THE URGENCY OF CHANGEBy Jiddu Krishnamurti《转变的紧迫性》J.克里希那穆提Sue 译THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'AWARENESS'《转变的紧迫性》之“觉察”Questioner: I should like to know what you mean by awareness because you have often said that awareness is really what your teaching is about. I've tried to understand it by listening to your talks and reading your books, but I don't seem to get very far. I know it is not a practice, and I understand why you so emphatically repudiate any kind of practice, drill, system, discipline or routine. I see the importance of that, for otherwise it becomes mechanical, and at the end of it the mind has become dull and stupid. I should like, if I may, to explore with you to the very end this question of what it means to be aware. You seem to give some extra, deeper meaning to this word, and yet it seems to me that we are aware of what's going on all the time. When I'm angry I know it, when I'm sad I know it and when I'm happy I know it.发问者：我想知道你说的觉察是什么意思，因为你经常说，觉察是你的教诲真正的核心。我曾尝试通过听你的演讲和读你的书，来理解这点，但是我似乎并没有走多远。我知道这不是一种练习，而且我也明白你为什么如此强调否定任何形式的练习、训练、体系、戒律以及例行程序。我看到了这一点的重要性，因为否则事情就会变得机械，最后心智就变得迟钝和愚蠢。如果可以的话，我想和你探讨一下，觉察到底意味着什么，并把这个问题深究到底。你似乎赋予了这个词某种特别的深刻的含义，但是对我来说，我们似乎一直都能觉察到发生着什么事情。我生气的时候我知道，伤心的时候我知道，开心的时候我也知道。Krishnamurti: I wonder if we really are aware of anger, sadness, happiness? Or are we aware of these things only when they are all over? Let us begin as though we know nothing about it at all and start from scratch. Let us not make any assertions, dogmatic or subtle, but let us explore this question which, if one really went into it very deeply, would reveal an extraordinary state that the mind had probably never touched, a dimension not touched by superficial awareness. Let us start from the superficial and work through. We see with our eyes, we perceive with our senses the things about us - the colour of the flower, the humming bird over the flower the light of this Californian sun, the thousand sounds of different qualities and subtleties, the depth and the height, the shadow of the tree and the tree itself. We feel in the same way our own bodies, which are the instruments of these different kinds of superficial, sensory perceptions. If these perceptions remained at the superficial level there would be no confusion at all. That flower, that pansy, that rose, are there, and that's all there is to it. There is no preference, no comparison, no like and dislike, only the thing before us without any psychological involvement. Is all this superficial sensory perception or awareness quite clear? It can be expanded to the stars, to the depth of the seas, and to the ultimate frontiers of scientific observation, using all the instruments of modern technology.克：我想知道，我们是否真的觉察到了愤怒、悲伤和快乐？还是我们在它们都结束了的时候才觉察到这些事情？让我们这样开始，就好像关于觉察我们一无所知，从头开始。我们不要做任何武断或者巧妙的断言，而是一起来探讨这个问题，如果你真的愿意非常深入地探索的话，那这个问题将揭示一种心智也许从未触及的非凡状态，一种肤浅的觉知从未触及的境界。我们先从浅层的觉知出发，一路走下去。我们用我们的眼睛看，我们用感官来感知我们周围的东西——花的颜色，花上飞着的蜂鸟，加州的阳光，有着不同质地和细微之处以及不同深度和高度的千万种天籁之音，树影以及树的本身。从我们自己的身体我们也能有相同的感觉，身体是这些不同的各种浅层感官觉知的工具。如果这些觉知保持在浅层，那么就完全不会产生困扰。那朵花，那朵紫罗兰，那朵玫瑰，就在那儿，对它们来说，仅此而已。没有偏好，没有比较，没有喜欢或不喜欢，只有我们面前的那样东西，而不涉及任何心理活动。所有这些浅层的感官觉知或者说觉察都清楚了吗？通过所有的现代科技仪器，这种觉知可以扩展到繁星，扩展到深海，扩展到科学观测的最前沿。Questioner: Yes, I think I understand that.发问者：是的，我想我明白这点。Krishnamurti: So you see that the rose and all the universe and the people in it, your own wife if you have one, the stars, the seas, the mountains, the microbes, the atoms, the neutrons, this room, the door, really are there. Now, the next step; what you think about these things, or what you feel about them, is your psychological response to them. And this we call thought or emotion. So the superficial awareness is a very simple matter: the door is there. But the description of the door is not the door, and when you get emotionally involved in the description you don't see the door. This description might be a word or a scientific treatise or a strong emotional response; none of these is the door itself. This is very important to understand right from the beginning. If we don't understand this we shall get more and more confused. The description is never the described. Though we are describing something even now, and we have to, the thing we are describing is not our description of it, so please bear this in mind right through our talk. Never confuse the word with the thing it describes. The word is never the real, and we are easily carried away when we come to the next stage of awareness where it becomes personal and we get emotional through the word.克：于是我们看到了那朵玫瑰，整个宇宙和其中的人们，你自己的妻子，如果你有的话，星星，大海，山脉，微生物，原子，中子，这间屋子，门，它们都真实地存在着。现在，开始下一步；你对这些东西有什么想法，或者对它们有什么感觉，这是你对它们的心理反应。而我们把这叫做思想或者感情。所以说，浅层的觉知是非常简单的事情：门在那儿。但是，对门的描述不是那门本身，当你将情感注入那描述时，你就看不到那门了。这描述可以是一句话，或者一篇科学论文，或者一种强烈的情感反应；这些都不是那门本身。从一开始就要清楚这点，这非常重要。如果我们不清楚这点，我们就会越来越困惑。描述从来都不是所描述之物。尽管我们现在也是在进行描述，我们不得不这么做，但是我们所描述的事情，并不是对它的描述，所以在我们的谈话中请务必把这一点牢记心中。永远不要把语言和语言所描述之物混为一谈。语言从来都不是那真实的东西本身，而我们却很容易被语言带走，尤其是当我们下一步要谈到觉察的时候，我们很容易把觉察变得个人化，透过这个词我们变得情绪化。So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there is the response to that, which is thought, feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, we might call it a second depth of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to the rose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. In reality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speak of the outer and inner awareness. When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the "me" in relationship and the "non-me". This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the "me" of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. Are you very clear that you perceive this? When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the "me" and the "non-me", the "me" who is different from the thing observed. This "me" is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of "me" and "non-me", both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.那么有了对树、鸟和门的浅层觉知，然后对它们产生反应，也就是思想、感觉和情感。现在，当我们觉察到这些反应，我们可以把它称为第二深度的觉察。有对那玫瑰的觉察，还觉察到对玫瑰的反应。我们经常觉察不到对玫瑰的反应。实际上看到反应的觉察和看到玫瑰的觉察是同一个觉察。这是同一个运动，觉察有内外之别的说法是错误的。当对树产生视觉感知而没有涉及心理活动时，这里的关系就没有分裂。但是当对树产生心理反应时，那反应就是局限的反应，那反应来源于过去的记忆、过去的经验，这反应就变成关系中的分裂。在这反应中，就诞生了我们关系中所谓的“我”和“非我”。你就是如此把自己置入与世界的关系中的。这就是你如何制造出了个体和团体。世界再也不是如实地被看到，而是，与记忆组成的“我”形成了各种关系，从这关系中去看这个世界。这种分裂，就变成了生活，滋养壮大了我们称为心理存在的各种事情，从这里就产生了所有的矛盾和分别。你很清楚你已经看到这点了吗？当对那棵树有觉察的时候，是没有评判的。但是如果对那棵树有了心理反应，当那棵树被判定为喜欢还是不喜欢，那么在这觉察中就发生了分裂，分成了“我”和“非我”，“我”不同于所观之物。这个“我”就是关系中来自过去的记忆和经验的反应。现在，能不能觉察、观察那棵树，而不带有任何评判？能不能不带有任何评判地观察那反应和回应？这样我们就消除了分裂的根源，“我”和“非我”的根源，观察那棵树的同时也观察我们自己。Questioner: I'm trying to follow you. Let's see if I have got it right. There is an awareness of the tree, that I understand. There is a psychological response to the tree, that I understand also. The psychological response is made up of past memories and past experiences, it is like and dislike, it is the division into the tree and the "me". Yes, I think I understand all that.发问者：我正努力跟上你。我们来看看我是不是理解对了。有对树的觉察，这点我理解。然后产生了对树的心理反应，这点我也理解。心理反应来源于过去的记忆和过去的经验，是喜欢和不喜欢，这就产生了树和“我”之间的分裂。是的，我想我都懂了。Krishnamurti: Is this as clear as the tree itself, or is it simply the clarity of description? Remember, as we have already said, the described is not the description. What have you got, the thing or its description?克：这点就像那树本身一样清楚呢，还是只是描述的很清楚？请记得，正如我们已经说过的，被描述之物并非描述。你明白的是什么，是事情本身还是对它的描述？Questioner: I think it is the thing.发问者：我想是事情本身。Krishnamurti: Therefore there is no "me" who is the description in the seeing of this fact. In the seeing of any fact there is no "me". There is either the "me" or the seeing, there can't be both. "Me" is non-seeing. The "me" cannot see, cannot be aware.克：那么就没有了那个看到这个事实并对它进行描述的“我”。看到任何事实时，都没有“我”。要么有“我”，要么有觉察，不可能两者同时都在。“我”就是无觉察。“我”无法看清，也无法觉察。Questioner: May I stop here? I think I've got the feeling of it, but I must let it sink in. May I come again tomorrow?发问者：到这里我能停一下吗？我想我对此有所感觉，但是我必须完全领会吸收这一点。我可以明天再来吗？* * *Questioner: I think I have really understood, non-verbally, what you said yesterday. There is the awareness of the tree, there is the conditioned response to the tree, and this conditioned response is conflict, it is the action of memory and past experiences, it is like and dislike, it is prejudice. I also understand that this response of prejudice is the birth of what we call the "me" or the censor. I see clearly that the "me", the "I", exists in all relationships. Now is there an "I" outside of relationships?发问者：我想我真的已经理解了，从非语言层面上理解了你昨天说的话。有对树的觉知，有对树的局限的反应，这局限的反应就是冲突，是出自过去的记忆和经验的行为，比如喜欢和不喜欢，这是偏见。我也明白了，这偏见的反应催生了我们所谓的“我”或者审查官。我清楚地看到，“我”，“自我”，存在于所有的关系中。那么，有没有一个“我”存在于关系之外？Krishnamurti: We have seen how heavily conditioned our responses are. When you ask if there is a "me" outside of relationship, it becomes a speculative question as long as there is no freedom from these conditioned responses. Do you see that? So our first question is not whether there is a "me" or not outside of conditioned responses, but rather, can the mind, in which is included all our feelings, be free of this conditioning, which is the past? The past is the "me". There is no "me" in the present. As long as the mind is operating in the past there is the "me", and the mind is this past, the mind is this "me".克：我们已经看清我们的反应是多么严重地受限了。当你问有没有一个“我”存在于关系之外，只要没办法从这些局限的反应中解脱，那么它就变成了一个思想性的问题。你看到这点了吗？所以我们首要的问题，不是有没有那样一个“我”，在局限的反应之外，而应该是，包含了我们所有感情的心智能否从这过去的局限中解脱出来？过去就是“我”。活在现在这一刻就不会有“我”的存在。只要心智还在过去中运作，就会有“我”，而心智就是这过去，心智就是这个“我”。You can't say there is the mind and there is the past, whether it is the past of a few days ago or of ten thousand years ago. So we are asking: can the mind free itself from yesterday? Now there are several things involved, aren't there? First of all there is a superficial awareness. Then there is the awareness of the conditioned response. Then there is the realization that the mind is the past, the mind is this conditioned response. Then there is the question whether this mind can free itself of the past. And all this is one unitary action of awareness because in this there are no conclusions. When we say the mind is the past, this realization is not a verbal conclusion but an actual perception of fact. The French have a word for such a perception of a fact, they call it "constatation". When we ask whether the mind can be free of the past is this question being asked by the censor, the "me", who is that very past?你不能说，心智是存在着的，过去是存在的着的，不管是几天前的过去，还是一万年前的过去。所以我们要问：心智能把自己从昨天解脱出来吗？现在这里涉及到几件事情，是不是？首先，有浅层的觉知。然后是对局限的反应的觉察。然后是意识到心智就是过去，心智就是这局限的反应。然后问题是，心智能否把自己从过去中解脱出来。这一切都是一个整体的觉察行动，因为其中没有结论。当我们说心智就是过去，这种认识不是一个文字结论，而是对事实真实的觉知。法语里有个词表达这样一种对事实的觉知，他们把它叫做“证实”。当我们问，心智能否从过去中解脱，那么这个问题是不是那个审查官，那个正是过去的“我”提出来的？Questioner: Can the mind be free of the past.发问者：心智能否从过去中解脱出来。Krishnamurti: Who is putting that question? Is it the entity who is the result of a great many conflicts, memories and experiences - is it he who is asking - or does this question arise of itself, out of the perception of the fact? If it is the observer who is putting the question, then he is trying to escape from the fact of himself, because, he says, I have lived so long in pain, in trouble, in sorrow, I should like to go beyond this constant struggle. If he asks the question from that motive his answer will be a taking refuge in some escape. One either turns away from a fact or one faces it. And the word and the symbol are a turning away from it. In fact, just to ask this question at all is already an act of escape, is it not? Let us be aware whether this question is or is not an act of escape. If it is, it is noise. If there is no observer, then there is silence, a complete negation of the whole past.克：是谁在问这个问题？是作为许多冲突、记忆和经验的结果的那个存在体——是他在问吗？还是这个问题是它自己从对过去的觉察中产生的？如果是那个观察者在提出这个问题，那么他只是在试图从自己的事实中逃脱，因为，他说，我已经在痛苦中，在困境中，在悲伤中生活了这么久，我想要超越这不停的挣扎。如果他是从这个动机问的这个问题，那么他的答案就会是在某种逃避中寻求庇护。他要么转身逃开事实，要么面对它。而语言和符号就是一种转身逃避。事实上，仅仅提出这个问题本身就已经是一种逃避行为了，不是吗？让我们来弄清楚这个问题是不是一种逃避行为。如果是逃避，那它就是一种噪音。如果没有观察者，那么就会有寂静，就会有对整个过去的全然否定。Questioner: Here I am lost. How can I wipe away the past in a few seconds?发问者：在这里我迷失了。我要怎样在几秒钟内抹掉过去？Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussing awareness. We are talking over together this question of awareness.克：我们讨论的是觉察，让我们把这点记在心中。我们在一起讨论觉察这个问题。There is the tree, and the conditioned response to the tree, which is the "me" in relationship, the "me" who is the very centre of conflict. Now is it this "me" who is asking the question? - this "me" who, as we have said, is the very structure of the past? If the question is not asked from the structure of the past, if the question is not asked by the "me", then there is no structure of the past. When the structure is asking the question it is operating in relationship to the fact of itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape from itself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is not acting in relationship to itself. To recapitulate: there is the tree, there is the word, the response to the tree, which is the censor, or the "me", which comes from the past; and then there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the "me" is asking this question it is perpetuating itself.有树，以及对树局限的反应，也就是关系中的“我”，而“我”就是冲突的最核心。那么，是这个“我”在问这个问题吗？——我们说过，这个“我”就是过去构造出来的。如果这个问题不是从过去的构造中问出的，如果问题不是“我”问出的，那么就没有了过去的构造。当那构造在问出这个问题时，它就是在和它本身这个事实的关系中运作，它把自己吓坏了，想要采取行动逃开自己。当那构造不再问出这个问题时，它就没有在和自己的关系中运作。再重申一下：有树，有语言，有对树的反应，也就是来自于过去的审查官，或者“我”；然后就有了这个问题：我能从这一切混乱和痛苦中逃脱吗？如果是这个“我”在问这个问题，那它就是在无休止地延续自己。Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. It does not ask the question at all because it sees the trap. Now do you see that all this awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree.现在，觉察到这点，它就不会再问那个问题了！觉察，看到其中的所有涵义，就不会再问这个问题了。它根本不会问这个问题，因为它看到了其中的陷阱。现在你是不是看到了所有这些觉察都是浅层的？它就和看到树的觉察是一样的。Questioner: Is there any other kind of awareness? Is there any other dimension to awareness?发问者：有没有其他类型的觉察？觉察有没有其他的境界？Krishnamurti: Again let's be careful, let's be very clear that we are not asking this question with any motive. If there is a motive we are back in the trap of conditioned response. When the observer is wholly silent, not made silent, there is surely a different quality of awareness coming into being.克：我们又得小心点，我们得非常清楚我们并不是出于任何动机来问这个问题。如果有动机，我们就又落入局限的反应这个陷阱里去了。当观察者完全安静的时候，不是制造出的安静，那就必然会有一种不同品质的觉察产生。Questioner: What action could there possibly be in any circumstances without the observer - what question or what action?发问者：没有观察者的情况下，会有怎样的行动产生——怎样的问题或者行动？Krishnamurti: Again, are you asking this question from this side of the river, or is it from the other bank? If you are on the other bank, you will not ask this question; if you are on that bank, your action will be from that bank. So there is an awareness of this bank, with all its structure, its nature and all its traps, and to try to escape from the trap is to fall into another trap. And what deadly monotony there is in all that! Awareness has shown us the nature of the trap, and therefore there is the negation of all traps; so the mind is now empty. It is empty of the "me" and of the trap. This mind has a different quality, a different dimension of awareness. This awareness is not aware that it is aware.克：再问你一次，你是从河的此岸问出这个问题，还是从彼岸问的？如果你在彼岸，你不会问这个问题；如果你在彼岸，你就会从彼岸行动。所以对此岸有一种觉察，连同此岸的一切结构，它的本质，它所有的陷阱，而试图逃离陷阱就会落入另一个陷阱。这一切都是多么致命地无聊乏味啊！觉察已经展示给我们那陷阱的本质，进而把所有陷阱都否定掉；所以心智现在是清空的。清掉了“我”和那陷阱。这心智就具有了一种不同的品质，一种不同境界的觉察。这种觉察并不知道它在觉察。Questioner: My God, this is too difficult. You are saying things that seem true, that sound true, but I'm not there yet. Can you put it differently? Can you push me out of my trap?发问者：我的天，这太难了。你说的话似乎是真的，听起来是真的，但是我还没到那里。你能换个说法吗？你能把我从我的陷阱里拉出来吗？Krishnamurti: Nobody can push you out of your trap - no guru, no drug, no mantra, nobody, including myself - nobody, especially myself. All that you have to do is to be aware from the beginning to the end, not become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is attention, and in this attention there is no frontier made by the "me". This attention is the highest form of virtue, therefore it is love. It is supreme intelligence, and there cannot be attention if you are not sensitive to the structure and the nature of these man-made traps.克：没人能把你从你的陷阱里拉出来——没有上师，没有药物，没有曼陀罗，没人，包括我自己——没人，特别是我自己。所有你能做的就是从始至终都在觉察，不在中途变得漫不经心。这种崭新品质的觉察就是全神贯注，在这全神贯注中，没有“我”制造的疆域。这种全神贯注是最高形式的美德，所以就是爱。它是至高无上的智慧，如果你对这些人造陷阱的结构和本质不敏感的话，全神贯注就不可能出现。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'IS THERE A GOD?'《转变的紧迫性》之“有神吗？”Questioner: I really would like to know if there is a god. If there isn't life has no meaning. Not knowing god, man has invented him in a thousand beliefs and images. The division and the fear bred by all these beliefs have divided him from his fellow men. To escape the pain and the mischief of this division he creates yet more beliefs, and the mounting misery and confusion have engulfed him. Not knowing, we believe. Can I know god? I've asked this question of many saints both in India and here and they've all emphasized belief. "Believe and then you will know; without belief you can never know." What do you think?发问者：我真的想知道是不是有神。如果没有，那生命就没有意义。因为不知道神，人类就发明了关于神的千万种信仰和形象。所有这些信仰滋生的分别和恐惧，把他和他的伙伴们分离了。为逃避这种分离的痛苦和不幸，他就制造了更多的信仰，而不断增加的苦难和困惑把他吞没了。因为不了解，所以我们才会相信。我们能知道神吗？这个问题我曾经问过很多圣人，印度的和这儿的，他们都强调信仰。“相信，然后你就会知道；没有信仰，你永远不会知道。”你怎么看？Krishnamurti: Is belief necessary to find out? To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word?克：是不是需要去发现信仰是什么？了解要远比知道重要。对信仰的了解就是信仰的终结。当心智从信仰中解脱出来，它就能观察了。互相纠结的，是信仰，或者不信仰；因为不信仰和信仰是一回事：它们都是同一个硬币的正反两面。所以我们可以把肯定或否定的信仰完全放在一边；信仰者与不信仰者都是一样的。如果真的做到了这点，那么“有神吗？”这个问题就有了完全不同的意义。神这个词，连同这个词所包含的所有传统，记忆，以及智识上的和感情上的内涵——这一切都不是神。词语并非真实之物。那么心智能摆脱这个词吗？Questioner: I don't know what that means.发问者：我不知道那句话是什么意思。Krishnamurti: The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought.克：那个词是想要找到那绝对真理的传统、希冀和渴望，是对那终极之物的追求，是赋予其自身存在以生命力的一种活动。所以那个词本身变成了那终极之物，但是你能看出那个词并非所指之物。心智就是那个词，而那个词就是思想。Questioner: And you're asking me to strip myself of the word? How can I do that? The word is the past; it is memory. The wife is the word, and the house is the word. In the beginning was the word. Also the word is the means of communication, identification. Your name is not you, and yet without your name I can't ask about you. And you're asking me if the mind can be free of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its own activity?发问者：而你是在让我自己把那个词摆脱掉？我怎么才能做到这点？词语是过去；是记忆。妻子是个词，房子是个词。开始的时候只是个词而已。而且词语也是沟通、确认的方式。你的名字不是你，但是如果没有你的名字，我就不能问起你。你在问我，心智能否摆脱词语——也就是，心智能否摆脱它自身的行为？Krishnamurti: In the case of the tree the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement. Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference. The theologian does it in one way, the intellectual in another, and the believer and the non-believer in their own different ways. Hope generates this belief, and then seeking. This hope is the outcome of despair - the despair of all we see around us in the world. From despair hope is born, they also are two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope there is hell, and this fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. Then illusion begins. So the word has led us to illusion and not to god at all. God is the illusion which we worship; and the non-believer creates the illusion of another god which he worships - the State, or some utopia, or some book which he thinks contains all truth. So we are asking you whether you can be free of the word with its illusion.克：拿我们眼前的树这个物体来举个例子，全世界公认“树”这个词指的就是树。而用神这个词，它所指的东西空无一物，所以每个人就对这个无所依据的东西创造出他自己的形象来。神学家用一种方式创造出形象，知识分子用另一种方式，信仰者和不信仰者用他们各自不同的方式。希望催生了这些信仰，然后就开始追寻。这希望是绝望的结果——这种绝望我们在世界上在我们周围都能看见。从绝望中诞生了希望，它们也是同一个硬币的两面。如果没有希望就是地狱，这种对地狱的恐惧就给我们的希望赋予了生命力。然后幻想就开始了。所以语言将我们导向幻象，而根本不是引向神。神是我们崇拜的幻象；而不信仰者创造出别的神的幻象来崇拜——国家，或者某种乌托邦，或者他们认为包含着所有真理的某本书。所以我们在问，你能否从词语及其幻象中解脱出来。Questioner: I must meditate on this.发问者：我必须得好好想想这点。Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?克：如果没有幻象，那剩下的是什么？Questioner: Only what is.发问者：只有实际状况。Krishnamurti: The "what is" is the most holy.克：“实际状况”才是最神圣的。Questioner: If the "what is" is the most holy then war is most holy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then we must not speak of any change at all. If "what is" is sacred, then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, "Don't touch me, what I'm doing is sacred".发问者：如果“实际状况”是最神圣的，那么战争就是最神圣的，还有仇恨，失序，痛苦，贪婪和掠夺。那么我们就根本不能谈论任何改变了。如果“实际状况”是神圣的，那么每个杀人犯和掠夺者以及剥削者都会说，“别碰我，我做的事情是神圣的。”Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.克：正是简简单单的那句话，“‘实际状况’是最神圣的”，导致了巨大的误解，因为我们没有看到它揭示的真相。如果你明白实际状况是神圣的，那么你就不会谋杀，你就不会发动战争，你就不会希望，你就不会剥削。要是做了这些事情，你就不能声称对你所违背的真理享有豁免权。如果白人对黑人暴动者说，“实际状况是神圣的，不要干涉，不要焚烧”，那他就没有看到这一点，因为如果他明白这点，那么对他来说，黑人就是神圣不可侵犯的，那么就没必要去焚烧了。所以，如果我们每个人都看到了这个真相，就必然会有改变。看到这个真相本身，就是改变。Questioner: I came here to find out if there is god, and you have completely confused me.发问者：我来这是为了弄清是不是有神，而你把我完全弄糊涂了。Krishnamurti: You came to ask if there is god. We said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the observer who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.克：你来这问是否有神。我们说：词语导致我们崇拜幻象，为了这个幻象我们愿意摧毁彼此。如果没有幻象，“实际状况”就是最神圣的。现在让我们来看看实际状况究竟如何。在某个特定的时刻，“实际状况”也许是恐惧，或者完全的绝望，或者飞逝的快乐。这些东西在不停地变化。同时又有个观察者说，“我周围的这些东西都在变，而我保持恒定”。这是事实吗，这是实际的状况吗？在他自己之上加加减减，修修补补，调整自己，想变成或者不变成，他不是也在变吗？所以观察者和被观察者都在不停地变化。实际状况就是变化。这是个事实。这就是实际状况。Questioner: Then is love changeable? If everything is a movement of change, isn't love also part of that movement? And if love is changeable, then I can love one woman today and sleep with another tomorrow.发问者：那么爱是可变的吗？如果所有东西都是变化的运动，难道爱不也是那变动的一部分吗？如果爱是可变的，那么我就能今天爱上一个女人，明天又和另一个女人上床。Krishnamurti: Is that love? Or are you saying that love is different from its expression? Or are you giving to expression greater importance than to love, and therefore making a contradiction and a conflict. Can love ever be caught in the wheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love is hate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.克：那是爱吗？还是你是说，爱与它的表现是不同的？还是你在赋予表现形式比赋予爱更大的重要性？因而就制造了矛盾和冲突。爱能被困在改变的车轮里吗？如果是如此，那么它就也能变成恨；那么爱就是恨了。只有没有幻象了，“实际状况”才是最神圣的。如果没有幻象，“实际状况”就是神或者你能使用的任何其他名字。所以，神，或者不管你管它叫什么名字，只有当你不在的时候，才存在。如果有你，它就不在。没有了你，就有了爱。有你，就没有爱。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'FEAR'《转变的紧迫性》之“恐惧”Questioner: I used to take drugs but now I am free of them. Why am I so frightened of everything? I wake up in the mornings paralysed with fear. I can hardly move out of bed. I'm frightened of going outside, and I'm frightened of being inside. Suddenly as I drive along this fear comes upon me, and I spend a whole day sweating, nervous, apprehensive, and at the end of the day I'm completely exhausted. Sometimes, though very rarely, in the company of a few intimate friends or at the house of my parents, I lose this fear; I feel quiet, happy, completely relaxed. As I came along in my car today, I was frightened of coming to see you, but as I came up the drive and walked to the door I suddenly lost this fear, and now as I sit here in this nice quiet room I feel so happy that I wonder what I was ever frightened about. Now I have no fear. I can smile and truthfully say: I'm very glad to see you! But I can't stay here for ever, and I know that when I leave here the cloud of fear will engulf me again. That is what I'm faced with. I've been to ever so many psychiatrists and analysts, here and abroad, but they merely delve into my memories of childhood - and I'm fed up with it because the fear hasn't gone at all.发问者：我曾经嗑药，但是现在我摆脱了它们。为什么我对所有事情都是那么恐惧？早上醒来的时候，我恐惧得动弹不得。我几乎下不了床。我害怕出去，也害怕待在屋里。在我开车的时候，这种恐惧会突然袭来，然后我一整天都冒汗，紧张，害怕，在一天结束的时候，我精疲力竭。有时候，尽管很少，在几个密友的陪伴下，或者在我父母的家里，我没有这种恐惧；我感觉安宁，快乐，完全放松。在我今天驾车开往这里的路上，我害怕来见你，但是当我来到这条大道走到门口的时候，我突然不恐惧了，当我现在坐在这个漂亮安静的屋子里的时候，我觉得太开心了，以致于我不知道我究竟怕什么。现在我没有恐惧。我能微笑，真心地说：见到你非常高兴！但是我不能永远都待在这儿，我知道当我离开的时候，恐惧的乌云会再次吞噬我。这就是我正面对的。我见过太多的精神科医生和分析师，这儿的和国外的，但是他们仅仅是一头扎入我童年的记忆——而我受够了这些，因为恐惧根本就没有消失。Krishnamurti: Let's forget childhood memories and all that nonsense, and come to the present. Here you are, and you say you are not frightened now; you're happy for the moment and can hardly imagine the fear you were in. Why have you no fear now? Is it the quiet, clear, well-proportioned room, furnished with good taste, and this sense of welcoming warmth which you feel? Is that why you are not frightened now?克：让我们忘了儿时记忆和所有那些无稽之谈，来到现在吧。你在这儿，你说现在不害怕；这会儿你很开心，几乎想象不出你曾身处其中的恐惧。你现在为什么没有恐惧？是不是因为这间安静的，整洁的，比例匀称的，装饰得很有品位的屋子，以及你感受到的这种怡人的温暖感觉？是这些让你现在不害怕吗？Questioner: That's part of it. Also perhaps it is you. I heard you talk in Switzerland, and I've heard you here, and I feel a kind of deep friendship for you. But I don't want to depend on nice houses, welcoming atmospheres and good friends in order not to be afraid. When I go to my parents I have this same feeling of warmth. But it is deadly at home; all families are deadly with their little enclosed activities, their quarrels, and the vulgarity of all that loud talk about nothing, and their hypocrisy. I'm fed up with it all. And yet, when I go to them and there is this certain warmth, I do feel, for a while, free of this fear. The psychiatrists can't tell me what my fear is about. They call it a "floating fear". It's a black, bottomless, ghastly pit. I've spent a great deal of money and time on being analysed and it really hasn't helped at all. So what am I to do?发问者：这是一部分原因吧。也可能是因为你。我听过你在瑞士的讲话，也听过你在这里的讲话，我感到对你有一种深深的友爱。但是我不想依靠漂亮的房子，怡人的气氛和好朋友才能不害怕。当我去我父母那儿时，我同样感觉到温暖。但是回家就很恐怖；所有家庭都很恐怖，因为它们琐碎而封闭的活动，它们的争吵，因为微不足道的事情而引发的所有那些粗俗的大声喧哗，以及它们的虚伪。我受够了这一切。但是，当我去见他们的时候，有这么一种温暖感，我确实能感觉到，有那么一会我从这恐惧中解脱了。精神科医生无法告诉我我因为什么而恐惧。他们管它叫做“浮动恐惧”。这是个黑黑的，无底的，可怕的陷阱。我花了大量的金钱和时间做分析，但是并没有任何帮助。那我该怎么办？Krishnamurti: Is it that being sensitive you need a certain shelter, a certain security, and not being able to find it, you are frightened of the ugly world? Are you sensitive?克：是不是因为你太敏感所以需要某种庇护，某种安全感，但是遍寻不获，所以就对这个丑陋的世界满怀恐惧？你敏感吗？Questioner: Yes, I think so. Perhaps not in the way you mean, but I am sensitive. I don't like the noise, the bustle, the vulgarity of this modern existence and the way they throw sex at you everywhere you go today, and the whole business of fighting your way to some beastly little position. I am really frightened of all this - not that I can't fight and get a position for myself, but it makes me sick with fear.发问者：是的，我想是的。也许不是你说的那个意思，但我是敏感的。我不喜欢噪音，喧闹，不喜欢这个现代世界的粗俗，现在不管你去哪儿到处都会碰到性，还有苦苦争斗只是为了得到某个极其卑微的职位，我不喜欢这整件事情。我真的害怕这一切——不是因为我自己不能奋斗无法为自己谋得一个职位，而是这让我恐惧而厌恶。Krishnamurti: Most people who are sensitive need a quiet shelter and a warm friendly atmosphere. Either they create it for themselves or depend on others who can give it to them - the family, the wife, the husband, the friend. Have you got such a friend?克：敏感的人大多都需要一个安静的庇护和一种温暖友好的气氛。不管他们是为自己创造这些出来，还是依靠别人给他们——家庭，妻子，丈夫，朋友。你有这样一个朋友吗？Questioner: No. I'm frightened of having such a friend. I'm frightened of being dependent on him.发问者：没有。我害怕有这样一个朋友。我害怕依赖他。Krishnamurti: So there is this issue: being sensitive, demanding a certain shelter, and depending on others to give you that shelter. There is sensitivity, and dependence; the two often go together. And to depend on another is to fear losing him. So you depend more and more, and then the fear increases in proportion to your dependence. It is a vicious circle. Have you enquired why you depend? We depend on the postman, on physical comfort and so on; that's quite simple. We depend on people and things for our physical well-being and survival; it is quite natural and normal. We have to depend on what we may call the organizational side of society. But we also depend psychologically, and this dependence, though comforting, breeds fear. Why do we depend psychologically?克：那么就有这个问题：敏感，需要某种庇护，依赖别人给你那种庇护。有敏感，有依赖；这两者通常是如影随形的。而依靠别人就害怕会失去他。所以你就越来越依赖，然后恐惧随着你的依赖而增强。这是个恶性循环。你是否探询过你为什么依赖？我们依赖邮差，依赖身体上的舒适，等等；这非常简单。我们因为身体上的安康和生存而依赖人们和东西；这很自然，很正常。我们还依赖社会上我们称为组织的那一面。但是我们在心理上也依赖，这种依赖，虽然令人很欣慰，但是滋生了恐惧。我们为什么在心理上会依赖？Questioner: You're talking to me about dependence now, but I came here to discuss fear.发问者：你现在跟我讨论依赖，可我来这儿是为了探讨恐惧的。Krishnamurti: Let's examine them both because they are interrelated as we shall see. Do you mind if we discuss them both? We were talking about dependence. What is dependence? Why does one psychologically depend on another? Isn't dependence the denial of freedom? Take away the house, the husband, the children, the possessions - what is a man if all these are removed? In himself he is insufficient, empty, lost. So out of this emptiness, of which he is afraid, he depends on property, on people and beliefs. You may be so sure of all the things you depend on that you can't imagine ever losing them - the love of your family, and the comfort. Yet fear continues. So we must be clear that any form of psychological dependence must inevitably breed fear, though the things you depend on may seem almost indestructible. Fear arises out of this inner insufficiency, poverty and emptiness. So now, do you see, we have three issues - sensitivity, dependence and fear? The three are interrelated. Take sensitivity: the more sensitive you are (unless you understand how to remain sensitive without dependence, how to be vulnerable without agony), the more you depend. Then take dependence: the more you depend, the more there is disgust and the demand to be free. This demand for freedom encourages fear, for this demand is a reaction, not freedom from dependence.克：让我们来一起检视，因为它们两个是互相关联的，我们将会看到这点。你介不介意我们把两个问题一同探讨？我们在讨论依赖。什么是依赖？一个人为什么在心理上会依赖另一个人？难道依赖不是否定了自由吗？把房子，丈夫，孩子，拥有的东西都拿走——如果这一切都拿走了，那一个人是什么？他自身无法自足，空虚，迷失。那么，他害怕这种空虚，因为这种空虚，他依赖财产，依赖人们和信仰。你也许对所有这些你依赖的东西太确信了，你从来无法想象失去它们——你家庭的爱，和舒适。但是，恐惧持续着。所以我们必须清楚任何形式的心理依赖必然会滋生恐惧，尽管你依赖的东西可能看起来几乎坚不可摧。恐惧来源于这种内在的不足，贫乏和空虚。那么现在，你是否看到，我们有三件事情——敏感，依赖和恐惧？这三者是互相关联的。拿敏感来说：你越敏感（除非你了解如何不依赖就能保持敏感，如何不痛苦就能保持敏感），你就越依赖。然后再说依赖：你越依赖，反感就越严重，就越想要自由。这种对自由的渴望会增强恐惧，因为这种渴望是一种反应，而不是从依赖中解脱。Questioner: Are you dependent on anything?发问者：你依赖任何东西吗？Krishnamurti: Of course I'm dependent physically on food, clothes and shelter, but psychologically, inwardly, I'm not dependent on anything - not on gods, not on social morality, not on belief, not on people. But it is irrelevant whether or not I am dependent. So, to continue: fear is the awareness of our inner emptiness, loneliness and poverty, and of not being able to do anything about it. We are concerned only with this fear which breeds dependence, and which is again increased by dependence. If we understand fear we also understand dependence. So to understand fear there must be sensitivity to discover, to understand how it comes into being. If one is at all sensitive one becomes conscious of one's own extraordinary emptiness - a bottomless pit which cannot be filled by the vulgar entertainment of drugs nor by the entertainment of the churches, nor the amusements of society: nothing can ever fill it. Knowing this the fear increases. This drives you to depend, and this dependence makes you more and more insensitive. And knowing this is so, you are frightened of it. So our question now is: how is one to go beyond this emptiness, this loneliness - not how is one to be self-sufficient, not how is one to camouflage this emptiness permanently?克：当然身体上我依赖食物，衣服和住所，但是心理上，内在地，我不依赖任何东西——不依赖神，不依赖社会道德，不依赖信仰，不依赖人们。但是我是不是依赖，这不重要。那我们继续：恐惧是知道我们内在的空虚，孤独和贫乏，对此我们无能为力。我们只关心滋生依赖的这种恐惧，这种恐惧又随着依赖增强。如果我们懂得了恐惧，我们就也能懂得依赖。而要懂得恐惧，就必须敏感地去发现，去了解它是怎么形成的。如果一个人真的敏感，他就能发觉自己那巨大的空虚——一个无底洞，无法用粗俗的药物消遣填满，也无法用教会的娱乐或者社会的消遣满足：没东西能填满它。知道这一点，恐惧就增强了。这驱使你去依赖，这种依赖让你越来越敏感。知道这些就是现实，你会害怕。所以现在我们的问题是：一个人要怎样超越这种空虚，这种孤独？——不是一个人要如何变得自满，不是一个人要如何永远地掩饰这种空虚。Questioner: Why do you say it is not a question of becoming self-sufficient?发问者：你为什么说这不是一个如何变得自满的问题？Krishnamurti: Because if you are self-sufficient you are no longer sensitive; you become smug and callous, indifferent and enclosed. To be without dependence, to go beyond dependence, doesn't mean to become self-sufficient. Can the mind face and live with this emptiness, and not escape in any direction?克：因为如果你自满就不会再敏感了；你变得沾沾自喜而麻木，冷漠而封闭。没有依赖，超越依赖，并不意味着变得自满。心智能不能面对并与这种空虚共处，而不向任何方向逃避？Questioner: It would drive me mad to think I had to live with it for ever.发问者：想想我得永远与它共处，会让我发疯的。Krishnamurti: Any movement away from this emptiness is an escape. And this flight away from something, away from "what is," is fear. Fear is flight away from something. What is is not the fear; it is the flight which is the fear, and this will drive you mad, not the emptiness itself. So what is this emptiness, this loneliness? How does it come about? Surely it comes through comparison and measurement, doesn't it? I compare myself with the saint, the master, the great musician, the man who knows, the man who has arrived. In this comparison I find myself wanting and insufficient: I have no talent, I am inferior, I have not "realised; I am not, and that man is. So out of measurement and comparison comes the enormous cavity of emptiness and nothingness. And the flight from this cavity is fear. And the fear stops us from understanding this bottomless pit. It is a neurosis which feeds upon itself. And again, this measurement, this comparison, is the very essence of dependence. So we are back again at dependence, a vicious circle.克：任何离开这种空虚的行为都是一种逃避。这种从某事中逃离，从“实际状况”中逃离的行为，是恐惧。恐惧是逃离某事。实际状况不是恐惧；逃离才是恐惧，这会让你发疯，而不是空虚本身。所以，这种空虚，这种孤独是什么？它是怎么产生的？显然，它来自比较和衡量，不是吗？我拿自己和圣人，和大师，和伟大的音乐家比较，和知道的人，和达成了的人比较。在这种比较中，我发现自己想要得到，我不满足：我没有天分，我差劲，我没有“实现”；我不是，而那个人是。那么从衡量和比较，就产生了空虚和一无是处的巨大空洞。从这空洞逃离，就是恐惧。而恐惧阻止了我们对这无底洞的了解。这是一种自给自足的神经官能症。而这种衡量，这种比较，再次成为依赖的核心。所以我们又回到了依赖，一个恶性循环。Questioner: We have come a long way in this discussion and things are clearer. There is dependence; is it possible not to depend? Yes, I think it is possible. Then we have the fear; is it possible not to run away from emptiness at all, which means, not to escape through fear? Yes, I think it is possible. That means we are left with the emptiness. Is it possible then to face this emptiness since we have stopped running away from it through fear? Yes, I think it is possible. Is it possible finally, not to measure, not to compare? For if we have come this far, and I think we have, only this emptiness remains, and one sees that this emptiness is the outcome of comparison. And one sees that dependence and fear are the outcome of this emptiness. So there is comparison, emptiness, fear, dependence. Can I really live a life without comparison, without measurement?发问者：通过这次讨论我们已经走了很远，事情也清晰些了。有依赖的问题；可能不依赖吗？是的，我想是可能的。然后我们讨论了恐惧；到底有没有可能完全不从空虚中逃离，也就是，不通过恐惧来逃避？是的，我想是可能的。那就意味着我们就剩空虚了。那么是不是有可能面对这空虚？因为我们已经不再通过恐惧逃离这空虚了。是的，我想是可能的。那么最后，是不是有可能不衡量，不比较？因为如果我们走到这一步了，我想我们确实到了，那就只剩这空虚了，而且也看到了这空虚是比较的结果。也看到了依赖和恐惧是这空虚的结果。所以谈到的有比较，空虚，恐惧，和依赖。我能过一种没有比较，没有衡量的生活吗？Krishnamurti: Of course you have to measure to put a carpet on the floor!克：当然你得衡量才能把地毯铺在地板上！Questioner: Yes. I mean can I live without psychological comparison?发问者：是的。我是说我能在心理上不比较地生活吗？Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to live without psychological comparison when all your life you have been conditioned to compare - at school, at games, at the university and in the office? Everything is comparison. To live without comparison! Do you know what it means? It means no dependence, no self-sufficiency, no seeking, no asking; therefore it means to love. Love has no comparison, and so love has no fear. Love is not aware of itself as love, for the word is not the thing.克：当你的整个生命——在学校里，在游戏中，在大学里，在办公室里都被局限于比较，那你知道心理上不比较地生活是什么意思吗？每件事情都比较。不比较地生活！你知道那意味着什么吗？那意味着没有依赖，没有自满，没有追寻，没有要求；因而那就意味着爱。爱没有比较，所以爱没有恐惧。爱不知道自己是爱，因为词语并非所指之物。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'HOW TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD'《转变的紧迫性》之“怎样活在这个世界上”Questioner: Please, sir, could you tell me how I am to live in this world? I don't want to be part of it yet I have to live in it, I have to have a house and earn my own living. And my neighbours are of this world; my children play with theirs, and so one becomes a part of this ugly mess, whether one wants to or not. I want to find out how to live in this world without escaping from it, without going into a monastery or around the world in a sailing boat. I want to educate my children differently, but first I want to know how to live surrounded by so much violence, greed, hypocrisy, competition and brutality.发问者：请问，先生，你能否告诉我该怎样活在这个世界上？我不想成为它的一部分，但是我还得生活在其中，我得有栋房子，养活我自己。而我的邻居是这个世界的一部分；我的孩子和他们的孩子一起玩，这样一个人就变成了这个乱糟糟丑陋世界的一部分，不管他想不想如此。我想发现如何生活在这个世界上，不从中逃避，不躲到寺院里去，也不坐一艘帆船去环游世界。我想以不同的方式来教育孩子，但是首先我想知道，在如此之多的暴力、贪婪、虚伪、竞争和残酷的包围之中，要如何生活。Krishnamurti: Don't let's make a problem of it. When anything becomes a problem we are caught in the solution of it, and then the problem becomes a cage, a barrier to further exploration and understanding. So don't let us reduce all life to a vast and complex problem. If the question is put in order to overcome the society in which we live, or to find a substitute for that society, or to try to escape from it though living in it, it must inevitably lead to a contradictory and hypocritical life. This question also implies, doesn't it, the complete denial of ideology? If you are really enquiring you cannot start with a conclusion, and all ideologies are a conclusion. So we must begin by finding out what you mean by living.克：让我们不要把它变成一个问题。如果任何事情变成了问题，我们就困在对它的解决之道中了，那个问题就会变成一个牢笼，变成了对更深入的探索和了解的一个障碍。所以让我们不要把所有生活降减为一个复杂庞大的问题。如果提出问题是为了战胜我们生活于其中的社会，或者为了找到这个社会的某种替代品，或者尽管生活于其中却试图从中逃避，那它就不可避免地会导致一种矛盾的虚伪的生活。这个问题也意味着，对思想观念的完全否定，难道不是吗？如果你真的在探询，那么你就不能从一个结论开始，所有的思想观念都是一种结论。所以我们必须从发现你所说的活着意味着什么开始。Questioner: Please, sir, let's go step by step.发问者：先生，请让我们一步步来。Krishnamurti: I am very glad that we can go into this step by step, patiently, with an enquiring mind and heart. Now what do you mean by living?克：我很高兴我们能一步步耐心地深入这个问题，用一颗探询的头脑和心灵。那么你说的活着是什么意思？Questioner: I've never tried to put it into words. I'm bewildered, I don't know what to do, how to live. I've lost faith in everything - religions, philosophies and political utopias. There is war between individuals and between nations. In this permissive society everything is allowed - killing, riots, the cynical oppression of one country by another, and nobody does anything about it because interference might mean world war. I am faced with all this and I don't know what to do; I don't know how to live at all. I don't want to live in the midst of such confusion.发问者：我从未试过要把它付诸语言。我很迷惑，我不知道该怎么办，怎么生活。我对所有事情都失去了信心——宗教，哲学和政治乌托邦。个人之间和国家之间都有战争。在这个悲观的社会里，所有事情都是允许的——杀戮，暴乱，一个国家被另一个国家毫不留情地压迫着，没有人对此做点什么，因为干涉也许就意味着世界大战。我不想生活在如此的困惑当中。Krishnamurti: What is it you are asking for - a different life, or for a new life which comes about with the understanding of the old life? If you want to live a different life without understanding what has brought about this confusion, you will always be in contradiction, in conflict, in confusion. And that of course is not a new life at all. So are you asking for a new life or for a modified continuity of the old one, or to understand the old one?克：你想要的是什么——一种不同以往的生活，还是伴随着对以往生活的了解而来的一种全新生活？如果你想未经了解以往就过上一种不同的生活，它已经带来了这些困惑，那么你将始终处于矛盾中，冲突中，困惑中。当然那根本不是一种新生活。所以，你是想要一种新生活呢，还是想要以往生活经过改良后的某种延续，还是去了解以前的生活方式？Questioner: I'm not at all sure what I want but I am beginning to see what I don't want.发问者：我不确定我想要什么，但是我开始看到我不想要什么。Krishnamurti: Is what you don't want based on your free understanding or on your pleasure and pain? Are you judging out of your revolt, or do you see the causation of this conflict and misery, and, because you see it, reject it?克：你不想要的东西，是基于你自由的了解，还是基于你的欢愉和痛苦？你的评判是出于你的反抗，还是你看清了这冲突和苦难的根源，因为你看清了它，就抛弃了它？Questioner: You're asking me too many things. All I know is that I want to live a different kind of life. I don't know what it means; I don't know why I'm seeking it; and, as I said, I'm utterly bewildered by it all.发问者：你问我太多事情了。我所有知道的只是我想过一种不同的生活。我不知道那是什么意思；我不知道我为什么追求它；而且，正如我所说，为此我极其困惑。Krishnamurti: Your basic question is, isn't it, how are you to live in this world? Before you find out let us first see what this world is. The world is not only all that surrounds us, it is also our relationship to all these things and people, to ourselves, to ideas. That is, our relationship to property, to people, to concepts - in fact our relationship to the stream of events which we call life. This is the world. We see division into nationalities, into religious, economic, political, social and ethnical groups; the whole world is broken up and is as fragmented outwardly as its human beings are inwardly. In fact, this outer fragmentation is the manifestation of the human being's inner division.克：你基本的问题是，你该怎样活在这个世界上，不是吗？在你找出答案之前，让我们先看看这个世界是什么。世界不只是我们周围的一切，它也是我们与所有这些事情和人们的关系，与我们自己、与想法的关系。也就是，我们与财产，与人们，与概念的关系——实际上是我们与我们称为生活的一连串事件的关系。这就是世界。我们看到世界划分成了民族，划分成了宗教的、经济的、政治的、社会的和种族的团体；整个世界破碎不堪，人类的内在和外在一样支离破碎。事实上，这种外在的支离破碎正是人类内在分裂的表现。Questioner: Yes, I see this fragmentation very clearly, and I am also beginning to see that the human being is responsible.发问者：是的，我非常清楚地看到这种破碎，我也正开始看到人类是有责任的。Krishnamurti:You are the human being!克：你就是人类！Questioner: Then can I live differently from what I am myself? I'm suddenly realizing that if I am to live in a totally different way there must be a new birth in me, a new mind and heart, new eyes. And I realize also that this hasn't happened. I live the way I am, and the way I am has made life as it is. But where does one go from there?发问者：那么我能以不同于我自己现在的方式生活吗？我突然意识到，如果我要过一种完全不同的生活方式，我就必须新生，重生一颗新的头脑和心灵，一双新的眼睛。我也意识到这还没有发生。我以现有的方式生活着，我现有的生活方式把生活变成了现在这个样子。但是一个人要从这里走向哪里？Krishnamurti: You don't go anywhere from there! There is no going anywhere. The going, or the searching for the ideal, for what we think is better, gives us a feeling that we are progressing, that we are moving towards a better world. But this movement is no movement at all because the end has been projected out of our misery, confusion, greed and envy. So this end, which is supposed to be the opposite of what is, is really the same as what is, it is engendered by what is. Therefore it creates the conflict between what is and what should be. This is where our basic confusion and conflict arises. The end is not over there, not on the other side of the wall; the beginning and the end are here.克：从这儿你哪也不去！没有什么地方可去。去向，或者追寻理想，追求我们认为更好的，给我们一种感觉，好像我们正在进步，我们正在朝着一个更好的世界前进。但是这种运动根本不是运动，因为那终点是由我们的苦难、困惑、贪婪和嫉妒投射出来的。所以这个终点，本以为是与现实状况相反的，实际上和现实状况是一样的，它正是由现实状况产生的。因此，就在实际状况和应当如何之间制造了冲突。这就是我们的困惑和冲突根本的发源地。终点并不在那边，并不在墙的另一边；起点和终点都在这儿。Questioner: Wait a minute, sir, please; I don't understand this at all. Are you telling me that the ideal of what should be is the result of not understanding what is? Are you telling me that what should be is what is, and that this movement from what is to what should be isn't really a movement at all?发问者：请等一下，先生；我根本不明白这点。你是不是在告诉我，理想中的应当如何就是不了解现实状况的结果？你是不是在告诉我，应当如何就是现实状况，从现实状况向应当如何行进的这种运动，根本就不是真的运动？Krishnamurti: It is an idea; it is fiction. If you understand what is, what need is there for what should be?克：那是个想法；是虚构的。如果你了解了现实状况，还有什么必要有应当如何？Questioner: Is that so? I understand what is. I understand the bestiality of war, the horror of killing, and because I understand it I have this ideal of not killing. The ideal is born out of my understanding of what is, therefore it is not an escape.发问者：是这样吗？我了解实际状况。我了解战争的残忍，杀戮的恐怖，因为我了解这些，所以我有了不杀生的理想。这个理想诞生于我对现实状况的了解，所以这不是一种逃避。Krishnamurti: If you understand that killing is terrible do you have to have an ideal in order not to kill? Perhaps we are not clear about the word understanding. When we say we understand something, in that is implied, isn't it, that we have learnt all it has to say? We have explored it and discovered the truth or the falseness of it. This implies also, doesn't it, that this understanding is not an intellectual affair, but that one has felt it deeply in one's heart? There is understanding only when the mind and the heart are in perfect harmony. Then one says "I have understood this, and finished with it", and it no longer has the vitality to breed further conflict. Do we both give the same meaning to that word understand?克：如果你了解了杀戮是可怕的，你还要有个不去杀生的理想吗？也许我们还没弄清了解这个词的意思。当我们说我们了解了某事，这难道不就意味着，我们已经学到了它要说的一切？我们已经探索过了，发现了它的真实或者它的谬误。这也意味着，这种了解不是一件智识上的事情，而是一个人在他的内心深处深切地体会到了，不是吗？只有当头脑和心灵处于完美的和谐中时，才有这种了解。然后一个人说“我了解了这点，结束了它”，它再也不会有进一步滋生冲突的能力了。我们是不是都给了解这个词赋予了相同的含义？Questioner: I hadn't before, but now I see that what you are saying is true. Yet I honestly don't understand, in that way, the total disorder of the world, which, as you so rightly pointed out, is my own disorder. How can I understand it? How can I completely learn about the disorder, the entire disorder and confusion of the world, and of myself?发问者：我以前没有看到，但是现在我看到你所说的是真实的。然而诚实地说，我并没有以那种方式了解到整个世界的失序，正如你确切指出的那样，那失序就是我自己的失序。我怎样才能了解这点？我要怎样才能完全了解失序，世界的和我自己的彻底失序和困惑？Krishnamurti: Do not use the word how, please.克：请不要用怎样这个词。Questioner: Why not?发问者：为什么不能用？Krishnamurti: The how implies that somebody is going to give you a method, a recipe, which, if you practise it, will bring about understanding. Can understanding ever come about through a method? Understanding means love and the sanity of the mind. And love cannot be practised or taught. The sanity of the mind can only come about when there is clear perception, seeing things as they are unemotionally, not sentimentally. Neither of these two things can be taught by another, nor by a system invented by yourself or by another.克：怎样这个词意味着某人要给你一个方法，一个诀窍，如果你练习它，会带来了解。了解难道能够通过方法得来吗？了解意味着爱和心智的清明健全。而爱无法被练习或者教授。只有清晰地觉知，不感情用事不多愁善感地如实看清事情本身，心智的清明健全才能发生。这两件事都无法被别人教授，也不能经由你自己或者别人发明的体系传授。Questioner: You are too persuasive, sir, or is it perhaps that you are too logical? Are you trying to influence me to see things as you see them?发问者：你太有说服力了，先生，还是也许你太擅长逻辑了？你是在试图影响我让我像你那样看待事情吗？Krishnamurti: God forbid! Influence in any form is destructive of love. Propaganda to make the mind sensitive, alert, will only make it dull and insensitive. So we are in no way trying to influence you or persuade you, or make you depend. We are only pointing out, exploring together. And to explore together you must be free, both of me and of your own prejudices and fears. Otherwise you go round and round in circles. So we must go back to our original question: how am I to live in this world? To live in this world we must deny the world. By that we mean: deny the ideal, the war, the fragmentation, the competition, the envy and so on. We don't mean deny the world as a schoolboy revolts against his parents. We mean deny it because we understand it. This understanding is negation.克：但愿不是如此！任何形式的影响都破坏了爱。想让心智变得敏感、警觉的宣传活动，只会将其变得迟钝和不敏感。所以我们根本不是在试图影响你或者说服你，或者让你依赖。我们只是指出来，一起探索。而要一起探索，你必须从我和你自己的偏见和恐惧中解脱出来。否则你只是在来回兜圈子。所以我们必须回到我们最初的问题：我要怎样活在这个世界上？要活在这个世界上我们必须否定这个世界。这意味着：否定理想、战争、支离破碎、竞争、嫉妒，等等。我们说否定这个世界的意思，不是像男学生那样叛逆他的父母。我们的意思是因为我们了解了它所以否定它。这种了解就是否定。Questioner: I am out of my depth.发问者：这超出了我能理解的深度。Krishnamurti: You said you do not want to live in the confusion, the dishonesty and ugliness of this world. So you deny it. But from what background do you deny it, why do you deny it? Do you deny it because you want to live a peaceful life, a life of complete security and enclosure, or do you deny it because you see what it actually is?克：你说你不想生活在这个困惑、不诚实和丑陋的世界中。所以你否定它。但你是从什么背景来否定它的，你为什么要否定它？你否定它，是不是因为你想过和平的生活，一种彻底安全和封闭的生活，还是因为你如实看清了它所以你才否定它的？Questioner: I think I deny it because I see around me what is taking place. Of course my prejudices and fear are all involved. So it is a mixture of what is actually taking place and my own anxiety.发问者：我想我否定它是因为我看到了周围发生着的事情。当然，其中都涉及到了我的偏见和恐惧。所以这是掺杂了实际发生的事情和我自己的焦虑的一种混合物。Krishnamurti: Which predominates, your own anxiety or the actual seeing of what is around you? If fear predominates, then you can't see what is actually going on around you, because fear is darkness, and in darkness you can see absolutely nothing. If you realize that, then you can see the world actually as it is, then you can see yourself actually as you are. Because you are the world, and the world is you; they are not two separate entities.克：哪个占主导地位，是你自己的焦虑，还是真实地看到了你周围的一切？如果恐惧占主导，那么你就不能看清你周围实际上发生着什么，因为恐惧是黑暗，在黑暗中你根本什么都看不见。如果你意识到了这一点，那么你就能如实地看清这个世界了，那么你就能如实地看清你自己了。因为你就是世界，世界就是你；他们不是两个分开的实体。Questioner: Would you please explain more fully what you mean by the world is me and I am the world?发问者：你能不能更充分地解释一下，你说的世界就是我和我就是世界是什么意思？Krishnamurti: Does this really need explaining? Do you want me to describe in detail what you are and show you that it is the same as what the world is? Will this description convince you that you are the world? Will you be convinced by a logical, sequential explanation showing you the cause and the effect? If you are convinced by careful description, will that give you understanding? Will it make you feel that you are the world, make you feel responsible for the world? It seems so clear that our human greed, envy, aggression and violence have brought about the society in which we live, a legalized acceptance of what we are. I think this is really sufficiently clear and let's not spend any more time on this issue. You see, we don't feel this, we don't love, therefore there is this division between me and the world.克：这真的需要解释吗？你是想让我详细描述你是什么，并且指给你看这和世界的样子是一样的吗？这解释能让你确信你就是世界吗？给你一个符合逻辑顺序的解释，指给你看原因和结果，你会因此确信吗？如果你因详细的描述而确信，那能让你有了解吗？它会让你感觉到你就是世界，让你感觉到要对这个世界负责吗？非常明显，是我们人类的贪婪，嫉妒，侵略，暴力造就了我们身处其中的这个社会，我们的样子被合法化地接受了。我想这点真的十分清楚了，让我们不要在这个问题上再花时间了。你看，我们没感觉到这点，我们不爱，所以就有了我和世界之间的这种分裂。Questioner: May I come back again tomorrow?发问者：我可以明天再来吗？* * *He came back the next day eagerly, and there was the bright light of enquiry in his eyes.第二天他很热切地回来了，他的眼中有着探询的亮光。Questioner: I want, if you are willing, to go further into this question of how I am to live in this world. I do now understand, with my heart and my mind, as you explained yesterday, the utter importance of ideals. I had quite a long struggle with it and have come to see the triviality of ideals. You are saying, aren't you, that when there are no ideals or escapes there is only the past, the thousand yesterdays which make up the "me"? So when I ask: "How am I to live in this world?" I have not only put a wrong question, but I have also made a contradictory statement, for I have placed the world and the "me" in opposition to each other. And this contradiction is what I call living. So when I ask the question, "How am I to live in this world?" I am really trying to improve this contradiction, to justify it, to modify it, because that's all I know; I don't know anything else.发问者：我想，如果你愿意的话，进一步深入我要怎样活在这个世界上这个问题。现在我确实以我的心灵和我的头脑了解到了，正如你昨天解释的，理想绝对的重要性。我曾与它做过漫长的斗争，已经看到了理想的琐碎。你说，如果没有理想或者逃避，就只有过去，一千个昨天构成的“我”，不是吗？所以当我问：“我要怎样活在这个世界上？”我不仅仅是提出了一个错误的问题，而且我也做了一个自相矛盾的表述，因为我把世界和“我”放在彼此对立的位置上。而这种矛盾，就是我们所谓的生活。所以当我问这个问题，“我要怎样活在这个世界上？”，我实际上是在努力强化这种矛盾，合理化它，调整它，因为这是我知道的所有事情；别的我什么也不知道。Krishnamurti: This then is the question we have now: must living always be in the past, must all activity spring from the past, is all relationship the outcome of the past, is living the complex memory of the past? That is all we know - the past modifying the present. And the future is the outcome of this past acting through the present. So the past, the present and the future are all the past. And this past is what we call living. The mind is the past, the brain is the past, the feelings are the past, and action coming from these is the positive activity of the known. This whole process is your life and all the relationship and activity that you know. So when you ask how you are to live in this world you are asking for a change of prisons.克：那么这就是我们现在有的问题了：是不是必须总是生活在过去，是不是所有的行为都必须源于过去，是不是所有的关系都是过去的结果，生活是不是过去的复杂记忆？这是我们知道的所有东西——过去调整现在。而未来是这个过去通过现在运作的结果。所以过去，现在和未来都是过去。而这过去我们称之为生活。心智是过去，头脑是过去，感情是过去，从这些而来的行动是来自已知的正向活动。这整个过程就是你所知道的你的生活，所有的关系和活动。所以当你问你要怎样活在这个世界上，你只是想要换换监狱。Questioner: I don't mean that. What I mean is: I see very clearly that my process of thinking and doing is the past working through the present to the future. This is all I know, and that's a fact. And I realize that unless there is a change in this structure I am caught in it, I am of it. From this the question inevitably arises: how am I to change?发问者：我不是这个意思。我的意思是：我非常清晰地看到，我思考和行为的过程是过去通过现在运作到未来。这是我知道的所有东西，这是个事实。我意识到除非我受困于其中的这个结构有种转变，否则我就是它的一部分。从这个问题必然产生另一个问题：我要怎样转变？Krishnamurti: To live in this world sanely there must be a radical change of the mind and of the heart.克：要清明健全地活在这个世界上，头脑和心灵必须要有彻底的转变。Questioner: Yes, but what do you mean by change? How am I to change if whatever I do is the movement of the past? I can only change myself, nobody else can change me. And I don't see what it means - to change.发问者：是的，但是你说的转变是什么意思？如果我无论做什么都是过去的运动，那我要如何转变？我只能改变我自己，别人无法改变我。我不知道这意味着什么——去转变。Krishnamurti: So the question "How am I to live in this world?" has now become "How am I to change?" - bearing in mind that the how doesn't mean a method, but is an enquiry to understand. What is change? Is there any change at all? Or can you ask whether there is any change at all only after there has been a total change and revolution? Let's begin again to find out what this word means. Change implies a movement from what is to something different. Is this something different merely an opposite, or does it belong to a different order altogether? If it is merely an opposite then it is not different at all, because all opposites are mutually dependent, like hot and cold, high and low. The opposite is contained within, and determined by, its opposite; it exists only in comparison, and things that are comparative have different measures of the same quality, and therefore they are similar. So change to an opposite is no change at all. Even if this going towards what seems different gives you the feeling that you are really doing something, it is an illusion.克：所以“我要怎样活在这个世界上？”这个问题现在变成了“我要如何转变？”——请铭记在心，如何并不意味着一个方法，而是为了了解的一种探询。什么是转变？究竟有任何转变这回事吗？或者你能不能问，是否只有在一场彻底的转变和革命之后，才可能有所改变？让我们还是先来弄清这个词的意思。转变意味着从现实状况向不同的某物的运动。这某物只是个对立面呢，还是它属于一种全然不同的秩序？如果它只是对立面，那么它根本没有任何不同，因为所有的对立面都是相互依存的，像热和冷，高和低。对立面包含在它的对立面中，并且由其决定；它只存在于比较中，比较级的事物具有的是相同品质的不同尺度，因而它们是相似的。所以变成对立面根本不是转变。即使这种似乎在朝着不同方向的行进给你一种你确实在做什么的感觉，那还是个幻觉。