|
《水浒传》被大家评为中国四大名著，也是我在四大名著中，开始看的第三本，看完的第二本。第一本是《西游记》看完的书。第二本开始看的是《三国演义》，但第一次看的时候看到诸葛亮死的时候，就没法看下去了，要到后来才补完。然后是《水浒传》，可能那时候我还太年轻，一开始的体验感就不如前面两本小说，但也是慢慢悠悠的看完了。《红楼梦》是真的看不动，不是看不懂，是看不动。
当然《红楼梦》也非常优秀，只是确实不适合我这种类型的人。而在另外的三部小说，其中又以对《水浒传》的看法反转最多。这里提到了的“反转”是近年比较流行的网络词汇，用在文章，意思往往是对某件事物观点，从一个极端转到另一个极端。也许中庸的表现未必只是走在中间，哪怕是在天枰的两端反复左右横跳，但只要能保持天枰平衡，也算是一种中庸，前提是天枰不能翻倒，不然就铁定死得难看。今年的下元节马上到了，这里就借下元节水德解厄的机会，说说对《水浒传》的这种看法变化。
最早接触《水浒传》的时候还小，并不是看原书，而是山东省那边拍的电视剧。其中我看的是还是高衙内欺负林娘子到林冲发配草料场的那段，当时很不理解林冲为啥如此的委曲求全，远不如鲁智深的潇洒。除了电视剧，在广东佛山广播电台这边，在中午12点和下午6点会广播评书，张悦楷老师也评讲《水浒传》，但广播的《水浒传》小说中已经发展到梁山成型，朝廷派将领围剿的阶段，印象比较深的有钩镰枪破连环马的桥段。由于电视剧和听评书中间跳跃的有点大，所以我曾一度认为这是两本小说。而那时候港台电视剧，电影也很喜欢玩客串，比如邵氏尔冬升版的电影《三少爷的剑》，狄龙的傅红雪，罗列的燕南飞就去客串了一下，还救了尔冬升演的谢晓峰。所以我也理所当然的认为林冲和鲁智深两位也是有情客串的。
真正读原书的是读小学后，会识字的时候。初读的时候，很不习惯这种多主角的故事，可能也是因为当时大片中孤胆英雄，一个人举着大宝剑，从头砍到尾，大团圆结局的设定太过深入我心。读《水浒传》的时候，总是觉得主角就像煎饼一样，刚煎熟热一个，马上有换一个。看完后的感觉真的说不出来，更多只是一些角色感到惋惜，但也远没有到《三国演义》中诸葛丞相死后就看不下去的感觉。除此之外，也对宋江接受朝廷的招安甚为不解，按照《三国演义》前期刘备的观点，宋江的梁山不是应该越经营越强，然后推翻朝廷自己当王吗？所以最初个人对《水浒传》评价很低，把它排在四大名著的末端。要知道，我至今都没有读完《红楼梦》，我把《水浒传》排最后，就是给它打了负分。
1998世界杯开打的时候，我见同学们普遍看好英格兰。我也特意的去翻查了一下英格兰过往的战绩和那时候的球员阵容，真心没感觉到1998年英格兰足球队有多强。后来发现原因是当时香港的一些电视台对英超有转播，大家看英超看多了，对立面的球星理解多了。再加上讲评欧冠时，主持人往往会偏向于英国球队。所以英国球员在当时小球迷的观点中，对比起四大联赛的其它球星会高看一个级别，所以大家高看英国足球队就不止提升一个级别了。而这种印象观，也可以解释《水浒传》中的一百零八位好汉，其真正实力可能是被高估的。梁山好汉确实人才济济，但未必已经到了可以撼动朝廷的水平，而我们读者觉得他们厉害，只是因为我们经常站在他们的一方去看待问题，就像经常看香港足球评说，从而觉得英格兰球员比较厉害一样！毕竟在之前的认知中《水浒传》的故事背景里的朝廷是腐朽的，但相对于一个腐朽的朝廷，只是临时找个战将，临时拼凑些士兵也能多次把水泊梁山逼得十分被动，那么梁山真正的战斗力也许并没有想象中的那么厉害。至少还远不到能撼动朝廷的水平。
所以梁山接受招安也是迫不得已，宋江只是比其它人更相信这一点，所以才会不遗余力的走招安的这条路线。毕竟招安，等同于朝廷在书面上给梁山贼寇洗清了过去，就算朝廷不讲武德，也只是对头领下黑手；对于排名靠后的其他兄弟，朝廷自然不足为虑，当能理解到这里的时候反而觉得宋江真的挺有牺牲精神。当梁山为朝廷征方腊，抗辽国，也牺牲了不少兄弟，很多人为此把矛头指向宋江的招安战略。但换位思考，就算梁山不接受招安，真的去和朝廷对抗，起义夺取政权，哪怕只是占山为王，让朝廷一直征讨，难道就不会有好汉战死吗？最后还是108个好汉共享太平吗？说宋江为了官禄而牺牲兄弟，这显然不符合逻辑。当然一百零八好汉聚义，只是这个群体到了顶峰时期的一个代表时刻。
后来随着阅读和阅历的增加，接触到各种新奇的观点，又对梁山的选择又重新有了解读。从开篇中，就给一百零八个好汉定了出身，他们都是魔星。所以他们在尘世的出场，就都不可能是正常人，必须是要带着“坏人”的标签，这和他们本质坏不坏关系不大。举个简单的例子，如果林冲的故事轨迹，先是禁军教头，然后受到迫害，进而平反报仇，形成闭环。那么林冲的出身定位就不是“坏人”，合不了魔星，是普通人，所以一开始就要给林冲一个“坏人”的身份。这些“好汉”，根本不论出身，有嗜杀成性的市井之人，有当时身有官职编制谦谦君子的人，他们要面临着命运的安排，让他们全部带上“坏人”的标签。
在小说中，这是设定，对于他们来说是既成事实。更因为是古代，皇权往往就是最终的解释，他们被定位成谋逆基本就是古代最重的罪名。是不是有点像基督教说的：“世人皆有罪”。所以他们一百零八个来到这个水浒小说中的世界时就是定为有罪的。
那么这群梁山好汉是如何面对自己的这个处境的？当然他们也呈现人性的一面，比如林冲，鲁智深，宋江等他们一开始也是不接受自己是“坏人”的这个事实，但到他们缓过神来，或者说冷静下来的时候。他们选择的应对方式并不是纠结于自己被强行带上“坏人”这层身份的不公平，而是证明自己即使戴着“坏人”这层身份，也能对社会产生正面的效果，内可安邦，外可护国。同时也通过这些正面的贡献的，来平衡自己“坏人”的出身。而道教的大三元中的水官解厄就隐隐包含了这层意思。
水官是出自《三元妙经》，水官名为下元三品解厄水官洞阴大帝。道家认为，通过一系列的善行和修行，可以积累阴德，从而消解灾难，得到神灵的护佑。例如，修建或修葺寺庙、布施茶水、放生生物、持戒避免杀生等行为，都被视为积累阴德的方式，有助于解厄消灾。此外，道家也会进行一些法事活动，如赦罪解厄法事，以祈求消解灾难和危难。总的来说，道家解厄是一种通过修行和善行来祈求消解灾难、保佑平安的信仰实践。
从这点而言，对于“戴罪之身”，道家的作为就和其它信仰有所不同。有些宗教是通过投靠更高的神祗，来让“戴罪之身”获得赦免；有些信仰是让“戴罪之身”经历完“因罪孽带来的厄运”完成“罪罚”，而得到解脱；只有道家是提出通过自身努力，将功折罪带，让自己因罪孽而得到的厄运得以解除。能理解到这一点，就能理解为啥“招安”是梁山好汉的必然选择，他们选择“招安”并不是好高官厚禄，如果他们好高官厚禄他们直接巴结当权者就行了。他们选择“招安”是要为自己争取展现自身能力和报国意愿的机会。
当然在书中也能看出，并非所有好汉都能到这个觉悟，有些好汉是满足于梁山落草的层面上的。所以他们得不到声名上的救赎，只能在停留在“罪人”的标签里，哪怕他本身未必是“极恶”的“坏人”。比如晁盖，致死标签依然是反贼，说他是好人吧，他维护乡里，仗义行侠确实是好人行为，但打家劫舍，聚众山林也不会太好是好人的作为，你可以说他定位的理由有争议，但结果是肯定的，就是反贼，这是书本上在他死的时候的最后标签。至于梁山招安后发生的事情，那是招安后的事情。
在《左传》中，“人谁无过，过而能改，善莫大焉”。如果过真在自身，这种情况人的思想容易达到平衡，我错了我改，但更绝望的是错并不在自身，而却要面对既成事实的事情。依然有魄力扛起“罪名”，寻求正路，以身行善，从而得正名。这也是为啥说梁山好汉本身就注定了全部都是悲剧而终，但又全非悲剧，因为他们最终为梁山之名求得正道，建功立业。用通俗的话来诠释他们，就是：“身在黑暗，心处光明”。
当然，小说和现实是不同，这也正是小说中才能塑造出就这种浪漫。现实中，这种默认罪行的方式不可取，就算小说中，也是在无其它途径上，好汉们才做这样的选择。而杀人放火等招安的做法更是不通，历史上梁山并无被招安，是真正被朝廷部队打败投降的。
（完）
"Outlaws of the Marsh" is acclaimed as one of China’s Four Great Classic Novels, also marking the third I embarked on and the second I completed within this quartet. The first novel from these classics that I read entirely was "Journey to the West". Next came "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", which, during my initial encounter, I found unable to proceed past the demise of Zhuge Liang, forcing me to postpone its conclusion until much later. Following this, I took up "Outlaws of the Marsh". Perhaps due to my youth at the time, my initial engagement with it didn’t quite match the excitement evoked by the previous two novels, though I eventually finished it at a more relaxed pace. When it comes to "Dream of the Red Chamber", however, there’s a genuine struggle—not due to comprehension issues, but rather an inability to fully immerse myself in it.
Certainly, "Dream of the Red Mansion" is a masterpiece in its own right; it's just not tailored for individuals like myself. Among the three other epics, "Outlaws of the Marsh" has seen the most fluctuation in my perspective. Here, the term “reversal”—a trendy internet buzzword—typically conveys a shift in stance or opinion from one extreme to another regarding any given subject. Perhaps true neutrality isn’t merely about staying in the middle. Even if one oscillates between the extremes of the scale, so long as balance is maintained and the scales don’t tip over—it can still be considered a form of moderation. Provided the scales remain upright, there’s no certain disaster. With Lower Yuan Festival approaching—an occasion symbolizing water’s virtue in resolving misfortunes—I’ll take this opportunity to discuss the transformation in my view towards "Outlaws of the Marsh".
My first brush with "Outlaws of the Marsh" happened when I was quite young, and it wasn’t through the original text, but rather a TV series shot in Shandong province. The scenes I recall vividly feature Gao Yanyan oppressing Lady Lin and Lin Chong’s subsequent assignment to the cattail marsh, which left me puzzled as to why he’d opt for such submissive tolerance compared to Lu Zhishen’s more carefree spirit. Beyond TV, Guangdong Foshan’s radio station broadcasted pingshu (story-telling) by Mr. Zhang Yuekai at noon and 6 PM. His renditions of "Outlaws of the Marsh" mainly covered the Liangshan stronghold’s establishment under siege by imperial armies, with the episode of defeating the linked-horse formation using hook-guns being especially memorable. Due to the significant leap between the TV series and the radio drama, I once believed they were two separate novels. Back then, Hong Kong and Taiwanese TV shows and movies loved crossover appearances. For instance, in the Shaw Brothers' film "The Sword Stained with Royal Blood," directed by Derek Yee, Ti Lung as Fu Hongxue and Lo Lieh as Yan Nanfei made cameo appearances, even rescuing Derek Yee’s portrayal of Xie Xiaofeng. Consequently, I naturally assumed that Lin Chong and Lu Zhishen also made guest appearances in each other’s stories.
Initial engagement with "Outlaws of the Marsh" post-literacy found its multi-character arc jarring, influenced by preference for solo-hero narratives. Post-read, emotions centered on sympathy for characters, unlike despair over Zhuge Liang's demise in "Three Kingdoms." Confusion over Song Jiang's amnesty acceptance contrasted Liu Bei's stance, leading to low rating amongst classics; placed last, akin to negative score, beneath unfinished "Dream of Red Chamber."
During the 1998 World Cup, I noticed that most classmates favored England. Upon reviewing England’s past records and the lineup for that year, I genuinely couldn't perceive the team as overwhelmingly strong. It turned out that the reason lay in the frequent broadcasts of Premier League matches on some Hong Kong television channels. With increased exposure to English football, viewers became more acquainted with British players. Additionally, commentators often showed bias towards English teams during UEFA Champions League coverage. Thus, in the eyes of young fans, English players seemed to be ranked higher than those from the top four leagues’ other clubs, amplifying perceptions of the English national team's prowess beyond just an incremental increase. This perspective similarly illuminates why the 108 heroes in "Outlaws of the Marsh" might have been inaccurately deemed overly powerful. Indeed, Liangshan’s band was brimming with capable individuals, but they likely hadn’t reached a stage where they could shake the foundations of the government. Our perception of their prowess stems largely from consistently siding with them in our analyses, much like viewing Hong Kong football commentary led us to believe that English players were superior! After all, within the context established by "Outlaws of the Marsh," the imperial court is portrayed as decrepit. Yet, compared to such a deteriorating regime, simply appointing temporary generals and hastily gathering troops could repeatedly force Liangshan into desperate straits. This suggests that Liangshan’s real fighting capacity might not have been as formidable as imagined. At least, it fell significantly short of the ability to challenge the very stability of the court.
Hence, Liangshan’s submission to amnesty was driven by sheer necessity, with Song Jiang merely holding a firmer belief in its inevitability, thus driving him to unceasingly pursue this path of reconciliation. After all, amnesty equated to the court officially absolving Liangshan’s outlaws of their past transgressions. Even should the court lack chivalry, its actions would presumably be confined to targeting the leaders; for the lower-ranked members, the threat from the court would be negligible. Arriving at this understanding might lead one to recognize the genuine spirit of sacrifice exemplified by Song Jiang. When Liangshan fought for the court against Fang La and resisted the Liao invaders, it did result in the loss of many brothers, leading some to blame Song Jiang’s strategy of seeking amnesty. But consider this: Had Liangshan not accepted amnesty and instead chosen to oppose the court directly, launching an uprising to seize power—or simply becoming mountain kings—would the heroes not still have perished in battles? Would the final outcome really have been 108 heroes sharing peace and prosperity? Accusing Song Jiang of sacrificing brothers for personal gain does not hold logical ground. Of course, the assembly of the 108 heroes represents a pinnacle period for the group, a defining moment when their camaraderie was at its zenith.
As my reading and life experiences expanded, encountering a myriad of novel perspectives, I gained new insights into Liangshan's choices. From the outset, the narrative establishes the origins of the 108 heroes as demonic stars, rendering them inherently otherworldly beings right from their entrance into the human realm. Their characterization as “bad guys” is less about their intrinsic nature than it is about fulfilling their predestined roles, irrespective of whether they are genuinely evil or not. Take Lin Chong as a simple example. If his story arc had progressed smoothly from being a military instructor, then facing persecution, followed by vindication and revenge, forming a neat circle, Lin Chong’s character would not have been positioned as a "bad guy", incompatible with the role of a demon star. He would have been an ordinary person. Thus, from the start, Lin Chong must carry the identity of a "bad guy". These "heroes" come from all walks of life, including those who enjoy killing and those who were once virtuous officials. Regardless of their backgrounds, they are destined by fate to bear the label of "bad guys."
Within the novel, this is the established premise—a fait accompli for them. Especially given the ancient setting, where imperial authority often held the ultimate say, being labeled as rebels amounted to the gravest accusation possible in that era. It bears a resemblance to the Christian concept of "all men are sinners." Hence, upon entering the world of Water Margin, they were predetermined to be sinful beings.
How do these Liangshan heroes confront their predicament? Naturally, they exhibit their humanity, such as Lin Chong, Lu Zhishen, and Song Jiang initially resisting the fact of being branded as "bad guys." Yet, when they regain composure or come to terms with reality, their response isn’t to dwell on the injustice of being forcibly tagged as "bad," but rather to prove that even with this label, they can produce positive outcomes for society. Internally, they contribute to state stability; externally, they protect the nation. They seek to counterbalance their "bad guy" origin through such positive contributions. This resonates subtly with the Daoist concept of the Water Official relieving distress—their actions implicitly embody this notion.
The Water Official originates from the "Three Yuan Scripture," known as the Lower Triad Three Grades of the Disaster-Relieving Water Official Great Emperor of the Cavernous Yin. In Daoism, through a series of good deeds and cultivation, one can accumulate yin virtue, thereby dissipating misfortune and receiving divine protection. Acts like constructing or repairing temples, distributing tea, releasing living creatures, and abstaining from killing are considered methods of accumulating yin virtue, which aid in disaster relief. Additionally, Daoists conduct rituals such as the Forgiveness and Disaster Relief Ceremony to pray for the alleviation of calamities and perils. Overall, the Daoist practice of disaster relief involves seeking to dissolve disasters and ensure safety through spiritual cultivation and acts of kindness.
Regarding the handling of those marked by sin, Daoism distinguishes itself from other faiths. Certain religions advocate finding solace in a supreme deity, allowing the 'sin-burdened' to attain pardon; others propose enduring the adversity brought forth by one’s own sins as part of an atonement process leading to deliverance. Uniquely, Daoism suggests self-effort as the means to reconcile wrongdoing. Through personal endeavor, one can offset sins and alleviate the misfortunes stemming from their transgressions, striving to lift the miseries inflicted by sinfulness onto oneself. Gaining insight into this perspective elucidates why "recruitment and pacification" was an inevitable choice for the Liangshan outlaws. Their decision for "recruitment and pacification" wasn't driven by a craving for high office and wealth—if that were the case, they could have simply sought favor with the authorities. Instead, they chose this path to secure opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and express their desire to serve the country. This choice reflects their ambition to validate their worth and potential contribution to society beyond their stigmatized status, aligning with the Daoist belief in self-redemption through positive action.
Take Chao Gai, for instance—his label until death was that of a rebel. Yes, he protected his village and acted justly, which are indeed good deeds, but raiding homes and gathering a band in the mountains doesn’t exactly portray him as a saint. One might argue about the validity of labeling him, yet the undeniable fact is that he was labeled as a rebel—a term that stuck with him till his last breath. It’s a clear testament to the complexities of defining morality and the lasting impact of one’s actions, regardless of later changes in circumstances such as the amnesty extended to Liangshan post-recruitment.
In "The Zuo Zhuan," it states, " Everyone is prone to making mistakes, but acknowledging one's errors and making amends constitutes a significant act of goodness." When the mistake truly lies within oneself, it's relatively easier for the mind to find balance: I erred, so I shall correct it. Far more despairing, however, is facing a fait accompli where the error isn’t one’s own doing. Yet, having the courage to shoulder a wrongful stigma and seek rectitude, committing righteous acts, eventually leads to vindication. This explains why the Liangshan outlaws were predestined for tragic endings, and yet not entirely so, because collectively, they pursued righteousness for Liangshan's name, establishing merit and legacy. In simpler terms, they embodied the phrase: "Being in darkness, yet holding the light within."
Of course, fiction deviates from reality, allowing for such romanticized constructs within narratives. In real life, accepting criminal labels unjustly would be unadvisable. Even in novels, such choices by the heroes occur only when no other options remain. Methods like murder and arson followed by seeking amnesty are misguided; historically, Liangshan wasn’t actually granted amnesty—it surrendered after being defeated by imperial forces. This distinction highlights how literary liberties can diverge significantly from historical facts.
（End) | 
发表于 2024-11-9 15:46:16
收藏
分享
淘帖
发表于 2024-11-10 08:11:25
发表于 2024-11-10 20:08:51
发表于 2024-11-10 22:00:54
读了，就行。90年代再读红楼梦是读了刘心武写的编注。00年代是读了周汝昌写的编注，对照读。唉，毕竟功力差，无法理解的透彻。
楼主
