Questioner: I really don't know, that's my problem. I've done almost everything fairly intelligently, putting aside all the obvious stupidities of nationality, organized religion, belief - this endless passage of nothings. I think I have compassion, and I think my mind can grasp the subtleties of life, but that surely is not enough? So what is needed? What have I to do or not to do?发问者：我真的不知道，这就是我的问题。我相当明智地做过了几乎所有事情，把所有显而易见的愚蠢的民族主义、有组织的宗教、信仰都抛在了一边——那是一条毫无意义的没有尽头的通道。我想我有慈悲，我想我的头脑能够抓住生命的微妙之处，但这显然是不够的？那么还需要什么？我必须做什么或者不做什么？Krishnamurti: Doing nothing is far more important than doing something. Can the mind be completely inactive, and thereby be supremely active? Love is not the activity of thought; it is not the action of good behaviour or social righteousness. As you cannot cultivate it, you can do nothing about love.克：什么都不做比做点什么要重要多了。头脑能不能完全不活动，因而就能极其活跃？爱不是思想的活动；爱不是善行或者社会正义的行动。因为你无法培育爱，所以对爱你什么也做不了。Questioner: I understand what you mean when you say that inaction is the highest form of action - which doesn't mean to do nothing. But somehow I cannot grasp it with my heart. Is it perhaps only because my heart is empty, tired of all action, that inaction seems to have an appeal? No. I come back to my original feeling that there is this thing of love, and I know, too, that it is the only thing. But my hand is still empty after I have said that.发问者：当你说不行动是最高形式的行动，我明白你的意思——那并不意味着什么都不做。但是在某种程度上我就是无法用我的心把握这一点。或许只是因为我的心太空了，厌倦了所有行动，那种不行动似乎就有了某种诉求？不是的。我回到了我最初的那种感觉，也就是有爱这样东西，我也知道，这是唯一的东西。但是说了这些话以后我的手还是空的。Krishnamurti: Does this mean that you are no longer seeking, no longer saying to yourself secretly: "I must reach, attain, there is something beyond the furthest hills?"Questioner: You mean I must give up this feeling I have had for so long that there is something beyond all the hills?克：这是否意味着你不再追寻了，不再偷偷地对自己说：“我必须达成，取得，越过最远的山那边有某种东西？”发问者：你的意思是我必须放弃我拥有了这么久的这种感觉，也就是越过所有山那边有某种东西的感觉？Krishnamurti: It is not a question of giving up anything, but, as we said just now, there are only these two things: love, and the mind that is empty of thought. If you really have finished, if you really have shut the door on all the stupidities which man in his search for something has put together, if you really have finished with all these, then, are these things - love and the empty mind - just two more words, no different from any other ideas?克：这不是一个放弃任何东西的问题，而是，正如我们刚才所说的，只有这两样东西：爱，和清空了思想的头脑。如果你真的完成了，如果你真的把人类在追寻过程中制造出来的所有那些愚蠢之事关在了门外的话，如果你真的完成了这一切，那么，这两样东西——爱和空寂的头脑——还仅仅是与其他观念没有区别的另两个词吗？Questioner: I have a deep feeling that they are not, but I am not sure of it. So again I ask what I am to do.Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to commune with what we have just said about love and the mind?Questioner: Yes, I think so.发问者：我有种深深的感觉它们不再是词语，但是我不确定。所以我再一次问我该怎么做。克：你知不知道就我们刚才关于爱和头脑所说的话进行交流是什么意思？发问者：是的，我想我知道。Krishnamurti: I wonder if you do. If there is communion with these two things then there is nothing more to be said. If there is communion with these two things then all action will be from there.Questioner: The trouble is that I still think there is something to be discovered which will put everything else in its right place, in its right order.克：我怀疑你是不是真的知道。如果与这两样东西有交流的话，那就没什么更多要说的了。如果与这两样东西有交流的话，那么所有的行动就会从那里开始。发问者：问题是我还是认为有什么东西需要去发现，它会把其他的所有事情都以正确的秩序，放在正确的位置上。Krishnamurti: Without these two things there is no possibility of going further. And there may be no going anywhere at all!Questioner: Can I be in communion with it all the time? I can see that when we are together I can be somewhat in communion with it. But can I maintain it?Krishnamurti: To desire to maintain it is the noise, and therefore the losing of it.克：没有这两样东西就没有更进一步的可能。也许根本就哪也去不了。发问者：我能与它一直有交流吗？我发现当我们在一起时，我能在某种程度上与它交流。但是我能保持住它吗？克：想要保持住它的愿望就是噪音，因而就失去了它。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'ORGANISATION'《转变的紧迫性》之“组织”Questioner: I have belonged to many organizations, religious, business and political. Obviously we must have some kind of organization; without it life couldn't continue, so I've been wondering, after listening to you, what relationship there is between freedom and organization. Where does freedom begin and organization end? What is the relationship between religious organizations and Moksha or liberation?发问者：我曾属于很多组织，宗教的、商业的以及政治组织。显然我们必须有某些类型的组织；没有组织，生活就无法继续，所以听了你的讲话后，我一直想知道，自由和组织之间是什么关系。自由从哪里开始，组织又从哪里结束？宗教组织与解脱或者解放之间的关系是什么？Krishnamurti: As human beings living in a very complex society, organizations are needed to communicate, to travel, to bring food, clothes and shelter, for all the business of living together whether in cities or in the country. Now this must be organized efficiently and humanely, not only for the benefit of the few but for everyone, without the divisions of nationality, race or class. This earth is ours, not yours or mine. To live happily, physically, there must be sane, rational, efficient organizations. Now there is disorder because there is division. Millions go hungry while there is vast prosperity. There are wars, conflicts and every form of brutality. Then there is the organization of belief - the organization of religions, which again breeds disunity and war. The morality which man has pursued has led to this disorder and chaos. This is the actual state of the world. And when you ask what is the relationship between organization and freedom, are you not separating freedom from everyday existence? When you separate it in this way as being something entirely different from life, isn't this, in itself, conflict and disorder? So really the question is: is it possible to live in freedom and to organize life from this freedom, in this freedom?克：由于人类生活在一个非常复杂的社会里，需要组织来沟通，旅行，制造食物、衣服和住所，供给生活事务的方方面面，不管是在城市还是乡村。现在不仅仅是为了少数人，也是为了所有人的利益，这些事情必须高效地人道地加以组织，不划分国家、种族或者阶级。这个地球是我们的，不是你的也不是我的。在物质层面要活得快乐，必须有明智的，理性的，高效的组织。而如今存在的失序，就是因为有划分。数以百万计的人忍饥挨饿，可同时又存在着大范围的繁荣。存在着战争，冲突以及各种形式的残酷。还有信仰的组织——宗教组织，也滋生了不团结和战争。人类追求的道德导致了这些失序和混乱。这就是世界的真实状况。当你问组织和自由之间的关系是什么，你不就是把自由与每天的生存分离开了吗？当你把自由当做与生活完全不同的某种东西，把它这样分离出来时，难道这本身不就是冲突和失序吗？所以真正的问题是：是否可能生活在自由中，从这自由中，在这自由中来组织生活？Questioner: Then there would be no problem. But the organization of life isn't made by yourself: others make it for you - the government and others send you to war or determine your job. So you cannot simply organize for yourself out of freedom. The whole point of my question is that the organization imposed on us by the government, by society, by morality, is not freedom. And if we reject it we find ourselves in the midst of a revolution, or some sociological reformation, which is a way of starting the same old cycle all over again. Inwardly and outwardly we are born into organization, which limits freedom. We either submit or revolt. We are caught in this trap. So there seems to be no question of organizing anything out of freedom.发问者：那就没有问题了。但是生活中的组织不是你自己制造出来的：别人为你组建了出来——政府和别人把你送到战场上或者决定你的工作。所以你无法简简单单地从自由出发自己来组织。我的问题的整个重点是，由政府，由社会，由道德强加于我们的组织，不是自由。如果我们拒绝它们，我们就发现自己置身于一场革命，或者某种社会改革中了，而这只是再一次重蹈覆辙而已。不管内在还是外在，我们诞生于组织中，这限制了自由。我们要么服从要么反抗。我们被困在这个陷阱中了。所以，从自由中组织任何东西出来，这个问题似乎并不存在。Krishnamurti: We do not realize that we have created society, this disorder, these walls; each one of us is responsible for it all. What we are, society is. Society is not different from us. If we are in conflict, avaricious, envious, fearful, we bring about such a society.克：我们没有意识到是我们制造了这个社会，制造了这些失序，这些围墙；我们每个人都要为之负责。我们如何，社会就如何。社会与我们并无不同。如果我们处于冲突中，贪婪，嫉妒，恐惧，我们就制造出这样的一个社会。Questioner: There is a difference between the individual and society. I am a vegetarian; society slaughters animals. I don't want to go to war; society will force me to do so. Are you telling me that this war,is my doing?发问者：个人与社会之间是不同的。我是个素食者；社会屠杀动物。我不参战；社会却会逼迫我这么做。你难道告诉我说，这场战争是我的作为？Krishnamurti: Yes, it's your responsibility. You have brought it about by your nationality, your greed, envy and hate. You are responsible for war as long as you have those things in your heart, as long as you belong to any nationality, creed or race. It is only those who are free of those things who can say that they have not created this society. Therefore our responsibility is to see that we change, and to help others to change, without violence and bloodshed.克：是的，是你的责任。你是由你的国家，你的贪婪、嫉妒和仇恨培养出来的。只要你心里有这些东西，只要你属于任何国家、信条或者种族，你就要为战争负责。只有摆脱了这些东西的人，才能说他们没有创造这样一个社会。所以我们的责任是我们自己转变，并帮助别人转变，而且不通过暴力和流血。Questioner: That means organized religion.Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Organized religion is based on belief and authority.发问者：那意味着组织化的宗教。克：当然不是。组织化的宗教是基于信仰和权威的。Questioner: Where does this get us in our original question regarding the relationship between freedom and organization? Organization is always imposed or inherited from the environment, and freedom is always from the inside, and these two clash.发问者：我们最初的问题是关于自由和组织之间的关系的，现在这些把我们带到了哪里？组织总是外在强加的，或者从环境中继承的，而自由总是来自内在，这两者互相冲突。Krishnamurti: Where are you going to start? You must start from freedom. Where there is freedom there is love. This freedom and love will show you when to co-operate and when not to cooperate. This is not an act of choice, because choice is the result of confusion. Love and freedom are intelligence. So what we are concerned with is not the division between organization and freedom but whether we can live in this world without division at all. It is division which denies freedom and love, not organization. When organization divides, it leads to war. Belief in any form, ideals, however noble or effective, breed division. Organized religion is the cause of division, just like nationality and powergroups. So be concerned with those things which divide, those things which bring about division between man and man, whether they be individual or collective. The family, the church, and the State bring about such division. What is important is the movement of thought which divides. Thought itself is always divisive, so all action based on an idea or an ideology is division. Thought cultivates prejudice, opinion, judgement. Man in himself, being divided, seeks freedom out of this division. Not being able to find it he hopes to integrate the various divisions, and of course this is not possible. You cannot integrate two prejudices. To live in this world in freedom means to live with love, eschewing every form of division. When there is freedom and love, then this intelligence will act in co-operation, and will also know when not to cooperate.克：你打算从哪里开始？你必须从自由开始。有自由就有爱。这自由和爱会告诉你什么时候合作，什么时候不合作。这不是选择的行为，因为选择是困惑的结果。爱和自由就是智慧。所以我们关心的不是组织和自由之间的区分，而是我们能否完全没有分别地生活在这个世界上。是分别否定了自由和爱，而不是组织。当组织进行分别，就导致战争。任何形式的信仰、理想，不管多么高尚或者多么有效，都滋生分别。组织化的宗教是分裂的根源，就像国家和权力集团一样。所以关注这些分裂的事物，这些在人与人之间带来分别的事物，不管它们是个人的还是集体的。家庭、教会和国家制造了这些分别。重要的是分别着的思想的运动。思想本身总是分裂的，所以基于想法或者观念意识的所有行为都是分别。思想培植出偏见、观点、评判。人本身，在分别着，追求从这分别中解脱出来的自由。找不到，他就希望把各种分别整合在一起，当然这是不可能的。你无法整合两个偏见。自由地生活在这个世界上，意味着带着爱生活，避开任何形式的分别。有自由和爱，那么这种智慧就会在合作中运作，也会知道什么时候不合作。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'LOVE AND SEX'《转变的紧迫性》之“爱与性”Questioner: I'm a married man with several children. I've lived rather a dissipated life in search of pleasure, but a fairly civilized life too, and I've made a success of it financially. But now I'm middle-aged and am feeling concerned, not only about my family but also about the way the world is going. I'm not given to brutality or violent feelings, and I have always considered that forgiveness and compassion are the most important things in life. Without these man becomes subhuman. So if I may I should like to ask you what love is. Is there really such a thing? Compassion must be part of it, but I always feel that love is something much vaster, and if we could explore it together perhaps I should then make my life into something worthwhile before it is too late. I have really come to ask this one thing - what is love?发问者：我是个有了几个孩子的已婚男人。我曾经生活得相当放纵，追求快感，但也生活得相当文明，在财务方面我很成功。但是现在我中年了，我感觉到我不只关心我的家庭，同时也关心世界运行的方式。我并没有残忍或者暴力的感觉，我始终认为宽恕和慈悲是生活中最重要的事情。没有这些，人会变得不太人道。所以，如果可以的话，我想问问你，爱是什么。真的有这个东西吗？慈悲肯定是它的一部分，但是我总是觉得爱是广阔得多的东西，如果我们能够一起探索它的话，也许在太迟之前，我能把我的生命变得有价值。我真的是来问这件事情的——爱是什么？Krishnamurti: Before we begin to go into this we must be very clear that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described, because any amount of explanation, however subtle and clever, will not open the heart to the immensity of love. This we must understand, and not merely stick to words: words are useful for communication, but in talking about something that is really non-verbal we must establish a communion between us, so that both of us feel and realize the same thing at the same time, with a fullness of mind and heart. Otherwise we will be playing with words. How can one approach this really very subtle thing that cannot be touched by the mind? We must go rather hesitatingly. Shall we first see what it is not, and then perhaps we may be able to see what it is? Through negation we may come upon the positive, but merely to pursue the positive leads to assumptions and conclusions which bring about division. You are asking what love is. We are saying we may come upon it when we know what it is not. Anything that brings about a division, a separation, is not love, for in that there is conflict, strife and brutality.克：在我们开始深入这点之前，我们必须非常清楚，语言并非它所指之物，描述并非描述之物，因为任何解释，不管多么细致多么精巧，不会把心灵向无限的爱敞开。这点我们必须明白，而且不能仅仅去攀援词语：语言对沟通来说是有用的，但是在探讨某种非语言所能表达的东西时，我们之间必须建立一种交流，这样我们两个就都能同时全心全意地感受到、意识到同一种东西。否则我们就只是在玩弄词句。一个人要怎样接近这个真的十分微妙的、头脑所无法触及的东西？我们必须小心翼翼地前进。我们能不能先看看它不是什么，然后也许我们就能看到它是什么？通过否定，我们可能会遭遇那正确之物，但是单单去追求正确的，就会导致假设和结论，这会带来分裂。你在问爱是什么。我们说，当我们知道它不是什么时，也许就能遇到它。任何带来分裂、分离的事物，都不是爱，因为其中有冲突、争斗和残忍。Questioner: What do you mean by a division, a separation that brings about strife - what do you mean by it?Krishnamurti: Thought in its very nature is divisive. It is thought that seeks pleasure and holds it. It is thought that cultivates desire.Questioner: Will you go into desire a bit more?发问者：你说的会带来冲突的分裂、分离是什么意思——你这么说是什么意思？克：思想本身的性质就是分裂的。是思想在追求并紧抓快感。是思想滋生了欲望。发问者：你能更深入地说说欲望吗？Krishnamurti: There is the seeing of a house, the sensation that it is lovely, then there is the desire to own it and to have pleasure from it, then there is the effort to get it. All this constitutes the centre, and this centre is the cause of division. This centre is the feeling of a "me", which is the cause of division, because this very feeling of "me" is the feeling of separation. People have called this the ego and all kinds of other names - the "lower self" as opposed to some idea of a "higher self" - but there is no need to be complicated about it; it is very simple. Where there is the centre, which is the feeling of "me", which in its activities isolates itself, there is division and resistance. And all this is the process of thought. So when you ask what is love, it is not of this centre. Love is not pleasure and pain, nor hate nor violence in any form.克：看见一栋房子，觉得它很可爱，然后就有了想要拥有它并从中得到快乐的欲望，然后就会努力去得到它。这一切都构成了一个中心，这个中心就是分裂的原因。这个中心就是“我”的感觉，也就是分裂的原因，因为“我”的这种感觉本身就是分离感。人们称之为自我以及其他各种名称——“低我”，与某个“高我”的概念相对——但是没有必要把它搞复杂；这很简单。如果有中心，也就是“我”的感觉，它的行为就是在孤立它自己，就有了分裂和抗拒。所有这些都是思想的过程。所以当你问爱是什么，爱并不来自那个中心。爱不是快乐和痛苦，也不是任何形式的仇恨和暴力。Questioner: Therefore in this love you speak of there can be no sex because there cannot be desire?Krishnamurti: Don't, please, come to any conclusion. We are investigating, exploring. Any conclusion or assumption prevents further enquiry. To answer this question we have also to look at the energy of thought. Thought, as we have said, sustains pleasure by thinking about something that has been pleasurable, cultivating the image, the picture. Thought engenders pleasure. Thinking about the sexual act becomes lust, which is entirely different from the act of sex. What most people are concerned with is the passion of lust. Craving before and after sex is lust. This craving is thought. Thought is not love.Questioner: Can there be sex without this desire of thought?发问者：那么在你说的这种爱里，是不是就没有了性，因为没有欲望？克：请不要得出任何结论。我们在审视，在探索。任何结论或者假设都阻止了进一步的探询。要回答这个问题，我们还必须来看看思想的能量。思想，正如我们所说的，通过思考曾经快乐的事情、培植意象和画面来维持快感。思想产生快感。想着性行为就变成了贪欲，这与性行为本身是完全不同的。大多数人关心的是欲望的激情。在性行为发生之前和之后对性的渴望是贪欲。这种渴望是思想。思想不是爱。发问者：是否存在没有思想的这种欲望的性？Krishnamurti: You have to find out for yourself. Sex plays an extraordinarily important part in our lives because it is perhaps the only deep, firsthand experience we have. Intellectually and emotionally we conform, imitate, follow, obey. There is pain and strife in all our relationships, except in the act of sex. This act, being so different and beautiful, we become addicted to, so it in turn becomes a bondage. The bondage is the demand for its continuation - again the action of the centre which is divisive. One is so hedged about - intellectually, in the family, in the community, through social morality, through religious sanctions - so hedged about that there is only this one relationship left in which there is freedom and intensity. Therefore we give tremendous importance to it. But if there were freedom all around then this would not be such a craving and such a problem. We make it a problem because we can't get enough of it, or because we feel guilty at having got it, or because in getting it we break the rules which society has laid down. It is the old society which calls the new society permissive because for the new society sex is a part of life. In freeing the mind from the bondage of imitation, authority, conformity and religious prescriptions, sex has its own place, but it won't be all-consuming. From this one can see that freedom is essential for love - not the freedom of revolt, not the freedom of doing what one likes nor of indulging openly or secretly one's cravings, but rather the freedom which comes in the understanding of this whole structure and nature of the centre. Then freedom is love.克：这你得自己去发现。在我们的生活中，性是一个极其重要的部分，因为它也许是我们拥有的唯一深刻而一手的经验。在智力上，在情感上，我们遵从、模仿、追随以及服从。除了性行为，在我们所有的关系中都有痛苦和冲突。这种行为，是那么的与众不同和美好，我们变得沉溺其中，所以它就变成了一种束缚。这种束缚是渴望它能持续——这又是分裂的中心的行为。人是那么冲突不安——在智力上，在家庭里，在社团里，置身社会道德和宗教制裁之中——人是如此冲突不安，只剩下这一种关系里有自由和热情。所以我们就赋予了它极度的重要性。但是如果到处都有自由的话，那么性就不会成为如此强烈的渴望和这么巨大的问题。我们把它变成了一个问题，因为我们无法得到足够的性，或者因为我们因为得到了它而有负罪感，或者因为在得到它的过程中我们打破了社会定下的规则。旧体制的社会称新体制的社会是放纵的，因为在新社会里性是生活的一部分。把头脑从模仿、权威、遵从和宗教条规的束缚中解放出来，性就有了它自己的位置，但是它不会强烈无度。从这里你能看到自由是爱的精髓——不是反叛的自由，不是为所欲为的自由，也不是公开或者秘密地沉溺于自己的渴望中的自由，而是来自于对这个中心的整个结构和本质的了解的自由。这自由就是爱。Questioner: So freedom is not licence?Krishnamurti: No. Licence is bondage. Love is not hate, nor jealousy, nor ambition, nor the competitive spirit with its fear of failure. It is not the love of god nor the love of man - which again is a division. Love is not of the one or of the many. When there is love it is personal and impersonal, with and without an object. It is like the perfume of a flower; one or many can smell it: what matters is the perfume, not to whom it belongs.发问者：那么自由不是放纵？克：不是。放纵是束缚。爱不是恨，不是嫉妒，不是野心，也不是怀着自己对失败的恐惧的竞争精神。不是对神的爱，也不是对人的爱——那还是一种分别。爱不是对一个人的，也不是对很多人的。当有了爱，它就既是个人的也是非个人的，既有又没有一个对象。就像花朵的芬芳；一个人或者很多人都能闻到：重要的是那芬芳，而不是它属于谁。Questioner: Where does forgiveness come in all this?Krishnamurti: When there is love there can be no forgiveness. Forgiveness comes only after you have accumulated rancour; forgiveness is resentment. Where there is no wound there is no need for healing. It is inattention that breeds resentment and hate, and you become aware of them and then forgive. Forgiveness encourages division. When you are conscious that you are forgiving, then you are sinning. When you are conscious that you are tolerant, then you are intolerant. When you are conscious that you are silent, then there is no silence. When you deliberately set about to love, then you are violent. As long as there is an observer who says, "I am" or "I am not", love cannot be.发问者：在所有这些中，宽恕是怎么个位置？克：有爱就不可能有宽恕。只有在你积累了冤仇之后，才会有宽恕；宽恕是憎恨。没有伤害就不需要疗愈。是漫不经心滋生了憎恶和仇恨，你意识到了它们，然后宽恕。宽恕助长了分裂。如果你意识到自己在宽恕，那么你就是在犯罪。当你意识到你是宽容的，那么你就是心胸狭窄的。当你意识到你是寂静的，那么就没有寂静了。当你有意地出发去爱，那么你就是暴力的。只要有个观察者在说，“我如何”或者“我不如何”，就不可能有爱。Questioner: What place has fear in love?Krishnamurti: How can you ask such a question? Where one is, the other is not. When there is love you can do what you will.发问者：恐惧在爱中有什么位置？克：你怎么能问这样一个问题？有一个在，另一个就不在。如果有爱，你就能做想做的任何事情。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'PERCEPTION'《转变的紧迫性》之“觉知”Questioner: You use different words for perception. You sometimes say "perception", but also "observe", "see", "understand", "be aware of". I suppose you use all these words to mean the same thing: to see clearly, completely, wholly. Can one see anything totally? We're not talking of physical or technical things, but psychologically can you perceive or understand anything totally? Isn't there always something concealed so that you only see partially? I'd be most obliged if you could go into this matter rather extensively. I feel this is an important question because it may perhaps be a clue to a great many things in life. If I could understand myself totally then perhaps I would have all my problems solved and be a happy superhuman being. When I talk about it I feel rather excited at the possibility of going beyond my little world with its problems and agonies. So what do you mean by perceiving, seeing? Can one see oneself completely?发问者：你使用各种不同的词语来表达觉知。有时候你用到“觉知”，也会用到“观察”、“看到”、“了解”和“觉察”。我想，你用所有这些词都是在表达同一件事情：清晰地，彻底地，完整地看到。一个人能完整地看到任何事情吗？我们说的不是物理上的或者技术上的事情，而是在心理层面，你能完整地觉察或者了解任何事情吗？难道不是总有些东西隐藏着，所以你只能看到局部？如果你能相当深入地探讨这个问题，我将不胜感激。我觉得这是一个很重要的问题，因为它可能是了解生命中很多事情的线索。如果我能够完全了解我自己，那么也许我就能解决我所有的问题，并成为一个快乐而非凡的人。在我谈到这点的时候，我感觉非常兴奋，因为我有可能超越自己充满问题和痛苦的狭隘世界。所以，你说的觉知、看到，究竟是什么意思？一个人能够完全看清自己吗？Krishnamurti: We always look at things partially. Firstly because we are inattentive and secondly because we look at things from prejudices, from verbal and psychological images about what we see. So we never see anything completely. Even to look objectively at nature is quite arduous. To look at a flower without any image, without any botanical knowledge - just to observe it - becomes quite difficult because our mind is wandering, uninterested. And even if it is interested it looks at the flower with certain appreciations and verbal descriptions which seem to give the observer a feeling that he has really looked at it. Deliberate looking is not looking. So we really never look at the flower. We look at it through the image. Perhaps it is fairly easy to look at something that doesn't deeply touch us, as when we go to the cinema and see something which stirs us for the moment but which we soon forget. But to observe ourselves without the image - which is the past, our accumulated experience and knowledge - happens very rarely. We have an image about ourselves. We think we ought to be this and not that. We have built a previous idea about ourselves and through it we look at ourselves. We think we are noble or ignoble and seeing what we actually are either depresses us or frightens us. So we cannot look at ourselves; and when we do, it is partial~ observation, and anything that is partial or incomplete doesn't bring understanding. It is only when we can look at ourselves totally that there is a possibility of being free from what we observe. Our perception is not only with the eyes, with the senses, but also with the mind, and obviously the mind is heavily conditioned. So intellectual perception is only partial perception, yet perceiving with the intellect seems to satisfy most of us, and we think we understand. A fragmentary understanding is the most dangerous and destructive thing. And that is exactly what is happening all over the world. The politician, the priest, the businessman, the technician; even the artist - all of them see only partially. And therefore they are really very destructive people. As they play a great part in the world their partial perception becomes the accepted norm, and man is caught in this. Each of us is at the same time the priest, the politician, the businessman, the artist, and many other fragmentary entities. And each of us is.克：我们总是偏颇地看事情。首先是因为我们漫不经心，其次是因为我们总是透过我们关于所见事物形成的偏见，透过语言和心理意象去观察事物。所以我们从未完整地看到任何事物。即使客观地去观察自然，也变得十分费力。不带有意象地观察一朵花，不带着任何植物学知识——只是单纯地观察它——变得非常困难，因为我们的心智总是在游荡，漠不关心。即使心智感兴趣，它还是会带着某种欣赏之情和语言描述去观察这朵花，这似乎给了观察者一种他确实在观察的感觉。刻意地去看，根本就不是观察。所以我们从未真正观察过花朵。我们透过意象观察它。或许去看某个并没有深深触动我们的东西，会相当容易，而当我们去看电影，会有那么一刻我们被某种东西深深打动，但是我们很快就忘记了。而不带有意象地观察我们自己——这个意象就是过去，是我们积累的经验和知识——这样的观察鲜有发生。我们对自己抱有意象。我们觉得我们自己应该这样，不应该那样。我们已经为自己建立了先入为主的观念，再透过这些观念去观察我们自己。我们认为自己是高尚的或者卑微的，而如实地看到我们自己，要么会让我们沮丧，要么会吓坏我们。所以我们不能完整地观察自己，而在那完整的观察中，是有可能从我们所观察到的情形中解脱的。我们的觉知，不仅仅是通过眼睛，通过感官进行的，而且要用到心智，而心智显然是严重受限的。所以智力上的理解，只是片面的觉知，而智力上的觉知似乎已经让我们大多数人都心满意足了，我们觉得自己明白了。支离破碎的了解是最危险和最具破坏性的东西。而这正是全世界都在发生着的事情。政客，牧师，商人，技术人员；还有艺术家——他们所有人都只是在片面地观察。所以他们是真正非常具有破坏性的人们。因为他们在世界上占有非常重要的地位，他们片面的觉知就变成了公认的规则，而人类也就深陷其中了。我们每个人都同时是牧师，政客，商人，艺术家，以及许多其他支离破碎的实体。我们每个人都是。Questioner: I see this clearly. I'm using the word see intellectually, of course.发问者：我清楚地看到了这点。当然，我用“看到”这个词，也是从智识上讲的。Krishnamurti: If you see this totally, not intellectually or verbally or emotionally, then you will act and live quite a different kind of life. When you see a dangerous precipice or are faced by a dangerous animal there is no partial understanding or partial action; there is complete action.克：如果你完全看到了这一点，不是从智识上、字面上或者情感上，那么你就会行动，并开始过一种完全不同的生活。当你看到一个危险的悬崖，或者面对一个危险的动物时，就没有片面的了解或者片面的行动；就会有全然的行动。Questioner: But we are not faced with such dangerous crises every moment of our lives.发问者：但是我们的生活中并不是每时每刻都面临这么凶险的危机。Krishnamurti: We are faced with such dangerous crises all the time. You have become accustomed to them, or are indifferent to them, or you leave it to others to solve the problems; and these others are equally blind and lopsided.克：我们确实始终一直面临着这样凶险的危机。你只是习惯了它们，或者对它们漠不关心了，或者你把它们留给别人去解决这些问题了；而这些别人一样的盲目和偏颇。Questioner: But how am I to be aware of these crises all the time, and why do you say there is a crisis all the time?发问者：但是我要怎样才能始终都觉察到这些危机，而你又为什么说一直是有危机的？Krishnamurti: The whole of life is in each moment. Each moment is a challenge. To meet this challenge inadequately is a crisis in living. We don't want to see that these are crises, and we shut our eyes to escape from them. So we become blinder, and the crises augment.克：整个生命都在每个瞬间中。每个瞬间都是一项挑战。不恰当地应对这挑战就是生命中的危机。我们不想看到这些是危机，我们闭上眼睛逃避面对。所以我们变得更加盲目，危机就升级了。Questioner: But how am I to perceive totally? I'm beginning to understand that I see only partially, and also to understand the importance of looking at myself and the world with complete perception, but there is so much going on in me that it is difficult to decide what to look at. My mind is like a great cage full of restless monkeys.发问者：但是我要怎样才能完整地觉知呢？我开始了解到我只是在片面地观察，而且明白了以完全的觉知来观察自己和世界的重要性，但是，我的内在有那么多事情在进行着，很难决定该观察些什么。我的心智就像一个装满了烦躁不安的猴子的大笼子。Krishnamurti: If you see one movement totally, in that totality every other movement is included. If you understand one problem completely, then you understand all human problems, for they are all interrelated. So the question is: can one understand, or perceive, or see, one problem so completely that in the very understanding of it one has understood the rest? This problem must be seen while it is happening, not after or before, as memory or as an example. For instance, it is no good now for us to go into anger or fear; the thing to do is to observe them as they arise. Perception is instantaneous: you understand something instantly or not at all: seeing, hearing, understanding are instantaneous. Listening and looking have duration.克：如果你完整地观察一项活动，在那完整中，所有其他的活动就都包括在其中了。如果你彻底明白了一个问题，那么你就了解了人类的所有问题，因为它们都是相互关联的。所以问题是：一个人能否如此彻底地了解、觉察或者看到一个问题，在那对问题的了解中，他就明白了所有其他的一切？这个问题必须在发生时被看清，而不是之前或之后，不是作为记忆或者一个例子。比如说，现在我们探讨愤怒或者恐惧，就没有意义；要做的事情是，在它们发生的时候观察它们。觉知是即刻发生的：你要么立即了解某件事情，要么什么都没明白：看到，听到，了解都是即刻发生的。而听和看是有持续性的。Questioner: My problem goes on. It exists in a span of time. You are saying that seeing is instantaneous and therefore out of time. What gives jealousy or any other habit, or any other problem, duration?发问者：我的问题还在继续。它在一段时间内都存在着。你说看到是即刻发生的，因而摆脱了时间。而是什么给嫉妒或者别的什么习惯或者问题带来了持续性呢？Krishnamurti: Don't they go on because you have not looked at them with sensitivity, choiceless awareness, intelligence? You have looked partially and therefore allowed them to continue. And in addition, wanting to get rid of them is another problem with duration. The incapacity to deal with something makes of it a problem with duration, and gives it life.克：它们在继续，难道不是因为你没有敏锐地、以智慧和无选择的觉知去观察它们吗？你只是片面地观察，因而就让它们得以继续。此外，想要去除它们，是造成持续性的另一个症结。没能力解决某件事情，就让它成为了一个持续的问题，并赋予了它生命力。Questioner: But how am I to see that whole thing instantly? How am I to understand so that it never comes back?发问者：但是我要怎样即刻看到事情的全貌？我要如何去了解它，它才再不会反复出现？Krishnamurti: Are you laying emphasis on never or on understanding? If you lay emphasis on never it means you want to escape from it permanently, and this means the creation of a second problem. So we have only one question, which is how to see the problem so completely that one is free of it. Perception can only be out of silence, not out of a chattering mind. The chattering may be the wanting to get rid of it, reduce it, escape from it, suppress it or find a substitute for it, but it is only a quiet mind that sees.克：你把重点放在再不出现上还是了解上？如果你把重点放在再不出现上，那就意味着你想要永远地从中逃脱，而这意味着制造出了另一个问题。所以我们只有一个问题，也就是要如何完全看清那个问题，从而从中解脱出来。觉知只能出自于寂静，一个喋喋不休的心智是无法觉知的。喋喋不休的心智也许想要除掉那问题，减轻它，逃避它，压抑它，或者寻找一个替代品，但是只有安静的心灵才能看清。Questioner: How am I to have a quiet mind?发问者：我要如何获得一颗安静的心灵？Krishnamurti: You don't see the truth that only a quiet mind sees. How to get a quiet mind doesn't arise. It is the truth that the mind must be quiet, and seeing the truth of this frees the mind from chattering. Perception, which is intelligence, is then operating, not the assumption that you must be silent in order to see. Assumption can also operate but that is a partial, fragmentary operation. There is no relationship between the partial and the total; the partial cannot grow into the total. Therefore seeing is of the greatest importance. Seeing is attention, and it is only inattention that gives rise to a problem.克：只有安静的心灵才能看清，你看不到这个真相。如何获得安静的心灵，这个问题不会被提出来。真相是，心智必须安静，看到这个真相，就把心智从喋喋不休中解脱了出来。觉知，也就是智慧，就开始运作了，而不是推断你为了看到而必须安静。推断也能够运作，但是那是片面的，破碎的运作。片面和整体之间没有关系；片面不能融入整体。因此，看到是最重要的。看到就是全神贯注，而只有漫不经心才会导致问题。Questioner: How can I be attentive all the time? It's impossible!发问者：我要怎样才能一直全神贯注？那是不可能的！Krishnamurti: That's quite right, it is impossible. But to be aware of your inattention is of the greatest importance, not how to be attentive all the time. It is greed that asks the question, "How can I be attentive all the time?" One gets lost in the practice of being attentive. The practice of being attentive is inattention. You cannot practice to be beautiful, or to love. When hate ceases the other is. Hate can cease only when you give your whole attention to it, when you learn and do not accumulate knowledge about it. Begin very simply.克：非常对，那是不可能的。但是，觉察到你的漫不经心，这点是最重要的，而不是如何一直全神贯注。因为贪婪才会提出这个问题，“我要怎样才能一直全神贯注？”一个人会在练习全神贯注中迷失。练习全神贯注就是漫不经心。你不能练习变得美丽，或者练习去爱。当恨止息时，就有了另一个，爱。只有当你对恨付出全部的注意力，当你在学习但是不再累积关于它的认识时，恨才会止息。很简单地开始。Questioner: What is the point of your talking if there is nothing we can practise after having heard you?发问者：如果听你说了之后我们没什么可练习的，那你的演讲还有什么意义？Krishnamurti: The hearing is of the greatest importance, not what you practise afterwards. The hearing is the instantaneous action. The practice gives duration to problems. Practice is total inattention. Never practise: you can only practise mistakes. Learning is always new.克：听到是最重要的，而不是你之后去练习些什么。倾听是即刻发生的行动。而练习会使问题持续下去。练习完全就是漫不经心。永远不要练习：你只能练习错误。学习永远都是新鲜的。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SUFFERING'《转变的紧迫性》之“苦难”Questioner: I seem to have suffered a great deal all my life, not physically, but through death and loneliness and the utter futility of my existence. I had a son whom I greatly loved. He died in an accident. My wife left me, and that caused a great deal of pain. I suppose I am like thousands of other middle-class people with sufficient money and a steady job. I'm not complaining of my circumstances but I want to understand what sorrow means, why it comes at all. One has been told that wisdom comes through sorrow, but I have found quite the contrary.发问者：我的整个一生似乎受尽了苦难，不是身体上的痛苦，而是历经死亡和寂寞，以及我那毫无意义的生存。我有个挚爱的儿子。他死于一次事故。我的妻子离开了我，这带来了巨大的痛苦。我想我就像成千上万的中产阶级一样，有足够的钱和一份稳定的工作。我不是在抱怨我的境遇，而是我想了解悲伤意味着什么，究竟为什么会有悲伤。有人说智慧来自悲伤，但是我发现情况正相反。Krishnamurti: I wonder what you have learnt from suffering? Have you learnt anything at all? What has sorrow taught you?Questioner: It has certainly taught me never to be attached to people, and a certain bitterness, a certain aloofness and not to allow my feelings to run away with me. It has taught me to be very careful not to get hurt again.Krishnamurti: So, as you say, it hasn't taught you wisdom; on the contrary it has made you more cunning, more insensitive. Does sorrow teach one anything at all except the obvious self-protective reactions?克：我想知道你从苦难中学到了什么？你究竟学到任何东西了吗？悲伤教会了你什么？发问者：当然，它教我永远不要执着于任何人，教会了我某种苦涩，某种超然，不让我逃避我的感觉。它教我要十分小心不再受伤害。克：那么，如你所说，它没有教你智慧；相反，它使你变得更狡猾，更不敏感。除了这些明显的自我保护反应，悲伤究竟教你任何东西了吗？Questioner: I have always accepted suffering as part of my life, but I feel now, somehow, that I'd like to be free of it, free of all the tawdry bitterness and indifference without again going through all the pain of attachment. My life is so pointless and empty, utterly self-enclosed and insignificant. It's a life of mediocrity, and perhaps that mediocrity is the greatest sorrow of all.发问者：我一直接受痛苦是我生活的一部分，但是我现在觉得，从某种程度上，我想从中解脱出来，摆脱所有世俗的苦难和冷漠，不再经历所有执著的痛苦。我的生命是如此的没有意义和空虚，极其自我封闭和微不足道。这是平庸的生活，也许平庸是最深重的悲伤。Krishnamurti: There is the personal sorrow and the sorrow of the world. There is the sorrow of ignorance and the sorrow of time. This ignorance is the lack of knowing oneself, and the sorrow of time is the deception that time can cure, heal and change. Most people are caught in that deception and either worship sorrow or explain it away. But in either case it continues, and one never asks oneself if it can come to an end.克：有个人的悲伤，也有世界的悲伤。有无知的悲伤和时间的悲伤。这种无知是缺乏对自己的认识，时间的悲伤是自欺欺人地认为时间能够治愈，疗伤以及改变。大多数人都被困在这个谎言中，要么礼拜悲伤，要么用解释来打发悲伤。但是，不管用哪种方式，悲伤还是会继续，而人们从来不问问自己悲伤是否能够终止。Questioner: But I am asking now if it can come to an end, and how? How am I to end it? I understand that it's no good running away from it, or resisting it with bitterness and cynicism. What am I to do to end the grief which I have carried for so long?发问者：但是我现在就在问，它能否终止，以及怎样才能停止？我要如何停止悲伤？我知道，用苦涩嘲讽和玩世不恭来逃避或者抗拒悲伤没有什么好处。我要怎样才能终止我背负了这么久的悲伤？Krishnamurti: Self-pity is one of the elements of sorrow. Another element is being attached to someone and encouraging or fostering his attachment to you. Sorrow is not only there when attachment fails you but its seed is in the very beginning of that attachment. In all this the trouble is the utter lack of knowing oneself. Knowing oneself is the ending of sorrow. We are afraid to know ourselves because we have divided ourselves into the good and the bad, the evil and the noble, the pure and the impure. The good is always judging the bad, and these fragments are at war with each other. This war is sorrow. To end sorrow is to see the fact and not invent its opposite, for the opposites contain each other. Walking in this corridor of opposites is sorrow. This fragmentation of life into the high and the low, the noble and the ignoble, God and the Devil, breeds conflict and pain. When there is sorrow, there is no love. Love and sorrow cannot live together.克：自怜是悲伤的一个因素。另一个因素是执着于某人，并助长或加强他对你的执着。不仅仅是在你所执着的人离你而去的时候才会有悲伤，而是悲伤的种子在执着刚刚开始的时候就已经种下了。这一切的麻烦都来自于对自己极其缺乏了解。了解自己就是悲伤的终结。我们害怕了解自己，因为我们把自己分成了好和坏，邪恶和高尚，纯洁和不纯洁。好的总是在评判坏的，这些碎片在彼此交战。这战争就是悲伤。终结悲伤就是看到这个事实，而不去臆造它的对立面，因为对立面之中就包含着彼此。在这对立面的通道中行走，就是悲伤。把生活分成高的和低的，高尚的和卑微的，上帝和魔鬼，这种支离破碎的划分就滋生了冲突和痛苦。有悲伤就没有爱。爱和悲伤无法共存。Questioner: Ah! But love can inflict sorrow on another. I may love another and yet bring him sorrow.Krishnamurti: Do you bring it, if you love, or does he? If another is attached to you, with or without encouragement, and you turn away from him and he suffers, is it you or he who has brought about his suffering?Questioner: You mean I am not responsible for someone else's sorrow, even if it is on my account? How does sorrow ever end then?发问者：啊！但是爱会带给别人悲伤。我可能爱上别人，但是也可能给他带来悲伤。克：如果你爱着，是你带来了悲伤，还是他带来的？如果别人执着于你，不管这执着有没有受到鼓励，然后你离他而去，他就痛苦，那么是你还是他带来了他的痛苦？发问者：你的意思是我不用为别人的悲伤负责，即使那是由于我的原因？那么悲伤要怎样才能终止？Krishnamurti: As we have said, it is only in knowing oneself completely that sorrow ends. Do you know yourself at a glance, or hope to after a long analysis? Through analysis you cannot know yourself. You can only know yourself without accumulation, in relationship, from moment to moment. This means that one must be aware, without any choice, of what is actually taking place. It means to see oneself as one is, without the opposite, the ideal, without the knowledge of what one has been. If you look at yourself with the eyes of resentment or rancour then what you see is coloured by the past. The shedding of the past all the time when you see yourself is the freedom from the past. Sorrow ends only when there is the light of understanding, and this light is not lit by one experience or by one flash of understanding; this understanding is lighting itself all the time. Nobody can give it to you - no book, trick, teacher or saviour. The understanding of yourself is the ending of sorrow.克：正如我们说过的，只有在对自己完全的了解中，悲伤才能终止。你是在一瞥之间就了解了自己，还是希望经过漫长的分析来了解自己？通过分析你无法了解自己。只有一刻接一刻地在关系中，没有任何积累，你才能了解自己。这就意味着你必须没有任何选择地觉察到真实发生着的事情。如果你是在用憎恶或者仇恨的双眼来看自己的话，那么你所看到的就被过去染上了颜色。当你看自己的时候始终能够剥离过去，那就是从过去中解脱了出来。只有当有了这种了解的光芒时，悲伤才能终结，这光不是由一次经验或者一次一闪而过的领悟点亮的；这种了解始终都在点亮着自己。没人能把它给你——也没有书本、诀窍，老师或者救主能够给你。了解自己就是悲伤的终结。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE HEART AND THE MIND'《转变的紧迫性》之“心灵与头脑”Questioner: Why is it that man has divided his being into different compartments - the intellect and the emotions? Each seems to exist independently of the other. These two driving forces in life are often so contradictory that they seem to tear apart the very fabric of our being. To bring them together so that man can act as a total entity has always been one of the principal aims of life. And added to these two things within man there is a third which is his changing environment. So these two contradictory things within him are further in opposition to the third which appears to be outside himself. Here is a problem so confusing, so contradictory, so vast that the intellect invents an outside agency called God to bring them together, and this further complicates the whole business. There is only this one problem in life.发问者：为什么人们把自己的存在分成了两个不同的部分——理智和情感？其中的任何一个似乎都独立于另一个而存在。这两个生活中的驱动力常常互相矛盾，以致于它们似乎在撕裂着我们存在的每个方面。把它们整合在一起，这样人就能作为一个完整的实体来运作，这始终是生命中主要的目标之一。除了人们内在的这两个因素之外，第三个因素就是不断变化的环境。所以人内在这互相矛盾的两者，与表现为他的外在的环境又进一步地对立。这个问题是这么令人困扰，这么矛盾重重，这么巨大，所以心智就发明出一个被称为“上帝”的外在媒介来把它们整合在一起，而这又进一步把整个事情弄得更复杂了。生命中只有这一个问题。Krishnamurti: You seem to be carried away by your own words. Is this really a problem to you or are you inventing it in order to have a good discussion? If it is for a discussion then it has no real content. But if it is a real problem then we can go into it deeply. Here we have a very complex situation, the inner dividing itself into compartments and further separating itself from its environment. And still further, it separates the environment, which it calls society, into classes, races and economic, national and geographic groups. This seems to be what is actually going on in the world and we call it living. Being unable to solve this problem we invent a super-entity, an agency that we hope will bring about a harmony and a binding quality in ourselves and between us. This binding quality which we call religion brings about another factor of division in its turn. So the question becomes: what will bring about a complete harmony of living in which there are no divisions but a state in which the intellect and the heart are both the expression of a total entity? That entity is not a fragment.克：你似乎被自己的语言给带跑了。对你来说，这真的是个问题吗，还是你只是为了能好好讨论而编造了这个问题？如果只是为了讨论，那么它就没什么真正的内容。但是，如果它真是一个问题，那么我们可以深入探讨一下。我们这里有一种非常复杂的状况，内在地把自己分成了两部分，进一步又把自己跟环境分离开来。更甚者，它还把环境给划分成了所谓的社会、阶级、种族以及经济、国家和地域上的团体。这看起来就是世界上实际正在发生着的事情，我们把它叫做生活。解决不了这个问题，我们就发明了一个超级实体，一个媒介，希望它能带来我们自身和我们之间的和谐与一种持久的品质。这种我们称之为宗教的持久品质，回过头来又带来了另一个分裂的因素。所以问题就变成了：怎样才能带来生活的彻底和谐，其中没有分裂，只有一种状态，在这个状态中，理智和心灵都是一个完整实体的表现。这个实体不是一个碎片。Questioner: I agree with you, but how is this to be brought about? This is what man has always longed for and has sought through all religions and all political and social utopias.发问者：这点我同意，但是要怎样才能实现这点？这是人类一直渴望的，通过所有的宗教，所有的政治和社会乌托邦，在一直追寻的东西。Krishnamurti: You ask how. The "how" is the great mistake. It is the separating factor. There is your "how" and my "how" and somebody else's "how". So if we never used that word we would be really enquiring and not seeking a method to achieve a determined result. So can you put away altogether this idea of a recipe, a result? If you can define a result you already know it and therefore it is conditioned and not free. If we put away the recipe then we are both capable of enquiring if it is at all possible to bring about a harmonious whole without inventing an outside agency, for all outside agencies, whether they are environmental or superenvironmental, only increase the problem.First of all, it is the mind that divides itself as feeling, intellect and environment; it is the mind that invents the outside agency; it is the mind that creates the problem.克：你问应该怎样。“怎样”是个巨大的错误。这就是分裂的因素。有你的“怎样”和我的“怎样”，还有别人的“怎样”。所以，如果我们从没用过那个词，我们就真的是在探询了，而不是在寻找一个方法来达成某个设定的结果。所以，你能不能把寻找一个方法或者结果的想法完全放在一边？如果你明确了一个结果，你就已经知道了它，那么就受限了，不自由了。如果我们把方法放在一边，那么我们两个就都能探索了，看看究竟是否可能带来一个和谐的整体，而不用发明一个外在的媒介，因为所有外在的媒介，不管它们是环境里的还是超越环境的，都只会增加问题。首先，是头脑把自己划分成了感情、理智和环境；是头脑编造出了外在的媒介；是头脑制造了问题。Questioner: This division is not only in the mind. It is even stronger in the feelings. The Muslims and Hindus do not think themselves separate, they feel themselves separate, and it is this feeling that actually makes them separate and makes them destroy each other.发问者：这种分裂不只是在头脑里有。在感情里这种分裂更严重。穆斯林们和印度教徒们并不认为他们是分离的，他们是感觉到彼此是分离的，实际上是这种感觉在分离他们，让他们互相摧毁对方。Krishnamurti: Exactly: the thinking and the feeling are one; they have been one from the beginning and that is exactly what we are saying. So our problem is not the integration of the different fragments but the understanding of this mind and heart which are one. Our problem is not how to get rid of classes or how to build better utopias or breed better political leaders or new religious teachers. Our problem is the mind. To come to this point not theoretically but to see it actually is the highest form of intelligence. For then you do not belong to any class or religious group; then you are not a Muslim, a Hindu, a jew or a Christian. So we now have only one issue: why does the mind of man divide? It not only divides its own functions into feelings and thoughts but separates itself as the "I" from the "you", and the "we" from the "they". The mind and the heart are one. Don't let us forget it. Remember it when we use the word "mind". So our problem is, why does the mind divide?克：确实如此：思想和感觉是一体的；它们一开始的时候是一体的，这确实正是我们所说的。所以我们的问题不是把不同的碎片整合在一起，而是了解一体的头脑和心灵。我们的问题不是如何去除阶级，不是如何建立更好的乌托邦，也不是如何培养更好的政治领导人或者新的宗教导师。我们的问题就是头脑。不是从理论上得出这点，而是如实地看到这一点，就是最高形式的智慧。因为那样你就不再属于任何阶级、任何宗教团体；你就不再是一个穆斯林，一个印度教徒，一个犹太教徒或者一个基督徒。那么我们现在就只有一个问题了：为什么人类的头脑要划分？它不仅仅把自己的功能划分为情感和思想，它还把自己作为“我”和“你”分开，把“我们”和“他们”分离开来。头脑和心灵是一体的。我们不要忘了这点。当我们用“头脑”这个词的时候，请记住这点。所有我们的问题是，头脑为什么要划分？Questioner: Yes.Krishnamurti: The mind is thought. All the activity of thought is separation, fragmentation. Thought is the response of memory which is the brain. The brain must respond when it sees a danger. This is intelligence, but this same brain has somehow been conditioned not to see the danger of division. Its actions are valid and necessary when they deal with facts. Equally, it will act when it sees the fact that division and fragmentation are dangerous to it. This is not an idea or an ideology or a principle or a concept - all of which are idiotic and separative: it is a fact. To see danger the brain has to be very alert and awake, all of it, not just a segment of it.发问者：是的。克：头脑就是思想。思想的所有行为都是分离，分裂。思想是记忆也就是大脑的反应。大脑看到危险的时候必然会反应。这是智慧，但是这同一个大脑受到了某种局限，看不到分别的危险。在应对事实的时候，它的行动就是有效的必要的。同样，当它看到分别和分裂对它来说是危险的这个事实，它会行动。这不是一个想法、观念、原则或者概念——那些都是愚蠢的分裂的：这是个事实。看到危险，大脑必须非常警觉和清醒，整个大脑都是这样，而不只是其中的一个部分。Questioner: How is it possible to keep the whole brain awake?Krishnamurti: As we said, there is no "how" but only seeing the danger, that is the whole point. The seeing is not the result of propaganda or conditioning; the seeing is with the whole brain. When the brain is completely awake then the mind becomes quiet. When the brain is completely awake there is no fragmentation, no separation, no duality. The quality of this quietness is of the highest importance. You can make the mind quiet by drugs and all kinds of tricks but such deceptions breed various other forms of illusion and contradiction. This quietness is the highest form of intelligence which is never personal or impersonal, never yours or mine. Being anonymous, it is whole and immaculate. It defies description for it has no quality. This is awareness, this is attention, this is love, this is the highest. The brain must be completely awake, that's all. As the man in the jungle must keep terribly awake to survive, so the man in the jungle of the world must keep terribly awake to live completely.发问者：怎么可能让整个大脑都清醒呢？克：正如我们说过的，没有“如何”，只有看到危险，这就是整个关键所在。这看到不是宣传或者局限的结果；是用整个大脑看到。当大脑完全清醒，心智就变得安静了。当大脑完全清醒，就没有了分裂，没有了分离，没有了二元性。这种寂静的品质是最重要的。你可以用药物和各种把戏让心智变得安静，但是这种欺骗滋生出别的各种形式的幻觉和冲突。这种寂静是最高形式的智慧，它永远不是个人的也不是非个人的，永远不是你的也不是我的。它是无名的，是完整的，完美无暇的。它无法描述，因为它没有特性。这就是觉察，这就是关注，这就是爱，这就是至高无上者。大脑必须完全清醒，就这些。就像丛林里的人必须极度清醒才能生存一样，在世界这个丛林里的人也必须保持极度清醒才能完整地生活。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE 'BEAUTY AND THE ARTIST'《转变的紧迫性》之“美与艺术家”Questioner: I wonder what an artist is? There on the banks of the Ganges, in a dark little room, a man sits weaving a most beautiful sari in silk and gold, and in Paris in his atelier another man is painting a picture which he hopes will bring him fame. Somewhere there is a writer cunningly spinning out stories stating the old, old problem of man and woman; then there is the scientist in his laboratory and the technician putting together a million parts so that a rocket may go to the moon. And in India a musician is living a life of great austerity in order to transmit faithfully the distilled beauty of his music. There is the housewife preparing a meal, and the poet walking alone in the woods. Aren't these all artists in their own way? I feel that beauty is in the hands of everybody, but they don't know it. The man who makes beautiful clothes or excellent shoes, the woman who arranged those flowers on your table, all of them seem to work with beauty. I often wonder why it is that the painter, the sculptor, the composer, the writer - the so-called creative artists - have such extraordinary importance in this world and not the shoemaker or the cook. Aren't they creative too? When you consider all the varieties of expression which people consider beautiful, then what place has a true artist in life, and who is the true artist? It is said that beauty is the very essence of all life. Is that building over there, which is considered to be so beautiful, the expression of that essence? I should greatly appreciate it if you would go into this whole question of beauty and the artist.发问者：我想知道艺术家是什么？在恒河岸边的一个小黑屋子里，一个人坐着用丝线和金线织出一件极其漂亮的纱丽，而在巴黎，另一个人在他的画室里画出一幅画，希望藉此获得美名。在某个地方有个作家在巧妙地编写故事，讲述男人和女人之间那非常非常古老的问题；还有在自己实验室里的科学家，以及在组装无数个零件的技术人员，那样火箭或许就能登月了。在印度，一个音乐家在过一种极其简朴的生活，为了能忠实地传达他音乐中那升华出来的美。还有在准备饭菜的家庭主妇，和在林中独行的诗人。这些人难道不都是有他们自己方式的艺术家吗？我觉得美在每个人的手中，但是他们不知道这点。制作出漂亮的衣服或者极好的鞋子的男人，在你的桌子上摆放那些鲜花的女人，他们所有人似乎都在与美一起工作。我常常纳闷，为什么那些画家，雕塑家，作曲家，作家——所谓创造性的艺术家——在这个世界上拥有如此非凡的重要性，而鞋匠或者厨师就没有。他们难道不也具有创造力吗？如果你把人们认为美的所有表现形式都考虑进来的话，那么一个真正的艺术家在生活中有怎样的位置，谁又是真正的艺术家？有人说美是所有生命的最核心之处。那边的那栋楼，被认为非常漂亮，它是那核心的表现吗？如果你能深入这整个关于美和艺术家的问题，我将不胜感激。Krishnamurti: Surely the artist is one who is skilled in action? This action is in life and not outside of life. Therefore if it is living skilfully that truly makes an artist. This skill can operate for a few hours in the day when he is playing an instrument, writing poems or painting pictures, or it can operate a bit more if he is skilled in many such fragments - like those great men of the Renaissance who worked in several different media. But the few hours of music or writing may contradict the rest of his living which is in disorder and confusion. So is such a man an artist at all? The man who plays the violin with artistry and keeps his eye on his fame isn't interested in the violin, he is only exploiting it to be famous, the "me" is far more important than the music, and so it is with the writer or the painter with an eye on fame. The musician identifies his "me" with what he considers to be beautiful music, and the religious man identifies his "me" with what he considers to be the sublime. All these are skilled in their particular little fields but the rest of the vast field of life is disregarded. So we have to find out what is skill in action, in living, not only in painting or in writing or in technology, but how one can live the whole of life with skill and beauty. Are skill and beauty the same? Can a human being - whether he be an artist or not - live the whole of his life with skill and beauty? Living is action and when that action breeds sorrow it ceases to be skilful. So can a man live without sorrow, without friction, without jealousy and greed, without conflict of any kind? The issue is not who is an artist and who is not an artist but whether a human being, you or another, can live without torture and distortion. Of course it is profane to belittle great music, great sculpture, great poetry or dancing, or to sneer at it; that is to be unskilled in one's own life. But the artistry and beauty which is skill in action should operate throughout the day, not just during a few hours of the day. This is the real challenge, not just playing the piano beautifully. You must play it beautifully if you touch it at all, but that is not enough. It is like cultivating a small corner of a huge field. We are concerned with the whole field and that field is life. What we always do is to neglect the whole field and concentrate on fragments, our own or other people's. Artistry is to be completely awake and therefore to be skilful in action in the whole of life, and this is beauty.克：擅长行动的人当然就是艺术家？这行动是生活里的，并不在生活之外。因此，如果娴熟地生活，那就真正地造就了一个艺术家。如果他演奏某种乐器，写诗，或者画画，这技艺就在一天中运作几个小时，如果他在很多这样的细碎领域都很擅长，这种技艺就能多运作一会——就像文艺复兴时期的那些伟人，在很多媒质上都能创作。但是搞音乐或者写作的几个小时，也许会和他生活的其他方面相冲突，他生活在失序和困惑中。那么究竟有艺术家这样的人吗？一个人技艺高超地演奏小提琴，同时眼睛紧盯自己的名声，他其实对小提琴并不感兴趣，他只是利用它来成名，“我”比音乐重要多了，着眼于名声的作家或者画家也是一样。音乐家把他的“自我”与他认为的美妙音乐认同在一起，宗教人士把他的“自我”与他认为至高无上的东西认同在一起。所有这些人都在他们特定的小小领域很擅长，却无视生活其他方面的广阔领域。所以我们得去发现行动中，生活中的技艺是什么，而不只是在绘画中、写作中或者技术中的技艺，而是一个人要怎样以技巧和美来过一种完整的生活。技巧和美是一样的吗？一个人能不能——不管他是不是艺术家——以技巧和美来过他完整的生活？生活是行动，当那行动滋生出悲伤，它就不再是技巧娴熟的了。所以，一个人能不能没有悲伤，没有摩擦，没有嫉妒和贪婪，没有任何冲突地生活？这个问题不是谁是艺术家谁不是艺术家，而是一个人能不能，你或者别人，能不能没有折磨和扭曲地生活。当然，贬低或者嘲笑伟大的音乐，伟大的雕塑，伟大的诗歌或者舞蹈，是种不敬；那是一个人不擅长过自己的生活。但是，艺术和美，也就是行动中的技巧，应该整天都在运作，而不是一天只运作几个小时。这是真正的挑战，而不只是动听地弹奏钢琴。如果你接触了钢琴，你就必须动听地弹奏，但是这还不够。这就像只耕作一大片土地中的一个小角落。我们关心的是整片土地，这片土地就是生活。我们总是忽略整个领域，只专注于我们自己的或者别人的那些碎片。艺术即是完全的觉醒，进而在整个生活中擅长行动，而这就是美。Questioner: What about the factory worker or the office employee? Is he an artist? Doesn't his work preclude skill in action and so deaden him that he has no skill in anything else either? Is he not conditioned by his work?发问者：那工厂的工人或者办公室雇员呢？他是艺术家吗？难道他的工作不正妨碍了行动的技巧，如此压抑他以致于他在其他任何事情上都不擅长？他难道不是被他的工作局限了吗？Krishnamurti: Of course he is. But if he wakes up he will either leave his work or so transform it that it becomes artistry. What is important is not the work but the waking up to the work. What is important is not the conditioning of the work but to wake up.克：他当然如此。但是如果他觉醒了，他要么会离开他的工作，要么把它变成一门艺术。重要的不是工作，而是对工作醒觉过来。重要的不是工作的局限，而是觉醒。Questioner: What do you mean, wake up?发问者：你说的觉醒是什么意思？Krishnamurti: Are you awakened only by circumstances, by challenges, by some disaster or joy? Or is there a state of being awake without any cause? If you are awakened by an event, a cause, then you depend on it, and when you any dependence is the end of skill, the end of artistry.克：你是不是只因为环境，因为挑战，因为某种灾难或者快乐才会醒来？还是有一种觉醒的状态不需要任何原因？如果你因为一件事，一个原因醒来，那么你就会依赖它，如果你有任何依赖，技巧就结束了，艺术就结束了。Questioner: What is this other awakened state that has no cause? You are talking about a state in which there is neither a cause nor an effect. Can there be a state of mind that is not the result of some cause? I don't understand that because surely everything we think and everything we are is the result of a cause? There is the endless chain of cause and effect.发问者：这另一种没有原因的觉醒状态是什么？你说的是一种既没有原因也没有结果的状态。能有一种不是某种原因的结果的心智状态吗？我不明白，是不是因为我们思考的所有事情，我们所是的一切，必然都是某个原因的结果？因果的链条无休无止。Krishnamurti: This chain of cause and effect is endless because the effect becomes the cause and the cause begets further effects, and so on.克：因果的链条无休无止，那是因为果会变成因，因又导致更多的果，如此往复。Questioner: Then what action is there outside this chain?发问者：那么在这链条之外的行动是什么？Krishnamurti: All we know is action with a cause, a motive, action which is a result. All action is in relationship. If relationship is based on cause it is cunning adaptation, and therefore inevitably leads to another form of dullness. Love is the only thing that is causeless, that is free; it is beauty, it is skill, it is art. Without love there is no art. When the artist is playing beautifully there is no "me; there is love and beauty, and this is art. This is skill in action. Skill in action is the absence of the "me". Art is the absence of the "me". But when you neglect the whole field of life and concentrate only on a little part - however much the "me" may then be absent, you are still living unskilfully and therefore you are not an artist of life. The absence of "me" in living is love and beauty, which brings its own skill. This is the greatest art: living skilfully in the whole field of Life.克：我们所有知道的，只是有原因，有动机的行动，这行动是个结果。所有的行动都处于关系中。如果关系基于原因，那它就是狡猾的调整，因而不可避免地会导致另一种形式的迟钝。爱是唯一没有原因的东西，那是自由的；那是美，是技巧，是艺术。没有爱就没有艺术。当艺术家动听演奏的时候，没有“我”；只有爱和美，这是艺术。这就是行动的技巧。行动的技巧是“我”的缺席。艺术是“我”的缺席。但是当你忽略了生命的整个领域，只集中于一小部分的时候——不管那时“我”如何不在，你还是没有技艺娴熟地生活着，因而你不是生活的艺术家。在生活中“我”的缺席，就是爱和美，这会带来它自己的技巧。这是最伟大的艺术：在整个生命的领域里技艺娴熟地生活。Questioner: Oh Lord! How am I to do that? I see it and feel it in my heart but how can I maintain it?发问者：哦天哪！我要怎样做到这点？我看到了这点，内心也感受到了，但是我要如何保持它？Krishnamurti: There is no way to maintain it, there is no way to nourish it, there is no practising of it; there is only the seeing of it. Seeing is the greatest of all skills.克：没有办法保持它，没有办法滋养它，没有办法练习它；只有看清这点。看清，是所有技艺中最伟大的。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'DEPENDENCE'《转变的紧迫性》之“依赖”Questioner: I should like to understand the nature of dependence. I have found myself depending on so many things - on women, on different kinds of amusement, on good wine, on my wife and children, on my friends, on what people say. Fortunately I no longer depend on religious entertainment, but I depend on the books I read to stimulate me and on good conversation. I see that the young are also dependent, perhaps not so much as I am, but they have their own particular forms of dependence. I have been to the East and have seen how there they depend on the guru and the family. Tradition there has greater importance and is more deeply rooted than it is here in Europe, and, of course, very much more so than in America. But we all seem to depend on something to sustain us, not only physically but, much more, inwardly. So I am wondering whether it is at all possible to be really free of dependence, and should one be free of it?发问者：我想了解依赖的本质。我发觉自己对很多事物都有依赖，我依赖女人、各种娱乐、美酒、妻子和孩子、朋友以及人们的言论。幸运的是，我不再依赖宗教的把戏了，但我还得靠读书来激励自己，还依赖良好的交谈。我看到年轻人同样也有依赖性，也许没有我这样严重吧，但他们有自己特定的依赖形式。我曾到过东方，看到那里的人是多么依赖上师和家庭。比起欧洲这里，传统在那儿显得更加重要，更加根深蒂固，当然，与美国相比，就更甚了。但是似乎我们所有人都依赖某些东西才能生存下去，不仅身体层面是这样，内在更是如此。因此我想知道，究竟有没有可能真正地摆脱所有依赖，而且人是不是应该从中解脱？Krishnamurti: I take it you are concerned with the psychological inward attachments. The more one is attached the greater the dependence. The attachment is not only to persons but to ideas and to things. One is attached to a particular environment, to a particular country and so on. And from this springs dependence and therefore resistance.克：我想你关心的是心理上内在的执着。一个人越是执着，依赖性就越强。执着的对象不仅可以是人，也可以是观念和实物。一个人可能执着于某种特定的环境，一个特定的国家等等。从执着中就产生了依赖，进而产生了抗拒。Questioner: Why resistance?发问者：为什么会有抗拒？Krishnamurti: The object of my attachment is my territorial or my sexual domain. This I protect, resisting any form of encroachment on it from others. I also limit the freedom of the person to whom I am attached and limit my own freedom. So attachment is resistance. I am attached to something or somebody. That attachment is possessiveness; possessiveness is resistance, so attachment is resistance.克：我执着的对象就是我的领地或我的性范畴。我要保护它们，抵抗任何形式的外来入侵。我也限制了我所执着的那个人的自由，同时也为自己的自由设了限。所以，执着就是抗拒。我执着于某人或某物。那种执着就是占有；占有就是抗拒，因此，执着就是抗拒。Questioner: Yes, I see that.发问者：是的，我懂了。Krishnamurti: Any form of encroachment on my possessions leads to violence, legally or psychologically. So attachment is violence, resistance, imprisonment - the imprisonment of oneself and of the object of attachment. Attachment means this is mine and not yours; keep off! So this relationship is resistance against others. The whole world is divided into mine and yours: my opinion, my judgement, my advice, my God, my country - an infinity of such nonsense. Seeing all this taking place, not in abstraction but actually in our daily life, we can ask why there is this attachment to people, things and ideas. Why does one depend? All being is relationship and all relationship is in this dependence with its violence, resistance and domination. We have made the whole world into this. Where one possesses one must dominate. We meet beauty, love springs up, and immediately it turns to attachment and all this misery begins and the love has gone out of the window. Then we ask, "What has happened to our great love?" This is actually what is happening in our daily life. And, seeing all this, we can now ask: why is man invariably attached, not only to that which is lovely, but also to every form of illusion and to so many idiotic fancies?克：如果我的财产被人以任何形式侵占，就会导致暴力，通过法律，或者在心理上与其对抗。因此，执着即暴力、抗拒和牢笼——执着的主体和对象都被囚禁了。执着意味着这是我的，不是你的；离远点！由此可见，这种关系乃是对别人的抗拒。整个世界被分成了你的和我的：我的观点，我的判断，我的建议，我的上帝，我的国家——这样的无稽之谈从未休止。看到所有这些事情实实在在地发生在我们的日常生活中，而不是在抽象的思维中，我们会问为什么会有对人、事物和观念的依赖。为什么人必须依赖？一切存在都是关系，所有的关系都处于这种依赖中，与之相伴的是暴力、抗拒和控制。是我们把整个世界变得如此。哪里有占据，哪里就必然会有控制。我们遇见了一个美人，爱情喷涌而出，很快，爱情变成了执着，所有这些苦恼就都开始了，然后爱就悄悄溜出了窗外。之后，我们会问，“我们伟大的爱情到底怎么了?”这就是我们日常生活中实际发生着的事情。看到这一切，我们不禁会问：为什么人类一味地执着，不仅执着于可爱的事物，还执着于各种形式的幻觉以及数不清的愚蠢念头？Freedom is not a state of non-dependence; it is a positive state in which there isn't any dependence. But it is not a result, it has no cause. This must be understood very clearly before we can go into the question of why man depends or falls into the trap of attachment with all its miseries. Being attached we try to cultivate a state of independence - which is another form of resistance.自由并不是非依赖状态；这是一种积极的状态，其中没有任何的依赖。但它不是结果，也没有起因。在我们深入探讨人类为何依赖或陷入执着的陷阱以及所有与之相伴的痛苦之前，必须清楚地理解上面这点。一旦有执着，我们就会想办法培养一种独立的状态——而这恰是另一种形式的抗拒。Questioner: So what is freedom? You say it is not the negation of dependence or the ending of dependence; you say it is not freedom from something, but just freedom. So what is it? Is it an abstraction or an actuality?发问者：那什么才是自由？你刚才说自由并不是对依赖的否定，或者依赖性的终结；你说自由就只是自由而已，而不是相对于某物的解脱。那它是什么样子？它只是一个抽象的概念，还是真实的存在？Krishnamurti: It is not an abstraction. It is the state of mind in which there is no form of resistance whatsoever. It is not like a river accommodating itself to boulders here and there, going round or over them. In this freedom there are no boulders at all, only the movement of the water.克：它并不抽象。它是一种心境，其中没有任何形式的抗拒。它并不是根据乱石处处调整自己的一条河，或绕过砂砾，或自其上流过。在这自由中，根本没有砂砾，只有水的流动。Questioner: But the boulder of attachment is there, in this river of life. You can't just speak about another river in which there are no boulders.发问者：可是，执着的砂砾还在那儿，就在生命之河中呀。你不能只说还有另一条河，那里没有砂砾吧。Krishnamurti: We are not avoiding the boulder or saying it doesn't exist. We must first understand freedom. It is not the same river as the one in which there are the boulders.克：我们并不避开砂砾，或说它不存在。我们首先要懂得自由。它已经与原先那条满是砂砾的河流不是同一条河了。Questioner: I have still got my river with its boulders, and that's what I came to ask about, not about some other unknown river without boulders. That's no good to me.发问者：可我的河流里还是砂砾密布，我因此才来问你，我不是来问你什么没有砂砾的未知河流。那对我一点用处也没有。Krishnamurti: Quite right. But you must understand what freedom is in order to understand your boulders. But don't let us flog this simile to death. We must consider both freedom and attachment.