克里希那穆提 - 什么能让我们改变？

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR79T1 - 什么能让我们改变？
第一次公开讲话
英国，布洛克伍德公园
1979年8月25

0:43	I'm sorry the weather is so foul.	很抱歉今天的天气这么糟糕。
1:03	I am sure many of you have come with your personal problems and hope by these talks they will be solved, but they can only be solved if we apply self choiceless awareness and a quality of religious wholeness. I mean - we mean by 'religion' - not beliefs, dogmas, rituals and the vast network of superstition, but religion in the deep sense of that word, which only comes into being when there is this self-awareness and meditation. And that is what we are going to talk about during these four talks and two question and answer meetings, as has been explained.	可以肯定你们很多人是带着自己的个人问题来的，希望通过这些讲话解决这些问题，但是要解决这些问题，我们只能进行无拣择的自我觉察，并运用一种宗教般的圆满品质。 “宗教”这个词，我们指的不是信念、教条、仪式，也不是庞大的迷信网络，而是指宗教这个词更深层次的含义，它只有在这种自我觉察和冥想之中才能出现。而这就是我们要探讨的，通过这四次讲话和两次问答会来探讨，这点之前已经说过了。
2:43	To go into this matter rather deeply, not only to be aware, naturally and easily, with our own particular problems, which are related with the problems of the world, because we human beings are more or less alike throughout the world, psychologically. You may have different colour, different culture, different habits and customs, but in spite of that, all human beings go through a great deal of travail, a great deal of sorrow, great anxieties, loneliness, despairs, depressions. Not being able to solve them, they seek salvation through somebody else, through various forms of beliefs, dogmas and acceptance of authorities.	要相当深入地探讨这件事情，不仅仅是自然地、轻松地觉察到我们自己特定的问题，这些问题是和世界的问题联系在一起的，因为在全世界范围内我们人类在心理上或多或少都是相似的。你可能有不同的肤色、不同的文化、以及各种不同的风俗习惯，但是除了这些以外，所有的人类都经历了巨大的艰辛、巨大的苦难、巨大的焦虑、孤独、绝望、忧伤。人们无法解决这些问题，于是就通过别人去寻找救赎，通过各种形式的信仰、教条和对权威的接受来寻求救赎。
4:14	So when we are discussing, talking over together these problems, if we merely confine ourselves to our own particular little problem, then that self-centred activity only makes it more narrow, more limited, and therefore it becomes more of a prison. Whereas if we could during these talks and dialogues, or questions and answers, if we could relate ourselves to the whole of humankind, to the whole of humanity. We are part of that humanity. Over in the East they suffer just as much as you do; they have their sorrows, their unhappiness, their utter loneliness, a sense of negligence by the society; there is no security, no certainty; they are confused as much as we are here. So we are essentially, deeply psychologically part of that humanity. I think this must be understood really, not merely verbally, or intellectually, or through reason, but one has to feel this. It is not a sentiment, or a romantic idea, but an actuality, that we are part of this whole of humankind and therefore we have a tremendous responsibility.	因此当我们在一起探讨、一同讨论这些问题时，如果我们只是把自己局限在我们自己特定的琐碎问题里，那么这种自我中心的行为只会让这些问题变得更加狭隘，更加局限，进而愈发演变成一种牢笼。然而如果我们可以在这些讨论、对话或是提问和解答中，如果我们能将自身同人类的整体联系起来，同整个人类联系在一起。我们是这人类的一部分。在遥远的东方，人们承受的苦难同你们经受的一样多；他们有自己的悲伤，不幸，深重的孤独，感觉到被社会所忽视；没有安全，没有保障；他们生活在困惑之中，就和此地的我们一样。因此我们从根本上、在内心深处都是整个人类的一部分。我想必须真正地了解这一点，而不是仅仅从字面上或智识上理解，也不是经由思考来理解，而是一个人必须感受到这一点。这并非多愁善感，或是天真烂漫的想法，而是一个事实，即我们是整个人类的一部分，因此我们身上担负着极大的责任感。
6:48	And to bring about a unity of all other human beings, it is only religion can do this, bring us all together. Not politics, not science, not some new philosophy, or some expansive economy, or various organisations - political, religious - none of them are going to bring us together, as a whole. I think this one has to realise very deeply, that no organisation - religious, political, economic, or the various forms of United Nations organisations - will bring man together. It is only religion, in the deep sense of that word, can bring us all together. Religion - we mean by that word not all that is going on in the world, the various superstitions, the make-belief, the hierarchical set-up, the dogmas, the rituals, the beliefs - religion is far beyond all that; it is a way of living, daily. And if we could think over together, think together, not about something, but have the capacity to be able to look, hear and think together. Could we during these talks do that? Not that we must agree with each other, or accept each other's opinions or judgements, but rather putting aside our own particular point of view, our own experience, our own conclusions. If we can set those aside and have the capacity to think together, not about something, which is fairly easy, but to be able to see the same thing together, to hear the same meaning, significance, the depth of a word, to hear the same song, not interpret it according to your like and dislike, but to hear it together. Because I think it is very important to be able to think together, not as a group, having the same thought, the same point of view, the same outlook, but having set aside one's own particular idiosyncrasies, habits of thought, come together in thought. Say, for instance, we can think together about belief. We can argue for it or against it. We can see how important belief is, to have some kind of psychological security. And being desirous of that security, we'll believe in anything. This is happening in the world. Belief in the most ridiculous nonsense, both economically, religiously, and in every way. So we can think about a belief together, agreeing or disagreeing. But we are trying something else, which is not thinking about something, but thinking itself together. I wonder if I am making myself clear.	而要实现所有人类的团结，唯有真正的宗教能够做到这一点，将我们聚拢在一起。政治不能，科学不能，也不是某种新式的哲学，或者某种膨胀的经济，也不是各种组织-政治的或宗教的-能带来的，所有这些都无法让我们团结一心，成为一个整体。我认为人必须深切领悟到这一点，即任何组织 - 宗教的、政治的、经济的或是各种形式的联合国组织 - 都无法让人类走到一起。唯有宗教，以这个词最深的含义，可以让我们团结一致。宗教- 我们所说的这个词指的并不是现在世界上发生着的一切，种种的迷信、人为制造的盲信、等级体系、教条、仪式、信念 - 宗教远远超越这一切；它是一种生活方式，每日的生活方式。如果我们可以一同思考，一同探究，并非思考某件事，而是拥有一种能力，能够一起去看，去听，一起思考。在这几次谈话中我们可以这样做吗？我们并非一定要赞同彼此，或是接受彼此的观点或判断，而是把我们各自特定的看法放在一旁，还有我们各自的经验，各自的结论。如果我们可以放下这些，有能力来一同思考，并非思考某事，那是相当容易的，而是能一起来看同一件事，能听到一个词的同一种内涵和意义以及它具有的深度，一起聆听同一首歌，不是根据你的好恶来诠释它，而是一同来聆听。因为在我看来重要的是能够一同思考，并不是像一个团体那样，持有同样的想法，同样的观点，同样的意见，而是放下一个人自身的特定倾向，思维习惯，在思想上走到一起。举例来说，我们可以一同思考一下信念这个问题。我们可以为它辩护也可以反对它。我们可以看看，要拥有某种心理上的安全感，信念是多么重要。为了追求这种安全，我们可以相信任何事情。这就发生在现实世界中。对极其荒唐的无稽之谈的相信，不光在经济上，宗教上，在任何方面都存在着。所以我们可以一起来思考某个信念，同意或不同意。但我们在尝试的是另外一种东西，它并非是对某件事的思考，而是一起思考本身。我不知道我是否说清楚了。
12:33	No two people apparently are capable of thinking together, unless there is some catastrophe, unless there is some great sorrow, a crisis, then people come together and think together, about a war, and so on. It is always thinking together about something. Right? But we are trying something, which is to think together. Which is only possible if we for the moment forget ourselves, our own problems, our own inclinations, our intellectual capacities, and so on, so on, and meet each other. That requires a certain sense of attention, a certain sense of awareness, that each one of us are together in the quality of thinking. I don't know how to express it more than that. Could we do that about all our problems? We can think together about our problems, but to have the capacity to think at the same level, with the same intensity, not about something, but the feeling of thinking together. I wonder if you get it?	很显然，任何两个人都无法一起思考，除非灾难降临，除非要面对某种巨大的痛苦和危机，那时人们才能走到一起并一起思考，思考战争等等的问题。人们总是一起对某件事进行思考。对吗？但我们所尝试的，是一起思考。这只有当我们暂时忘却了自己，忘记了自己的问题、自己的倾向、我们智力上的能力等等等等，然后彼此相遇时，才可能发生。这需要某种关注，某种觉察，这要求我们每一个人都一起投入到思考当中。我不知道怎么才能更好地表述这一点。我们可以这样一同思考我们所有的问题吗？我们可以一同思考我们的问题，但是我们要有这样的能力，以同样的深度来思考，以同样的热忱来思考，不是思考某件事，而是那种一起思考的感觉。我想知道你们是否明白了？
14:45	If we could do that, we can go together into many things. That means a certain quality of freedom, a certain sense of detachment, not forced, compelled, driven, but the freedom from our own backyard, and then meet together. Because this becomes very important when you want to create a good society. The philosophers have talked about it, the ancient Greeks, the ancient Hindus, and the Chinese have talked about bringing about a good society. That is, in the future. Some time in the future we will create a good society according to an ideal, a pattern, a certain sense of ideals, and so on. And apparently, throughout the world a good society has never come into being; there are good people, maybe. It is becoming more and more difficult to be good in this world. And we are always looking to the future to bring about this good society, good in the sense where people can live on this earth without wars, peacefully, without slaughtering each other, without competition, in a sense of great freedom, and so on. We are not defining what is good for the moment; the definition of the good doesn't make one good.	如果我们可以这么做，我们即可共同探究许多的事情。那意味着某种自由的品质，某种超脱感，不是被迫，被勉强，也不是被驱使，而是某种从我们自身的问题中解脱出来的自由，然后彼此相遇。因为当你们想要建设一个美好的社会，这一点就变得尤其重要。哲学家们曾经谈论过这个问题，古希腊人，古印度人，还有中国人都曾谈论过怎样实现一个美好的社会。也就是说，在未来的某一天。未来的某个时候，我们会创造出一个美好的社会，根据某种理想、某种模式，根据某种理想主义，等等。但很显然，走遍整个世界，这样美好的社会从未出现过；尽管也许是有些善良的人。在这个世界上，良善的生活正变得越来越困难。而我们总是把眼光投向未来，希望未来能有这样一个美好的社会。美好意味着可以在这个地球上和平地生活，没有战争，不必彼此屠杀，没有竞争，生活在一种巨大的自由感之中，等等。我们此刻并不是在定义什么是美好；定义出的美好无法让人变得美好。
17:28	So can we together think the absolute need of a good society? The society is what we are. Society doesn't come into being mysteriously, it is not created by God; man has created this society, with all the wars and all that is going on. We don't have to go into all the horrible details of it. And that society is what we are, what each human being is. That is fairly obvious. That is, we create the society with all its divisions, with its conflicts, with its terror, with its inequality, and so on, so on, so on. Because in ourselves we are that, which is in our relationship with each other, we are that. We may be fairly tolerant, fairly affectionate in private relationships - even that's rather doubtful - but with regard to the rest of the human beings we are not. Which is again fairly obvious, when you read the newspapers, magazines and actually see what is going on. So, good society can only come into being not in the future, but now when we human beings have established right relationship between ourselves. Is that possible? Not at some future date, but actually in the present, in our daily life, could we bring about a relationship that is essentially good? Good being without domination, without personal interest, without personal vanity, ambition, and so on. So that there is a relationship between each other which is based essentially on - if I may use the word and I hope you won't mind - love. Is that possible?	所以我们能否一起想一想一个美好的社会绝对需要些什么？社会即是我们的样子。社会并不是神秘地突然产生的，它并非由上帝创造；人类自己创造了这个社会，制造了战争和现在发生着的一切。我们不必深入到所有那些令人恐怖的细节中了。社会即是我们自己的样子，每个人现在的样子。这一点是非常明显的。即，我们创造了社会以及它所有的分裂、它的冲突、它的恐怖、它的不公，等等等等。因为我们自己就是如此。我们彼此的关系就是如此。在私人关系里，我们可能非常友爱，充满情谊 - 尽管这一点也相当值得怀疑 - 但是对其他的人类我们就不是这样了。这同样是明显的事实，你阅读报纸杂志的时候，看看现实中发生的事情就会明白。所以，美好的社会不是在未来实现，而只能是现在，只有当我们人类彼此之间建立起正确的关系时才有可能。这可能实现么？不是在未来的某一天，而是在确确实实的现在，在我们的日常生活中，我们能否实现一种本质上良善的关系？良善意味着没有统治、没有个人利益、没有个人的虚荣、野心等等。这样一来，彼此之间就有了一种关系，这关系本质上植根于 - 如果我可以用这个词，希望你们不会介意 - 爱。这可能实现么？
20:46	Can we, as human beings, living in this terrible world which we have created... Could we bring about a radical change in ourselves? That is the whole point. Some philosophers and others have said human conditioning is impossible radically to change; you can modify it, you can polish it, refine it, but the basic quality of conditioning you cannot alter. There are a great many people who think that, the Existentialists, and so on, so on, so on. Why do we accept such conditioning? You are following, I hope, what we are talking about? Why do we accept our conditioning which has brought about this really mad world, insane world? Where we want peace and we are supplying armaments. Where we want peace and we are nationalistically, economically, socially dividing each other. We want peace and all religions are making us separate, as they are, the organisations. There is such vast contradiction out there as well as in ourselves. I wonder if one is aware of all this, in ourselves, not what is happening out there. Most of us know what is happening out there. You don't have to be very clever to find out, just observe. And that confusion out there is partly responsible for our own conditioning. We are asking: is it possible to bring about in ourselves a radical transformation of this? Because only then we can have a good society where we won't hurt each other, both psychologically as well as physically.	作为人类，我们是否可以在这个我们自己创造的可怕的世界上生活... 我们是否可以在我们内心实现彻底的转变？这是整个重点所在。一些哲学家和别的什么人曾说过，人类的局限是不可能彻底改变的；你可以修正它，你可以修饰它，提炼它，但是根本的局限你无法改变。有很多很多人就是这么认为的，包括存在主义者，等等。为什么我们接受这种局限？我希望，你们在听我们正在讨论的内容。为什么我们接受自身的局限？这局限造就了这个极度疯狂、不健全的世界。我们想要和平却同时在贩卖武器。我们想要和平却在国家上、经济上、社会上分裂彼此。我们想要和平，但所有的宗教都在让我们彼此分离，事实如此，所有的组织也一样。世上有这么多的矛盾冲突一如我们的内心。我不知道我们有没有察觉到这一切，察觉到我们内心的状况，而非外在发生的事情。我们大多数人都知道外在世界发生着什么。你不一定要非常聪明才能发现，只是去观察。外在的混乱在一定程度上对我们的局限负有责任。我们要问：我们能否从我们内心出发，把这一切来一场彻底的转变？因为只有这样我们才能有一个良善的社会，在那里我们不会彼此伤害，无论是在心理上还是在身体上。
23:47	When one asks this question of ourselves, what is our deep response to that question? One is conditioned, not only as an Englishman, or a German, or Frenchman, and so on, but also one is conditioned by various forms of desires, beliefs, pleasures, and conflicts, psychological conflicts - all that contributes to this conditioning, and more. We will go into it. We are asking ourselves, thinking together - because we are thinking together I hope - can this conditioning, can this human prison with its griefs, loneliness, anxieties, personal assertions, personal demands, fulfilments, and all that - that is our conditioning, that is our consciousness, and our consciousness is its content. And we are asking: can that whole structure be transformed? Otherwise we will never have peace in this world. There will be perhaps little modifications, but man will be fighting, quarrelling, perpetually in conflict within himself and outwardly. So that is our question. Can we think together with regard to this?	当这个关乎我们自身的问题提了出来，我们内心深处的回答是什么？人是局限的，不仅是作为英国人，或是德国人、法国人等等，同时人也局限于各种形式的欲望、信念、快感和冲突，心理上的冲突 - 这一切都加深了局限，带来了更多问题。我们会深入探讨这个问题。我们在问自己，在一起思考 - 因为我希望我们在一起思考 - 这种局限，这种人类的牢笼及其种种悲伤、孤独、焦虑、个人的主张，个人的需要、满足，所有这些 - 那就是我们的局限，那就是我们的意识，而我们的意识就是它的内容。于是我们要问：这整个结构可以被转变么？否则我们就永远无法在这个世界上拥有和平。也许会有一些微小的改观，但人们仍会彼此交战，争吵，陷入内在和外在无休止的冲突之中。所以这就是我们的问题。我们可以一起思考它么？
26:31	Then the question arises: what is one to do? One is aware that one is conditioned, knows, conscious. This conditioning has come into being by one's own desires, self-centred activities, through lack of right relationship with each other, one's own sense of loneliness. One may live among a great many people, have intimate relationships, but there is always this sense of empty whirl within oneself. All that is our conditioning, intellectual, psychological, emotional, and also physical, naturally. Now can this totally be transformed? That I feel is the real revolution. In that there is no violence.	然后一个问题出现了：我们该怎么办？一个人觉察到自身的局限，了解到，意识到。这种局限产生于他自己的欲望、自我中心的行为、彼此之间缺少正确的关系、内心的孤独感。一个人可能同许许多多人生活在一起，拥有亲密的关系，但总是有这样一种感觉，好像心中有个空虚的漩涡。所有这些都是我们的局限，在智力上，心理上，感情上，当然，同时也在身体上。那么这一切可以被完全转变么？我感到这就是真正的革命。这其中不存在暴力。
28:09	Now can we do it together? Or if you do it, if you understand the conditioning and resolve that conditioning, and another is conditioned, will the man who is conditioned listen to another? You understand? Perhaps you are unconditioned, will I listen to you? And what will make me listen? What pressure, what influence, what reward? What will make me listen to you, with my heart, with my mind, with my whole being? Because if one can listen so completely, perhaps the solution is there. But apparently we don't seem to listen. So we are asking: what will make a human being, knowing his conditioning - most of us do if you are at all intelligently aware - what will make us change? Please put this question to ourselves, each one of us, find out what will make each one of us bring about a change, a freedom from this conditioning? Not to jump into another conditioning: it is like leaving Catholicism and becoming a Buddhist. It is the same pattern. So what will make one, each one of us, who, one is quite sure, is desirous of bringing about a good society, what will make him change? Change has been promised through reward - heaven, a new kind of carrot, a new ideology, a new community, new set of groups, new gurus - a reward. Or a punishment: 'If you don't do this you will go to Hell.' So our whole thinking is based on this principle of reward and punishment. 'I will do this if I can get something out of it.' But that kind of attitude, or that way of thinking, doesn't bring about radical change. And that change is absolutely necessary. I am sure we are all aware of it. So what shall we do?	那么我们能一起转化自身么？或者如果你这样做了，如果你理解了这个局限并且消解了这个局限而另一个人仍在局限中，那个局限中的人会去倾听别人么？你们理解么？也许你已经没有了局限，可我会听你的话么？什么才能让我倾听？什么压力，怎样的影响，什么样的回报？什么才能让我倾听你，用我的心灵、我的头脑，用我的整个存在去倾听？因为如果一个人可以这样全然地倾听，也许答案就在那里。但显然我们看起来并没有倾听。因此我们要问：怎样才能让一个人，了解自身的局限- 我们大多数人都能了解，只要你有一点点智力上的觉察 - 什么才能让我们改变？请我们每个人都将这个问题问一问自己，去发现什么才能让我们每一个人发生改变，从这局限中解脱出来？并不是跳入另外一种局限：就像脱离了天主教却又成了一个佛教徒。那是同一个模式。所以什么才能让一个人，我们中的每一个人，这个人非常确定，他想要创造一个良善的社会，什么才能让他改变？人们总是基于奖赏才会承诺做出改变 -天堂、某种新的好处、某种新的主义、新的社团、新的组织体系、新的上师 - 一种奖励。不然就是惩罚： “如果你不这样做你就会下地狱。” 所以我们的整个思想都建立在这种奖惩规则上。 “如果能从中得到点回报我就会去做。” 但这种态度或这种思维方式，是不会带来彻底转变的。然而这种转变迫在眉睫。我相信大家都看到了这一点。那么我们该怎么办？
32:10	Some of you have listened to the speaker for a number of years. I wonder why. And having listened, it becomes a new kind of mantram. You know what that word is? It is a Sanskrit word meaning, in its true meaning is not to be self-centred and to ponder over about not becoming. The meaning of that is that - mantram means that. Abolish self-centredness and ponder, meditate, look at yourself so that you don't become something. That is the real meaning of that word which has been ruined by all the transcendental meditation nonsense.	在座的一些人多年来都在听讲者的演讲。我不知道为什么。听了这么久，所说的东西已经成为一种新的咒语(mantram)。你们知道这个词的意思么？它是一个梵文词语，意思是，它真正的含义是不要自我中心，去沉思不要成为什么。这就是'mantram'这个词的意思。停止自我中心，沉思，冥想，观察自己从而不达成什么。那就是这个词的真正含义，这个词已经被那些超验冥想的胡说破坏了。
33:34	So some of you have listened for many years. And do we listen and therefore bring about a change or you have got used to the words and just carry on? So we are asking: what will make man, a human being who has lived for so many million years, carrying on the same old pattern, inherited the same instincts, self-preservation, fear, security, sense of self-concern which brings about great isolation, what will make that man change? A new God? A new form of entertainment? A new religious football? New kind of circus with all the - you know - with all that stuff? What will make us change? Sorrow apparently has not changed man, because we have suffered a great deal, not only individually, but collectively, as a whole of mankind we have suffered an enormous amount - wars, disease, pain, death. We have suffered enormously, and apparently sorrow has not changed us. Nor fear. That hasn't changed us, because our mind is pursuing constantly, seeking out pleasure, and even that pleasure is the same pleasure in different forms, that hasn't changed us. So what will make us change?	你们有些人已经听了很多年。我们是否聆听了并因此实现了改变，还是你们已经对这些话语习以为常，只是一如既往地得过且过？于是我们要问：什么才能让一个人，人类生活了几百万年的时间，仍背负着同样陈旧的模式，继承了同样的天性，自我保护、恐惧、安全感、自私自利，这些造成了深重的隔绝，而什么才能让这个人改变？一个新的神祗？一种新型的娱乐？一种足球赛式的新宗教？新型的马戏以及- 你们知道的 - 以及诸如此类的东西？什么才能让我们改变？悲伤显然没能改变人类，因为我们已经承受过太多痛苦，不光是个人的，还有集体的痛苦，我们整个人类都经历了巨大的苦难 - 战争，疾病，痛苦，死亡。我们承受过极大的苦难，然而显然痛苦没能改变我们。恐惧也没能。那些没有改变我们。因为我们的头脑总是在不断追求，寻找快乐，即使那些快感千篇一律，仅仅形式上不同而已，这些也没有令我们改变。那么什么才能让我们改变？
36:33	We don't seem to be able to do anything voluntarily. We will do things under pressure. If there was no pressure, no sense of reward or punishment - because reward and punishment are too silly to even think about. If there was no sense of future - I don't know if you have gone into that whole question - of future, that may be our deception, psychologically. We will go into that presently. If you abandon all those, then what is the quality of the mind that faces absolutely the present? Do you understand my question? Are we communicating with each other? Please, say yes or no, I don't know where we are. I hope I'm not talking to myself.	我们似乎无法自发地去做任何事情。我们在压力下才会做事情。如果没有任何压力，没有感受到任何奖励或惩罚 - 因为奖励和惩罚都太愚蠢，甚至都不必去想这些。如果没有某种未来感， - 我不知道你们是否曾经探究过整个 - 关于将来的问题，那也许是我们心理上的自欺。我们马上就会探究这个问题。如果我们抛弃了那一切，那么头脑将具有怎样的品质来全然地面对现在？明白我的问题么？我们是在相互沟通么？请说一说，是或者不是，我都不知道我们谈到了哪里。我希望我不是在自说自话。
38:01	If one realises that one is in a prison, that prison created by oneself, oneself being the result of the past - parents, grandparents and so on, so on - inherited, acquired, imposed, that is our psychological prison in which we live. And naturally, the instinct is to break through that prison. Now, does one realise, not as an idea, not as a concept, but as an actuality, psychologically a fact? When one faces that fact, why is it even then there is no possibility of change? You understand my question?	当一个人意识到自己是在一个牢笼里，一座自己制造的牢笼，自己是过去的结果 - 从父母、祖父母等等那里继承的、获得的、强加来的东西，那就是我们生活在其中的心理牢笼。所以自然而然地，就有种本能想打破这个牢笼。现在，一个人是否意识到了这点，不是作为一个想法，不是作为一个理论，而是作为一个真切的事实，是否认识到了这个心理事实？当一个人面对这个事实的时候，为什么即使这个时候仍然没有改变的可能？明白我的问题么？
39:41	This has been a problem, a problem for all serious people, for all people who are concerned with the human tragedy, the human misery, and asking themselves why don't we all bring about a sense of clarity in ourselves, a sense of freedom, a sense of being essentially good? I don't know if you have not noticed, the intellectuals, the literary people, the writers, and the so-called leaders of the world are not talking about bringing about a good society, they have given it up. We were talking the other day to some of these people and they said, 'What nonsense that is, that is old-fashioned, throw it out. There is no such thing as a good society any more. This is Victorian, stupid, nonsensical. We have to accept things as they are and live with them.' And probably for most of us it is like that. So you and I, as two friends talking over this, what shall we do?	这已经成为一个问题，对于所有严肃诚挚的人来说，对于所有关怀人类的痛苦、人类的不幸的人，要问问自己为什么我们不能获得某种内心的清明，某种自由，某种真挚的善良？我不知道你们有没有注意到，那些知识分子、精通文学的人们、作家以及所谓的世界领袖，都不谈论如何创造一个美好的社会，他们全都放弃了。有一天当我们和那样一些人讨论的时候，他们说，“这些都是无稽之谈，早已经过时了，扔掉这些想法吧。再也没有美好的社会这回事了。这是维多利亚时代的东西，愚蠢，荒谬。我们只能接受事情现在的样子，并与之共处。” 可能我们中的大多数人也都这样想。于是你和我，作为两个朋友探讨了这个问题之后，我们该做些什么？
41:30	Authority of another doesn't change, doesn't bring about this change, right? If I accept you as my authority, because I want to bring about a revolution in myself and so perhaps bring about a good society, the very idea of my following you, as you instructing me, that ends good society. I wonder if you see that? I am not good because you tell me to be good, or I accept you as the supreme authority over righteousness, and I follow you. The very acceptance of authority and obedience is the very destruction of a good society. Isn't that so? I wonder if you see this. May we go further into this matter?	奉别人为权威不会改变，实现不了这种转变，对么？如果我接受你作为我的权威，因为我想要在自己内心进行一场革命，这样也许就会带来一个美好的社会，可正是这个我追随你的想法本身，即你指导我，这本身就终结了良善的社会。不知道你们是否看到了这一点？并不会因为你让我变善良我就会变得善良起来，即使我奉你为至高无上的正义权威，追随你，我也不会真的改变。恰恰是对权威的接受、服从毁掉了良善的社会。难道不是么？不知道你们能否看到这一点。我们要更深入地探讨这个问题么？
42:48	If I have a guru - thank god I haven't got one - if I have a guru and I follow him, what have I done to myself? What I have done in the world? Nothing. He tells me some nonsense, how to meditate, this or that, and I will get marvellous experience or levitate, and all the rest of that nonsense, and my intention is to bring about a good society where we can be happy, where there is a sense of affection, a relationship, so that there is no barrier, that is my longing. I go to you as my guru and what have I done? I have destroyed the very thing that I wanted Because authority, apart from law and all the rest of that, psychological authority is divisive, is in its very nature separative. You up there and I down below, and so you are always progressing higher and higher, and I am also progressing higher and higher, we never meet! (Laughter) You laugh, I know, but actually this is what we are doing. So, can I realise authority with its implication of organisation will never free me? Authority gives one a sense of security. I don't know, I am confused, you know, or at least I think you know, that's good enough for me. I invest my energy and my demand for security in you, in what you are talking about. And we create an organisation around that, and that very organisation becomes the prison. I don't know if you know all this? That's why one should not belong to any spiritual organisation, however promising, however enticing, however romantic. Can we even accept, see that together? You understand my question? See it together, to be a fact, and therefore when we see that together it is finished. Seeing that the very nature of authority, with its organisation, religious and otherwise, is separative; and obedience, setting up the hierarchical system, which is what is happening in the world and therefore which is part of the destructive nature of the world, seeing the truth of that, throw it out. Can we do that? So that none of us - I am sorry - so that none of us belong to any spiritual organisations. That is, religious organisations, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, none.	如果我有个上师- 感谢上帝我没有 - 如果我有一个上师并且追随他，那么我对自己做了什么？我对世界做了些什么？什么都没有。他告诉我一些无稽之谈，怎样冥想，这样那样，然后我就能得到绝妙的体验或能在空中漂浮，诸如此类的胡言乱语，但我关心的是带来一个良好的社会，生活在其中，我们都能快乐，那里充满了爱的感觉，其中有一种真正的关系，因而完全没有了障碍，这就是我的渴望。我把你作为上师来膜拜，那么我做了什么呢？我恰恰毁灭了我所希求的东西。因为权威，除了法律以及其他的那一切，心理上的权威必然导致分歧，它本身的性质即是分裂的。你高高在上而我低微在下，你总是前进得越来越高，而我也在走得越来越高，可我们永远都遇不上！（笑声）你笑了，我知道，但这其实正是我们在做的事。所以，我能否认识到权威及其衍生出的组织永远不能让我自由？权威给人一种安全感。我不知道，我很迷惑，但你知道，或者至少我认为你知道，那对我来说已经够了。我把我的精力和我对安全的渴望投注在你身上，投注在你所说的东西上。而且我们据此创建了一个组织。而恰恰是这个组织变成了监狱。不知道你们了解这一切么？这就是为什么一个人不应该属于任何一个灵性组织，无论前途怎样光明，怎样迷人，怎样罗曼蒂克。我们能一起看到，哪怕是接受这一点么？明白我的问题么？一起看到这点，看到那是一个事实，因而当我们一起看到了它，它就结束了。看到权威的本质，它的组织，不管是不是宗教性的，都会带来分裂；同时，对权威的服从，建立起等级体系，这就是世界上发生的事，因而也是这个世界毁灭性的一部分，看到这一真相，抛弃它。我们能做到么？于是我们中不再有人- 我很抱歉 - 于是不再有人属于任何一个灵性组织。也就是宗教组织，天主教、新教、印度教、佛教，一个都不属于。
47:12	By belonging to something we feel secure. Right? Obviously. But belonging to something invariably brings about insecurity, because in itself it is separative. You have your guru, your authority, you are a Catholic, Protestant, and somebody else is something else. So they never meet, though all organised religions say, 'We're all working together for truth.' So can we, listening to each other, to this fact, finish from our thinking all sense of acceptance of authority, psychological authority, and therefore all the organisations created round it, then what happens? Have I dropped authority because you have said so and I see the destructive nature of these so-called organisations? And do I see it as a fact and therefore with intelligence? Or just vaguely accept it? I don't know if you are following this? If one sees the fact, the very perception of that fact is intelligence, and in that intelligence there is security, not in some superstitious nonsense. I wonder if you see? Are we meeting each other? I am a bit lost. Would you tell me, are we meeting each other?	属于什么东西让我们感到安全。对么？很明显。但属于什么东西不可避免地会造成不安全，因为它自身就是分裂的。你有你的上师、你的权威，你是天主教徒、新教徒，而别人是其他的什么教徒。于是他们永远不会相遇，虽然所有的宗教组织都说， “我们都在为真理而一起努力。” 所以，我们能不能倾听彼此，倾听这个事实，从我们的思想里结束所有对权威的接受，终结心理上的权威及其周围衍生的所有组织，然后会怎样？是否因为你告诉了我，我就放弃了权威并且看到了那些所谓组织的毁灭本性？我是否将这作为一个事实看清了，因而拥有了智慧？还是我只不过含糊地接受了这些？我不知道你们是不是跟上了这点？如果一个人看到了事实，对事实的觉察本身就是智慧，而安全就在那智慧中，而不是在某些迷信的无稽之谈里。我不知道你们看到了没有？我们在与彼此相遇么？我有一些茫然。你能否告诉我，我们彼此相遇了么？
49:18	Q:Yes.	发问者：是的。
49:20	K: No, not verbally, please. That is very easy, because we are all speaking English, or French, or whatever it is. Intellectually, verbally is not meeting together. It is when you see the fact together.	克：不，不是字面意思上的相遇，拜托。语言上的沟通是很容易的，因为我们都说英语，或者法语，或者无论什么语言。理智上，语言上的沟通并不是相遇。只有在我们一起看到事实的时候。
49:48	Now can we... So we are asking can we look at the fact of our conditioning? Not the idea of our conditioning. The fact that we are British, German, American, Russian, or Hindu, or Eastern, or whatever it is, that is one thing. Conditioning brought about through economic reasons, climate, food, clothes, and so on, physical. But also there is a great deal of psychological conditioning. Can we look at that as fact? Like fear. Can you look at that? Or if you can't for the moment, can we look at the hurts that we have received, the wounds, the psychological wounds that we have treasured, the wounds that we have received from childhood. Look at it, not analyse it. The psychotherapists - sorry I hope there aren't any here - the psychotherapists go back, investigate into the past. That is, seek the cause of the wounds that one has received, investigating, analysing the whole movement of the past. That is generally called analysis, psychotherapy. Now, discovering the cause, does that help? And you have taken a lot of time, years perhaps - it is a game that we all play, because we never want to face the fact, but 'Let's investigate how the fact has come into being.' I don't know if you are following all this?	现在我们能不能...我们要问我们能不能看到自己的局限，这一事实？而不是关于我们的局限的想法。事实上，我们是英国人、德国人、美国人、俄国人或印度人、东方人，无论什么，都是一回事。局限产生于经济原因、气候、食物、衣服等等物质的因素。然而还有许许多多心理上的局限。我们能看到这些事实么？比如恐惧。你能观察它么？或者如果你现在无法做到，我们能不能看看我们受过的伤害，种种心理上的伤痕，我们视若珍宝的创伤，我们从小经受过的伤害。观察它，而不是分析它。精神治疗师们 - 对不起，我希望在座各位都不是 - 精神治疗师追溯过去，探索过去的影响。也就是，寻找一个人所受创伤的源头，研究，分析整个过去的运动。这通常被称作分析，精神疗法。然而，去发掘原因，这么做有帮助吗？你花费了很多时间，或许很多年 - 这是一个我们都在玩的游戏，因为我们从来不愿意去面对事实，而是说“让我们研究一下这事实是怎么发生的。” 我不知道你们理解这些了么？
52:32	So you are expending a great deal of energy and probably a great deal of money into proficient investigation into the past, or your own investigation, if you are capable of it. And we are saying, such forms of analysis are not only separative, because the analyser thinks he is different from the thing he is analysing, right? You are following all this? So, he maintains this division through analysis, whereas the obvious fact is the analyser is the analysed. I wonder if you see that? The moment one recognises that the analyser is the analysed, because when you are angry you are that - is this a puzzle? - that the observer is the observed. When there is that actual reality of that, then analysis has no meaning, there is only pure observation of the fact which is happening now. I wonder if you see this? It may be rather difficult because most of us are so conditioned to the analytical process, self-examination, introspective investigation, we are so accustomed to that, we are so conditioned by it, that perhaps if something new is said, you instantly reject, or you withdraw. So please investigate, look at it.	因此你们花费了大量的精力，同时也可能花了大量的金钱对过去进行深入的研究，或者你自己进行研究，如果你有这个能力的话。我们要说，这种形式的分析不仅会造成分裂，因为分析者认为他与他所分析之物是不同的，对不对？你们跟上这点了么？所以，他通过分析维系了这种分裂，但事实显然是分析者就是被分析之物。我不知道你们是否看到了这点？一旦你看到了这一点即分析者就是被分析之物，因为当你生气的时候你就是愤怒 - 这是不是有些费解？- 即观察者即是所观之物。如果看到了这个真切的现实，那么分析就没有任何意义了，只有纯然的观察，观察正在发生的事实。我不知道你们是否看到了这一点？对于我们大多数人来说这可能相当困难因为我们已经深深局限于分析的过程，自我反省，内省式研究，我们对此太习以为常，太过局限于此，以致于可能一旦说出某种崭新的东西，你会立刻排斥，或者避而不谈。所以请审视，请看看这点。
54:53	We are saying: is it possible to look at the fact as it is happening now - anger, jealousy, violence, pleasure, fear, whatever it is - to look at it, not analyse it, just to look at it, and in that very observation is the observer merely observing the fact as something separate from himself, or he is the fact? I wonder if you get this? Am I making myself clear? You understand the distinction? Most of us are conditioned to the idea that the observer is different from the thing observed. I have been greedy, I have been violent. So at the moment of violence there is no division, it is only later on thought picks it up and separates itself from the fact. So the observer is the past looking at actually what is happening now. I wonder if you get all this? So can you look at the fact - you are angry, misery, loneliness, whatever it is - look at that fact without the observer saying 'I am separate and looking at it differently.' You understand? Or does he recognise the fact is himself, there is no division between the fact and himself? The fact is himself. I wonder if you see. And therefore what takes place when that actuality takes place? You understand what I am saying?	我们说：有没有可能观察当下正在发生的事实 - 愤怒、嫉妒、暴力、快感、恐惧，无论什么 - 观察它，而不去分析它，只是看着它，而在这种观察中究竟仅仅是观察者在观察着事实，把事实作为与他自己分离的东西来观察，还是他自己就是那事实本身？我想知道你们明白这点了么？我有没有说清楚？你们理解其中的区别么？我们大多数人都局限于一种观念，即观察者不同于观察到的东西。我是贪婪的，我是暴力的。而在暴力的时刻并不存在着划分，只是在后来思想捡起这件事然后将自己与事实分离开来。因此观察者是过去在审视当下在发生的事情。我想知道你们是否明白了这一切？所以你能否观察事实 - 你生气，痛苦，孤独，无论什么 - 观察事实而没有一个观察者说 “我与事实是分开的，我从旁边观察它。” 你们理解么？还是他发现事实即是他自己，在事实和他自己之间没有分别？事实即是他自己。不知道你们是否明白。那么当真的看到事实的时候会发生什么？你们理解我说的意思么？
57:24	Look, my mind has been conditioned to look at the fact, which is loneliness - let's take that, no, we began with being hurt, from childhood. Let's look at it. I have been accustomed, used to thinking that I am different from the hurt, right? And therefore my action towards that hurt is either suppression, avoidance, or building round my hurt a resistance, so that I don't get hurt any more. Therefore that hurt is making me more and more isolated, more and more afraid. So this division has taken place because I think I am different from the hurt. Right? You are following all this? But the hurt is me. The 'me' is the image that I have created about myself which is hurt. Right? I wonder if you see all this? May I go on? You are following all this?	你看，我的头脑局限地来看这个事实，孤独的事实- 我们以此为例，不，我们从受伤开始，从童年起受的伤害开始。我们来观察它。我已经习以为常，习惯于认为我是不同于伤害的，对么？因此我对那伤害采取的行为要么压抑、逃避，要么围绕着伤痛竖起高墙，一种抗拒，以便不再受伤。于是这个伤害让我越来越封闭，越来越害怕。所以这个分别的产生是由于我认为自己不同于伤害。对不对？你们理解这一切了么？但是伤害即是我自己。这个“我”就是我制造的关于自己的意象，是它受伤了。对么？不知道你们是否看到了这些？我可以继续么？你们理解这些了么？
58:48	So, I have created an image through education, through my family, through society, through all the religious ideas of soul, separativeness, individual, all that, I have created an image about myself, and you tread on that image - I get wounded. Then I say that hurt is not me; I must do something about that hurt. So I maintain the division between the hurt and myself. But the fact is the image is me, which has been hurt. Right? So can I look at that fact? Look at the fact that the image is myself, and as long as I have the image about myself somebody is going to tread on it. That's a fact. Can the mind be free of the image? Because one realises as long as that image exists you are going to do something to it, put a pin into it, and therefore there will be hurt with the result of isolation, fear, resistance, building a wall round myself - all that takes place when there is the division between the observer and the observed, which is the hurt. Right? This is not intellectual, please. This is just ordinary observing oneself, which we began by saying 'self-awareness.'	所以，我制造了一个意象，通过教育，通过我的家庭，通过社会，通过所有宗教里的灵魂之说，分离性，个体性，通过所有这些，我给制造了一个关于自己的意象，你践踏了这个意象- 我就受到了伤害。接着我说那伤害并不是我；我必须对伤害采取行动。因此我维系了伤害和我自己之间的划分。然而事实是，意象即是我，是它受到了伤害。对么？所以我能否看到这一事实？看到意象即是我自己的事实，并且只要我对自己抱有意象，注定会有人来践踏它。这是一个事实。头脑能不能从意象中解脱出来？因为一个人意识到只要存在意象，你就会对它做些什么，就会刺痛它，因此就会有伤害，进而带来的结果是隔绝、恐惧、抗拒，在我自己四周筑起围墙 - 所有这些都会发生只要存在观察者和所观之物即伤害之分。对么？这并不是什么高深的智力问题，拜托。这仅仅是很普通的对自己的观察，就是我们在开始所谈的“自我觉察”。
1:00:58	So, what takes place then, when the observer is the observed - you understand? - the actuality of it, not the idea of it, then what takes place? I have been hurt from childhood, through school, through parents, through other boys and girls - you know - I have been hurt, wounded, psychologically. And I carry that hurt throughout my life, hidden, anxious, frightened, and I know the result of all that. And now I see that hurt exists as long as the image which I have created, which has been brought about together - as long as that exists, there will be hurt. That image is me. Can I look at that fact? Not as an idea looking at it, but the actual fact that the image is hurt, the image is me. I wonder if you see? Right? Could we come together on that one point at least, think together? Then what takes place? Before I tried, the observer tried to do something about it. Here the observer is absent, therefore he can't do anything about it. You get it? You understand what has taken place? Before the observer exerted himself in suppressing it, controlling it, not to be hurt, isolating himself, resisting, and all the rest of it, making a tremendous effort. But whereas when the fact is the observer is the observed, then what takes place? Please do you want me to tell you? Then we are nowhere, then what I tell you will have no meaning. But if we have come together, think together and come to this point, then you will discover for yourself that as long as you make an effort, there is the division. Right? So, in pure observation there is no effort, and therefore the thing which has been put together as image begins to dissolve. That's the whole point.	所以，当观察者就是所观之物时，会发生什么？ - 你们理解么？-是确实发生了这个事实，而不是一个观念，那么会发生什么？我从小就受到伤害，在学校里，在家长那里，在其他的男孩女孩那里- 你们知道的 - 我已经受到伤害，心理伤害。并且终生我都背负着这个伤害，隐隐作痛，焦躁不安，战战兢兢，我知道所有这些结果。现在我看到伤害一直会存在，只要我自己制造的意象，被一起建立起来的意象 - 只要它存在，就必然有伤害。那个意象就是我。我能看到这个事实么？不是作为一个观点来看一看，而是看到这个真切的事实，这个意象受到了伤害，这个意象就是我。不知道你们是否看到了？对么？我们可以至少在这一点上走到一起，一同思考么？接着会发生什么？在我尝试之前，观察者就在试图对此做点什么。现在观察者不在了，因此他什么都做不了。明白么？明白发生了什么吗？之前观察者竭力让自己去压抑它，控制它，不要受伤，隔绝自己，抗拒，诸如此类，付出了巨大的努力。但是当事实是观察者就是所观之物，那么会发生什么？拜托，你们希望我来告诉你们么？那么我们就哪儿都到不了，那么我告诉你的会毫无意义。但如果我们一路同行，一同思考并且走到了这一点，那么你就会自己发现这一点，也就是，只要你做出努力，就会有分离。对么？因此，在纯然的观察里没有努力，因此那些被拼凑起来的意象就开始瓦解。这就是整个重点所在。
1:04:25	We began by saying 'self-awareness,' and the meditative quality in that awareness brings about a religious sense of unity. And human beings need this enormous sense of unity which cannot be found through nationalities, through all the rest of that business. So can we, as human beings, after listening for perhaps an hour, see at least one fact together? And seeing that fact together resolve it completely, so that we as human beings are never hurt, psychologically. In that thinking together implies that we both of us see the same thing, at the same time, at the same level, which means love. You follow, sirs? I think that's enough for this morning, isn't it? We'll meet again tomorrow morning.	我们从讨论“自我觉察”开始，这种觉察中的冥想品质会带来一种宗教意义上的一体感。人类需要这种浩瀚的一体感，而这是无法从纷繁的国家以及其他诸如此类的事情中找到的。因此，作为人类，我们能不能在倾听了大约一个小时之后，能不能一起看到至少一个事实？一起看到事实，彻底地解决它，这样我们作为人类就不会再经受任何心理伤害。一起思考意味着我们都看到同样的东西，在同样的时间，在同样的层面，这就意味着爱。理解了么，先生们？我觉得今天早上说这么多已经足够了，不是么？明天早上我们会再见。