mental whatever it's origin, and the mind can be mistaken.

This means that all beliefs have as part of them an implied doubt. Facts cannot be doubted, they are observably real.

When belief is assumed to be fact, when this mistake is made by a mind clouded by a motivation to assume belief as fact, that belief is considered beyond doubt, just as is a fact.

Beliefs beyond doubt are inherently dangerous. They are dangerous because they are often acted upon as though they were facts, and the inherent weakness of this is that a belief is not a fact.

Beliefs can be, and often are, wrong.

Children in western culture often believe in Santa Claus, in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. To them, with their simple minds, these beliefs are facts. This is because very young children may not have developed sufficiently to discriminate between belief and fact.

But even adults can fall prey to such immature thinking, because they are afraid, because they are disturbed, because they are mentally ill, because they are filled with excitement, or a whole host of reasons. Hallucinations can occur that seem so real that they convince the brain that it has experienced observable fact. Such events add false certainty to beliefs.

Understanding always that beliefs are not facts, is the fundamental component of sanity. Confusing the two inevitably leads to catastrophe.

If I believe that by rubbing a hunk of quartz I will gain the Power of Absolute Indestructibility, and I act on this belief as though it were a fact, I will quickly die under the metal onslaught of the first train I attempt to block. My belief might be true, but I have no proof. Acting as though I did have proof would lead to my destruction.

When any belief is accepted as fact, catastrophe is inevitable.


TOOLS FOR SORTING FACTS AND BELIEFS

We are constantly bombarded by ideas, facts and beliefs in a muddled, often confusing mess. To make matters worse, we all must accept the experiences of others as facts simply to survive. There are so many facts now that for any individual to test even a fraction of them would be the work of a lifetime. There would be no time to live, if we had to prove even a portion of the collected facts of humanity.

In order to be able to cope with life, we have to have facts to make decisions on. But mixed into these facts that we learn... and take on faith are real... are also many examples of nonsense and arbitrary belief, promoted as fact, by fanatical individuals. Fanatics are driven to promote their beliefs because of the conflict that occurs for them whenever their beliefs are challenged. To stop the feeling of conflict, the fanatic becomes compelled to convince everyone that their belief is fact, or, failing that, to destroy those who threaten the belief.

Fanaticism is a dangerous mental illness.

There is then a primary question to the individual, how to separate fact from belief, when so much of our knowledge is taken essentially on faith, on the assumption that we are being told factual things?

There are some quick and simplistic tools that you can use to analyze information in order to roughly guess whether the information is fact, or truth.

When faced with new information I suggest applying this simple mental test to determine if the information is a fact, or a belief.

FACT OR BELIEF?
Quick Test
1. Has this information been reliably verified by many different people?
2. Is there a way I can demonstrate it reliably, even if I choose not to?
3. Is this information that can be put to practical use by someone?
4. Does this agree well with what I already know to be fact?
5. Do I trust the motives of the information source?

SCORING THE QUICK MENTAL TEST
Each YES answer is worth 20%
Each NO Answer counts as 0%
Total the results and SUBTRACT 10%
This is your PROBABILITY OF FACTUALITY. Care to roll the dice?

Notice that the highest possible score is 90%. It is impossible to score 100%. Comprehend this. In order for a mind to remain sane, to avoid fanaticism, to remain capable of growth, there must be room for doubt.

When all doubt dies, so does the mind.

There is an even simpler test you can use. Simply ask yourself this:

Is this information more concerned with the physical world, or more concerned with emotional experience and defining rules?

Almost all deadly beliefs are based on emotional biases. If the information you are given, or which you already possess, fails these tests, it is probably a belief. Be suspicious of beliefs masquerading as facts.

Anyway

Paradoxical Commandments of Leadership



§　People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
　　Love them anyway.

§　If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
　　Do good anyway.

§　If you are successful, you win false friends and true enemies.
　　Succeed anyway.

§　The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
　　Do good anyway.

§　Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
　　Be honest and frank anyway.

§　The biggest men with the biggest ideas can be shot down
　　by the smallest men with the smallest minds.
　　Think big anyway.

§　People favor underdogs, but follow only top dogs.
　　Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

§　What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
　　Build anyway.

§　People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
　　Help people anyway.

§　Give the world the best you have and you'll get kicked in the teeth.
　　Give the world the best you have anyway.

Extracted from Kent M. Keith 1968

P.S.

"Anyway" is a single by country music artist Martina McBride. The song was released in November of 2006, as the first single from her 2007 album Waking Up Laughing. The song marks the first time in Martina's career that she has co-written one of her own singles. It is an inspirational song based on a favorite poem of Mother Teresa's, written by Keith Kent, which he orginally titled, "The Paradoxical Commandments". The song generally means, no matter what puts you down in life, do not give up, do it anyway.

讀「袁崇煥傳」

這兩天再有機會重讀，金庸嘗試寫的一部歷史小說「袁崇煥傳」，這篇小說可能沒有金庸的其他小說裡的堆砌華美的場面，但在平實的描繒袁崇煥這個人物方面，確曾帶給我無比的震憾。

真實的事和人往往較小說虛構的情節來得更動人、更引人入勝。袁崇煥一生所追求的原則，實在有「知其不可為而為之」的屈強氣魄，充份反證在儒家學說所培養的人中，仍能體現到一種中國人罕見的「悍烈精神」又或是李天命先生所謂的「武質文化」。

面對著權奸禍國，立了大功，反而要被逼退休，直到最後崇禎皇帝以一個可笑的「莫須有」罪名，而被一大群失心瘋的北京人，一人一口的咬死，相信當時的袁崇煥內心的痛苦比身體上所承受的還要大上千百倍。

在我初次接觸到這篇文章時，欽佩之情悠然而生，更積極培養個人的「悍烈精神」和「武質文化」。雖然袁崇煥抗清的勇氣及行為在今天已沒有多大意義，正如金庸所說明朝和清朝在管治國家上的分數根本不能相比，前者是很大的負數而後者是很高的正數。但袁崇煥所堅持的目標，以及投入烈火一般的熱情進入一個自己認為正確的方向，都使人十分著迷。

正如一位願意代袁崇煥頂罪，遭受凌遲極刑的庶民『陳本直』，這樣形容這個他一生最敬佩的人﹕「舉世皆巧人，而袁公一大痴漢也。唯其痴，故舉世最愛者錢，袁公不知愛也。唯其痴，故舉世最惜者死，袁公不知怕也。於是乎舉世所不敢任之勞怨，袁公直任之而弗辭。於是乎舉世所不得不避之嫌疑，袁公直不避之而獨行也。」

在人生過程中尋找心目中的英雄，這篇傳記提供了一個選擇給我。對於英雄的詮譯，金庸在這篇傳記結尾所寫的，我個人覺得至為感動﹕「在那個時代中，人人都遭到了在太平年月中所無法想像的苦難。在山東的大饑荒中，丈夫吃了妻子的屍體，母親吃了兒子的屍體。那是小人物的悲劇，他們心中的悲痛，一點也不會比英雄們輕。不過小人物只是默默的忍受，英雄們卻勇敢地奮戰了一場，在歷史上留下了痕跡。英雄的尊嚴與偉烈，經過了無數時日之後，仍在後人心中激起波瀾。」

寫這篇文章的目的是希望提高各位「金庸迷」對金庸的其他比較另類的小說多一點興趣，以及希望讀過這本小說的「同好」能給我一些回響，未讀過的朋友，如有興趣盡快找機會閱讀一遍，然後再在這裡跟我唇槍舌劍一番。

「袁崇煥傳」原載在「碧血劍」下集的結尾部份。

吾生也有涯 ......

吾生也有涯，而知也無涯。
以有涯隨無涯，殆矣﹔

已而為知者，殆而已矣。
為善無近名，為惡無近刑。

緣督以為經，可以保身，
可以以全生，可以養親，
可以盡年。

摘自『莊子。養生主』

　　

傷逝

夜蘭人靜風雨急

憑窗獨坐淚盈眶

敢問蒼天人間苦

何我嚐盡個中愁

寫於一九九一．十月廿八日

　　

讓我走 ......

輝：

九月，你就要結婚了，我想我是不會去參加你的喜宴。

你應該也清楚我內心的掙扎，我不想成為別人婚姻的第三者。

無數次的糾纏，我不知道我在冀望我能得到什麼回應，或許我就像一個耍賴的小孩吧，即使知道你不會為我做任何改變，我仍試圖要使自己好過些。

努力了這麼久，從你訂婚到現在，我知道我是完全失敗了。我不能再想下去，每次只要一想到你即將和別人結婚，我的心就會糾結在一起。你知道我的痛苦嗎？不，應該說，你能體會得到嗎？

給了你的，包括我的身體、我的心、和我對愛情的憧憬，彷彿在一夕之間化為烏有。　　你怎麼還能要求我留在你身邊呢？現在你唯一能給我的僅剩下折磨了，難道能不能正視我的痛嗎？

如果你真得愛我，答應讓我走，好嗎？

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　玲．八月三十日．晴

玲﹕

看到妳三月三十日寫給「輝」的信，在字裡行間中，以一個男性的角度，感受到妳的痛苦、妳的失望。想起自己女朋友在多年前結婚時，心中那種絞痛，如非親歷，實難言諭。

當時我覺得人生最大的挫敗，莫過於自己一心一意所愛的人，頭也不回的離己而去，在一剎那間自身像失去了所有的價值，剩下的就只有虛空。

及後，對此深切反思，發現對於情深愛篤的人，人生最可悲的事，不是碰到所愛的人變了心，反為是自己變了心，才等於一切破滅，因為，如果連自己認為最真實的愛情也不可靠的話，天地間還有甚麼東西可靠呢？自己的改變才是真正「完全失敗」，才是令「自己的身體、自己的心、和自己對愛情的憧景，彷彿在一夕之間化為烏有」的原因。

如果妳真的相信愛情，那麼，請不必要考慮他是否真的愛妳。能夠主宰去留，不是他，而是妳自己。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　灆．八月三十一日．雨

　　

因為遇見 ......

佛說﹕

『前世的五百次回眸，才換來今生的擦肩而過，
　前世的數十次擦肩，才成就今生一次的相遇。』

能夠相識本來就是一種緣份，
只要努力記住生命中每一個片段，
每一個過客，每一個好朋友 ......
無論是讓我快樂或是沮喪的時刻 ......
不管是帶給我幸福或是心傷的人 ......
都要抱著感謝的心情面對生命 ......
面對面，我們互相微笑，因為遇見 ......

遇見的時候，或許下著雨，或許放著晴，
我們有同樣的慌亂，同樣的驚喜，
有時候好想好想跟誰相遇，
好想好想再度遇見某個人，
卻天涯海角不再相見。

所以相遇的時候，
可不可以好好珍惜呢？

　　

原來等待也是一種幸福 ......

我對你永遠有著一份期待和盼望。

在年輕的時候，在那些充滿了陽光的長長的下午，我無所事事，也無所怕懼，只因爲我知道，在我的生命裏，有一種永遠的等待。挫折會來，也會過去，熱泪會流下，也會收起，沒有什麽可以讓我氣餒的，因爲，我有著長長的一生，而你，你一定會來。

今天，陽光仍在，我已走到中途。在曲折顛沛的道路上，我一直沒有歇息，只敢偶爾停頓一下，想你，尋你，等你。

霧從我身後輕輕涌來，目光淡去，想你也許會來，也許不會，開始害怕了。

也開始對一切美麗的事物憐愛珍惜。不管是對一隻小小的翠鳥，或是對那結伴飛旋的喜鵲；不管是對著一顆年輕喜樂的心，或是對著一棵亭亭如華蓋的樹；我總會認真地在那裏面尋你，想你也許會在，怕你也許已經來過了，而我沒有察覺。

日子在盼望與等待中過去，總覺得你好像已經來過了又好像始終還沒有來，你到底在什麽地方呢？你到底是一種什麽模樣呢？

總有一天，我也會像所有的人一樣老去的吧？總有一天，我此刻還柔軟光潔的髮絲也會全部轉成銀白，總有一天，我會面對著一種無法轉寰的絕境與盡頭；而在那個時候，能讓我含著淚微笑地想起的的，大概也就只有你只是你了吧？

請允許我塵埃落定，用沈默埋葬了過去，滿身風雨我從海上來，才隱居在這沙漠裏。

　　

執子之手 與子偕老

「生死契闊，與子成說。執子之手，與子偕老。」

是一種古老而堅定的承諾，是浪漫而美麗的傳說。執手千山萬水驟然縮短，執手恩怨情仇悠然消散，執手淚眼不忍相看，執手相思，相思難眠。

執手之時，冷暖兩心知；
執手之時，悲喜兩相忘。
無奈的是執手後的悲哀，
無奈的是分手時的凄絕。

執手因為愛；
愛的越真，心越清純；
愛的越深，情越質樸。
執手時，絕不瘋狂，絕不偏私。

執子之手，與子偕老？
執子之手，生死兩忘！

曾經以為所有的愛情故事都一定要驚天地，泣鬼神才算完美，曾經以為只有留有殘缺的愛情，才是最美的，曾經以為每個人的愛情，都一定要轟轟烈烈，才能稱得上愛情，曾經以為所有的愛情，都有花前月下，海誓山盟……然而這些愛情，都只是在小說裏才會出現的場面，在真實的生活中沒有那麼多轟轟烈烈，沒有那麼多一見鍾情，沒有那麼多催人淚下的梁祝式的愛情故事。於是便要開始從虛幻的世界走向現實的世界，開始不再嚮往那麼多的山盟海誓，只是渴望能有這樣一份愛情——執子之手，與子偕老。

曾經無限嚮往九千九百九十九朵玫瑰的浪漫，曾經無限嚮往同生共死的壯烈，也曾經無限嚮往「在天願做比翼鳥，在地願為連理枝」的忠貞。但與子偕老的愛情，卻不需如此，儘管轟轟烈烈使人感動，但平平淡淡同樣震撼人心。也許生命裡並沒有如詩如畫的風景，但至少擁有美麗的野花，在濕潤的土壤裏同樣可以散發香氣。

或者平平淡淡正是人生的真諦吧，我們雖然不能一同浪跡天涯，紅塵作伴，但至少可以享有每個美麗的清晨和黃昏，可以執子之手地走過所有漫長的道路，那怕路途中有著無數艱難險阻。

執子之手，看似是句平淡無奇的話語，其間卻包含著那麼大的勇氣。不為什麼，只為，漫漫長夜l裡執子之手，走完那一段又一段的長路，坎坷的道路上執子之手，度過一次又一次的難關，在所有的道路上攜手走過，讓整個世界都變得渺小。

執子之手，在雨中共撐一頂小小的傘，在風中共披一件溫暖的外套，讓所有的山盟海誓都在此刻黯然失色，讓執子之手的偉大愛情感動這個世界。在下雨的時候，在車站孤伶伶地望著紛飛的雨線，心情是無可奈何的沉鬱。這時從旁邊伸過一把傘來，遮住了紛飛的雨絲和陰暗的天空；不用回頭，便有一種極溫暖極踏實的感覺涌上心頭：雨絲就讓它紛飛吧，天就讓它陰暗吧，此時已有了一把傘，而心情也因此而陽光燦爛。

也許，只是什么話也不說，只是在這漫長的道路上攜手，走過每一個路口，把真心放在手中，攜手走過一生一世的燦爛。

　　

這樣就叫做幸福

有一個人，他生前善良而且熱心助人，所以在他死後，昇上天堂，做了天使。他當了天使後，仍時常到凡間幫助人，希望能感受到幸福的味道。

有一天，他遇見一個農夫，農夫的樣子非常煩惱，他向天使訴說︰「我家的水牛剛死了，沒牠幫忙犁田，那我怎能下田工作呢？」於是天使賜給他一隻健壯的水牛，農夫很高興，天使在他身上感受到幸福的味道。

又有一天，他遇見一個男人，男人非常沮喪，他向天使訴說︰「我的錢都被騙光了，沒有盤纏回鄉。」於是天使送給他銀兩做路費，男人很高興，天使在他身上感受到幸福的味道。

又一日，他遇見一個詩人，詩人年青、英俊、有才華而且富有，妻子貌美又溫柔，但他卻過得不快樂。天使問他︰「你不快樂嗎？我能幫你嗎？」詩人對天使說︰「我什麼也有，只欠一樣東西，你能夠給我嗎？」天使回答說︰「可以。你要什麼我也可以給你。」詩人直直的望著天使︰「我想要的是幸福。」這下子把天使難倒了，天使想了想，說︰「我明白了。」然後把詩人所擁有的都拿走。

天使拿走詩人的才華，毀去他的容貌，奪去他的財產，和他妻子的性命，天使做完這些事後，便離去了。一個月後，天使再回到詩人的身邊，他那時餓得半死，衣衫襤褸地在躺在地上掙扎。於是，天使把他的一切還給他，然後，又離去了。

半個月後，天使再去看看詩人。這次，詩人摟著妻子，不住向天使道謝，因為，他得到幸福了。



你曾覺得孤獨？你嚐過幸福的味道？孤寂、璀璨本就是形容詞，所有的形容詞都是比較的。沒嘗過孤寂，又怎知何謂璀璨的人生？孤寂又豈非人生之必經？

人很奇怪，每每要到了失去後，才懂得珍惜。其實，幸福早就放就在你的面前。肚子餓壞的時候，有一碗熱騰騰的拉麵放在你眼前，幸福。累得半死的時候，撲上軟軟的床，也是幸福。哭得要命的時候，旁邊溫柔的遞來一張紙巾，更是幸福。幸福本沒有絕對的定義，平常一些小事也往往能撼動你的心靈，幸福與否，只在乎你的心怎麼看待。

愛一個人一不定要擁有，但擁有一個人就一定要去好好的愛她！