Krishnamurti: Then you will never see; in thinking about it you will never see it because thinking prevents seeing. Both of us have understood what it means to see. This seeing is not an essence or an abstraction or an idea. You cannot see if there is nothing to see. Now you have a problem of unhappiness. See it completely, including your wanting to be happy and how thought creates the opposite. See the search for happiness and the seeking help in order to get happiness. See disappointment, hope, fear. All of this must be seen comple- tely, as a whole, not separately. See all this now, give your whole attention to it.克：那么你就永远也看不到；如果去思考，你就永远看不到这点，因为思考妨碍了看到。我们都理解了看到意味着什么。这看到不是一种概括，也不是一种抽象、一个观念。如果没什么东西可看，你就无法看到。现在你有个不幸的问题。完全地看到它，包括你想要幸福，以及思想如何制造出了对立面。看到对幸福的追求，看到为了得到幸福去寻求帮助。看到失望，希望和恐惧。这一切必须被作为一个整体完全看到，而不是分开看到。现在来看这一切，用你全部的注意力去看。Questioner: I am still bewildered. I don't know whether I have got the essence of it, the whole point. I want to close my eyes and go into myself to see if I have really understood this thing. If I have then I have solved my problem.发问者：我还是迷惑。我不知道我是否明白了其中的核心，这整个重点。我想闭上眼睛，深入到自己内心来看一看我是不是真的理解了这件事。如果我理解了，那么我就解决了我的问题。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'LEARNING'《转变的紧迫性》之“学习”Questioner: You have often talked about learning. I don't quite know what you mean by it. We are taught to learn at school and at the University, and life also teaches us many things - to adjust ourselves to environment and to our neighbours, to our wife or husband, to our children. We seem to learn from almost everything, but I am sure that when you speak about learning this isn't quite what you mean because you also seem to deny experience as a teacher. But when you deny experience aren't you denying all learning? After all, through experience, both in technology and in human everyday living, we learn everything we know. So could we go into this question?发问者：你常常谈到学习。我不太知道你说的学习是什么意思。我们在学校里、大学里接受教育、学习，生活也教会我们很多东西——根据环境和我们的邻居、妻子或者丈夫、我们的孩子来调整自己。我们似乎在从所有事情中学习，但是我相信你说学习的时候，并不是这个意思，因为你似乎也否定了作为老师的经验。但是当你否定经验时，你不就是在否定一切学习吗？毕竟，通过技术上和人们每日生活中的经验，我们学到了我们所知的一切。所以我们能深入探讨一下这个问题吗？Krishnamurti: Learning through experience is one thing - it is the accumulation of conditioning - and learning all the time, not only about objective things but also about oneself, is something quite different. There is the accumulation which brings about conditioning - this we know - and there is the learning which we speak about. This learning is observation - to observe without accumulation, to observe in freedom. This observation is not directed from the past. Let us keep those two things clear.克：从经验中学习是一回事——这是局限的积累——而始终在学习，不仅学习客观事物而且也对一个人自己进行了解，这完全是另一回事。存在着导致局限的积累——这点我们都知道——也存在着我们说的那种学习。这种学习是观察——不积累地观察，在自由中观察。这种观察不受过去控制。让我们把这两件事弄清楚。What do we learn from experience? We learn things like languages, agriculture, manners, going to the moon, medicine, mathematics. But have we learnt about war through making war? We have learnt to make war more deadly, more efficient, but we haven't learnt not to make war. Our experience in warfare endangers the survival of the human race. Is this learning? You may build a better house, but has experience taught you how to live more nobly inside it? We have learnt through experience that fire burns and that has become our conditioning but we have also learnt through our conditioning that nationalism is good. Yet experience should also teach us that nationalism is deadly. All the evidence is there. The religious experience, as based on our conditioning, has separated man from man. Experience has taught us to have better food, clothes and shelter, but it has not taught us that social injustice prevents the right relationship between man and man. So experience conditions and strengthens our prejudices, our peculiar tendencies and our particular dogmas and beliefs. We do not learn what stupid nonsense all this is; we do not learn to live in the right relationship with other men. This right relationship is love. Experience teaches me to strengthen the family as a unit opposed to society and to other families. This brings about strife and division, which makes it ever more important to strengthen the family protectively, and so the vicious circle continues. We accumulate, and call this "learning through experience", but more and more this learning brings about fragmentation, narrowness and specialization.我们从经验里学到了什么？我们学习诸如语言、农业、礼仪、登月、医药、数学之类的东西。但是我们是不是通过发动战争也学会了战争？我们学会了使战争变得更致命、更有效率，但是我们没有学会不去发动战争。我们的战争经验使人类的生存濒临危险。这是学习吗？你能造一座更好的房子，但是这经验教会了你如何更高尚地住在这房子里吗？我们从经验中学到了火会燃烧，这变成了我们的局限，但是我们也从我们的局限里学到了国家主义很好。而经验也应该告诉我们国家主义是致命的。所有的证据都在那儿。以我们的局限为基础的宗教经验，把人与人分割开来。经验教会我们获取更好的食物、衣服和住所，但是它没有教我们认识到社会不公妨碍了人与人之间正确的关系。所以经验决定了加强了我们的偏见，我们特定的倾向和我们特定的教条和信仰。我们没有学到这一切是多么愚蠢的无稽之谈；我们没有学会与他人一起生活在正确的关系中。这正确的关系就是爱。经验告诉我把家庭作为对立于社会和其他家庭的一个单元来巩固。这造成了冲突和分裂，使得保护性地巩固家庭变得更为重要，于是继续恶性循环下去。我们积累，称之为“从经验中学习”，但是这种学习带来了越来越多的分裂、狭隘和限制。Questioner: Are you making out a case against technological learning and experience, against science and all accumulated knowledge? If we turn our backs on that we shall go back to savagery.发问者：你是在提出论据反对技术上的学习和经验，反对科学和积累的所有知识吗？如果我们反对这些，那么我们就会回到蛮夷状态。Krishnamurti: No, I am not making out such a case at all. I think we are misunderstanding each other. We said that there are two kinds of learning: accumulation through experience, and acting from that accumulation, which is the past, and which is absolutely necessary wherever the action of knowledge is necessary. We are not against this; that would be too absurd!克：不，我根本不是在反对这些。我想我们误会对方了。我们说有两种学习：一种是通过经验来积累并根据这积累，也就是根据过去进行反应，而需要知识来行动的时候，这些是绝对必要的。我们并不反对这些；那就太荒唐了！Questioner: Gandhi tried to keep the machine out of life and started all that business which they call "Home industries" or "Cottage industries" in India. Yet he used modern mechanized transport. This shows the inconsistency and hypocrisy of his position.发问者：甘地试图把机器赶出生活，并在印度发起了那场他们称为“居家产业”或者“家庭手工业”的运动。然而他却使用现代机械化的交通工具。这表明了他的主张的矛盾和虚伪。Krishnamurti: Let's leave other people out of this. We are saying that there are two kinds of learning - one, acting through the accumulation of knowledge and experience, and the other, learning without accumulation, but learning all the time in the very act of living. The former is absolutely necessary in all technical matters, but relationship, behaviour, are not technical matters, they are living things and you have to learn about them all the time. If you act from what you have learnt about behaviour, then it becomes mechanical and therefore relationship becomes routine.克：让我们把其他的人排除讨论之外。我们说有两种学习——一种是，通过积累的知识和经验来行动，另一种是，不积累地学习，始终在生活这个行为本身中学习。前者在所有的技术事务中都是绝对必要的，而关系和行为，不是技术性事务，它们是活生生的事情，你必须始终从中学习。如果你根据之前学到的关于行为的知识来行动，那么就会变得机械化，进而关系就变成了例行公事。Then there is another very important point: in all the learning which is accumulation and experience, profit is the criterion that determines the efficiency of the learning. And when the motive of profit operates in human relationships then it destroys those relationships because it brings about isolation and division. When the learning of experience and accumulation enters the domain of human behaviour, the psychological domain, then it must inevitably destroy. Enlightened self-interest on the one hand is advancement, but on the other hand it is the very seat of mischief, misery and confusion. Relationship cannot flower where there is self-interest of any kind, and that is why relationship cannot flower where it is guided by experience or memory.接下来还有非常重要的一点：在所有积累和经验的学习中，利益是决定学习效率的标准。当获益的动机在人际关系中运作时，就破坏了这些关系，因为这带来了孤立和分离。当经验和积累的学习进入到人类行为的领域，心理领域中时，就必然会产生破坏。公开的利己主义一方面是进步，但是另一方面正是不幸、痛苦和混乱的根源。如果有任何形式的利己主义，关系就无法绽放，这就是为什么有经验或者记忆指导的地方关系就不能绽放。Questioner: I see this, but isn't religious experience something different? I am talking about the experience gathered and passed on in religious matters - the experiences of the saints and gurus, the experience of the philosophers. Isn't this kind of experience beneficial to us in our ignorance?发问者：我看到了这点，但是难道宗教体验不是不同的吗？我说的是在宗教事务方面积累和传承下来的经验——圣人和古鲁的经验，哲人的经验。难道这种经验对于对治我们的无知不是有益的吗？Krishnamurti: Not at all! The saint must be recognised by society and always conforms to society's notions of sainthood - otherwise he wouldn't be called a saint. Equally the guru must be recognised as such by his followers who are conditioned by tradition. So both the guru and the disciple are part of the cultural and religious conditioning of the particular society in which they live. When they assert that they have come into contact with reality, that they know, then you may be quite sure that what they know is not reality. What they know is their own projection from the past. So the man who says he knows, does not know. in all these so-called religious experiences a cognitive process of recognition is inherent. You can only recognise something you have known before, therefore it is of the past, therefore it is time-binding and not timeless. So-called religious experience does not bring benefit but merely conditions you according to your particular tradition, inclination, tendency and desire, and therefore encourages every form of illusion and isolation.克：根本毫无益处！圣人必须为社会所认可，并始终遵守社会对圣徒抱持的信条——否则他就不能被称为圣人。同样古鲁也必须被他的追随者所认可，而这些追随者被传统所局限。所以古鲁和弟子都是他们所处的特定社会的文化和宗教局限的一部分。当他们声称他们接上了真相，声称他们知道，那么你就可以肯定他们知道的不是真相。他们知道的是他们自己来自过去的投射。所以说自己知道的人，并不知道。在所有这些所谓的宗教体验中，必然会有一个认知的过程。你只能认出你以前知道的东西，所以那是来自过去的，因而是受限于时间的，不是永恒的。所谓的宗教体验不会带来任何益处，而是只会把你局限于你特定的传统、倾向、好恶和欲望中，因而助长了各种形式的幻觉和孤立。Questioner: Do you mean to say that you cannot experience reality?Krishnamurti: To experience implies that there must be an experiencer and the experiencer is the essence of all conditioning. What he experiences is the already-known.Questioner: What do you mean when you talk about the experiencer? If there is no experiencer do you mean you disappear?发问者：你的意思是说你无法体验真相？克：去体验意味着必须有个体验者，而体验者正是所有局限的核心。他体验到的是已知。发问者：你说的体验者是什么意思？如果没有体验者，你的意思是不是你消失了？Krishnamurti: Of course. The "you" is the past and as long as the "you" remains or the "me" remains, that which is immense cannot be. The "me" with his shallow little mind, experience and knowledge, with his heart burdened with jealousies and anxieties - how can such an entity understand that which has no beginning and no ending, that which is ecstasy? So the beginning of wisdom is to understand yourself. Begin understanding yourself.Questioner: Is the experiencer different from that which he experiences, is the challenge different from the reaction to the challenge?克：当然是的。“你”就是过去，只要“你”还在，那无限就不可能在。“我”带着他狭隘的头脑、经验和知识，带着他被嫉妒和焦虑所负累的心——这样一个实体怎么可能了解那无始无终之物，也就是至乐？所以智慧的开端就是了解你自己。开始了解你自己吧。发问者：体验者与他的体验是不同的吗，挑战与应对挑战的反应是不同的吗？Krishnamurti: The experiencer is the experienced, otherwise he could not recognise the experience and would not call it an experience; the experience is already in him before he recognises it. So the past is always operating and recognising itself; the new becomes swallowed up by the old. Similarly it is the reaction which determines the challenge; the challenge is the reaction, the two are not separate; without a reaction there would be no challenge. So the experience of an experiencer, or the reaction to a challenge which comes from the experiencer, are old, for they are determined by the experiencer. If you come to think of it, the word "experience" means to go through something and finish with it and not store it up, but when we talk about experience we actually mean the opposite. Every time you speak of experience you speak of something stored from which action takes place, you speak of something which you have enjoyed and demand to have again, or have disliked and fear to have repeated.So really to live is to learn without the cumulative process.克：体验者即体验到的，否则他就不可能认出这体验，不会把它称为一次体验；在认出来之前，这体验他已经有过了。所以过去总是在运作并认出它自己；新的东西被旧的吞噬了。同样，是反应决定了挑战；挑战就是反应，这两者不是分开的；没有反应就没有挑战。所以一个体验者的体验，或者体验者对挑战的反应，是陈旧的，因为他们取决于体验者。如果你来想一想，“体验”这个词意味着经历某事，结束它而不存储，但是我们谈起体验的时候，我们实际上说的是相反的意思。每次你说到经验，你说的都是以前存储的东西，而行动从中产生，你说的是你曾经享受过并希望再来一次的事情，或者不喜欢、害怕会再重复的事情。所以真正地活着就是学习而没有积累的过程。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SELF-EXPRESSION'《转变的紧迫性》之“自我表达”Questioner: Expression seems to me so important. I must express myself as an artist otherwise I feel stifled and deeply frustrated. Expression is part of one's existence. As an artist it is as natural that I should give myself to it as that a man should express his love for a woman in words and gestures. But through all this expression there is a sort of pain which I don't quite understand. I think most artists would agree with me that there is deep conflict in expressing one's deepest feelings on canvas, or in any other medium. I wonder if one can ever be free of this pain, or does expression always bring pain?发问者：表达对我来说显得特别重要。我必须像一个艺术家那样表达自己，否则我就感觉窒息并且非常沮丧。表达是我存在的一部分。作为一个艺术家，充分表现自己，就像一个男人用语言和动作表达他对一个女人的爱一样自然。但是在这所有的表达过程中，有一种痛苦我不是很理解。我想大多数艺术家都会在这一点上赞同我，即在画布上或者其他介质上表达自己最深刻的感受时，有一种深深的冲突。我想知道一个人能否摆脱这种痛苦，或者是不是表达总是会带来痛苦？Krishnamurti: What is the need of expression, and where does the suffering come into all this? Isn't one always trying to express more and more deeply, extravagantly, fully, and is one ever satisfied with what one has expressed? The deep feeling and the expression of it are not the same thing; there is a vast difference between the two, and there is always frustration when the expression doesn't correspond to the strong feeling. Probably this is one of the causes of pain, this discontent with the inadequacy of the utterance which the artist gives to his feeling. In this there is conflict and the conflict is a waste of energy. An artist has a strong feeling which is fairly authentic; he expresses it on canvas. This expression pleases some people and they buy his work; he gets money and reputation. His expression has been noticed and becomes fashionable. He refines it, pursues it, develops it, and is all the time imitating himself. This expression becomes habitual and stylized; the expression becomes more and more important and finally more important than the feeling; the feeling eventually evaporates. The artist is not left with the social consequences of being a successful painter: the market place of the salon and the gallery, the connoisseur, the critics; he is enslaved by the society for which he paints. The feeling has long since disappeared, the expression is an empty shell remaining. Consequently even this expression eventually loses its attraction because it had nothing to express; it is a gesture, a word without a meaning. This is part of the destructive process of society. This is the destruction of the good.克：为什么需要表达，所有这一切中的痛苦又是从哪里来的？难道一个人不是总想越来越深刻、恣意、充分地表达自己吗？而对所表达的，他可曾满意过？深刻的感受与对它的表达不是一回事；这两者之间有着巨大的差别，当表达不足以响应这强烈的感受时，就始终会有挫折感。也许这就是痛苦的原因之一，即艺术家对无法充分表达自身感受的这种不满。这其中就有冲突，而冲突是能量的浪费。艺术家拥有某种相当真实的强烈感受；他把这感受用画布表达出来。这种表达取悦了某些人，他们买走他的作品；他得到了金钱和名声。他的表达得到了广泛关注，成为了一种时尚。于是他完善这表达，追逐它，发展它，他始终在模仿自己。这种表达变得习惯和程式化；这表达变得越来越重要，最后变得比感受本身更加重要；最后感受就消失不见了。艺术家所拥有的不只是成为一个成功画家的社会影响：市场上的沙龙和画廊，鉴赏家，批评家；他被他为之作画的社会所奴役。这种感受消失良久，表达就变成了一个残存的空壳。进而最终连这表达也失去了吸引力，因为已经没什么可表达的了；那只是一种没有意义的空洞姿态和语言。这就是这个社会破坏过程的一部分。这就是美好被破坏的过程。Questioner: Can't the feeling remain, without getting lost in expression?发问者：难道感受就不能保留下来而不迷失在表达中吗？Krishnamurti: When expression becomes all-important because it is pleasurable, satisfying or profitable, then there is a cleavage between expression and feeling. When the feeling is the expression then the conflict doesn't arise, and in this there is no contradiction and hence no conflict. But when profit and thought intervene, then this feeling is lost through greed. The passion of feeling is entirely different from the passion of expression, and most people are caught in the passion of expression. So there is always this division between the good and the pleasurable.克：当表达因为令人愉悦、满足或者有利可图而变得无比重要时，在表达和感受之间就有了裂隙。当感受就是表达本身时，冲突就不会出现，其中没有矛盾进而没有冲突。但是当利益和思想干涉进来时，就因为贪婪而失去了这种感受。感受里的热情与表达出来的热情完全不同，人们大多数被困在了表达出来的热情里。所以美好与愉悦之间总是有这种分别。Questioner: Can I live without being caught in this current of greed?Krishnamurti: If it is the feeling which is important you will never ask about expression. Either you have got the feeling or you haven't. If you ask about the expression, you are not asking about artistry but about profit. Artistry is that which is never taken into account: it is the living.发问者：我能不困在这贪婪的洪流里生活吗？克：如果对你来说重要的是感受，你就永远不会去问表达。你要么有感受，要么没有。如果你来问表达，你问的就不是艺术而是利益。艺术是从来不用思考的事情：它就是生活。Questioner: So what is it, to live? What is it to be, and to have that feeling which is complete in itself? I have now understood that expression is beside the point.Krishnamurti: It is living without conflict.发问者：那么，生活是什么呢？成为并拥有自身就完满的那感受，是怎样的？我现在明白了表达的问题离题了。克：那就是没有冲突地生活。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'PASSION'《转变的紧迫性》之“热情”Questioner: What is passion? You've talked about it and apparently you give it a special meaning. I don't think I know that meaning. Like every man I have sexual passion and passions for superficial things like fast driving or cultivating a beautiful garden. Most of us indulge in some form of passionate activity. Talk about his special passion and you see a man's eyes sparkle. We know the word passion comes from the Greek word for suffering, but the feeling I get when you use this word is not one of suffering but rather of some driving quality like that of the wind which comes roaring out of the west, chasing the clouds and the rubbish before it. I'd like to possess that passion. How does one come by it? What is it passionate about? What is the passion you mean?发问者：热情是什么？这点你曾谈到过，显然你赋予了它一个特别的含义。我想我不知道那含义是什么。就像所有人一样，我有对性的热情，也有对开快车或者打理漂亮的花园之类肤浅事情的热情。我们多数人都沉溺于某种形式的激情行为中。一个人在谈论他特定的爱好时，你能看到他的眼睛在发光。我们知道热情这个词来自希腊语里的痛苦这个词，但是你用这个词的时候，我感觉到的不是痛苦，而是某种像风一样的驱动力，这风从西方呼啸而来，追赶着它前面的层云和垃圾。我想拥有这热情。一个人要怎样拥有它？它对什么热情洋溢？你说的热情是什么意思？Krishnamurti: I think we should be clear that lust and passion are two different things. Lust is sustained by thought, driven by thought, it grows and gathers substance in thought until it explodes - sexually, or, if it is the lust for power, in its own violent forms of fulfilment. Passion is something entirely different; it is not the product of thought nor the remembrance of a past event; it is not driven by any motive of fulfilment; it is not sorrow either.克：我想我们应该清楚贪欲和热情是不同的两件事情。贪欲由思想维系，被思想驱使，它在思想中滋长和积聚，直到爆发——从性方面爆发，或者如果那是对权力的贪欲，就会有它自己去实现的暴力方式。热情是截然不同的东西；它不是思想的产物，也不是对过去事件的回忆；它不受任何成功动机的驱使；它也不是悲伤。Questioner: Is all sexual passion lust? Sexual response is not always the result of thought; it may be contact as when you suddenly meet somebody whose loveliness overpowers you.发问者：所有的性激情都是贪欲吗？性反应不总是思想的产物；当你突然遇到一个可爱得征服了你的人，就可能会发生这样的关系。Krishnamurti: Wherever thought builds up the image of pleasure it must inevitably be lust and not the freedom of passion. If pleasure is the main drive then it is lust. When sexual feeling is born out of pleasure it is lust. If it is born out of love it is not lust, even though great delight may then be present. Here we must be clear and find out for ourselves whether love excludes pleasure and enjoyment. When you see a cloud and delight in its vastness and the light on it, there is of course pleasure, but there is a great deal more than pleasure. We are not condemning this at all. If you keep returning to the cloud in thought, or in fact, for a stimulation, then you are indulging in an imaginative flight of fancy, and obviously here pleasure and thought are the incentives operating. When you first looked at that cloud and saw its beauty there was no such incentive of pleasure operating. The beauty in sex is the absence of the "me", the ego, but the thought of sex is the affirmation of this ego, and that is pleasure. This ego is all the time either seeking pleasure or avoiding pain, wanting fulfilment and thereby inviting frustration. In all this the feeling of passion is sustained and pursued by thought, and therefore it is no longer passion but pleasure. The hope, the pursuit, of remembered passion is pleasure.克：无论思想在哪里建立起快感的形象，那都必然是贪欲，而不是自由的热情。如果快感是主要驱动力，那么它就是贪欲。如果性感觉诞生于快感，那它就是贪欲。如果是诞生于爱，那就不是贪欲，即使当中可能有巨大的快乐。这点我们必须清楚，必须自己去发现爱是否排除了快感和享受。当你看到一片云，欣赏它的广阔和其上的光芒时，其中确实有一种快乐，但是还有比快乐多得多的东西。我们根本不是在贬低快感。如果你不断地为了得到某种刺激从思想里回想那片云，或者回去看那片云，那么你就是沉溺在异想天开的幻想中，很显然，快感和思想是在这里运作着的诱因。当你初次看到那片云，看到它的美，那时候是没有快感的动机运作的。性中的美是“我”、自我的缺席，但是关于性的想法却在加强这个自我，而这就是快感。这个自我始终在寻求快乐或者避免痛苦，想要成就，因而招致挫败。在这一切中，热情的感觉是被思想维系和追逐的，所以就不再是热情了，而是快感。对记忆中的热情的企望、追求是快感。Questioner: What is passion itself, then?发问者：那么热情本身是什么呢？Krishnamurti: It has to do with joy and ecstasy, which is not pleasure. In pleasure there is always a subtle form of effort - a seeing, striving, demanding, struggling to keep it, to get it, In passion there is no demand and therefore no struggle. In passion there is not the slightest shadow of fulfilment, therefore there can be neither frustration nor pain, Passion is the freedom from the "me", which is the centre of all fulfilment and pain. Passion does not demand because it is, and I am not speaking of something static. Passion is the austerity of self-abnegation in which the "you" and the "me" is not; therefore passion is the essence of life. It is this that moves and lives. But when thought brings in all the problems of having and holding, then passion ceases. Without passion creation is not possible.克：它必然与喜悦和至乐同在，而这些不是快感。在快感中总是有一种形式微妙的努力——一个看到、想要、追求、努力保持它、获得它的过程。在热情中，没有欲望，因而没有努力。在热情中，没有一丝的成就感，所以既不会有挫折也不会有痛苦。热情是从“我”中解脱出来，而“我”正是所有满足和痛苦的中心。热情没有欲望，因为它是...我不是在说某种静态的东西。热情是自我否定的简朴，其中没有了“你”和“我”；所以热情是生命的精髓。是这些在运动在生活。但是当思想带来了获得和占有的所有问题时，热情就停止了。没有热情，就不可能有创造。Questioner: What do you mean by creation?Krishnamurti: Freedom.Questioner: What freedom?发问者：你说的创造是什么意思？克：自由。发问者：什么自由？Krishnamurti: Freedom from the "me" which depends on environment and is the product of environment - the me which is put together by society and thought. This freedom is clarity, the light that is not lit from the past. Passion is only the present.克：从“我”中解脱的自由，“我”依赖于环境，是环境的产物——这个我是由社会和思想造就的。这自由就是清晰，是不从过去点亮的光。热情只有现在。Questioner: This has fired me with a strange new feeling.Krishnamurti: That is the passion of learning.发问者：这用一种奇异的新感觉点燃了我。克：这就是学习的热情。Questioner: What particular action in my daily living will ensure that this passion is burning and operating?Krishnamurti: Nothing will ensure it except the attention of learning, which is action, which is now. In this there is the beauty of passion, which is the total abandonment of the "me" and its time.发问者：在我的日常生活中，需要怎样的特定行动来确保这种热情持续燃烧和运作？克：没什么能保证这点，除了全神贯注的学习，也就是行动，也就是现在。其中就有热情的美，也就是对“我”及其时间的彻底抛弃。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'ORDER'《转变的紧迫性》之“秩序”Questioner: In your teaching there are a thousand details. in my living I must be able to resolve them all into one action, now, which permeates all I do, because in my living I have only the one moment right before me in which to act. What is that one action in daily living which will bring all the details of your teaching to one point, like a pyramid inverted on its point?Krishnamurti: ...dangerously!发问者：你的教诲中有千万个细节。我必须在我的生活中现在就能将它们全部融合为一个行动，渗透到我做的所有事情中，因为在我的生活中，我只有就在我眼前的这一刻，在这一刻中去行动。就像金字塔倒置在塔尖上一样，在日常生活中把你教诲的所有细节凝聚成一个点的这个行动是什么？克：...这太危险了！Questioner: Or, to put it differently, what is the one action which will bring the total intelligence of living into focus in one instant in the present?发问者：或者换句话说，把生活的全部智慧凝聚到现在这一刻的那个行动是什么？Krishnamurti: I think the question to ask is how to live a really intelligent, balanced, active life, in harmonious relationship with other human beings, without confusion, adjustment and misery. What is the one act that will summon this intelligence to operate in whatever you are doing? There is so much misery, poverty and sorrow in the world. What are you, as a human being, to do facing all these human problems? If you use the opportunity to help others for your own fulfilment, then it is exploitation and mischief. So we can put that aside from the beginning. The question really is, how are we to live a highly intelligent, orderly life without any kind of effort? It seems that we always approach this problem from the outside, asking ourselves, "What am I to do, confronted with all the many problems of mankind - economic, social, human?" We want to work this out in terms of the outer.克：我想该问的问题是，如何过一种真正智慧、平衡和有活力的生活，与他人处于和谐的关系中，没有困惑、顺从和痛苦。让这种智慧在你所有的行为中都运作的那个行动是什么？世界上有这么多不幸、贫穷和悲伤。作为一个人，面对所有这些人类的问题，你该怎么办？如果你利用帮助别人的机会来实现自己的成就感，那么这就是剥削和伤害。所以我们从一开始就要把这些放在一边。真正的问题是，我们要怎样过一种高度智慧和有序的生活，而没有任何形式的努力？我们似乎总是从外部来着手这个问题，我们问自己，“面对人类这么多的问题，我该怎么办——经济的，社会的，人性的问题？”我们想从外部解决这些问题。Questioner: No, I am not asking you how I can tackle or solve the problems of the world, economic, social or political. That would be too absurd! All I want to know is how to live righteously in this world exactly as it is, because it is as it is now, right here before me, and I can't will it into any other shape. I must live now in this world as it is, and in these circumstances solve all the problems of living. I am asking how to make this living a life of Dharma, which is that virtue that is not imposed from without, that does not conform to any precept, is not cultivated by any thought.发问者：不，我不是问你我要如何解决或者处理世界上的经济、社会或政治问题。那就太荒唐了！我只是想知道如何在这个世界上按照世界本身的样子正确地生活，因为现在的世界就是这个样子，就在我面前，我不能靠意志力把它变成别的样子。我现在必须如实地生活在这个世界上，就在这样的环境下，解决生活中的所有问题。我问的是怎样把生活变得有德性，这美德不是从无德处强加的，不需遵从任何戒律，也不是由任何思想培养出来的。Krishnamurti: Do you mean you want to find yourself immediately, suddenly, in a state of grace which is great intelligence, innocency, love - to find yourself in this state without having a past or a future, and to act from this state?Questioner: Yes! That is it exactly.Krishnamurti: This has nothing to do with achievement, success or failure. There must surely be only one way to live: what is it?Questioner: That is my question.克：你的意思是不是，你希望立刻、突然发现自己处于一种善美的状态中，也就是巨大的智慧、赤诚和爱中——发现自己处于这种状态中，没有过去和未来，并从这状态中行动？发问者：是的！正是这样。克：这与成就、成功或者失败无关。必然只能有一种生活方式：那是什么方式？发问者：这就是我的问题。Krishnamurti: To have inside you that light that has no beginning and no ending, that is not lit by your desire, that is not yours or someone else's. When there is this inward light, whatever you do will always be right and true.Questioner: How do you get that light, now, without all the struggle, the search, the longing, the questioning?克：在你的内心拥有这无始无终的光，那光不是被你的欲望点亮的，不是你的也不是别人的。有了这内在的光，无论你做什么都始终是正确的。发问者：你要如何得到那光，现在就得到，而不需要任何挣扎、追寻、渴望和质疑？Krishnamurti: It is only possible when you really die to the past completely, and this can be done only when there is complete order in the brain. The brain cannot stand disorder. If there is disorder all its activities will be contradictory, confused, miserable and it will bring about mischief in itself and around itself. This order is not the design of thought, the design of obedience to a principle, to authority, or to some form of imagined goodness. It is disorder in the brain that brings about conflict; then all the various resistances cultivated by thought to escape from this disorder arise - religious and otherwise.克：只有当你真的对过去彻底死去时，这才可能，只有头脑中有完全的秩序时，才能做到这点。大脑不能容忍任何失序。如果有失序，那么它的所有行为都会是矛盾的，困惑的，痛苦的，会带来自身及其周围的不幸。这秩序不是思想的产物，不是来自对某个原则、权威或者想象出来的某种形式的良善的服从。是头脑中的失序带来了冲突；随后就产生了由思想滋养的所有各式各样的抗拒，以逃避这失序——以宗教的或者非宗教的方式。Questioner: How can this order be brought about to a brain that is disorderly, contradictory, in itself?发问者：对于一个本身就失序、矛盾的大脑，要怎样带来这种秩序？Krishnamurti: It can be done by watchfulness throughout the day, and then, before sleeping, by putting everything that has been done during the day in order. In that way the brain does not go to sleep in disorder. This does not mean that the brain hypnotizes itself into a state of order when there is really disorder in and about it. There must be order during the day, and the summing up of this order before sleeping is the harmonious ending of the day. It is like a man who keeps accounts and balances them properly every evening so that he starts afresh the next day, so that when he goes to sleep his mind is quiet, empty, not worried, confused, anxious or fearful. When he wakes up there is this light which is not the product of thought or of pleasure. This light is intelligence and love. It is the negation of the disorder of the morality in which we have been brought up.克：要做到这点，需要整个白天都警觉，然后在睡前，把白天做的所有事情整理有序。这样大脑就不会在失序中睡去。这并不意味着大脑把自己催眠到一个有序的状态里，而实际上在大脑中及其周围都是失序的。白天必须有秩序，到睡前把这秩序归结到一起，一天就和谐地结束了。就像一个人每天晚上合理地保持账户收支平衡，这样第二天他就可以重新开始，所以在入睡的时候，他的头脑是安静的，空无的，而不是着急的，困惑的，焦虑或者恐惧的。当他醒来时，就有一种并非思想或快感产物的光。这光就是智慧和爱。这就否定了我们在其中成长起来的道德上的失序。Questioner: Can I have this light immediately? That is the question I asked right at the beginning, only I put it differently.Krishnamurti: You can have it immediately when the "me" is not. The "me" comes to an end when it sees for itself that it must end; the seeing is the light of understanding.发问者：我能即刻拥有这光吗？这就是我一开始就问的问题，只是提法不同而已。克：没有了“我”，你就立刻能拥有它。“我”看到自己必须结束，“我”就结束了；这看到就是领悟的光。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMMUNITY'《转变的紧迫性》之“个人与团体”Questioner: I don't quite know how to ask this question but I have a strong feeling that relationship between the individual and the community, these two opposing entities, has been a long history of mischief. The history of the world, of thought, of civilization, is, after all, the history of the relationship between these two opposing entities. In all societies the individual is more or less suppressed; he must conform and fit into the pattern which the theorists have determined. The individual is always trying to break out of these patterns, and continuous battle between the two is the result. Religions talk about the individual soul as something separate from the collective soul. They emphasize the individual. In modern society - which has become so mechanical, standardized and collectively active - the individual is trying to identify himself, enquiring what he is, asserting himself. All struggle leads nowhere. My question is, what is wrong with all this?发问者：我不太知道该怎么问你这个问题，但是我有种强烈的感觉，个人和团体这两个对立实体之间的关系，是一部漫长的苦难史。毕竟，世界的、思想的、文化的历史，都是这两个对立实体之间的关系史。在所有社会中，个人都或多或少地被压制；他必须服从并符合理论家们定好的模式。个人总想打破这些模式，结果就是这两者之间的不停斗争。宗教说个人的灵魂是与集体灵魂分开的东西。他们强调个人。在现代社会中——这个社会已经变得如此机械化、标准化，行动划一——个人想要确认和探索他自己是什么，维护自己。所有的斗争都毫无意义。我的问题是，这一切到底出了什么问题？Krishnamurti: The only thing that really matters is that there be an action of goodness, love and intelligence in living. Is goodness individual or collective, is love personal or impersonal, is intelligence yours, mine or somebody else's? If it is yours or mine then it is not intelligence, or love, or goodness. If goodness is an affair of the individual or of the collective, according to one's particular preference or decision, then it is no longer goodness. Goodness is not in the backyard of the individual nor in the open field of the collective; goodness flowers only in freedom from both. When there is this goodness, love and intelligence, then action is not in terms of the individual or the collective. Lacking goodness, we divide the world into the individual and the collective, and further divide the collective into innumerable groups according to religion, nationality and class. Having created these divisions we try to bridge them by forming new groups which are again divided from other groups. We see that every great religion supposedly exists to bring about the brotherhood of man and, in actual fact, prevents it. We always try to reform that which is already corrupt. We don't eradicate corruption fundamentally but simply rearrange it.克：唯一真正重要的事情是生活中有良善、爱和智慧的行动。善是个人的或者集体的吗，爱是个人的或者非个人的吗，智慧是你的，我的或者别人的吗？如果它是你的或者我的，那么它就不是智慧，爱或者善。如果善是个人的或者集体的事情，基于一个人特定的偏好或者决定，那么它就不再是善。善不在个人的后院里，也不在集体的开阔土地上；善只有在从两者解脱出来的自由中才能绽放。有这种良善、爱和智慧的地方，行动就不再是个人的或者集体的。因为缺乏善，我们把世界划分成了个人的和集体的，并根据宗教、国家和阶级进一步把集体划分为不计其数的组织。制造了这些分别，我们又想通过成立新的组织在其间架起桥梁，而这些组织又是与其他组织相分离的。我们看到所有大型宗教的存在本应带来人类大同，但是事实上，却成为了世界大同的障碍。我们总是试图改革已经腐败的东西。我们不去根除腐败，而只是草草进行一下重组。Questioner: Are you saying that we need not waste time in these endless bargainings between the individual and the collective, or try to prove that they are different or that they are similar? Are you saying that only goodness, love and intelligence are the issue, and that these lie beyond the individual or the collective?Krishnamurti: Yes.发问者：你是说我们不需要在个人和集体之间这些无止境的讨价还价中浪费时间了，也不要试图去证明他们是不同或者相似的了？你是说只有良善，爱和智慧才是问题所在，而这些问题超越了个人或者集体？克：是的。Questioner: So the real question seems to be how love, goodness and intelligence can act in daily living.Krishnamurti: If these act, then the question of the individual and the collective is academic.Questioner: How are they to act?发问者：所以真正的问题似乎是爱、良善和智慧要如何在日常生活中运作。克：如果它们运作，那么个人和集体的问题就是不切实际的了。发问者：它们要如何运作？Krishnamurti: They can act only in relationship: all existence is in relationship. So the first thing is to become aware of one's relationship to everything and everybody, and to see how in this relationship the "me" is born and acts. This "me" that is both the collective and the individual; it is the "me" that separates; it is the "me" that acts collectively or individually, the "me" that creates heaven and hell. To be aware of this is to understand it. And the understanding of it is the ending of it. The ending of it is goodness, love and intelligence.克：它们只能在关系中运作：所有存在都在关系中。所以首要的事情就是要觉察到一个人与所有人和事的关系，看到这关系中“我”是如何产生和运作的。这个“我”既是集体的也是个人的；是“我”在分裂；是“我”在集体地或者个体地行动着，这个“我”制造了天堂和地狱。觉察这些就是去了解“我”。而了解了“我”就终结了它。“我”的终结就是良善，爱和智慧。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'MEDITATION AND ENERGY'《转变的紧迫性》之“冥想与能量”Questioner: This morning I should like to go into the deeper meaning, or deeper sense, of meditation. I have practised many forms of it, including a little Zen. There are various schools which teach awareness but they all seem rather superficial, so can we leave all that aside and go into it more deeply?发问者：今天早上我想探讨一下冥想更为深层的含义，或者说更深刻的意义。我练习过很多形式的冥想，包括一点点禅坐。有很多学校教觉察，但是它们看起来都相当肤浅，所以我们能不能把那些都放在一边，更为深入地探讨一下这点？Krishnamurti: We must also set aside the whole meaning of authority, because in meditation any form of authority, either one's own or the authority of another, becomes an impediment and prevents freedom - prevents a freshness, a newness. So authority, conformity and imitation must be set aside completely. Otherwise you merely imitate, follow what has been said, and that makes the mind very dull and stupid. In that there is no freedom. Your past experience may guide, direct or establish a new path, and so even that must go. Then only can one go into this very deep and extraordinarily important thing called meditation. Meditation is the essence of energy.克：我们必须把权威的整个含义都放在一旁，因为在冥想中，任何形式的权威，无论是一个人自己的还是别人的权威，都会变成一种障碍，妨碍了自由——妨碍新鲜和崭新的东西出现。所以权威、遵从和仿效必须被彻底搁置一旁。否则你就只是在模仿、遵从别人所说的，而那会让头脑变得非常迟钝和愚蠢。那里没有自由。你过去的经验或许能够引导、指出或者建立一种新途径，所以即使是这些东西也必须放下。只有此时你才能深入到被称为冥想的这件非常深刻和极其重要的事情当中去。冥想是能量的核心。Questioner: For many years I have tried to see that I do not become a slave to the authority of someone else or to a pattern. Of course there is a danger of deceiving myself but as we go along I shall probably find out. But when you say that meditation is the essence of energy, what do you mean by the words energy and meditation?发问者：多年来，我一直努力确保自己不成为别人的权威或者某种模式的奴隶。当然这其中会有一种自欺的危险，但是当我们探讨下去时，我可能就会有所发现。然而当你说冥想是能量的核心时，其中的能量和冥想这些词是什么意思呢？Krishnamurti: Every movement of thought every action demands energy. Whatever you do or think needs energy, and this energy can be dissipated through conflict, through various forms of unnecessary thought, emotional pursuits and sentimental activities. Energy is wasted in conflict which arises in duality, in the "me" and the "not-me", in the division between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought. When this wastage is no longer taking place there is a quality of energy which can be called an awareness - an awareness in which there is no evaluation, judgement, condemnation or comparison but merely an attentive observation, a seeing of things exactly as they are, both inwardly and outwardly, without the interference of thought, which is the past.克：思想的每个运动，每个活动都需要能量。无论你做什么或者想什么，都需要能量，而这种能量可能会因为冲突，因为各种形式的不必要的思想、感情追求和感情用事的行为，而消耗。能量浪费在来自二元性、“我”和“非我”的冲突中，浪费在观察者和被观察者、思想者和思想之间的分裂中。只有这种浪费不再发生时，才能有一种可以被称为觉察的能量品质——在这觉察中没有评估、判断、谴责和比较，只有一种全神贯注的观察，从内在和外在如实地看到事情的样子，没有思想也就是过去的干扰。Questioner: This I find very difficult to understand. If there were no thought at all, would it be possible to recognise a tree, or my wife or neighbour? Recognition is necessary, isn't it, when you look at a tree or the woman next door?发问者：我发现这点非常难以理解。如果根本没有思想，又怎么可能认出一棵树，或者我的妻子和邻居？当你看着一棵树或者隔壁的女人时，认知是必要的，不是吗？Krishnamurti: When you observe a tree is recognition necessary? When you look at that tree, do you say it is a tree or do you just look? If you begin to recognise it as an elm, an oak or a mango tree then the past interferes with direct observation. In the same way, when you look at your wife, if you look with memories of annoyances or pleasures you are not really looking at her but at the image which you have in your mind about her. That prevents direct perception: direct perception does not need recognition. Outward recognition of your wife, your children, your house or your neighbour is, of course necessary, but why should there be an interference of the past in the eyes, the mind and the heart? Doesn't it prevent you from seeing clearly? When you condemn or have an opinion about something, that opinion or prejudice distorts observation.克：当你观察一棵树时，认知是必要的吗？当你看着那棵树时，你会说那是棵树，还是只是看着它呢？如果你开始认出那是一颗榆树、橡树或者芒果树，那么过去就是在干扰直接的观察。同样，当你看着你的妻子，如果你是带着苦恼或者快乐的记忆在看，那么你就没有真的在看她，而是在看你头脑里关于她的一个意象。而这妨碍了直接的观察：直接的觉察不需要认知。从外部对你的妻子、孩子、房子或者你的邻居的认知，当然是必要的，但是为什么在你的眼睛里、头脑里和心里要有过去的干涉？难道那没有妨碍你清晰地看到吗？当你对某事谴责或者有某个观点时，那观点或者偏见就扭曲了观察。Questioner: Yes, I see that. That subtle form of recognition does distort, I see that. You say all these interferences of thought are a waste of energy. You say observe without any form of recognition, condemnation, judgement; observe without naming, for that naming, recognition, condemnation are a waste of energy. That can be logically and actually understood. Then there is the next point which is the division, the separateness, or, rather, as you have often put it in your talks, the space that exists between the observer and the observed which creates duality; you say that this also is a waste of energy and brings about conflict. I find everything you say logical but I find it extraordinarily difficult to remove that space, to bring about harmony between the observer and the observed. How is this to be done?发问者：是的，这点我明白。这种微妙的认知形式确实有扭曲作用，我看到了这点。你说所有这些思想的干扰是能量的浪费。你说观察而没有任何形式的认知、谴责和评判；不命名地观察，因为命名、认知和谴责是能量的浪费。这点可以从道理上被真正地理解。接下来的一个要点是分裂、分离，或者如你在讲话中所说的，存在于观察者和被观察者之间的距离，这产生了二元性；你说这也是一种能量的浪费，带来了冲突。我发现你说的每一件事都很有道理，但是我发现要去除那个距离，带来观察者与被观察者之间的和谐，是极其困难的。要怎样才能做到这点？Krishnamurti: There is no how. The how means a system, a method, a practice which becomes mechanical. Again we have to be rid of the significance of the word "how".Questioner: Is it possible? I know the word possible implies a future, an effort, a striving to bring about harmony, but one must use certain words. I hope we can go beyond those words, so is it possible to bring about a union between the observer and the observed?克：没有怎样。怎样意味着变得机械的一个体系，一个方法，一种练习。我们还得摒弃“怎样”这个词的含义。发问者：这可能吗？我知道可能这个词暗示了一个未来，一种想带来和谐的努力和追求，但是你必须得使用某些词语。我希望我们能超越这些词语，那么，是否可能带来观察者和被观察者之间的一种统一？Krishnamurti: The observer is always casting its shadow on the thing it observes. So one must understand the structure and the nature of the observer, not how to bring about a union between the two. One must understand the movement of the observer and in that understanding perhaps the observer comes to an end. We must examine what the observer is: it is the past with all its memories, conscious and unconscious, its racial inheritance, its accumulated experience which is called knowledge, its reactions. The observer is really the conditioned entity. He is the one who asserts that he is, and I am. In protecting himself, he resists, dominates, seeking comfort and security. The observer then sets himself apart as something different from that which he observes, inwardly or outwardly. This brings about a duality and from this duality there is conflict, which is the wastage of energy. To be aware of the observer, his movement, his self-centred activity, his assertions, his prejudices, one must be aware of all these unconscious movements which build the separatist feeling that he is different. It must be observed without any form of evaluation, without like and dislike; just observe it in daily life, in its relationships. When this observation is clear, isn't there then a freedom from the observer?克：观察者总是在它观察的事物上投射自己的阴影。所以一个人必须了解观察者的结构和性质，而不是去实现这两者之间的统一。一个人必须了解观察者的活动，在这种了解中，也许观察者就终止了。我们必须审视观察者是什么：它是带着所有记忆的过去，有意识的和无意识的，带着过去的种族遗传，被称为知识的积累起来的经验，以及过去的种种反应。观察者实在是一个局限的存在体。他是那个坚称他是谁和我是谁的人。在自我保护中，他抗拒，控制，寻求舒适和安全。继而观察者把自己作为不同于他所观察之物的某种东西分离开来，从内在或外在都是如此。这带来了一种二元性，从这种二元性中就产生了冲突，那正是能量的浪费。要觉察到观察者，他的活动，他的自我中心行为，他的主张，他的偏见，一个人就必须觉察到所有这些潜意识的活动，这些活动制造了一种分离感，感觉自己是不同的。必须没有任何形式的评估，没有好恶地观察到这一点；只是在日常生活中，在关系中观察这些。当这种观察清晰之时，不就有了一种从观察者中解脱出来的自由吗？Questioner: You are saying, sir, that the observer is really the ego; you are saying that as long as the ego exists, he must resist, divide, separate, for in this separation, this division, he feels alive. It gives him vitality to resist, to fight, and he has become accustomed to that battle; it is his way of living. Are you not saying that this ego, this "I", must dissolve through an observation in which there is no sense of like or dislike, no opinion or judgement, but only the observing of this "I" in action? But can such a thing really take place? Can I look at myself so completely, so truly, without distortion? You say that when I do look at myself so clearly then the "I" has no movement at all. And you say this is part of meditation? Krishnamurti: Of course. This is meditation.发问者：先生，你是说，观察者实际上就是自我；你是说只要自我还存在，他就必然会抗拒，分裂，分离，因为在这种分离和分裂中，他感觉到自己的存在。这给了他抗拒和奋争的力量，他于是变得习惯于这种斗争；那是他的生存方式。你难道不是说这个自我，这个“我”必须要通过没有好恶感的观察来消除吗，没有观点或评判，而只有对这个“我”的行为的观察？但是这种事情真的能发生吗？我能够如此完全地，如此真实地，没有扭曲地看着我自己吗？你说当我如此清晰地看着自己时，“我”就没有任何运动了。你说这是冥想的一部分吗？克：当然。这就是冥想。Questioner: This observation surely demands extraordinary self-discipline.Krishnamurti: What do you mean by self-discipline? Do you mean disciplining the self by putting him in a strait-jacket, or do you mean learning about the self, the self that asserts, that dominates, that is ambitious, violent and so on - learning about it? The learning is, in itself, discipline. The word discipline means to learn and when there is learning, not accumulating, when there is actual learning, which needs attention, that learning brings about its own responsibility, its own activity, its own dimensions: so there is no discipline as something imposed upon it. Where there is learning there is no imitation, no conformity, no authority. If this is what you mean by the word discipline, then surely there is freedom to learn?发问者：这种观察肯定需要巨大的自律。克：你说的自律是什么意思？你的意思是不是把自我装进一件束身衣里来约束他，还是说了解自己，了解那个坚信着，控制着，并且充满了野心和暴力等等的自我——去了解它？了解就是它自己的纪律。纪律这个词意味着学习，当有学习而不是积累，有这种真正的学习时，这需要一种关注，这种学习就带来了它自身的责任，自身的行动，自身的空间：于是就没有那种强加于上的纪律。有学习就没有模仿，没有遵从，没有权威。如果这就是你说的纪律这个词的意思，那么是不是显然就有了学习的自由？Questioner: You are taking me too far and perhaps too deeply, and I can't quite go with you where this learning is concerned. I see very clearly that the self as the observer must come to an end. It is logically so, and there must be no conflict: that is very clear. But you are saying that this very observation is learning and in learning there is always accumulation; this accumulation becomes the past. Learning is an additive process, but you are apparently giving it a different meaning altogether. From what I have understood you are saying that learning is a constant movement without accumulation. Is that so? Can learning be without accumulation?发问者：你把我带得太远或许也太深了，关于这种学习的那部分，我不太跟得上你。我很清楚地看到，作为观察者的自我必须停止。道理上是这样的，必须没有冲突：这点很清楚。但是你说这种观察本身就是学习，而在学习中总是有积累的；这种积累变成了过去。学习是一个累加的过程，但是显然你赋予了这个词完全不同的含义。按我理解的，你说的学习是一个不停的没有积累的过程。是这样吗？学习能没有积累吗？Krishnamurti: Learning is its own action. What generally happens is that having learnt - we act upon what we have learnt. So there is division between the past and action, and hence there is a conflict between what should be and what is, or what has been and what is. We are saying that there can be action in the very movement of learning: that is, learning is doing; it is not a question of having learnt and then acting. This is very important to understand because having learnt, and acting from that accumulation, is the very nature of the "me", the "I", the ego or whatever name one likes to give it. The "I" is the very essence of the past and the past impinges on the present and so on into the future. In this there is constant division. Where there is learning there is a constant movement; there is no accumulation which can become the "I".克：学习就是它自身的行动。在学习中通常发生的是——我们根据我们所学到的来行动。所以总是有过去和行动之间的分裂，因而总是有应该如何和现在如何，或者曾经如何和现在如何之间的冲突。我们说在学习的每一刻中都会有行动：也就是说，学习就是行动；不是先学到然后行动的问题。理解这一点，非常重要，因为先学到，然后根据那些积累来行动，正是“我”，“自我”的本质所在，或者不管你喜欢管它叫什么名字。“我”正是过去的核心所在，而过去严重妨碍着现在，进而影响未来。其中不断地有分裂。而有学习的时候，就有一种不停的运动；其中没有会变成“我”的积累过程。Questioner: But in the technological field there must be accumulated knowledge. One can't fly the Atlantic or run a car, or even do most of the ordinary daily things without knowledge.发问者：但是在技术领域必须有知识的积累。如果没有知识，一个人就不可能飞跃大西洋或者开车，甚至连大部分的日常事务也做不了。Krishnamurti: Of course not, sir; such knowledge is absolutely necessary. But we are talking about the psychological field in which the "I" operates. The "I" can use technological knowledge in order to achieve something, a position or prestige; the "I" can use that knowledge to function, but if in functioning the "I" interferes, things begin to go wrong, for the "I", through technical means, seeks status. So the "I" is not concerned merely with knowledge in scientific fields; it is using it to achieve something else. It is like a musician who uses the piano to become famous. What he is concerned with is fame and not the beauty of the music in itself or for itself. We are not saying that we must get rid of technological knowledge; on the contrary, the more technological knowledge there is the better living conditions will be. But the moment the "I" uses it, things begin to go wrong.克：当然做不了，先生；这种知识是绝对需要的。但是我们谈的是“我”所活动的心理领域。“我”可以利用技术知识来实现某事，一个职位或者威望；“我”可以使用知识来操作，但是如果在操作中“我”进行干涉，事情的发展就开始误入歧途，因为“我”在通过技术手段，来寻求地位。所以“我”不仅仅关注科学领域的知识；它是在用这些知识来实现别的事情。就像一个音乐家利用钢琴来出名一样。他关心的是名声，而不是音乐本身的美。我们不是说我们必须摆脱技术知识；相反，技术知识越多，生活条件就越好。但是一旦“我”利用了知识，事情就开始误入歧途了。Questioner: I think I begin to understand what you are saying. You are giving quite a different meaning and dimension to the word learning, which is marvellous. I am beginning to grasp it. You are saying that meditation is a movement of learning and in that there is freedom to learn about everything, not only about meditation, but about the way one lives, drives, eats, talks, everything.发问者：我想我开始理解你所说的了。你赋予了学习这个词完全不同的含义和特性，这很奇妙。我开始领会这一点了。你说冥想是学习的运动，其中就有对所有事情进行学习的自由，不只是学习冥想，而是了解一个人的生活方式，他如何驾驶，进食，说话，所有的事情。Krishnamurti: As we said, the essence of energy is meditation. To put it differently - so long as there is a meditator there is no meditation. If he attempts to achieve a state described by others, or some flash of experience....克：正如我们所说，能量的核心是冥想。换句话说——只要有冥想者就没有冥想。如果他试图实现别人描述的某个状态，或者得到某种灵光闪现的体验...Questioner: If I may interrupt you, sir, are you saying that learning must be constant, a flow, a line without any break, so that learning and action are one, or a constant movement? I don't know what word to use, but I am sure you understand what I mean. The moment there is a break between learning, action and meditation, that break is a disharmony, that break is conflict. In that break there is the observer and the observed and hence the whole wastage of energy; is that what you are saying?发问者：如果我可以打断你一下，先生，你是不是说学习必须是一种不停的流动，没有任何中断的一条线，这样学习和行动就是一体的，或者是同一个不停的运动？我不知道该用什么词，但是我相信你明白我的意思。一旦学习、行动和冥想之间有裂隙，那裂隙就是不和谐，那裂隙就是冲突。那裂隙中有观察者和被观察者，因而就有整个能量的浪费；这是你所说的意思吗？Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a state; it is a movement, as action is a movement. And as we said just now, when we separate action from learning, then the observer comes between the learning and the action; then he becomes important; then he uses action and learning for ulterior motives. When this is very clearly understood as one harmonious movement of acting, of learning, of meditation, there is no wastage of energy and this is the beauty of meditation. There is only one movement. Learning is far more important than meditation or action. To learn there must be complete freedom, not only consciously but deeply, inwardly - a total freedom. And in freedom there is this movement of learning, acting, meditating as a harmonious whole. The word whole not only means health but holy. So learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation is holy. This is really a sacred thing and the beauty is in itself and not beyond it.克：是的，这就是我们说的意思。冥想不是一个状态；那是一种运动，就像行动是一种运动。正如我们刚才所说，当我们把行动和学习分开，从学习和行动之间就产生了观察者；然后他就变得很重要；然后他就利用行动和学习来达成别有用心的目的。当非常清晰地理解了作为同一个和谐运动的行动、学习和冥想时，就没有了能量的浪费，而这就是冥想的美。只存在着一种运动。学习比冥想或者行动重要多了。要学习，就必须有完全的自由，不仅仅是意识层面的自由，而且是深深的内在的自由——全然的自由。在自由中就有这种学习、行动和冥想作为一个和谐整体的运动。完整这个词不仅仅意味着健康，而且意味着神圣。所以学习是神圣的，行动是神圣的，冥想是神圣的。这是真正神圣的事情，美就在其中，而不在什么遥远的地方。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'ENDING THOUGHT'《转变的紧迫性》之“终结思想”Questioner: I wonder what you really mean by ending thought. I talked to a friend about it and he said it is some kind of oriental nonsense. To him thought is the highest form of intelligence and action, the very salt of life, indispensable. It has created civilization, and all relationship is based on it. All of us accept this, from the greatest thinker to the humblest labourer. When we don't think we sleep, vegetate or daydream; we are vacant, dull and unproductive, whereas when we are awake we are thinking, doing, living, quarrelling: these are the only two states we know. You say, be beyond both - beyond thought and vacant inactivity. What do you mean by this?发问者：我想知道你说的终结思想究竟是什么意思。我跟一个朋友谈过这点，他说这是东方的某种无稽之谈。对他来说，思想是最高形式的智慧和行为，是生命的精华所在，是不可或缺的。思想创造了文明，所有的关系也基于思想。我们所有人，从最伟大的思想家到最卑微的劳动者，都接受这点。我们不思考的时候会睡去，如同行尸走肉或者做白日梦；我们会茫然，迟钝和没有建设性，而我们醒着的时候，我们思考，做事，生活，争吵：这是我们唯一知道的两个状态。你说，这两者都要超越——超越思想和空洞的不活跃状态。你这么说是什么意思？Krishnamurti: Very simply put, thought is the response of memory, the past. The past is an infinity or a second ago. When thought acts it is this past which is acting as memory, as experience, as knowledge, as opportunity. All will is desire based on this past and directed towards pleasure or the avoidance of pain. When thought is functioning it is the past, therefore there is no new living at all; it is the past living in the present, modifying itself and the present. So there is nothing new in life that way, and when something new is to be found there must be the absence of the past, the mind must not be cluttered up with thought, fear, pleasure, and everything else. Only when the mind is uncluttered can the new come into being, and for this reason we say that thought must be still, operating only when it has to - objectively, efficiently. All continuity is thought; when there is continuity there is nothing new. Do you see how important this is? It's really a question of life itself. Either you live in the past, or you live totally differently: that is the whole point.克：简单地说，思想是记忆和过去的反应。过去是无限久远或者一秒钟以前。当思想运作时，是这过去在作为记忆，作为经验，作为知识，作为机会在运作。所有的意愿都是基于这过去的欲望，导向快乐或者避免痛苦。当思想在运作，那就是过去，因而根本没有新生活；是过去活在了现在，调整着自己和现在。所以那样生活中就没有新鲜的东西，若要找到新鲜的东西，过去必须缺席，头脑必须不被思想、恐惧、快感及其他东西所充塞。只有当头脑不被充塞的时候，崭新的东西才能出现，因此，我们说思想必须安静，只在必要的时候才运作——客观地，有效地运作。所有的延续性都是思想；有延续性就没有崭新的东西。你看到这点多么重要了吗？这实在是关乎生命本身的一个问题。要么你活在过去里，要么你截然不同地生活：这就是整个重点。Questioner: I think I do see what you mean, but how in the world is one to end this thought? When I listen to the blackbird there is thought telling me instantly it is the blackbird; when I walk down the street thought tells me I am walking down the street and tells me all I recognise and see; when I play with the notion of not thinking it is again thought that plays this game. All meaning and understanding and communication are thought. Even when I am not communicating with someone else I am doing so with myself. When I am awake, I think, when I am asleep I think. The whole structure of my being is thought. Its roots lie far deeper than I know. All I think and do and all I am is thought, thought creating pleasure and pain, appetites, longings, resolutions, conclusions, hopes, fears and questions. Thought commits murder and thought forgives. So how can one go beyond it? Isn't it thought again which seeks to go beyond it?发问者：我想我确实明白了你的意思，但是在这个世界上一个人要怎样结束这思想？当我听到黑鹂的叫声时，思想马上告诉我这是黑鹂；当我走过街道时，思想告诉我我在走过街道，并且告诉我我认出和看到的一切；当我把玩着不要思考这个想法时，还是思想在玩这个游戏。所有的含义、了解和交流都是思想。即使在我不和别人交流的时候，我也在跟自己交流。醒着的时候我思考，睡着的时候也思考。我整个存在的结构就是思想。它的根源深藏在我所不知道的地方。我所想所做所是的一切都是思想，思想制造了快乐和痛苦、欲望、追求、决定、希望、恐惧和问题。思想谋杀，思想宽恕。那么一个人要怎样才能超越思想？难道不又是思想在寻求超越？Krishnamurti: We both said, when thought is still, something new can be. We both saw that point clearly and to understand it clearly is the ending of thought.Questioner: But that understanding is also thought.Krishnamurti: Is it? You assume that it is thought, but is it, actually?Questioner: It is a mental movement with meaning, a communication to oneself.克：我们都说了，当思想安静时，新鲜的东西会出现。我们都清楚地看到了这点，而清晰地了解到这点就终结了思想。发问者：但是这了解也是思想。克：是吗？你认为那是思想，但它真的是吗？发问者：那是带有某种含义的一个心理活动，一种跟自己的交流。Krishnamurti: If it is a communication to oneself it is thought. But is understanding a mental movement with meaning?Questioner: Yes it is.克：如果是跟自己的交流，那就是思想。但是了解是带有某种含义的一个心理活动吗？发问者：是的。Krishnamurti: The meaning of the word and the understanding of that meaning is thought. That is necessary in life. There thought must function efficiently. It is a technological matter. But you are not asking that. You are asking how thought, which is the very movement of life as you know it, can come to an end. Can it only end when you die? That is really your question, isn't it?Questioner: Yes.克：词的含义和对那含义的理解是思想。这在生活中是必要的。思想必须在此时有效地运作。这是个技术上的问题。但是你问的不是这个。你问的是思想，也就是你所知的生命中的这种活动本身，能否结束。它只能在你死的时候结束吗？这才是你真正的问题，是不是？发问者：是的。Krishnamurti: That is the right question. Die! Die to the past, to tradition.Questioner: But how?克：这才是正确的问题。死去！对过去，对传统死去。发问者：但是要怎么做到呢？Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought. The brain is matter and thought is matter. Can the brain - with all its reactions and its immediate responses to every challenge and demand - can that brain be very still? It is not a question of ending thought, but of whether the brain can be completely still. Can it act with full capacity when necessary and otherwise be still? This stillness is not physical death. See what happens when the brain is completely still. See what happens.克：大脑是思想的来源。大脑是物质，思想也是物质。大脑能不能——连同它对所有挑战和欲望的反应和即刻的回应——这大脑能不能非常安静？这不是个终结思想的问题，而是大脑能否彻底安静的问题。它能不能在必要的时候才全力以赴地行动，其他时候就保持安静？这寂静不是生理上的死亡。看看大脑完全安静的时候会发生什么。看看会发生什么。Questioner: In that space there was a blackbird, the green tree, the blue sky, the man hammering next door, the sound of the wind in the trees and my own heartbeat, the total quietness of the body. That is all.发问者：在那空间里，有一只黑鹂，有绿树，有蓝天，有在隔壁敲打着的男人，树间的风声和我自己的心跳声，身体完全的安静。就这些。Krishnamurti: If there was recognition of the blackbird singing, then the brain was active, was interpreting. It was not still. This really demands tremendous alertness and discipline, the watching that brings its own discipline, not imposed or brought about by your unconscious desire to achieve a result or a pleasurable new experience. Therefore during the day thought must operate effectively, sanely, and also watch itself.克：如果有对歌唱着的黑鹂的认知，那么大脑就在活动着，在诠释。它不是安静的。这真的需要巨大的警觉和纪律，观察带来它自身的纪律，不是思想强加的，也不是你无意中想要实现某个结果或者某个愉悦的新体验的欲望带来的。所以白天思想必须有效地、理性地运作，同时观察自己。Questioner: That is easy, but what about going beyond it?发问者：这很容易，但是要超越它呢？Krishnamurti: Who is asking this question? Is it the desire to experience something new or is it the enquiry? If it is the enquiry, then you must enquire and investigate the whole business of thinking and be completely familiar with it, know all its tricks and subtleties. If you have done this you will know that the question of going beyond thought is an empty one. Going beyond thought is knowing what thought is.克：谁在问这个问题？是想要体验新东西的欲望，还是探询本身？如果是探询，那么你必须探索和审视思想这整件事情，完全熟悉它，知道它所有的诡计和微妙之处。如果你做到了这点，你就会知道超越思想的问题是没有意义的。超越思想就是知道思想是什么。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE NEW HUMAN BEING'《转变的紧迫性》之“新人类”Questioner: I am a reformer, a social worker. Seeing the extraordinary injustice there is in the world my whole life has been dedicated to reform. I used to be a Communist but I can't go along with Communism any more, it has ended in tyranny. Nevertheless, I am still dedicated to reforming society so that man can live in dignity, beauty and freedom, and realize the potential which nature seems to have given him, and which he himself seems always to have stolen from his fellow man. In America there is a certain kind of freedom, and yet standardization and propaganda are very strong there - all the mass media exert a tremendous pressure on the mind. It seems that the power of television, this mechanical thing that man has invented, has developed its own personality, its own will, its own momentum; and though probably nobody - perhaps not even any one group - is deliberately using it to influence society, its trend shapes the very souls of our children. And this is the same in varying degrees in all democracies. In China there seems to be no hope at all for the dignity or freedom of man, while in India the government is weak, corrupt and inefficient. It seems to me that all the social injustice in the world absolutely must be changed. I want passionately to do something about it, yet I don't know where to begin to tackle it.发问者：我是一个改革者，一个社会工作者。看到世界上有极端的不公，我的整个生命都致力于改革。我曾是一个共产主义者，但是我不再追随共产主义了，它以暴政为终结。然而，我依然投身于社会改革，以期人类能够生活在尊严，美和自由中，实现那自然似乎已经赋予人类的潜能，而人类似乎总是从别人那里窃取这种能力。在美国有某种自由，然而标准化和宣传攻势还是很强大——所有的大众媒体都对头脑产生了巨大的压力。似乎电视的能力，这种人类发明的机械事物已经有了它自己的个性，它自己的意志和动量；尽管也许没什么人，甚至或许没有任何一个组织——有意地利用电视来影响社会，但正是它的倾向塑造了我们孩子的灵魂。而所有民主国家里的情况在不同程度上都是如此。在中国，人的尊严或自由似乎完全无望，而印度的政府非常软弱，腐败和低效。在我看来，世界上所有的社会不公绝对必须得到改变。我满怀热情地想为此做点什么，但是我不知道从哪里开始着手解决。Krishnamurti: Reform needs further reform, and this is an endless process. So let us look at it differently. Let us put aside the whole thought of reform; let us wipe it out of our blood. Let us completely forget this idea of wanting to reform the world. Then let us see actually what is happening, right throughout the world. Political parties always have a limited programme which, even if fulfilled, invariably brings about mischief, which then has to be corrected once again. We are always talking about political action as being a most important action, but political action is not the way. Let us put it out of our minds. All social and economic reforms come under this category. Then there is the religious formula of action based on belief, idealism, dogmatism, conformity to some so-called divine recipe. In this is involved authority and acceptance, obedience and the utter denial of freedom. Though religions talk of peace on earth they contribute to the disorder because they are a factor of division. Also the churches have always taken some political stand in times of crisis, so they are really political bodies, and we have seen that all political action is divisive. The churches have never really denied war: on the contrary they have waged war. So when one puts aside the religious recipes, as one puts aside the political formulas - what is left, and what is one to do? Naturally civic order must be maintained: you have to have water in the taps. If you destroy civic order you have to start again from the beginning. So, what is one to do?克：改革需要更进一步的改革，而这是一个永无止境的过程。所以让我们换个角度来看这个问题。让我们把整个改革的想法放在一边；让我们把它从我们的血液中清除。让我们彻底忘掉想要改革这个世界的想法。然后让我们来看看整个世界上到底发生着什么。各派政党总是有某个局限的方案，即使得以实施，也不可避免地会带来伤害，而这些又不得不再一次进行纠正。我们总是把政治活动作为最重要的行动来探讨，但是政治活动不是办法。让我们把它抛在脑后。所有社会和经济改革都属于这个范畴。还有基于信仰、理想主义、教条主义以及遵从某些所谓神圣法则的宗教行为模式。这其中包含了权威和接受，服从和对自由的彻底否定。尽管各个宗教都在谈论世界和平，但是它们却助长了失序，因为它们是分裂的因素之一。教会也总在危机来临的时刻采取某种政治立场，所以它们实际上是政治实体，而我们也看到了所有的政治活动都会导致分裂。各个教派从未真正地否定过战争：相反，它们发动战争。所以当一个人把所有的宗教法则扔在一边时，就像他把政治信条扔在一边一样——那么还剩下什么，他又该怎么办？当然市政秩序必须要维持：你的水龙头里得有水。如果你破坏了市政秩序，你就得从头再来一次。那么，他该怎么办？Questioner: That is what I am actually asking you.Krishnamurti: Be concerned with radical change, with total revolution. The only revolution is the revolution between man and man, between human beings. That is our only concern. In this revolution there are no blueprints, no ideologies, no conceptual utopias. We must take the fact of the actual relationship between men and change that radically. That is the real thing. And this revolution must be immediate, it must not take time. It is not achieved through evolution, which is time.发问者：这正是我在问你的。克：去关注根本的转变，关注彻底的革命。唯一的革命是人与人之间的，人类之间的革命。这是我们唯一关注的。在这革命中，没有蓝图，没有意识形态，没有概念上的乌托邦。我们必须将人们之间的实际关系这个事实，彻底地加以改变。这才是真正有意义的事情。而这革命必须马上进行，决不能假以时日。这革命不能通过进化，也就是时间来完成。Questioner: What do you mean? All historical changes have taken place in time; none of them has been immediate. You are proposing something quite inconceivable.发问者：你是什么意思？历史上的所有改变都是花时间发生的；没有什么是立刻发生的。你在倡议某种实在无法想象的事情。Krishnamurti: If you take time to change, do you suppose that life is in suspension during the time it takes to change? It isn't in suspension. Everything you are trying to change is being modified and perpetuated by the environment, by life itself. So there is no end to it. It is like trying to clean the water in a tank which is constantly being refilled with dirty water. So time is out.