Krishnamurti Subtitles
|
BR7879CBS2 - 有没有一种没有自我的心灵状态？
|
|
| 0:22 Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, you wanted to start. | 0:22 克里希那穆提：好的，先生。 你想开始。 |
| 0:26 Walpola Rahula: This morning and this afternoon I want to ask you three or four things to clarify to me. And for a long time these questions... | 0:26 沃尔波拉· 拉胡拉： 今天上午和下午， 我想向您请教 并澄清三四个问题。 长期以来，这些问题...... |
| 0:41 K: Speak a little louder, sir. | 0:41 K：请大点儿声。 |
| 0:44 WR: ...were on my mind, and very often I thought of you to meet you and to discuss these things, not in a place like this but privately between you and me, but it was not possible to get this opportunity, and now ultimately I am grateful to Mr Narayan for arranging this. We continued yesterday about something, I think you were telling the last thing, I think it was about greed and as a bad thing; the idea is given by words, but if you see it without the word, it may not be the same thing. 1:30 And of course that is quite so because the thing itself has no word when you see the thing. In Buddhist terminology there are three levels of knowledge: one is Shrutabhi Pradnya – that is that we get wisdom, certain knowledge through learning, the books, the teacher; then there is further development, Chintamayi Pradnya: that is the wisdom that you get by thinking, meditating according to that, your knowledge, still within words, it is still within language; but the highest wisdom is Bhavanamayi Pradnya which goes beyond words, it has no word, it has no name, it has no terminology. 2:44 That means there you see the thing without a word. I think that is what you meant when you said, when you see the thing, all our reflections, accumulated meanings, disappear. That is how I understood it. I don’t know whether that is what you meant. | 0:44 拉：……萦绕在我的脑海中， 我常常想到您—— 想和您见面 讨论这些问题， 不是在这种地方， 而是你我私下里。 我一直没有这个机会， 直到今天， 感谢纳拉扬先生的安排。 我们昨天谈了一些问题。 我想您最后谈的， 我想是关于贪婪， 和把贪婪当坏事看； 观念是语言描述出来的， 但不用语言去看， 则可能不是一回事。 1:30 当然，确实是这样的。 因为你看什么时， 那个东西本身并没有语言。 佛教术语有三个层次的知识—— 一个是听闻智慧—— 我们从书本和 老师那里得到的智慧和 某些知识； 进一步， 是思考智慧， 这是你根据 自己的知识，靠思考、 冥想获得的智慧， 这种智慧仍然属于语言， 属于语言范畴； 但最高智慧是禅定智慧， 这种智慧超越了语言， 没有语言， 没有名字，没有术语。 2:44 这意味着，在这个层次， 你只是看，而不置一词。 我想这就是您说的： 当你看到那个东西时， 我们所有印象，各种事情的含意， 这些积累就都消失了。 我是这么理解的。 我不知道您是不是这个意思。 |
| 3:17 K: Perhaps we will go into it, sir, but you also said you would like to ask some other questions. | 3:17 克：也许我们 可以探讨一下，先生。 不过，您说过， 您还有其他一些问题。 |
| 3:24 WR: That’s right. That is very interesting. I am very grateful to you for that. | 3:24 拉：是的。那些问题非常有趣。 非常感谢您。 |
| 3:31 K: Not at all, sir. | 3:31 克：没什么，先生。 |
| 3:33 WR: These are things which have been on my mind for a long time. Sir, you know the word Arhant, in Buddhist terminology. Arhant is the one who has realised the truth, who is liberated, who is free, and that is a very well-known term. And the question was put to the Buddha, very often, by his disciples and by various people: what happens to an Arhant after his death? And then that man asked, ‘Does he exist after his death? ’ The Buddha said, ‘No’. ‘Then he does not exist. ’ The Buddha said, ‘No’. ‘Then he exists and does not exist’. Buddha said, ‘No’. 4:32 ‘Then he does not exist, nor not exist’. These are the Chatushkoti, the four corners. He said, ‘No’. None of those terms, exist or does not exist, is or is not, can be applied to that state. All those terms, relative, dualistic terms, are used only within our knowledge, within our experience, within empirical world. But this is beyond that, therefore you can’t apply any of those words. This answer is everywhere; in many places he was asked these questions, and what do you say to this? He said that you can’t say exist, or not exist. | 3:33 拉：长期以来，这些问题 一直萦绕在我的脑海里。 先生，您知道， 佛教术语中阿罗汉这个词。 阿罗汉已经认识到真理， 获得解脱， 是自由的人， 这个词家喻户晓。 佛陀弟子和其他众人 经常问这个问题： 阿罗汉死后会发生什么？ 那人问, “他死后还存在吗？ ” 佛陀说，“不存在”。 “那他不存在。 ” 佛陀说，“不是”。 “那他既存在又不存在”。 佛陀说，“不是”。 4:32 “那他既不存在， 也不是不存在”。 这是Chatushkoti， 四角逻辑。 他都回答“不”。 这些说法，存在或不存在， 是或不是， 都无法用于说明那种状态。 所有这些都是相对的、 二元的说法， 只能用于我们的知识、 经历和经验领域。 而这种状态超越了那个领域， 因而无法用那些词来描述。 佛陀的这种回答随处可见， 人们在很多地方都问过 他这些问题， 对此您怎么看？ 他认为你不能说存在或不存在。 |
| 5:35 K: Could we talk over together, sir, what is living and what is dying, and what is the state of the mind that is dead, or in the process of dying? Could my putting it that way be a help to answering the question? | 5:35 克：先生，我们可不可以 讨论一下， 什么是生，什么是死， 死去或正在死去的心灵 是个什么状态？ 我这样说有助于 回答这个问题吗？ |
| 6:15 WR: I don’t know. | 6:15 拉：我不知道。 |
| 6:17 K: You see, after all Arhat is known also I believe in Indian thought, Hindu thought, because, not that I have read any books but I have discussed. Human beings right throughout the world, as far as one can make out, are always enquiring or believing into what is death, is there life after death, is there a continuity, and if there is no continuity, what is the point of living at all? Life is such a dreadful affair anyhow, with a lot of trouble, anxieties, fears, and so on, so on, if there is no reward for living properly, correctly, what’s the point of being good, kind, noble, etc.? Could we approach your question from that point of view? Or do you want to ask what is the state of a mind that has no self whatsoever? | 6:17 克：你看，毕竟阿罗汉， 我认为，也存在于印度人的思想里， 印度思想里， 这个我不是从书里读到的， 而是讨论过。 就我所知，全世界的人 都一直在询问或者相信 死亡是什么， 是否有来生， 是否存在延续， 如果没有延续， 活着究竟有什么意义？ 无论如何，生活如此可怕， 充满了困扰、焦虑、恐惧等等， 如果过正确的生活 而得不到回报， 那么做好人，友善，高尚， 等等，又有什么用？ 我们从这个角度 讨论你的问题好吗？ 还是说，你想问的是， 没有任何自我的心灵 是个什么状态？ |
| 8:04 WR: That’s right, that’s right, that is an Arhant. | 8:04 拉：对，对， 这就是阿罗汉。 |
| 8:07 K: That is what I want to get at. | 8:07 克：我想谈的就是这个。 |
| 8:09 WR: That’s right, that’s correct. | 8:09 拉：对，是这个。 |
| 8:11 K: Yes. Could we go into that, that way? | 8:11 克：好。 我们这样讨论一下好吗？ |
| 8:17 WR: I think that is a good approach because that is an Arhant who has no self whatsoever. | 8:17 拉：我觉得这样谈很好， 毫无自我，就是阿罗汉。 |
| 8:27 K: Is that possible? We are enquiring. | 8:27 克：这是可能的吗？ 我们在询问。 |
| 8:30 WR: Yes. | 8:30 拉：是的。 |
| 8:31 K: I am not saying it is, or it is not, we are enquiring, proceeding through exploration and finding out, not believing or not believing. So what is the self? The name, the form – just a minute, sir, let me enquire, we are enquiring. The form, the body, the organism, the name, the name identifies itself with the body, certain characteristics identifying itself with the ‘me’, I am strong, I am weak, I have got a good character, I am not bad. So the characteristic is identified by thought as the ‘me’. The tendency is identified by thought as the ‘me’. The experiences, the accumulated knowledge is identified by thought as the ‘me’, and the ‘me’ is that which I possess, my property, my house, my furniture, my wife, my books. 10:09 All that – the violence, the pleasure, the fear, the agonies – all that with the name, with the form, identification, constitutes the self. So what is the root of the self? Is the root of the self the acquired experiences – I am enquiring, sir – the acquired experiences – we are enquiring into the very root of it, not the mere expressions of it. Right, sir? Am I alright? I want to laugh a bit! | 8:31 克：我不是说可能， 或不可能，我们是在询问， 依靠探询来弄清楚， 不是相信或不相信。 那么，什么是自我？ 名字、外貌 ——等一下，先生， 我先问一下，我们是在问。 外貌、身体、生物体、 名字， 名字认同了身体， 认同了某些性格， 认同了“我”， 我很强壮，我很孱弱， 我性格和蔼，我不坏。 所以，思想将性格认同为“我”。 思想将性情偏好认同为“我”。 思想将经验、知识积累 认同为“我”， 而“我”就是我占有的东西， 我的财产，我的房子， 我的家具，我的妻子，我的书。 10:09 所有这些—— 暴力、快乐、恐惧、痛苦 ——所有这些 连同名字、外形、认同 构成了自我。 那么，自我的根源是什么？ 自我的根源 是我们获得的经验吗 ——我是在询问，先生—— 获得的经验 ——我们是在探询其根源本身， 而不只是这个说法。 对吗，先生？ 没问题吧？ 我想笑一笑。 |
| 11:18 WR: Yes, that is very important. | 11:18 拉：是的，这很重要。 |
| 11:31 K: So the whole process of identification – my house, my name, my possessions, what I will be, the success, the power, the position, the prestige. The identification process is the essence of the self. If there is no identification, is there the self? You understand, sir? | 11:31 克：所以，整个认同过程 ——我的房子，我的名字， 我的财产， 我将成为什么，成功， 权力、地位、声望。 自我实质就是认同。 没有认同，还会有自我吗？ 你明白吗，先生？ |
| 12:13 WR: Yes, sir, I follow. | 12:13 拉：是的，先生，我明白。 |
| 12:16 K: So can this identification come to an end? Which is, the identification is the movement of thought. If thought didn’t say, that is my furniture, identifying itself with that because it gives it pleasure, position, security – all that, so the root of the self is the movement of thought. Would you... | 12:16 克：那么，这种认同能结束吗？ 也就是说，认同是思想活动。 假如思想不说， 这是我的家具， 不因其提供了快乐、 地位、安全等等 而认同那些东西。 所以，自我的根源是 思想活动。 您是否 |
| 13:02 WR: Yes. Yes. | 13:02 拉：明白。明白。 |
| 13:11 K: So death is the ending of that movement. Or is death a continuity of that movement into the next life? You understand? | 13:11 克：所以，死亡是结束那种思想活动， 还是说，死亡是那种 思想活动延续到来生？ 你明白吗？ |
| 13:28 WR: Fully. Quite. | 13:28 拉：完全明白。 |
| 13:31 K: Arhant, or the Arhat, or the liberated man, why should he wait till the end, till he reaches that which is called death? So, when we realise the very root of the self is the movement of thought in time, in distance, from here to there, and all the conflicts, miseries, confusions, created by thought – right, sir? – is the self. So when thought comes to an end – that is a form of death while living. | 13:31 克：阿罗汉、罗汉或解脱者， 为何要等到最后， 直到他走到这个阶段， 也就是人们所说的死？ 所以，我们认识到 自我的根源就是思想 跨越时间、距离， 从这到那的活动， 而思想造成的所有冲突、不幸、混乱 ——对吗，先生—— 就是自我。 所以，思想结束时 ——这就是活着时的一种死亡。 |
| 14:43 WR: Yes. | 14:43 拉：是的。 |
| 14:45 K: Right? | 14:45 克：对吗？ |
| 14:47 K: Now, can thought come to an end? To bring that about, or wanting thought to end, we meditate, we practise, we are aware, we go through all the tortures of so-called meditation. Right, sir? Would you agree to that? | 14:47 克：那么，思想能停下来吗？ 我们想让思想停下来， 便去冥想、修炼、觉察， 我们经受所谓冥想的 种种折磨。 对吗，先生？ 这个您同意吗？ |
| 15:18 WR: Popular religion. | 15:18 拉：那是大众的宗教。 |
| 15:21 K: No, no. You see – please, sir, if I may point out, the ordinary man is not interested in all this. Right? He wants his beer, whatever he wants, he is not interested in all this because, perhaps, wrong education, social conditions, economic position, environmental influences, and maybe the religions have helped to keep the man down there, popular, the elite are somewhere else – the pope, the cardinals. You follow? So I wouldn’t, if I may point out, sir, I wouldn’t say ‘popular’. 16:24 It is the human tendency, that is all we are talking about. Every human being has identified himself and so conditioned himself with something or other, with god, with nirvana, with moksha, with heaven, with paradise and so on. Now, while living, can that death, which is the end of thought, take place? Not at the end of one’s life which then is a graveyard renunciation. There is no meaning. | 15:21 克：不，不。 你看——容我指出，先生， 常人对这些根本不感兴趣。 对吗？ 他想喝他的啤酒， 不管是什么吧， 对此他毫无兴趣， 也许是由于错误的教育， 社会的熏陶， 经济状况，环境影响， 也许宗教有助于让那个人 安于底层，大众阶层， 而让精英阶层过另一种生活 ——那些教皇、红衣主教。 你明白吗？ 所以，我不想，容我指出， 先生，我不想用“大众”一词。 16:24 这是人类都有的倾向， 我们谈的就是这个。 每个人都认同 这样那样的事物， 并以此塑造自己， 或者是神，或者是涅槃， 或者是解脱、天国、 天堂等等。 那么，我们能在活着时 就死去，也就是结束思想吗？ 不是在人生的终点， 在墓地里不得不放弃。 那没有任何意义。 |
| 17:14 WR: May I agree with you when you said it is not necessary to wait till the end of your life, till death, and Buddha pointed out the same thing. When this question was put to him, the question was asked also what will happen to the Buddha after his death. He asked the disciple, ‘What is Buddha? Is it this body?’ – like you said, the name, the form, all this. Exactly what you said, form and name in Buddhist terminology is called the Naamrupa. | 17:14 拉：我同意您说的， 不必等到生命最后， 快死的时候， 佛陀同样也讲过这个问题。 有人问过他这个问题， 这个问题也有人问过， 佛陀死后会怎样。 他问弟子， “什么是佛？ 是这具躯体吗？ ——就像您说的， 名字、外形，等等。 确切地讲，你说的外形、名字， 用佛教术语来说， 就是Naamrupa（名相）。 |
| 17:57 K: Naamrupa, that is in Sanskrit too. | 17:57 克：Naamrupa， 这在梵语里也有。 |
| 18:05 WR: And the disciple said, ‘No’. Then you can’t pin-point the Buddha even now, living, then how can you say after death? | 18:05 拉：弟子答道，“不是”。 你要是现在，佛陀活着时， 都无法确认佛陀是什么， 那么你怎能 知道他死后的事呢？ |
| 18:18 K: Sir, if I may ask, I hope you don’t think me impudent, why do we bring in the Buddha? We are talking as human beings. | 18:18 克：先生，请容许我问一下， 望不至以为我无礼， 我们为何要把佛陀搬进来？ 我们是人和人谈话。 |
| 18:28 WR: Just because I raised the question from the Buddha’s point of view. | 18:28 拉：只是我是从佛陀的角度 提这个问题的。 |
| 18:33 K: Ah, no, as a human being, I want to know what happens after death. Or what is the significance of death. Or can one live in daily life, not as a monk, as a saint, all that stuff, daily life, without the self? | 18:33 克：啊，不，我是一个人， 我想知道死后会怎样。 死亡有什么意义。 我们能否在平日里， 不是当和尚，做圣人， 如此等等， 能否毫无自我地过日子？ |
| 19:04 WR: Of course my question was not that. The person who has realised the truth, who has become liberated, free, to him, what happens. That is the question. | 19:04 拉：显然，我问的不是这个。 一个人，如果认识到真理， 已经解脱了，自由了， 他会发生什么情况。 是这个问题。 |
| 19:20 K: I would never ask that question because he might say this happens or he might say that happens, or nothing happens. Then it becomes a theory to me, which is an idea. | 19:20 克：我绝不会问这个问题， 他也许会说，发生了这个， 发生了那个，什么都没发生。 那对我来说就成了理论， 也就是观念。 |
| 19:44 WR: I wanted from you a little more than that. | 19:44 拉：我想从您那里 稍微多知道一点儿。 |
| 19:48 K: Ah, you want from me. | 19:48 克：啊，想从我这里。 |
| 19:51 WR: Not a theory. | 19:51 拉：不是理论。 |
| 19:54 K: If you want it from this person who is talking, you have to enquire as he is enquiring. And therefore he asks, is it possible to live in daily life, not at the end of one’s existence, a daily life without this identification process? which brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which is the result of thought? Can the movement of thought end while I am living? That is the question, rather than what happens when I die. The ‘me’ is merely a movement of thought. 21:04 Thought itself is very limited. Right? It is a piece in a vast movement, it is a small piece, broken up. So as long as thought, limited, a broken up thing, a fragment, whatever it creates, will still be limited, broken up, fragmentary. Right? So can a human being, you or I or any of us, can we live without the movement of thought, which is the essence of the self? Suppose, I say, yes, it can be done – what value has it to you? | 19:54 克：你要想从讲话的 这个人那里知道， 你就必须在他探询的时候 也去探询。 所以，他问， 我们能否在日常生活中， 不是在生命的最后， 而是在平日里 没有这种认同？ 认同导致了自我， 这个思想产物的 这种结构和性质。 我能在活着时 就结束思想活动吗？ 是这个问题， 而不是我死时会怎样。 “我”不过是 思想活动而已。 21:04 思想本身是非常有限的。 对吗？ 它是广阔运动中的一个片段， 一个小小的片段，而且是破碎的。 所以，只要思想是有限的， 是破碎的，是个片段， 那么，不论它想出什么， 都依然是有限、 破碎而分裂的。 对吗？ 所以，一个人， 你、我、任何人， 我们能否活着而 没有思想活动， 思想活动就是自我的本质。 假设，我说，对， 这个能做到 ——这对你有什么用？ |
| 22:18 Irmgard Schloegl: Once that identification is really broken, once that identification of thought and ‘me’ is really broken... | 22:18 伊尔姆加德·施洛格： 一旦真的打破那种认同， 一旦真的打破 对思想和“我”的认同 |
| 22:33 K: Ah, no, not broken, end. | 22:33 克：啊，不，不是打破，是结束。 |
| 22:35 IS: That is what I mean, ended. | 22:35 施：我就是这个意思，结束。 |
| 22:37 K: When you break something it can continue, but it is an ending. | 22:37 克：你打破什么时， 那个东西可以继续存在， 可是，这个是结束。 |
| 22:43 IS: It can never come back in the same way again, it is an irrevocable ending. | 22:43 施：它再也不会故态重萌， 这是不可逆转的结束。 |
| 22:49 K: All I am saying is, suppose, the speaker, this person says, yes, it is possible, I know it is possible, then what? What value has it to you? | 22:49 克：我说的就是， 假设，讲话者，这个人说， 对，这是可能的， 我知道这是可能的，然后会怎样？ 那对你有什么用？ |
| 23:07 IS: That is what personally I hope we can discuss. | 23:07 施：这就是我个人希望 可以讨论一下的问题。 |
| 23:10 K: I am coming to that. What value is that to you? Either you accept it, or you say, don’t be silly and walk away, as it is not possible, and you leave it. But if you want to enquire and say, look, is it possible, let’s find out – not as an idea, but as an actuality in daily life. Right, sir? Right. Somebody join us! | 23:10 克：我这就谈到。 那对你有什么用？ 要么，你接受了这句话， 要么你说，别犯傻， 然后就走开了， 因为那是不可能的， 所以你就离开了。 但如果你想探询， 你说，听着，这能做到吗？ 我们来弄个清楚 ——不是理论， 而是平日里的现实情况。 对吗？ 先生。好。 谁来参与一下！ |
| 24:01 Giddu Narayan: Dr. Rahula, we have been talking in this context of the value of Buddhist meditation, or meditation, preparation, practice, mindfulness. What is the value of all those things that are mentioned in the Buddhist literature, which is practised as a very important thing in relation to the ending of thought? | 24:01 吉度·纳拉扬：拉胡拉博士， 我们一直是在这个背景下谈话的： 佛教冥想或者冥想、 准备、练习、正念的用处。 佛教经典里提到的 所有这些事情有什么用处， 让人认为与结束思想关系重大， 并依照练习？ |
| 24:38 WR: Ending of thought, or self? | 24:38 拉：结束思想，还是结束自我？ |
| 24:42 GN: Satipatthana, mindfulness, let us say. | 24:42 纳：四念处， 正念，可以这样说。 |
| 24:45 WR: Satipatthana, mindfulness or rather presence of awareness – a sense of mindfulness. Yes, Satipatthana has many aspects, not only one, but the most important thing is the mindfulness, awareness in everything. Even now what we do here is a meditation, it is not sitting with legs crossed like a statue under a tree or in a cave, that is no meditation, that is only an exercise externally. Many people take it as to be the meditation. What we do here nobody would think we were meditating. 25:28 But to me this is the deepest sort of meditation, also given in the Satipatthana, this is called Dhammavipassana, to see or to follow, or to observe, or to be aware of various subjects, topics, things, doctrines, things like that, various things; that is the intellectual side of it. Then there is also meditation, mindfulness of everything you do, whatever you do, eating, drinking, or going about, talking – everything is mindfulness. And all that leads to what he says. | 24:45 拉：四念处，正念。 确切说，是存在觉察 ——正念感。 是的，四念处包括 很多方面，不只是一个方面， 最重要一点在于 处处都有正念，有觉察。 甚至连现在，我们在这里 也是一种冥想， 这不是盘腿打坐， 像树下、洞里的塑像一般， 那不是冥想， 那只是外在的修炼。 很多人认为那是冥想。 我们在这里，没有人 会认为我们是在冥想。 25:28 但对我来说， 这是最深刻的那种冥想， 这也是四念处之一， 叫做法念处， 看或注视，或观察， 留心各种问题、话题、 事情、教义， 这类事情，留心各种事情； 这是其理智方面。 然后还有冥想， 留心你所做的一切， 不论做什么， 吃饭、喝水，或忙于其它活动， 比如，谈话 ——都应该保持正念。 这些都指向他讲的问题。 |
| 26:12 GN: It leads to... | 26:12 纳：指向…… |
| 26:13 WR: It leads to what he says. | 26:13 拉：指向他讲的问题。 |
| 26:15 GN: That is the thing I really want to get at. | 26:15 纳：这是我真正想谈的问题。 |
| 26:18 WR: It leads you to end the thought process of self. | 26:18 拉：这会引导你结束 自我的思想过程。 |
| 26:27 GN: Yes. | 26:27 纳：是的。 |
| 26:28 K: Sir, I hope you don’t think me impudent or irreverent to what the Buddha said. I personally haven’t read any of these things. I don’t want to read a thing about all this. They may be correct, or not correct, they may be under illusion or not under illusion, they may have been put together by disciples and what the disciples do with their gurus is appalling – twist everything. So I say, look, I don’t want to start with somebody telling me what to do or what to think. I have no authority. So I say, look, as a human being, suffering, going through agonies, sex and mischief, and terror, and all the rest of it, in enquiring into all that, I come to the point, which is thought. 27:40 That’s all. I don’t have to know all the literature in the world which will only condition further thinking. So forgive me for putting it that way: I brush all that aside. We have done this – Christians, I have met Christians, Benedictine monks, Jesuits, great scholars, always quoting, quoting, quoting, believing this is so, this is not so. You understand, sir? I hope you don’t think I am irreverent. | 26:28 克：先生， 希望您不会认为我无礼， 或者认为我不尊敬佛讲的话。 这些东西我本人 一点儿也没读过。 我一个字也不想读。 那些东西也许对， 也许不对， 也许出自幻觉， 也许不是出自幻觉， 也许已经由那些弟子 搜集整理过， 而那些弟子对其古鲁 做的事实在令人震惊 ——把一切都给扭曲了。 所以，我说，听着， 我不想在开始的时候， 让别人告诉我做什么、 想什么， 谁也不是我的权威。 所以我说，听着，作为一个人， 受苦、遭受巨大的痛苦、 性、伤害、恐惧，等等， 在探询了这些问题后， 我得出结论， 思想是问题的关键。 27:40 就这些。 我不必熟悉世界上 所有那方面著作， 这只会进一步塑造思想。 请原谅我这样讲： 我把那些东西都扫走。 我们干过这种事—— 那些基督徒， 我遇见过那些基督徒， 本笃会僧侣， 耶稣会士，著名学者， 总是不停地引经据典， 认为这个与书一致， 这个不一致。 你理解吗，先生？ 希望你不会认为我不敬。 |
| 28:26 WR: No, not at all. I fully agree with you and that is my attitude as well. I am quoting this and talking to examine it. | 28:26 拉：根本不会的。 我完全赞同您的看法， 我也是这个态度。 我引用这些东西是为了研究。 |
| 28:39 K: You see, I only start with what is a fact, for me. What is a fact, not according to some philosophers and religious teachers and priests, a fact – I suffer, I have fear, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my life, and I am so utterly miserable, unhappy. From there I start, not from what somebody said, that means nothing. You follow, sir? I am not belittling, forgive me, the Buddha, I wouldn’t. | 28:39 克：你看，我只从什么地方开始呢， 那得是事实，对我来说。 什么是事实， 不是根据某些哲学家和 宗教导师、牧师的说法， 事实是——我很痛苦， 我有恐惧， 我有性需求。 我该如何处理这些 极其复杂的问题， 这些问题让我的生活 如此悲惨、不幸。 我由那里开始， 而不是谁说了什么, 那毫无意义。 您明白吗，先生？ 我不是轻视佛陀，请原谅， 我不会的。 |
| 29:35 WR: That I know, I know you have the highest respect for the Buddha. That I know. But we have the same attitude and I want to examine it with you. That is why I put the question. Not as a theory. | 29:35 拉：这个我知道， 您对佛陀怀有崇高的敬意。 这个我知道的。 不过，我们态度是一致的， 我想跟您一起研究一下。 这就是我提这个问题的原因。 不是作为理论。 |
| 29:49 K: No, sir, not quite, sir, forgive me for saying so, not quite. I start with something which is common to all of us. Right? Not according to the Buddha, not according to some Christian god, or Hindu or some group – to me all that is totally irrelevant, they have no place because I suffer, I want to find out how to end it or must I carry on for the rest of my life – this agony, this brutality, this sexual perversions, or sexual desires, you know, all the rest of it. Right, sir? So I see the root of all this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort, the root of this is the self, the ‘me’. 31:02 Right, sir? Now is it possible to be free of the ‘me’ which produces all this chaos, both outwardly, politically, religiously, economically and all the rest of it, and also inwardly, this constant struggle, constant battle, constant effort? Right? So I am asking: can thought end? So thought has no future – that which ends then has a totally different beginning, not the beginning of the ‘me’, ending and picking up again later. Right, sir? In what manner can that thought end? That’s the problem. The Buddha must have talked about it. 32:17 Right, sir? I don’t think Christianity, as far as I know, has touched this point. They said, give yourself to God, Christ, abandon yourself to him. But the self goes on. They haven’t gone into this at all, only the Hindus and the Buddhists have done, and perhaps some others. So can this thought end? Then the priest comes along and says, yes it can end, only identify yourself with Christ, with the Buddha. You follow? Identify, forget yourself. | 29:49 克：不，先生，不完全一样，先生， 请原谅我这么说， 不完全一样。 我是从大家普遍遇到的 问题开始的。 对吗？ 我不看佛陀、 基督教、印度教 或某个群体的神讲了什么 ——那和我毫不相干， 没有任何位置， 因为我很痛苦， 我想弄清楚怎样结束这痛苦， 还是说，我必须一辈子遭受 这种痛苦、这种野蛮行径、 这种性变态、性渴望的折磨， 你知道，诸如此类的事情。 对吗，先生？ 所以，我看到所有这些混乱、 不确定、不安全、 煎熬、努力的 根源就是这个自我， 这个“我”。 31:02 对吗，先生？ 那么，我们能否摆脱“我”？ 这个东西造成了这一切混乱， 既包括外在的政治、宗教、 经济等方面的混乱， 也包括内在的 这种不断的挣扎、斗争、努力。 对吗？ 所以，我问：思想能结束吗？ 所以，思想没有未来 ——思想结束了， 然后就会有 一个截然不同的开始， 不是“我”重新开始， 结束“我”， 以后又给拾了起来。 对吗，先生？ 那个思想会以怎样的方式结束呢？ 就是这个问题。 佛陀一定讲过。 32:17 对吗，先生？ 就我所知，基督教 没有涉及这个问题。 他们讲，要把自己 献给上帝、基督， 舍弃自己，投入上帝怀抱。 可是，自我继续存在。 他们根本没有探究过这个问题， 只有印度教徒、 佛教徒探究过， 可能也有其他一些人。 那么，这个思想能结束吗？ 那么，牧师就会走过来说， 是的，可以结束， 你只需认同基督，认同佛。 你明白吗？ 认同，忘掉自己。 |
| 33:11 WR: That is the Christian attitude. | 33:11 拉：这是基督教的态度。 |
| 33:13 K: Christian, also part of the Hindu. | 33:13 克：基督教， 部分印度教也是如此。 |
| 33:17 WR: But not Buddhism. I must defend it. | 33:17 拉：但不是佛教。 我必须捍卫这点。 |
| 33:21 K: I know. Yes, sir. | 33:21 克：我明白。 是的，先生。 |
| 33:24 GN: I believe, a great deal of Buddhist thought also has degenerated into this. | 33:24 纳：我认为， 很多佛教徒的思想也已经退化， 采取了这种态度。 |
| 33:28 WR: Yes, yes, of course, degenerated, that is, certain schools of thought, but I mean to say according to the Buddha’s teaching. | 33:28 拉：对，对，当然，退化了， 也就是某些宗派的思想， 不过我说的是， 根据佛陀的教诲。 |
| 33:38 K: Ah, no, you see... | 33:38 克：啊，不，你看 |
| 33:40 IS: Shall we best say it is human nature to lean on something, and this is what automatically happens and this is what we are trying to get away from. | 33:40 施：我们或许最好这样说， 人的本性正是想要有依靠， 人很自然就会有这种想法， 而这正是我们想要避免的。 |
| 33:56 K: So here I am, an ordinary human being, fairly educated, not according to schools, colleges, fairly educated, has observed what the world is going through and he says, ‘I am the world, I am not different from the world, because I suffer, I have created this monstrous world, my parents, my grandparents, everybody’s parents, have created this’. Right, sir? So how is it possible for thought to end? Some people say, yes, which is to meditate, control, suppress. | 33:56 克：那么我在这里， 一个普通人，受过一定的教育， 不是上学，上大学， 受过一定程度的教育， 在观察到世人 所经历的一切之后， 他说， “我就是世界， 我和世界并没有什么不同， 因为我受苦，是我造成的 这个骇人的世界， 是我的父母、祖父母、 所有人的父母造成的这个世界”。 对吗，先生？ 那么，思想可能结束吗， 怎样才能结束呢？ 有人说，可以， 那就是冥想、控制、压制。 |
| 34:46 IS: No, no. | 34:46 施：不，不。 |
| 34:47 K: Wait. I said some people, madam. | 34:47 克：等一下。 我说的是有人说，女士。 |
| 34:50 IS: I beg your pardon. | 34:50 施：您可以重复一遍吗？ |
| 34:52 K: Some people have said, suppress it, identify the self with the highest which is still the movement of thought. Some people have said, burn out all the senses. Right, sir? They have done it, fast, do everything for this thing. So somebody comes along like me and says, effort is the very essence of the self. Right? Do we understand that? Or has it become an idea, and we carry that idea out? You understand what I am talking about? I don’t know if I am making myself clear. That is... | 34:52 克：有人说过，压制自我， 让自我认同至高无上的事物， 这依然是思想活动。 有人说过， 要销毁一切感官的能力。 对吗，先生？ 他们这样做过， 斋戒，为达到这个目的 用尽一切手段。 有个人，比如我，过来说， 努力在本质上就是自我。 对吗？ 我们明白这点吗？ 还是说，这成了一个想法， 我们在执行这个想法？ 你理解我的意思吗？ 我不知道自己说清楚没有。 就是说 |
| 36:00 GN: If you say effort is the very essence of the self, is there again a preparation, an initial training... | 36:00 纳：您说自我的本质 就是努力， 这是不是也是经过准备， 经过开始的训练 |
| 36:22 K: No, no. | 36:22 克：没有，没有。 |
| 36:24 GN:...to come to that situation? Or does one come to it effortlessly? | 36:24 纳：……达到这种状态的？ 还是说，你不费力就这样了？ |
| 36:32 IS: If I have understood you, and please correct me if not, you mean that the very effort that I make to come to it, that in itself is already contributing to my delusion. | 36:32 施：我要是理解错了的话， 请纠正我， 您的意思是， 我想结束思想这种努力 本身已经在助长我的幻觉。 |
| 36:47 K: To the maker of the effort, who has already identified with something greater, and is making an effort to reach it. It is still the movement of thought. | 36:47 克：强化这个努力的主体， 他已经认同了某个伟大的事物， 在努力达到那个境界。 这还是思想活动。 |
| 37:02 IS: And it is still a bargaining – if I do this, or give this up, then I will get that. | 37:02 施：这还是讨价还价—— 假如我这样做，放弃这个的话， 那么我就会得到那个。 |
| 37:11 K: So how do you, if I may ask, listen – listen? How do you listen? | 37:11 克： 如果我可以问一下的话， 那你是怎么听的——听？ 你是怎么听的？ |
| 37:21 IS: Listen. | 37:21 施：听。 |
| 37:27 K: A person like me says, effort of any kind only strengthens the self. Now how do you receive that statement? | 37:27 克：有个像我这样的人说， 任何形式的努力都 只会强化自我。 你对这句话是什么反应？ |
| 37:43 IS: I am entirely in agreement. | 37:43 施：我完全同意。 |
| 37:45 K: No, not agreement, or disagreement, oh, God! How do you listen to it? | 37:45 克：不，不是同不同意， 哦，上帝！ 你怎么听这句话？ |
| 37:56 IS: Let it impinge. | 37:56 施：让这句话产生影响。 |
| 37:59 K: No, no. | 37:59 克：不是。 |
| 38:03 David Bohm: Do we listen in the same way we have made identifications, that is, in general we listen through the past, through our previous ideas, through what we know? | 38:03 大卫·博姆：我们听的方式 是不是和我们认同的方式一样， 即，我们通常是以过去的眼光， 以从前的观念和 我们所知道的东西去听的？ |
| 38:23 IS: That must be. | 38:23 施：肯定是。 |
| 38:26 DB: But is that right? | 38:26 博：可是，那样对吗？ |
| 38:29 IS: If one can open up and just listen. | 38:29 施：如果你能敞开心扉， 只是去听的话。 |
| 38:34 K: Ah, no, no, no. When you eat, you are eating because you are hungry. The stomach receives the food, there is no idea of receiving the food. So can you listen – listen – without the idea of receiving, or accepting, or denying, or arguing, just listen to a statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just listen to it. Can you do it? | 38:34 克：啊，不，不，不。 你吃饭， 就是吃饭， 因为你饿。 胃接纳食物， 而没有接纳食物的想法。 那么，你能听 ——听—— 而没有接纳、 同意、否定、争论的想法， 只是听一句话？ 那也许假，也许真， 而你只是听。 你能这样听吗？ |
| 39:28 IS: I would say yes. | 39:28 施：我愿意。 |
| 39:34 K: Then, if you so listen, what takes place? | 39:34 克：然后，你这样听的话， 发生了什么情况？ |
| 39:43 IS: Nothing. | 39:43 施：什么也没发生。 |
| 39:45 K: No, madam, don’t say immediately, ‘nothing’. What takes place? I listen to a statement that thought is the root of the self. After carefully explaining, the mood of thought which identifies itself with the form, with the name, with this and that and the other thing. So after explaining very carefully, it is said that thought is the very root of the self. Now how do you receive, listen to the truth of that fact that thought is the root of the self? Is it an idea, a conclusion, or it is an absolute, irrevocable fact? | 39:45 克：不是，女士， 不要马上就说，“什么也没发生”。 发生了什么情况？ 我听这样一句话： 思想是自我的根源。 经过仔细解释， 这个认同它自己， 认同外貌，认同名字， 认同这个那个， 还有其它事物的思想情绪。 那么，经过非常仔细的解释， 有人说，思想就是 自我的根源本身。 现在你怎样接纳、倾听 这个事实所包含的真相， 即思想是自我的根源？ 这是个想法、结论， 还是绝对的、无法改变的事实？ |
| 40:55 WR: If you ask me, it is a fact. I listen to it, receive it. I see it. | 40:55 拉：您问我的话，这是事实。 我倾听、接受并看见。 |
| 41:05 K: Are you listening as a Buddhist – forgive me for putting it that way? | 41:05 克：您是以 佛教徒身份听的吗？ 请原谅我这么说。 |
| 41:10 WR: I don’t know. | 41:10 拉：我不知道。 |
| 41:11 K: No, you must know. | 41:11 克：不，你必须知道。 |
| 41:12 WR: I am not identifying anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist. | 41:12 拉：我根本没有认同任何东西。 我没有以佛教徒身份或 不以佛教徒身份听您讲话。 |
| 41:17 K: I am asking you, sir, are you listening as a Buddhist – just a minute – are you listening as a person who has read a great deal about the Buddha, and what the Buddha has said and so comparing – just a minute, just a minute – and so you have gone away from listening. Right? So are you listening – I am not being personal, sir, forgive me. | 41:17 克：我在问你，先生， 你是作为佛教徒听的 ——等一下—— 你听的时候，你 已经读过大量佛经、 佛陀留下的话， 于是你在进行比较， ——稍等一下，稍等一下—— 那你就没有听， 而是跑到别的地方去了。 对吗？ 那么你在听吗？ ——我不是在攻击你， 先生，请原谅。 |
| 41:50 WR: Yes, yes. | 41:50 拉：是的，是的。 |
| 41:51 K: Are you listening? | 41:51 克：你在听吗？ |
| 41:52 WR: Oh, you can be quite free with me – I won’t misunderstand you and you won’t misunderstand me. I have no fear about it. | 41:52 拉：哦，你可以 很随便地对待我 ——我不会误解您， 您也不会误解我的。 我不怕误解。 |
| 41:58 K: No, no. I don’t mind your misunderstanding me at all. I can correct it. | 41:58 克：不是，不是。 你要是误解了我， 我一点儿也不介意。 我可以纠正一下。 |
| 42:06 WR: Yes. | 42:06 拉：是的。 |
| 42:10 K: Are you listening to the idea, to the words and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of verbal comprehension, which you have gone through quickly, and you say, yes, I see the absolute truth of that? | 42:10 克：您是在听这个想法， 这些词语， 这些词语的含意， 还是说，你压根儿 不是在听字面意思， ——字面意思你早 就明白了， 并说，对，我完全 看到了这个真相。 |
| 42:45 WR: That is what I said. | 42:45 拉：我说的就是这个。 |
| 42:47 K: Do you? | 42:47 克：是吗？ |
| 42:47 WR: Yes. | 42:47 拉：是的。 |
| 42:48 K: No, sir. Then it is finished. It is like seeing something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don’t touch it. I wonder if you see it. | 42:48 克：不，先生。那样的话， 问题就结束了。 那就像是看见极其危险的东西， 结束了， 你不会去碰它。 我不知道你是否看到了。 |
| 43:09 IS: Why not touch it? | 43:09 施：为什么不碰它？ |
| 43:11 DB: It seems to me that there is a tendency to listen through the word as you say, and that word identifies and that identification still goes on while one thinks one is listening. This is the problem. It is very subtle. | 43:11 博：我看我们似乎倾向于 借助词语来听， 就像你讲的， 并认同词语， 而且我们现在还在那样认同， 尽管我们以为自己在听。 就是这个问题。 这非常不易觉察。 |
| 43:32 WR: Yes, in other words, it is listening, you use the word in seeing, in that sense. | 43:32 拉：是的，换句话说， 这是倾听， 你用这个词表示看见， 表示那个意思。 |
| 43:38 K: No. Sir, I listen. When you say something to me, what the Buddha has said, I listen. I say, he is just quoting from what Buddha has said, but he is not saying something I want to know. He is telling me about the Buddha, but I want to know what you think, not what Buddha thought, because then we are establishing a relationship between you and me, and not between you, Buddha and me? I wonder if you see that. | 43:38 克：不。 先生，我听。 你告诉我佛陀讲了什么， 我听， 我说，他只是在引述佛陀的话， 他讲的不是我想知道的。 他告诉我佛陀如何如何， 而我想知道你是怎么想的， 而不是佛陀怎么想的， 那样的话，我们彼此之间， 而不是你、佛陀、我之间 就建立了关系。 不知你是否明白这个。 |
| 44:18 WR: That also means you were listening to the general thought. | 44:18 拉：那也意味着 你在听普遍的思想。 |
| 44:24 K: I was listening to what you were saying about Buddha. I was just listening. I don’t know. You are quoting, probably what you are quoting was perfectly so, you are quoting probably correctly and so on, but you are not revealing yourself to me and I am revealing myself to you. Therefore we have a relationship through the Buddha, not direct relationship. I wonder if you... I love my dog and you like that dog too, but you like that dog and our relationship is based on that dog. I don’t know if I am making myself clear. I am not comparing Buddha to the dog! | 44:24 克：我在听你讲佛陀。 我只是在听。 我不知道。 你在引述，可能你引述的 和原话一点不差， 你的引述可能很准确，等等， 但你没有把自己展示给我， 而我正在向你展示我自己。 因此，我们的关系 是由佛陀联系起来的， 不是直接的关系。 不知你 我喜欢我的狗， 你也喜欢那条狗， 而你喜欢的是那条狗， 我们的关系就建立在 那条狗身上。 不知我说清楚没有。 我没有拿佛陀跟狗比！ |
| 45:29 IS: May I try to say what you are trying – not trying – what you are looking for is our personal experiential response to your statement. | 45:29 施：我说一下好吗？ 我觉得您是试图 ——不是试图—— 您是想看看 我们对您讲的话 有何个人体验和感受。 |
| 45:47 K: No, your personal experience is also the experience of everybody else, it is not personal. | 45:47 克：不，个人体验 也是其他所有人的体验， 并不是个人的。 |
| 45:57 IS: Though it is individually rendered, because... | 45:57 施：尽管我们将其视为 个人体验，因为 |
| 46:00 K: It is not even if you and I suffer, it is suffering, not my suffering and your suffering. But when there is identification with suffering then it’s my suffering. And I say, I must be free of it. But as human beings in the world we suffer. We are going off somewhere else. | 46:00 克：尽管是你我受苦， 但那就是痛苦， 不是我的痛苦、你的痛苦。 可是，我一认同痛苦， 那就成了我的痛苦了。 于是我说，我必须摆脱它。 但是，我们是作为 这个世界上的人类遭受痛苦。 我们跑题了。 |
| 46:34 DB: It seems to me this question of identification is the main one, it is very subtle, in spite of all that you have said, identification still goes on. | 46:34 博：我看这种认同 似乎是个主要问题， 这很不易察觉， 尽管你讲了那么多， 我们依然还在认同。 |
| 46:43 K: Of course. | 46:43 克：当然。 |
| 46:46 DB: It seems to be built into us. | 46:46 博：认同似乎 深植在我们内心里了。 |
| 46:52 IS: And this raises a question whether that identification can be ended if I understood rightly. | 46:52 施：这就带来一个问题， 我们能否结束认同， 如果我没理解错的话。 |
| 47:03 DB: Identification prevented listening freely, openly because one listens through the identification. | 47:03 博：认同妨碍了自由开放的倾听， 因为你是以认同的方式来听的。 |
| 47:12 K: What does identification mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something – my car, my house, my wife, my children, my country, my god. You follow? Why? | 47:12 克：认同是什么意思？ 人类为什么要认同 ——我的汽车、我的房子、我的妻子、 我的孩子、我的国家、我的上帝。 你明白吗？为什么？ |
| 47:31 IS: To be something, perhaps. | 47:31 施：想要成为什么，或许。 |
| 47:35 K: Let’s enquire why. Not only identify with outward things, but also inwardly identify with my experience, identify with experience and say, this is my experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time? | 47:35 克：我们来询问，为什么。 不仅认同外物， 而且还在内心里认同我的经验， 认同经验，说这是我的经验。 人类为何 总有这种心理过程？ |
| 48:02 DB: At one stage you said we identify with our sensations, for example, our senses, and this seems very powerful. What would it be not to identify with our sensations? | 48:02 博：你在一个地方讲到， 我们认同自己的感觉，比如， 我们的感官， 而这种东西似乎很强大， 如果我们不认同自己的 感觉会怎样？ |
| 48:19 K: Yes. So when one listens, am I listening to identify myself with that fact about which he is talking or there is no identification at all and therefore I am capable of listening with a totally different ear? Am I hearing with the ears of my hearing, or am I hearing with total attention? You understand, sir? Am I listening with total attention? Or, my mind is wandering off and says, ‘Oh my goodness, this is rather boring and what is she talking about? ’ or he 49:28 – and so I am off. But can I attend so completely that there is only the act of listening and nothing else, no identification, no saying, yes, that is a good idea, bad idea, that’s true, that’s false, which are all processes of identification, but without any of those movements can I listen? When I do so listen, then what? The truth that thought is the essence of the self and the self creates all this misery, it’s finished. I don’t have to meditate, I don’t have to go practise, it is over when I see the danger of this thing. 50:42 So can we listen so completely that there is the absence of the self? And he says, can I see, observe something without the self, which is my country, I love that sky, it is a beautiful sky and all the rest of that. So please. So the ending of thought, which is the ending or cutting at the very, very root of the self – a bad simile, but take that – when there is such active, attentive, non-identifying attention then does the self exist? I need a suit, why should there be identification in getting a suit? 52:26 I get it, there is getting it. So the active listening implies listening to the senses. Right, sir? To my taste, the whole sensory movement. I mean, you can’t stop the senses, then you would be paralysed. But the moment I say, ‘That’s a marvellous taste, I must have more of that’, begins the whole identification. | 48:19 克：是的。 那么，我听时， 是为了 认同他讲的那个事实， 还是说，我没有任何认同， 因而我有能力 用完全不同的耳朵听？ 我是用双耳的听觉听， 还是说，我在 全神贯注地听？ 你明白吗，先生？ 我是全神贯注地听的吗？ 还是说，我走神了， 说，“哦，天哪， 这个太乏味了， 他讲的这些东西？”或者她 49:28 ——于是我就溜号了。 可是，我能如此全然注意， 除了听， 别无其它，没有认同， 不说，对， 这是个好主意，坏主意， 这个是真的，那个是假的， 这些全是在认同， 而是说，没有任何 这些思想活动，我能听吗？ 我要是真的这样去听， 然后会怎样？ 看到真相： 自我的本质就是思想， 自我造成了这一切不幸， 自我就结束了。 我无需冥想，无需修炼， 看到其危险之后， 自我就结束了。 50:42 那么，我们听的时候， 能如此全神贯注， 以至于没有自我吗？ 他说，我能否看什么， 观察什么，而没有自我， 这个自我就是我的国家， 我爱天空， 天空真美，等等。 那么，拜托。 那么，结束思想， 也就是结束 或者切断自我最本源的东西 ——这个比喻不好， 但姑且用这个—— 当你如此活跃、注意、 留心，但不认同的时候， 自我还存在吗？ 我需要一套外衣， 我得到外衣时， 为何要认同？ 52:26 我得到就得到了。 所以，积极倾听意味着 倾听感官的活动。 对吗，先生？ 倾听我的味觉， 倾听所有感官活动。 我是说，你无法不让感官活动， 那样的话，你就瘫痪了。 可是，我一说， “这味道太美了， 我必须再吃些”， 我就开始认同这一切了。 |
| 53:09 DB: It seems to me that that is the general condition of mankind to be identifying with the senses. | 53:09 博：我认为这似乎是 人类的普遍状态， 认同这些感官。 |
| 53:14 K: Of course. | 53:14 克：当然。 |
| 53:16 DB: Now how are we going to change that? | 53:16 博：那我们怎样 才能改变这种状态？ |
| 53:18 K: That is the whole problem, sir. Mankind has been educated, conditioned for millennia to identify itself with everything – my guru, my house, my god, my country, my king, my queen and all that horrible business that goes on. | 53:18 克：整个问题就在这里，先生。 几千年来，人类 一直受到这种教育、塑造， 认同一切 ——我的古鲁、我的房子、我的上帝、 我的国家、我的国王、我的王后， 以及现在所有那些骇人之事。 |
| 53:47 DB: You see with each one of those there is a sensation. | 53:47 博：你看，这些东西每一样 都对应一种感觉。 |
| 53:51 K: It is a sensation, which you call experience. Sorry, we... | 53:51 克：这是感觉， 也就是你们说的经验。 抱歉，我们 |
| 54:08 WR: So we should come to our point. | 54:08 拉：我们应该回到主要问题。 |
| 54:10 K: Yes, which is... | 54:10 克：是的，也就是 |
| 54:13 WR: The one that we began. | 54:13 拉：开始那个问题。 |
| 54:23 K: When the self ends – it can end, obviously – it is only the most ignorant and most highly burdened people with knowledge, and identifying themselves with knowledge who say, ‘Will I be? ’ and all that. When there is the ending of the self, what takes place? Not at the end of my life, not when the brain becomes... or is deteriorating, when the brain is very, very active, quiet, alive, what then takes place, when the self is not? Now, how can you find out, sir? Say, X has ended the self completely, not picks it up in the future, another day, but ends it completely, he says, yes, there is a totally different activity which is not the self. 56:06 What good is that to me, or to any of us? He says, yes, it can end; it is a different world altogether, different dimension, not a sensory dimension, not an intellectually projected dimension, something totally different. I say he must be either a cuckoo, a charlatan, or a hypocrite, it doesn’t make... but I want to find out, not because he says so, but I want to find out. Can I, as a human being, living in this tremendously ugly, brutal, violent world, economically, socially, morally, and all the rest of it, live without the self? I want to find out. 57:11 And I want to find out not as an idea, I want to do it, it’s my passion. Then I begin to enquire, why is there identification with the form, with the name – it’s not so important whether you are K or W or Y. So you examine this very carefully not to identify yourself with anything, with sensation, with ideas, with a country, with an experience. You understand, sir? Can you do it? Not vaguely and occasionally but something you have got to do, with passion, with intensity, to find out. That means I must put everything in its right place. 58:38 Right? Because I have to live, I have to have food, I don’t have to identify myself with this or that food, I eat the correct food, and it’s finished, therefore it has its right place. But there are all the bodily demands, sex, put it in its right place. Who will tell me to put it in the right place? You understand, sir? My guru, the pope, any scripture? If they do, I identify myself with them because they are giving me help to put things in the right place, which is sheer nonsense. Right, sir? The pope can’t tell me: sex has its right place, and he says, don’t divorce, marry, your marriage is with god – all that. 59:53 And I am stuck. Why should I obey the pope, or the guru, or scriptures, or the politicians? So I have to find out what is the right place for sex, or money. Right, sir? What is the right place? How shall I find out what is the right place for sex, which is one of the most powerful, urgent physical demand, which the religious people say, cut, destroy it. Right, sir? Suppress it, take a vow against it and all the rest of it. I say, sorry, that doesn’t mean a thing to me. So I want to find out what is its right place. 1:00:58 How shall I find out? I have got the key to it. Right? Which is, non-identification with sensation, that is the key of it. Right, sir? So non-identification with sensation which is translated in modern experience – I must experience sex. Right? So that is, identification with sensation makes the self. So is it possible not to identify with sensations? Yes, sensations, I am hungry, but sex is a little more powerful. So I have got the key to it, you understand? The truth of it. Right, sirs? So, yes, I feel sexual, all right. 1:02:44 Non-identification, that is the truth of it. If I really see the truth of it, then sex, money, everything has its right place. | 54:23 克：当自我结束时 ——自我可以结束，显然如此—— 只有最无知的人， 知识负担最重的人 和认同知识的那些人， 才会说， “我能吗？ ”等等。 我结束自我后， 会发生什么情况？ 不是在我生命的最后， 不是大脑已经 或正在退化的时候， 而是在大脑非常非常积极、 安静、充满活力的时候， 那时会发生什么， 要是自我不在了？ 你怎样去弄清楚呢，先生？ 比如，X彻底结束了自我， 他不会以后哪天重拾自我， 而是彻底结束这个东西， 他说，是的， 存在一种截然不同的行动， 这种行动不是自我。 56:06 这对我或者我们 任何人有什么用呢？ 他说，对，自我可以结束； 那完全是不同的领域， 不同的维度， 不是感官的维度， 不是理智投射出来的维度， 而是截然不同的事物。 我说，他要么是疯子、骗子， 要么是伪君子， 那毫无…… 我想弄个明白， 不是因为他这么说， 而是我想弄个明白。 我，作为一个人，能否 生活在这个极其丑恶、 残酷、暴力的世界， 在经济、社会、道德等方面 没有自我地生活？ 我想弄个明白。 57:11 我不是想弄明白一个想法， 我想这样生活， 我有这种激情。 然后，我开始询问， 你为什么会认同外貌， 认同名字 ——你是K还是W、Y， 并不那么重要。 于是你要非常仔细地 调查这个问题， 不要认同任何东西， 不要认同感觉、想法、 国家、经历等等。 你明白吗，先生？ 你能这样做吗？ 不是心不在焉，偶尔这样， 而是说，这是你必须做的事， 必须充满激情， 非常专注地去弄清楚的事。 这意味着我必须将一切 放到合适的位置上。 58:38 对吗？ 因为我必须活着， 我必须吃东西， 我不必认同这样那样的食物， 我吃合适的食物， 就是这样， 于是食物就有其正确的位置了。 可是，还有那些身体的需求， 性需求， 要将其放到正确的位置。 谁来告诉我怎样放到 正确位置呢？ 你明白吗，先生？ 我的古鲁、教皇、 还是什么经书？ 如果由他们来告诉我， 那我就认同了他们， 因为他们在帮我 将各种东西放到合适的位置， 这纯粹是胡扯。 对吗，先生？ 教皇不会告诉我： 性有其正确位置， 他讲的是，不要离婚， 要结婚， 你是同上帝结婚 ——等等。 59:53 于是我就卡住了。 我为何要服从教皇、 古鲁、经文或那些政客？ 所以我必须弄清楚 性、金钱的正确位置是什么。 对吗，先生？ 其正确位置是什么？ 我该怎样弄清楚 性的正确位置， 性是一个最强烈、 最迫切的生理需求， 宗教人士则讲，要断欲绝求。 对吗，先生？ 克制欲望，发誓守贞， 等等。 我说，抱歉， 这对我来说毫无意义。 所以，我想弄明白 性的正确位置是什么。 1:00:58 我该怎样去弄清呢？ 我已经拿到了 解决问题的钥匙。 对吗？ 那就是， 不认同身体的感觉， 这就是解决问题的钥匙。 对吗，先生？ 所以，不认同身体的感觉， 现代人将感觉说成了体验 ——我必须体验性的感觉。 对吗？ 所以，那就是， 认同感觉造成了自我。 那么，我们能不能 不认同身体的感觉呢？ 我有各种感觉，我会饿， 而性欲则稍微强烈些。 所以，我已经拿到了 解决问题的钥匙，你明白吗？ 了解到欲望的真相了。 对吗，先生？ 那么，对，我有性欲，确实。 1:02:44 我不认同，这就是 如果我真看到了其中的真相， 那么，性、钱， 一切就都有了正确位置。 |
| 1:03:08 WR: In other words, may I say that you can see, you must see or you see without the self. | 1:03:08 拉：换句话说，我可以这样 认为吗？您必须看到 或者你是没有自我地看见。 |
| 1:03:19 K: Ah, no, no, no. | 1:03:19 克：啊，不、不、不。 |
| 1:03:22 WR: Identification is self. | 1:03:22 拉：认同就是自我。 |
| 1:03:27 K: No, I said, there is the truth that identification with sensation, with this, with that, builds the structure of the self. Right? Is that an absolute, irrevocable, passionate, lasting truth? Or is it just an idea which I have accepted, yes, it’s true, and I can change that idea tomorrow? But this thing is irrevocable. One must have money – money gives me freedom, money gives you freedom to do what you like, freedom, sex, if you want it, money gives you a sense of travelling, power, position – you know, all the rest of it. So non-identification with money. You follow? | 1:03:27 克：不，我说的是， 真相是， 认同感觉，认同这个、那个， 构建起了自我的结构。 对吗？ 这是个绝对而又不可改变的真相， 令人激动、牢不可破？ 还是说，这只是个想法， 我接受了这个想法， 对，这是真的， 而我明天就可以改变这个想法？ 但是，这件事是无法改变的。 我必须得有钱 ——钱会给我自由， 钱会给你自由， 做你喜欢做的事，自由， 还有性，如果你想要的话， 有了钱你就可以旅行， 就有权力，有地位 ——你知道， 所以，不要认同钱。 你明白吗？ |
| 1:04:52 DB: And that means the end of desire for anything. | 1:04:52 博：那意思就是放弃 对任何事情的欲望。 |
| 1:04:57 K: No, at the end desire has very little meaning. But it doesn’t mean I am a dead vegetable. | 1:04:57 克：不是，最后 欲望没什么意义了。 但这并不是说 我像植物人一样半死不活。 |
| 1:05:14 DB: Are you saying identification gives desire excessive meaning? | 1:05:14 博：你是说认同赋予了 欲望过多的含意？ |
| 1:05:18 K: Of course. So, having put everything in its right place – not ‘having put’ – I don’t put it, it happens because I have seen the truth of this thing, so everything falls in its right place. Right? No, I can’t tell you, I can’t say yes, right or wrong. | 1:05:18 克：当然。 所以，我已经将一切 安排到正确的位置上 ——不是“已经安排”—— 我不去安排， 那会自己发生， 因为我看到了这件事的真相， 于是一切各归其位。 对吗？ 不，我无法告诉你， 我不能说对或错。 |
| 1:05:48 WR: No, no, I see what you say. | 1:05:48 拉：是的，是的， 我明白您的意思。 |
| 1:05:53 K: Then what place has thought? You understand, sir? | 1:05:53 克：那么思想有何位置？ 你明白吗，先生？ |
| 1:06:03 WR: Yes. | 1:06:03 拉：明白。 |
| 1:06:04 K: What place has thought? Has it any place at all? Obviously, when I am talking, I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so on, so on, so there is thinking there – not with me, there is very little thinking as I am talking, don’t let’s go into that. So thought has a place. Right, sir? When I have to catch a train, when I have to go to the dentist, when I go to do something, thought has its place. And it has no place psychologically when there is the identifying process taking place. Right? I wonder if you... | 1:06:04 克：思想有何位置？ 它有什么位置吗？ 当然，我说话时在使用语言， 语言与记忆等等有关， 所以，这时存在思考 ——不是说我， 我讲的时候思想非常少， 我们不谈这个。 所以，思想是有位置的。 对吗，先生？ 我必须赶火车， 我必须看牙医， 我去做什么事情时， 思想是有其位置的。 而思想在心理上没有位置， 在发生认同过程的时候。 对吗？ 不知你们是否 |
| 1:07:10 GN: Are you implying that because there is no thought the identifying process has lost its strength? | 1:07:10 纳：您的意思是 因为没有思想， 所以，我们的认同 就不那么强烈了？ |
| 1:07:19 K: No, it hasn’t lost its strength. | 1:07:19 克：不，强度并没有降低。 |
| 1:07:22 GN: Or it doesn’t happen at all. | 1:07:22 纳：还是说，认同根本没有发生。 |
| 1:07:24 K: No, we said just now that having the key, or living with the fact, living with the truth that identification brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which creates all the innumerable problems, seeing the truth, living that truth – living, it’s in my brain, in my throat, in my gullet, it’s part of my blood, seeing the truth of that, that truth is there. And so thought has its right place. I have put money, sex – not I. | 1:07:24 克：不，我们刚才说， 我有这把钥匙， 我与事实共处， 与真相共处， 真相就是， 认同导致了 自我的这种结构和性质， 而自我造成了无数问题， 我看到了这个真相， 活在这个真相中 ——活在其中， 它就在我的脑子里， 在我的喉咙里，在我的食道里， 是我血液的一部分， 我看到这个真相， 它就在那儿了。 这样思想就有其正确位置了。 我安排好钱、性 ——不是我。 |
| 1:08:31 GN: You are implying... | 1:08:31 纳：您的意思是 |
| 1:08:36 IS: It falls into its place. | 1:08:36 施：各归其位。 |
| 1:08:39 WR: Yes. | 1:08:39 拉：对。 |
| 1:08:42 K: No, sir. I want to go further into this. Go on. | 1:08:42 克：不，先生。我想进一步探讨 一下这个问题。继续。 |
| 1:08:46 GN: If the insight, the passion, the truth, is powerful... | 1:08:46 纳：要是洞见、激情、 真相很强大的话 |
| 1:08:50 K: No, you see, you are using the word ‘powerful’. | 1:08:50 克：不，你看， 你用了“强大”这个词。 |
| 1:08:54 GN: Yes, I am using it. | 1:08:54 纳：是的，我用了。 |
| 1:08:56 K: No, I say it is not powerful. | 1:08:56 克：我认为这个并不强大。 |
| 1:08:58 GN: It has its own strength. | 1:08:58 纳：它有它自己的力量。 |
| 1:09:00 K: No, you can’t use those words. | 1:09:00 克：不，你不能用那些词。 |
| 1:09:02 GN: Now, if it has no strength, thought asserts itself. | 1:09:02 纳：那如果它没有力量， 思想就会维护它自己。 |
| 1:09:08 K: No, no, it is not strength. | 1:09:08 克：不，不，那不是力量。 |
| 1:09:11 DB: You are saying, it is identification that makes thought do all the wrong things. | 1:09:11 博：你说的是，正是认同 让思想犯下所有这些错误。 |
| 1:09:16 K: That’s right. Identification has made thought do the wrong things. | 1:09:16 克：是这样。认同让思想犯错。 |
| 1:09:19 DB: It would be all right otherwise. | 1:09:19 博：其他时候则没问题。 |
| 1:09:22 K: Otherwise thought has its place. | 1:09:22 克：其他时候思想有其位置。 |
| 1:09:24 DB: It will be reasonable. But when you say no identification, you mean the self is empty, that it has no content, doesn’t it? | 1:09:24 博：会很理智。 但你说不要认同时， 你的意思是自我是空的， 没有任何内容，不是吗？ |
| 1:09:33 K: There are only sensations. | 1:09:33 克：只有各种感觉。 |
| 1:09:36 DB: Sensations, but they are not identified. | 1:09:36 博：有各种感觉， 而不认同它们。 |
| 1:09:38 K: Not identified. | 1:09:38 克：不认同。 |
| 1:09:39 GN: Through thought. | 1:09:39 纳：思想不认同。 |
| 1:09:41 K: Not identified. | 1:09:41 克：不认同。 |
| 1:09:42 DB: They are just going on, do you mean? | 1:09:42 博：它们只是继续存在， 是这个意思吗？ |
| 1:09:44 K: Yes, sensations are going on. | 1:09:44 克：对，感觉继续存在。 |
| 1:09:45 DB: Outside or inside. | 1:09:45 博：在外在还是内在。 |
| 1:09:49 K: Inside. | 1:09:49 克：内在。 |
| 1:09:52 GN: And you are also implying there is no slipping back. | 1:09:52 纳：您还暗示， 人不会倒退到原来的状态。 |
| 1:09:57 K: Of course not. When you see something most dangerous, you don’t slip back or go forward, it is dangerous. Sir, then is that death? That is the question we began with. | 1:09:57 克：当然不会。 你要是看到什么东西 极其危险， 你不会回到原来的状态， 或者往前凑，那很危险。 先生，那么这是死亡吗？ 这就是我们开始的问题。 |
| 1:10:22 WR: Yes, yes, that’s right. | 1:10:22 拉：对，对，是这样。 |
| 1:10:25 K: Is that death? Death as we know it, that is the brain cells, etc., etc., die. Right? The body deteriorates, there is no oxygen and all the rest of it. I am not a... so it dies. Sensations die with it. Right? Now where am I? | 1:10:25 克：这是死亡吗？ 我们所知道的死亡， 是脑细胞等等， 死掉。 对吗？ 身体衰败， 缺氧等等。 我不是…… 于是它就死掉了。 感觉也随之消失。 对吗？ 我说到哪了？ |
| 1:11:15 DB: Sensations, you say, die with the body. | 1:11:15 博：各种感觉，你说， 和身体一起死掉。 |
| 1:11:18 K: With the body. | 1:11:18 克：和身体一起。 |
| 1:11:19 DB: There is no sensation. | 1:11:19 博：没有感觉了。 |
| 1:11:21 K: No sensation. Right? | 1:11:21 克：没有感觉了。 对吗？ |
| 1:11:25 WR: Yes. | 1:11:25 拉：对。 |
| 1:11:29 K: Now is there a living with the sensation fully awakened – they are awakened, they are alive – but the non-identifying with sensation deprives, wipes away the self. We said that. Now what is death? Is it possible to live a daily life with death, which is the ending of the self? Isn’t it, sir? | 1:11:29 克：我们在生活中， 能否让感觉完全醒来 ——唤醒感官， 让感官生气勃勃—— 却又不认同感觉， 这种不认同则抹除了自我。 我们说过这个。 那么，什么是死亡？ 我们能否 在平日里伴随着死亡—— 也就是结束自我——而生活？ 是不是，先生？ |
| 1:12:16 WR: Yes. | 1:12:16 拉：是的。 |
| 1:12:18 K: I am not questioning. Go on, somebody talk for a little while. | 1:12:18 克：我不是在提问。 继续，谁来讲一会儿。 |
| 1:12:25 WR: I follow it. | 1:12:25 拉：我明白。 |
| 1:12:27 GN: Would you say, there is a great deal of talk about insight, insight meditation, vipassana, is insight a thing which endures and doesn’t slip back? Is insight that quality? | 1:12:27 纳：你会不会说， 很多人在谈论内观， 内观冥想，vipassana， 洞见可以持久 而不会倒退回去，是吗？ 洞见有那种性质吗？ |
| 1:12:46 WR: Exactly what he is telling now is the insight meditation. What he is telling now is the insight meditation. | 1:12:46 拉：他现在讲的恰恰 就是内观冥想。 他现在讲的 就是内观冥想。 |
| 1:12:59 GN: No, I am asking, does insight endure without reference to time? | 1:12:59 纳：不，我问的是，洞见可以 持久，并与时间无关吗？ |
| 1:13:05 K: Don’t use the words ‘endure’, ‘last’. | 1:13:05 克：不要用“持久”这种词。 |
| 1:13:10 GN: All insight is a momentary process. | 1:13:10 纳：所有洞见都是一瞬间。 |
| 1:13:12 K: The moment you have an insight, it is finished. | 1:13:12 克：一旦有了什么洞见， 那就结束了。 |
| 1:13:14 GN: Finished, yes. | 1:13:14 纳：结束了，是的。 |
| 1:13:15 WR: Once you see it, finished. | 1:13:15 拉：你一旦明白，就结束了。 |
| 1:13:17 K: I have an insight into the whole nature of the self, finished. I have an insight. | 1:13:17 克：我洞见到 整个自我的本质，结束。 我洞见到了。 |
| 1:13:23 WR: Exactly that is what he says. | 1:13:23 拉：他讲的恰恰就是这个。 |
| 1:13:24 GN: It is complete. | 1:13:24 纳：彻底结束。 |
| 1:13:25 WR: In itself it is complete, and there is no coming back. | 1:13:25 拉：它本身彻底结束， 不会倒退回去。 |
| 1:13:28 GN: No coming back, otherwise it is not insight. | 1:13:28 纳：不会回去， 否则就不是洞见。 |
| 1:13:33 WR: You have seen it, and you know it and there is no slipping back, no coming back. | 1:13:33 拉：你已经看到了， 你明白了， 所以，你不会倒退， 不会故态重萌。 |
| 1:13:40 IS: Who has seen it? With those words we come always into trouble. | 1:13:40 施：谁看到了？ 这些词总给我们造成困扰。 |
| 1:13:44 WR: No, this is only the language. There is no see-er apart from seeing. | 1:13:44 拉：没有谁，只有语言。 除了看，没有看的人。 |
| 1:13:50 GN: There is no see-er apart from seeing. | 1:13:50 纳：除了看，没有看的人。 |
| 1:13:52 DB: Would you say the insight transforms the person? | 1:13:52 博：你会不会说， 洞见可以转变人？ |
| 1:13:56 K: That is what we were discussing the other day; the insight transforms not only the state of the mind, but the brain cells themselves undergo a change. | 1:13:56 克：这就是我们那天讨论的问题； 洞见不仅会转变心灵状态， 而且脑细胞本身 也会经历一场转变。 |
| 1:14:05 WR: Absolutely. | 1:14:05 拉：确实。 |
| 1:14:07 DB: Therefore the brain cells, being in a different state, behave differently, it is not necessary to repeat the insight. | 1:14:07 博：于是脑细胞 因为处在不同的状态， 表现也就不同， 没有必要重复那种洞见。 |
| 1:14:12 WR: The whole system changes with that. | 1:14:12 拉：整个系统都随之改变了。 |
| 1:14:15 K: Be careful, sir, don’t... – either it is so, or it is not so. So I am left with this now: I am left with the question of what is death. Is the ending of the self death? Death in the ordinary, accepted sense of the word. It is not, obviously, because the blood is circulating, the brain is working... | 1:14:15 克：要小心，先生，不要…… ——要么是这样，要么不是这样。 我现在还剩这个问题： 我还剩下什么是死亡 这个问题。 结束自我是死亡吗？ 常人所接受的死亡这个词。 那当然不是死亡， 因为血液在循环流动， 大脑在运转…… |
| 1:14:52 WR: It is not in the medical sense. | 1:14:52 拉：不是医学上的死亡。 |
| 1:14:54 K:...the heart is pumping, and all the rest of it. | 1:14:54 克：……心脏在输送血液， 如此等等。 |
| 1:14:57 DB: It is still alive. | 1:14:57 博：身体依然活着。 |
| 1:14:59 K: It is alive, but the self is non-existent because there is no identification of any kind. I know, sir, this is a tremendous thing. Non-identification with anything: with experience, belief, with a country, with ideas, ideals, wife, husband, love – no identification at all. Is that death? People who call that death say, my god, if I don’t identify myself with my something or other, why I am nothing. 1:16:00 So they are afraid of being nothing. Then identify. But nothingness, which is not a thing – you understand, sir? – not a thing, therefore it is quite a different state of mind. Now, that is death. While there is living, sensations, the heart beating, the blood circulating, breathing, the brain active, undamaged, no, this is... undamaged, our brains are damaged. | 1:14:59 克：身体活着， 而自我则不在了， 因为不存在任何认同了。 我知道，先生， 这件事非同小可。 什么都不认同： 经验、信仰、国家、观念、理想， 妻子、丈夫、爱 ——完全不认同。 这是死亡吗？ 有人管这个叫死亡， 说，天哪，我要是 不认同我的这个那个， 我不就什么都不是了吗？ 1:16:00 所以，他们害怕什么都不是。 于是就会认同。 而空，即什么都不是 ——你明白吗，先生？ —— 什么都不是， 因而那种心灵状态 是很不一样的。 那就是死亡。 在活着的时候， 有感觉，心脏在跳动， 血液在循环，身体在呼吸， 大脑很活跃，没有受到伤害， 不，这是…… 没受到伤害的， 而我们的大脑受伤了。 |
| 1:16:58 DB: Can this damage be healed? Is it possible to heal the damage? | 1:16:58 博：这种创伤能愈合吗？ 我们有可能愈合这种创伤吗？ |
| 1:17:02 K: Insight, that is what I want to get at. Our brains are damaged. For thousands of years we have been hurt, psychologically, inwardly, and that hurt is part of our brain cells, remembered hurts, the propaganda for 2000 years that I am a Christian, that I believe in Jesus Christ, which is a hurt; or I am a Buddhist – you follow, sir? – it’s a hurt. So our brains are damaged. To heal that damage is to listen very carefully, to listen, and in the listening to have an insight into what is being said, and therefore there is immediately a change in the brain cells. Therefore there is no identification, complete and total. 1:18:31 And then is that love? You see, I question this, sir. There is a great talk about compassion, isn’t there, in the Buddhist literature. Be compassionate, don’t kill, don’t hurt. What place has love in compassion? To love a man or a woman, or a dog, or a piece of stone, a stray cat, to love something, the clouds, the trees, what place has... – or the nature, anything – love, the house put together by architects, a beautiful thing, the bricks – to love it, which is non-identifying with the bricks, with the house. The dying while living – is that love, in which there is no attachment. | 1:17:02 克：那需要洞见， 这就是我想说的。 我们大脑受伤了。 几千年来，我们一直受到伤害， 在心理上，内在上， 而那种伤害成了我们脑细胞的 一部分，记忆中的创伤， 2000年的宣传， 我是基督教徒， 我信仰耶稣基督， 这是伤害； 或者，我是佛教徒——你明白吗， 先生？ ——这是伤害。 所以，我们的大脑受伤了。 要弥合这种创伤 就要非常仔细地聆听， 聆听， 在聆听时领悟话中的含意， 由此脑细胞 便会发生即刻的转变。 因而没有认同， 完全没有。 1:18:31 那么，那是爱吗？ 你看，我质疑这个，先生。 在佛教经典里，有大量关于 悲悯的谈话，不是吗？ 悲悯为怀， 不杀生，不伤害。 爱在悲悯当中有何位置呢？ 爱一个男子、女子，爱一条狗， 爱一块石头、一只流浪猫， 爱什么， 爱云朵，爱树木， 爱有什么位置 ——或者爱自然， 爱任何事物—— 爱建筑师设计的房子， 爱一件美丽的东西，砖头 ——爱它， 而不认同砖头，认同房子。 在活着时死去—— 就是这种爱， 其中没有任何执着。 |
| 1:20:11 WR: That is so, that is so. | 1:20:11 拉：就是这样，就是这样。 |
| 1:20:15 K: So then what place has love, loving a woman, a man, – you understand? – not identifying – please – identifying with the sensations of sex with a woman, or with a man, and yet to love that person. You understand? When there is that love, that love is not the woman whom I love, it is global love. I wonder if you see. Don’t agree, sir. | 1:20:15 克：那么，爱有什么位置， 你爱一个女人、男人 ——你明白吗？ —— 但不认同——拜托—— 你不认同与 女人、男人的性感觉， 却又爱那个人。 你明白吗？ 有了那种爱，那种爱就不是 我爱的那个女人， 而是包容一切的爱。 不知你是否明白。 不要同意，先生。 |
| 1:21:03 WR: No, not agree, I see it. | 1:21:03 拉：不，不是同意，我明白这个。 |
| 1:21:05 K: What place has that quality with compassion? Or is compassion the same as love? | 1:21:05 克：那种品质和悲悯 具有什么位置？ 还是说，悲悯与爱是一回事？ |
| 1:21:19 WR: No. | 1:21:19 拉：不一样。 |
| 1:21:28 GN: Why do you say no? | 1:21:28 纳：你为何说不一样？ |
| 1:21:29 WR: Compassion is only for the suffering people. Love – there is no discrimination, whereas compassion is directed towards those who are suffering. | 1:21:29 拉：悲悯只是对受苦的人。 爱——则不分对象， 而悲悯是面向那些 受苦的人的。 |
| 1:21:59 GN: You make that distinction between compassion and love. | 1:21:59 纳：你是这样区分悲悯和爱的。 |
| 1:22:02 WR: Yes. | 1:22:02 拉：对。 |
| 1:22:03 GN: Is it in the Buddhist language? | 1:22:03 纳：这是佛教的说法吗？ |
| 1:22:06 WR: Yes, Buddhist language. That is Maitri and Karuna. If you use these two words. | 1:22:06 拉：是的，佛教的说法。 就是Maitri（慈）和Karuna（悲悯）。 就是对应的两个词。 |
| 1:22:13 K: Maitri and Karuna. | 1:22:13 克：慈和悲。 |
| 1:22:16 WR: Karuna is compassion and love is maitri, it is more than compassion. | 1:22:16 拉：悲是悲悯， 而爱是慈，比悲悯广阔。 |
| 1:22:26 K: I am just... Sir, does one love without identification, which implies no self, no attachment? | 1:22:26 克：我只是 先生，爱，但不认同， 是不是意味着没有自我， 没有执着？ |
| 1:22:51 WR: That is the true love. | 1:22:51 拉：那是真正的爱。 |
| 1:22:55 K: No, I am asking, you as a human being, not as a Buddhist, as a human being without identification, with your senses and so on, so on, do you love a woman or a man, or a child, or the sky or a stone, or a stray dog, without identifying? They all suffer – the woman suffers, the man suffers, the dog has a terrible life, a stray dog, chased by everybody and kicked by everybody. And when there is no identification, do you love that dog, or do you have compassion for that dog? Is compassion an idea – I must have compassion for the suffering, for the poor, for the besotted, the demented? | 1:22:55 克：不，我在问， 你作为一个人， 不是作为佛教徒， 作为一个人，不认同 自己的感官等等， 你爱一个女人、男人、小孩， 爱天空、石头、流浪狗，等等， 但没有认同，是吗？ 他们都很痛苦 ——女人受苦，男人受苦， 狗过着悲惨的一生， 流浪狗， 谁都追赶它，踢它。 如果没有认同， 你会爱那条狗吗？ 或者说，你会怜悯那条狗吗？ 悲悯是个观念吗？ ——我必须怜悯受苦的人、 穷人、 怜悯冲昏了头脑、 精神错乱的人？ |
| 1:24:27 DB: I still think the question is, is there love for somebody who is not suffering? Suppose there is somebody who is not suffering. | 1:24:27 博：我觉得问题依然是， 对于没有遭受痛苦的人， 会有爱吗？ 假设某个人，他没有痛苦。 |
| 1:24:38 K: Suppose somebody is frightfully happy, because he writes good books or thrillers and gets a lot of money, says, jolly good life. | 1:24:38 克：假设有个人极其快乐， 他写了畅销书或惊悚小说， 赚了好多钱，生活惬意极了。 |
| 1:24:45 DB: I didn’t mean that exactly. You could say that he was suffering underneath. | 1:24:45 博：我并不是这个意思。 你会说，他内心是痛苦的。 |
| 1:24:49 K: That’s what I am questioning. | 1:24:49 克：我质疑的就是这个。 |
| 1:24:52 DB: But would there be love if there were no suffering? You know, if mankind were to be free of it. | 1:24:52 博：可是，如果没有痛苦， 还会有爱吗？ 你知道，要是人类 摆脱了痛苦的话。 |
| 1:25:01 K: Would there be love without suffering? Or, are you saying, a human being must go through suffering to have love? | 1:25:01 克：没有痛苦的话， 会有爱存在吗？ 或者，你问的是， 人必须遭受痛苦才会有爱吗？ |
| 1:25:10 DB: Well, not necessarily. | 1:25:10 博：嗯，这倒不必。 |
| 1:25:12 K: You see, when you put it that way, that is what it implies, doesn’t it? | 1:25:12 克：你看，你那样问， 就是这个意思，不是吗？ |
| 1:25:16 DB: Well, one view is, you could say one point that there could be love whether there is suffering or not. And the other is compassion, the way the Buddhists use it, is that it is only for the suffering. | 1:25:16 博：嗯，一个观点是， 你会提出一个观点， 不管有没有痛苦，都会有爱。 另一个则是悲悯， 佛教徒用悲悯表示 只怜悯那些受苦的人。 |
| 1:25:30 K: I question that. | 1:25:30 克：我质疑这个。 |
| 1:25:34 GN: I didn’t quite feel that karuna, compassion, is only for those who were suffering. I think it has a wider quality than that. | 1:25:34 纳：我不太觉得悲，悲悯， 只是怜悯那些受苦的人。 我认为悲悯有比这 更广阔的性质。 |
| 1:25:42 WR: No, this way there are four qualities called Brahma Viharas, these supreme qualities – maitri, karuna, mudita, upekkha. Maitri embraces both suffering and not suffering, as you said; karuna embraces only suffering; mudita is directed towards the happy people, you identify with the happiness of that, in the world there is no such sympathetic joy; upekkha is equanimity. These four qualities are called the Brahma Viharas, the supreme, divine qualities. And that classification when you use the word ‘love’, it is much bigger. | 1:25:42 拉：不，在这方面 有种心境，叫做四无量心， 这些至高无上的心境包括： 慈、悲、喜、舍。 慈，正如您说的，既面向 痛苦的人，也面向不痛苦的人； 悲只面向痛苦的人； 喜面向那些幸福的人， 你认同那种幸福， 世界上没有这种同情的喜悦； 舍则是平静。 这四种心境称为四无量心， 至高而神圣的心境。 而那一类心境， 你用“爱”表示的， 要广阔得多。 |
| 1:26:41 K: No, I haven’t come to compassion yet, sir. I just want to know, as a human being, do I love somebody – the dog, the chimney, the clouds, that beautiful sky – without identifying? Not as a theory but fact. I don’t want to delude myself in theories, or in ideas, I want to know if I love that man or woman or that child, or that dog without saying, ‘It is my dog, my wife, my house, my brick’, actually, not abstraction. | 1:26:41 克：不，我还没说到 悲悯，先生。 我只是想知道， 作为一个人， 我是否爱某个人 ——狗、烟囱、云、 那美丽的天空—— 而没有认同？ 不是理论上，而是实际。 我不想用理论或观念欺骗自己。 我想知道我是否爱那个男人、 女人、孩子或者那条狗， 而不说，“这是我的狗、 我的妻子、我的房子、我的砖头”， 真正明白，而不是抽象地明白。 |
| 1:27:32 IS: If that identification with the ‘I’ is gone, as long as I feel ‘I’ is acting as self, I cannot do it. | 1:27:32 施：假如我 不再认同“我” 只要我还感到“我” 这个自我在起作用， 我就做不到。 |
| 1:27:42 K: No, madam. I said the truth is, the identification breeds the self which causes all the trouble, miseries. | 1:27:42 克：不，女士。 我说的是，真相是， 认同导致了 造成所有这些问题 和痛苦的自我。 |
| 1:27:52 IS: And if that is seen... | 1:27:52 施：假如我看到了 |
| 1:27:54 K: I said that, it is an absolute, irrevocable reality, it is in my blood, I can’t get rid of my blood, it is there. | 1:27:54 克：我说过，这是个 绝对而无法改变的事实， 融在我的血液里， 我摆脱不了我的血液， 它就在那儿。 |
| 1:28:04 IS: Then I cannot help but loving. | 1:28:04 施：那我就情不自禁爱上了。 |
| 1:28:06 K: No, no. You are all too quick. | 1:28:06 克：不是，不是。 你们都太性急了。 |
| 1:28:11 IS: I beg your pardon. | 1:28:11 施：请再说一遍好吗？ |
| 1:28:14 K: Not, ‘I cannot help loving’ – do you? | 1:28:14 克：不是“我就情不自禁 爱上了”——你是那样吗？ |
| 1:28:22 WR: If you see it. | 1:28:22 拉：假如看到的话。 |
| 1:28:25 K: No, no. Do you see the truth, the truth of that, that identification is the root of the self, with thought and all the rest of it? That is an absolute fact, like a cobra, like a dangerous animal, like a precipice, like taking deadly poison. So there is no identification, absolutely, when you see the danger. Then what is my relationship to the world, to nature, to my woman, man, child? When there is no identification, is there indifference, callousness, brutality – say, ‘I don’t identify’ and put up your nose in the air? | 1:28:25 克：不是，不是。 你看这个真相， 看认同就是自我的根源 这个真相， 是用思想之类的东西看的吗？ 这是个绝对的事实， 像一条眼镜蛇， 像一只危险的动物， 像在悬崖边上， 像服下致命的毒药一样。 所以，你绝不会认同， 如果你看到危险的话。 那么，我同世界， 同自然，同我的女人、 男人、孩子是什么关系？ 如果我不认同， 我会表现得 冷漠无情、野蛮粗暴吗？ 说，“我不认同了”， 然后就趾高气扬起来。 |
| 1:29:47 WR: That would be very selfish. | 1:29:47 拉：那就很自私了。 |
| 1:29:50 K: No, not selfish. Is this what is going to happen? | 1:29:50 克：不，不是自私。 会发生这种事吗？ |
| 1:29:55 WR: No. | 1:29:55 拉：不会。 |
| 1:29:58 K: No, sir, you can’t just say, no. Why not? It will happen if it is intellectual. | 1:29:58 克：不，先生，不能说不会就完了。 为什么不会？ 如果那是理智上看到的， 就会发生。 |
| 1:30:10 IS: It is not truth. | 1:30:10 施：那不是事实。 |
| 1:30:12 K: I have an ideal. | 1:30:12 克：我有了一个理想。 |
| 1:30:15 WR: That is what I said, you have not seen then. | 1:30:15 拉：那就是我说的， 那样的话你就没有看到。 |
| 1:30:17 K: No. I am asking, sir, is this non-identification an ideal, a belief, an idea which I am going to live with and therefore my relationship to the dog, to the wife, to the husband, to the girl, or whatever it is, becomes very superficial, casual. It is only when the truth that identification is absolutely cut out of one’s life, there’s no callousness then – because that is real. We haven’t solved the question yet of death. It is five minutes past one and we have to stop for lunch. | 1:30:17 克：不。 我问的是，先生， 这种不认同是理想、信念吗？ 是我准备照着去生活的观念吗？ 于是我和狗， 和妻子、丈夫、女孩， 等等的关系，不管和什么， 就会变得非常肤浅、漫不经心。 只有当我们看到了真相， 在生活中完全摒弃了认同， 那时我们才不会 变得冷漠无情—— 因为那是真实的东西。 我们还没有解决死亡问题。 现在一点五分了， 我们得停下吃午饭了。 |
| 1:31:18 WR: And in the afternoon, I have some more questions... | 1:31:18 拉：下午， 我还有些问题 |
| 1:31:22 K: Good, sir. | 1:31:22 克：好的，先生。 |
| 1:31:24 WR:...a list of things. | 1:31:24 拉：……有个问题清单。 |
| 1:31:26 K: Let’s go through them. | 1:31:26 克：咱们都过一遍。 |
| 1:31:29 WR: And these have been working in my mind for a long time. | 1:31:29 拉：这些问题 我思考了很长时间。 |
| 1:31:32 K: Let’s do it. | 1:31:32 克：咱们谈论一下。 |
| 1:31:33 WR: I want to discuss them with you and today there is one session only we have this afternoon. | 1:31:33 拉：我想跟您讨论一下， 今天只有一场， 我们下午还有时间。 |
| 1:31:41 GN: At four. | 1:31:41 纳：四点。 |
| 1:31:42 WR: At four. | 1:31:42 拉：四点。 |
| 1:31:43 K: You want some more sessions? | 1:31:43 克：你想多来几场讨论？ |
| 1:31:46 WR: Not possible today, because we are going to have lunch. | 1:31:46 拉：今天不行了， 我们得吃午饭了。 |
| 1:31:51 K: No, this afternoon we are going to meet. | 1:31:51 克：不，我们下午见面。 |
