转变的紧迫性-5

克：没错。但要了解你的砂砾，你必须先懂得自由是什么。但是我们不要在这个比喻上死缠烂打下去了。我们应该同时来考虑自由和执着。Questioner: What has my attachment to do with freedom or freedom with my attachment?发问者：我的执着和自由有什么关系，或者自由和我的执着有什么关系？Krishnamurti: In your attachment there is pain. You want to be rid of this pain, so you cultivate detachment which is another form of resistance. In the opposite there is no freedom. These two opposites are identical and mutually strengthen each other. What you are concerned with is how to have the pleasures of attachment without its miseries. You cannot. That is why it is important to understand that freedom does not lie in detachment. In the process of understanding attachment there is freedom, not in running away from attachment. So our question now is, why are human beings attached, dependent?克：在你的执着中存在着痛苦。你想摆脱这痛苦，所以你培养超脱，这是抗拒的另一种形式。执着的反面并没有自由。这两种对立之物是相同的，相辅相成互相增强的。你关心的是如何只享受依附的快感，而不想要其中的痛苦。你做不到。因此，超脱之中没有自由，明了这一点非常重要。自由就在了解执着的过程中，而不在对执着的逃避中。所以，现在，我们的问题变成了：为什么人类会执着以及依赖？Being nothing, being a desert in oneself, one hopes through another to find water. Being empty, poor, wretched, insufficient, devoid of interest or importance, one hopes through another to be enriched. Through the love of another one hopes to forget oneself. Through the beauty of another one hopes to acquire beauty. Through the family, through the nation, through the lover, through some fantastic belief, one hopes to cover this desert with flowers. And God is the ultimate lover. So one puts hooks into all these things. In this there is pain and uncertainty, and the desert seems more arid than ever before. Of course it is neither more nor less arid; it is what it was, only one has avoided looking at it while escaping through some form of attachment with its pain, and then escaping from that pain into detachment. But one remains arid and empty as before. So instead of trying to escape, either through attachment or through detachment, can we not become aware of this fact, of this deep inward poverty and inadequacy, this dull, hollow isolation? That is the only thing that matters, not attachment or detachment. Can you look at it without any sense of condemnation or evaluation? When you do,are you looking at it as an observer who looks at the observed, or without the observer?一个一无所是，孤身处于荒漠的人，期望通过别人找到水源。一个人感到空虚、贫穷、可怜、无能、百无聊赖或无足轻重，希望通过别人来充实他。他想藉由别人的爱来忘却自己，希望藉由他人的美让自己获得美丽。他想藉由家庭、民族、情人以及一些光怪陆离的信念，为那一无所有的荒漠栽满鲜花。最后，上帝成为了终极情人。于是人们将精力投入于所有这些事物中。痛苦和不确定性随之而来，内心的荒漠似乎比以往更贫瘠了。当然，它既没有更贫瘠，也没有更肥沃；它还是原来的样子，这个人只是藉由某种形式的执着以及与之相伴的痛苦，逃避面对现实，然后，又为了逃避那痛苦而选择超脱。可这个人照样贫乏空虚。因此，除了逃避，无论通过执着还是超脱来逃避，我们就不能看清事实，看清这深刻的内在贫乏和欠缺，这沉闷空洞的孤立吗？这才是唯一重要的事情，而不是执着或超脱。你能不带着谴责和评估地看着它吗？当你看着它时，你是作为一个观察者，看着被观察的对象，还是根本就没有观察者？Questioner: What do you mean, the observer?发问者：你说的“观察者”是什么意思？Krishnamurti: Are you looking at it from a centre with all its conclusions of like and dislike, opinion, judgement, the desire to be free of this emptiness and so on - are you looking at this aridness with the eyes of conclusion - or are you looking with eyes that are completely free? When you look at it with completely free eyes there is no observer. If there is no observer, is there the thing observed as loneliness, emptiness, wretchedness?克：你是从一个中心看出去，带着所有喜欢或不喜欢的结论、观点、判断以及摆脱空虚的欲望去观察的吗？你在用带有结论的双眼，还是用一双完全自由的眼睛去看那片贫瘠之地呢？当你用完全自由的眼光看时，观察者就消失了。如果没有观察者，被看作孤独、空虚、悲哀的东西还在吗？Questioner: Do you mean to say that that tree doesn't exist if I look at it without conclusions, without a centre which is the observer?发问者：你的意思是说，如果我不带结论，不以观察者为中心地看时，那棵树就不存在了？Krishnamurti: Of course the tree exists.克：那棵树当然存在。Questioner: Why does loneliness disappear but not the tree when I look without the observer?发问者：当我进行没有观察者的观察时，为什么消失的是孤独感，而不是那棵树？Krishnamurti: Because the tree is not created by the centre, by the mind of the "me". But the mind of the "me', in all its self-centred activity has created this emptiness, this isolation. And when that mind, without the centre, looks, the self-centred activity ends. So the loneliness is not. Then the mind functions in freedom. Looking at the whole structure of attachment and detachment, and the movement of pain and pleasure, we see how the mind of the "me" builds its own desert and its own escapes. When the mind of the "me" is still, then there is no desert and there is no escape.克：因为树并不是由那个中心，那个“我”的心智创造的。但那个“我”的心智，通过它自我中心的种种活动制造出了这种空虚和孤立的感觉。当心智不再带着那个中心去看时，自我中心的活动就结束了。孤独感自然也不存在了。然后，心智的运作就自由了。通过观察执着与超脱的整个结构，痛苦和快乐的起伏，我们就会发现“我”的心智如何制造了自己的荒漠，又自行策划着逃脱。当“我”的心灵沉静无波时，既没有荒漠，也不用逃脱。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'BELIEF'《转变的紧迫性》之“信仰”Questioner: I am one of those people who really believe in God. In India I followed one of the great modern saints who, because he believed in God, brought about great political changes there. In India the whole country throbs to the beat of God. I have heard you talk against belief so probably you don't believe in God. But you are a religious person and therefore there must be in you some kind of feeling of the Supreme. I have been all over India and through many parts of Europe, visiting monasteries, churches and mosques, and everywhere I have found this very strong, compelling belief in God whom one hopes shapes one's life. Now since you don't believe in God, although you are a religious person, what exactly is your position with regard to this question? Why don't you believe? Are you an atheist? As you know, in Hinduism you can be an atheist or a theist and yet be equally well a Hindu. Of course it's different with the Christians. If you don't believe in God you can't be a Christian. But that's beside the point. The point is that I have come to ask you to explain your position and demonstrate to me its validity. People follow you and therefore you have a responsibility, and therefore I am challenging you in this way.发问者：我是真的信神的那些人之一。在印度我追随过一个伟大的现代圣人，他因为信神，在印度实现了巨大的政治变革。印度这整个国家都随着神的节奏跳动。我听说你在讲话里反对信仰，所以也许你不信神。但你是个宗教人物，所以你内在必然对那至高无上者有某种感觉。我走遍了印度，也去过欧洲的很多地方，拜访过修道院、教堂和清真寺，我发现到处都有这种非常强烈的无法抗拒的对神的信仰，人们希望神来塑造他们的生命。那么，尽管你是个宗教人物，既然你不信神，那么对于这个问题来说，你究竟是个什么立场？你为什么没有信仰？你是个无神论者吗？你知道，在印度教里，你可以是个无神论者，也可以是个有神论者，但都同样地还是印度教徒。当然对于基督徒来说，情形是不同的。如果你不信上帝，你就不可能是个基督徒。但那是次要的问题。问题是，我来请你解释一下你的立场，并向我说明一下你立场的正确性。人们追随你，因而你有这个责任，所以我是在用这种方式来挑战你。Krishnamurti: Let us first of all clear up this last point. There are no followers, and I have no responsibility to you or to the people who listen to my talks. Also I am not a Hindu or anything else, for I don't belong to any group, religious or otherwise. Each one must be a light to himself. Therefore there is no teacher, no disciple. This must be clearly understood from the very beginning otherwise one is influenced, one becomes a slave to propaganda and persuasions. Therefore anything that is being said now is not dogma or creed or persuasion: we either meet together in understanding or we don't. Now, you said most emphatically that you believe in God and you probably want through that belief to experience what one might call the godhead. Belief involves many things. There is belief in facts that you may not have seen but can verify, like the existence of New York or the Eiffel Tower. Then you may believe that your wife is faithful though you don't actually know it. She might be unfaithful in thought yet you believe she is faithful because you don't actually see her going off with someone else; she may deceive you in daily thought, and you most certainly have done the same too. You believe in reincarnation, don't you, though there is no certainty that there is any such thing? However, that belief has no validity in your life, has it? All Christians believe that they must love but they do not love - like everyone else they go about killing, physically or psychologically. There are those who do not believe in God and yet do good. There are those who believe in God and kill for that belief; those who prepare for war because they claim they want peace, and so on. So one has to ask oneself what need there is to believe at all in anything, though this doesn't deny the extraordinary mystery of life. But belief is one thing and "what is" is another. Belief is a word, a thought, and this is not the thing, any more than your name is actually you.克：让我们首先来澄清一下这最后一点。没什么追随者，我对你没有责任，对那些来听我讲话的人也没有责任。我也不是一个印度教徒或者别的什么身份，因为我不属于任何一个团体，不管是不是宗教性的。每个人都必须做他自己的光。所以没有老师，也没有弟子。从一开始这点就必须明明白白，否则你就会被影响，你就会变成宗教宣传或者说教的奴隶。所以，我说的任何话，都不是教条、信条或者信仰：我们要么在了解中相遇，要么没有。现在，你说最重要的是你信神，你也许希望通过这信仰来体验所谓的神性。信仰涉及到很多事情。有对事实的相信，这事实你不一定亲眼看到，但是可以验证，就像纽约或者埃菲尔铁塔的存在一样。然后你可能相信你的妻子是忠诚的，尽管你并不知道事实是不是这样。她也许在思想上不忠，但是你相信她忠诚，因为你并没有真的看到她跟别人跑掉；她可能在日常思想上欺骗你，而你很可能也做着同样的事情。尽管没法确定确实有转世这回事，但是你相信转世，不是吗？然而，这信仰在你的生活中并没有什么效力，不是吗？所有的基督徒都相信他们必须去爱，但是他们不爱——就跟别人一样，他们四处杀戮，不管是身体上还是心理上的杀戮。有些人不信神但是做着善事。有些人信神，并为这个信仰去杀人；那些备战的人声称那是因为他们想要和平，等等等等。所以一个人得问问自己，到底有什么必要去相信任何事情，尽管这么说并不否定生命那异乎寻常的神秘。但是信仰是一回事，“现实状况”是另一回事。信仰是一个词语，一个想法，那不是事实本身，真实的你远远不只是你的名字而已。Through experience you hope to touch the truth of your belief, to prove it to yourself, but this belief conditions your experience. It isn't that the experience comes to prove the belief, but rather that the belief begets the experience. Your belief in God will give you the experience of what you call God. You will always experience what you believe and nothing else. And this invalidates your experience. The Christian will see virgins, angels and Christ, and the Hindu will see similar deities in extravagant plurality. The Muslim, the Buddhist, the Jew and the Communist are the same. Belief conditions its own supposed proof. What is important is not what you believe but only why you believe at all. Why do you believe? And what difference does it make to what actually is whether you believe one thing or another? Facts are not influenced by belief or disbelief. So one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear, is it the uncertainty of life - the fear of the unknown the lack of security in this everchanging world? Is it the insecurity of relationship, or is it that faced with the immensity of life, and not understanding it, one encloses oneself in the refuge of belief? So, if I may ask you, if you had no fear at all, would you have any belief?你希望通过体验来触及你的信仰的真实性，向你自己证明这点，但是这信仰局限了你的体验。不是由体验来证明信仰，而是由信仰引发了体验。你对神的信仰会带给你所谓神的体验。你体验到的始终只是你所相信的而已，别的什么也没有。而这就证明了你的体验的错误。基督徒会看见圣母、天使和基督，印度徒会看见不计其数的类似的神祗。穆斯林、佛教徒、犹太教徒和共产主义者也都一样。信仰限定了它自身想要的证明。重要的不是你相信什么，而是你到底为什么要去相信。你为什么相信？你相信这个还是相信那个，对于事实究竟如何，有任何改变吗？相信或者不信影响不了事实。所以一个人必须要问一问，究竟为什么要去相信任何事情；信念的基础是什么？是不是恐惧，是不是生命的不确定性——对未知的恐惧，在这个无时无刻不在改变的世界中缺乏安全感？是不是关系中的不安全感，是不是面对广阔无垠的生命，无法了解它，人就会把自己封闭在信仰的避难所里？所以，如果我可以问你的话，如果你根本没有恐惧，你还需要任何信仰吗？Questioner: I am not at all sure that I am afraid, but I love God, and it is this love that makes me believe in Him.Krishnamurti: Do you mean to say you are devoid of fear? And therefore know what love is?Questioner: I have replaced fear with love and so to me fear is non-existent, and therefore my belief is not based on fear.发问者：我根本不确定我是不是恐惧，但是我热爱神，是这种爱让我相信他。克：你的意思是说你没有恐惧了？所以你知道爱是什么？发问者：我用爱替换掉了恐惧，所以对我来说恐惧是不存在的，所以我的信仰不是基于恐惧的。Krishnamurti: Can you substitute love for fear? Is that not an act of thought which is afraid and therefore covers up the fear with the word called love, again a belief? You have covered up that fear with a word and you cling to the word, hoping to dissipate fear.克：你能用爱代替恐惧吗？那不正是恐惧着的思想的行为吗，然后用爱这个词，也就是又一个信仰来掩盖恐惧？你用一个词掩盖起了恐惧，你紧抓着这个词，希望能驱散恐惧。Questioner: What you are saying disturbs me greatly. I am not at all sure I want to go on with this, because my belief and my love have sustained me and helped me to lead a decent life. This questioning of my belief brings about a sense of disorder of which, quite frankly, I am afraid.发问者：你说的话让我感到深深不安。我完全不确定我是否愿意继续探讨下去，因为我的信仰和我的爱一直支撑着我，帮我过着一种体面的生活。对我的信仰的这种质疑带来了一种失序感，坦白地说，这点我很害怕。Krishnamurti: So there is fear, which you are beginning to discover for yourself. This disturbs you. Belief comes from fear and is the most destructive thing. One must be free of fear and of belief. Belief divides people, makes them hard, makes them hate each other and cultivate war. In a roundabout way, unwillingly, you are admitting that fear begets belief. Freedom from belief is necessary to face the fact of fear. Belief like any other ideal is an escape from "what is". When there is no fear then the mind is in quite a different dimension. Only then can you ask the question whether there is a God or not. A mind clouded by fear or belief is incapable of any kind of understanding, any realization of what truth is. Such a mind lives in illusion and can obviously not come upon that which is Supreme. The Supreme has nothing to do with your or anybody else's belief, opinion or conclusion.克：所以是有恐惧的，你正开始自己去发现这点。这让你不安。信仰来自恐惧，而这是最具破坏力的东西。一个人必须摆脱恐惧，摆脱信仰。信仰将人们分裂，把他们变得冷酷，让他们彼此憎恨，催生战争。你在用一种迂回的方式，不情愿地承认了恐惧产生信仰。从信仰中解脱出来，需要面对恐惧这个事实。只有这时你才能问有没有神这个问题。被恐惧或者信仰笼罩的头脑是无法有任何了解的，完全无法领悟真相是什么。这样的头脑生活在幻象中，显然不可能遭遇那至高无上者。那至高无上者与你的或者别人的信仰、观念或者结论完全无关。Not knowing, you believe, but to know is not to know. To know is within the tiny field of time and the mind that says, "I know" is bound by time and so cannot possibly understand that which is. After all, when you say, "I know my wife and my friend", you know only the image or the memory, and this is the past. Therefore you can never actually know anybody or anything. You cannot know a living thing, only a dead thing. When you see this you will no longer think of relationship in terms of knowing. So one can never say, "There is no God", or "I know God". Both these are a blasphemy. To understand that which is there must be freedom, not only from the known but also from the fear of the known and from the fear of the unknown.因为不知道，所以你相信，但是知道就是不知道。知道是在时间这个狭小的范围内的，说“我知道”的头脑受限于时间，所以不可能了解真实状况。毕竟，当你说，“我知道我的妻子和我的朋友”，你知道的只是意象或者记忆，那是过去。所以你永远无法真正知道任何人或者任何事情。你无法知道一个活生生的东西，只能知道死去的东西。当你看到了这点，你就不会再以知道的方式来看待关系了。所以你永远不会说，“没有神”，或者“我知道神”。这两者都是亵渎。要了解真实状况，就必须有自由，不只是从已知中解脱的自由，而且是从对已知的恐惧和对未知的恐惧中解脱出来的自由。Questioner: You speak of understanding that which "is" and yet you deny the validity of knowing. What is this understanding if it is not knowing?发问者：你说了解“真实”状况，但是你又否定了知道的正确性。如果不知道，那这种了解又是什么？Krishnamurti: The two are quite different. Knowing is always related to the past and therefore it binds you to the past. Unlike knowing understanding is not a conclusion, not accumulation. If you have listened you have understood. Understanding is attention. When you attend completely you understand. So the understanding of fear is the ending of fear. Your belief can therefore no longer be the predominant factor; the understanding of fear is predominant. When there is no fear there is freedom. It is only then that one can find what is true. When that which "is" is not distorted by fear then that which "is" is true. It is not the word. You cannot measure truth with words. Love is not a word nor a belief nor something that you can capture and say, "It is mine". Without love and beauty, that which you call God is nothing at all.克：这两个是非常不同的。知道总是与过去相关，因而它就把你和过去捆绑在一起了。与知道不同，了解不是一个结论，不是积累。如果你刚才聆听了，你就已经明白了。了解是关注。当你全神贯注时，你会了解。所以对恐惧的了解，就是恐惧的终结。你的信仰就不再是主导因素了；对恐惧的了解占了主导。没有了恐惧就有了自由。只有这时你才能发现真实的是什么。当“真实”状况没有被恐惧扭曲的时候，“真实”状况才是实实在在的。那不是词语。你无法用语言衡量真相。爱不是一个词，不是一个信念，也不是你能捕捉到的什么东西，说“这是我的”。没有爱和美，你所谓的神根本什么都不是。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'DREAMS'《转变的紧迫性》之“梦”Questioner: I have been told by professionals that dreaming is as vital as daytime thinking and activity, and that I would find my daily living under great stress and strain if I did not dream. They insist, and here I'm using not their jargon but my own words, that during certain periods of sleep the movement of the eyelids indicates refreshing dreams and that these bring a certain clarity to the brain. I am wondering whether the stillness of the mind which you have often spoken about might not bring greater harmony to living than the equilibrium brought about by patterns of dreams. I should also like to ask why the language of dreams is one of symbols.发问者：有专业人士曾经告诉我，做梦就像白天的思考和行为一样至关重要，如果我不做梦，就会发现自己的日常生活处于巨大的压力和紧张之中。他们坚称，这里我用的不是我自己的话，而是他们的术语，在睡眠的某些阶段中，眼睑的运动标志着梦在更新，而这给大脑带来某种清晰。我想知道，相对于各种形式的梦为心情带来的平静，你经常提到的头脑的寂静，是否并不能给生活带来更多和谐。我也想问问为什么梦的语言是一种象征性的符号。Krishnamurti: Language itself is a symbol, and we are used to symbols: we see the tree through the image which is the symbol of the tree, we see our neighbour through the image we have about him. Apparently it is one of the most difficult things for a human being to look at anything directly, not through images, opinions, conclusions, which are all symbols. And so in dreams symbols play a large part and in this there is great deception and danger. The meaning of a dream is not always clear to us, although we realize it is in symbols and try to decipher them. When we see something, we speak of it so spontaneously that we do not recognise that words are also symbols. All this indicates, doesn't it, that there is direct communication in technical matters but seldom in human relationships and understanding? You don't need symbols when somebody hits you. That is a direct communication. This is a very interesting point: the mind refuses to see things directly, to be aware of itself without the word and the symbol. You say the sky is blue. The listener then deciphers this according to his own reference of blueness and transmits it to you in his own cipher. So we live in symbols, and dreams are a part of this symbolic process. We are incapable of direct and immediate perception without the symbols, the words, the prejudices and conclusions. The reason for this is also quite apparent: it is part of the self-centred activity with its defences, resistances, escapes and fears. There is a ciphered response in the activity of the brain, and dreams must naturally be symbolic because during the waking hours we are incapable of direct response or perception.克：语言本身就是一种符号，而我们都对符号习以为常：我们通过意象观察树，而这意象是树的符号，我们通过对我们的邻居抱有的意象来看他。很显然，不通过意象、观点、结论这些符号，直接地观察事物，对人类来说是最困难的事情之一。同样在梦里，符号也有巨大的影响，其中有巨大的欺骗和危险。梦的含义对我们来说并不总是那么清晰，尽管我们意识到梦里充满符号，并且试图去破解它们。当我们看到了点什么，我们就会不由自主地谈论起来，却没有意识到语言也是符号。这一切都表明，在技术方面可以直接沟通，但是在人类的关系和理解方面，却鲜有直接的交流，不是吗？有人打你的时候，你并不需要符号。那是一种直接的交流。这点非常有趣：头脑拒绝直接看到事物，不带语言和符号地觉察它自己。你说天空是蓝色的。然后听者根据他自己对蓝色的理解来破解你的话，再用他自己的密码传达给你。所以我们生活在符号里，而梦也是这符号化过程的一部分。我们无法不带着符号、语言、偏见和结论即刻直接地去觉察。而造成这点的原因也相当明显：这是带着防御、抵抗和结论的自我中心行为的一部分。在头脑的活动中有一种密码式的反应，而梦必然是符号化的，因为在醒着的时候，我们无法直接地反应或者观察。Questioner: It seems to me that this then is an inherent function of the brain.Krishnamurti: Inherent means something permanent, inevitable and lasting. Surely any psychological state can be changed. Only the deep, constant demand of the brain for the physical security of the organism is inherent. Symbols are a device of the brain to protect the psyche; this is the whole process of thought. The "me" is a symbol, not an actuality. Having created the symbol of the "me", thought identifies itself with its conclusion, with the formula, and then defends it: all misery and sorrow come from this.发问者：在我看来，这就是大脑固有的一种功能。克：固有意味着某种永久的、不可避免的、持续的东西。但任何心理状态都是肯定会改变的。只有大脑对有机体身体上安全的持久需求才是固有的。符号是大脑为了保护心智的一种设置；而这就是整个思想过程。“我”是个符号，不是真实。思想制造出了“我”这个符号，把自己等同于它的结论和模式，然后对其进行捍卫：所有的苦难和悲伤由此而生。Questioner: Then how do I get around it?Krishnamurti: When you ask how to get around it, you are still holding on to the symbol of the "me", which is fictitious; you become something separate from what you see, and so duality arises.Questioner: May I come back another day to continue this?发问者：那么我要如何避开它？克：当你问如何避开它时，你还是在紧抓着“我”这个虚幻的符号不放；你就变成了不同于你所见的某种东西，而这就产生了二元性。发问者：我可以改天再回来继续这个话题吗？* * *Questioner: You were good enough to let me come back, and I should like to continue where we left off. We were talking about symbols in dreams and you pointed out that we live by symbols, deciphering them according to our gratification. We do this not only in dreams but in everyday life; it is our usual behaviour. Most of our actions are based on the interpretation of the symbols or images that we have. Strangely, after having talked with you the other day, my dreams have taken a peculiar turn. I have had very disturbing dreams and the interpretation of those dreams took place as they were happening within the dreams. It was a simultaneous process; the dream was being interpreted by the dreamer. This has never happened to me before.发问者：能让我回来，你真好，我想从我们上次说到的地方继续探讨。我们说到了梦里的符号，你指出我们依靠符号生活，并根据我们的喜好来对其进行破解。我们不只是在梦里会这么做，而且在日常生活中也如此；这是我们经常的行为。我们的大部分行为都基于对我们抱有的各种符号或意象的诠释。奇怪的是，那天跟你谈了之后，我的梦发生了一种特别的转变。我做了些非常令人困扰的梦，对那些梦的诠释发生在做梦的同时。这是个同时进行的过程；发梦者在解释着梦。这些以前我从未遇到过。Krishnamurti: During our waking hours, there is always the observer, different from the observed, the actor, separate from his action. In the same way there is the dreamer separate from his dream. He thinks it is separate from himself and therefore in need of interpretation. But is the dream separate from the dreamer, and is there any need to interpret it? When the observer is the observed what need is there to interpret, to judge, to evaluate? This need would exist only if the observer were different from the thing observed. This is very important to understand. We have separated the thing observed from the observer and from this arises not only the problem of interpretation but also conflict, and the many problems connected with it. This division is an illusion. This division between groups, races, nationalities, is fictitious. We are beings, undivided by names, by labels. When the labels become all important, division takes place, and then wars and all other struggles come into being.克：我们在醒着的时候，总是有不同于被观察者的观察者，与他的行为分离的行为者。同样，有与他的梦分离的发梦者。他认为梦是与他分开的，因此需要解释。但是，梦与发梦者是分开的吗，而且有任何必要去解释梦吗？当观察者就是被观察者，还有什么必要去解释、判断和评估呢？只有观察者不同于所观之物的时候，才存在这种需要。理解这一点非常重要。我们把所观之物与观察者分离开来，从中不仅产生了诠释的问题，还产生了冲突，以及与之相关的诸多问题。这种分离是一种幻觉。群体、种族、国家之间的分别是虚幻的。我们是未被名字、标签分割的生命体。当这些标签变得无比重要时，分别就发生了，然后就产生了战争以及其他所有的争斗。Questioner: How then do I understand the content of the dream? It must have significance. Is it an accident that I dream of some particular event or person?发问者：那么我要如何理解梦的内容呢？它必然有它的意义。我梦到某个特别的事件或者人，这难道是一桩意外吗？Krishnamurti: We should really look at this quite differently. Is there anything to understand? When the observer thinks he is different from the thing observed there is an attempt to understand that which is outside himself. The same process goes on within him. There is the observer wishing to understand the thing he observes, which is himself. But when the observer is the observed, there is no question of understanding; there is only observation. You say that there is something to understand in the dream, otherwise there would be no dream, you say that the dream is a hint of something unresolved that one should understand. You use the word "understand", and in that very word is the dualistic process. You think there is an "I", and a thing to be understood, whereas in reality these two entities are one and the same. Therefore your search for a meaning in the dream is the action of conflict.克：我们真应该以相当不同的视角来看这个问题。有什么要理解的吗？当观察者以为他与所观之物不同时，就会试图理解他自身之外的东西。而同样的过程就发生在他的内在。有个观察者希望理解他观察的事物，也就是他自己。但是当观察者就是被观察者时，就没有理解的问题了；只有观察。你说梦里有些东西需要理解，否则就不会有梦，你说梦暗示了人应该去了解但尚未解答的某些事物。你用“理解”这个词，这个词本身就是二元化的过程。你认为有个“我”，有个要被了解的东西，而实际上这两个实体是同一个，是同样的。所以你从梦里寻找意义，这是冲突的行为。Questioner: Would you say the dream is an expression of something in the mind?Krishnamurti: Obviously it is.Questioner: I do not understand how it is possible to regard a dream in the way you are describing it. If it has no significance, why does it exist?发问者：你说梦是头脑中某些东西的表达吗？克：显然是的。发问者：我不知道怎么可能以你描述的方式来看待梦。如果梦没有意义，那它为什么要存在？Krishnamurti: The "I" is the dreamer, and the dreamer wants to see significance in the dream which he has invented or projected, so both are dreams, both are unreal. This unreality has become real to the dreamer, to the observer who thinks of himself as separate. The whole problem of dream interpretation arises out of this separation, this division between the actor and the action.克：“我”是发梦者，这个发梦者想看到他在梦里编造或者投射出来的意义，而这两者都是梦，都是不真实的。这种不真实，对于发梦者，对于认为自己是分离的观察者来说，变得真实起来。从这种分离中，从这种行为者和行为的分裂中，就产生了诠释梦的整个问题。Questioner: I am getting more and more confused, so may we go over it again differently? I can see that a dream is the product of my mind and not separate from it, but dreams seem to come from levels of the mind which have not been explored, and so they seem to be intimations of something alive in the mind.发问者：我越来越困惑了，所以我们可不可以换种方式再来探讨一下？我能明白梦是我头脑的产物，不是分离的，但是梦似乎来自头脑中未被探索的那些层面，所以它们似乎暗示了头脑中某些活跃着的东西。Krishnamurti: It is not your particular mind in which there are hidden things. Your mind is the mind of man; your consciousness is the whole of man. But when you particularize it as your mind, you limit its activity, and because of this limitation, dreams arise. During waking hours observe without the observer, who is the expression of limitation. Any division is a limitation. Having divided itself into a "me" and a "not me", the "me", the observer, the dreamer, has many problems - among them dreams and the interpretation of dreams. In any case, you will see the significance or the value of a dream only in a limited way because the observer is always limited. The dreamer perpetuates his own limitation, therefore the dream is always the expression of the incomplete, never of the whole.克：并不是你那个特别的头脑里才会有隐藏的东西。你的头脑就是整个人类的头脑；你的意识就是整个人类。但是当你把它特殊化为你的头脑时，你就局限了它的活动，因为这种局限，梦就产生了。在醒着的时候，没有观察者地去观察，观察者就是局限的表现。任何分别都是局限。把自己划分为“我”和“非我”，“我”，也就是观察者、发梦者，就有了很多问题——其中就有梦和对梦的诠释。无论如何，你只能以局限的方式看到梦的意义或者价值，因为观察者始终是局限的。发梦者将自己的局限永久化，因此梦始终是不完整的表达，永远不是全部。Questioner: Pieces are brought back from the moon in order to understand the composition of the moon. In the same way we try to understand human thinking by bringing back pieces from our dreams, and examining what they express.发问者：通过从月球上取回碎片，来了解月球的构成。同样，通过从我们的梦里取出碎片并对其表达的含义进行检验，我们试图来了解人类的思维。Krishnamurti: The expressions of the mind are the fragments of the mind. Each fragment expresses itself in its own way and contradicts other fragments. A dream may contradict another dream, one action another action, one desire another desire. The mind lives in this confusion. A part of the mind says it must understand another part, such as a dream, an action or a desire. So each fragment has its own observer, its own activity; then a super-observer tries to bring them all into harmony. The super-observer is also a fragment of the mind. It is these contradictions, these divisions, that breed dreams.克：头脑所表达的，只是头脑的碎片而已。每个碎片以自己的方式表达着自身，并与其他碎片互相矛盾。一个梦可能会与另一个梦矛盾，一个行为与另一个行为，一个欲望与另一欲望也可能是矛盾的。头脑就生活在这种困惑中。头脑的一部分说必须要去理解另一个部分，比如一个梦、一个行为或者欲望。所以每个碎片都有它自己的观察者，它自己的行为；然后一个超观察者试图将它们和谐地组织在一起。这个超观察者也是头脑的一个碎片。是这些矛盾，这些划分，产生了梦。So the real question is not the interpretation or the understanding of a particular dream; it is the perception that these many fragments are contained in the whole. Then you see yourself as a whole and not as a fragment of a whole.所以真正的问题，不是诠释或者理解某个特定的梦；而是看到这许多的碎片都是包含在整体中的。然后你就能将自己作为一个整体看到，而不是整体的一个碎片。Questioner: Are you saying, sir, that one should be aware during the day of the whole movement of life, not just one's family life, or business life, or any other individual aspect of life?发问者：先生，你是不是说，一个人应该在白天对整个生活的运作都知晓，而不是仅仅注意他的家庭生活，事业生活或者生活中其他任何一个单独的方面？Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the whole of man and does not belong to a particular man. When there is the consciousness of one particular man there is the complex problem of fragmentation, contradiction and war. When there is awareness of the total movement of life in a human being during the waking hours, what need is there for dreams at all? This total awareness, this attention, puts an end to fragmentation and to division. When there is no conflict whatsoever the mind has no need for dreams.Questioner: This certainly opens a door through which I see many things.克：意识是整个人类的，并不属于一个特定的人。如果有某个特定的人的意识，就会有支离破碎、矛盾和战争这些复杂的问题。如果在醒着的时候觉察到一个人生活的整体运动，那还有什么必要做梦？这种全然的觉察，这种全神贯注，就终结了支离破碎和分别。如果任何冲突都没有了，头脑就不需要梦了。发问者：当然这开启了一扇门，通过它，我看到了很多。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'TRADITION'《转变的紧迫性》之“传统”Questioner: Can one really be free of tradition? Can one be free of anything at all? Or is it a matter of sidestepping it and not being concerned with any of it? You talk a great deal about the past and its conditioning - but can I be really free of this whole background of my life? Or can I merely modify the background according to the various outward demands and challenges, adjust myself to it rather than become free of it? It seems to me that this is one of the most important things, and I'd like to understand it because I always feel that I am carrying a burden, the weight of the past. I would like to put it down and walk away from it, never come back to it. Is that possible?发问者：一个人能真的摆脱传统吗？一个人究竟能摆脱任何事情吗？还是一个回避并且不再参与其中的问题？关于过去及其局限性，你讲了很多——但是我真的能摆脱我生活的这整个背景吗？还是我只能根据各种外部的需求和挑战来调整这个背景，调整我自己，而不是从中解脱？这对我来说似乎是最重要的事情之一，我很想了解这点，因为我总是觉得自己在背负着一个重担，过去的重负。我想把它放下，离开它，永远不再回去。这可能吗？Krishnamurti: Doesn't tradition mean carrying the past over to the present? The past is not only one's particular set of inheritances but also the weight of all the collective thought of a particular group of people who have lived in a particular culture and tradition. One carries the accumulated knowledge and experience of the race and the family. All this is the past - the carrying over from the known to the present - which shapes the future. Is not the teaching of all history a form of tradition? You are asking if one can be free of all this. First of all, why does one want to be free? Why does one want to put down this burden? Why?克：传统不正是意味着把过去背负到现在吗？过去不只是一个人自己特定的一系列遗传，而且也是一个特定人群所有集体思想的重负，这群人一直生活在某种特定的文化和传统中。人背负着种族和家庭积累下来的知识和经验。这一切都是过去——从已知中传承到现在的东西——而这些又塑造了未来。教授所有的历史，这难道不是传统的一种形式吗？你问一个人能不能从这一切中解脱出来。首先，一个人为什么想要解脱出来？他为什么想要放下这个负担？为什么？Questioner: I think it's fairly simple. I don't want to be the past - I want to be myself; I want to be cleansed of this whole tradition so that I can be a new human being. I think in most of us there is this feeling of wanting to be born anew.Krishnamurti: You cannot possibly be the new just by wishing for it. Or by struggling to be new. You have not only to understand the past but also you have to find out who you are. Are you not the past? Are you not the continuation of what has been, modified by the present?发问者：我想这很简单。我不想成为过去——我想做我自己；我想清除掉这整个传统，这样我就能成为一个新人类。我想我们大部分人都有这种想要新生的感觉。克：你不可能单凭有这么个愿望就能变成新人类。奋力求新也不行。你不仅仅需要了解过去，而且要明白你是谁。你不就是过去吗？你不就是经过现在修改的过去的延续吗？Questioner: My actions and my thoughts are, but my existence isn't.Krishnamurti: Can you separate the two, action and thought, from existence? Are not thought, action, existence, living and relationship all one? This fragmentation into "me" and "not-me" is part of this tradition.Questioner: Do you mean that when I am not thinking, when the past is not operating, I am obliterated, that I have ceased to exist?发问者：我的行为和我的思想是这样的，但是我的存在不是。克：你能把行为和思想这两者与存在分开吗？思想、行为、存在、生活和关系不都是一体的吗？这种对“我”和“非我”的划分，就是这传统的一部分。发问者：你的意思是不是，当我不思考，当过去不运作了，我就被消灭掉了，我就停止生存了？Krishnamurti: Don't let us ask too many questions, but consider what we began with. Can one be free of the past - not only the recent but the immemorial, the collective, the racial, the human, the animal? You are all that, you are not separate from that. And you are asking whether you can put all that aside and be born anew. The "you" is that, and when you wish to be reborn as a new entity, the new entity you imagine is a projection of the old, covered over with the word "new". But underneath, you are the past. So the question is, can the past be put aside or does a modified form of tradition continue for ever, changing, accumulating, discarding, but always the past in different combinations? The past is the cause and the present is the effect, and today, which is the effect of yesterday, becomes the cause of tomorrow. This chain is the way of thought, for thought is the past. You are asking whether one can stop this movement of yesterday into today. Can one look at the past to examine it, or is that not possible at all? To look at it the observer must be outside it - and he isn't. So here arises another issue. If the observer himself is the past then how can the past be isolated for observation?克：我们不要一下子问那么多问题，而是要想一下从哪里开始。一个人能否摆脱过去——不只是最近的过去，而且是远古的，集体的，种族的，作为人类和动物的整个过去？你就是那一切，你与那些是分不开的。而你问你能否把这一切放在一边，获得新生。“你”就是那一切，当你希望作为一个新实体获得新生时，那个你想象出来的新实体只是来自过去的一种投射，冠以了一个“新”的名词而已。然而掩藏其下的，你就是过去。所以问题是，能否把过去放在一边，还是传统以某种修整过的形式永远持续下去，改动，积累，丢弃，但永远是那个以不同形式组合着的过去？过去是因，现在是果，今天是昨天的果，又会变成明天的因。这个链条就是思想的运作方式，因为思想就是过去。你问一个人能否停止从昨天到今天的这种运动。一个人能否观察过去，审视过去，还是这根本就不可能？要观察这点，观察者必须置身事外——而实际上他并不是存在于其外的。所以这里就产生了另一个问题。如果观察者本身就是过去，那么过去怎么能从观察中孤立出来？Questioner: I can look at something objectively....Krishnamurti: But you, who are the observer, are the past trying to look at itself. You can objectify yourself only as an image which you have put together through the years in every form of relationship, and so the "you" which you objectify is memory and imagination, the past. You are trying to look at yourself as though you were a different entity from the one who is looking, but you are the past, with its old judgements, evaluations and so on. The action of the past is looking at the memory of the past. Therefore there is never relief from the past. The continuous examination of the past by the past perpetuates the past; this is the very action of the past, and this is the very essence of tradition.发问者：我能客观地看待某些事情....克：但是，你作为观察者，你就是那个试图去观察自身的过去。你只能把自己客观化为一个意象，这个意象是你多年来在各种形式的关系中形成的，所以这个你客观化了的“你”只是记忆和想象，也就是过去。你试图观察自己，就好像你是某个不同的存在体，不同于正在观察着的那个人，但你就是过去，带着它旧有的判断、评估等等。看着过去的记忆的，正是过去的行为。所以永远不会从过去中解脱出来。过去不停地检视着过去，这使过去得以永续；这正是过去的行为，这正是传统的核心。Questioner: Then what action is possible? If I am the past - and I can see that I am - then whatever I do to chisel away the past is adding to it. So I am left helpless! What can I do? I can't pray because the invention of a god is again the action of the past. I can't look to another, for the other is also the creation of my despair. I can't run away from it all because at the end of it I am still there with my past. I can't identify myself with some image which is not of the past because that image is my own projection too. Seeing all this, I am really left helpless, and in despair.发问者：那么什么样的行为才是可能的？如果我就是过去——我看到自己确实如此——那么无论我做什么去除过去的事情，都只是在加强过去。所以我完全无助了！我能怎么办？我不能祈祷，因为捏造出一个神来又是过去的行为。我不能求助于另一个神，因为那个神也是我绝望的产物。我不能从这一切中逃避，因为逃到最后，我还是和我的过去待在一起。我无法把自己等同于某个不属于过去的意象，因为那意象也是我自己的投射。看到了这一切，我真的无助了，绝望了。Krishnamurti: Why do you call it helplessness and despair? Aren't you translating what you see as the past into an emotional anxiety because you cannot achieve a certain result? in so doing you are again making the past act. Now, can you look at all this movement of the past, with all its traditions, without wanting to be free of it, change it, modify it or run away from it - simply observe it without any reaction?克：你为什么把它叫做无助和绝望？你难道不是在把你所看到的过去诠释成了一种感情上的焦虑，因为你无法实现某个结果？你这么做，就又是让过去在运作了。现在，你能不能看着过去的这整个运动，及其所有的传统，而不想从中解脱，不想改变它、调整它或者逃避它——只是观察它而没有任何反应？Questioner: But as we have been saying all through this conversation, how can I observe the past if I am the past? I can't look at it at all!Krishnamurti: Can you look at yourself, who are the past, without any movement of thought, which is the past? If you can look without thinking, evaluating, liking, disliking, judging, then there is a looking with eyes that are not touched by the past. It is to look in silence, without the noise of thought. In this silence there is neither the observer nor the thing which he is looking at as the past.发问者：但是正如我们在这次谈话中一直在说的，如果我就是过去，我要如何观察过去？我根本没法看！克：你能不能看着自己，也就是过去，而没有任何思想活动，也就是没有过去？如果你能不思考、不评估、无好恶、不评判地看着，那么就有一双没有被过去污染的眼睛在看。那是寂静中的观察，没有思想的噪音。在这寂静中，既没有观察者，也没有他作为过去在观察着的东西。Questioner: Are you saying that when you look without evaluation or judgement the past has disappeared? But it hasn't - there are still the thousands of thoughts and actions and all the pettiness which were rampant only a moment ago. I look at them and they are still there. How can you say that the past has disappeared? It may momentarily have stopped acting....发问者：你是不是说，当你不评估、不判断地看时，过去就消失了？但是它没有——片刻之前猖獗着的成千上万的想法和行为，以及所有的琐碎卑微都在还。我看着它们，可它们还在。你怎么能说过去消失了呢？它或许可以暂时地停止运作....Krishnamurti: When the mind is silent that silence is a new dimension, and when there is any rampant pettiness it is instantly dissolved, because the mind has now a different quality of energy which is not the energy engendered by the past. This is what matters: to have that energy that dispels the carrying over of the past. The carrying over of the past is a different kind of energy. The silence wipes the other out, the greater absorbs the lesser and remains untouched. It is like the sea, receiving the dirty river and remaining pure. This is what matters. It is only this energy that can wipe away the past. Either there is silence or the noise of the past. In this silence the noise ceases and the new is this silence. It is not that you are made new. This silence is infinite and the past is limited. The conditioning of the past breaks down in the fullness of silence.克：当头脑安静了，那寂静就是一种新的空间，而当有任何猖獗的卑微琐碎时，那空间立刻就消失了，因为头脑现在拥有了一种不同品质的能量，这能量不是过去产生的。这是真正重要的事情：拥有能驱散过去的重负的能量。过去的重负是另一种能量。寂静清除了这另一种能量，更大的能量吸收了较小的能量，同时保持原样。就像大海，接纳浑浊的河流，同时保持清澈。这是真正重要的事情。只有这种能量能够消除过去。要么有寂静，要么有过去的噪音。在这寂静中，噪音止息了，新生的是这种寂静。不是你被新生了。这寂静是无限的，而过去是有限的。这完满的寂静打破了过去的局限。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'CONDITIONING'《转变的紧迫性》之“局限”Questioner: You have talked a great deal about conditioning and have said that one must be free of this bondage, otherwise one remains imprisoned always. A statement of this kind seems so outrageous and unacceptable! Most of us are very deeply conditioned and we hear this statement and throw up our hands and run away from such extravagant expression, but I have taken you seriously - for, after all, you have more or less given your life to this kind of thing, not as a hobby but with deep seriousness - and therefore I should like to discuss it with you to see how far the human being can uncondition himself. Is it really possible, and if so, what does it mean? Is it possible for me, having lived in a world of habits, traditions and the acceptance of orthodox notions in so many matters - is it possible for me really to throw off this deep-rooted conditioning? What exactly do you mean by conditioning, and what do you mean by freedom from conditioning?发问者：关于局限，你讲了很多，你说人必须摆脱这种束缚，否则他就始终身陷囹圄。这种说法似乎太耸人听闻，太让人无法接受了！我们大部分人都深受局限，我们听到这样的主张，会举起双手，逃离这不切实际的说法，但是我对你是认真的——因为，毕竟你或多或少地把自己的生命奉献给了这样的事情，不是把它当作一个嗜好，而是以极其认真的态度——所以我想和你讨论一下这点，来看看人类能在多大程度上解放自己。这是不是真的可能，如果可能，那又意味着什么？我一直生活在习惯、传统中，在如此众多的事情上一直接受公认的观念和看法，这对我来说可能吗——我真的有可能摆脱这根深蒂固的局限吗？你说的局限究竟是什么意思，你说的从局限中解脱是什么意思？Krishnamurti: Let us take the first question first. We are conditioned - physically, nervously, mentally - by the climate we live in and the food we eat, by the culture in which we live, by the whole of our social, religious and economic environment, by our experience, by education and by family pressures and influences. All these are the factors which condition us. Our conscious and unconscious responses to all the challenges of our environment - intellectual, emotional, outward and inward - all these are the action of conditioning. Language is conditioning; all thought is the action, the response of conditioning.克：让我们先来谈第一个问题。我们是局限的——身体上，精神上，心理上——受限于我们所生活的气候条件和所摄入的食物，受限于我们身处其中的文化，受限于我们整个的社会、宗教和经济环境，受限于我们的经验、教育以及家庭的压力和影响。这一切都是局限我们的因素。我们有意识或者无意识地对我们环境中的所有挑战作出的反应——理智上的，情感上的，外在的和内在的——这一切都局限的行为。语言是局限；所有思想都是局限的活动和反应。Knowing that we are conditioned we invent a divine agency which we piously hope will get us out of this mechanical state. We either postulate its existence outside or inside ourselves - as the atman, the soul, the Kingdom of Heaven which is within, and who knows what else! To these beliefs we cling desperately, not seeing that they themselves are part of the conditioning factor which they are supposed to destroy or redeem. So not being able to uncondition ourselves in this world, and not even seeing that conditioning is the problem, we think that freedom is in Heaven, in Moksha, in Nirvana. In the Christian myth of original sin and in the whole eastern doctrine of Samsara, one sees that the factor of conditioning has been felt, though rather obscurely. If it had been clearly seen, naturally these doctrines and myths would not have arisen. Nowadays the psychologists also try to get to grips with this problem, and in doing so condition us still further. Thus the religious specialists have conditioned us, the social order has conditioned us, the family which is part of it has conditioned us. All this is the past which makes up the open as well as the hidden layers of the mind. En passant it is interesting to note that the so-called individual doesn't exist at all, for his mind draws on the common reservoir of conditioning which he shares with everybody else, so the division between the community and the individual is false: there is only conditioning. This conditioning is action in all relationships - to things, people and ideas.知道我们是局限的，我们就发明了一个神圣的媒介，虔诚地希望借此能带我们走出这机械的状态。我们假设这神圣要么存在于我们之外，要么在我们之内——内在地作为本我，灵魂，或者天界存在着，天知道还有什么！我们不顾一切地坚守这些信仰，看不到它们本身就是局限因素的一部分，而这些信仰本打算是用来打破或者摆脱这些局限因素的。所以我们无法在这个世界里解放自己，甚至都看不到局限就是问题所在，于是我们以为自由在天堂里，在轮回里，在涅磐里。在基督教关于原罪的神话中，在整个东方的轮回说里，你可以看到，这种局限的因素，已经被感觉到了，尽管这感觉相当的模糊。如果清晰地看到了局限的因素，这些学说和神话故事显然就不会产生了。现在心理学家们也试图把握这个问题，而他们的这种做法，却把我们局限得更深了。所以宗教专家们局限了我们，社会规则局限了我们，作为社会的一部分的家庭也局限了我们。这一切都是过去，构成了我们头脑显露于外和深藏于内的各个层面。顺便提一下很有趣的一件事，即所谓的个人根本不存在，因为他的头脑与其他所有人共享着共同的局限储备并从中汲取着，所以团体和个人之间的分别是虚妄的：其中只有局限。这种局限是所有关系——与事物、人们和观念的关系中的行为。Questioner: Then what am I to do to free myself from it all? To live in this mechanical state is not living at all, and yet all action, all will, all judgements are conditioned - so there is apparently nothing I can do about conditioning which isn't conditioned! I am tied hand and foot.发问者：那我要做什么才能把自己从中完全解脱出来？生活在这种机械的状态中根本就不是生活，而所有的行为，所有的意愿，所有的评判都是局限的——所以很显然，对于局限我无法做出任何一件不局限的事情。Krishnamurti: The very factor of conditioning in the past, in the present and in the future, is the "me" which thinks in terms of time, the "me" which exerts itself; and now it exerts itself in the demand to be free; so the root of all conditioning,is the thought which is the "me". The "me" is the very essence of the past, the "me" is time, the "me" is sorrow - the "me" endeavours to free itself from itself, the "me" makes efforts, struggles to achieve, to deny, to become. This struggle to become is time in which there is confusion and the greed for the more and the better. The "me" seeks security and not finding it transfers the search to heaven; the very "me" that identifies itself with something greater in which it hopes to lose itself - whether that be the nation, the ideal or some god - is the factor of conditioning.克：在过去、现在和未来中的局限因素，正是按照时间进行思考的“我”，运用着自身的“我”，而现在它想让自己自由；所以所有局限的根源，是思想，也就是“我”。“我”正是过去的核心，“我”就是时间，“我”就是悲伤——“我”努力想把自己从自己中解脱出来，是“我”在努力，在奋力去实现，去拒绝，去成为。这种想要成为的努力就是时间，其中有困惑，有想要更多和更好的贪婪。“我”寻求安全却找不到，于是把追寻转向天堂；这个“我”把自己与更伟大的某种东西认同在一起，“我”希望如此就能没了自己——不管认同的是国家、理想还是某个神——这个“我”正是局限的因素。Questioner: You have taken everything away from me. What am I without this "me"?Krishnamurti: If there is no "me" you are unconditioned, which means you are nothing.Questioner: Can the "me" end without the effort of the "me"?Krishnamurti: The effort to become something is the response, the action, of conditioning.Questioner: How can the action of the "me" stop?发问者：你把我的一切都拿走了。没有了这个“我”，那我是什么？克：如果没有“我”，你就没有了局限，那就意味着你什么都不是。发问者：没有“我”的努力，这个“我”能结束吗？克：想要变成什么的努力，是局限的反应和活动。发问者：“我”的活动怎样才能停止？Krishnamurti: It can stop only if you see this whole thing, the whole business of it. If you see it in action, which is in relationship, the seeing is the ending of the "me". Not only is this seeing an action which is not conditioned but also it acts upon conditioning.Questioner: Do you mean to say that the brain - which is the result of vast evolution with its infinite conditioning - can free itself?克：只有当你看到了这整件事情，看清了这整个过程，它才能停止。如果你在行为中，也就是在关系中看到了这一点，这看到就是“我”的终结。这看到，不仅仅是一种没有局限的行动，而且它也作用于局限。发问者：你的意思是不是说，大脑——也就是漫长进化及其无尽局限的产物——能够解放它自己？Krishnamurti: The brain is the result of time; it is conditioned to protect itself physically, but when it tries to protect itself psychologically then the "me" begins, and all our misery starts. It is this effort to protect itself psychologically that is the affirmation of the "me". The brain can learn, can acquire knowledge technologically, but when it acquires knowledge psychologically then that knowledge asserts itself in relationship as the "me" with its experiences, its will and its violence. This is what brings division, conflict and sorrow to relationship.克：大脑是时间的产物；它因为要在生理上保护自己而受限，但是如果它试图在心理上保护自己，那么“我”就产生了，我们所有的苦难就开始了。是这种想要在心理上保护自己的努力，在强化着“我”。大脑可以学习，能够获得技术上的知识，但是当它获取了心理上的知识，那知识就在关系中把自己确认为“我”，带着它所有的经验、意愿和暴力。这就给关系带来了分裂、冲突和痛苦。Questioner: Can this brain be still and only operate when it has to work technologically - only operate when knowledge is demanded in action, as for example in learning a language, driving a car or building a house?发问者：这个大脑能够安静下来，只在必须进行技术工作的时候才运作吗——只在行动中需要知识的时候才运作，比如学习一门语言、开车或者盖房子的时候？Krishnamurti: The danger in this is the dividing of the brain into the psychological and the technological. This again becomes a contradiction, a conditioning, a theory. The real question is whether the brain, the whole of it, can be still, quiet, and respond efficiently only when it has to in technology or in living. So we are not concerned with the psychological or the technological; we ask only, can this whole mind be completely still and function only when it has to? We say it can and this is the understanding of what meditation is.克：这其中的危险是，从心理上的和技术上把大脑一分为二了。这也成为了一种冲突，一种局限，一种理论。真正的问题是，大脑，整个大脑，能不能安静下来，变得寂静，只在技术上或者生活中必须的时候才有效地反应。所以我们关心的不是心理层面，也不是技术层面；我们只是在问，这整个头脑能不能完全安静，只在必要时才运作？我们说这是可能的，而这就是对冥想是什么的了解。* * *Questioner: If I may I should like to continue where we left off yesterday. You may remember that I asked two questions: I asked what is conditioning and what is freedom from conditioning, and you said let us take the first question first. We hadn't time to go into the second question, so I should like to ask today, what is the state of the mind that is free from all its conditioning? After talking with you yesterday it became very clear to me how deeply and strongly I am conditioned, and I saw - at least I think I saw - an opening, a crack in this structure of conditioning. I talked the matter over with a friend and in taking certain factual instances of conditioning I saw very clearly how deeply and venomously one's actions are affected by it. As you said at the end, meditation is the emptying of the mind of all conditioning so that there is no distortion or illusion. How s one to be free of all distortion, all illusion? What is illusion?发问者：如果可以，我想从昨天我们谈到的地方继续探讨。你可能还记得我问了两个问题：我问局限是什么，从局限中解脱出来是什么，你说让我们先来看第一个问题。我们当时没时间探讨第二个问题，所以今天我想问一下，从所有局限中解脱出来的头脑是怎样的一个状态？昨天和你谈了之后，我清晰地看到自己的局限是多么深重和牢固，我看到——至少我觉得我看到了——这局限的结构中有个缺口，有个裂缝。我和一个朋友谈了这个问题，从一些局限的实际例子中，我非常清楚地看到一个人的行为是如何深受影响和深受其害的。正如你最后所说的，冥想是清空头脑所有的局限，这样就没有了扭曲或者幻觉。一个人要怎样摆脱所有扭曲，所有幻觉？幻觉是什么？Krishnamurti: It is so easy to deceive oneself, so easy to convince oneself of anything at all. The feeling that one must be something is the beginning of deception, and, of course, this idealistic attitude leads to various forms of hypocrisy. What makes illusion? Well, one of the factors is this constant comparison between what is and what should be, or what might be, this measurement between the good and the bad - thought trying to improve itself, the memory of pleasure, trying to get more pleasure, and so on. It is this desire for more, this dissatisfaction, which makes one accept or have faith in something, and this must inevitably lead to every form of deception and illusion. It is desire and fear, hope and despair, that project the goal, the conclusion to be experienced. Therefore this experience has no reality. All so-called religious experiences follow this pattern. The very desire for enlightenment must also breed the acceptance of authority, and this is the opposite of enlightenment. Desire, dissatisfaction, fear, pleasure, wanting more, wanting to change, all of which is measurement - this is the way of illusion.克：自欺太容易了，让自己相信点什么真是太容易了。一个人有必须成为什么的感觉，是自欺的开始，当然，这种理想主义的态度会导致各种形式的虚伪。是什么制造了幻觉？其中一个因素是不断地比较现在如何和应当如何，或者可能如何，这种好坏之间的衡量——思想试图改善自己，快乐的回忆，想要获得更多的快乐，等等。是这种想要更多的欲望，这种不满，使人接受或者相信某事，而这必然会导致各种形式的自欺和幻觉。是欲望和恐惧，希望和绝望，在投射目标，投射想体验到的结论。所以这种体验没有真实性。所有所谓的宗教体验都遵循这种模式。对觉悟的渴望本身，也必然会滋生对权威的接受，而这是与觉悟背道而驰的。欲望，不满，恐惧，欢愉，想要更多，想要改变，所有这些都是衡量——这就是幻觉的形式。Questioner: Do you really have no illusion at all about anything?Krishnamurti: I am not all the time measuring myself or others. This freedom from measurement comes about when you are really living with what is - neither wishing to change it nor judging it in terms of good and bad. Living with something is not the acceptance of it: it is there whether you accept it or not. Living with something is not identifying yourself with it either.发问者：你真的对任何事情都完全没有幻觉了吗？克：我并没有一直在衡量自己或者别人。当你真的与现在如何共处时——既不希望改变也不用好坏来评判，那么就有了从衡量中解脱出来的自由。与某事共处，并不是接受它：不管你接受不接受，它都在那儿。与某事共处，也不是把你自己与它认同在一起。Questioner: Can we go back to the question of what this freedom is that one really wants? This desire for freedom expresses itself in everybody, sometimes in the stupidest ways, but I think one can say that in the human heart there is always this deep longing for freedom which is never realized; there is this incessant struggle to be free. I know I am not free; I am caught in so many wants. How am I to be free, and what does it mean to be really honestly free?发问者：我们能回到一个人真正想要的这种自由是什么这个问题上来吗？对自由的渴望，表现在每个人身上，有时候以最愚蠢的方式，但是我想可以这么说，在人类的心灵深处一直有这种对自由的强烈渴望，而这自由从未实现过；一直有这种对自由的不停追求。我知道我不自由；我困在如此之多的欲望里。我要怎样才能自由，真正的自由到底意味着什么？Krishnamurti: Perhaps this may help us to understand it: total negation is that freedom. To negate everything we consider to be positive, to negate the total social morality, to negate all inward acceptance of authority, to negate everything one has said or concluded about reality, to negate all tradition, all teaching, all knowledge except technological knowledge, to negate all experience, to negate all the drives which stem from remembered or forgotten pleasures, to negate all fulfilment, to negate all commitments to act in a particular way, to negate all ideas, all principles, all theories. Such negation is the most positive action, therefore it is freedom.克：或许下面的话能够帮助我们来理解这点：全然的否定就是那自由。否定我们认为正确的所有事情，否定整个社会道德，否定所有内在对权威的接受，否定人们关于真相说过的所有话和所有结论，否定所有传统，所有教诲，所有知识，除了技术知识，否定所有经验，否定所有来自记得不记得的快感的动机，否定所有的成功，否定所有按特定方式行事的承诺，否定所有观念，所有原则，所有理论。这样的否定是最积极的行动，因而就是自由。Questioner: If I chisel away at this, bit by bit, I shall go on for ever and that itself will be my bondage. Can it all all wither away in a flash, can I negate the whole human deception, all the values and aspiration and standards, immediately? Is it really possible? Doesn't it require enormous capacity, which I lack, enormous understanding, to see all this in a flash and leave it exposed to the light, to that intelligence you have talked about? I wonder, sir, if you know what this entails. To ask me, an ordinary man with an ordinary education, to plunge into something which seems like an incredible nothingness.... Can I do it? I don't even know what it means to jump into it! It's like asking me to become all of a sudden the most beautiful, innocent, lovely human being. You see I am really frightened now, not the way I was frightened before, I am faced now with something which I know is true, and yet my utter incapacity to do it binds me. I see the beauty of this thing, to be really completely nothing, but....发问者：如果我一点点地清除掉这些，那么我就得永远这么清除下去，这本身就变成了我的制约。这些能一下子都消失掉吗，我能立刻就否定掉整个人类的自欺，所有的价值观、渴望和标准吗？这真的可能吗？这难道不需要巨大的能力，而这正是我缺乏的，需要巨大的领悟，一下子看清这一切，把这一切曝露在阳光下，曝露在你所说的智慧之下？我想知道，先生，你是否知道这都需要些什么。让我，让一个受过普通教育的普通人，纵身跳入某种看起来不可思议的空无之中....我能做到吗？我甚至不知道那纵身一跳意味着什么！就好像你要求我突然变成一个最美，最纯真，最可爱的人一样。你看，我现在真的很害怕，不是像以前那样的害怕，我现在面对着某种我知道是真实的东西，但是我却完全没有能力做到这一点，这种无能为力牢牢捆缚着我。我看到了这件事情的美，成为真正的完全的一无所是者，但是....Krishnamurti: You know, it is only when there is emptiness in oneself, not the emptiness of a shallow mind but the emptiness that comes with the total negation of everything one has been and should be and will be - it is only in this emptiness that there is creation; it is only in this emptiness that something new can take place. Fear is the thought of the unknown, so you are really frightened of leaving the known, the attachments, the satisfactions, the pleasurable memories, the continuity and security which give comfort. Thought is comparing this with what it thinks is emptiness. This imagination of emptiness is fear, so fear is thought. To come back to your question - can the mind negate everything it has known, the total content of its own conscious and unconscious self, which is the very essence of yourself? Can you negate yourself completely? If not, there is no freedom. Freedom is not freedom from something - that is only a reaction; freedom comes in total denial.克：你知道，只有当一个人内在有这种空寂，不是一个肤浅的头脑的那种空虚，而是来自于对他曾是、应是和将是的一切进行全然否定的空寂——只有在这种空寂中，才有创造；只有在这种空寂中才能有崭新的东西出现。恐惧是对未知的想法，所以你非常害怕离开已知、依赖、满足、快乐的记忆以及带来舒适的连续性和安全感。思想总是拿这些与它认为的空寂进行比较。这种对空寂的想象就是恐惧，所以恐惧是思想。回到你的问题上来——头脑能不能否定它所知的一切，否定它自身意识和潜意识的全部内容，而这个内容正是你自己的核心？你能彻底否定自己吗？如果不能，就没有自由。自由不是从某事中解脱出来——那只是一种反应；自由来自全然的否定。Questioner: But what is the good of having such freedom? You are asking me to die, aren't you?Krishnamurti: Of course! I wonder how you are using the word "good" when you say what is the good of this freedom? Good in terms of what? The known? Freedom is the absolute good and its action is the beauty of everyday life. In this freedom alone there is living, and without it how can there be love? Everything exists and has its being in this freedom. It is everywhere and nowhere. It has no frontiers. Can you die now to everything you know and not wait for tomorrow to die? This freedom is eternity and ecstasy and love.发问者：但是有这样的自由有什么好处？你是在让我死去，不是吗？克：当然！你说这种自由有什么好处，我不知道你怎么会用“好处”这个词？就什么而言的好处？已知吗？自由是绝对的善，它的行动就是每日生活的美。在这种自由中才有生活，没有自由怎么可能有爱？一切都存在于这自由中，一切在这自由中都有其存身之处。它无处不在又一无所踪。它没有边界。你现在能对你知道的一切死去吗，而不是等到明天再死去？这种自由就是永恒，至乐和爱。THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'HAPPINESS'《转变的紧迫性》之“幸福”Questioner: What is happiness? I have always tried to find it but somehow it hasn't come my way. I see people enjoying themselves in so many different ways and many of the things they do seem so immature and childish. I suppose they are happy in their own way, but I want a different kind of happiness. I have had rare intimations that it might be possible to get it, but somehow it has always eluded me. I wonder what I can do to feel really completely happy?发问者：幸福是什么？我一直想找到它，但是不知怎的它就是不到我身边来。我看到人们用多种不同的方式取悦自己，而他们做的很多事情看起来是那么幼稚和不成熟。我想他们是用自己的方式快乐着，但是我想要的是一种不同的幸福。我曾得到过罕见的暗示说过幸福是可能得到的，但是不知怎的它总是躲避我。我想知道我要怎么做才能真正地感到完全的幸福？Krishnamurti: Do you think happiness is an end in itself? Or does it come as a secondary thing in living intelligently?Questioner: I think it is an end in itself because if there is happiness then whatever you do will be harmonious; then you will do things effortlessly, easily, without any friction. I am sure that whatever you do out of this happiness will be right.克：你觉得幸福是个最终目标吗？还是在智慧的生活中，它只是随后才发生的事情？发问者：我觉得它是个最终目标，因为如果有幸福，那么无论你做什么都是和谐的；那么你就会毫不费力地，轻松地做事情，没有任何冲突摩擦。我相信从这种幸福出发，你做的任何事情都是正确的。Krishnamurti: But is this so? Is happiness an end in itself? Virtue is not an end in itself. If it is, then it becomes a very small affair. Can you seek happiness? If you do then probably you will find an imitation of it in all sorts of distractions and indulgences. This is pleasure. What is the relationship between pleasure and happiness?克：然而是这样的吗？幸福是个最终目标吗？美德不是个最终目标。如果是，那么它就变成了很渺小的一件事。你能追求幸福吗？如果你追求它，那么你可能会发现它的一个赝品，表现为各种各样的消遣和享受。这是快感。快感和幸福之间的关系是什么？Questioner. I have never asked myself.Krishnamurti: Pleasure which we pursue is mistakenly called happiness, but can you pursue happiness, as you pursue pleasure? Surely we must be very clear as to whether pleasure is happiness. Pleasure is gratification, satisfaction, indulgence, entertainment, stimulation. Most of us think pleasure is happiness, and the greatest pleasure we consider to be the greatest happiness. And is happiness the opposite of unhappiness? Are you trying to be happy because you are unhappy and dissatisfied? Has happiness got an opposite at all? Has love got an opposite? Is your question about happiness the result of being unhappy?发问者：我从未问过自己这个问题。克：我们追求的快感被误认为是幸福，但是你能像追求快感那样追求幸福吗？显然我们必须非常清楚一点，即快感是不是幸福。快感是满足，满意，享受，娱乐，刺激。我们大部分人都认为快感就是幸福，最大的快感我们认为就是最大的幸福。而幸福是不幸的反面吗？你是不是因为不幸福不满足所以才追求幸福？幸福到底有没有对立面？爱有对立面吗？你关于幸福的问题是不是不幸的结果？Questioner: I am unhappy like the rest of the world and naturally I don't want to be, and that is what is driving me to seek happiness.Krishnamurti: So happiness to you is the opposite of unhappiness. If you were happy you wouldn't seek it. So what is important is not happiness but whether unhappiness can end. That is the real problem, isn't it? You are asking about happiness because you are unhappy and you ask this question without finding out whether happiness is the opposite of unhappiness.发问者：我像世界上其他的人一样不快乐，当然我不想这样，正是这点驱使我去追求幸福。克：所以对你来说幸福就是不幸的反面。如果你幸福，你就不会再追求幸福。所以重要的不是幸福，而是不幸能否终结。这才是真正的问题，不是吗？因为你不幸福，你就来问幸福的问题，而你问了这个问题却没发现幸福是不是不幸的反面。Questioner: If you put it that way, I accept it. So my concern is how to be free from the misery I am in.Krishnamurti: Which is more important - to understand unhappiness or to pursue happiness? If you pursue happiness it becomes an escape from unhappiness and therefore it will always remain, covered over perhaps, hidden, but always there, festering inside. So what is your question now?Questioner: My question now is why am I miserable? You have very neatly pointed out to me my real state, rather than given me the answer I want, so now I am faced with this question, how am I to get rid of the misery I am in?发问者：如果你这么说，我也接受。所以我关心的是，我要怎样摆脱我身处其中的痛苦。克：哪个更重要——是了解不幸还是追求幸福？如果你追求幸福，那就变成了对不幸的逃避，所以不幸会继续，或许被掩盖，隐藏起来，但是它始终在那儿，在内心溃烂着。那么你现在的问题是什么？发问者：我现在的问题是我为什么痛苦？你非常确切地指出了我的真实状态，而不是给我一个我想要的答案，所以现在我面对着这个问题，我要如何摆脱我身处的不幸？Krishnamurti: Can an outside agency help you to get rid of your own misery, whether that outside agency be God, a master, a drug or a saviour? Or can one have the intelligence to understand the nature of unhappiness and deal with it immediately?Questioner: I have come to you because I thought you might help me, so you could call yourself an outside agency. I want help and I don't care who gives it to me.克：一个外部的媒介能够帮你去除你自己的不幸吗，不管这个外部媒介是上帝，上师，药物还是救主？还是一个人得自己拥有了解不幸本质的智慧，并立即将其处理掉？发问者：我来找你，是因为我想你也许能帮我，所以你把自己称为一个外部媒介。我需要帮助，我不管能帮到我的是谁。Krishnamurti: In accepting or giving help several things are involved. If you accept it blindly you will be caught in the trap of one authority or another, which brings with it various other problems, such as obedience and fear. So if you start off wanting help, not only do you not get help - because nobody can help you anyway - but in addition you get a whole series of new problems; you are deeper in the mire than ever before.克：接受或给予帮助，这涉及到几件事情。如果你盲目地接受，你就会困在这种或那种权威的陷阱中，而这会带来各种各样其他的问题，比如服从和恐惧。所以如果你从寻求帮助开始，那么你不仅不能得到帮助——因为根本没人能帮你——而且你还会增加整整一系列的新问题；你就比以前陷入了更深的泥沼中。Questioner: I think I understand and accept that. I have never thought it out clearly before. How then can I develop the intelligence to deal with unhappiness on my own, and immediately? If I had this intelligence surely I wouldn't be here now, I wouldn't be asking you to help me. So my question now is, can I get this intelligence in order to solve the problem of unhappiness and thereby attain happiness?发问者：我想我明白也接受这点。我以前从没想清楚过这点。那么我要怎样才能获得这样的智慧，自己即刻就能处理这不幸？如果我有这种智慧，显然我现在就不会在这里了，我就不会来请你帮我了。所以现在我的问题是，我能获得这种智慧来解决不幸的问题进而获得幸福吗？Krishnamurti: You are saying that this intelligence is separate from its action. The action of this intelligence is the seeing and the understanding of the problem,itself. The two are not separate and successive; you don't first get intelligence and then use it on the problem like a tool. it is one of the sicknesses of thinking to say that one should have the capacity first and then use it, the idea or the principle first and then apply it. This itself is the very absence of intelligence and the origin of problems. This is fragmentation. We live this way and so we speak of happiness and unhappiness, hate and love, and so on.克：你是说这智慧与它的行动是分开的。这智慧的行动就是看到并理解问题本身。这两者不是分开的，也不是有先后关系的；你无法先获得智慧然后像使用工具一样用它来解决问题。认为一个人必须先拥有能力，然后再使用它，先有想法或者原则然后再应用，这正是思考的弊病之一。这本身正是缺乏智慧，正是问题的根源。这是分裂。我们正是这样生活的，所以我们谈论幸福和不幸，恨和爱，等等等等。Questioner: Perhaps this is inherent in the structure of language.Krishnamurti: Perhaps it is but let's not make too much fuss about it here and wander away from the issue. We are saying that intelligence, and the action of that intelligence - which is seeing the problem of unhappiness - are one indivisibly. Also that this is not separate from ending unhappiness or getting happiness.发问者：或许语言的内在结构本身就是如此。克：也许是这样，但是我们在这里不要对此大惊小怪，离开主题。我们说那智慧，以及那智慧的行动——也就是看清不幸的问题——是不可分割的一体。同时这与终结不幸或者得到幸福也不是分开的。Questioner: How am I to get that intelligence?Krishnamurti: Have you understood what we have been saying?Questioner: Yes.发问者：我要如何获得那智慧？克：你理解我们刚才说的话了吗？发问者：是的。Krishnamurti: But if you have understood you have seen that this seeing is intelligence. The only thing you can do is to see; you cannot cultivate intelligence in order to see. Seeing is not the cultivation of intelligence. Seeing is more important than intelligence, or happiness, or unhappiness. There is only seeing or not seeing. All the rest - happiness, unhappiness and intelligence - are just words.Questioner: What is it, then, to see?发问者：可是如果你理解了，你就会明白这看到就是智慧。你唯一能做的一件事就是去看到；你无法为了看到去培育智慧。看到不是培养智慧。看到比智慧，比幸福或者不幸都重要。只有看到还是没看到。其他的一切——幸福，不幸和智慧——只是词语而已。发问者：那么，看到是什么呢？Krishnamurti: To see means to understand how thought creates the opposites. What thought creates is not real. To see means to understand the nature of thought, memory, conflict, ideas; to see all this as a total process is to understand. This is intelligence; seeing totally is intelligence; seeing fragmentarily is the lack of intelligence.克：看到意味着了解思想是如何制造对立面的。思想制造的一切都不是真实的。看到意味着了解思想，记忆，冲突，观念的本质；作为一整个过程看到这一切就是了解。这就是智慧；整体地看到就是智慧；片面地看到就是缺乏智慧。Questioner: I am a bit bewildered. I think I understand, but it is rather tenuous; I must go slowly. What you are saying is, see and listen completely. You say this attention is intelligence and you say that it must be immediate. One can only see now. I wonder if I really see now, or am I going home to think over what you have said, hoping to see later?发问者：我有点迷惑了。我想我理解了，但是相当牵强；我必须得慢慢来。你说的是，全然地看到和聆听。你说这全神贯注是智慧，你说这必须是即刻发生的。一个人只能现在看到。我不知道我现在是否真的看到了，还是我得回家好好想想你说的话，希望以后能看到？