Questioner: Let me absorb this for a moment.发问者：让我先消化一下这些。Krishnamurti: So what are we concerned with now? Is it possible to bring about in ourselves the birth of a new order altogether that is not related to the past? The past is irrelevant to this enquiry, and trivial, because it is irrelevant to the new order.克：那我们现在关注的是什么？是否有可能在我们自己身上诞生一种与过去无关的全然的新秩序？过去与这探询无关，过去是琐碎的，因为它与那新秩序无关。Questioner: How can you say it is trivial and irrelevant? We've been saying all along that the past is the issue, and now you say it is irrelevant.发问者：你怎么能说它是琐碎的不相干的？我们一直在说过去就是问题所在，现在你说它是不相干的。Krishnamurti: The past seems to be the only issue because it is the only thing that holds our minds and hearts. It alone is important to us. But why do we give importance to it? Why is this little space all-important? If you are totally immersed in it, utterly committed to it, then you will never listen to change. The man who is not wholly committed is the only one capable of listening, enquiring and asking. Only then will he be able to see the triviality of this little space. So, are you completely immersed, or is your head above the water? If your head is above the water then you can see that this little thing is trivial. Then you have room to look around. How deeply are you immersed? Nobody can answer this for you except yourself. In the very asking of this question there is already freedom and, therefore, one is not afraid. Then your vision is extensive. When this pattern of the past holds you completely by the throat, then you acquiesce, accept, obey, follow, believe. It is only when you are aware that this is not freedom that you are starting to climb out of it. So we are again asking: what is change, what is revolution? Change is not a movement from the known to the known, and all political revolutions are that. This kind of change is not what we are talking about. To progress from being a sinner to being a saint is to progress from one illusion to another. So now we are free of change as a movement from this to that.克：过去似乎是唯一的问题，因为它是唯一掌控我们头脑和心灵的东西。它本身对我们是重要的。但是，我们为什么要赋予它重要性？为什么这个狭小的空间那么重要？如果你完全沉浸其中，彻底禁锢其中，那么你就永远不会去聆听着改变。没有完全禁锢其中的人，是仅有的能够聆听，探究和质询的人。只有这时，他才能看到这个狭小空间的琐碎。所以，你是完全沉浸其中，还是你的头还在水面之上？如果你的头在水面之上，那么你就能看到这个小东西是琐碎的。那么你就有空间去看看周围了。你沉浸其中的程度有多深？没有人能回答这个问题，除了你自己。在提出这个问题本身时，就有了自由，所以你就不会害怕。接着你的视野就宽阔了。当这种过去的模式完全扼住你的喉咙，你就会默认，接受，服从，追随，相信。只有当你意识到这不是自由时，你才能开始爬出来。所以我们再问一次这个问题：什么是转变，什么是革命？转变不是从已知到已知的运动，所有的政治革命都是这样。这种改变不是我们正在讨论的东西。从一个罪人进步为一个圣人，只是从一个幻觉向另一个幻觉前进而已。所以现在我们摆脱了从这到那的运动这样的改变。Questioner: Have I really understood this? What am I to do with anger, violence and fear when they arise in me? Am I to give them free reign? How am I to deal with them? There must be change there, otherwise I am what I was before.发问者：我真的明白了这点吗？当我内在产生了愤怒、暴力和恐惧，我该拿它们怎么办？我要让它们自由发挥吗？我该怎么处理它们？那里必须得有改变，否则我就会和以前一样。Krishnamurti: Is it clear to you that these things cannot be overcome by their opposites? If so, you have only the violence, the envy, the anger, the greed. The feeling arises as the result of a challenge, and then it is named. This naming of the feeling re-establishes it in the old pattern. If you do not name it, which means you do not identify yourself with it, then the feeling is new and it will go away by itself. The naming of it strengthens it and gives it a continuity which is the whole process of thought.克：这些事情不能由它们的对立面来克服，这一点对你来说清楚了吗？如果是的话，你就只有暴力，嫉妒，愤怒和贪婪。这感觉作为一种挑战的结果出现，随后它就被命名了。对感觉的命名就把它在旧有的模式里重建了。如果你不给它命名，也就是说你不把自己与它认同在一起，那么这感觉就是新鲜的，它会自己消失掉。对它的命名加强了它，赋予了它延续性，这正是思想的整个过程。Questioner: I am being driven into a comer where I see myself actually as I am, and I see how trivial I am. From there what comes next?发问者：我被赶到了一个角落里，我如实地看到了自己的样子，我也看到了自己有多么琐碎。从这里接下来会发生什么？Krishnamurti: Any movement from what I am strengthens what I am. So change is no movement at all. Change is the denial of change, and now only can I put this question: is there a change at all? This question can be put only when all movement of thought has come to an end, for thought must be denied for the beauty of non-change. In the total negation of all movement of thought away from what is, is the ending of what is.克：任何离开我的现实状况的运动，都会增强我的这种状况。所以那改变根本不是运动。转变是对改变的否定，只有现在我才能提出这个问题：究竟有转变这回事吗？只有当所有思想运动都停止的时候，才能提出这个问题，因为思想必须因为不变的美而被否定。在对所有离开实际状况的思想运动的全然否定中，就有了现实状况的终结。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'RELATIONSHIP'《转变的紧迫性》之“关系”Questioner: I have come a long way to see you. Although I am married and have children I have been away from them, wandering, meditating, as a mendicant. I have puzzled greatly over this very complicated problem of relationship. When I go into a village and they give me food, I am related to the giver, as I am related to my wife and children. In another village when somebody gives me clothes I am related to the whole factory that produced them. I am related to the earth on which I walk, to the tree under which I take shelter, to everything. And yet I am alone, isolated. When I am with my wife, I am separate even during sex - it is an act of separation. When I go into a temple it is still the worshipper being related to the thing he worships: separation again. So in all relationships, as I see it, there is this separation, duality, and behind or through it, or around it, there is a peculiar sense of unity. When I see the beggar it hurts me, for I am like him and I feel as he feels - lonely, desperate, sick, hungry. I feel for him, and with him, for his meaningless existence. Some rich man comes along in his big motor car and gives me a lift, but I feel uncomfortable in his company, yet at the same time I feel for him and am related to him. So I have meditated upon this strange phenomenon of relationship. Can we on this lovely morning, overlooking this deep valley, talk over together this question?发问者：我走了很长的路来见你。尽管我结婚了，有了孩子，但是我一直远离他们，像一个托钵僧一样流浪，冥想。对于关系这个非常复杂的问题，我感到极其困惑。当我进到一个村子里，他们给我食物，我和施与者有了某种关系，就像我与我的妻子和孩子有关系一样。在另一个村子里，有人给衣服，我就与生产衣服的整个工厂有了关系。我与我行走于其上的土地有关，与我在其下遮荫的树木有关，与所有东西都有关系。然而，我还是那么孤独，隔绝。当我和我妻子在一起时，即使在性中我也是分离的-这是种分离的行为。当我去到寺庙里，还有膜拜者与他所膜拜的东西有关系：这又是分离。所以在所有的关系中，如我所见，都有这种分离，二元性，而在其后或其中或周围，有一种特别的一体感。当我看到乞丐，那让我心痛，因为我和他很像，我感觉到他的感受-孤独，分离，疾病，饥饿。我对他毫无意义的存在与他感同身受，与他在一起。有富人坐着大汽车过来，载我一程，但是有他的陪伴我感觉不舒服，但是同时我也能感觉到他，我与他有关系。所以我对这奇怪的关系现象进行冥想。我们能不能在这个可爱的早晨，眺望这幽深的山谷，一起来谈谈这个问题？Krishnamurti: Is all relationship out of this isolation? Can there be relationship as long as there is any separateness, division? Can there be relationship if there is no contact, not only physical but at every level of our being, with another? One may hold the hand of another and yet be miles away, wrapped in one's own thoughts and problems. One may be in a group and yet be painfully alone. So one asks: can there be any kind of relationship with the tree, the flower, the human being, or with the skies and the lovely sunset, when the mind in its activities is isolating itself? And can there be any contact ever, with anything at all, even when the mind is not isolating itself?克：所有的关系都出于这种分离吗？只要有任何分离，分别，还可能有关系吗？如果不只是在身体上，而且在我们生命的每个层面上，和另一个人没有联结，可能有关系存在吗？一个人也许能牵着另一个人的手但同时相隔数英里之遥，包裹在他自己的思绪和问题中。一个人也许在一个团体中，但是痛苦地孤独着。所以有人会问：当头脑在它自己的活动中隔绝自己，那么它与树，与花，与人类，或者与天空和可爱的落日有任何关系吗？即使头脑不隔绝自己，它与任何东西究竟可曾有任何联结？Questioner: Everything and everybody has its own existence. Everything and everybody is shrouded in its own existence. I can never penetrate this enclosure of another's being. However much I love someone, his existence is separate from mine. I can perhaps touch him from the outside, mentally or physically, but his existence is his own, and mine is for ever on the outside of it. Similarly he cannot reach me. Must we always remain two separate entities, each in his own world, with his own limitations, within the prison of his own consciousness?发问者：每件事物和每个人都有自己的存在形式。每件事物和每个人都被其自身的存在形式遮蔽了。我永远无法穿透另一个存在者的这种包裹。不管我多么爱一个人，他的存在与我的存在是分离的。我也许能在心理上或者身体上从外在接触到他，但是他的存在是他自己的，我的存在永远都在其外。同样他也够不到我。我们必须始终作为两个分离的实体存在吗，每个人在他自己的世界里，带着他自己的局限，在他自己意识的牢笼里？Krishnamurti: Each lives within his own tissue, you in yours, he in his. And is there any possibility, ever, of breaking through this tissue? Is this tissue - this shroud, this envelope - the word? Is it made up of your concern with yourself and his with himself, your desires opposed to his? Is this capsule the past? It is all of this, isn't it? It isn't one particular thing but a whole bundle which the mind carries about. You have your burden, another has his. Can these burdens ever be dropped so that the mind meets the mind, the heart meets the heart? That is really the question, isn't it?克：每个生命在他自己的躯壳里，你在你的躯壳里，他在他的躯壳里。而究竟有没有任何可能穿透这躯壳？这躯壳——这包裹，这皮囊——是这词语吗？它是不是由你对你自己的关注、他对他自己的关心，以及你与他相悖的欲望，这些东西构成的？你有你的负担，另一个人有他的。这些负担到底能不能放下，这样就能头脑联结头脑，心灵沟通心灵？这是真正的问题，不是吗？Questioner: Even if all these burdens are dropped, if that were possible, even then he remains in his skin with his thoughts, and I in mine with my thoughts. Sometimes the gap is narrow, sometimes it is wide, but we are always two separate islands. The gap seems to be widest when we care most about it and try to bridge it.发问者：即使所有这些负担都放下了，如果可能的话，即使那时他还是留在自己的皮囊里，带着他的思想，我带着我的思想留在我的躯壳里。这隔阂有时候窄些，有时候宽些，但是我们始终是两个分离的岛屿。当我们极其在意这一点，想要在其中搭建桥梁的时候，这隔阂反而显得最宽。Krishnamurti: You can identify yourself with that villager or with that flaming bougainvillaea - which is a mental trick to pretend unity. Identification with something is one of the most hypocritical states - to identify oneself with a nation, with a belief and yet remain alone is a favourite trick to cheat loneliness. Or you identify yourself so completely with your belief that you are that belief, and this is a neurotic state. Now let's put away this urge to be identified with a person or an idea or a thing. That way there is no harmony, unity or love. So our next question is: can you tear through the envelope so that there is no more envelope? Then only would there be a possibility of total contact. How is one to tear through the envelope? The "how" doesn't mean a method, but rather an enquiry which might open the door.克：你能把自己和那个村民或者那盛放的九重葛花认同在一起——这只是一个假装一体的心理伎俩。与某物相认同是最深的催眠状态之一——把自己与一个国家，与一个信念认同起来，而又保持独立，这是人们最爱用的一个欺骗孤独的伎俩。或者你把自己完全认同于你的信仰，以致于你就是那个信仰，而这是一种神经质状态。现在让我们把这种想要和一个人或者一个观念或者一件东西相认同的渴望放在一边。要是那样就没有和谐，没有一体或者爱。所以我们下一个问题是：你能不能撕开这躯壳，然后就再没有包裹了？只有这时，才有完全联结的可能。人要怎样穿破那包裹？“怎样”并不意味着方法，而是指也许会打开那扇门的一种质询。Questioner: Yes, no other contact can be called relationship at all, though we say it is.发问者：是的，根本没有其他的联结可以被称为关系，尽管我们说那是关系。Krishnamurti: Do we tear the envelope bit by bit or cut through it immediately? If we tear it bit by bit, which is what analysts sometimes claim to do, the job is never done. It is not through time that you can break down this separation.克：我们是一点点地撕开这包裹还是立即穿透它？如果我们一点点地撕开，也就是分析师们有时候声称要做的，那这个工作就永远做不完了。你不能通过时间来打破这种分离。Questioner: Can I enter into the envelope of another? And isn't his envelope his very existence, his heartbeats and his blood, his feelings and his memories?发问者：我能进入另一个人的包裹吗？他的包裹不就是他本身的存在吗，他的心跳和他的血液，他的感情和他的记忆？Krishnamurti: Are you not the very envelope itself?克：你不就是那包裹本身吗？Questioner: Yes.发问者：是的。Krishnamurti: The very movement to tear through the other envelope, or extend outside of your own, is the very affirmation and the action of your own envelope: you are the envelope. So you are the observer of the envelope, and you are also the envelope itself. In this case you are the observer and the observed: so is he, and that's how we remain. And you try to reach him and he tries to reach you. Is this possible? You are the island surrounded by seas, and he is also the island surrounded by seas. You see that you are both the island and the sea; there is no division between them; you are the entire earth with the sea. Therefore there is no division as the island and the sea. The other person doesn't see this. He is the island surrounded by sea; he tries to reach you, or, if you are foolish enough, you may try to reach him. Is that possible? How can there be a contact between a man who is free and another who is bound? Since you are the observer and the observed, you are the whole movement of the earth and the sea. But the other, who doesn't understand this, is still the island surrounded by water. He tries to reach you and is everlastingly failing because he maintains his insularity. It is only when he leaves it and is, like you, open to the movement of the skies, the earth, and the sea, that there can be contact. The one who sees that the barrier is himself can no longer have a barrier. Therefore he, in himself, is not separate at all. The other has not seen that the barrier is himself and so maintains the belief in his separateness. How can this man reach the other? It is not possible.克：去撕破另一个包裹，或者想延伸到你自己的包裹之外，这种行为本身正是你自身包裹的行为以及对其的肯定：你就是那包裹。所以你是那包裹的观察者，同时你又是那包裹本身。在这种情况下，你既是观察者又是被观察者：他也一样，我们就是这样保持原样的。而你想够到他，他也试图够到你。这可能吗？你是被海水包围的岛屿，他也是被海水包围的岛屿。你看到你既是岛屿也是海水；它们之间没有分离；你是拥有海洋的整个大地。因此没有岛屿和海水的划分。而另一个人没有看到这点。他是被海水包围的岛屿；他试图够到你，或者，如果你够蠢的话，你也许会努力去够到他。这可能吗？一个自由的人和一个被束缚的人之间怎么可能有联结呢？既然你同时是观察者和被观察者，你就是大地和海洋的整体运动。但是另一个人，他不明白这点，他还是那个被水包围的岛屿。他努力够到你，但永远都会失败，因为他保持着他的孤立。只有当他离开孤立状态，像你一样，向天空，大地，海洋的运动敞开怀抱，才可能有联结。看到障碍就是他自己的人，就不会再有障碍了。因此，他本身完全不是分离的。另一个人没有看到障碍就是他自己，所以保持着对他的分离状态的信念。这个人怎么可能够到另一个人？不可能。* * *Questioner: If we may I should like to continue from where we left off yesterday. You were saying that the mind is the maker of the envelope around itself, and that this envelope is the mind. I really don't understand this. Intellectually I can agree, but the nature of perception eludes me. I should like very much to understand it - not verbally but actually feel it - so that there is no conflict in my life.发问者：如果可以，我希望我们从昨天停下来的地方继续探讨。你说过头脑是它自身包裹的制造者，而这个包裹就是头脑。我真的不理解这点。从智识上我能同意，但是我没有抓住那见解的本质。我非常想理解它——不是从字面上，而是真正地感受到它——那样我的生活里就没有冲突了。Krishnamurti: There is the space between what the mind calls the envelope which it has made, and itself. There is the space between the ideal and the action. In these different fragmentations of space between the observer and the observed, or between different things it observes, is all conflict and struggle, and all the problems of life. There is the separation between this envelope around me and the envelope around another. In that space is all our existence, all our relationship and battle.克：头脑自己制造的所谓包裹，与头脑本身之间，有一种距离。在理想和行动之间有种距离。在观察者和被观察者，或者它观察的不同事物之间，在这些支离破碎的不同空间里，满是冲突和挣扎，以及生活的所有问题。在我的包裹和别人的包裹之间，有着分离。我们的所有存在，我们的所有关系和争斗，都在这个空间里。Questioner: When you talk of the division between the observer and the observed do you mean these fragmentations of space in our thinking and in our daily actions?发问者：当你谈到观察者和被观察者之间的分裂，你的意思是不是指我们的思维和日常行为中的这些支离破碎的空间？Krishnamurti: What is this space? There is space between you and your envelope, the space between him and his envelope, and there is the space between the two envelopes. These spaces all appear to the observer. What are these spaces made of? How do they come into being? What is the quality and the nature of these divided spaces? If we could remove these fragmentary spaces what would happen?克：这空间这距离是什么？你和你的包裹之间有距离，他和他的包裹之间有距离，两个包裹之间也有距离。这些空间这些距离观察者都看到了。这些距离是什么组成的？它们是怎么形成的？这些分割的空间的品质和本质是什么？如果我们能去除这些支离破碎的空间，那会发生什么？Questioner: There would then be true contact on all levels of one's being.发问者：那样一个人存在的所有层面都会有真正的联结。Krishnamurti: Is that all?克：就这些吗？Questioner: There would be no more conflict, for all conflict is relationship across these spaces.发问者：就不再有冲突，因为所有的冲突都是跨过这些距离的关系。Krishnamurti: Is that all? When this space actually disappears - not verbally or intellectually - but actually disappears - there is complete harmony, unity, between you and him, between you and another. In this harmony you and he cease and there is only this vast space which can never be broken up. The small structure of the mind comes to an end, for the mind is fragmentation.克：这就是所有的了吗？当这个距离真的消失了——不是字面上的或者智识上的——而是真的消失了——你和他之间，你和另一个人之间，就会有完全的和谐，一体。在这种和谐中，你和他都消失了，只有这种永远不会被打破的广阔空间。头脑的狭小结构结束了，因为头脑就是支离破碎的。Questioner: I really can't understand this at all, though I have a deep feeling within me that it is so. I can see that when there is love this actually takes place, but I don't know that love. It's not with me all the time. It is not in my heart. I see it only as if through a misty glass. I can't honestly grasp it with all my being. Could we, as you suggested, consider what these spaces are made of, how they come into being?发问者：我真的完全不明白这点，尽管我内心深深地感觉到就是这么回事。我能看到当有爱的时候，这些就会真的发生，但是我不知道那种爱。我一直没有这种爱。它不在我心里。我好像只能透过一片毛玻璃看到它。老实说我无法用我的整个存在把握住它。正如你所建议的，我们能不能思考一下这些空间距离是由什么组成的，它们是怎么形成的？Krishnamurti: Let's be quite sure that we both understand the same thing when we use the word space. There is the physical space between people and things, and there is the psychological space between people and things. Then there is also the space between the idea and the actual. So all this, the physical and psychological, is space, more or less limited and defined. We are not now talking of the physical space. We are talking of the psychological space between people and the psychological space in the human being himself, in his thoughts and activities. How does this space come about? Is it fictitious, illusory, or is it real? Feel it, be aware of it, make sure you haven't just got a mental image of it, bear in mind that the description is never the thing. Be quite sure that you know what we are talking about. Be quite aware that this limited space, this division, exists in you: don't move from there if you don't understand. Now how does this space come about?克：让我们非常明确一点，我们用空间距离这个词的时候，理解的都是同一个意思。人们和事物之间有物理距离，人们和事物之间也有心理距离。而观念和现实之间也有距离。那么所有这些物理上的和心理上的距离，或多或少都是有限的确定的。我们谈的不是物理距离。我们谈的是人们之间的心理距离，一个人本身内在的，他的思想和行为中的心理距离。这种距离是怎么形成的？它是虚假的幻觉，还是真实的？感觉一下，觉察到它，确认你不是只对它有了个心理意象，请把这点记在心里，描述永非所指之物。要非常确定你知道我们在谈什么。非常清楚地知道，你身上存在着这有限的空间，这种分隔：如果你不明白，不要从那里离开。那么这空间这距离是怎么形成的？Questioner: We see the physical space between things....发问者：我们看到事物之间的物理距离....Krishnamurti: Don't explain anything; just feel your way into it. We are asking how this space has come into being. Don't give an explanation or a cause, but remain with this space and feel it. Then the cause and the description will have very little meaning and no value. This space has come into being because of thought, which is the "me", the word - which is the whole division. Thought itself is this distance, this division. Thought is always breaking itself up into fragments and creating division. Thought always cuts up what it observes into fragments within space - as you and me, yours and mine, me and my thoughts, and so on. This space, which thought has created between what it observes, has become real; and it is this space that divides. Then thought tries to build a bridge over this division, thus playing a trick upon itself all the time, deceiving itself and hoping for unity.克：不要解释任何事情；只是深入感觉一下。我们在问这距离是怎么产生的。不要给出一个解释或者原因，而是与这距离共处，感受它。然后原因和描述就会没什么意义和价值了。这距离的产生，是由于思想，也就是“我”，这个词——就是整个分隔。思想本身就是这距离，这分隔。思想总是把自己打成碎片，制造分裂。思想总是把它观察的东西切割成距离中的碎片——切割成你和我，你的和我的，我和我的思想，等等。这个距离，是思想在它观察的东西之间制造的，这距离变得真实起来；是这种距离在分割。然后思想试图在这种分割之上架起桥梁，总是这样跟自己耍个诡计，欺骗自己，希望找到合一。Questioner: That reminds me of the old statement about thought: it is a thief disguising himself as a policeman in order to catch the thief.发问者：这让我想起一句关于思想的老话：它是把自己伪装成警察的小偷，想要抓到这个小偷。Krishnamurti: Don't bother to quote, sir, however ancient it is. We are considering what actually is going on. In seeing the truth of the nature of thought and its activities, thought becomes quiet. Thought being quiet, not made quiet, is there space?克：不用费事去引用了，先生，不管它有多古老。我们考虑的是现在实际上发生着什么。看到了思想及其行为本质的真相，思想就变得安静了。思想自己安静下来，不是让它安静下来，那么是不是就有了空间？Questioner: It is thought itself which now rushes in to answer this question.发问者：是思想本身现在急于回答这个问题。Krishnamurti: Exactly! Therefore we do not even ask the question. The mind now is completely harmonious, without fragmentation; the little space has ceased and there is only space. When the mind is completely quiet there is the vastness of space and silence.克：一点都不错！所以我们甚至都不要问这个问题。头脑现在是彻底和谐了，没有分裂；那狭小的距离止息了，只剩下空间。当头脑完全安静下来，就有了无限的空间和寂静。Questioner: So I begin to see that my relationship to another is between thought and thought; whatever I answer is the noise of thought, and realizing it, I am silent.发问者：那我开始看到我与别人的关系只是思想和思想之间的关系；不管我怎么回答都是思想的噪音，意识到这点，我就安静了。Krishnamurti: This silence is the benediction.克：这种寂静就是至福。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'CONFLICT'《转变的紧迫性》之“冲突”Questioner: I find myself in a great deal of conflict with everything about me; and also everything within me is in conflict. People have spoken of divine order; nature is harmonious; it seems that man is the only animal who violates this order, making so much misery for others and for himself. When I wake up in the morning I see from my window little birds fighting with each other, but they soon separate and fly away, whereas I carry this war with myself and with others inside me all the time; there is no escaping it. I wonder if I can ever be at peace with myself. I must say I should like to find myself in complete harmony with everything about me and with myself. As one sees from this window the quiet sea and the light on the water, one has a feeling deep within oneself that there must be a way of living without these endless quarrels with oneself and with the world. Is there any harmony at all, anywhere? Or is there only everlasting disorder? If there is harmony, at what level can it exist? Or does it only exist on the top of some mountain which the burning valleys can never know?发问者：我发现自己处于大量的冲突中，与我周围的一切都冲突不断；而且我内在的一切也是冲突的。人们说起过神圣的秩序；自然界是和谐有序的；似乎只有人类是唯一违背这秩序的动物，给别人和自己制造了如此多的苦难。我早上醒来的时候，从窗口看到小鸟在互相交战，但是它们很快就散开了飞走了，但是我把自己内在的和自己和别人的这种战争一直背负在身上；完全无法逃避。我想知道我究竟能否与自己和平相处。我不得不说，我想发现自己与我周围的每件事和我自己是处于完全和谐中的。当一个人从这窗口望出去，看到平静的大海和水面上的光芒，他内心深处深深地感觉到，必然有一种生活方式，其中没有这些与自己与世界的无尽争吵。不管在哪里，究竟可有任何的和谐？还是只有无休止的失序？如果有和谐，那么它存在于哪个层面上？还是它只能存在于某座高山之巅，而这是燃烧的山谷永远无法知道的？Krishnamurti: Can one go from one to the other? Can one change that which is to that which is not? Can disharmony be transformed into harmony?克：一个人能由此及彼吗？他能把是什么的变成不是什么吗？不和谐能被转化成和谐吗？Questioner: Is conflict necessary then? It may perhaps, after all, be the natural order of things.发问者：那冲突是必然的了？毕竟，那也许就是事物的自然规律。Krishnamurti: If one accepted that, one would have to accept everything society stands for: wars, ambitious competition, an aggressive way of life - all the brutal violence of men, inside and outside of his so-called holy places. Is this natural? Will this bring about any unity? Wouldn't it be better for us to consider these two facts - the fact of conflict with all its complicated struggles, and the fact of the mind demanding order, harmony, peace, beauty, love?克：如果一个人接受了这一点，那么他就得接受社会主张的一切：战争，野心勃勃的竞争，咄咄逼人的生活方式——人类所有野蛮残忍的暴力，存在于他所谓的神圣之地的里里外外。这是自然的吗？这会带来任何和谐一体吗？我们难道不该来考虑一下这两个事实——冲突的事实及其所有复杂的争斗，以及想要秩序、和谐、和平、美和爱的头脑的事实？Questioner: I know nothing about harmony. I see it in the heavens, in the seasons, in the mathematical order of the universe. But that doesn't give me order in my own heart and mind; the absolute order of mathematics is not my order. I have no order, I am in deep disorder. I know there are different theories of gradual evolution towards the so-called perfection of political utopias and religious heavens, but this leaves me where I actually am. The world may perhaps be perfect in ten thousand years from now, but in the meantime I'm having hell.发问者：关于和谐，我一无所知。我在天空中，季节中，宇宙的数学秩序中看到了和谐。但是，那并不能给我自己的心灵和头脑带来秩序；数学的绝对秩序不是我的秩序。我没有秩序，我处于深深的失序中。我知道有很多种逐渐进化的理论，声称能通向所谓完美的政治乌托邦和宗教天堂，但是这把我带到了我现在实际的这个样子。世界也许会在从现在起的一万年后变得完美，但是在这个过程中我身处地狱。Krishnamurti: We see the disorder in ourselves and in society. Both are very complex. There are really no answers. One can examine all this very carefully, analyse it closely, look for causes of disorder in oneself and in society, expose them to the light and perhaps believe that one will free the mind from them. This analytical process is what most people are doing, intelligently or unintelligently, and it doesn't get anybody very far. Man has analysed himself for thousands of years, and produced no result but literature! The many saints have paralysed themselves in concepts and ideological prisons; they too are in conflict. The cause of our conflict is this everlasting duality of desire: the endless corridor of the opposites creating envy greed ambition aggression, fear, and all the rest of it. Now I wonder if there isn't an altogether different approach to this problem? The acceptance of this struggle and all our efforts to get out of it have become traditional. The whole approach is traditional. In this traditional approach the mind operates but, as we see, the traditional approach of the mind creates more disorder. So the problem is not how to end disorder, but rather whether the mind can look at it freed from tradition. And then perhaps there may be no problem at all.克：我们看到了自己身上和社会中的失序。两者都非常复杂。真的没有答案。一个人能够非常仔细地研究这一点，近距离地分析，寻找自己和社会失序的原因，把它们曝光，相信或许如此他就能把心智从中解脱出来。这种分析过程就是大多数人正在做的，不管用聪明还是不聪明的方式，但是这并没有让任何人走多远。人类分析自己分析了几千年，除了文学没有得到任何结果！很多圣人把自己麻痹在概念和思想体系的牢笼里；他们也满是冲突。我们冲突的原因是欲望那无穷的二元性：对立面那没有尽头的通道，制造着嫉妒、贪婪、野心、侵略、恐惧以及等等一切。现在我想知道是不是有一种完全不同的方式来着手这个问题？接受这种挣扎，接受我们为了从中摆脱所做的一切努力，已经成为传统。整个处理方式都是传统的。头脑在这种传统中运作，但是，正如我们所看到的，头脑传统的方式制造了更多的冲突。所以问题不是如何终结失序，而是头脑能否从传统中解脱出来看这个问题。然后也许就根本没有问题了。Questioner: I don't follow you at all.发问者：我完全不明白你的意思。Krishnamurti: There is this fact of disorder. There is no doubt about it: it is an actual fact. The traditional approach to this fact is to analyse it, to try to discover the cause of it and overcome the cause, or else to invent its opposite and battle towards that. This is the traditional approach with its disciplines, drills, controls, suppressions, sublimations. Man has done this for thousands upon thousands of years; it has led nowhere. Can we abandon this approach completely and look at the problem entirely differently - that is, not try to go beyond it, or to resolve it, or to overcome it, or to escape from it? Can the mind do this?克：存在着失序这个事实。这一点毫无疑问：这确实是个事实。处理这个事实的传统方式是分析它，试图发现它的原因，克服那原因，或者编造出它的对立面，并为此而奋斗。这就是传统的方式，通过戒律，训练，控制，压抑和高尚化。人们这么做了几千年；它哪儿也没去到。我们能不能完全抛弃这种方式，以完全不同的方式来看问题——也就是，不去试图超越它，解决它，克服它，或者逃避它？头脑能否做到这点？Questioner: Perhaps....发问者：也许...Krishnamurti: Don't answer so quickly! This is a tremendous thing I am asking you. From the beginning of time man has tried to deal with all his problems, either by going beyond them, resolving them, overcoming them or escaping from them. Please do not think you can push all that aside so lightly, simply with a verbal agreement. It makes up the very structure of everybody's mind. Can the mind now, understanding all this non-verbally, actually free itself from the tradition? This traditional way of dealing with the conflict never solves it, but only adds more conflict: being violent, which is conflict, I add the additional conflict of trying to become non-violent. All social morality and all religious prescriptions are that. Are we together?克：不要那么快回答！我在问你一件非同寻常的事情。从时间之初，人类就试图处理他所有的问题，要么通过超越它们，解决它们，克服他们或者逃避它们。请不要以为你能如此轻易地把这一切推在一边，简简单单地说句话就完了。这恰恰构成了每个人头脑的结构。现在头脑能不能，不通过语言地理解这一切，把自己从传统中真正地解脱出来？处理冲突的这种传统方式永远无法解决冲突，只会增加更多的冲突：暴力着，也就是冲突着，我试图变得不暴力，这就额外增加了更多的冲突。所有的社会道德和所有的宗教对治方法都是如此。我们是在一起的吗？Questioner: Yes.发问者：是的。Krishnamurti: Then do you see how far we have come? Having, through understanding, repudiated all these traditional approaches, what is the actual state of the mind now? Because the state of the mind is far more important than the conflict itself.克：那你有没有看到我们走了多远？通过了解，否定了所有这些传统的方式，现在头脑的实际状态是怎样的？因为头脑的状态比冲突本身重要多了。Questioner: I really don't know.发问者：我真的不知道。Krishnamurti: Why don't you know? Why aren't you aware, if you have really abandoned the traditional approach, of the state of your mind? Why don't you know? Either you have abandoned it or you haven't. If you have, you would know it. If you have, then your mind is made innocent to look at the problem. You can look at the problem as though for the first time. And if you do this, is there a problem of conflict at all? Because you look at the problem with the old eyes it is not only strengthened but also moves in its well-worn path. So what is important is how you look at the problem - whether you look at it with new eyes or old eyes. The new eyes are freed from the conditioned responses to the problem. Even to name the problem through recognition is to approach it in the traditional way. Justification, condemnation, or translation of the problem in terms of pleasure and pain, are all involved in this habitual traditional approach of doing something about it. This is generally called positive action with regard to the problem. But when the mind brushes all that aside as being ineffectual, unintelligent, then it has become highly sensitive, highly ordered, and free.克：你为什么不知道？如果你真的已经抛弃了传统的方式，你为什么不知道你头脑的状态？你为什么不知道？要么你抛弃了传统方式，要么你没有。如果你已经抛弃了它，你就会知道。如果你做到了，那么你的头脑就可以纯真地看问题了。你就能像第一次看到这个问题一样。如果你做到了这点，难道还会有冲突的问题吗？因为如果你用过去的眼光看问题的话，就不只是加重了问题，而且还会重蹈覆辙。所以重要的是如何看问题——你是用新的眼光还是过去的眼光看着它。新的眼光就从对问题局限的反应中解脱出来了。即使通过认知来给问题命名，也还是在用传统的方式在处理问题。辩解，谴责，或者通过欢愉和痛苦来诠释，都包含在了这种习惯性的要对它做点什么的传统方式里。这通常被称为对于问题采取的积极行动。但是当头脑把这一切当作无效的和不智慧的扫在一边，那么它就变得高度敏感，高度有序和自由了。Questioner: You're asking too much of me, I can't do it. I'm incapable of it. You're asking me to be superhuman!发问者：你对我要求太高了，我做不到。我没有这个能力。你在让我做个超人！Krishnamurti: You're making difficulties for yourself, blocking yourself, when you say you must become superhuman. It's nothing of the kind. You keep on looking at things with eyes that want to interfere, that want to do something about what they see. Stop doing anything about it, for whatever you do belongs to the traditional approach. That's all. Be simple. This is the miracle of perception - to perceive with a heart and mind that are completely cleansed of the past. Negation is the most positive action.克：当你说你必须变成超人，你是在为自己制造困难，为自己制造障碍。完全不是这样的。你一直用想要干涉的双眼看事情，想要对它们看到的东西做点什么。停止对它做任何事情，因为无论你做什么，都属于传统的方式。就是这样。简单点。这就是觉察的奇迹——用完全清除了过去的心灵和头脑去觉察。否定是最积极的行动。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE RELIGIOUS LIFE'《转变的紧迫性》之“宗教性的生活”Questioner: I should like to know what a religious life is. I have stayed in monasteries for several months, meditated, led a disciplined life, read a great deal. I've been to various temples, churches and mosques. I've tried to lead a very simple, harmless life, trying not to hurt people or animals. This surely isn't all there is to a religious life. I've practised yoga, studied Zen and followed many religious disciples. I am, and have always been, a vegetarian. As you see, I'm getting old now, and I've lived with some of the saints in different parts of the world, but somehow I feel that all this is only the outskirts of the real thing. So I wonder if we can discuss today what to you is a religious life.发问者：我想问问宗教性的生活是怎样的。我在修道院里待过几个月，冥想，过一种持戒的生活，读很多书。我去过各种寺庙，教堂和清真寺。我努力过一种非常简单、无害的生活，努力不去伤害人们或者动物。对于一种宗教性的生活来说，这当然不是全部。我练过瑜伽，学过禅修，遵循过很多宗教戒律。我是个素食主义者，一直都是。就像你看到的，我现在年纪越来越大，我跟世界上不同地方的一些圣人一起生活过，但是或多或少我总感觉到这只是那真实之物的外围。所以，如果我们今天能讨论这一点的话，我想知道对你来说，怎样才是一种宗教性的生活。Krishnamurti: A sannyasi came to see me one day and he was sad. He said he had taken a vow of celibacy and left the world to become a mendicant, wandering from village to village, but his sexual desires were so imperious that one morning he decided to have his sexual organs surgically removed. For many months he was in constant pain, but somehow it healed, and after many years he fully realized what he had done. And so he came to see me and in that little room he asked me what he could do now, having mutilated himself, to become normal again - not physically, of course, but inwardly. He had done this thing because sexual activity was considered contrary to a religious life. It was considered mundane, belonging to the world of pleasure, which a real sannyasi must at all costs avoid. He said, "Here I am, feeling completely lost, deprived of my manhood. I struggled so hard against my sexual desires, trying to control them, and ultimately this terrible thing took place. Now what am I to do? I know that what I did was wrong. My energy has almost gone and I seem to be ending my life in darkness." He held my hand, and we sat silently for some time.克：一天有个遁世者来见我，他很悲哀。他说他曾经宣誓过独身生活，并离开了俗世成为了一个托钵僧，从一个村落到一个村落地流浪，但是他的性欲是那么强烈，以致于有一天早上他决定通过手术把他的性器官切除掉。好几个月他都处于持续的痛苦中，但是不管怎样还是痊愈了，在很多年之后，他才完全意识到自己做了什么。于是他来见我，在那个小房间里，他问我他现在能怎么办，他残害了自己，要怎样才能再变得正常——当然，不是生理上的，而是内在的正常。他做了这件事，是因为性行为被认为是和宗教生活相悖的。它被认为是世俗的，属于欲乐的范畴，而这是一个真正的隐士必须不惜一切代价避免的。他说，“我成了现在这个样子，感到完全地迷失了，我的男子气被剥夺了。我与我的性欲苦苦斗争，努力去控制它们，最终发生了这件可怕的事情。现在我该怎么办？我知道我做错了。我的精力几乎都消失了，我似乎要在黑暗中结束我的生命了。”他握住我的手，我们静静地坐了一会儿。Is this a religious life? Is the denial of pleasure or beauty a way that leads to a religious life? To deny the beauty of the skies and the hills and the human form, will that lead to a religious life? But that is what most saints and monks believe. They torture themselves in that belief. Can a tortured, twisted, distorted mind ever find what is a religious life? Yet all religions assert that the only way to reality or to God, or whatever they call it, is through this torture, this distortion. They all make the distinction between what they call a spiritual or religious life and what they call a worldly life.这就是宗教性的生活吗？对欢愉或者美的拒绝是通向宗教生活的道路吗？拒绝天空、群山和人类形体的美，这会通向宗教性的生活吗？但是这就是多数圣人和僧人们所相信的。他们在那个信仰中折磨着自己。一个备受折磨的、变态的、扭曲的心灵能够发现什么是宗教性的生活吗？然而所有的宗教都坚称，要通向真相或者通向神，或者不管他们管它叫什么，唯一的道路就是通过这种折磨，这种扭曲。在他们所谓的灵性生活或者宗教生活，与所谓的世俗生活之间，他们都做了这种划分。A man who lives only for pleasure, with occasional flashes of sorrow and piety, whose whole life is given to amusement and entertainment is, of course, a worldly man, although he may also be very clever, very scholarly, and fill his life with other people's thoughts or his own. And a man who has a gift and exercises it for the benefit of society, or for his own pleasure, and who achieves fame in the fulfilment of that gift, such a man, surely, is also worldly. But it is also worldly to go to church, or to the temple or the mosque, to pray, steeped in prejudice, bigotry, utterly unaware of the brutality that this implies. It is worldly to be patriotic, nationalistic, idealistic. The man who shuts himself up in a monastery - getting up at regular hours with a book in hand, reading and praying - is surely also worldly. And the man who goes out to do good works, whether he is a social reformer or a missionary, is just like the politician in his concern with the world. The division between the religious life and the world is the very essence of worldliness. The minds of all these people - monks, saints, reformers - are not very different from the minds of those who are only concerned with the things that give pleasure.一个只为了欢愉而活的人，偶尔有些悲伤或者虔诚的火花，整个生命都付诸享受和娱乐，当然，他是个世俗的人，尽管他也许非常聪明，非常博学，用别人的思想或者自己的思想塞满他的生活。而一个有天份的人，为了社会的利益或者为了自己快乐去运用这种天份，并且因此获得了名声，这样一个人，当然也是世俗的。但是，去教堂，去寺庙或者清真寺，祈祷，沉浸于偏见、偏执之中，对其中隐含的残酷毫无察觉，这也是世俗的。爱国主义，民族主义，理想主义，都是世俗的。一个把自己关进修道院的人——固定时间起床，手里拿本书，诵读，祈祷——当然也是世俗的。而一个出去做所谓善举的人，不管他是个社会改革家还是个传教士，就跟以自己的方式关注世界的政客一样。宗教生活和世俗生活之间的划分，本身就是世俗的最核心。所有这些人的头脑——僧侣，圣人，改革者——与那些只关注能带来快乐的事情的人们，没有多少不同。So it is important not to divide life into the worldly and the non-worldly. It is important not to make the distinction between the worldly and the so-called religious. Without the world of matter, the material world, we wouldn't be here. Without the beauty of the sky and the single tree on the hill, without that woman going by and that man riding the horse, life wouldn't be possible. We are concerned with the totality of life not a particular part of it which is considered religious in opposition to the rest. So one begins to see that a religious life is concerned with the whole and not with the particular.所以，不把生活划分成世俗的和非世俗的，这很重要。重要的是不在世俗的和所谓宗教的生活之间进行区分。如果没有物质的世界，这个物质世界，那么我们就不会在这里。没有天空和山上那棵孤树的美，没有那个路过的女人和那个骑马的男人，生命就是不可能的。我们关心的是生命的整体，不是其中一个特定的部分，一个被认为与其他相反的所谓宗教部分。所以一个人开始看到，具有宗教情怀的生活是对整体而不是局部的关注。Questioner: I understand what you say. We have to deal with the totality of living; we can't separate the world from the so-called spirit. So the question is: in what way can we act religiously with regard to all the things in life?发问者：我理解你说的话。我们得面对生活的整体；我们不能把这个世界与所谓的精神世界分离开来。所以问题是：对于生活中的所有事情，我们要以何种方式来行动，宗教性地行动？Krishnamurti: What do we mean by acting religiously? Don't you mean a way of life in which there is no division - division between the worldly and the religious, between what should be and what shouldn't be, between me and you, between like and dislike? This division is conflict. A life of conflict is not a religious life. A religious life is only possible when we deeply understand conflict. This understanding is intelligence. It is this intelligence that acts rightly. What most people call intelligence is merely deftness in some technical activity, or cunning in business or political chicanery.克：我们说的宗教性地行动是什么意思？你难道不是说一种没有分裂的生活方式吗——没有世俗和宗教之间的划分，应该如何和不该如何之间的划分，你和我之间的划分，喜欢和不喜欢之间的划分？这种分别就是冲突。冲突的生活不是宗教性的生活。只有当我们深刻地理解了冲突，宗教性的生活才成为可能。这种了解就是智慧。是这种智慧在正确地行动。多数人们说的智慧，只是在某种灵巧的技术行为，或者在商业中的狡猾或政治伎俩。Questioner: So my question really means how is one to live without conflict, and bring about that feeling of true sanctity which is not simply emotional piety conditioned by some religious cage - no matter how old and venerated that cage is?发问者：所以我的问题真正的意思是，一个人要怎样没有冲突地活着，带来那种真正神圣的感觉，而不只是被某种宗教牢笼禁锢的情绪化的虔诚——不管那个牢笼有多么古老和崇高？Krishnamurti: A man living without too much conflict in a village, or dreaming in a cave on a "sacred" hillside, is surely not living the religious life that we are talking about. To end conflict is one of the most complex things. It needs self-observation and the sensitivity of awareness of the outer as well as of the inner. Conflict can only end where there is the understanding of the contradiction in oneself. This contradiction will always exist if there is no freedom from the known, which is the past. Freedom from the past means living in the now which is not of time, in which there is only this movement of freedom, untouched by the past, by the known.克：一个生活在村子里没有多少冲突的人，或者在一个“神圣”的山边发梦的人，过的当然不是我们正在讨论的那种宗教生活。终结冲突时最复杂的事情之一。这需要自我观察，需要对外在以及内在灵敏的觉察。只有当了解了自身的矛盾时，冲突才能终止。如果没有从已知也就是过去中解脱出来，这种矛盾就永远都会存在。从过去中解脱意味着活在现在，现在是没有时间的，其中只有这种自由的运动，没有被过去和已知损害和污染。Questioner: What do you mean by freedom from the past?发问者：你说的从过去中解脱出来是什么意思？Krishnamurti: The past is all our accumulated memories. These memories act in the present and create our hopes and fears of the future. These hopes and fears are the psychological future: without them there is no future. So the present is the action of the past, and the mind is this movement of the past. The past acting in the present creates what we call the future. This response of the past is involuntary, it is not summoned or invited, it is upon us before we know it.克：过去是我们积累的所有记忆。这些记忆现在运作着，制造出了我们对未来的希望和恐惧。这些希望和恐惧是心理上的未来：没有它们，就没有未来。所以现在是过去的运作，心智就是过去延伸到现在的这种运动。过去在现在运作着，制造出了我们所谓的未来。这种过去的反应是无意间作出的，不是被命令或者邀请的，在我们知道这点之前就已经发生在我们身上了。Questioner: In that case, how are we going to be free of it?发问者：这样的话，我们要怎样才能从中解脱？Krishnamurti: To be aware of this movement without choice - because choice again is more of this same movement of the past - is to observe the past in action: such observation is not a movement of the past. To observe without the image of thought is action in which the past has ended. To observe the tree without thought is action without the past. To observe the action of the past is again action without the past. The state of seeing is more important than what is seen. To be aware of the past in that choiceless observation is not only to act differently, but to be different. In this awareness memory acts without impediment, and efficiently. To be religious is to be so choicelessly aware that there is freedom from the known even whilst the known acts wherever it has to.克：无选择地觉知这种运动——因为选择又是同样的这种过去的运动——去观察在运作中的过去：这种观察就不再是过去的运动了。没有思想意象的观察，是过去终止了的行动。不带念头地观察那棵树，就是没有过去的行动。观察过去的运作，也是没有过去的行动。看的状态比看到了什么重要多了。在无选择的观察中觉察过去，不仅仅是在以不同的方式行动了，而且是在以不同的方式活着了。在这种觉察中，记忆没有障碍地，高效地运作着。宗教性，就是无选择地觉察，那里有从已知中的解脱，即使其间已知还在做着不得不做的事情。Questioner: But the known, the past, still sometimes acts even when it should not; it still acts to cause conflict.发问者：但是已知，过去，有时候还在不应该的时候运作着；它的行动还是会带来冲突。Krishnamurti: To be aware of this is also to be in a state of inaction with regard to the past which is acting. So freedom from the known is truly the religious life. That doesn't mean to wipe out the known but to enter a different dimension altogether from which the known is observed. This action of seeing choicelessly is the action of love. The religious life is this action, and all living is this action, and the religious mind is this action. So religion, and the mind, and life, and love, are one.克：觉察这一点，对于正在运作着的过去，也处于一种不作为的状态。所以从已知中解脱是真正宗教性的生活。无选择地看，这种行动，就是爱的行动。宗教性的生活，是这种行动，整个生活都是这种行为，宗教性的心灵就是这种行动。所以，宗教，心智，生活，和爱，是一体的。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SEEING THE WHOLE'《转变的紧迫性》之“看到整体”Questioner: When I listen to you I seem to understand what you are talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeper level. I am part of it; I fully grasp with my whole being the truth of what you say. My hearing is sharpened, and the very seeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow, makes me feel I am part of them. In this awareness I have no conflict, no contradiction. It is as though I could do anything, and that whatever I did would be true, would not bring either conflict or pain. But unfortunately that state doesn't last. Perhaps it lasts for an hour or two while I'm listening to you. When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm back where I was. I try to be aware of myself; I keep remembering the state I was in when I listened to your talks, keep trying to reach it, hold on to it, and this becomes a struggle. You have said, "Be aware of your conflict, listen to your conflict, see the causes of your conflict, your conflict is yourself". I am aware of my conflict, my pain, my sorrow, my confusion, but this awareness in no way resolves these things. On the contrary, being aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration. You talk of choiceless awareness, which again breeds another battle in me, for I am full of choice, decisions and opinions. I have applied this awareness to a particular habit I have, and it has not gone. When you are aware of some conflict or strain, this same awareness keeps looking to see if it has already gone. And this seems to remind you of it, and you never shake it off.发问者：当我听你演讲的时候，我似乎能理解你所说的内容，不只从字面上能理解，而且能在更深的层次上理解。我已经融入其中；我以我的整个存在充分领会了你所说的真相。我的听觉敏锐了，看到花朵、树木与那些积雪的山脉，就让我感觉我是它们的一部分。在这份觉察之中，我没有冲突，没有矛盾。好像我可以做任何事情，我不论做什么，都是正确的，都不会带来冲突与痛苦。但是很不幸，这种状态无法持续。或许在听你演讲的时候，能持续一两个小时。在我离开演讲时，那状态似乎就全都蒸发掉了，我又回到了原来的样子。我努力地觉察自己，不断回想我在听你演讲时的状态，一直努力再进入并保持那种状态，于是这就变成了一种挣扎。你曾经说过，“觉知你的冲突，聆听你的冲突，认清你冲突的原因，你的冲突就是你自己。”我知道自己的冲突、痛苦、悲伤和困惑，但是这份觉察并没有解决这些问题。相反地，这种觉知反而给它们赋予了生命力和持久性。你还谈到毫无选择地觉察，这又滋生了我内心的另一种冲突，因为我的心中充满了选择、决断及观点。我曾把这份觉察应用于自己的某个特殊习惯，可是那习惯并没有因此消失。当你觉察到某种冲突或压力时，那觉察同样会一直注意看它是不是已经消失了。这似乎总在提醒你那冲突的存在，这么一来你就永远无法摆脱它了。Krishnamurti: Awareness is not a commitment to something. Awareness is an observation, both outer and inner, in which direction has stopped. You are aware, but the thing of which you are aware is not being encouraged or nourished. Awareness is not concentration on something. It is not an action of the will choosing what it will be aware of, and analysing it to bring about a certain result. When awareness is deliberately focused on a particular object, as a conflict, that is the action of will which is concentration. When you concentrate - that is, put all your energy and thought within your chosen frontiers, whether reading a book or watching your anger - then, in this exclusion, the thing you are concentrating upon is strengthened, nourished. So here we have to understand the nature of awareness: We have to understand what we are talking about when we use the word awareness. Now, you can either be aware of a particular thing, or be aware of that particular as part of the total. The particular by itself has very little meaning, but when you see the total, then that particular has a relationship to the whole. Only in this relationship does the particular have its right meaning; it doesn't become all-important, it is not exaggerated. So the real question is: does one see the total process of life or is one concentrated on the particular, thus missing the whole field of life? To be aware of the whole field is to see also the particular, but, at the same time, to understand its relationship to the whole. If you are angry and are concerned with ending that anger, then you focus your attention on the anger and the whole escapes you and the anger is strengthened. But anger is interrelated to the whole. So when we separate the particular from the whole, the particular breeds its own problems.克：觉察并不是对某件事情的专注。觉察是没有方向的观察，内心和外在所有的事物你都能观察到。你是觉知的，而你觉察到的东西又不会被助长或增强。觉察不是专注于某个特定的事物上。觉察不是意志力的行为，也不拣选任何觉察的对象，更不是通过分析来达到某种结果。如果刻意把觉知集中在某个特定的对象上，譬如某个冲突，那么这时的觉察就变成了意志力的行为，也就是专注。在专心的时候，也就是把你全部的精力和思想都集中在自己所选择的区域中，不管是读书还是观察自己的愤怒，如此一来，在这种排外的行为中，你就增强了、滋养了自己所专注之物。因此我们首先必须了解觉察的本质，我们得了解我们用“觉察”这个词时探讨的究竟是什么。要么你觉察的是某个特定的事物，要么觉察的是作为整体的一部分的某个特定的事物。特定的事物本身并没有什么意义，但是你如果能看到整体，特定事物就和整体产生了关系。只有在这种关系之中，特定的事物才有真正的意义；而同时又不会变得特别重要，不会被夸大。因此真正的问题就在于：我们看到的是人生的整个过程，还是专注于其中的细节，从而错过了生命的整个领域？对整个领域的觉知，也能看到细节，但同时，还能了解细节与整体的关系。假设你发怒了，而你又很想息怒，然后你把所有的注意力集中在愤怒上，这么一来你不但看不清整体，反而助长了怒气。而愤怒是和整体关联在一起的。如果你把细节从整体中分离出来，细节就会自己滋生出问题。Questioner: What do you mean by seeing the whole? What is this totality you talk about, this extensive awareness in which the particular is a detail? Is it some mysterious, mystical experience? If so then we are lost completely. Or is this perhaps what you are saying, that there is a whole field of existence, of which anger is a part, and that to be concerned with the part is to block out the extensive perception? But what is this extensive perception? I can only see the whole through all its particulars. And what whole do you mean? Are you talking about the whole of the mind, or the whole of existence, or the whole of myself, or the whole of life? What whole do you mean, and how can I see it?Krishnamurti: The whole field of life: the mind, love, everything which is in life.发问者：你所谓的看到整体是什么意思？你说的这个整体，在这广泛的觉知中局部只是细节而已，这整体到底是什么东西？它是不是某种神秘的、不可思议的经验？如果是的话，我们就彻底迷失了。或者你也许指的是，存在的整个领域中有个局部是愤怒，如果只关心这一小部分，就会阻碍广泛的觉知？然而广泛的觉知又是什么？只有透过所有的细节，我才能看到整体。你所谓的整体到底是什么意思？你说的是心智的整个领域，存在的整个领域，我自己的全部，还是整个生命？你说的整体是什么意思，我要如何才能看到这点?克：我指的是生命的整个领域:包括心智、爱与生命中的所有事物。Questioner: How can I possibly see all that! I can understand that everything I see is partial, and that all my awareness is awareness of the particular, and that this strengthens the particular.Krishnamurti: Let's put it this way: do you perceive with your mind and your heart separately, or do you see, hear, feel, think, all together, not fragmentarily?Questioner: I don't know what you mean.Krishnamurti: You hear a word, your mind tells you it is an insult, your feelings tell you you don't like it, your mind again intervenes to control or justify, and so on. Once again feeling takes over where the mind has concluded. In this way an event unleashes a chain-reaction of different parts of your being. What you hear had been broken up, made fragmentary, and if you concentrate on one of those fragments, you miss the total process of that hearing. Hearing can be fragmentary or it can be done with all your being, totally. So, by perception of the whole we mean perception with your eyes, your ears, your heart, your mind; not perception with each separately. It is giving your complete attention. In that attention, the particular, such as anger, has a different meaning since it is interrelated to many other issues.发问者：我怎么可能看得到所有的那些！我知道自己看到的都是局部，我所有的觉察也只限于特定的局部，这反而助长了局部的问题。克：让我们换一种方式来探讨：你在觉知的时候，心智与情感是不是分开的？还是你的听觉、视觉、感觉和思想，不分割地一起并用？发问者：我不知道你说的是什么意思。克：假设你听到一句话，你的心智告诉你，这是一句侮辱的话，你的感觉又告诉你，你不喜欢这句话，接着你的心智又插手进来，企图控制自己或为自己辩解，等等。当心智下了一个结论，感觉又一次占了主导。如此一来，一个事件便从你的存在的不同局部引发了一连串的连锁反应。你所听到的变得支离破碎，而你如果只专注于其中的一个碎片，你就错过了整个的聆听过程。聆听可以是支离破碎的，也可以用你的整个存在完整地做到。所以我们所谓的觉察整体指的就是你的视觉、听觉、情感和心智同时并用，而不是各自分开去觉察。你付出全部的注意力。在全神贯注之下，那局部，比如愤怒，就有了不同的意义，因为它和很多其他的问题是相互关联的。Questioner: So when you say seeing the whole, you mean seeing with the whole of your being; it is a question of quality not quantity. Is that correct?Krishnamurti: Yes, precisely. But do you see totally in this way or are you merely verbalizing it? Do you see anger with your heart, mind, ears and eyes? Or do you see anger as something unrelated to the rest of you, and therefore of great importance? When you give importance to the whole you do not forget the particular.Questioner: But what happens to the particular, to anger?Krishnamurti: You are aware of anger with your whole being. If you are, is there anger? Inattention is anger, not attention. So attention with your entire being is seeing the whole, and inattention is seeing the particular. To be aware of the whole, and of the particular, and of the relationship between the two, is the whole problem. We divide the particular from the rest and try to solve it. And so conflict increases and there is no way out.发问者：因此你所谓的看到整体，指的就是以你的整个存在去观察；这是质而不是量的问题，对不对？克：是的，完全正确。但是你真的能这样看到全部吗？还是只说说就算了？在观察自己的愤怒时，你的视觉、听觉、心智与情感，能同时并用吗？还是你看到的愤怒是和你其他的部分无关的，因而显得特别重要？当你赋予整体重要性时，并不表示你就忽略了局部。发问者：但是局部的愤怒又会怎么样？克：你以你的整个存在去觉察愤怒。如果是这样，愤怒还会产生吗？粗心大意之下才会产生愤怒，全神贯注之中绝没有愤怒。以你的整个存在全神贯注就是看到整体，粗心大意则只能看到局部。觉察整体和觉察局部，以及两者之间的关系，就是整个问题。我们总是把局部和其他部分分开，然后再企图解决它。于是冲突就加深了，没有解决的出路。Questioner: When you speak then of seeing only the particular, as anger, do you mean looking at it with only one part of your being?Krishnamurti: When you look at the particular with a fragment of your being, the division between that particular and the fragment which is looking at it grows, and so conflict increases. When there is no division there is no conflict.Questioner: Are you saying that there is no division between this anger and me when I look at it with all my being?Krishnamurti: Exactly. Is this what you actually are doing, or are you merely following the words? What is actually taking place? This is far more important than your question.发问者：你所谓的只看到局部的愤怒，你的意思是不是仅以生命的某一部分来观察愤怒？克：如果你仅以生命的某个片段来观察那个特定的问题，那个特定的问题和正在观察它的碎片之间的距离就会拉大，如此一来冲突便增强了。假如根本没有那种距离，就不会有冲突。发问者：你是说，我能以我的整个存在去观察愤怒，愤怒和我之间就不会产生距离？克：一点也不错。你是真的做到了这点，还是只听听话语而已？实际发生了什么？这比你的问题重要多了。Questioner: You ask me what is taking place. I am simply trying to understand you.Krishnamurti: Are you trying to understand me or are you seeing the truth of what we are talking about, which is independent of me? If you actually see the truth of what we are talking about, then you are your own guru and your own disciple, which is to understand yourself. This understanding cannot be learnt from another.发问者：你问我实际发生了什么。我只是想明白你的意思罢了。克：你是在努力地弄明白我的意思，还是你看到了我们所讨论的真相？而这真相是独立于我而存在的。如果你真的能认清我们所讨论的真相，也就是了解你自己，那么你不但是自己的老师，同时也是自己的学生。这份自我了解，你无法从别人那里学到。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'MORALITY'《转变的紧迫性》之“道德”Questioner: What is it to be virtuous? What makes one act righteously? What is the foundation of morality? How do I know virtue without struggling for it? Is it an end in itself?发问者：什么是美德？是什么让人行为正直？道德的基础是什么？若不为之努力，我怎么能够知道美德？它本身就是个结束吗？Krishnamurti: Can we discard the morality of society which is really quite immoral? Its morality has become respectable, approved by religious sanctions; and the morality of counter-revolution also soon becomes as immoral and respectable as that of well-established society. This morality is to go to war, to kill, to be aggressive, to seek power, to give hate its place; it is all the cruelty and injustice of established authority. This is not moral. But can one actually say that it is not moral? Because we are part of this society, whether we are conscious of it or not. Social morality is our morality, and can we easily put it aside? The ease with which we put it aside is the sign of our morality - not the effort it costs us to put it aside, not the reward, not the punishment for this effort but the consummate ease with which we discard it. If our behaviour is directed by the environment in which we live, controlled and shaped by it, then it is mechanical and heavily conditioned. And if our behaviour is the outcome of our own conditioned response, is it moral? If your action is based on fear and reward, is it righteous? If you behave rightly according to some ideological concept or principle, can that action be regarded as virtuous? So we must begin to find out how deeply we have discarded the morality of authority, imitation, conformity and obedience. Isn't fear the basis of our morality? Unless these questions are fundamentally answered for oneself one cannot know what it is to be truly virtuous. As we said, with what ease you come out of this hypocrisy is of the greatest importance. If you merely disregard it, it doesn't indicate that you are moral: you might be merely psychopathic. If you live a life of routine and contentment that is not morality either. The morality of the saint who conforms and follows the well-established tradition of sainthood is obviously not morality. So one can see that any conformity to a pattern, whether or not it is sanctioned by tradition, is not righteous behaviour. Only out of freedom can come virtue.克：我们能不能抛弃社会道德？社会道德实际上非常地不道德。它的道德被宗教约束所推崇，流于体面；就像根深蒂固的社会道德一样，反革命的道德也很快变得不道德，流于体面。这种道德是去打仗，去杀戮，去侵略，追求权力，让恨大行其道；它就是当局者所有的残忍和不公。这不道德。但是你真的能说它不道德吗？因为我们就是这个社会的一部分，不管我们是否意识到了这一点。社会道德是我们的道德，我们能轻松地把它搁置一旁吗？我们把它搁置一旁的这种轻松，正体现了我们的道德——不是把它放在一边所需要花费的努力，也不是为这种努力而得到的奖赏或者惩罚，而是我们抛弃掉它所用的那种完全的轻松。如果我们的行为被我们生活在其中的环境所左右，被其控制和塑造，那么我们的行为就是机械的，严重局限的。如果我们的行为是我们自己局限反应的结果，那它是道德的吗？如果我们的行为基于恐惧和奖励，那它是正直的吗？如果你根据某种理论观念或者原则正确地行动，那行动能被认为是美德吗？所以我们必须开始去发现我们在多大程度上抛弃了权威、仿效、遵从和服从这些道德。恐惧是我们道德的基础吗？一个人无法知道什么是真正的美德，除非他自己从根本上解答了这些问题。正如我们所说，你从怎样的轻松中摆脱了这种虚伪，这是最重要的。如果你只是忽视它，那并不表明你是道德的：你可能只是精神错乱。如果你过一种例行公事心满意足的生活，那也不是道德。遵从并追随既定的圣徒传统，这些圣徒的道德，显然都不是道德。所以一个人能够看到，任何对模式的遵从，不管它是不是被传统所认可，都不是正直的行为。只有从自由中才能诞生美德。Can one free oneself with great skill from this network of what is considered moral? Skill in action comes with freedom, and so virtue.一个人能非常巧妙地把自己从被视为道德的这种网络中解脱出来吗？行动中的技巧来自于自由，美德也一样。Questioner: Can I free myself from social morality without fear, with the intelligence which is skill? I'm frightened at the very idea of being considered immoral by society. The young can do it, but I am middle-aged, and I have a family, and in my very blood there is respectability, the essence of the bourgeois. It is there, and I am frightened.发问者：我能没有恐惧地运用智慧也就是技巧把自己从社会道德中解脱出来吗？被社会视为不道德，这个念头本身就让我很害怕。年轻人能这么做，但是我已经中年了，我有个家庭，在我的血液里本身就有体面，那是资产阶级的核心品质。它就在那儿，我很害怕。Krishnamurti: Either you accept social morality or reject it. You can't have it both ways. You can't have one foot in hell and the other in heaven.克：你要么接受社会道德，要么拒绝它。你不能两边都占。你不能一只脚在地狱另一只脚在天堂。Questioner: So what am I to do? I see now what morality is, and yet I'm being immoral all the time. The older I grow the more hypocritical I become. I despise the social morality, and yet I want its benefits, its comfort, its security, psychological and material, and the elegance of a good address. That is my actual, deplorable state. What am I to do?发问者：那我该怎么办？我现在看到了道德是什么，而我始终是不道德的。年纪越大，我就变得越虚伪。我鄙视社会道德，但是我想要它的好处，它的舒适，它的安全，心理上和物质上的安全，以及有个好住址的体面。这就是我真实的可悲境地。我该怎么办？Krishnamurti: You can't do anything but carry on as you are. It is much better to stop trying to be moral, stop trying to be concerned with virtue.克：你什么也不能做，只能继续你现在的样子。停止想要变得道德，停止努力关注美德，这要好多了。Questioner: But I can't, I want the other! I see the beauty and the vigour of it, the cleanliness of it. What I am holding on to is dirty and ugly, but I can't let it go.发问者：但是我做不到，我想要另一个！我看到了它的美和生命力，它的纯净。我正抱守的东西又脏又丑，但是我丢不掉它。Krishnamurti: Then there is no issue. You can't have virtue and respectability. Virtue is freedom. Freedom is not an idea, a concept. When there is freedom there is attention, and only in this attention can goodness flower.克：那就没问题了。你无法同时拥有美德和体面。美德是自由。自由不是一个想法，一个概念。有了自由就有了关注，只有在这种全神贯注中，良善才能绽放。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SUICIDE'《转变的紧迫性》之“自杀”Questioner: I would like to talk about suicide - not because of any crisis in my own life, nor because I have any reason for suicide, but because the subject is bound to come up when one sees the tragedy of old age - the tragedy of physical disintegration, the breaking up of the body, and the loss of real life in people when this happens. Is there any reason to prolong life when one reaches that state, to go on with the remnants of it? Would it not perhaps be an act of intelligence to recognise when the usefulness of life is over?发问者：我想谈谈自杀——不是因为我自己生活中有任何危机，也不是我有任何自杀的理由，只是这个主题注定会出现在一个人面前，当他看到了生命衰老的悲剧——身体的崩溃，身体的破坏，当这悲剧发生的时候人们便失去了真正的生命。当一个人到达了这样的处境，还有任何理由延长生命，继续苟延残喘下去吗？当生命的用处已经完结时，意识到这一点难道不可以是一个智慧的行为吗？Krishnamurti: If it was intelligence that prompted you to end life that very intelligence would have forbidden your body to deteriorate prematurely.克：假如是智慧在促使你结束生命，那么这个智慧本身早就应该阻止了你身体的过早退化。Questioner: But is there not a moment when even the intelligence of the mind cannot prevent this deterioration? Eventually the body wears out - how does one recognise that time when it comes?发问者：但是难道没有即使是头脑的智慧也无法阻止退化的时候吗？最终身体耗损殆尽——一个人要怎样才能意识到这个时刻的来临呢？Krishnamurti: We ought to go into this rather deeply. There are several things involved in it, aren't there? The deterioration of the body, of the organism, the senility of the mind, and the utter incapacity that breeds resistance. We abuse the body endlessly through custom, taste and negligence. Taste dictates - and the pleasure of it controls and shapes the activity of the organism. When this takes place, the natural intelligence of the body is destroyed. In magazines one sees an extraordinary variety of food, beautifully coloured, appealing to your pleasures of taste, not to what is beneficial for the body. So from youth onwards you gradually deaden and destroy the instrument which should be highly sensitive, active, functioning like a perfect machine. That is part of it, and then there is the mind which for twenty, thirty or eighty years has lived in constant battle and resistance. It knows only contradiction and conflict - emotional or intellectual. Every form of conflict is not only a distortion but brings with it destruction. These then are some of the basic inner and outer factors of deterioration - the perpetually self-centred activity with its isolating processes. Naturally there is the physical wearing out of the body as well as the unnatural wearing out. The body loses its capacities and memories, and senility gradually takes over. You ask, should not such a person commit suicide, take a pill that will put him out? Who is asking the question - the senile, or those who are watching the senility with sorrow, with despair and fear of their own deterioration?克：关于这点，我们应该相当深入地探讨一下。其中涉及了几个问题，不是吗？身体和器官的退化，心智的衰老，这完全的无能为力滋生了抗拒。我们通过习惯、嗜好和粗心大意无休止地滥用着身体。嗜好以及它带来的快感支配、控制和塑造着有机体的活动。当这些发生的时候，身体自然的智慧就被破坏了。有人在杂志上看到了品种极其丰富的食物，色彩艳丽，吸引着你对味觉快感的诉求，而不管是否有益于你的身体。所以从年轻时起，你就在逐渐地压抑和破坏着身体这具本应像一台完美的机器一样高度敏感、活跃地运作着的仪器。那还只是一部分，还有心智，在二十年，三十年或者八十年内一直处于不间断的斗争和抗拒中。它只知道矛盾和冲突——情绪上的或者理智上的。每种形式的冲突都不仅仅是扭曲，而且还带来了破坏。而这些东西就是导致退化的内在和外在的一些基本因素——退化即是无休止的自我中心活动和自我孤立过程。自然地身体会有物理的磨损，而且也有非自然的磨损。身体失去了它的能力和记忆，年迈就逐渐接手。你问，这样一个人不应该自杀吗，吃片儿药就把他结果了？是谁在问这个问题——是年迈的人，还是正在以悲痛和绝望的心情注视着年迈，心存对自身衰老的恐惧的那些人？Questioner: Well, obviously the question from my point of view is motivated by distress at seeing senility in other people, for it has not presumably set in in myself yet. But isn't there also some action of intelligence which sees ahead into a possible breakdown of the body and asks the question whether it is not simply a waste to go on once the organism is no longer capable of intelligent life?发问者：好吧，显然地从我的观点来看，那个问题是在我看到他人的年迈时候，受悲伤的驱使提出来的，因为年迈大概还没有植入我自己吧。但这其中不也是有一些智慧的行为吗？当预先看到自己的身体可能垮掉时，然后就问这样一个问题，既然有机体再也没能力去过智慧的生活了，它再继续存在下去不就纯粹是一种浪费吗？Krishnamurti: Will the doctors allow euthanasia, will the doctors or the government permit the patient to commit suicide?克：医生允许安乐死吗，医生或者是政府允许病人自杀吗？Questioner: That surely is a legal, sociological or in some people's minds, a moral question, but that isn't what we are discussing here, is it? Aren't we asking whether the individual has the right to end his own life, not whether society will permit it?发问者：当然这是一个法律上、社会学上的问题，或者在某些人心里，这是一个道德问题，但是我们在这里谈的不是这些，不是吗？难道我们不是在问个体是否有权结束自己的生命，而不是社会是否允许？Krishnamurti: You are asking whether one has the right to take one's own life - not only when one is senile or has become aware of the approach of senility, but whether it is morally right to commit suicide at any time?
爱心猫粮1金币
南瓜喵10金币
喵喵玩具50金币
喵喵毛线88金币
喵喵项圈100金币
喵喵手纸200金币
喵喵跑车520金币
喵喵别墅1314金币