Protected: God over Evil: The Experiential Problem of Evil, God and Evil as Sensed and a Response 與上帝及我們所經驗的苦難感而遂通:苦難問題新探

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Advertisements

A Traveller’s Six-Year Exploration of Who God Is 六年旅人神貌百感

FeaturedA Traveller’s Six-Year Exploration of Who God Is 六年旅人神貌百感

This explorative piece fulfills my public promise to be honest about my faith to God and portrays who God is in a simple way after a six-year search for answers.

I am writing this explorative piece also because I can no longer withstand the state of directionlessness in which I am here and now. Only by clearing all the clouds blurring my vision can I continue my journey as a forward-heading traveller in the world.

When I have to name the ultimate foundation on which my life-till-now has been grounded and should have been grounding, my identity as a Christian is always my answer. Without question. To some it is already too old-fashioned to resort to religion but not to the trending and supposedly agreed philosophy or cultural norm when it comes to ultimate values, but I refuse to give in to their (perhaps) reasonably biased views against religious or faithful establishments like churches, doctrines and dogmas and Scripture(s). Indeed, more accurately, I tend to always dislike what is popular in academia and in mainstream society in favour of a view that is to my best knowledge true and right, for theirs and mine often seem incompatible, or at least with great tension. This attitude might be what we call counter-cultural. Plus, following my fellow human beings, I cannot but by nature search for truth and righteousness even when and due to the fact that I embody none [1], so I cannot but by nature be non-relativistic and consciously or sub-consciously demand the absolution of an understanding of reality. When I discern what this means, I see that this is not actually the objectivity of reality that I am focusing on, but it is the sense of certainty which can be my frame of reference of every activities or happenings in my life that I am craving for. Christianity, or the Christian worldview, as the only easy, helpful frame of reference given to me, became my only choice. The cognitive consonance arose from this ideational infrastructure about faith thus safeguarded me from all of my psychological insecurities in my early years. And since I have not developed a conscious need for a deeper faith (or a faith at all) beyond the cognitive level, such condition of belief was stable and sufficient for the moment. So it did not come to my reflection or consciousness that the Christian worldview did not relate to me in practice until my undergraduate period. However, still, my faithful or theological reflection was minimal, for I was thinking simplistically, not cognitively complex enough to generate a sense of trouble in the face of all the unnamable imperfections in the world. Simply put, I would not recognize such a need. I very often just treated Christianity as a resource bank of convenient reference and also of last resort, sometimes leading the direction for my easy answering to an otherwise cognitively challenging question, other times as Christianity-of-the-gaps being subsumed under and complementing my creative thoughts and ideas new to me or new permutations and combinations of my old, learnt, ones. For example, I unconsciously started to follow the path of pre-Socratic philosophers seeking after elements of the comos and derived the ten Elements of Life six years ago for categorizing the nature of the activities of my life, unaware that the Christian God should have reigned over those pragmatic life aspects.

As for whether this separation of faith and life is normal, speaking of its developmental psychology, although children of such ages have predispositions for later faith, they generally could not faith and be accordingly saved, unless given by the environment, the faith is the only viable or the obviously best option, and as such they are said to be baptized by the culture (i.e. the culture embodied by the agents able to interact with the environment such as their parents who can interact with the family environment to introduce the children to sense the presence of God etc.) by being the extensions of their parents before their bio-social maturity and independence. It is therefore commonsensical for me to have the capability of complex thinking developed only in later stages. But well, it does not mean it is fine. Just that I have no solution towards my (and our) (once) unfaithfulness.

My first clearer attempts to re-establish what faith and God, supposedly the target of faith, mean to us (or just me) were not here but scattered among my memories. To recollect these fragments from the multitudinous layers of stormy clouds in front of me, here I am to begin the reminiscence of my senses of God and find out who God is. In the four years of my undergraduate philosophical education, one skill I have acquired for my philosophical toolbox is how to do conceptual analysis, by which now I am approaching God as conceptualized. If something or some being is recognized as God, what condition has it fulfilled, and what characteristic does it necessarily or sufficiently possess in order to have been recognized as so? Please note that the sensation, feeling and experience of God in action and interaction with God is always prior to and giving the foundation for the cognition, reflection and conceptualization of God, so any ungrounded conceptualization, such as God of the philosophers, who is always posited to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent before any sensational experience of such a God, is out of my concern here.

Whoever is God, sensed from my experience and then understood by my intuition, will always be transcendent. There always accompanies a sense of givenness when I sense whoever that is God and whatever that is from God. That is, whenever I feel the presence of God, I will feel that something is given to me from what is external to my current self. To properly name this sense, it is good that we call it grace. Grace to a person is by nature the quality of something given to this person from his or her externality even though he or she does not have it in the first place, and God is always understood by me as someone embodying this quality, who is therefore transcendent. During my exchange period in the third undergraduate year of mine, one day in Billund, Denmark, I was walking alone on an extensive road near the airport on my way to Legoland. I looked up from the greens along the road to the clear blue sky, and I felt the presence of God. Everything seemed to be slow and gentle, and it was good. Although this sense of God present there and then cannot be reduced to the sense of givenness, but one vocal point of this sense to focus on for contemplation, reflection and analysis is the grace that is given to me and surrounds me. The key that unlocks who God is in this case is that I felt that God is given to me as He surrounds and infiltrates me from within and without. The giver, the gift and the givenness are all together, holistically and simultaneously, present to me as reality, and they cannot be separated by sense but only by cognitive distinction, so I discern to have the origin of these senses ascribed to God, and let these be the demonstration of God giving and being transcendent to me, and hopefully also to us.

Also, whoever is God experienced by me was saturating every point of time and space in the whole experience. Beyond there and then as I move along the road, my self was felt to be connected to and growing to the size of the whole environment until its spatial and temporal limits. As God was giving me this supernatural experience of nature, He was sensed to be at the same time in and out of this timed and spaced reality, because the origin of this whole experience was felt to have come from beyond the happening of this experience itself, yet the occurrence of the whole sensation was internal to the experience, without which there would be no possibility of the sense of givenness and the reception of grace. God is hence omnipresent in a sense that He embodies and is both in and out of the space and time where I am and of which I can possibly take notice in the moment.

He was felt to be in control of the whole sensational experience during my walk. I saw that from our human point of view He is wholly independent from us in a sense that although He can interact with and be affected by my will, His mental activities totally transcend my best understanding of Him. So God was thought to be absolutely free and sovereign, reigning over the whole walk as I proceeded with His presence, and for He was sensed to be powerful over and keeping track of my journey (and all of my other experiences of God), it is natural to see how He was conceived as omnipotent and (thus) omniscient.

If something is to be identified with God by me, it will be immanently related to me. In the trekking experience, God was sensed to be with me there and then. If He is not related to me in any way, wholly unknowable to my knowledge, it can never be recognized as existent and Godly to me. So a deistic conception of God is no God of lived experience at all. That said, immanence is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition of being God. To be God is most importantly to be felt as loving and salvific. In that sensational encounter with God, through the long saunter, I gradually had my tiredness and other burdens worn off from me. A sense of restoration filled the whole of my body up to my psyche. And it was saving me. The love I felt from God was emerging from every step I took forward. The word, love, here is to signify the sole and inclusive way (i.e. the way incorporating or common to all ways) of goodness and righteousness by which I treated the earth I stepped on as a good, friendly support of my weight. There and then the pavement was my friend, the other of mine who embraced and shaped my existence in the whole experience which in turn was given, developed and sustained by God. This way of goodness and, finally, righteousness, is to treat the other as I would treat myself or would have it treating myself. This Golden Rule generalizes the normative underpinnings of ethics and morality we humans live by. This attitude in the face of the other persons, peoples or objects of mine gives way not only to their beings (i.e. their being those other persons, peoples or objects) but also to my being (i.e. my being my-self). Thus, this way of letting others be also let myself be my-self at the end of and in the process of giving, which first initiated by God’s giving me this experience which is first and foremost of existence or existential. Such gift from God presented through and by me to the other and the self is what I felt as love. As I walked on the road, I participated both in the salvation of mine and the road’s, because the being of the road was presented in its use by the pedestrian, and the erect existence of the traveller was buttressed by the road, both sensed to be held in sustenance in God’s hands. God is hence not just giving but also loving and salvific. He is who we can see as the Absolute Other on which we can rely internally to complete our-selves and our beings. Such intrinsic reliance for taking the next step, also namable as faith, is contrary to external authority over us just because it becomes part of our own authority as we allow our-selves to connect to it as the necessary link to fulfill our existences. With this Absolute Other, we can be hopeful for the future in the midst of suffering, such as the weariness of the backpacker on his never-ending lonely journey, because there and then God had him. And by this hope, he, there and then, and I, here and now, have cast away the gloomy clouds, greeting the sunshine and the breeze of the new day.

Finished writing at 23:59 on 31 August 2017.


[1] For if I have truth and righteousness (which some alone is sufficient for happiness or other states of existential adequacy), why do I have to search for more?

宸開四志(五/外篇)恆指令我無朋友 5th Solar Eclipse on the Outside: Hang Seng Index: I am My Only Friend

Featured宸開四志(五/外篇)恆指令我無朋友 5th Solar Eclipse on the Outside: Hang Seng Index: I am My Only Friend

「朋友,你在哪裏?」

有朋友在社交網絡問我到底現居何處,我思前想後,不知該如何回答。因為我身居香港,但我心居他方。然準確一點來說,因為人的身心從來不會分開於人本身;我人仍是居於現世,所以我回覆:「我在這裏。」

阿Troy最近在街上與我碰巧遇上,順路一起走時對我說,從前花痴女友一個換一個的他變了,轉了念,對愛為何物認真了,會珍惜每一段戀情。因此,這次當他被女友甩了手,他很傷心;事後隔天晚上難以再以工作作藉口,逃避不去想他們從前歡樂時光不再,因為想起時眼淚又直掉。聽着聽着他的孤等,我懷疑他是用自己的口說着我內心的感受,於是我沒有聽下去的勇氣,也就別了。

他臨走前用手半指着我,欲言又止,卻沒說什麼便走了。

IMG_2274
Paris, France.

Spencer最近約我吃法國菜,實情是為了向我訴苦──她在我離開香港的八個月內,喝完了她那三百瓶陳年紅酒,耗盡了她那三百口氣去為正義在法庭上辯護;如今她又敗官司了。沒有紅酒作解藥解愁,又沒有紅酒作資本供樓,為法律的公正而奮鬥失敗的她,已經名利雙失,絕處難以逢生了。看着看着她的咖啡,我質疑她是用自己的臉掛着我心鏡內的愁容,於是我沒有看下去的力氣,也就不吃了。

她反問我最近如何的時候,我正用智能手機查閱恆生指數的最新動向,遲疑了一刻才把話接上。

13268199_10206040587645705_225424143808223043_o
Dining with friends in Paris, France.

昇昇表弟和我在他大學的校舍中散步時,他不時往我的背包拉,我看得出他缺少了安全感。我不斷用各種說話技巧探問他,他那篇哲學論文寫畢了沒,他還支吾以對,眼角泛水。看來我向他的同學打聽他何以如此也是徒勞無功,因為沒有一個同學知道他寫論文時的困難。「他們真的是你的朋友嗎?」我心存疑惑。撫着撫着他的孤寂,我害怕他是用自己的身子盛載着我心坎裏的滄寒,於是我沒有安慰下去的動力,也就不語了。

我唯一知道的,是他眼眸之中一組組非人性的恆生指數圖,已經明示了學術界分門別類、量化眾生,那取代生活的破口之間滲出的刺骨微風,是多麼的寒,是如斯的孤。

DSC_0254
Kristianstad, Sweden.

會過昇昇表弟後,我打了通電話給Marco,自己的手機卻響了。

我忘了Marco坐牢後,已把電話轉駁至他姊姊的號碼那裏;獄中不能接電話是常識吧!想着想着,我猛地發現我已經有八個月沒有與他會面了。自從我回港,得知他參與公民抗命而被捕的消息後,我便沒有再打聽他何去何從了。

他是其中一個我如何努力想要記起卻記不起的人。後來我發現,這是因為我自己本心不願記起他之故。縱使如此,既然記起了他,我還是去見一見他比較合理;反正時間不多了,我們又怎會知道下一刻股市泡沫不會旋即爆破,令恆指瞬間跌回原點?

如是者,這種恆指,這種永恆的自我指涉,終於指到我這裏來。我走進探監室最暗的角落,坐下,無力地拉下話筒,直視玻璃窗隔着的另一方。

「你好嗎,Marco?」我問自己。

久不語。

於二零一六年十二月七日寫畢,於二零一七年三月六日修畢。

進階聆聽材料:Alan Walker. (2015). Faded.

此文為此部落格的連載故事《宸開四志》的第五篇作品。前四篇的作品如下:

  1. 宸開四志(一/後篇)海德格的孤等 1st Solar Eclipse at the Back: Heideggerian Wait
  2. 宸開四志(二/左篇)格林喝摩登咖啡 2nd Solar Eclipse on the Left: Greenfeld Drinks Modern Coffee
  3. 宸開四志(三/右篇)百年孤寂閒軼事 3rd Solar Eclipse on the Right: Some Hundred Ordinary Years of Solitude
  4. 宸開四志(四/前篇)沉默不是金色的再見 4th Solar Eclipse at the Front: Silence is not a Golden Farewell

宸開四志(四/前篇)沉默不是金色的再見 4th Solar Eclipse at the Front: Silence is not a Golden Farewell

Featured宸開四志(四/前篇)沉默不是金色的再見 4th Solar Eclipse at the Front: Silence is not a Golden Farewell

有個文學老師説過,寫文章要有真情實感,不能堆砌詞藻,以假亂真。如斯魚目,至少鑑賞慣了珍珠的老練讀者如他,定必一眼看穿。這三個月來,我每晚挑燈夜讀,卻久久也未能執筆,因為我不想再自欺欺人了。

寫了三年同志文學,我還是找不到受保護的感覺,只好計劃到北歐散散心。從前對異性的絶望,如今竟又在他身上窺察到片影。每次在遠離校園的大街,拖着那個正在我身旁駕着車的他,也不由自主地反問自己︰我真的要牽着他發冷的右手,繼續走往後的窄路嗎?我不期望向他取暖,只是不知為何,與兩季前情竇初開之時相比, 今天的我愈來愈介意他手心的溫度。

我雙手抓住後座的椅背頂,雙膝跪在座椅上,目視轉瞬即逝的風景,似乎只有從車窗滲進來的冷空氣能填滿我心坎的空虛。相似者能治療吧。

「你冷嗎?」他一邊問,一邊按下身邊那關上後座車窗的按鈕。我知道他睥睨一切的雙眼還在凝視前方。

我嘆氣,那種孤獨感又趁亂偷偷襲來了。

14712466_10207069288122574_756900120030909927_o
Temppeliaukion Kirkko, Helsinki, Finland.

我還是很喜歡他,和他一起時那純粹的歡愉,溶化了我的深邃的意志。我很想碰觸他那溫熱發紅的內心,因為他無瑕的單純就如他細嫩的單眼皮一樣,素淡無華、純潔動人。可我理清思緒後,就會發現這只是我對他一廂情願的誤解。我,只是他逃避現實、自顧不暇時,其中一個計劃好了的避風塘而已。說到底,我只是同行者的角色。真夠悲慘的了!噢不,到了哥本哈根,同行的旅程應該已經結束了吧。我被愛的需要只是他的重擔、他的負累,而性急的小孩在久候之時,終究按捺不住要吃禁忌的棉花糖。

這個口邊只掛著夢想,卻不願踏上新路途的痴人,注定了只能眺望行車線前方的窄路,只能錯過車窗外、天橋外的大千世界,只能漠視千古以來有可能存在於這星球上的大好風光。真正珍貴的自由,難道只能在小城市小校園的教學工作中找到?

從後車窗回望,橋後的山頂聚集了一群連綿不斷、姹紫嫣紅的雲層,誘惑著嚮往自由的眾生。

14680985_10207069243641462_6258965794800376551_o
Helsinki, Finland.

我恨不得立即脫離這軀殼。

進了隧道,車廂內更覺密不透風,我卻感到胸膛裡有一股冷意直冒上來,不禁全身顫抖。一個平凡的女子渴望得到依靠是平常得很的,不是嗎?但我不須要受他保護,我須要受傷,我須要上帝用孤獨之劍把我內心的虛妄割開,然後注入掏空過後的、那真實的虛無。我曾期望與他一起到丹麥散心,反正我倆相交的時間不多;他要紓解在寒假後回到中學教授文學課的壓力,而我又要在出版社主編再三催稿前,找到靈感寫好下一部長篇同志小説,於是我打算和他離開雛鳥出生之地,飛往未知的烏托邦。

14691960_10207069423605961_2246521372939121095_o
Aarhus, Denmark.

我把這念頭告訴他的那個晚上,他輕輕親吻了我的唇,便沒有再說話。

或許我很自私,或許我太幼稚,今早他送我往機場時,我特意不如常坐在他的旁邊,卻選了後座。天父,照着祢所安排的,我選對了嗎?

希望隧道口刺眼的白光,不會是我和他最終盼望的答案,但他似乎毫不介意前方萬物對過去的吞噬。一個沒有過去的小女孩,果然無懼白狼的獠牙。

只有我聽見人們譴責我們的性取向時那夢囈般的指罵;只有我體會到被父母忍痛拿著藤條追打時那破碎內陷的感覺;只有我看見好友對我們側目而視,然後割席離棄我們時那連續劇般久久不完的片段;只有我不懂真情實感;只有我背起愛的一切罪名。

我感激你幫我演這齣我須要演的劇目,至今仍辛勤地替我搬行李,但我在演出的時候早已戲假情真,最終欺騙了自己。更重要的是,你的鈴我不能掩耳而盜,因為你那雙耳朵十分聰敏,所以我知道這種愛意並非單向,那一吻的衝動就是證據。

你別再一直都沉默不語了,好嗎?

都已來到高潮的一幕了,我們仍要背道而馳、我仍要獨自踏進候機室嗎?我就是要擁着你不放手!當你不在我身邊時,你竟已成為了我腦海裡的一切,我還可以望見前路的方向嗎?我就是要逃避孤獨虛無,遠離世間萬事,使這齣戲得以圓滿、昇華!

然後,我清楚我會後悔。因為這場自我崇拜的舞台劇偏離了原作者的本意。這是常有的錯演,而我亦願意窮一生之力阻止同類情況發生,那麼,我又何以在此時,執著於一剎那的擁抱?

14711125_10207069408765590_4543853782702249779_o
Dublin, Republic of Ireland.

於是,我放開當下的一切,望向他方,縱使其實只有自己一人送機。「再見!」我沒有説掰掰,因為我知道我們會再見,可我們又不會再見。

因為我知道我們會再見,可我們又不會再見。

於二零一六年一月八日凌晨一時三十八分寫畢。

曾以〈前後左右︰當我們望著不同的方向〉為題,刊載於《靈心 • 當我們望著不同的方向》(嶺南大學基督徒團契靈心文字事工小組二零一五至一六年度於一六年三月三十一日出版)。

進階聆聽材料:林部智史。(2017)。晴れた日に、空を見上げて

宸開四志(三/右篇)百年孤寂閒軼事 3rd Solar Eclipse on the Right: Some Hundred Ordinary Years of Solitude

Featured宸開四志(三/右篇)百年孤寂閒軼事 3rd Solar Eclipse on the Right: Some Hundred Ordinary Years of Solitude

我想寫一個好長好長的故事⋯⋯

我想寫一個好長好長的故事,但諷刺的是,我寫字的速度總是趕不及故事發生的速度;我寫字的量度總是記不到感受過擁抱的力度;我寫字的深度總是透不出孤寂中暗戀的溫度。

暗戀一個人很痛苦,因為愛得最毫無保留,因為藏得至天長地久。從機場的咖啡廳步至停車區的這一百年,我躲在永恒的牆後幻想著與他告白一千次,或告別一千次;輪迴著小女孩把自己囚在獄室之中搣那搣不完的花瓣的無限循環。我定必在與自己開一個世紀大玩笑!但可惜,這個玩笑的重量並不是一個玩笑。

14713069_10207091384914980_5728832968094995006_o
Monaco Ville, Monaco.

現在的我一直也在與他說著天氣很好的廢話。其實我壓根兒沒有想繼續說話的衝動,但是犯賤的我總害怕沉默會帶來玩笑的重量,於是我寧願口繼續動,也不要心繼續動。然而,似乎這對抗療法的療效並不理想。因為始終不相似的不會治療。

我們經過一年又一年,一年又一年的同行,卻沒有達成步伐一致;因為在你參考我的步速時,我只顧不斷加快;我們歷過一年又一年,一年又一年的同居,卻沒有習慣承認彼此靈魂同在,因為在我表露真情實感時,你只當我寫的是文學作品;我們做過一年又一年,一年又一年的同儕,卻沒有認識對方真實之面,因為在我們見面的時候,我們都不約而同地不打算打破這百年孤寂。可惜之殆,可憐之時;可憐之至,可恨之始。

我恨自己不敢在往停車區那空無他人的升降機中隨心衝動擁抱你;我也恨你不敢在車旁多問我一句「你需要我和你一起把二十八磅重的玩笑搬起,收進車尾箱嗎?」;我更恨自己早已成功自欺欺人,把入境區左右兩邊的故事一刀二分,因為事實就是我沒有離開過這一百年,正如我命該如此。

車開走了,我夢見我仍然停留在原地,獨享最後的百年孤寂。

14608785_10207091470517120_5919809432157532852_o
Gullfoss, Iceland.

車廂內漸凍的冷氣令孤等百年的人格外心寒。我讀幾多愛情小說也寫不出這種心絞痛的玩笑。就算在北歐已辭去了教授一職,我仍然抵抗不了要親眼看看我百年玩笑的主角的慾望。若果那天他肯與我離開化糞池,遨遊他方,我們便不用返回百年孤寂的第一頁重新輪迴。

我恨不得立即丟掉這本開滿玩笑的爛書。

14681090_10207091389595097_3379970367416615726_o
Monaco Ville, Monaco.

我忽爾明白出發前那晚的一吻,是我夢醒前的童話的最後一章的最後一幕。當我被他搖醒,我便墜進了愛麗絲的百年深淵之中,萬劫不復。人生幾多百年,全軍覆沒。

嚮往看下一個巨輪迅轉的世紀,回顧著上一個天翻地覆的境地,我們會再見,又不會再見。世界若有界,也會是有一世的一界。一世一世界,百年閒軼事何足掛齒?所以一聲巨響,車毀人亡,你我他亦願矣。

之後,我沒有再會他,因為再會的話,就不是之後了。還好,如此逝約,比誓約還好。百年又百年,還好是百年;還好上百年!

就這樣,一百年前救護車的刺耳玩笑聲,在永恒的書頁間,仍然久久未散;這晚我夜讀累了,於是想起八個月後我又會翻開下一章,享受那既濟未濟,最後的百年孤寂。

14753336_10207091333633698_7072968025586087474_o
Aarhus, Denmark.

車開走了,我夢見我仍然停留在原地,獨享最後的百年孤寂。

於二零一六年十月十八日凌晨一時三十七分修畢。

鳴謝:葉朗日弟兄協助文字輸入,在此不勝感激。

宸開四志(二/左篇)格林喝摩登咖啡 2nd Solar Eclipse on the Left: Greenfeld Drinks Modern Coffee

Featured宸開四志(二/左篇)格林喝摩登咖啡 2nd Solar Eclipse on the Left: Greenfeld Drinks Modern Coffee

「叩叩!」

「叩叩!」「叩叩!」我敲了又敲他的心門,但沒有回應。

14692055_10207033215860790_3712039134985707275_o
Bergen, Norway.

我好像已習以為常,又好像不。當我以為我已經看慣了他深啡色襯衣的冷漠色,或許其實我愈看才愈有耐人尋味的新鮮感。你別以為太陽今天必定從西邊升起;你別妄想接機的人真的來了接機;你別幻覺從入境區走出來擁抱你的人真的回來了香港。或許不是敲心門的人敲錯了;或許這裡根本沒有會敲心門的人。

我拿起方桌上的咖啡杯吮了一小口,杯中裝的不是咖啡。「近來可好?」我沒有問。

「也好。」他沒有答,像極社交應用程式中人工智能的回應。

「我好想你。」我真沒有把這空洞的歌名說出口。

童話能謂童話,貴在異於日常;貴在忠於幻想。摩登時代童話不貴,隨處便溺,排泄物終泛濫。我拿起我們的排泄物又吮了一小口。

「謝謝你,肯陪我喝咖啡。我很開心。」沒有道出的是童話。「往後你願意繼續陪我喝咖啡嗎?」他說了等於沒說。

我沒有說「我不愛喝咖啡」,也沒有說我不愛喝咖啡。我看不穿他在想什麼。這個人真難懂。

14715085_10207033081017419_5969283136172688236_o
Café A Brasileira, Lisbon, Portugal.

我借排泄之故離開了咖啡店,在機場一號客運大樓內散散步。

終於回到香港了。昔日送君千里,終須一別;今日仍是送君千里,終須一別,只不過別的,是入境區另一邊的故事而已。我如何畏懼步出入境區,如何害怕打開另一道心門,如何驚惴要翻開的下一本書是摩登的童話,那些感覺至今仍歷歷在目,一提心驚肉顫,再提骨軟筋麻。我沒有想過把那些故事帶離入境區;否則故事變臉,成為事故,比衝口而出的表白更糟糕。寶寶有世界另一端的故事,但寶寶不說既是因為寶寶不想聽自己親手撕去格林童話書頁的聲音,也是因為那些是摩登角色排泄的聲音。

14682205_10207033056736812_1792265765831871995_o
Zürich, Switzerland.

香港就是這樣的一個摩登排泄物團,千百萬人之中,好運的你可碰到兩個臭味相投的自己,霉運的你也可以遇上更多,或是沒有遇上。誰擁好運?誰抱霉運?就要看你喝了幾多杯摩登咖啡;喝得愈多,排泄愈多,如此類推。我因見他凝視餐牌某處良久之故,懷疑他愛喝洛神花茶;但荒謬的咖啡店只供應排泄物咖啡。生於屎,長於屎,愛於屎,死於屎;香港第一永恒真理。

如此這般,我和他便不能邊讀格林童話,邊酌飲洛神花茶。

思末。我欲哭,然無淚。

今趟──

「叩叩!」「叩叩!」我敲了又敲自己的心門,但沒有回應。

14711218_10207033139258875_2314034001192093614_o
Þingvellir, Iceland.

「叩叩!」

於二零一六年十月十二日中午十二時五十九分初修畢,於二零一六年十月十四日下午七時三十七分重修畢。

鳴謝:葉朗日弟兄協助文字輸入,在此不勝感激。