血腥的榮耀

    4.是 否

對朋友來說，他是個好人。

對敵人來說，他是個壞人。

今天他可能是好。

明天可能會糟。

對擁護者，他是個英雄。

對批評者，是個狗熊。

他自己以為是個偉人，

別人卻不這麼承認。

一個人不能單由其朋友相評，

也不能單由其敵人相判。

有一位公平的評判者高居天庭，

或許那是自然的法理與法典。

人生也不能單以昨日為評，

同樣也不能只以今日為斷。

或許歷史能有其公平的評論，

但是史學家也常會爭論不斷。

一個人不能全由自己人相捧，

也不能任由外人相貶。

實際上是自己在捧自己，

也是自己把自己貶。

任何人都可以憑自己爬上高位，

卻不可以由自己豎起高像。

你的真正地位及形象，

是在上天及人民的心間。

你無法以詐術或是武力，

來改變別人的印象與觀念。

我們怎麼能相信，竟會有人，

在其親蜜的朋友心間都是壞蛋！

他只有在那些真假傻瓜面前

才不是混蛋。

今天他會稱他們是忠心的同志，親蜜的戰友，

明天他會把他們的身首打穿，

或是把喉嚨割斷！

如果你是他的同志或是戰友，

你將怎麼樣去保護你的胸背、咽喉、和項上頭？

如果你是個法官或是史學家，

你將如何去分析、或是評判，這麼一個大魔頭？

或許在此人的字典中沒有〝友人〞這個字詞，

對他來說所有的人都是敵人、僕人、或愚人；

因此他理應殺害他們以確保其利益，

或是驅弄、戲弄他們以尋開心。

但是為甚麼那些倖存的「愚僕、佞臣、及弄臣，」

仍舊捧著他的招牌、牌位，當真神？

難道他那臭皮囊，還會給他們能力與權力，

繼續去殺害、迫害、並愚弄人民？

英文原詩附後

並請批評指正

      Gory Glory

      4. So or Not So

He is good to his friends,

but bad to his foes.

Today he is good,

bad tomorrow.

To his adherents he is a hero.

To his opponents he is a rogue.

To himself, he is very great.

But to others, surely is not so.

So one cannot be judged only by one’s friends,

nor judged solely by one’s foes.

There is a fair judge on high, in heaven.

Perhaps it’s actually by the natural laws and codes.

So one can’t be weighed at present,

nor even be weighed tomorrow;

maybe eventually, though,

even historians have different views.

One should neither be praised merely by one’s own people,

nor blamed entirely by people not one’s own.

Really he praises himself.

Truly the blame is his own.

Yes, one can really raise himself to a high status.

But, one cannot actually raise to himself some high statues.

There is your real status, right image, in both heaven and humans’ hearts.

You can neither foxily, nor forcibly, cheat their minds, change their views.

Can you imagine a man

is not good even to his close friends?

He is good only to those real or unreal fools!

Today he may call them: intimate comrades, faithful followers.

Tomorrow he’ll shoot their heads and hearts, or cut their throats!

Suppose you are his comrades or followers,

how would you protect your heads, hearts and throats?

Suppose you are a judge or a historian,

how could you analyze and criticize such a soul?

Perhaps in this man’s dictionary,

there is no such word as “friend”.

To him, people are all fools, tools, or foes.

So he should murder them, to protect his benefits,

spur them as bondservants, make fun of them as buffoons.

But why should those leftover “fools, tools, buffoons” still venerate him,

worship his corpse as a figure of -- all and forever powerful?

Do you think, do they think, he can leave them his power and privilege,

continue to kill, peel and fool -- all kinds of people?