Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR84Q1 - 第一次问答会
布鲁克伍德公园，英国
1984年8月28日



1:10 Krishnamurti: A lot of questions have been asked, a whole sheaf of them. Some of them are letters and some very short questions. And we can’t answer all of them. It would be impossible. It would take many, many days. And some questions have been chosen out of that lot. 克里希那穆提：你们提出了大量的问题， 一大堆的问题。 有些问题长篇大论，有些问题则非常简短。 而我们不可能回答所有的问题。这是不可能的。 那将会花费很多很多天。 我们从这一大堆问题中挑选出了一些。
1:48 Before we go into these questions we ought to talk over together, if we can ask a question from a state of mind, or brain, that is holistic, that sees, comprehends, or perceives the whole human problem. Not just one particular problem but all problems are related to each other. 而在我们进入这些问题之前， 我们应该首先一起来讨论下： 我们是否能够 以一种「整体性」的心灵状态或头脑状态去问问题， 这样我们便能看到、理解、 或洞察到整个人类的问题。 不只是某个特定的问题， 因为所有的问题都是彼此关联的。
2:38 There is no one separate problem disassociated from the others. If that is so, then to ask a question or to face a problem from an integrated outlook. You understand what I mean? Most of us are fragmented, broken up – business, religious, family life, sexual life, religious life, and so on. We are all not holistic, whole human beings, which is a fact. We look at life from a particular point of view, from a conclusion, or from some idealistic concepts. These are all fragmentations, fragmented outlook on life – right? We are talking things over together. And can we ask or face a problem from a wholly different outlook which is not fragmented at all? Do you understand? Are we meeting each other in this? We just thought of it as we came across the lawn here: whether we ask any question, or face any problem holistically. I hope you don’t mind using that word. Though it is a so-called scientific word, I hope the scientists will forgive us if we use that word. From a point of total integration, integrity and ask questions. It is rather interesting if we go into it. 并不存在一个能够脱离于其他问题而孤立存在的问题。 如果我们可以这样做， 那么我们便能从一个完整全面的视角 去问一个问题， 或者面对一个问题了。 你理解我的意思了吗？ 我们绝大多数人都是支离破碎的、分裂的 ——无论是在生意场上、宗教上， 还是在家庭生活、性生活、 宗教生活等等之中。 我们都不是整体的、完整和谐的人类， 这是一个事实。 我们总是从某个特定的视角， 从某个结论， 或者从某些理想化的概念出发去看待生活。 而这些全都是碎片， 是对于生活的碎片化的看法——对吗？ 我们正在一起讨论这些事情。 那么我们是否能够 从一个完全不同的视角， 一个没有任何分裂的视角去问问题或面对问题呢？ 你理解了吗？我们都明白这点了吗？ 我们刚刚穿过草地来到这里时，就想到了这个问题： 那就是：我们是否是从「整体」（holistically）的角度在询问任何问题， 或者面对任何问题。 我希望你们不介意我使用「整体」这个词。 尽管它是一个所谓的“科技词汇”， 但我还是希望科学家们可以原谅我们使用这个词语。 从一个完全整体与完整的角度出发， 然后去问问题。 如果我们能深入它的话，这是相当有趣的。
5:53 Is it possible, recognising that we are fragmented, broken up, divided in ourselves, contradictory, opposing one desire against another desire, and so on, knowing all that, being aware of all that, could we face a problem, which is from a different focus? Why do we have problems? We have got so many problems political, religious, sexual, and so on, we have multiple problems in life. And problems are increasing in a society that is so sophisticated, so complex – overpopulation, bad governments, and so on. And in the resolution of one problem we seem to increase many other problems – right? Why? In answering this question that is going to raise... the answer is going to awaken similar problems. Why do we have problems and is it possible to meet a problem without a brain that is already conditioned to solve problems? Do you understand my question? You don’t understand it. Neither do I for the moment! 那就是：我们是否可能 在认识到了我们是分裂的、支离破碎的、 自我分裂的、自我矛盾的， 一个欲望在对抗着另一个欲望，等等， 在知道了这一切，觉察到了所有这些以后， 我们是否可以从一个不同的关注点去面对问题？ 为什么我们会有各种问题？ 我们已经有了如此多的问题， 政治上的、宗教上的、性方面的问题，等等， 我们在生活中有着无数种问题。 而在一个如此老练世故，如此复杂的社会里， 问题还在不断增加 ——人口过剩， 糟糕的政府，等等。 而在解决一个问题的过程中， 我们似乎又增加了很多其他的问题——对吧？ 为什么会这样呢？ 就在回答这个问题的过程中，它就会带来 那个答案就会唤起各种类似的问题。 为什么我们会有问题呢？ 而我们是否可能 不要用一个已经习惯于去解决问题的大脑去面对问题呢？ 你们明白我的问题吗？ 你不明白它。 我暂时也不太明白！
8:19 So let’s look at it. We go to school, very young, almost five or seven, and so on. And children are faced with a problem – mathematical problem, how to write, how to read, how to learn mathematics, you know, it becomes a problem. So from childhood our brain is conditioned to solving problems. Right? This is a fact. It is not some fantastic theory of the speaker. So one goes to college, there are again problems. And university, jobs, various functions, vocations, and so on, problem after problem. Our brain is full of problems – right? And we are always seeking from a brain that is conditioned to solve problems, we are always seeking a solution to problems – right? Is this clear? We are together in this? Now, how can the brain solve problems if it is not free from problems? Right? Are we together a bit in this? It is rather an interesting question, this, please let’s go into this. 所以让我们来看一下它。 我们从很小的时候，就开始去上学， 差不多五岁、七岁等等时候就去上学了。 然后孩子们便会开始面对问题 ——数学上的问题，如何写字， 如何阅读，如何学会算术， 你知道的，它变成了一个问题。 所以从小开始，我们的大脑就已经习惯于去解决各种问题。 对吧？这是一个事实。 这并不是演讲者某种异想天开的理论。 然后一个人上了大学，他在那里又遇到了很多问题。 读大学，找工作， 各种职责，各种职业，等等， 一个又一个的问题。 我们的大脑充满了问题——对吧？ 而我们总是在通过一个 已经习惯于去解决问题的大脑去寻求， 去寻求问题的解决——对吗？ 这一点清楚了吗？我们都理解这点了吗？ 那么，如果大脑还没有摆脱掉问题， 它又怎么可能解决问题呢？ 对吧？ 我们是否稍微有点理解它了？ 它是一个相当有趣的问题，这个问题， 让我们来探讨一下它吧。
10:12 Our brains are conditioned to the resolution of problems, the solution of problems, from childhood. And as the brain is conditioned to solve problems, it is always seeking a solution, and it is not understanding the problem itself, but the solution of the problem – right? Are we together a little bit in this? Yes? Good! And is it possible not to have a brain... to have a brain that is not conditioned to problems? You understand my question? I am asking you, sirs and ladies, your brain is conditioned now to the solution of problems, and we have never solved the problems. They are increasing more and more and more – why? Is it because a conditioned brain, which is embedded in problems, can never solve problems? Right? You have understood this? Have I put the question? Oh, come on, sirs! Is it possible to have a brain that is not conditioned to the solution of problems, but to the understanding of problems? Isn’t there a difference between the solution of problems and the understanding of the problem? In the understanding of the problem the solution may lie in the problem. Not away from the problem – right? 我们的大脑已经习惯于去解答问题， 去解决问题， 从小开始就这样了。 而由于大脑已经习惯于去解决问题了， 因此它总是在寻求问题的解决， 所以它并不了解问题本身， 而只知道问题的解决方案——对吗？ 我们是否稍微有点理解它了？ 理解了？很好！ 那么，我们是否可能不要有这样一个大脑 我们是否可能拥有一个不被问题所制约的大脑？ 你们理解我的问题了吗？ 女士们先生们，我正在问你们， 你的大脑如今已经受到了制约， 它已经习惯于去解决各种问题， 然而我们却从未能解决问题。 问题在不断地增加，增加，再增加——为什么会这样呢？ 是不是因为一个受制约的大脑， 一个根植于问题之中的大脑， 它是永远无法解决问题的？ 对吗？你们理解这一点了吗？ 我把问题说清楚了吗？ 噢，来吧，先生们！ 我们是否可能拥有一个 不再习惯于去解决问题， 而是去了解问题的大脑？ 解决问题和了解问题 是有区别的，不是吗？ 在了解问题的过程中， 那个解决方案或许就藏在问题里， 而不是远离问题的——对吗？
12:45 Take a very ordinary example: we have never stopped wars. Human beings on this earth since they came on this earth have had wars, and we have never solved the problem of war. But we decided to reorganise how to kill man better. And this reorganisation, how to kill man better, is called progress. I don’t know if you are following all this. This is not a joke. So we move from organisation to organisation. We had first the League of Nations, and now we have the United Nations, but wars go on. They have different organisations – you understand? So we move from one organisation to another hoping thereby to solve problems, and multiply problems. So we never stop wars. And the cause of war is nationalism, economic division, local division, and so on – division: linguistic, racial, religious, economic, cultural, and so on. These divide man. We are all human beings, we all suffer, we all have pain and anxiety, boredom, loneliness, despair. We don’t tackle that but we want to solve the problems that seem to have external causes – right? 举一个非常普通的例子： 我们从未能够停止战争。 自从人类诞生于这个地球以来， 他们在这个地球上 一直在进行着战争， 而我们从未能够解决战争的问题。 但我们却决定重新组织如何去更好地屠杀人类。 而这种「重组」，也就是如何去更好地杀死人类， 被称为是“进步”。 我不知道你们是否理解了这一切。 这并不是一个笑话。 所以我们从一个组织转到另一个组织。 我们先是有了「国际联盟」， 而现在我们又有了「联合国」， 然而战争却仍在继续着。 人类已经有了不同的组织——你理解了吗？ 所以我们从一个组织转移到了另一个组织， 希望由此能够解决问题， 然而我们却让问题倍增了。 所以我们从未能够停止战争。 而导致战争的原因是国家主义、经济的割裂独立， 地区的划分，等等——那些划分： 语言上的、种族上的、宗教上的、 经济上的、文化上等等的划分。 这些划分已经分裂了人类。 我们全都是人类的一员，我们都在受苦， 我们都会有痛苦、焦虑、厌烦、孤独、绝望。 我们并没有去解决这些问题， 但我们却想要去解决那些 似乎是由外部原因所引发的问题——对吧？
14:59 So we are asking: can the brain, recognising, seeing that it is conditioned to the solution of problems from childhood, be free of it and then face problems? Right? All right, sirs? Will you do it? That is the question. To be conscious, to be aware that our brain, that we as human beings, from the beginning of life, we are always struggling with problems, and trying to find the right answer to them. The right answer can only be when we recognise the brain is conditioned, and as long as that brain is conditioned to solving problems, we will never find the right answer – clear? 所以我们在问： 在大脑认识到、观察到 它从小就习惯于 去解决问题后，它是否能够 摆脱掉这种习惯，然后再去面对问题？ 对吗？ 你们说对吧，先生们？ 你们会这样做吗？ 这就是问题所在。 那就是要去意识到、去觉察到 我们的大脑，我们作为人类， 从生命的伊始， 我们就一直在与各种问题作斗争， 去努力找到问题的正确答案。 然而只有当我们意识到这一点，才会有正确的答案： 那就是我们的大脑是被制约的， 而只要大脑还是习惯于去解决问题， 我们就永远无法找到正确的答案——这一点清楚了吗？
16:22 So do I recognise that fact, not the idea but the fact? There is a difference between idea and the fact – right? I hear this statement and from that statement I draw a conclusion – quite right, this is so, and from that statement I abstract an idea of it and then pursue the idea, not the fact that my brain is conditioned to solve problems. That is the fact, not that I should be free of this conditioning. That is non-fact. You understand? So the brain is conditioned and as long as that condition exists, multiplications of problems will go on, reorganisation of the problems will go on, and changing from one Capitalist society to Totalitarian society or this or that will always bring about enormous problems – right? Can you and I be free of the brain that is conditioned? That is to be aware of it and see the depth of it, the truth of it, the logic, the sanity, the reason of it, and not move away from that, not find some abstract explanations. Right. 所以我是否认识到了这个事实，不只是一个观念，而是事实？ 观念和事实是有区别的——对吧？ 我听到了这样的陈述， 然后我从这个陈述中得出了一个结论 ——完全正确，的确如此， 从那种陈述之中，我提取出了一个抽象的观念， 然后我追求的是那个观念， 而不是那个事实 ——也就是我的大脑已经习惯于去解决问题。 这是一个事实， 而不是说我应该去摆脱掉这种制约 ——这就不是事实了。你理解了吗？ 所以大脑已经受到了制约， 而只要这种制约还是存在， 问题就会继续大量增加， 而我们则会继续因为这些问题而重新组织， 从一个资本主义社会变为 极权主义社会，变成这个或那个， 而这总是会带来巨大的问题——对吧？ 那么你和我能够摆脱掉这个受制约的大脑吗？ 也就是去觉察它，去看到它的深度， 它的真相，它的逻辑、理智和理性， 而不要离开它， 不要为它寻找一些抽象的解释。 就是这样。
18:31 Is this all right? I am asking if it is all right, perhaps it is all wrong! No, it is not all wrong. This is a fact. If one cannot get on with one’s wife – quarrels, contention, you know, all the rest of it – and I divorce, one divorces, then choose another person. And keep on repeating this – right? If one has the money! If one has plenty of time and energy, this is the game that is going on in the world, on a small or a bigger scale. But the problem is not divorce or... and all the complications of relationship, but to understand the depth of relationship, the meaning of relationship. Relationship, as we pointed out, is one of the most important things in life. Not the emotional expressions of it – the tantrums, the neuroticism of relationship, but what is important, significant, has depth in relationship. And we never ask that question. We want to solve the problem of relationship. You understand? And so we never solve them. The psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and so on, are multiplying in the world, like mushrooms. And they are not solving problems. They are not solving the depth of all this. 这一切都对吗？ 我在问这一切到底对不对，也许它们全都是错的！ 不，这一切并不是错的。 这是一个事实。 如果我无法和自己的妻子友好相处 ——总是在吵架、争论，你知道的，所有这一切—— 于是我离婚了，某人离婚了， 然后他选择了另一个人为伴。 接着继续重复同样的故事——对吧？ 如果他有钱的话！ 如果他有大量时间和精力的话。 这就是全世界正在进行着的游戏， 以较小或较大的规模进行着。 然而问题并不在于离婚或者 所有那些关系中的错综复杂， 而是要去了解关系的深层意义， 关系的含义。 就如我们所指出的， 关系是生命中最重要的东西之一。 这里不是指关系情绪化的表现 ——在关系中发脾气、 发神经， 而是关系中重要的、意义重大的、 极具深度的部分。 而我们从未问过这个问题。 我们只想要解决关系中的问题。 你们理解了吗？ 所以我们从未解决过它们。 那些精神病医生、心理治疗师等等， 他们在这个世界上如雨后春笋般地冒出来。 然而他们并没有在解决问题。 他们并没有解答这一切的深层含义。
21:03 So we should consider together what is the art of living. Do you understand? Oh, come on, sirs. It is a nice morning. 所以我们应该一起来思考下：什么是「生活的艺术」。 你们明白了吗？ 噢，来吧，先生们。 这是一个美好的早晨。
21:21 Q: Are you saying that if we have a system for solving problems, then every time we approach a problem we use our system instead of understanding? 听众：你是不是在说当我们有了一个解决问题的体系， 那么每次当我们处理一个问题时， 我们都会使用这个体系来解决它，而不是去了解它？
21:30 K: That’s right. The lady is saying if we have a system, a pattern, of solving a problem, then the system is operating, not the understanding and the depth of the problem. It is the same thing. We were talking about the art of living, sorry, these are the questions, but there it is – you don’t mind? We will come to them. There are many of them, so we have chosen six of them. That will be enough for this morning. But we are asking what is the art of living? We have the art of poetry, painting, the art of so many... art of cooking, specially now, and so on. But we have never asked ourselves, perhaps which is the greatest art – what is the art of living? Is there an art? Or is it all just chance, or is it all some genes, a biological chance, and so on? What is the true art of living? Are you waiting for me to answer it? If one answers it, don’t make a problem of it. Then the art is thrown out of the window. 克：没错。 这位女士说：要是我们有了一个 解决问题的体系或模式， 那么就是那个体系在运作着， 而不是对于问题的了解，对于问题的深层理解。 这是一回事。 我们正在谈论生活的艺术， 很抱歉，你们有很多问题，但我这里 你们不介意吧？ 我们会来回答它们的。 问题太多了，所以我们从中选择了六个问题。 对于今天早上来说，六个问题也足够了。 但我们正在问的是：什么是生活的艺术？ 我们有诗歌艺术， 绘画艺术， 很多种类的艺术 烹饪的艺术，如今特别流行。 等等。 但我们从来没有问过自己， 什么是「生活的艺术」——而它可能是最伟大的艺术。 有什么生活的艺术吗？ 还是说一切都只是机缘巧合， 或者它是某种基因上的、 生物学上的偶然巧合，等等？ 什么才是真正的生活的艺术？ 你们在等待着我来回答它吗？ 如果某人回答了它，请不要把它也变成一个问题。 那时这种艺术就会被扔到窗外去了。
23:49 So, let’s look at it together to find out what is the art of living? Art in the widest and the depth of that word, not just all the contents of a museum. If you are asked that question, what is the art of living, what would be your answer? Not calculated answer, personal answer, or emotional, or romantic answer, which are meaningless – right? If I answer that question emotionally – oh, it is the most... the art of living is the highest aspiration – which is sheer nonsense. The art of living is the most exalted, intellectual activity – right? That is only very partial. Or the art of living is to have a holistic outlook on life. Sounds excellent, but factually it isn’t. So what is the art of living? Obviously, no conflict whatsoever – right? A brain that is in conflict all the time, having problems all the time, this tremendous self-concern, such a brain must inevitably be limited, right? If one is thinking about oneself – how to meditate, whether you can... all the rest of it – your very meditation is self-centredness. So, the art of living, it appears – you can add to it more – is to live without conflict. Is that possible at all? That is, to understand the opposing elements in one’s life – right? Desiring one thing, opposed to that desire another thing. You know, this corridor of dualities. And the self-centredness, as long as that self-centredness exists, there must be conflict because self-centredness is limited, small, petty. But you listen to all this but carry on. Right? And you say that is not possible in modern society to live without self-centredness, at least a little bit of it. Have you ever tried? Have you ever done, lived without self-centredness for one day – not to think about oneself? Just even for an hour! And see what happens. You haven’t committed to anything! You can go back to your selfishness, self-centredness, nobody is going to say how wrong it is, or right it is, that is the normal state of human beings, apparently. So if one really tries for an hour – actually do it, not try it, do it, and see what happens. And if you do it one hour, you can extend it. You don’t really – it gives you tremendous energy. It gives you great sense of passion, not lust and all that business, but passion to pursue something profoundly to the very end of things. Right. Is that enough for this morning? We had better come back. 所以，让我们一起来看一下它， 去搞清楚什么才是「生活的艺术」？ 最广阔和深层意义上的“艺术”， 而不只是博物馆里的那些东西。 如果有人向你提出这个问题：什么是「生活的艺术」？ 你的回答会是什么？ 不是那种精心谋划的答案，个人化的答案， 或者感情化的、浪漫化的答案， 这些都是没有意义的——对吧？ 如果我满怀深情地回答了这个问题 ——噢，它是最什么什么的东西 生活的艺术是我们最终极的渴望—— 这些纯粹是胡扯。 生活的艺术就是最高尚、最理智的行动 ——对吧？ 这都是非常片面的说法。 或者说，生活的艺术就是对生命有一个整体性的视野。 听起来很棒，但实际上并不是那么回事儿。 所以，什么才是生活的艺术呢？ 很显然，它就是没有任何冲突 ——对吗？ 当大脑始终处于冲突之中， 一直有着各种问题， 这种极度的自私自利， 这样的大脑必然是局限的，对吧？ 如果你在想着你自己的事 ——如何去冥想，你是否能够 等等这些—— 那么你的冥想本身也是自我中心的。 所以，生活的艺术看起来就是 ——你可以给它添加更多的含义—— 就是毫无冲突地生活。 它到底可不可能呢？ 也就是说，要去了解我们生活中那些彼此对立的元素 ——对吗？ 渴望某个东西， 而另一个东西却在反对这种渴望。 你知道的，这种二元对立的过程。 而那种自我中心， 只要这种自我中心还是存在， 那就必定会有冲突， 因为自我中心是局限的、渺小的、卑微的。 然而在你听过了这些以后，你还是会继续你的老样子。对吗？ 你会说在现代社会里，我们是不可能 没有自我中心地生活的——至少还是会有一点的。 可你曾经尝试过它吗？ 你曾经这样做过吗？ 没有自我中心地生活……一天， 不再去盘算自己的事情？ 哪怕只有一个小时也好！ 然后看看会发生什么。 你还没有致力于去做过任何事！ 你可以回到你的自私自利和自我中心， 没有人会说它是多么的错误，或者多么的正确， 因为很显然，这就是人类的常态。 所以，如果我们真的去尝试哪怕一个小时—— 真正地去这样做，不是尝试去做，而是去做它，然后看看会发生什么。 而如果你能这样做一个小时，那么你就可以延长这个时间。 但你其实并没有——它将会给予你无比惊人的能量， 它会给你带来一种充满热情的强烈感受，但不是感官欲望，等等那些东西， 而是那种去追求某种深刻事物的热情， 去追根究底的热情。 好了。今天早上说到这里就够了吧？ 我们最好还是回到正题。
29:36 I haven’t read these questions, first. I haven’t – this is the first time I am looking at them. So you are also looking at them for the first time. 首先，我并没有读过这些问题。 我还没有看过……这是我第一次看到这些问题。 所以你们也是第一次看到它们。
29:51 FIRST QUESTION: What is attention if it has nothing to do with thought? Is it an activity of the brain? Is it a physical process? How does it come into being? You say we cannot bring about attention by an act of will. What must one not do in order to allow attention to exist? （第一个问题）如果「全然关注」（attention）与思想无关， 那么什么是「全然关注」呢？ 它是一种大脑的活动吗？ 它是一种外在身体上的过程吗？ 它是如何出现的？ 你说我们无法经由意志的行动带来「全然关注」。 那么我们必须避免做哪些事情， 才能有这种「全然关注」呢？
30:23 Do nothing! Sorry, I must answer it. 什么都别做！ 很抱歉，我必须回答它。
30:38 What is attention if it has nothing to do with thought? Is it an activity of the brain? Is it a physical process? How does it come into being? You say we cannot bring about attention by an act of will. What must one not do in order to allow attention to come into being? Right? You have got the question? 如果「全然关注」（attention）与思想无关的话， 那么什么是「全然关注」呢？ 它是一种大脑的活动吗？ 它是一种外在身体上的过程吗？ 它是如何出现的？ 你说我们无法经由意志的行动带来「全然关注」。 那么我们必须避免做哪些事情 才能让这种「全然关注」出现呢？对吗？ 你们清楚这个问题了吗？
31:11 He is asking what is attention. Is it a physical act? Is it the movement of thought? Is it an action of desire, which is the essence of will? Desire is the essence of will – right? How does this attention come about? Which is, can it come naturally, easily, without making tremendous effort, going to colleges, or attending some guru, being trained, can it all come about, this attention, naturally? We are going to talk over together – right? We are going to look at the question, not the answer. The question is: what is attention? In which is implied, not only the hearing of the ear, but hearing without the ear. You understand? And also attention implies seeing, perceiving – right? Seeing visually, but also seeing with the inner eye as it were – right? And attention also means learning – right? Agree? Seeing, hearing and learning. Those three things are implied. Which means, what is learning? Is it memorising? You are following this? Somebody say, ‘Yes’ – I don’t want to go on talking to myself. So is it memorising as we do when we go to the school, college, university, memorising, storing up knowledge from books, from professors, from teachers, from house-masters, and so on? Which is, always accumulating as knowledge and using that knowledge, skilfully or not. Right? A carpenter – an apprentice to a master carpenter is learning the nature of the wood, what kind of wood, the grain, the beauty of the wood, the feeling of the wood, and the instruments which he is employing, and so on – he is learning. And that learning is through experience: day after day, month after month, accumulating knowledge about carpentry, making a master cabinet maker – right? That is what we call learning. That kind of learning is limited, obviously, because all knowledge is limited, now or in the past or in the future – right? Because all the scientists, biologists, etc., and so on, are accumulating. They killed a man with an arrow, or a club, at the beginning of time, now you can blast the whole millions and millions of human beings with one blow. That is tremendous accumulation of knowledge, to do that. Whether for good or for bad. 他在问：什么是「全然关注」？ 它是一种外在身体上的行动吗？ 它是思想的活动吗？ 它是一种欲望的行为吗？ 也就是意志的本质？ 欲望就是意志的本质——对吧？ 那么这种「全然关注」要如何才能产生呢？ 也就是说，它能够自然地、轻易地降临吗？ 而无需我们作出巨大努力： 去读大学， 或者去找某个古鲁， 接受他的训练， 这种「全然关注」，它能够自然地出现吗？ 我们将会一起来讨论下它——好吧？ 我们将会来观察一下这个问题，而不是答案。 这个问题就是：什么是「全然关注」？ 在这个问题中，不仅暗示了 用耳朵去聆听， 也包括那种不用耳朵的聆听。你理解了吗？ 而「全然关注」同样意味着 去看，去观察——对吗？ 在视觉上看到它。 同样也要用那种好像是“内在的眼睛”去看——对吗？ 而「全然关注」也意味着「学习」——对吗？ 你们同意它吗？ 看到，聆听和学习。 「全然关注」就暗示了这三样东西。 这意味着：什么是「学习」？ 它是去记住一些东西吗？ 你们理解这一点了吗？ 有些人说，“理解了” ——我不想再继续自言自语了。 所以「学习」就是那种我们所做的记忆之类的事情吗？ 当我们去上学，去读专科学校，去读大学时候， 我们会去记忆各种东西， 去储存积累知识 ——来自于书本、教授、老师 和舍监等人所传授的知识？ 也就是说，我们总是在积累知识， 然后熟练或不熟练地使用那种知识。 对吧？ 一个木匠， 他是一位木匠大师的学徒， 他会学习，了解各种木头的特质， 木头的种类，木头的质地纹理， 木头美丽之处，木头的感觉， 以及他所要使用的那些工具等等 ——他正在学习。 而他是通过经验来学习的： 日复一日，月复一月， 积累关于木工的知识， 力争成为一个家具木工大师——对吧？ 这就是我们所谓的“学习”。 但很显然，这种学习是有局限的。 因为所有的知识都是局限的， 不管是现在、过去还是未来的知识——对吗？ 因为所有的科学家、生物学家等等， 他们在不断积累着知识。 在最早的时候，他们用弓箭或棍棒来杀人， 而现在，你们可以一下子就炸死 数百万人。 只有在积累了惊人的知识后，人们才能做到那些事情。 不管是好是坏。
36:02 So – and that knowledge is always limited – right? So is there a learning which is not limited? It’s fun, go on. I am just discovering something myself. Is there a learning that is not an accumulative process of knowledge, learning? In which is implied, hearing, not only the words, the significance of the words, your reactions to the words, your responses to certain favourite words, like love and hate, you know, and all the rest of it, and also seeing without any prejudice, seeing without the word – you understand? Can you look at a tree without the word? You understand? Have you ever done all this? That means seeing without direction, without motive, without any network of thought or blocking the seeing. And learning, which is a limitless process. So attention implies all that plus – or the beginning of it – is to be aware – right? Are we aware as we sit here, the extent of this tent, the great number of people accumulated here and the number of posts along there, and to look at all that without a single word. To be aware. But in that awareness you begin to choose. I like that blue shirt better than what I am wearing – right? I like the way your hair is done, better than mine. Right? You are always comparing, judging, evaluating, which is choice, and to be aware without choice – you understand? As we are talking, will you do all this? Or you are just listening to words? If we are doing this, then you begin to discover awareness is entirely different from concentration. Concentration implies focusing all thought on a particular subject, on a particular page, on a particular word. Which implies cutting off all other thoughts, building resistance to every other thought, which then becomes narrow, limited – right? So concentration is limited. But you have to concentrate when you are doing something, washing dishes. You have to wash the dishes very carefully, the right kind of soap, the right kind of water. You know all this. And awareness without choice, which means without concentration, to be aware of all this without judging, evaluating, condemning, comparing, and from that, move, which is attention, which is natural. That is, I want to listen to the story you are telling me, a very exciting thriller. And I listen to you very carefully. Or you are telling me something very, very serious, and I pay... I am so eager, so attentive to understand what you are saying. I understand what I am thinking about that, it’s irrelevant, but I am tremendously concerned with what you are saying. Therefore I am all attention – all my nerves, my whole being says, what are you talking about, I want to understand. In that attention there is no me – right? Get it? When there is this tremendous attention, which means all your energy is given to understand what you are saying, I am not thinking about myself, therefore there is no centre in me that says, ‘I must attend’ – right? I wonder if you get all this? 因此，那种知识永远是局限的——对吧？ 那么是否存在一种没有局限的学习呢？ 这很有趣，让我们继续下去。 我只是自己在探索一些东西。 是否存在一种学习， 它并不是一种积累知识的过程，而是在学习？ 在它之中就暗示了「聆听」， 不只是聆听那些词语，那些词语的意义， 你对于词语的反应， 你对于某些你所喜爱词语的回应， 比如「爱与恨」，你知道的，所有这些东西， 同样也要毫无偏见地去看， 不带文字词语地去看——你明白了吗？ 你能够不带文字词语地去看一棵树吗？ 你理解了吗？ 你是否曾经这样做过？ 那意味着没有方向、没有动机地去看， 也没有任何思想的网络或观察的障碍。 去学习， 它是一个永无止境的过程。 所以「全然关注」就暗示了所有这些东西，以及 ——或者说它的起点—— 就是去觉察，对吗？ 当我们坐在这里时，我们是否有所觉察？ 觉察到这个帐篷的范围大小， 觉察到帐篷里聚集着的大量的人， 以及这里帐篷支撑柱的数目， 不带任何文字词语地去观察这一切。 去觉察。 然而在那种觉察中，你会开始选择。 相比我身上穿着的衬衫，我更加喜欢那件蓝色的衬衫 ——对吧？ 我喜欢你的发型，我觉得它比我的发型要好。 对吧？ 你总是在比较、判断、评价， 而这就是选择， 而你需要毫无选择地去觉察 ——你理解了吗？ 在我们讨论它的时候，你们会这么去做吗？ 还是说你们只是随便听听这些话语？ 如果我们正在这样做，那么你就会开始发现 觉察是完全不同于专注的。 专注意味着 将所有的思想都集中在某个特定对象上， 集中在某一页书上，某个词语上。 这意味着切断所有其他的思想念头， 建立起一道屏障来抵御所有其他念头， 而那时这种专注就会变得狭隘与局限——对吧？ 所以专注是有局限的。 然而在你做某些事的时候， 你必须要专注，比如洗盘子。 你必须要非常小心仔细地洗盘子， 适量的肥皂，合理的水量。 你们都知道这些东西。 而没有选择的觉察， 它意味着没有专注， 去觉察这一切， 没有判断，没有评估，没有谴责，没有比较， 然后在这个基础之上去行动， 这就是「全然关注」，它是很自然的。 也就是说，我想要聆听你和我讲述的故事， 一个非常惊险刺激的故事。 我会非常认真地聆听你。 或者你正在和我讲述某种非常非常重要的东西， 所以我会很专心……我是如此热切地渴望， 如此的专心致志，想要去了解你正在说的东西。 我知道我自己对此的看法， 但这是无关紧要的， 因为我极度关心你正在说的东西。 所以我保持着全然的关注 ——我所有的神经，我的整个存在都在问： 你正在说些什么， 我想要去了解。 在那种「全然关注」中是没有“我”的——对吧？ 你们明白了吗？ 当有了这种惊人的全然关注， 这意味着 你付出了全部的能量去了解对方所说的东西， 我并没有在考虑我自己的想法， 因此并没有那个“我的中心” 在说，“我必须要专心注意”——对吗？ 我不知道你们是否理解这一切了？
42:35 Q: Is that the right question? 听众：他问的是一个正确的问题吗？
42:40 K: What, sir? 克：你说什么，先生？
42:42 Q: Is that the right question? 听众：他问的是一个正确的问题吗？
42:44 K: What is the right question here, the gentleman asks, if I understand rightly. Sorry, if you ask questions from the audience, we can never get through this. Not that we must get through it, but there are too many people, if you don’t mind. What is the right question here and what is the right answer? If it is a right question, you will never ask it! This is not just cleverness. A right question, if you put it, you have the answer. But the right question is – doesn’t – is not put because you want an answer, you are concerned, you are worried, you are biased – you follow? The right question, when you put it, the right question is the right answer. May we go on to the next question? 克：这位先生在问：什么才是正确的问题？ 如果我没理解错的话。 但很抱歉，如果你们从听众席上问问题的话， 我们就永远无法回答完这个问题了。 并不是说我们一定要回答完这个问题， 但这里的人实在太多了，所以我希望你们不要介意。 在这里，什么是正确的问题，什么是正确的答案？ 如果它是一个正确的问题，你就永远不会问它了！ 这并不只是抖机灵的回答。 当你提出了一个正确的问题后，你就已经得到了答案。 然而正确的问题——它不是—— 你提出它并不是因为你想要一个答案， 并不是因为你很担心、很焦虑，你有偏见——你跟上了吗？ 正确的问题，当你提出了正确的问题， 那个正确的问题，它就是正确的答案。 我们可以继续下一个问题吗？
44:05 SECOND QUESTION: If the whole of life is one movement, with its own order, why is man so disorderly? （第二个问题）：如果整个生活是一种 有其自身秩序的运动， 为什么人类还会如此混乱失序？
44:16 If the whole of life is one movement with its own order, why is man so disorderly? 如果整个生活是一种有其自身秩序的运动， 为什么人类还会如此混乱失序？
44:27 Why do we assume that the whole of life is one movement, with its own order? You first state a fact, supposed to be a fact – and then try and say why is there disorder. You understand? First you assume, one assumes that life is a vast movement and in that vast movement, that very movement is order. You state that first: if. And then you say, why is man so disorderly? Right? You understand? Wouldn’t it be the right question to ask: why is man disorderly? Not assume that life is perfect order – right? The fact is we live disorderly, why? That is the question. Why do we live disorderly? What is disorder? What is disorder to you? Disorder is the activity of thought which is in itself limited. Right? Whatever the limited activity of thought does, it will bring about disorder. Because thought in itself is limited, because thought is born of knowledge, and knowledge is limited. Right? Oh, God! This is not an epigrammatical statement. What is – I mustn’t, I was too quick – what is order and what is disorder? How will you find order? Is order a definite pattern which you have set, which thought has set? You say, ‘I must get up at 6 o’clock in the morning, do this, this, this and go to the office’, or factory – is that determined, planned, day after day, is that order? So we must first ask not what is order, but what is the cause of disorder – agree? 为什么我们要假定 整个生活是一种 有其自身秩序的运动呢？ 你先是陈述了一个事实，一个假定的事实—— 然后又试图去说：为什么会有混乱失序呢？ 你理解了吗？ 首先你假设了，某人假设了 生活是一种巨大广阔的运动， 在这种巨大广阔的运动中，这种运动本身就是秩序。 你先是作出了这种陈述：如果它是什么什么 然后你再说：为什么人类如此混乱失序？ 对吧？你明白了吗？ 正确的问题难道不是应该问： 为什么人类是混乱失序的？ 而不是去假设生活是一种「完美的秩序」——对吗？ 事实就是我们的生活是混乱失序的， 为什么会这样呢？ 这就是问题所在。 为什么我们的生活是混乱失序的？什么是「混乱失序」（disorder）？ 对你来说，混乱失序是什么？ 混乱失序是思想的活动 而思想本身是有局限的。 对吧？ 无论思想做出了何种局限性的行为， 它都会带来混乱失序。 因为思想本身就是局限的， 因为思想源自于知识， 而知识是局限的。对吧？ 噢，天哪！ 这并不是一种警句式的表述。 什么是……——我不能，我讲得太快了—— 什么是秩序？什么是混乱失序？ 你要如何才能找到秩序？ 秩序是一种你所设定的、思想所设定的 确定不变的模式吗？ 你会说，“我必须要每天早上六点起床， 先做这个，再做那个，然后去办公室上班”，或者去工厂上班 ——这些都是事先确定好的、计划好的、每天重复做的事情。这就是秩序吗？ 所以我们首先必须问的并不是「什么是秩序」， 而是要探询导致失序的原因——你们同意吗？
47:46 What is the cause of disorder in our life? First of all, we must admit, whether we like it or not, that we live a very, very disordered life. That is a fact, isn’t it? Would you agree to that one thing at least? 导致我们生活中混乱失序的原因是什么？ 首先，我们必须承认——不管我们喜欢与否—— 那就是：我们的生活是非常非常混乱无序的。 这是一个事实，不是吗？ 你们是否至少能够同意这一点？
48:10 Q: No.

K: No? What is disorder? And then you have to ask, if it is lack of order, then what is order. How can a mind, brain, which is so disorderly, find out what is order? Why don’t we be a little bit logical, rational – though reason, logic are limited, you must begin with that and then go beyond it. But if you say: order is this, then it becomes military. Right? It becomes a tremendous discipline. Agree? This is all so simple. All right. 		听众：不同意。

克：不同意？ 什么是「混乱失序」？ 那时你就必须要问了： 如果「失序」就是失去秩序，那么什么是「秩序」呢？ 一个如此混乱无序的心灵或大脑， 它又怎么可能发现什么是「秩序」呢？ 为什么我们就不能先稍微逻辑和理性一点呢 ——尽管理性和逻辑也是局限的， 但你必须从它开始，然后才能去超越它。 可要是你说：秩序就是什么什么， 那它就变得太“军人作风”了。 对吧？ 它变成了一种强大的纪律（discipline）。 你们同意吗？这一切都是很简单的。 好吧。
49:27 So, we have to go into this carefully. First, let us enquire what is discipline. The soldiers are trained day after day, month after month, haven’t you seen them? The beating of the drum, the sergeant and all that, order, discipline, obey. And the obedience to an Abbot, to a Pope, and so on – is called order. There is order according to the policeman. In Europe you drive on the right-hand side, in this country you drive on the left-hand side. That is order. And the man who is used to driving on the left-hand side goes over there and says that is disorder. Follow all this please. So what is the cause of disorder? If I can understand that and be free of that cause, there is naturally order. I don’t have to find out what is order. So I have to first enquire why this enormous importance is given to discipline – in the schools, in our whole way of life. What is discipline? The word ‘discipline’ comes from the root ‘disciple’. A disciple is one who is learning from the master, learning – right? If you are learning in the sense we are talking about, not accumulating knowledge, but learning without accumulation, then discipline – the very learning is its own discipline – you understand? I wonder if you understand all this? 所以我们必须非常小心仔细地来探讨它。 首先，我们需要问的是：什么是「纪律」（discipline）？ 士兵们会日复一日、月复一月地接受训练， 你们难道没有见过士兵吗？ 他们会打军鼓，那些军队的中士，等等， 秩序、纪律、服从。 而我们也会去服从修道院院长，服从罗马教皇，等等 ——这被称为是「秩序」。 我还有那种警察所规定的“秩序”。 在欧洲你们靠右行驶， 而在这个国家里，你们会靠左行驶。 这就是秩序。 而一个已经习惯于靠左行驶的人， 当他去了那里，他就会说：真是混乱无序。 请你们跟上这一切。 所以导致混乱失序的原因是什么呢？ 如果我可以了解这个原因，并摆脱掉这个原因的话， 我自然就会有秩序了。 我并不需要去搞清楚什么才是秩序。 所以我首先必须去询问： 为什么我们要赋予「纪律」如此巨大的重要性 ——在学校里，在我们生活的所有领域里。 什么是纪律？ “纪律（discipline）”这个词源自于“弟子（disciple）”这个词根。 弟子就是指那个从上师那里学习东西的人， 学习——对吧？ 如果你是在学习——那种我们所谈论的「学习」， 不是知识的积累，而是没有积累的学习， 那么纪律 ——这种学习本身就会成为其自身的纪律——你理解了吗？ 我不知道你们是否理解了这一切？
51:56 Q: I still don’t understand what learning is in your terms. 听众：我仍然不太明白你所说的那种“学习”是什么。
52:02 K: What? 克：什么？
52:03 Q: I still don’t understand what learning is because if one watches one’s thoughts, surely one is watching with one’s thoughts. So I don’t quite understand how you use learning. 听众：我还是不明白什么是“学习”， 因为如果我们观察自己的思想念头， 很显然我们也是在用自己的思想观察它们。 所以我不是很理解你所使用的“学习”这个词的意思。
52:22 K: I have tried to explain it. Must I go into it again? First of all, are we aware, or do we see the fact: accumulating knowledge all our life is very limited. That’s a fact because knowledge is limited, whether now or in the eternal future, it is still limited. And therefore if we act on that knowledge, our action will always be limited. And therefore that is one of the causes of disorder. Right? If I act always with the previous knowledge, which I have accumulated, and I know that knowledge is limited, and whatever I do is limited, and any limitation must produce disorder. That is, the Arab and the Jew, the Hindu and the Muslim, the Buddhist and the Catholic – you follow? – they are all limited. They are all functioning within the field of knowledge which is limited, or tradition. Right? We are following all this? So their activity of limited activity is bound to create disorder. If the wife or the husband, or the girl or the boy is thinking about himself, his ambitions, his progress, his fulfilment, and the other man or woman is also thinking of his progress, they are in conflict obviously. They may talk about love, they may talk about all kinds of things, but each woman and man is pursuing his own particular direction, his own ambition, which is all very self-centred, limited. Right? And so in relationship that limitation creates disorder. Naturally. Are we meeting this? 克：我此前已经试着解释过它了。我需要再解释一遍吗？ 首先，我们是否觉察到了，或者说我们是否看到了这一事实： 即终其一生积累知识是非常局限的。 这是一个事实，因为知识是局限的， 不管是现在的知识，还是永恒未来中的知识， 它都是局限的。 因此，如果我们是基于那样的知识而行动， 我们的行动也总会是局限的。 因此这就是导致混乱失序的原因之一。 对吧？ 如果我总是凭借过往的知识而行动 ——那些我所积累起来的知识， 并且我知道那种知识是局限的， 那么我所做的任何事情也都会是局限的， 而任何局限都必定会造成混乱失序。 也就是说：阿拉伯人对抗犹太人，印度教徒对抗穆斯林， 佛教徒对抗天主教徒——你们跟上了吗？—— 他们全都是局限的。 他们全都是在知识的范畴 或者传统中运作的——而知识是局限的。 对吧？我们都理解这一切了吗？ 所以他们的行动，他们局限性的行动 必定会造成混乱失序。 妻子或丈夫，或者男女朋友， 如果他们都在考虑着自己，他自己的野心、 他的进展、他的成就， 而对方也在想着他（她）自己的进展， 那么他们之间就会有冲突，这是很显然的。 他们也许会谈论爱， 他们也许会谈论各种事情， 但双方都在追求着他（她）自己特定的道路方向， 他自己的野心——而这一切都是非常自私自利的、局限的。 对吧？所以在关系中，这种局限就造成了混乱失序。 这是很自然的事。 我们都理解这一点了吗？
54:45 So we are beginning to discover the disorder comes where there is limitation. Right? Where I am thinking about myself, and you are thinking about yourself, and we have a lovely relationship! We hold hands, we sleep together, we walk together, look at – but we both are going in different directions. Right? And therefore those directions are designed by thought, by desire. Is there time to go into desire here, now? No, that’s too complicated. We’ll do it another time. 因此我们开始发现： 当有了局限的时候，就会有混乱失序。 对吧？ 当我只考虑我自己，而你也只想着你自己时， 我们却拥有美好愉快的关系！ 我们手牵着手，我们睡在一起， 我们一起散步，一起看 ——但我们却是各自朝着不同方向在行进。 对吗？ 而这些路线方向都是由思想和欲望所精心设计的。 我们现在有时间来探讨下「欲望」吗？ 算了，它太复杂了，我们还是下次再来讨论它吧。
55:37 So we begin to learn, to see, to have an insight – we are using the word ‘insight’ which is to observe something without time, without motive. To have an insight is not remembering, calculating and so on, it is to have instant insight into disorder, which is ultimately any limited action. Are we getting together on this a little bit? A fraction? And if it is a fraction, keep it and move with it, then you will see the thing begins to break up this self-centred process of living. 所以，我们开始学习，开始看到，开始有了一种洞察 ——我们使用了“洞察”这个词 它的意思是 去观察某个事物，其中没有时间，也没有动机。 拥有洞察并不是去记忆、算计等等， 而是要立即洞察到混乱失序， 混乱失序从根本上说就是所有局限的行为。 这一点我们是否都稍微有点理解了？ 哪怕是一小部分？ 如果你理解了一小部分，保持住它，然后带着它前进， 然后你就会看到 那个东西会开始打破这种自我中心的生活过程。
56:59 May I ask a question? Are you, all of us here, are we putting equal energy as the speaker is putting it? Or are you just sitting and listening, listening to the aeroplane, and listening to your own thoughts going on, or – you understand? – you are passionate to find out. 我可以问一个问题吗？ 在座的所有人，你们是否 我们是否投入了和演讲者所投入的同样多的能量？ 还是说你们只是坐在那里，然后随便听听， 听听飞机的声音， 听听你自己内心正在活跃着的各种念头， 还是说——你们理解了吗？—— 你会充满热情地去搞清楚它。
57:39 THIRD QUESTION: How can our listening be adequate to the depth of what you are saying? What is the quality of mind that will allow the fullness of what you are saying to act in us? （第三个问题）：我们的聆听怎样才能达到 你所说的那种深度？ 我们需要怎样的头脑品质， 才能让你所说的东西 在我们身上充分起作用？
57:57 I am afraid that is a wrong question, but I will read it. 我恐怕这是一个错误的问题， 但我还是会再读一遍。
58:01 How can our listening be adequate to the depth of what you are saying? What is the quality of mind that will allow the fullness of what you are saying to act in us? 我们的聆听怎样才能达到 你所说的那种深度？ 我们需要怎样的头脑品质， 才能让你所说的东西 在我们身上充分起作用？
58:29 The speaker is saying something which you haven’t... you yourself have not discovered. He is not talking about what he has discovered – that is totally irrelevant. But the words, what the telephone is saying, what the words, the content of the words, all that you are listening to. And the listening is watching your own thoughts, your own feelings, your own reactions – right? The speaker is merely acting as a mirror in which you... by listening you are discovering yourself. You understand what I am saying? The speaker, as a person, as he has oft repeated, has no importance, whatsoever. And he means this. And what he is saying is not something that is foreign, that you have to understand, that has to act upon you. Then if that is so, which it is, something foreign that must act upon you, you might just as well take a drug! But if you are listening to what he is saying and saying, ‘What do I feel to what he is saying, what is my reaction to what he is saying?’ – there’s a communication between what he is saying and yourself. Right? Communication ceases when you are merely listening to what he is saying. But what he is saying, and your relationship to what he is saying, and to discover your reaction to what he is saying, and your responses to his subtleties, or stupidities, or intelligence, you’re then moving together. Then it is yours, not his. I wonder if you understand. 演讲者说了一些 你们还没有……你自己还没有发现的东西。 他并没有在谈论「他」所发现的东西 ——这个演讲者是完全无关紧要的。 然而那些话语， 这个“话筒”所说的东西， 那些话语，那些话语的内容， 你在聆听着所有这些东西。 而这种聆听就是在观察你自己的思想、 你自己的感受、你自己的反应——对吗？ 而演讲者仅仅是充当一面镜子， 而你通过这面镜子 通过聆听，你正在探索发现你自己。 你们理解我所说的东西了吗？ 演讲者这个人——就如他经常反复提及的—— 演讲者一点儿也不重要。 他是说真的。 而他所说的并不是某种异国他乡的东西， 某种你必须要去理解，并让其影响作用于你的东西。 如果是这样的话， 也就是说，如果它是某种必须要影响作用于你的外来的东西， 那么你还是去吃个药比较好！ 但如果你正在聆听他所说的东西， 然后问，“我对他说的东西有何感觉， 我对他所说的东西产生了怎样的反应？” ——那么他所说的东西和你就会有一种交流。 对吧？ 而当你只是听听他说的东西， 那时交流便停止了。 而如果你在聆听他说的东西， 以及你和他所说东西的关系， 然后去发现你对他所说东西的反应， 以及你对他的敏锐、 愚蠢或智慧的反应， 那时你就是在和他一同前行。 那时它就成了你的东西，而不是他的。 我不知道你们是否都理解了。
1:01:16 Q: No, you... 听众：不理解，你
1:01:16 K: Please, madame, just I understand. Take a little time with what I am saying. Don’t immediately – if I may ask most politely – don’t immediately answer. But see what he is saying. 克：这位夫人，请你……好吗？我理解你。 但请花一点时间去理解我所说的东西。 不要马上就——如果允许我无比礼貌地请求的话—— 不要立即作出回答。 而是去看看他正在说些什么。
1:01:34 First of all, he says, he is not your guru, absolutely not. That is an anathema to him. And you are not his followers – right? And you haven’t got to live what he is talking about. What he is saying is what is your own deep undiscovered life, that’s all – right? He is talking about you, not himself. He is talking about your life, your daily, monotonous, boring, tiresome, fearful, sorrowful, lonely life. The violence, the chicanery, the dishonesty, the lack of integrity. Where there is integrity there is strength. But that’s another matter. Then you can stand by yourself. Then nothing affects you, then you are not influenced by anybody, because you are then discovering what is true for yourself. Not according to – truth according to you, or according to somebody else; truth, which is not his, or yours, it is something entirely outside the activity of brain. I won’t go into that for the moment. 首先，他说： 他并不是你的古鲁，绝对不是。 这（古鲁身份）对他来说是一个诅咒。 而你也不是他的信徒——对吗？ 你并不需要去实践他所说的东西。 他在谈论的是： 你自己生活中那些尚未发现的深藏的部分， 仅此而已——对吗？ 他正在谈论你，而不是他自己。 他正在谈论你的生活，你单调乏味的、 无聊的、烦人的、担惊受怕的、痛苦的、孤独的日常生活。 暴力、诡计、欺诈， 缺乏「完整性」。 当有了「完整」，便会有力量。 但这是另一个话题了。 那时你就可以独立自主了。 那时就没有什么东西可以影响到你。 你不会被任何人影响， 因为那时你正在发现对你来说真实的东西。 而不是根据 而不是依你而定的真理，或者由别人而定的真理； 真理，它不是你的，也不是他的， 它是某种完全……在大脑活动之外的东西。 我暂时就先不深入它们了。
1:03:44 So we are together finding what is truth. We are together finding out what is the art of living, what is the way to listen, what is the way to learn, the way of seeing. And if you see, it is yours, then you need no guru, no leader, no book – you understand? We are living on other people’s knowledge. We have no insight into ourself, into our own existence. Right? Can I go on to the next question? 所以，我们正在一起发现什么是「真理」。 我们正在一起去发现什么是「生活的艺术」， 什么是聆听的方式、学习的方式、观察的方式。 如果你明白了，那它就是属于你的， 那时你就不需要什么古鲁、 领袖和书本了——你理解了吗？ 我们依靠别人的知识而生活。 我们并没有洞察我们自己，了解我们自己的生活。 对吧？我可以继续讲下一个问题了吗？
1:04:34 FOURTH QUESTION: Is there such a thing as good or evil in the world... Sorry, I must read it again. （第四个问题）：这个世界上是否存在 「善」或「恶」这样的东西， 不好意思，我必须再读一遍。
1:04:52 Is there such a thing as good or evil in the world or are these human concepts, values, projections? 这个世界上是否存在「善」或「恶」这样的东西？ 还是说它们只是人类的概念、价值观或投射？
1:05:04 Is there such a thing as good and evil in the world? Or, are these human concepts, values, and suppositions and projections? 这个世界上是否存在「善」或「恶」这样的东西？ 还是说它们只是人类的概念、价值观、 假设或投射？
1:05:22 What is good? And what is so-called not good? If we use the word ‘evil’, that has got such connotations behind that word! Let’s forget the word ‘evil’ for the moment. The good and the bad. The badies and the goodies – according to the cinema. What is good? Now, please, try, look at it for a minute. The speaker is asking the question, what is good? How do you listen to the word? How do you receive that word? It doesn’t matter who says it. How do you listen to it, receive it? What is your taste of that word? What is your feeling, instinctive feeling to that word? Instinct – I don’t mean – your immediate feeling for that word. And when you say the bad, what is your response to it? A repulsion? A thing that you see some bad thing being done? So to discover for oneself the reaction to these two words. Not what philosophers say. Not what other people: the bishops, the priests, the popes – popes, I don’t mean merely the Roman popes but the popes of all over the world, of different religious organisations with their heads, with their tails, and all the rest of it. When one listens to these two words, which have had tremendous effect on mankind historically, right from the beginning. The Christians have said, ‘This is good, if you go against it, we will burn you’. They have – heretics, tortured them, burnt them for what they have done. And that is considered good. And go to India, to be burnt for your belief is considered a horror. You understand? So what – apart from all this, what is good and what is bad? 什么是「好的」？ 什么是所谓的「不好的」？ 如果我们使用“恶”这个词， 这个词已经隐含了如此多的意思！ 所以让我们暂时忘掉“恶”这个词吧。 就说「好的」和「坏的」。 那种电影里的 「好人」和「坏人」。 什么是「好的」？ 现在，请注意，请试着来观察一下它。 演讲者问了这个问题：什么是「好的」？ 你是如何来聆听这个词的？ 你是如何接收这个词的——它是谁说的并不重要。 你是如何聆听它、接收它的？你对于这个词有什么感觉？ 你有什么样的感受，你对这个词的本能的感觉？ 本能的感觉——我的意思并不是——而是你对这个词立即直接的感受。 当你说「坏的」的时候，你对它的反应是什么？ 是一种排斥感吗？ 是你看到过的别人所做的坏事吗？ 所以你要自己去发现你对于这两个词的反应。 而不是依据那些哲学家的说法。 也不是其他人的说法： 那些主教、牧师、教皇 ——这里说的教皇并不仅仅是指罗马教皇， 也包括了全世界不同宗教组织的教皇， 连同他们的奇装异服，等等。 当我们听到了这两个词后 ——这两个词在过去已经对人类产生了巨大的影响， 从人类伊始就开始了。 基督教徒曾经这样说， “这是「善」，如果你违抗它的话，我们就会烧死你”。 他们真的烧了 那些异教徒，折磨他们， 因为他们的所作所为而将他们烧死。 而这被认为是好的行动。 然而当你去了印度， 因为你的信仰而把你烧死——这被认为是很可怕的事情。 你们理解了吗？ 所以什么是——抛开所有这些——什么是「好的」，什么是「坏的」？
1:08:41 Now, I will go on, may I? Is the good related to the bad? And is the good in conflict with the bad? Novels are written about it. The good always conquering at the end! Even in the thrillers! And the bad is always being destroyed and the bad always coming up. The battle has been going on. You see it in Lascaux, and other caves in South of France, and other parts of the world, this battle – right? Good and the bad. The evil – I don’t like that word ‘evil’, it stinks! Forgive me if I use that word. Sorry! So what is good and what is bad? Are they related to each other? Is goodness born out of that which is bad? Because I know that which is bad: tradition, conditioning, that which people have said, written, and that evil, that bad, that which is bad, is fighting that which is good. And the good is fighting that which is bad – right? So I am asking is that which is good born out of that which is bad? You understand my question? It is a simple question. If goodness is born out of that which is bad, it is not good – right? – Then they are related to each other. Therefore it is not good. Are you following? So they are two entirely different things, the one cannot become the other. If it can become the other, it is already recognised by the other – you understand all this? – therefore it is not good. Goodness is something totally divorced from that which is bad – right? But we have mixed the two together and we say we must fight – each thing must be fought. You must resist, fight, put away evil, bad in order to be good – you understand? So the goodness is always in terms of the bad. And we are saying something entirely different. Goodness has no relationship whatsoever with that which is bad. For the goodness to exist the bad must cease. That’s all. Not a battle between the two. This is simply logic, sanity. 现在，我要继续说下去了，我可以吗？ 「好的」是否关联着「坏的」？ 「好的」是否与「坏的」是彼此冲突的？ 各种小说已经描绘过它们了。 「好的」总是会在最后战胜「坏的」！ 即使是在惊险小说中！ 「坏的」总是会被消灭， 但它又总是会卷土重来。 它们两者之间的战争一直在持续着。 你可以在拉斯科洞窟壁画（位于法国西南部）、法国南部的其他洞穴， 以及世界上的其他地方 看到这种战争——对吧？这种善恶之战。 「恶」——我不喜欢「恶」这个词， 它很令人讨厌！ 假如我用了这个词的话，请原谅我。 不好意思！ 所以，什么是「好的」，什么是「坏的」？ 它们彼此有关系吗？ 「好的」东西是从「坏的」东西里产生出来的吗？ 因为我知道那些「坏的」东西： 传统、环境告诉了我， 人们也曾经谈论过、描写过「坏的」东西， 而那种「恶」，那种坏的东西，那种「不好」的东西， 它正在和「好的」东西战斗。 而「好的」东西也正在和「坏的」东西作斗争——对吧？ 所以我在问： 那个「好的」东西是源自于「坏的」东西吗？ 你明白我的问题吗？ 这是一个简单的问题。 如果「好的」东西是来自于那个「坏的」东西，那它就不是好的了。 ——对吧？—— 那时它们两者就是有联系的。 因此它就不是「好的」东西了。 你们跟上了吗？ 所以，它们应该是两个完全不同的东西， 其中一方是无法变成另一方的。 如果它可以变成另一方， 那说明它已经得到了另一方的认可 ——你们理解这一切了吗？—— 由此它就不再是「好的」了。 「好的」事物是完全脱离 那个「坏的」事物的——对吗？ 但我们已经把这两者掺和在一起了， 然后我们说我们必须要斗争——必须要和每一样事物作斗争。 你必须要去抵抗，去战斗，去抛弃「恶」， 抛弃「坏的」事物，由此才能变成「好的」——你们懂了吗？ 所以「好的」永远都是相对于「坏的」的角度来说的。 而我们在说的是某种完全不同的东西。 「好的」事物和「坏的」事物是完全不相干的。 想要「好的」存在，「坏的」就必须停止。仅此而已。 而不是两者之间的战争。 这是一种简单的逻辑和理智。
1:12:51 Now, to come very near home: in us there are these two opposing elements, this duality. Duality of wanting, aspire – I don’t like... sorry, aspiration is a wrong word. Aspiration is something romantic and idealistic and rather stupid. Forgive me if I use that word. We are all aspiring for something. You are aspiring to become a manager of a good corporation. And you are also aspiring for God. It is the same thing. You understand? God is another form of good corporation! I am not being blasphemous but this is all so obvious. So goodness cannot exist where that which is bad. From the bad you cannot possibly go to the good. It is not a movement from this to that. It is not a process of time: from that which is bad to achieve that which is good – right? 而现在，就近来说： 在我们心中存在着这两种彼此对抗的元素， 这种二元性。 那种欲求和热望（aspire）的二元性—— 我并不喜欢……很抱歉，「热望」这个词用错了。 热望是某种浪漫的、理想化的，且相当愚蠢的词。 如果我使用了这个词，请原谅我。 我们都在热烈渴望着某些东西。 你在热烈渴望成为一家好公司的经理。 你也在热烈渴望着上帝。 这是同一回事。你明白了吗？ 上帝是另一种形式的“好公司”！ 我并不是在亵渎神明，这一切都是显而易见的。 所以当有了「坏的」，那么「好的」就无法存在了。 你是不可能从「坏的」事物前进到「好的」事物的。 它并不是一种从这里到那里的运动。 它并不是一个时间的过程： 从那个「坏的」事物出发 去达到那个「好的」事物——对吧？
1:14:32 Now, the question arises from that: what is bad? You understand? I will know what is good only when that which is bad is not. So let’s put away the good, don’t let’s say, ‘Tell me what it is secretly, or tell me openly. Then I will follow that’. But to understand that which is bad. Is it bad to be nationalistic? Come on, sirs, answer it. Say I am a Frenchman, I am British, or I am a Hindu, or a Sikh, or a Muslim – you know? Is that bad? 而现在，从这之中又产生了一个问题：什么是「坏的」？ 你们明白了吗？ 只有当那个「坏的」事物不在了，我才会知道什么是「好的」事物。 所以让我们先把「好的」放在一边， 不要说， “请私下告诉我它是什么，或者公开告诉我。 然后我就可以去遵循它了”。 而是要去了解那个「坏的」事物。 国家主义是「坏的」吗？ 来吧，先生们，回答它。 说我是一个法国人，我是一个英国人， 或者我是一个印度教徒、锡克教教徒，或穆斯林——你知道的？ 这是「坏的」吗？
1:15:36 Q: It might not be to some, but to us. 听众：它也许对某些人来说不是坏的，但对我们整体而言（是坏的）。
1:15:39 K: Of course, to other people, we are including all of us, sir, I am not saying, to me it is bad and to you it is not bad. That’s rather... We are asking: what is bad, not according to me or according to somebody else. As long as there is division – right? – racial division, class division, religious division – right? Political, economic, and so on, – divisions, those divisions create conflict, war ultimately, killing each other. You understand? Isn’t that bad? No?

Q: Yes, yes. 		克：当然了，对其他人来说（不是坏的），但我们在这里包括了我们所有的人，先生。 我并没有说对我来说它是坏的，而对你来说它不是坏的。 这就太 我们正在问：什么是「坏的」？ 不是根据我的观点，或者根据其他人的观点。 只要还是存在着分裂——对吧？—— 种族的分裂、阶层的分裂、宗教的分裂——是吧？ 政治、经济等等的分裂——各种分裂， 那么这些分裂就会带来冲突，并最终导致战争， 让人类互相残杀。你明白了吗？ 这难道不就是「坏的」吗？ 不是吗？听众：是坏的，是的。
1:16:35 K: Oh, good, I am glad. And yet religions have supported it, you support it – you understand? But still – you know, all the rest of it. Can we be free of all that first? Not belong to any country, to any group, to any guru, to any religious organisation because they are all divisive. That brings about another question: authority. Political authority, religious authority, the totalitarian authority – you understand? Is authority evil? Not authority in the hands of the wise is good. Do you understand? We have said that: authority of the wise is the salvation of the foolish! 克：噢，很好，我很开心。 然而宗教却支持了分裂， 你们支持了分裂——你们懂了吗？ 但你们仍然——你知道的，所有这些东西。 我们能够先摆脱掉这一切吗？ 不要让自己属于任何国家、 任何团体、 任何古鲁、任何宗教组织， 因为它们全都会造成分裂。 而这又引出了另一个问题： 那就是「权威」。 政治的权威，宗教的权威， 极权主义的权威——你明白了吗？ 权威是一种「恶」吗？ 并不是说当权威被掌握在明智之人手里时，它就是好的。 你们理解了吗？ 我们曾经这样说过： 智者的权威是愚者的救赎！
1:18:06 So, authority of the policeman, the authority of law. You have to pay tax – not for myself but you have to pay tax. If you don’t pay it, you are punished in some way or another. So there is authority outwardly – right? Authority of keeping to the left side of the road, the authority of keeping to the right side in France and Europe. And there must be authority in a school, in a college, otherwise you can’t – you follow? But we are talking about authority, the feeling of authority, the power of authority, to slaughter people. So authority, spiritual authority in the deepest sense of that word is bad, is evil. 所以我们有警察的权威，法律的权威。 你必须要交税 ——不是为自己交税，而是你不得不交税。 如果你不交税，那么你就会受到这样或那样的惩罚。 所以我们有着这种外在的权威——对吧？ 靠左行驶的权威， 而在法国和其他欧洲地区靠右行驶才是权威。 而在学校里，在大学里也必须要有权威， 否则的话，你们就无法……——你们跟上了吗？ 但我们正在谈论的是「权威」， 那种权威的感受， 权威的权力， 那种滥杀无辜的权力。 所以权威， 那种精神上的权威， 从这个词最深层次的意义上来讲， 权威是坏的，是「恶」的。
1:19:32 So, then the question is: the bad. The bad, we said, is any kind of division. Don’t misunderstand. The religious division – right? The division that says, ‘We’re closed, you can’t come in here’ – psychologically. But the door is open if you want to come in. You understand? That is not closed. So go into all this. It all comes down to any form of psychological, individualistic division: the Arab, the Jew, the Muslim, and so on. Any psychological, organisational division in that sense of that word. That’s bad. Right? And can one be free of all that? And not just say, ‘Yes, I agree, I see your point, but it’s all right, but we will go on with our war. It is nice. We are violent people, that is part of our expression of violence, the ultimate expression of violence: to kill a million people at one blow’. Or do we end all that in ourselves? In ourselves first, not organisationally. You know that story which the speaker thought out? There were two men walking along – you know it, some of you heard this? If you have, forgive me. Don’t get bored with it. Two men were walking along on a street talking about various things of life. And one of them sees something on the pavement, picks it up. The moment he looks at it his whole face changes, something tremendous has taken place in him. And he puts it in his pocket very carefully, in his inner pocket. And the friend says to him, ‘What is it you have picked up? Why have you become so extraordinarily... your face has changed’. He said, ‘I have picked up truth’. And his friend says, ‘By Jove, is that really so? I can see by how you look. So what shall we do about it?’ And the friend says, ‘Let’s go and organise it’. This is an old story which the speaker invented about 40 years, 50 years ago. 所以，接下来的问题就是「坏的」。 我们说：任何一种分裂，它就是「坏的」。 请不要误解。 那种宗教的分裂——对吧？ 那种分裂在说， “我们已经关门了，你不能再进来了” ——从心理角度来说。 然而如果你想要进来的话，大门是敞开着的。 你理解了吗？大门并没有关闭。 所以当我们深入这一切后。 它都会下沉到 某种心理的、个体的分裂上： 阿拉伯人、犹太人、穆斯林等等。 任何心理上的，或组织团体上的分裂 ——就这个词的意义而言。 那就是「坏的」。 对吧？ 那么我们可以摆脱掉这一切吗？ 而不只是说，“是的，我同意，我明白你的意思了， 你说的都没错，但我们将会继续我们的战争。它很好。 我们是暴力的人类， 而它（战争）属于我们暴力表现的一部分， 它是暴力的终极表现： 扔一颗炸弹就炸死上百万人”。 还是说，我们会结束掉我们内心所有的分裂？ 首先结束掉自己内心的分裂，而不是组织团体的分裂。 你们知道那个演讲者想出来的故事吗？ 曾经有两个人，他们在一起散步 ——你们知道这个故事吧。你们中一些人可能听过它了？ 如果你听过了，请原谅我。 不要对此感到厌烦。 两个人正在沿街散步， 他们谈论着各种生活琐事。 他们中的一个人看到了人行道上有一个东西， 于是便将它捡了起来。 他一看到这个东西后，整个神情都变了， 他变得心潮澎湃。 于是他小心翼翼地将这个东西放入了衣袋——他衣服的内袋里。 他的朋友问他说，“你捡到了什么东西？ 为什么你会变得如此不寻常 你的脸色都变了”。 那个人回答说，“我刚才捡到了「真理」”。 他的朋友说，“天哪，真的吗？ 我从你的脸色上就看出来了。 那么我们该怎么处理它呢？” 于是那个人说，“让我们围绕它建立一个组织吧”。 这是一个很老的故事了， 是演讲者在大约四五十年前想出来的。
1:22:52 So can we, each one of us, not join an organisation that will help us to be free from war. That’s another form of organisation. You follow? We don’t begin with ourselves first. Can we, each of us, end this division in ourselves? Then you can use organisation – you understand? But if you use organisation to change the inner, you will never succeed. 所以，我们是否能够，我们每个人 是否可以不要加入某个声称可以帮助我们摆脱战争的组织。 那只是另一种形式的组织。你们理解了吗？ 我们并没有先从自己开始。 我们能否，我们每一个人 是否能够结束掉我们内心的这种分裂？ 然后你就可以去利用组织了——你明白了吗？ 然而如果你是要用组织来改变人类内在的话， 你将永远无法成功。
1:23:32 So, can we, each of us, put anything that divides us from another? Of course, you must have your own house, your own garden, your own – you follow? not psychologically, inwardly, subjectively. Then you don’t have to search for the good. Then the good flourishes. Then goodness flowers. The beauty of that is endless. It never can be destroyed by anything. 所以我们是否可以，我们每个人 是否可以抛弃掉任何分裂了我们与他人的事物？ 当然了，你必须要有你自己的房子、你自己的花园， 你自己的……——你跟上了吗？ 这些都不是心理上的、内在的、主观上的事物。 那时你就不需要再去寻找「好的」事物。 然后「好的」事物就会茁壮成长。 「善」就会开花绽放。 它的美是无穷无尽的。 它永远不会被任何事物所摧毁。
1:24:22 Q: Sir, in the animal kingdom... 听众：先生，在动物的世界里
1:24:25 K: Sorry, I have to stop now. 克：很抱歉，我必须到此为止了。
1:24:29 Q: In the animal kingdom the tiger eats the goat. Doesn’t the goat look upon the tiger as a badie? 听众：在动物的世界里，老虎会吃了山羊。 那么山羊是否会把老虎看作是「坏人」？
1:24:39 K: Of course, not. The tiger kills the beautiful deer. And the tiger, too, is very beautiful. Have you been very close to a tiger, any of you? No, of course, not. You have seen them in a zoo. I have been very close, about ten feet away from them. Don’t bother. I am not inviting you to go and meet them. The tiger eats the deer. The big things eat the little things. And the bigger things eat the big – follow? Up and up. Is that evil? The tiger killing the deer? Of course, not. You follow? That’s nature. Why do we say the tiger is cruel? The cat playing with a mouse – you understand? Haven’t you known that? That’s rather ugly – you know. Our whole civilisation is so monstrous – right? So we must begin with ourselves, not tigers, elephants and rats and snakes. I am afraid we all do this. We want to escape from ourselves. And ourselves is the most important thing. And to penetrate this sheath, this outward appearance, outward show, outward thing, deeply to go inwards, that journey is endless, it has got such extraordinary beauty. 克：当然不会了。 老虎猎杀了那只美丽的小鹿。 然而那只老虎，它也是很美的。 你是否曾经非常靠近过一只老虎，你们中有任何人这样做过吗？ 没有，当然没有了。 你们都是在动物园里看老虎的。 我曾经有一次离老虎非常近，当时我离它们大概只有十英尺远。 不要为此而感到不快。 我可没有教唆你们去找那些老虎。 老虎吃小鹿。 大鱼吃小鱼。 更大的鱼又把大鱼给吃了——明白了吗？就这样一层一层往上。 这是「恶」吗？ 老虎猎杀了小鹿？ 当然不是了。 你理解了吗？这是自然之道。 为什么我们要说老虎是残忍的呢？ 但猫会玩弄它捉到的老鼠——你明白了？ 你们难道不知道这事儿吗？这是相当丑陋的——你知道的。 我们的整个文明是如此的丑陋骇人——对吧？ 所以我们必须要从自己开始， 而不是从老虎、大象、老鼠和蛇开始。 我恐怕我们都在做这样的事情。 我们想要逃避自己。 我们自己才是最最重要的东西。 而我们要穿透这层保护套， 这层外在的表象、外在的展示、外在的状况， 然后深入内在， 这个旅程是永无止境的， 它有着如此非凡惊人的美。
1:26:50 We will stop now. We will go into it another time. 我们今天就到此为止了。我们下次再来探讨它。