Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR76CTM1 - 我们有没有发觉我们是支离破碎的？
与博姆和西恩博格的第一次探讨
英国，布洛克伍德
1976年5月17日



0:14 K: What shall we talk about? What do you think is the most important thing... that we 3 can talk about? 克：我们要来谈点什么呢？ 你们认为什么才是最重要的事情 是我们三个人可以来谈论的？
0:28 S: Well, the one thing, I've had an idea lately... that has been on my mind... and I've been getting it from when we talked before... there is the feeling you've been conveying that... life comes first and not thought or work... something like that, in other words, that I find in myself... and I find that most people... are caught up in the fact that... you know, you said once we live second-hand lives. If we could talk about that, I think... the second-handness of our life. 西恩博格：嗯，我最近在想一件事情 这件事情一直萦绕在我的脑海 我是从我们之前的谈话中想到这件事情的 我感觉你所要传达的意思就是 生活是最先出现的，而不是思想或工作 诸如此类的意思，换句话说，我发现自己 我发现大部分的人 都陷入于这样一个现象中 你知道，你曾经说过，我们过着‘二手’的生活。 我想，我们能不能来谈谈这个 我们的‘二手’生活。
1:07 K: What do you say?

B: Well, in relation to that... I perhaps would like to talk about the question of wholeness. 		克：博姆，你有什么想说的？

博姆：嗯，关于我所认为的最重要的事情 我可能想要来谈一下关于‘完整性’的问题。
1:18 K: Shall we talk about that first, and then include yours. 克：我们是否可以先来谈谈博姆的问题，然后再把你的问题也带进来讲。
1:21 S: Sure. I think this is part of it. I see that the second-handedness is not wholeness. 西恩博格：当然可以。我觉得我的问题也是他问题中的一部分。 我可以看到，‘二手’并非完整性。
1:27 K: Quite. I wonder how we can approach this question... knowing that most people are fragmented... broken up and not whole. How do we tackle or approach this question? 克：是的。 我在想我们要如何去处理这个问题 我们知道大多数人都是支离破碎的 他们是四分五裂的，并不完整。 而我们要如何去解决或处理这个问题？
1:56 S: Through direct awareness of the fragmentation. 西恩博格：通过直接觉察那些‘碎片’。
1:59 K: No, I would like to... - I'm just asking it because... Are we discussing it theoretically? 克：不，我想要的是……——我只是在发问，因为 我们是在从理论上讨论它吗？
2:08 S: No. 西恩博格：不是。
2:10 K: Verbally, or taking ourselves... - you, we 3- taking ourselves as we are... and examining what we mean by fragmented. And then work from there, what is the whole... not theoretically or verbally. Then I think that has vitality, that has some meaning. 克：我们是口头上地在谈论它，还是参照我们自己 ——你，我们三个人——参照我们自己真实的模样 来检视一下我们所说的‘碎片化’是什么意思。 然后从那里开始去研究，什么是‘完整’ 不是理论上或者口头上的。 这样的话，我觉得讨论才会具有生命力，才会有一些意义。
2:34 S: Well, If we see the fragmentation... the wholeness is there. 西恩博格：我想说，假如我们能够看到碎片 那么完整性就会存在了。
2:39 K: Ah, no, don't assume anything.

S: Right. 		克：啊，不对，不要去假设任何事情。

西恩博格：好的。
2:42 B: That's too fast.

K: Then we are off to theory. 		博姆：这有点操之过急了。

克：这样的话，我们就陷入于理论中了。
2:45 S: OK. Right. 西恩博格：是的，说的没错。
2:50 K: We have been talking... with a lot of students here, this question. Dr. Bohm was there too. And whether we can ever be aware of ourselves at all. Or we are only aware of patches... not the totality of fragmentations. I don't know if I'm conveying this. 克：我们已经和这里的很多学生 讨论过了这个问题。 博姆博士当时也在场。 我们是否能够真的觉察到自身。 还是说我们觉察到的只是那些碎片 而不是那个包含了各种碎片的整体。 我不知道有没有把意思表达清楚。
3:27 S: Go ahead. 西恩博格：请继续。
3:31 K: Can one be aware, conscious, know... the various fragments... examining one by one by one by one... and who is the examiner... is he not also a fragment... who has assumed an authority? So when we talk about being aware of fragments... socially, morally, ethically, religiously, business, art... the whole activity is fragmented. Can one, is one aware of the movement... of these fragments... or do you take one fragment and examine it... or say 'Yes, I am aware of that', and not the many. You follow what I am saying? 克：我们能否去觉察、意识和知晓 各种不同的碎片？ 我们可以一个又一个，一个又一个地去检视这些碎片 那么谁是那个检视者呢？ 他难道不也是一个碎片吗？ 他假装自己是一个权威。 所以当我们讨论觉察这些碎片时 社会、道德、伦理、宗教、商业、艺术 全部这些行动都是碎片式的。 我们是否可以……我们是否已经觉察到 这些碎片的运动 还是说你会拿出一个碎片，然后检查它 或者说：‘是的，我觉察到它了’，而不是觉察到很多碎片。 你跟上我了吗？
4:36 S: I am following you. I think you are mostly aware of... when I think of what you are saying, I seem to be aware... of a kind of many fragments.

K: Are you? 		西恩博格：我跟上你了。我觉得你一般来说都会觉察到 在我思考你所说的话时，我似乎觉察到了 很多碎片。

克：是吗？
4:48 S: One at a time, spread out like that, like a machine-gun. 西恩博格：每次觉察一个，就这样扩散开来，就像机枪一样。
4:54 K: Yes. So you're really aware one by one. 克：是的。所以你其实还是一个一个地在觉察。
4:57 S: Right. And caught up by the movement of the fragments. 西恩博格：对，然后我会被这些碎片的运作所牵绊。
5:01 K: One by one. Is that so? Are you sure that it is so? 克：一个一个地觉察。是这样的吗？ 你确定是如此？
5:11 S: Yes, I think, it seems to be that… Well, then sometimes you can take a step back... or you seem to take a step back... or I seem to take a step back, and I'm aware of these many. 西恩博格：是的，我觉得看起来似乎就是这样的 不过，有时候你也可以退后一步看 或者说你似乎是退后了一步 或者说我似乎是退后了一步，然后我就觉察到了很多碎片。
5:25 K: No, when Dr. Bohm asked 'can't we talk over together... this question of wholeness'... which implies holiness, health, sanity and all that... I wonder from what source he's asking that question. 克：不，当博姆博士问：‘我们能不能一起来讨论一下……’ 关于‘完整性’的问题时 ——‘完整性’就意味着神圣、健康、明智等等这些东西 我不知道他是因何而问起这个问题的。
5:46 S: Yes. You mean if he's coming from a fragmented position... or he's coming from a whole position. 西恩博格：对。你的意思是，他是否是从碎片的角度出发问这个问题 还是说他是从‘整体’的角度出发在问这个问题。
5:51 K: No, no. If he's asking from the whole position, there is no question. So, I would like to, if one may ask... Are we aware of the fragments as a whole... a collection of fragments... or are we aware one fragment at each time? What do you say, sir? 克：不是，不是这样的。 如果他是从‘整体性’的角度提问，那就不会有任何问题了。 所以，我想要……如果我可以问一下的话： 我们是否将这些碎片作为一个整体来加以觉察 一种碎片的集合 还是说，我们是每一次觉察一个碎片？ 博姆先生，你怎么看？
6:24 B: Generally, the thing presents itself... first as primarily one fragment… 博姆：通常来说，事情首先 主要是以一个碎片的姿态而呈现的
6:29 K: One fragment at a time.

B: …with a background... of all the other fragments perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, in the beginning... that one fragment seems to take emphasis... or pre-eminence in awareness. 		克：每次一个碎片。

博姆：而在它的背后 所有其他的碎片或许都隐约存在着。 我的意思是，在开始的时候 某个碎片似乎在觉察中占据着重要地位 或者说是优势地位。
6:46 S: Doesn't that one fragment fragment out... quickly into many little fragments? I have an idea and then that idea is in contrast to another idea... so I'm immediately caught up into two fragments there... and then I have another idea... which is the repetition of that first idea... so I'm caught up in a movement of fragments rather than... my attitude is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented... my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation. I don't have any centre when I'm fragmented. I'm not... 西恩博格：难道不是一个碎片接着一个碎片地出来 然后很快变成了很多小碎片吗？ 我有了一个想法，然后这个想法与另一个想法相对立了 所以我立即就陷入于那两个碎片之中了 然后，我又有了另外一个想法 它是最初那个想法的重复 所以我陷入于一种碎片的运动中，或者倒不如这样说： 我的态度是碎片化的，我的关系也是碎片化的 我行动的实质就是一种支离破碎的感受。 当我支离破碎的时候，我是没有任何中心的。我不是
7:28 K: I'm not sure about that.

S: That is the question. 		克：我对这一点并不确定。

西恩博格：这就是问题所在。
7:32 K: I'm not at all sure... that there is no centre when you're fragmented. 克：我完全不确定 是否当你支离破碎的时候，就不会有一个中心。
7:37 B: I think definitely there is a centre. That is the major fragment you are aware of. 博姆：我认为毫无疑问，的确存在着一个中心。 它是你所能感知到的最主要的碎片。
7:41 K: That's right. 克：没错。
7:43 S: Then let's go into that more. 西恩博格：那么，就让我们好好地来探讨一下它吧。
7:48 B: Well, I just think that there is a centre... which you may sense anywhere... say here or here... that seems to be the centre of everything... that is connected to everything, right? 博姆：是这样的，我认为存在着一个中心 你在任何地方都能感觉到它 比如在这里或者这里 它似乎是一切事物的中心 它关联着每一样事物，对吗？
8:04 S: I see what you are saying, but I feel that... when the fragmentation is going on... it's like the centre is looking for itself... it feels like it's not a centre. 西恩博格：我明白你话的意思，但是我觉得 当碎片在进行着的时候 就好像是那个中心在寻找它自己 它好像感觉自己并不是中心。
8:13 K: Are you aware of the fragmentation? Not, 'fragmentation is going on'. 克：你觉察到碎片了吗？ 而不是说‘碎片正在进行着’。
8:18 S: No, I am not. 西恩博格：没有，我没有觉察到。
8:20 K: Then what are we aware of? 克：那么，我们所感知到的是什么？
8:24 S: I think - that's a terrific question - because I think... when there is fragmentation what we are aware of... is like being sucked forward into more fragments. There is a kind of movement of more fragmentation... more fragmentation, which is what we are aware of. What you have talked of in terms of pleasure. It's like pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragments... this would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure... And it's that feeling of pieces. 西恩博格：我觉得——这是一个很可怕的问题——因为我觉得 当有了碎片时，我们所察觉到的 仿佛是被吸入到了更多的碎片之中。 有着一种更多碎片的运动 碎片越来越多，这就是我们所察觉到的事情。 你曾经谈论过关于快感的问题。 它就好像是快感在拉扯着我们前进到更多的碎片之中去 这可以带给我快感，那也可以带给我快感 这就带来了那种‘碎片感’。
8:56 K: Before we go into the question of pleasure... Are we aware, actually... from a centre, which says 'I am fragmented'? That is the question, isn't it? 克：在我们探究快感的问题之前 我们是否真的是从一个中心出发去觉察的吗？ 那个中心在说：‘我是支离破碎的’。 这就是问题所在，不是吗？
9:15 B: Yes.

S: That's the question. 		博姆：是的。

西恩博格：就是这个问题。
9:18 B: We are both aware of a centre and from a centre... 博姆：我们两个都能觉察到那个中心，而从那个中心
9:21 K: That's it. 克：没错。
9:23 B: This centre seems to be, as you say, the fragment... that is dominating, or attempting to dominate. 博姆：就如你所说，这个中心似乎就是碎片 它在支配着一切，或者试图去支配一切。
9:30 K: That centre is the dominating factor. 克：那个中心就是支配者。
9:32 B: Yes. In other words... 博姆：是的。换句话说
9:34 K: Which is in itself a fragment. 克：它本身就是一个碎片。
9:36 B: Yes, I mean this centre is... Well, it seems to be the centre of your being... as it were the centre of the ego or the self... which one might think is the whole. 博姆：是的，我的意思是，这个中心就是 啊，它似乎是你存在着的核心 就好像是自己或者自我的核心 我们也许会认为它就是‘整体’。
9:48 K: Quite, quite. 克：对，很对。
9:50 B: Because it's in contact with everything. In other words… 博姆：因为它关联着一切事物。换句话说
9:55 K: Would you say... having a centre is the very cause of fragmentation? 克：你是不是想说 拥有一个中心就是造成支离破碎的原因？
10:01 B: I would say that, although at first sight... it seems quite different. 博姆：我觉得是这样的，尽管第一眼看上去 它完全不是这样。
10:05 S: At first sight... - I think that's important. The difference between - at first sight it doesn't seem that way. 西恩博格：第一眼看上去……——我认为这一点很重要。 那种差别——第一眼看上去似乎并不是这样的。
10:11 B: At first sight it seems that... the centre is what is organising... everything into a whole.

K: Yes. 		博姆：第一眼看上去，似乎是 那个中心在将一切事物组织成一个整体

克：是的。
10:16 B: One feels one wants a centre... to bring everything to a whole, to stop the fragmentation. 博姆：人们会觉得自己想要一个中心 来将一切事物合为一个整体，来制止那种‘支离破碎’。
10:22 K: Yes, try to bring about integration... try to make wholeness and all that. 克：是的，试图带来一个整体 试图去整合它们，等等这些。
10:27 S: Right. If you feel the fragmentation... then you centre here and say... 'I can see all the fragmentations' - but that's still centre. 西恩博格：没错。要是你感觉到了支离破碎 那么你就会集中于它们，然后说 ‘我可以看到所有的碎片’ ——但那仍旧有着一个中心。
10:34 K: No, but I am asking whether when there is a centre... doesn't it make for fragments? 克：不，我在问的是，当存在着一个中心时 是不是这个中心导致了支离破碎？
10:41 S: That I see. I see what you are saying. But I'm trying to take it from... What is the experience when there is fragmentation?. There doesn't seem to be a centre.

K: Contradiction. 		西恩博格：我明白这一点。我明白你说的东西。 但是我正试图从别的角度来看它 当有了支离破碎时，是一种怎样的体验？ 那时看起来并不存在一个中心。

克：因为存在着矛盾。
10:54 S: Right. But it doesn't feel like a centre. 西恩博格：没错。但它感觉并不像是一个中心。
10:58 K: No. Contradiction. When there are fragments... I am aware of the fragments... because of contradiction.

S: Right. 		克：不，那是矛盾。当有了支离破碎时 我就会察觉到那些碎片 因为存在着矛盾。

西恩博格：对。
11:06 K: Because opposing factors. 克：因为那些彼此对立的要素。
11:09 B: You mean by contradiction also conflict… 博姆：你所说的‘矛盾’的意思也就是‘冲突’
11:12 K: Conflict. Out of contradiction there is conflict. Then I am aware that there are fragments. I am working in an area of fragments. 克：冲突。从矛盾之中就产生出了冲突。 然后我觉察到了碎片的存在。 我是在那个支离破碎的领域中运作的。
11:23 S: Right. But then, yes, then I'm not aware of the fact... that I have in fact got a centre. That's the self-deception, right there. 西恩博格：没错。但是那时，嗯，那时我就不会意识到这个事实： 即我实际上是有着一个中心的。 这里会存在着一种自我欺骗。
11:36 K: No - don't you think, if I may suggest... that where there is conflict... then only you are aware of a conflict, of contradiction. That is, one is aware only when there is conflict. Right? And then the next awareness, the next movement is… conflict arises out of fragmentation... opposing elements... opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts. 克：不是的，你难道不觉得——如果我可以暗示下的话—— 只有当有了冲突的时候 那时你才会觉察到某种矛盾和冲突。 也就是说，我们只有在有了冲突的时候，才会有所觉察。 对吗？ 而接下来所觉察到的，接下来的运动则是： 冲突从碎片之中产生出来 它从彼此对立的元素中产生出来 ——对立的欲望，对立的渴望，对立的思想。
12:25 B: But are you saying that... these oppose first before one is aware... and then suddenly you are aware through the unpleasantness... or the pain of the opposition that the conflict is unpleasant? 博姆：但你是不是在说 这些对立在我们觉知到它们之前就存在了 然后你突然之间经由不愉快 或者那种对立的痛苦而觉察到冲突是令人不快的？
12:38 K: Yes, conflict is unpleasant and therefore one is aware... 克：是的，冲突令人不快，因此我们觉察到
12:42 B: ...that something is wrong.

K: Wrong. Yes. 		博姆：……有些东西出了问题。

克：出了问题。是这样的。
12:46 B: Something is wrong, not just simply wrong... but wrong with the whole thing. 博姆：有些东西出问题了，不仅仅只是出了些问题 而是那个整体出问题了。
12:51 K: Of course. Sir, after all, self-consciousness... You are aware of yourself only... when there is pain or intense pleasure... otherwise you are not aware of yourself. So fragmentation with its conflict brings this sense of... I'm aware, I'm in conflict - otherwise there's no awareness. 克：当然了。 先生，毕竟，那种自我意识 只有在特定情况下，你才会觉察到自己 那就是当你痛苦，或者极度快乐的时候 否则你不会觉察到自己。 所以碎片及其冲突就带来了这种感觉： 我在觉察，我很冲突——否则的话，你就不会有觉察了。
13:29 S: Yes... you are saying that the very fragmentation itself... breeds the centre.

K: Breeds the centre. 		西恩博格：是的……你在说的是那个碎片本身 滋生出了中心。

克：滋生出了中心。
13:38 S: And the centre has bred the fragmentation, so it's like a... 西恩博格：然后那个中心又滋生出了碎片，所以，它就像是一种
13:41 K: Yes, back and forth.

S: Right. 		克：是的，循环往复。

西恩博格：没错。
13:44 B: Would you say that thought in itself before there is a centre... breeds conflict? Or is there thought before a centre? 博姆：你会说在思想出现之前，就已有了一个 滋生出冲突的中心？还是说思想是先于中心而存在的？
13:52 K: Oh, thought before the centre. 克：哦，思想是先于中心的。
13:56 B: Yes. One view is to say that the centre and thought... are always co-existent and one breeds the other. 博姆：嗯。 有一种观点认为那个中心与思想 一直都是同时存在的，它们彼此滋生了对方。
14:02 K: One breeds the other, quite. 克：彼此滋生了对方，对。
14:04 B: The other view is to say that there might be thought first... and that produces conflict and then that produces a centre. 博姆：而另一种观点认为或许是先有思想 思想制造出了冲突，由此便产生了一个中心。
14:11 K: Let's go into that a little bit.

B: Yes. 		克：让我们来稍微探究一下它吧。

博姆：好的。
14:13 S: (Laughs) That's a good one. 西恩博格：（笑） 这是一个好话题。
14:19 K: Does thought exist before conflict? 克：思想是先于冲突而存在的吗？
14:23 B: Before a centre.

K: Before the centre. One is aware of the centre only when there is conflict. 		博姆：先于中心而存在。

克：先于中心。 我们只有在有了冲突的时候，才会意识到那个中心。
14:30 B: Yes, because that comes in apparently... to try to bring about wholeness again... to take charge of everything. 博姆：是的，因为它（中心）的出现很显然 是试图重新带来完整 去掌管一切事物。
14:36 K: The centre tries to take charge, or try to create wholeness. 克：那个中心试图去掌管一切，或者试图去创造出整体。
14:41 B: Yes, to bring all the factors together. 博姆：是的，去将所有的要素整合在一起。
14:43 K: But centre itself is a fragment. 克：但是那个中心本身就是一个碎片。
14:46 B: Yes, but it doesn't know that. 博姆：是的，但是它并不知道这一点。
14:48 K: Of course, it doesn't know but it thinks it can bring... all the fragments together, make it a whole. So Dr. Bohm is asking the question which is... Did thought exist before the centre... or the centre existed before the thought? 克：当然了，它并不知道，但是它觉得自己可以将所有的碎片 整合在一起，使之成为一个整体。 所以博姆博士问了这个问题： 是思想先于中心而存在 还是中心先于思想而存在？
15:05 B: Or the two together?

K: Or the two together. 		博姆：还是说两者同时存在？

克：还是说两者同时存在？
15:09 S: Right. He's also asking, does thought create the centre? 西恩博格：嗯。 他同样也在问：是不是思想创造出了中心？
15:13 K: Thought creates the centre… 克：思想创造出了中心
15:14 S: That would be the action, the very creation... a sort of an after-effect of the thought. In other words, is the organism - is the production of thought... the very cause of a centre? That I think carries it because then... 西恩博格：这才是思想的行动，这种创造本身 它是一种思想的后遗效应。 换句话说，有机体……思想的产物是否就是 造成那个中心的原因？ 我认为是思想承载了那个中心因为那样的话
15:32 K: Yes, let's be clear on this point too. Are we asking, did thought create the centre? 克：是的，我们同样也要清楚这一点。 我们是否在问：是不是思想创造了那个中心？
15:41 B: Yes, and was there a kind of thought before a centre? 博姆：是的，还有是否在中心存在之前，就已存在着某种思想了？
15:44 K: Yes. Thought before the centre. That's it. 克：是的。思想先于中心而存在。这没错。
15:47 B: Which came into contradiction. 博姆：然后这种思想变得矛盾起来。
15:49 K: Yes, thought created the centre... or the centre existed before the thought… 克：对，是思想创造出了中心 还是，中心是先于思想而存在的
15:55 B: Or else the centre was... - that's a view which is common... people think the centre is me who was first. 博姆：要不然就是，人们会觉得那个中心是 ——这是一种很普遍的观点—— 人们觉得那个中心就是‘我’——他是第一位的。
16:02 K: Me is the first. 克：‘我’是第一位的。
16:03 B: And then I began to think, right? 博姆：然后我便开始思考了，对吗？
16:06 K: No, I think thought exists before the centre. 克：不，我认为思想是先于中心而存在的。
16:10 S: Yes, then we have to ask the question... maybe not at this minute... of why is there thought, what is thought? 西恩博格：嗯，那么我们就必须要问一下这个问题 ——或许不应该在现在问—— 为什么会有思想？思想是什么？
16:20 K: Oh, that's a different matter. Do we go into that? 克：噢，那又是另一件事了。我们要来探讨它吗？
16:23 B: That might be a long story. 博姆：那就说来话长了。
16:25 S: Yes, I don't think that's for now. But we have to get at that.

K: No… 		西恩博格：是的，我想不是现在 但我们肯定会谈到它的。

克：是的
16:28 S: Let's stay with what we started with. 西恩博格：让我们紧扣我们开始的问题吧。
16:32 K: Yes, we started out asking... Can we talk about the wholeness of life? How can one be aware of... that wholeness if one is fragmented? That's the next question. You can't be aware of the whole... if I'm only looking through a small hole. 克：好，开始的时候，我们问： 我们是否可以来谈一下生命的完整性？ 而一个支离破碎的人，他要如何才能觉察到 那种完整性？ 这是接下来的问题。 你是无法察觉到整体的 ——如果你只是透过一个小孔去看的话。
16:58 S: Right. But on the other hand, in actuality you are the whole. 西恩博格：没错。但是从另一方面来说，事实上，你就是那个整体。
17:04 K: Ah! That is a theory. 克：啊！这只是理论。
17:08 S: Is it? That's where… 西恩博格：是吗？但这就是
17:09 B: A supposition, yes.

K: Of course when you are fragmented... how can you assume that you are the whole? 		博姆：是的，它是一种猜测。

克：当然了 当你支离破碎时 你又怎么能够假定自己是那个整体呢？
17:16 S: Well, that's a wonderful… That's an issue because... How am I to know I'm fragmented? 西恩博格：嗯，这是一个很绝妙的……这是一个争议点，因为 我要怎么才知道我是支离破碎的呢？
17:25 K: That's what we are asking.

S: Yes. 		克：这就是我们在问的。

西恩博格：是的。
17:27 K: When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is conflict. 克：你什么时候会察觉到自己是支离破碎的？ 那就是当有了冲突的时候。
17:33 S: Right, that's right. 西恩博格：对，没错。
17:36 K: When there are two opposing desires... opposing elements of movements... then there is conflict... then you have pain or whatever it is... and then you become conscious. 克：当有了两个彼此对立的欲望 有了彼此对立的行动要素时 那时就会有冲突 那时你就会感到痛苦或者无论什么感受 然后你就会意识到它了。
17:51 S: Right, but at those moments... it often times happens that you don't want... to let go of the conflict. You feel your fragmentation... 西恩博格：没错，但是在那些时刻 屡屡发生的事情就是你并不想 松手放开冲突。你会去感受你的支离破碎
17:57 K: No, that's a different matter.

S: Right. 		克：不，那又是另外一件事了。

西恩博格：好吧。
18:00 K: What we are asking is... Can the fragment dissolve itself... and then only it's possible to see the whole. You cannot be fragmented and then wish for the whole. 克：我们在问的是 碎片能否消融掉它自身 只有那时，它才可能看的到整体。 你无法在支离破碎的情况下，去渴望整体。
18:17 S: Right. All you really know is your fragmentation. 西恩博格：对。 你真正知道的，就只有你自身的碎片。
18:21 K: That's all we know. Therefore let's stick to that... and not beat round the bush and say... 'Let's talk about the whole' and all the rest of it. 克：这就是所有我们知道的东西。 因此，让我们紧扣这一点 而不要拐弯抹角地绕圈子，说： ‘让我们来谈谈整体吧’等等这些东西。
18:34 B: The supposition that... there's a whole may be apparently reasonable... but as long as you are fragmented you could never see it. It would be just an assumption. 博姆：假定 存在着一个整体，也许表面上看起来是合理的 然而只要你还是支离破碎的，你就永远无法看到整体。 那将只会是一种假设。
18:44 S: Right, right. 西恩博格：没错，没错。
18:45 B: You may think you have experienced it once... but that's also an assumption... because that's gone already... 博姆：你也许会觉得你曾经体验过它 但那同样也是一种假设 因为那种体验已经消失了
18:50 K: Absolutely. Quite right. 克：完全正确。很对。
18:53 S: I wonder if there's not a tremendous pain... or something that goes on... when I'm aware of my fragmentation. That's the loneliness somehow… 西恩博格：我想知道的是，如果没有一种极度的痛苦 或者某种感受发生的话 当我觉察到我的支离破碎时， 多多少少会有一点孤独感
19:04 K: Look sir, can you be aware of your fragments? That you are an American... that I am a Hindu, you are a Jew, Communist... you just live in that state. You don't say, 'Well, I know I'm a Hindu'. It's only when you are challenged... it's only when, say 'What are you?', then you say... 'Yes, I'm an Indian', or a Hindu, or an Arab. 克：请注意，先生，你能够觉察到自己的碎片吗？ 比如你是一个美国人 我是一个印度人，你是一个犹太教徒，一个共产主义者 你只是生活在那种状态中。 你不会说：‘是的，我知道我是一个印度人’。 只有当你遭遇到挑战时 只有当……比如说，有人问：‘你是什么？’的时候，那时你才会说： ‘是的，我是一个印度人’，我是一个印度教徒，或者是一个阿拉伯人。
19:35 B: When the country is challenged then you have to go to war. 博姆：于是当国家遭遇到挑战时，你就不得不奔赴战场了。
19:39 K: Of course.

S: Right. So you are saying that I'm living totally reactively. 		克：当然了。

西恩博格：没错。 所以你在说的是，我是完全活在被动反应之中的。
19:49 K: No, you are totally living in a kind of - what? miasma, confusion. 克：不，你是完全活在一种——怎么说呢？ 活在一种瘴气、混乱之中。
19:56 S: From one piece to the next... from one reaction to the next reaction. 西恩博格：从一个碎片到下一个碎片 从一个反应到下一个反应。
20:01 K: Reward and punishment, in that movement. So, can we be aware, actually now... now! - of the various fragments? That I'm a Hindu, that I'm a Jew... that I'm an Arab, that I'm a Communist... that I'm a Catholic, that I'm a businessman, I'm married... I have responsibilities, I'm an artist, I'm a scientist... you follow? - this various sociological fragmentation. 克：在那种运动中，有着奖励与惩罚。 所以，我们能否有所觉察，能否此刻就真正地去觉察 ——就在此刻！——去觉察各种碎片？ 即我是一个印度人，我是一个犹太人 我是一个阿拉伯人，我是一个共产主义者 我是一个天主教徒，我是一个商人，我是已婚人士 我肩负着各种职责，我是一个艺术家，我是一个科学家 你们跟上了吗？——各种社会学意义上的碎片分裂。
20:37 S: Right. 西恩博格：没错。
20:38 K: As well as psychological fragmentation. 克：同样也包括心理学上的碎片分裂。
20:41 S: Right. That's exactly what I started with. This feeling that I'm a fragment, this feeling that… that's where I get absorbed, this being a fragment... 西恩博格：对。这正是我开始的时候所谈到的。 感到自己是一个碎片， 我专注沉浸于这种感觉，即我是一个碎片
20:52 K: Which you call the individual. 克：你们将它称为‘个体性’。
20:54 S: That I call important! not just the individual. 西恩博格：我把它称为是重要的！而不只是‘个体性’。
20:57 K: You call that important.

S: Right. That I have to work. 		克：你把它称为是重要的。

西恩博格：是的。我必须要为之而努力。
21:02 K: Quite.

S: That it's significant. 		克：很对。

西恩博格：这就是它的意义所在。
21:05 K: So can we now in talking over together... be aware that I'm that? I'm a fragment and therefore... creating more fragments, more conflict... more misery, more confusion, more sorrow... because when there is conflict... it affects everything.

S: Right. 		克：所以现在，当我们在一起讨论的时候 我们能否觉察到我就是某某某？ 我是一个碎片，由此 我便制造出了更多的碎片，更多的冲突 更多的痛苦、更多的困惑、更多的悲伤 因为当有了冲突时 它就会影响到方方面面。

西恩博格：没错。
21:31 K: Can you be aware of it as we are discussing? 克：当我们在讨论的时候，你能够觉察到它吗？
21:39 S: I can be aware as we are discussing it a little. 西恩博格：在我们讨论它的时候，我可以稍微觉察到一点。
21:42 K: Aha, not a little.

S: That's the trouble. Why can't I be aware of it? 		克：啊哈，不能只是一点。

西恩博格：这就是困难之处。 我为什么无法觉察到它？
21:51 K: No, sir. You are only aware of it when there is conflict. It is not a conflict in you now.

S: Yes. 		克：不，先生。你只有在有了冲突的时候才会觉察到它。 而你现在内心并没有什么冲突。

西恩博格：是的。
21:59 B: Is it possible to be aware of it without conflict? 博姆：是否可能无需冲突而觉察到它？
22:02 K: That's the next thing, yes. That requires quite a different… 克：是的，这是下一个问题了，那需要一种完全不同的
22:07 B: How will we consider this different approach? 博姆：我们要如何去理解这种截然不同的方式？
22:10 K: Quite a different approach. 克：它是一种截然不同的方法。
22:13 B: I was thinking of looking at one point that... the importance of these fragments is that... when I identify myself and say 'I'm this'... I'm that', I mean the whole of me. In other words, the whole of me is rich or poor... American, or whatever... and therefore it's all-important because it's the whole. I think it seems that the trouble is that... the fragment claims that it's the whole... and makes itself very important. 博姆：当我在思考的时候，我看到了一点 即这些碎片之所以变得重要，是因为 当我把自己与之认同，然后说：‘我是这个 我是那个’的时候……我的意思是，把我的全部与它相认同。 换句话说，我的整体就是一个有钱人或者穷人 一个美国人，或者无论什么人 因此它变得无比重要，因为它就是整体。 我觉得这似乎就是困难所在 那就是这个碎片宣称它就是整体 然后把自己变得非常重要。
22:40 S: Right, takes up the whole life. This is life. 西恩博格：没错，它占据了整个的生命。它就是生命。
22:43 B: Then comes a contradiction... and then comes another fragment saying it's the whole. 博姆：然后便产生了矛盾 接着出现了另一个碎片，它说它就是整体。
22:48 K: Look what is happening... in Northern Ireland, the Arab world... the Middle Eastern world, the Muslim and the Hindu... this whole world is broken up that way... outside and inside. 克：看看如今正在发生的事情吧 在北爱尔兰，在阿拉伯世界 在中东地区，在穆斯林和印度教徒之间 整个世界就是这样变得四分五裂的 不管是外在还是内在。
23:06 S: Me and you. 西恩博格：我和你。
23:07 K: Me and you, we and they, and all the rest of it. 克：我和你，我们和他们，等等这些。
23:12 B: But I mean that's the difference between saying... we have a lot of different objects... in the room which are separate and so on... which we can handle.

K: That's a different thing. 		博姆：但我的意思是，这里还是有一些区别的：比如我们说 在这个房间里，我们有着很多不同的物品 这些物品是彼此分离的，等等 但我们可以去触摸操纵它们。

克：那又是另一件事了。
23:22 B: There's no problem there. But if we say... 'I'm this, I'm wholly this'... then I also say 'I'm wholly that and I'm wholly that'. 博姆：就这件事来说是没有什么问题的。但如果我们说 ‘我就是这个，我完全就是这个’ 那么我也可以说：‘我完全就是那个，我完全就是那个’。
23:29 S: You are bringing in something different there... that's exactly how it is... that we come to believe in these fragments. Because we look at objects and we say... 'they are separate things, therefore I'm a separate thing'. 西恩博格：你又在这里提出了一些不同的东西 这正解释了我们为何会 开始相信这些碎片。 因为我们观察了那些对象，然后说： ‘它们都是些彼此分离的事物，因此我也是分离独立的’。
23:42 K: I question that, sir. Say, for instance, the Arab and the Israeli... Are they aware that they are… I'm an Arab, I want to fight... that somebody else who is not? Or I have an idea - you follow? - idea. 克：我对此有点怀疑，先生。 举个例子，阿拉伯人和以色列人 他们是否觉察到自己是一个 我是一个阿拉伯人，我想要 和那些不是阿拉伯人的民族战斗。 或者说我有着一个理念——你明白吗？——只是一个理念。
24:03 B: What do you mean? An idea that I'm an Arab? 博姆：什么意思？那种‘我是一个阿拉伯人’的理念？
24:05 K: Yes. 克：是的。
24:06 B: But the idea is that that's very important as well. I'm totally an Arab. 博姆：而这种理念同样认为‘阿拉伯人’是非常重要的。 我是一个彻头彻尾的阿拉伯人。
24:11 K: Yes, I'm totally an Arab. 克：是的，我是一个彻头彻尾的阿拉伯人。
24:13 B: It's all-important. That's the form of the idea, isn't it? 博姆：它是至关重要的，这就是这种理念的表现形式，不是吗？
24:16 K: Yes. 克：对。
24:17 B: And now somebody else has the idea... I'm a Jew, that's all important... therefore they must destroy each other. 博姆：然后其他人也持有这种理念 我是一个犹太人，这一点至关重要 因此他们必须要去毁灭对方。
24:24 K: Impossible to... Quite. And I think the politicians... the religious people, are encouraging all this. 克：他们不可能……说的很对。 我认为政客 和那些宗教人士，都在鼓励着这一切。
24:34 B: But they are also running by fragments… 博姆：因为他们同样也被碎片所操纵支配着
24:36 K: Because they are fragmented themselves. You see, that's the whole point. People who are in power, being fragmented... sustain the fragmentations. 克：因为他们本身就是支离破碎的。 你看，这就是整件事的重点所在。 那些权力人士，由于他们是支离破碎的 所以就延续维持了这种碎片。
24:48 S: Right. The only way to get into power is to be fragmented. 西恩博格：没错。而获得权力的唯一途径就是去变得支离破碎。
24:51 K: Of course! 克：当然了！
24:54 B: he says 'it's all-important that I should be a politician... successful and so on'…

K: Of course. 		博姆：他说：‘最重要的事情就是：我要成为一名政客 获得成功，等等这些东西’……

克：没错。
25:02 S: This movement into fragmentation almost... it seems to be caused by something. It seems to be... 西恩博格：这种变得支离破碎的运动几乎是 它似乎是由某种事物所引起的。 它看起来
25:17 K: Is this what you are asking... What is the cause of this fragmentation? 克：你在问的是不是 造成这种碎片的原因是什么？
25:23 S: Right. What is the cause of the fragmentation, what breeds it? 西恩博格：对。 造成碎片的原因是什么？是什么滋生了它？
25:28 K: That's very simple.

S: What sucks us into it? 		克：答案很简单。

西恩博格：是什么将我们吸入到了碎片之中？
25:32 K: No, what brings about fragmentation? 克：不，应该是，是什么带来了这种碎片？
25:40 S: Now, you know... what brings it about, when the mother and child... when the child separates from the mother. Right? 西恩博格：嗯，你知道 是什么引起了它呢？当母亲和孩子 当孩子与母亲分离后，不是吗？
25:51 K: Biologically.

S: No, psychologically. 		克：生物学上的分离。

西恩博格：不是，是那种心理上的分离。
25:53 K: Biologically as well as… 克：既有生物学上的分离，也有
25:55 S: The child starts being able to walk... and the child can walk away and then... he runs back, and then he runs back... and he looks back, he says 'is she still there?' gradually moves away. Now the mother that's not able to let go says... 'Hey, come back here!' Then scares the child to death... because the child thinks I can't do it... if she says I can't do it, I can't do it. 西恩博格：孩子开始能够走路了 孩子走开去了，然后 他跑了回来，他往回跑 他往回看，问：‘妈妈是不是还在那里？’ 然后他逐渐地离开了母亲。 而现在，这位无法放手孩子的母亲，说： ‘嘿，快给我回来！’ 于是把孩子给吓死了 因为孩子认为自己不能这么做 如果她说我不能这么做的话，那么我就不能这么做了。
26:19 K: Quite. No, we are asking something very important, which is... What is the cause of this fragmentation? 克：没错。 不，我们在问的是某个非常重要的问题 那就是，是什么导致了这种碎片？
26:27 S: Yes. That's why I was getting into that... - there's some cause there... it begins there this 'I have got to hold on to something'. 西恩博格：是的。这就是为什么我刚才要举这个例子 那里存在着某些原因 那种‘我必须要抓住某个东西’，就是由此而开始的。
26:36 K: No. Just look at it, sir. What has brought fragmentation in you? 克：不，先生，只需简单地去看它。 是什么导致了你内心的支离破碎？
26:46 S: My immediate response is the need to hold on to something. 西恩博格：我对此立即的反应就是，因为我需要去紧紧抓住一些东西。
26:50 K: No, much deeper than that. Much more. Look at it. Let's go slowly at it. Not immediate responses. What brings this conflict which indicates... I'm fragmented, and then I ask the question... what brings this fragmentation? What is the cause of it? 克：不，要比这更深入。 要比这深入许多。去看一下它。 让我们慢慢地来处理它。而不是立即去作出反应。 是什么带来了这种冲突——冲突表明了 我是支离破碎的，于是我问了这个问题： 是什么带来了这种碎片？ 造成碎片的原因是什么？
27:20 B: Are you saying there is a conflict... and there something happens... that causes fragmentation, in the conflict? 博姆：你是不是在说，存在着一种冲突 然后在那种冲突中发生了一些事情 从而导致了支离破碎？
27:27 S: No, he's saying the fragmentation causes the conflict. 西恩博格：不是，他在说，是碎片导致了冲突。
27:30 B: Is the cause of the conflict. Then what is the cause of the fragmentation? Right. That's important. 博姆：碎片是造成冲突的原因。 那么造成碎片的原因又是什么？ 对，这很重要。
27:36 K: Why are you and I and the majority of the world fragmented? What is the source of it? 克：为什么你和我，以及世界上的大多数人，都是支离破碎的？ 它的根源是什么？
27:46 B: It seems we won't find the cause by... going back in time to a certain happening. 博姆：看起来我们似乎无法 通过回到过去，来找到某件事情发生的原因。
27:51 S: I'm not looking for genetics... I'm looking for right this second. I come upon a... it seems to do that... there is a focussing or... a holding on to something inside my movement. 西恩博格：我并没有在追寻什么遗传学上的原因 我是从当下去寻找原因 我遇到了一个 看起来这样去做的话 在我的行动中，有着一种聚焦或者说是 要去紧紧抓住某物。
28:11 K: Sir, look at it as though not from... Dr. Shainberg's point of view, just look at it. Put it on the table and look at it objectively as it were. What brings about this fragmentation? 克：先生，去看一下它，就好像它不是来自于 西恩博格医生的观点，只是去简单地看它。 把它放出桌子上，然后如实地、客观地去看一下它。 是什么带来了这种碎片？
28:29 S: Fear.

K: No, no, much more. 		西恩博格：恐惧。

克：不，不，再深入一些。
28:34 B: Maybe the fragmentation causes fear. 博姆：也许应该是碎片导致了恐惧。
28:36 K: That's it, that's it. Why am I a Hindu? if I'm, I'm not a Hindu... I'm not an Indian, I have no nationality... but suppose I call myself a Hindu. What makes me a Hindu? 克：没错，没错。 为什么我是一个印度教徒？ 如果我是……当然了，我并不是一个印度教徒 我也不是一个印度人，我没有国籍 但是假如我称自己是一个印度教徒的话。 是什么让我变成一个印度教徒的？
28:56 S: Well, conditioning would make you a Hindu. 西恩博格：嗯，是环境条件让你成为了一个印度教徒。
29:01 K: Which is, what is the background... what is the feeling... or what is it that makes me say 'I'm a Hindu'? Which is a fragmentation, obviously. What makes it? My father, my grandfather, generations and generations... after ten thousand or five thousand years, said... 'You are a Brahmin'. And I say 'All right, I'm a Brahmin'. 克：也就是说，是什么样的环境背景 什么样的感觉 或者说，是什么东西促使我说：‘我是一个印度教徒’？ ‘印度教徒’很显然就是一个碎片。 是什么东西促使我这样说的？ 我的父亲，我的祖父，一代又一代的人 在一万年或者五千年以后，说： ‘你是一个婆罗门’。而我说：‘好吧，我算是一个婆罗门’。
29:31 S: You don't say 'All right, I'm a Brahmin' - you say 'I'm a Brahmin'. 西恩博格：你不是说：‘好吧，我算是一个婆罗门’ ——你说：‘我就是一个婆罗门’。
29:35 K: I'm a Brahmin. 克：我就是一个婆罗门。
29:36 S: Right. That's quite different. You say 'I'm a Brahmin'... because it's like you... they work on you that way. 西恩博格：对。这是很不同的。你说：‘我就是一个婆罗门’ 因为就好像你是……他们就是以这种方式说服你的。
29:42 K: I'm a Brahmin like you saying 'I'm a Christian'. 克：我就是一个婆罗门，就像你们说：‘我就是一个基督教徒’一样。
29:44 S: Right. 西恩博格：没错。
29:46 K: Which is what? 克：那么这是什么呢？
29:48 S: That's tradition, conditioning, sociology, history... culture, climate, everything. 西恩博格：它包含了传统、制约、社会学、历史 文化、风土人情，等等这一切。
29:57 K: But behind that, what is that? 克：但是在这些东西背后的，是什么呢？
30:00 S: Behind that is man's...

K: No, no, don't theorise. Look at it in yourself. 		西恩博格：在它们背后，是人类的……

克：不，不，不要把它理论化。 去看看你自己的内心。
30:10 S: That gives me a place... an identity, I know who I'm then, I have my little niche. 西恩博格：它给了我一个位置 一种身份，那时我会知道我是谁，我有了自己的一个小天地。
30:18 K: Who made that niche? 克：是谁建造了那个小天地？
30:21 S: I made it and they helped me make it. In other words, I'm co-operating in this very... 西恩博格：是我建造了它，而人们则帮助我建造了它。 换句话说，在这件事中，我是在配合
30:25 K: You are not co-operating. You are it. 克：你不是在配合。你就是它。
30:28 S: I'm it! Right, but I mean - that's right... the whole thing is moving toward putting me in a hole. 西恩博格：我就是它！没错，这没问题但我的意思是 所有这些东西都在趋向于将我置于一个洞中。
30:35 K: So what made you, the great great great... arrieres, grandparents... created this environment, this culture, this whole structure... of human existence, with all its misery... and with all the mess it's in... who, what has brought it about? Which is the fragmentation with all the conflict and all the… 克：那么，是什么促使你这样做的，你的曾曾曾 祖父母 他们创造出了这种环境，这种文化，这整个的 人类存在的结构，它有着各种痛苦 它陷入于各种混乱之中 那么是谁，是什么，造成了这一切呢？ 那就是这种碎片，它带着所有那些冲突和所有那些
31:02 S: The same action then is now. 西恩博格：那时同样的行动也发生在此刻。
31:05 K: Now. That's all I'm asking. 克：发生在此刻。这就是我在问的东西。
31:07 S: Yes. The same action that makes man now, right now. 西恩博格：是的。正是这种同样的行动造就了现在的人类，造就了此刻的人类。
31:09 K: The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the ancients... we are exactly the same monkeys now. 克：巴比伦人、埃及人、那些古人 我们现在仍旧和猴子没什么两样。
31:15 S: Right. This is what I was getting at in the beginning. This all gives me my second-hand existence. 西恩博格：对。 这就是我一开始的时候所表达的。 这一切造成了我自身的一种‘二手的’存在。
31:28 K: Yes. Proceed. Let's go into it. Let's find out why man has bred... or brought about this state... and which we accept - you follow? gladly and... or unwillingly.

S: Love it. Love it. 		克：是的，让我们继续下去。让我们来探究一下这点。 让我们来搞清楚为什么人类会培育出 或者造就出这种 我们默认接受的状态——你跟上了吗？ 很乐意地……或者说有点勉强地接受了它。

西恩博格：我们喜欢这种状态，我们喜欢它。
31:50 K: I'm willing to kill somebody because he's a Communist... or a socialist, or whatever it is. Exactly what's going on in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East. 克：我会愿意去杀死某人，因为他是一个共产主义者 因为他是一个社会主义者，或者无论什么东西。 这正是北爱尔兰和中东地区在发生的事情。
32:02 S: Well, everywhere, you know, doctors, lawyers... 西恩博格：是的，它无处不在，你知道的，医生和律师
32:05 K: Of course, of course. The same problem. 克：当然了，当然了。那是同样的问题。
32:33 S: My sense of it is that it stops me, it closes me off... it keeps the movement, you know... it's like, the tree doesn't get in. If I know who I'm then I don't look at the tree. 西恩博格：我对此的感觉就是它阻碍了我，它封锁了我 它维持了这种运动，你知道 那就是像是，那棵树并没有收获。 然而如果那时我知道我是谁，我就不会去看那棵树了。
32:53 K: Yes sir, but you are not answering my question. 克：是的，先生，但是你并没有在回答我的问题。
32:58 S: I have some answers, but… 西恩博格：我想到一些答案，但是
33:03 K: Is it the desire for security... biological as well as psychological security? 克：它是不是一种对安全感的渴望？ 生理上的安全感，以及心理上的安全感？
33:14 S: You could say yes. 西恩博格：你可以这么说，是的。
33:17 K: If I belong to something... to some organisation, to some group... to some sect, to some ideological community... I'm safe there. 克：如果我归属于某个东西 归属于某个组织、某个团体 某个教派，某个意识形态上的群体 我在其中就会感到安全了。
33:31 B: That's not clear because you may feel safe but… 博姆：这并不是确凿无疑的，因为你也许感到安全，但是
33:34 K: I feel safe there. But it may not be safety. 克：我在其中感到安全。但那也许并不是安全。
33:37 B: Yes, but why don't I see that I'm not really safe? 博姆：是的，但是为什么我无法看到，我其实并不安全？
33:40 K: Because I'm so - what? It's coming, you go into it, it's coming. 克：因为我是如此的……什么呢？ 答案就快来了，请你去探究它，答案就快来了。
33:49 S: I don't see it.

K: Just look. I join a community… 		西恩博格：我不明白。

克：请看，我加入了一个群体
33:53 S: Right. I'm a doctor.

K: Yes, you are a doctor. 		西恩博格：没错。我是一个医生。

克：是的，你是一个医生。
33:55 S: I got all these ideas. 西恩博格：我有着所有那些关于医生的概念。
33:58 K: You are a doctor, you have a special position in society. 克：你是一个医生，于是你在社会上有了一个特殊的地位。
34:02 S: Right. And I got a lot of ideas of how things work. 西恩博格：对。然后我会有很多很多想法，关于要如何来进行这项工作。
34:05 K: You have a special position in society... and there you are completely safe - safe. 克：你在社会上有着一个特殊的地位 然后你在其中感到彻底的安全——一种安全感。
34:10 S: Right. 西恩博格：没错。
34:11 K: You can malpractice and all the rest of it... but you are very protected... by other doctors, the other organisations… a group of doctors… - You follow? 克：你可以治疗不当，等等这些事情 但是你是受到保护的 被其他医生所保护，被其他的组织 被某一群医生所保护……——你跟上了吗？
34:21 S: Right.

K: You feel secure. 		西恩博格：是这样的。

克：你感到安全。
34:24 B: But it's essential that I shouldn't... enquire too far to feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop my enquiry at a certain point. 博姆：但是我必需不能 太过深入地去询问，那样我就会感到不安全，不是吗？ 换句话说，我的询问只能点到为止。
34:33 K: I'm a doctor - finished. 克：我是一个医生——就到此为止了。
34:34 B: I don't ask many questions about it... but if I started to ask questions... 博姆：我不会询问太多关于医生的问题 但如果我开始询问各种问题的话
34:38 K: ...then you are out! 克：……那么你就出局了！
34:40 B: Then people say 'don't ask questions, that's… 博姆：那时人们就会说：不要再问问题了，这是
34:43 K: If I begin to ask questions about my community... and my relationship to that community... my relationship with the world... my relation to my neighbour... I'm finished. - I'm out of the community. I'm lost. 克：要是我开始对我所属的群体发问 对我和那个群体的关系 我和这个世界的关系 我和我邻居的关系发问的话 那么我就完了。——我会被赶出那个群体。 我会迷失。
34:57 S: That's right. 西恩博格：没错。
34:59 K: So to feel safe, secure, protected, I belong. 克：所以，为了有安全感，为了安全和受保护我归属于某群体
35:06 S: I depend.

K: I depend. 		西恩博格：我依赖它。

克：我依赖它。
35:08 S: Right. 西恩博格：对。
35:10 B: I depend wholly in some sense. If I don't have that then I feel the whole thing is sunk. 博姆：从某种意义上来说，我完全依赖于它。 要是我没有了这种依赖，我会觉得一切事情都崩溃倒塌了。
35:16 S: This is good. You see, not only do I depend but... every problem that I now have... is with reference to this dependency. I don't know from nothing about the patient, I only know about... how the patient doesn't fit into my system. 西恩博格：说的很好。 你瞧，我不仅仅有所依赖，而且 我现在的一切问题 都和这种依赖有关。 我并不是从零开始地去了解我的病人，我只知道 病人是如何没能适合于我的体系的。
35:35 K: Quite, quite.

S: So that's my conflict. 		克：没错，很对。

西恩博格：所以这就是我的矛盾所在。
35:37 K: (Laughs) He is your victim. 克：（笑）病人成了你的受害者。
35:40 S: That's right, my victim. (laughs). He loves that… 西恩博格：没错，他是我的受害者。 （笑）。他就喜欢这样
35:46 B: It's still not clear why I should go on with it. As long as I don't ask questions I can feel comfortable... but I feel uncomfortable and I do ask... questions, very deeply uncomfortable... because the whole of my situation is challenged. But then if I look at it more broadly... I see the whole thing has no foundation... it's all dangerous. In other words... this community itself is in a mess, it may collapse. Or even if the whole of it doesn't collapse... you see, you can't count on... the academic profession anymore... they may not give money for universities... 博姆：我仍然不清楚为什么我还要继续这样下去。 只要我不去提问，我就会感到舒服 但我感到了不安，于是我必须要去发问 我感到了深深的不安 因为我的整个处境位置都遭到了挑战。 然后如果我更开阔地去看一下它的话 我会发现这整件事情是没有根基的 它危险重重。 换句话说 这个社区群体本身就是一团糟的，它会崩溃倒塌。 或者说，哪怕它的整体不会倒塌 你知道，你也无法再去指望 那些学术职业了 人们或许不会再为大学提供经费了
36:25 K: Quite (laughs). 克：很对（笑）。
36:26 B: Everything is changing so fast... that you don't know where you are. So why should I go on with not asking questions? 博姆：每一样事物都在飞快地改变着 以至于你不知道自己身处何方。 所以为什么我还要继续保持沉默不发问呢？
36:35 K: Why don't I ask questions? Because fear. 克：为什么我不发问？那是因为恐惧。
36:38 B: Fear, but that fear is from fragmentation. 博姆：恐惧，而那种恐惧是来自于碎片。
36:40 K: Of course. So is it... the beginning of this fragmentation takes place... when one is seeking security? 克：当然了。所以，它（寻求安全感）是不是 就是这种碎片产生的源头 这种碎片源自于人们对于安全感的追寻。
36:55 S: But why… 西恩博格：可是为什么
36:56 K: Both biologically as well as psychologically. Primarily psychologically, then biologically. 克：追寻生理上和心理上的安全感。 主要是心理上的，然后才是生理上的。
37:05 B: But isn't the tendency to seek... security physically built into the organism? 博姆：然而，那种寻求生理上安全感的倾向 难道不是根植于机体组织之中的吗？
37:09 K: Yes, that's right. It is. I must have food, clothes, shelter. It's absolutely necessary.

S: Right. 		克：是的，没错。是这样的。我必须要有食物、衣服和住所。 这些东西是必不可少的。

西恩博格：对。
37:21 K: And when that is threatened - say if I questioned... the Communist system altogether... living in Russia... I'm a non-person. 克：而当这些东西受到了威胁——比如说，如果我去彻底质疑 共产主义的体系 要是我生活在苏联的话 我就会受到人们排挤。
37:38 S: But let's go a little bit slower here. You are suggesting there that... in my need for security biologically... I must have some fragmentation. 西恩博格：让我们在这里放慢一下脚步。 你在这里所暗示的是 在我对于生理上安全的需求中 我必须要有一些碎片。
37:51 K: No, sir. Biologically fragmentation takes place... the insecurity takes place when psychologically I want security. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. Wait a minute. If I don't psychologically belong to a group... then I'm out of that group. 克：不是的，先生。 生理上的碎片之所以发生 之所以会有生理上的不安全感，是因为我想要心理上的安全感。 我不知道有没有把我的意思表达清楚。等一下 要是我没有在心理上归属于某个团体的话 那么我就脱离那个团体了。
38:23 S: and then I'm insecure.

K: I'm insecure. And because the group gives me security, physical security... I accept everything they give me, say to me. 		西恩博格：然后我就会处于不安全中。

克：我会感到不安全。 因为这个团体给了我安全感，生理上的安全感 我接受了他们所给我的一切，以及他们对我所说的一切。
38:41 S: Right.

K: But the moment I object... psychologically to the structure... of the society or the community, I'm lost. This is an obvious fact. 		西恩博格：没错。

克：然而一旦当我从心理上去反对 社会的结构 或者那个团体的结构，我就会迷失了。 这是一个显而易见的事实。
38:53 S: Right.

B: Yes. 		西恩博格：对。

博姆：是的。
38:56 S: You're suggesting then that... the basic insecurity that we live in... is being conditioned... the response to this, the answer to this... is a conditioned fragmentation. 西恩博格：所以你所表达的意思是 我们所生活于其中的那种最基本的不安全感 是一种受到制约的 我们对于这种不安全的反应，我们对于它的回复 是一种受到制约的碎片。
39:12 K: Partly.

S: Partly. And that the movement of fragmentation is the conditioning. 		克：一部分是。

西恩博格：一部分是。 而那种碎片的运动就是一种制约。
39:19 K: Sir, look. If there was no fragmentation, both historically... geographically, nationally... no nations, we would live perfectly safely. We would all be protected, we would all... have food, we would all have - you follow? houses, there would be no wars, would be all one. He is my brother. I'm him, he is me. But this fragmentation prevents that taking place. 克：先生，请注意。 如果没有分裂碎片——不管是历史上的 地理上的，还是国家上的 如果没有国家，我们就能彻底安全地生活了。 我们都能得到保护，我们都将会有 食物，我们都将会有……——你明白了吗？ 我们都会有房子住，那时将不会有战争，天下大同。 他是我的兄弟。我就是他，他就是我。 但是那种分裂碎片阻止了这一切的发生。
39:54 S: Right. So you're even suggesting more there... you are suggesting that we would help each other. 西恩博格：没错。所以你在这里甚至暗示了更多的东西 你在说的是我们那时将会彼此帮助。
40:03 K: Naturally I would help... - obviously! 克：很自然地我就会去帮助他……——这是显而易见的！
40:07 B: We're going around in a circle though still, because you say... 博姆：我们仍旧在绕圈子，因为你说
40:10 K: I'm not going in circles... I want to get back to something which is... if there were no nationalities... no ideological groups, and so on and so on... we would be perfectly… I mean, we would have everything we want... instead of spending on armaments... all the rest of it, proper education, all that. That's prevented because... I'm a Hindu, you are an Arab, he is a Russian... you follow? - all that's prevented. We are asking... why does this fragmentation take place? What is the source of it? 克：我没有在绕圈子 我想要退回去谈一些东西，那就是 如果没有国家之分 没有意识形态上的群体之分，等等等等 我们就可以完全地 我的意思是，我们将可以获得我们想要的一切 而不是把钱都浪费在军备 等等这些东西上，我们将可以获得适当的教育，等等这些。 然而这一切却被阻止了，因为 我是一个印度人，你是一个阿拉伯人，而他是一个俄国人 你明白了吗？——所有那些事都被阻止了。我们在问的是 这种碎片分裂为何会发生？ 它的源头是什么？
41:06 K: Is it knowledge? Yes, sir! 克：是知识吗？ 是的，先生！
41:20 S: It is knowledge, you think… 西恩博格：它的源头是知识，你觉得是这样的
41:23 K: Is it knowledge? I'm sure it is (laughs)... but I'm putting it as a question. 克：是不是知识？我当然确信它是了（笑） 但我是把它当成一个问题而提出来。
41:32 S: It certainly seems to be... 西恩博格：确实，它看起来好像是
41:34 K: No, no - look into it. Let's find out. 克：不，不，去探究一下它。让我们来把它搞清楚。
41:41 S: What do you mean by knowledge? What are you talking about there? 西恩博格：你所说的知识是什么意思？ 你在这里所谈到的知识指的是什么？
41:45 K: The word 'to know'. Do I know you? Or... I have known you. I can never say... 'I know you' - actually. It would be an abomination to say 'I know you'. I have known you. Because you in the meantime are changing, you have... all your - you follow? there is a great... deal of movement going on in you. 克：这个词指的是‘去了解’。 我了解你吗？ 或者说 我曾经了解你。 我永远不能说 ‘我了解你’——真正地了解你。 说‘我了解你’，这将会令人厌恶。 我只是曾经了解你。 因为在此期间，你在不断改变着，你有着 所有那些……你跟上了吗？有着大量的 运动在你内心发生着。
42:36 K: And to say 'I know you', means... I'm acquainted or intimate... with that movement which is going on in you. It would be impudence on my part to say, 'I know you'. 克：而说‘我了解你’，就意味着 我熟悉了解 你内在所发生着的这种运动，或者说我与这种运动有着亲密的关系。 因此对我而言，说：‘我了解你’，就是一种冒失无礼。
42:49 S: That's right. Because not only that... that would be denying your effect on me... which is causing me, which is a change... from knowing you, from being with you... 西恩博格：说的很对。因为不仅如此 这还会否定你对我所产生的作用 这种作用是一种改变，它使得我 去了解你，去和你在一起
42:57 K: So knowing, to know, is the past. Would you say that… 克：所以知道，以及了解——它们都是过去。 你是这样认为的吗
43:04 B: Yes, I mean what we know is the past… 博姆：是的，我的意思是，我们所知道的那些东西都是属于过去的
43:06 K: Knowledge is the past.

B: I mean the danger is that... we call it the present. Is that it? The danger is that we call knowledge the present. 		克：知识就是过去。

博姆：我想说，危险之处就在于 我们将它称为‘现在’。对吗？ 危险之处就在于我们将知识称为是现在的东西。
43:15 K: That's just it.

B: In other words if we said... the past is the past, then... wouldn't you say it needn't fragment? 		克：正是如此。

博姆：换句话说，如果我们说 过去的东西就是过去的，那么 你是否觉得我们就无需碎片了？
43:25 K: What is that? Sorry.

B: If we said, if we recognised... or we acknowledged that the past is the past, it's gone... therefore what we know is the past... then that would not introduce fragmentation. 		克：你说的是什么意思？抱歉。

博姆：假如我们说，如果我们认识到 或者承认过去就是过去，它已经离去了 因此我们所知道的东西都是过去 那么我们就不会再引入碎片了。
43:35 K: That wouldn't, quite right.

B: But if we say what we know... is what is present now... then we are introducing fragmentation. 		克：就不会再引入碎片了，非常正确。

博姆：但要是我们说，我们所知道的东西 就是当下此刻的东西 那么我们就引入了分裂碎片。
43:42 K: Quite right, quite. 克：很对，说的没错。
43:44 B: Because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole. 博姆：因为我们在把这种局部的知识强加于整体。
43:49 K: So would you say... knowledge is one of the factors of fragmentation? Sir, that's saying an awful - you follow? It's a large pill to swallow! 克：所以，你是不是觉得 知识就是造成碎片的因素之一？ 先生，这种说法有点吓人——你们跟上了吗？ 这颗大药丸有点难以下咽！
44:03 B: But also you are implying there are other factors. 博姆：但你也暗示了还存在着一些其他因素。
44:05 K: Yes. (Laughs) And that may be the only factor. 克：是的。（笑） 但那或许是唯一的因素。
44:12 B: But I think we should look at it... this way, people have hoped... through knowledge to overcome fragmentation… 博姆：但我认为我们应该以这样的方式来看待它 那就是人们一直希望 通过知识来结束这种碎片分裂
44:17 K: Of course. 克：当然了。
44:18 B: …to produce a system of knowledge... that will put it all together. 博姆：……去创造出一个知识体系 从而容纳所有的碎片。
44:21 K: Like in Bronowsky's Ascent of Man... through knowledge, emphasising knowledge, knowledge... Is that not one of the major factors, or perhaps... the factor of fragmentation? 'My experience tells me that I'm a Hindu... my experience tells me I know what god is'. 克：就像在布洛诺斯基的《人的上升》一书中所说的 通过知识的手段，强调知识，各种知识 这难道不是造成分裂碎片的主要因素之一？或者也许是 造成分裂碎片的唯一原因？ ‘我的经验告诉我，我是一个印度人 我的经验告诉我，我知道上帝是什么’。
44:49 B: Wouldn't we better say that... confusion about the role of knowledge... is what is the cause fragmentation? In other words, knowledge itself... if you say knowledge is always the cause… 博姆：我们这样说是不是更好？ 那就是我们混淆了知识所扮演的角色 这是否就是导致分裂碎片的原因？ 换句话说，知识本身是 要是你说知识永远都是导致它的原因
44:59 K: No, I said, we began by asking... 克：不，我说的是，我们在开始的时候问了这个问题
45:02 B: Let's make it clear. 博姆：让我们把这一点澄清一下。
45:03 K: Of course. Sir, that's what we said yesterday in our talk... art is putting things in its right place. So I put knowledge in its right place. 克：当然可以。先生，这就是我们昨天谈话中所讲到的 艺术就是将各种事物置于它正确的位置。 所以我将知识置于它正确的位置。
45:13 B: Yes, so we are not confused about it any more. 博姆：是的，这样我们就不会再对它感到迷惑了。
45:15 K: Of course.

S: Right, right. You know, I was just going to bring in... this interesting example... a patient of mine was teaching me something the other day... She said, I have the feeling that as a doctor... the way you operate is, there is a group of doctors... who have seen certain kinds of patients... and if they do 'X' to them... they will get certain kind of effects... and they achieve things. She says 'you are not talking to me... you are doing this to me hoping you will get this result'. 		克：当然了。

西恩博格：对，没错。 你看，我正想要来讲一讲 这个有趣的例子 我的一位病人前几天教导了我一些东西 她说：‘我觉得作为一名医生 你的操作方式就是：有着一群医生 他们曾经见到过特定种类的病人 而如果他们对这些病人做了某某事情 他们就会得到某些效果 他们会获得成功。 她说：你并不是在和我谈话 你是在对我做某件事情，从而希望可以得到某种结果。’
45:44 K: Quite.

S: That's what you are saying. 		克：没错。

西恩博格：这就是你在说的东西。
45:48 K: No, a little more than that. We are saying, both Dr. Bohm and I... we are saying, knowledge has its place. 克：不，我说的东西要比它多一点。 我们——博姆博士和我——在说的是 我们说知识有它自己的位置。
45:58 S: Let's go into that. 西恩博格：让我们一起来探讨一下它吧。
45:59 K: Like driving a car, learning a language and so on. 克：就像驾驶汽车，学习语言等等这些事情一样。
46:02 B: We could say, why is that not fragmentation? We could make it clear... in other words, if we drive a car using knowledge... that is not fragmentation. 博姆：我们可以问：为什么这些事情不会成为碎片？ 我们来澄清一下它 换句话说，如果我们运用知识来驾驶汽车的话 这并不是一种碎片分裂。
46:10 K: But when knowledge is used psychologically... 克：然而当知识被应用于心理领域时
46:14 B: One should see more clearly what the difference is. The car itself, as I see it, is a part, a limited part... and therefore it can be handled by knowledge. 博姆：我们应该更清楚地看到这其中的区别。 在我看来，汽车本身是一个碎片部分，它是一个有限的部分 因此，你可以用知识来驾驭它。
46:22 S: You mean, it's a limited part of life. 西恩博格：你的意思是，它是生活中的一个有限的部分。
46:25 B: Of life, yes. But when we say 'I am so and so'... I mean the whole of me... therefore I'm applying a part to the whole. I'm trying to cover the whole by a part. 博姆：生活中的一个有限部分，没错。但是当我们说‘我是某某某’的时候 我指的却是全部的我 因此，我是在用局部来指那个整体。 我在试图用局部来涵盖那个整体。
46:33 K: When knowledge assumes it understands the whole... 克：当知识认为自己了解整体时
46:37 B: Yes. 博姆：是的。
46:38 K: ...then begins the mischief.

B: But it's very tricky... because I'm not explicitly spelling out... that I understand the whole, but it's implicit by saying... 'I, everything is this way, or I'm this way'. 		克：……那么痛苦不幸便开始了。

博姆：但是它非常狡猾 因为我不会明说 我了解那个整体，但是它以含蓄的方式说： ‘这就是我的全部了’或者‘我就是这样的’。
46:48 K: Quite. 克：很对。
46:49 B: It implies that the whole is this way. The whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world. 博姆：它暗示着那个整体就是如此。 我的全部，生活的全部，整个世界都是如此。
46:53 S: What Krishnaji was saying, like 'I know you'... that's how we deal with ourselves. We say 'I know this about me'... rather than being open to the new event. Or even being aware of the fragmentation. 西恩博格：克里希那吉在说的是，比如‘我了解你’ 这就是我们对自己所采用的方式。 我们说：‘我知道自己的这些事情’ 而不是向新的事件敞开自己。 我们甚至没有觉察到那种分裂碎片。
47:06 B: Yes, about you then I shouldn't say I know all... because you're not a limited part like a machine is... that's what's implied. The machine is fairly limited and we can know all... that's relevant about it, or almost all anyway... sometimes it breaks down. 博姆：是的，那时，我就不能说我了解你的全部了 因为你并非是像机器一样的有限的部分 这就是其中蕴含的意思。 机器是相当有限的，我们可以知晓一切 与之相关的内容，或者至少是绝大部分的内容 有时候机器会坏掉。
47:19 K: Quite, quite. 克：很对，没错。
47:21 B: But when it comes to another person that is... immensely beyond what you could really know. The past experience doesn't tell you the essence. 博姆：然而当它涉及到另一个人时 这个人大大超出了你所能真正知晓的范畴。 过往的经验并不能告诉你其本质。
47:34 K: Are you saying, Dr. Bohm, that... when knowledge spills over... into the psychological field... 克：博姆博士，你是不是在说 当知识扩散至 心理领域的时候
47:46 B: Well, also in another field... which I call the whole in general. Sometimes it spills over into the philosophical field... when man tries to make a metaphysical view... of the whole universe.

K: That's, of course... that's purely theoretical... and that has no meaning to me personally. 		博姆：是的，它同样也会扩散至另外的领域 那些我通常称之为整体的领域。 有时候它会扩散至哲学领域 比如有人试图创造出一种 关于整个宇宙的形而上学的观点。

克：这当然是 它是纯粹理论化的东西 对我个人而言，它并没有什么意义。
48:03 B: But I mean that's one of the ways in which it does that. It goes wrong. Some people feel that... when they are discussing metaphysics... of the whole universe that's not psychological... it probably is but... the motives behind it are psychological... but some people may feel... that they are making a theory of the universe... not discussing psychology. I think it's a matter of getting the language. 博姆：我的意思是，这是它此类行为中的一种。 这种知识会出错。有些人觉得 当他们讨论整个宇宙的形而上学时 这并不是心理学上的 它也许是，但是 这种形而上学背后的动机是心理上的 但是有人也许会觉得 他们是在创造出一种关于宇宙的理论 而不是在讨论心理学。 我认为这是一个语言上的理解问题。
48:26 K: Language, quite. 克：语言上的，没错。
48:28 S: Well, you see this… what you are saying, or what he is saying... can be extended to the way people are... They have a metaphysics about other people... 'I know all other people are not to be trusted'. 西恩博格：嗯，你会看到这一点 你所说的东西，或者他所说的东西 可以延伸扩展到人们的那种态度方式 他们对于其他人也持有着形而上学的看法 ‘我知道其他所有人都是无法信赖的’。
48:40 K: Quite.

B: You have a metaphysics... about yourself saying, I'm such and such a person. 		克：没错。

博姆：而你对自己也持有某种形而上学的看法 你会说，我是这样或那样的人。
48:44 S: Right. I have a metaphysics that life... is hopeless and I must depend on these… 西恩博格：对。我抱有一种形而上学的看法，那就是生命 是令人绝望的，所以我必须要依赖于那些
48:49 K: No, all that we can say is… we are fragmented... that's a fact - and I'm aware of those fragments… fragmented mind... there is an awareness of the fragmented mind... because of conflict. 克：不，所有我们能够说的就只有：我们是支离破碎的 这是一个事实，而我觉察到了这些碎片 觉察到了那支离破碎的心灵 而我们之所以会觉察到支离破碎的心灵 是因为有冲突。
49:07 S: That's right. 西恩博格：没错。
49:10 B: You were saying before, we have got to have an approach... where we are not aware just because of that. 博姆：你以前曾经说过，我们必须要找到一种 我们自己觉察不到的方式，就是因为这个原因。
49:15 K: Yes. That's right.

B: Are we coming to that? 		克：是的。没错。

博姆：我们现在是不是要谈到这一点了？
49:17 K: Coming, yes. So from there, conflict. I say, what is the source of this conflict? The source is fragmentation, obviously. Now, what brings about fragmentation? What is the cause of this? Behind it. We said, perhaps knowledge. Knowledge, psychologically I use knowledge. 'I know myself'... when I really don't know, because I'm changing, moving. Or I use knowledge for my own satisfaction. For my position, for my success... for becoming a great man in the world. I'm a great scholar... I've read a million books and I can tell you all about it. It gives me a position, a prestige, a status. So is that it... fragmentation takes place when there is a desire... for security, psychological security... which prevents biological security. 克：要谈到了，是的。所以，从那里，我们谈到了冲突。 我问，这种冲突的根源是什么？ 它的根源就是碎片分裂，这是显而易见的。 那么，是什么带来了这种碎片分裂？ 在它背后的，造成它的原因是什么？ 我们说，也许是知识。 知识，我将知识应用在心理领域。 ‘我了解自己’ 但其实我并不了解，因为我处于改变和运动之中。 或者我利用知识来获得我自身的满足， 获得我的地位，我的成功 利用知识来成为这个世界上的一位伟人。 我是一名伟大的学者 我阅读过成千上万的书籍，我可以向你讲述它们的一切。 这带给了我一种地位、声望与身份。 所以，是不是这样 碎片分裂之所以发生，是因为那种对安全感的渴望 那种心理上的安全感 而这种渴望阻止了生理上的安全。
50:42 S: Right. 西恩博格：没错。
50:45 K: You say, right. And therefore... security may be one of the factors. Security in knowledge used wrongly. 克：你认为没错。所以 安全感或许是其中的原因之一。 那种被错误使用的知识中的安全感。
50:56 B: Could you say that some sort of mistake has been made... man feels insecure biologically, and he thinks... what shall I do, and he makes a mistake... in the sense that he tries to obtain... a psychological sense of security by knowledge. 博姆：你是不是想说，人们已经犯下了某种错误 使得自己感到了生理上的不安全感，然后他想 我该怎么做？于是从某种意义上来说，他犯下了一个错误 即他试图通过知识来获得 一种心理意义上的安全感。
51:15 K: By knowledge, yes.

S: By knowing. 		克：通过知识，没错。

西恩博格：通过了解。
51:20 B: Yes.

S: By repeating himself... by depending on all of these structures. 		博姆：是的。

西恩博格：通过重复他自己 通过依赖于所有那些结构。
51:27 K: One feels secure in having an ideal. 克：当有了一个理想时，你会感到安全。
51:30 S: Right. That's so true. 西恩博格：对。说的真对。
51:32 B: You see, but... I always ask... why a person makes this mistake. In other words, if thought… or if the mind had been absolutely clear... it would never have done that. Isn't that right? 博姆：但你知道，我一直在问的是 为什么人会犯这种错误。换句话说，如果思想 或者说心灵是完全清晰的 它就永远不会去做这种事情。难道不对吗？
51:45 S: If the mind had been absolutely clear... but we've just said... that there is biological insecurity. That's a fact. 西恩博格：要是心灵是完全清晰的 但是我们刚刚说了 存在着一种生理上的不安全感。这是一个事实。
51:53 B: But that doesn't imply that you have to delude yourself. 博姆：但这并不意味着你就一定要迷惑欺骗自己。
51:56 K: Quite right. 克：说的很对。
51:58 S: But that implies that the organism... No, that's right, but it implies that that has to be met. 西恩博格：但是这表示那个有机组织 是的，你说的没错，但是它意味着那种不安全感需要得到解决。
52:04 B: Yes, but the delusion doesn't meet it. 博姆：没错，可是那种错觉欺骗并不能解决这种不安全感。
52:07 S: Right. That's the nub of the issue. 西恩博格：对。这就是这个问题的要点所在。
52:10 K: Go on further, you can see... 克：继续深入下去，你就会发现
52:11 S: I mean there's that biological fact... of my constant uncertainty. The biological fact of constant change. 西恩博格：我的意思是，存在着这种生理上的事实 即我常常会有一种不安定感。 这是一个生理上的事实，即改变总是在不断发生着。
52:20 K: That's created through psychological fragmentation. 克：它是心理上的碎片所制造出来的。
52:27 S: My biological uncertainty? 西恩博格：你说的‘它’，指的是我生理上的不安定感吗？
52:29 K: Of course. I may lose my job... I may have no money tomorrow. 克：当然了。我也许会失去我的工作 我明天也许会变得一贫如洗。
52:36 B: Now, let's look at that... I may have no money tomorrow. You see, that may be an actual fact, now... but the question is what happens. What would you say... if the man were clear, what would be his response? 博姆：那么，让我们来看一下它 我明天也许会变得一贫如洗。 你知道的，这或许是一个确切的事实，那么 但问题是：会发生什么呢？ 你对此有什么看法—— 假如一个人是很清晰的，那么他对此会有怎样的反应呢？
52:49 K: You would never be put in that position. 克：你是永远不会身处于这种情况的。
52:52 B: He wouldn't get there in the first place. But suppose he finds himself without money. 博姆：首先，他不会沦落到那个地步。 但是假设他发现自己没钱了。
52:58 K: He would do something. 克：那么他就会去做一些事情。
52:59 B: He will do something. His mind won't just go to pieces. 博姆：他会去做一些事。但他的心灵不会分裂成碎片。
53:02 K: Go in nightmarish circles. 克：不会进入那种恶梦般的循环。
53:04 S: He won't have to have all the money he thinks he has to have. 西恩博格：他并不需要得到他认为自己必须要拥有的所有的钱。
53:07 B: But aside from that he won't go into this well of confusion. 博姆：但是除此之外，他并不会陷入于这种混乱困惑的状态中。
53:09 K: No, absolutely. 克：不会，绝对不会。
53:11 S: I mean the problem 99% of the time, is that... we all think we need more... we have this ideal of what we should have. 西恩博格：我的意思是，这个问题99%的时候在于 我们都觉得自己需要更多 对于自己应该拥有什么，我们怀揣着一种理想。
53:18 K: No, sir. We are trying to stick... to one point, which is... What is the cause of this fragmentation? 克：不，先生。我们正在努力去 紧扣住一个要点，那就是 造成这种分裂碎片的原因是什么？
53:26 K: We said knowledge spilling over... into the field where it should not enter. 克：我们说那是因为知识扩散到了 它本不应该进入的领域。
53:33 B: But why does it do so? 博姆：但为什么它会这样做呢？
53:34 K: Why does it do it? It's fairly simple. 克：为什么它要这么做？这很简单。
53:37 B: Why? 博姆：为什么？
53:39 K: We've got another 5, 6 minutes more. It's fairly simple. Go on, sir. 克：我们还有五六分钟的时间可以聊。 这是相当简单的。 继续，先生。
53:49 S: My sense of it is, from what we've been saying, it does it... It does it in a delusion of security. It thinks that there is… thought creates the illusion that there is security there. 西恩博格：从我们之前所说的来看，我对此的感觉是，它做这件事 它是在一种安全感的错觉中去这样做的。 它认为那里存在着 思想创造出了这种幻觉：觉得那里存在着安全。
54:06 B: Yes, but why doesn't intelligence show... that there is no security, it's not clear. 博姆：是的，但为什么智慧没有告诉它 那里并没有安全，告诉它说它并不是清楚明白的。
54:10 S: Why doesn't intelligence show it? 西恩博格：为什么智慧不告诉它这些呢？
54:13 K: Can a fragmented mind be intelligent? 克：一颗支离破碎的心灵会是智慧的吗？
54:16 B: Well, it resists intelligence. 博姆：嗯，它会抗拒智慧。
54:18 K: It can pretend to be intelligent. 克：它可以假装自己是智慧的。
54:21 B: Yes. But are you saying that once... the mind fragments then intelligence is gone? 博姆：没错。但你是不是在说，一旦 心灵变得支离破碎，那么智慧就消失了？
54:25 K: Yes.

B: But now that... 		克：是的。

博姆：但既然是这样的话
54:27 S: He said 'yes'. 西恩博格：他刚才说‘是的’。
54:29 B: But now you are creating a serious problem... because you are also saying that... there can be an end to fragmentation. 博姆：但现在你就带来了一个很严重的问题 因为你也说过，那就是 这种支离破碎是可以结束的。
54:37 K: That's right. 克：没错。
54:39 B: At first sight that would seem to be a contradiction. Is that clear?

K: It looks like that but it's not. 		博姆：乍看之下似乎是矛盾的。 我表达清楚了吗？

克：看起来像是矛盾的，但其实不是。
54:45 S: All I know is fragmentation. That's what I have got. 西恩博格：所有我知道的只有那种分裂碎片。这就是我所拥有的东西。
54:49 K: Let's stick to it and see if it can end. We go through it. 克：所以让我们紧扣它，看看这种分裂碎片能否结束。我们来彻底探讨一下它。
54:53 S: I'm… 西恩博格：我觉得
54:54 B: But if you say the fragmented mind cannot... intelligence cannot operate there. 博姆：可是如果你说，那个支离破碎的心灵无法 智慧是无法在它那里运作的。
55:01 K: No

S: I feel like one answer... to your question is that, we've talked about it... in terms of conditioning. I feel like I'm a victim... or I'm caught by this offering. You offer me, you tell me 'Look, old boy... I think this can help you, here is a fragment, come along'. And I feel like thought does that, you know. My mother or... my father says 'Look, it's good to be a doctor'... or this one says it's good to go to do this. 		克：不是这样的。

西恩博格：我想说对于你的问题 有一种回答，那就是我们曾经 从环境制约的角度讨论过它……我感觉自己像是一个受害者 或者说我被这种‘施加’所困。 你向我‘施加’了一些东西，你告诉我说：‘瞧吧，老朋友 我觉得这个可以帮助你，这里有一个碎片，一起来探讨下它吧’。 而我觉得是思想在做这件事，你知道的，我的母亲或者 我的父亲说：‘注意，成为一名医生是很好的’ 或者某人说：做这件事是很好的。
55:36 K: Is psychological security more important... than biological security? 克：心理上的安全感是不是要比 生理上的安全感更加重要？
55:43 S: That's an interesting question.

K: Go on, don't make it… We've got five minutes - come to it. 		西恩博格：这是一个很有趣的问题。

克：继续下去，不要再 我们还剩下五分钟——请直接回答它。
55:49 S: No, well, one thing... we are convinced somehow, I think the society... 西恩博格：不，好吧，有一件事 我们多少是能够确信的，我认为这个社会
55:53 K: No, I'm asking - don't move away from the question - I'm asking... Is psychological security... much more important than physical security... biological security?

S: It isn't but it feels like it is. 		克：不，我在问的是——请不要偏离这个问题——我在问 心理上的安全感是不是 要比生理上的安全感 比生物学上的安全感重要的多？

西恩博格：它并非如此，但是它希望是这样的。
56:05 K: No, no, don't move away from it. I'm asking you. Stick to it. To you. 克：不，不，不要偏离这个问题。 我在问你，所以紧扣这个问题。问问你自己。
56:10 B: Are you asking, what is the fact… 博姆：你是不是在问：真相究竟是什么？
56:12 K: What is the fact. 克：真相是什么？
56:13 S: I would say yes, that psychological security seems... 西恩博格：我想说：是的。心理上的安全感似乎
56:17 K: Not, now don't…

B: What is actually true? 		克：不，现在，请不要去……

博姆：究竟哪一个才是正确的？
56:20 S: Actually true, no. Biological security is more important. 西恩博格：千真万确，那不对。生理上的安全感才是更重要的。
56:25 K: Biological - are you sure? 克：生理上的安全感——你确定吗？
56:30 S: No. I've turned it around. I think psychological security is what actually I worry about most. 西恩博格：不，我又改变想法了。 我认为心理上的安全感才是我真正最为担忧的东西。
56:37 K: Psychological security. 克：心理上的安全感。
56:39 S: That's what I worry about most. 西恩博格：它才是我最为担忧的东西。
56:41 K: Which prevents biological security. 克：正是它阻止了生理上的安全感。
56:43 S: Right. I forget about biological security. 西恩博格：对。我忘记了生理上的安全。
56:46 K: No, no. Because I'm seeking psychological security in ideas... in knowledge, in pictures, in images... in conclusions, all the rest of it... which prevents me from having... biological, physical security for me... for my son, for my children, for my brothers. I can't have it. Because psychological security says I'm a Hindu... a blasted little somebody in a little corner. 克：不，不是。 因为我在四处寻找心理上的安全感，在各种理念中寻找它 在知识、画像、形象 结论，等等这些东西中寻找它 而这阻止了我去获得 生物学上的、生理上的安全——我自己的安全 我儿子的安全，我孩子们的安全，我兄弟的安全。 我无法拥有这种安全。 因为那种心理上的安全感在说：‘我是一个印度人 一个该死的躲在不起眼角落里的无名小卒。’
57:21 S: No question. I do feel that psychological... 西恩博格：没什么问题。我的确觉得心理上的
57:24 K: So, can we be free of the desire to be psychologically secure? 克：所以，我们能否摆脱想要获得心理上安全感的渴望？
57:36 S: That's right. That's the question. 西恩博格：没错。这就是问题所在。
57:39 K: Of course it is. 克：当然了。
57:41 S: That's the nub of it. 西恩博格：这就是要点所在。
57:46 K: Last night I was listening to some people about Muggeridge… one of them was holding, who was the chairman... and they were all talking about Ireland, various things. Each man was completely convinced, you know. 克：昨晚我在听一些人谈论马格里奇 他们其中一人在主持这次谈话，他是会议的主席 他们都在谈论关于爱尔兰的事，以及其他各种事情。 每一个人都是如此的深信不疑，你知道的。
58:06 S: That's right. I sit in on meetings every week. Each man thinks his territory is the most important. 西恩博格：没错。我每周都会去旁听那些会议。 每个人都认为他的领域才是最为重要的。
58:14 K: So, we have given… man has given more importance... to psychological security than to biological, physical security. 克：所以，我们已经赋予了 人类已经赋予了心理安全感更重要的地位 它超过了生物学上的、生理上的安全感。
58:25 B: Yes, but it's not clear why he should delude himself in this way. 博姆：是的，但我还是不清楚为什么他就要以这种方式来欺骗他自己？
58:29 K: He has deluded himself... Why? The answer is there. Why? We've got two minutes more. We will have to stop… 克：他欺骗了他自己 为什么呢？答案就在那里了。为什么？ 我们还剩下两分钟。我们不得不结束了
58:39 S: Images, power… 西恩博格：为了形象、权力
58:40 K: No, sir, much deeper. Why has he given importance? 克：不，先生，更深入一些。为什么他要赋予它重要性？
58:45 S: He seems to think that - we, not he - we seem to think... that's where security is, that that's most important. 西恩博格：他似乎觉得——是我们，而不是‘他’——我们似乎觉得 这里就是安全感存在的地方，它是最重要的东西。
58:53 K: No. Look more into it. The 'me' is the most important thing. 克：不。请更深入地去探究它。 那个‘我’就是最重要的东西。
59:07 S: Right. That's the same thing. 西恩博格：没错。这是同一回事。
59:10 K: No, no - me! my position, my happiness... my money, my house, my wife - me. 克：不，不是，我说的是‘我’！ 我的地位、我的幸福 我的钱、我的房子、我的妻子——我。
59:19 S: Me. 西恩博格：我。
59:21 B: Yes. And isn't it that each person... feels he is the essence of the whole. The 'me' is the very essence of the whole. I would feel that if the 'me' were gone... the rest wouldn't mean anything. 博姆：是的。每一个人难道不都是 觉得他就是整体中的重要实质吗？ 觉得那个‘我’就是整体的本质。 要是那个‘我’没有了，我会觉得 其他的一切都没什么意义了。
59:30 K: That's the whole point! The 'me' gives me complete security, psychologically. 克：这就是重点所在！ 那个‘我’给我带来了心理上彻底的安全感。
59:36 B: It seems all-important.

K: Of course. 		博姆：它看起来是无比重要的。

克：当然了。
59:38 S: All-important.

B: Yes, because people say... if I'm sad then the whole world has no meaning. Right? 		西恩博格：无比重要。

博姆：是的，因为人们会说 要是我悲伤不已，那么整个世界都没有意义了。对吗？
59:43 S: It's not only that, but it's... I'm sad if the 'me' is not important. 西恩博格：不仅如此，而且 要是那个‘我’是不重要的话，我还会感到难过。
59:50 K: No, I don't… We are saying the 'me'… in the 'me' is the greatest security. 克：不，我没有在 我们在说那个‘我’ 在那个‘我’中，就有着极大的安全感。
1:00:00 S: Right. That's what we think. 西恩博格：对。这就是我们的想法。
1:00:03 K: No, not we think. It is so. 克：不，这并不是我们的想法。事实就是如此。
1:00:06 B: What do you mean, it is so? 博姆：你说‘事实就是如此’，是什么意思？
1:00:07 K: In the world what is happening.

B: That's what is happening. But it's a delusion, which is happening, right? 		克：它就是世界上正在发生的事情。

博姆：这就是正在发生的事情。 但是这正在发生的事情，它是一种错觉幻想，不是吗？
1:00:12 K: We'll come to that later.

B: Yes. 		克：我们之后会来讨论它的。

博姆：好的。
1:00:14 S: I think that's a good point. That it's so that the 'me' is... I like that way of getting at it... - the 'me' is what is important. That's all that is!

K: That's all, psychologically. 		西恩博格：我认为这是很好的一点。事实就是如此，那就是这个‘我’是 我喜欢以这样的方式去理解它 ——即‘我’才是重要的东西。 这就是它的全部了！

克：这就是全部了，从心理上来说。
1:00:25 S: Psychologically. 西恩博格：从心理上来说。
1:00:28 K: Me, my country; me, my god; me, my house, and so on... 克：我，我的国家；我，我的上帝；我，我的房子，等等
1:00:31 S: It's very hard to let that in, you know… 西恩博格：要完全接纳这一点是非常难的，你知道
1:00:33 K: So, it's twelve o'clock, we had better stop. 克：好了，已经十二点了，我们到此为止吧。
1:00:35 S: (Laughs) At least we have got your point. 西恩博格：（笑）至少我们总算是明白了你的意思。
1:00:37 B: Right. 博姆：是的。