|
BR82Q1 - 第一次回答会
|
|
| Krishnamurti: There are several questions that have been handed in. You can't probe into all those questions, and we have chosen some of the more representative of those questions. | 克里希那穆提（以下简称“克”）： 你们递交上来好些个的问题。 你是无法去探究 所有这些问题的， 所以我们选择了其中一些 比较具有代表性的问题。 |
| Do questions need answers? Or there are only questions? | 「问题」需要回答吗？ 还是说：存在的只有问题本身？ |
| Questions are like a challenge, and what is important is how one meets the challenge. Not what is the answer to the question, but what is one's response to a challenge, to a question, to a demand. I think that is far more important than to ask a question, and wait for somebody to answer it, including myself. So let us first find out how to probe a question. Not – if one may remind oneself – not search for an answer, investigate into the outcome of the answer, but rather the cause, and one's response to the question. So how does one approach a question? | 「问题」就像是一个挑战， 所以重要的是： 我们是如何去面对挑战的。 不是 问题的答案是什么， 而是 我们对于一个挑战、 一个问题、一个需求的反应是什么。 我认为这远远要比问一个问题 然后等待别人来回答它 更加重要 ——也包括我的回答。 所以让我们首选去搞清楚…… 要如何去探究一个问题。 而不是——如果我可以提醒下自己的话—— 不是去寻求一个答案， 不是去调查 那个答案的效果， 而是要去探究「起因」、 以及我们对于 这个问题的反应。 所以，我们要如何来 处理一个问题呢？ |
| Suppose I have a question, that is, I question the whole of modern civilisation. Not one particular part of that civilisation, whether it is the Christian or the Hindu, or the Muslim or the Buddhist, but I want to question the whole cultural development of man. I can study all the various historians, that would take too long and I haven't got the time, nor am I interested in finding out what others say about history. History is the story of man, which is the story of myself. So how do I approach a question of that kind? I see a whole culture, of India, for example, the Brahmanical culture which has lasted between 3 to 5,000 years, completely disappear overnight. I don't know if you are aware of all that, it doesn't matter, just to inform. It has disappeared overnight. So what is culture? Is it just a coating? However deep that coating may be, it may have different layers of coating but it is still a coating. Because deep down, man is more or less the same as he has always been: violent, and all the rest of it. So how does one approach a question of this kind? The approach matters far more than the question, doesn't it? Please, we are talking over together, I am not laying down any dogmatic statements, or asking you to accept what the speaker is saying. But how does one approach any problem, any question? What is my motive in my approach to the question? What is the problem and the cause of that problem? And one's approach to the investigation, to the probing of that cause and the problem? Do I come to it with a motive, with a desire to get rid of it, or go beyond it, suppress it, and so on? What is my inward reaction to it? If I am not very clear on that, and I am only seeking an answer, somehow to resolve the problem, I am not really concerned with the issue at all. I am only concerned with going beyond it, somehow. And so, the escape from the problem creates more problems. | 假如我有了一个问题， 也就是：我质疑 整个现代文明。 不是那种文明的 某个特定部分 ——不管它是基督教文明、 还是印度教文明、 还是穆斯林或者佛教文明， 我想要去质疑的是 人类的整个 文化发展史。 我可以去学习研究 所有各类历史学家的说法， 但这将会花费很长很长的时间， 而我并没有那么多时间， 我也没什么兴趣去了解 别人对于历史的看法。 历史就是「人的故事」 ——也就是我自己的故事。 所以我要如何去处理 这类问题呢？ 举个例子，我看到了 整个印度的文化， 婆罗门的文化 ——这种文化已经持续了 有三千到五千年了， 然而它却一夜之间完全消失了。 我不知道你们是否 察觉到了所有这一切， 但这并没有什么关系， 我只是提一句。 它一夜之间就消失了。 所以，文明/文化是什么呢？ 它仅仅是一个表象吗？ 无论那个表象 也许有多么的深刻， 它也许会有 不同层次的表象， 但它仍旧只是一种表象。 因为内在深处，人类多多少少 仍旧和从前没啥两样： 他依然是暴力的， 等等这些。 所以我们要如何去处理 这类问题呢？ 对待处理问题的方式 远远要比问题本身更加重要，不是吗？ 请注意， 我们是在一起讨论它， 我并没有在提出 任何教条式的说法， 或者叫你接受 演讲者所说的东西。 而是：我们是如何去处理对待 任何问题的 ——任何一个问题？ 在我处理那个问题的过程中， 我的动机是什么？ 什么是「问题」？ 那个问题的「起因」又是什么？ 而我们对待 这种探究、 这种对于「问题」和「起因」的探索 抱有怎样的态度？ 我是否是带着一个动机、 带着想要摆脱掉问题的渴望、 或者想要超越它、压抑它等等的渴望 在处理它？ 我内心对于它的反应 是怎样的？ 如果我还没有非常清楚这一点， 如果我只是在寻求一个答案， 以某种方式来解决掉这个问题的话， 那我其实根本就没有在 关心这个问题。 我关心的只是 以某种方式超越它。 因此， 「逃避问题」 却制造出了更多的问题。 |
| So it matters a great deal, one feels, if one may point out, how one approaches a problem, a question. Is the mind or the brain seeking an answer? Then, we are not investigating the problem, the issue, the challenge, the question, but merely trying to find an answer which is immediately satisfactory. So I think it matters very much, if one may again point out, how one comes to a problem, how close one gets to it. 'Approach it' means to come near. How close, how near does one get to the problem? Or the problem is out there, and I am approaching it. You understand? Or the problem is me, not somewhere in the periphery of me – the trap is me. So how do I go into all this? Just superficially, casually? Or with great hesitation, sensitivity, not coming to any conclusion, probe into it deeper and deeper? Is the brain capable of doing this? Or we are so terribly conditioned that we say, for God's sake, let's get rid of the problem. You understand all this? We are going to investigate, probe into the question, not find an answer to it. The answer is in the question, not away from the question. And who is to answer the question? Some leader, some prophet, some politician, some guru, some priest? Which means we are always seeking an answer from somebody else. And please don't put the speaker in that position because he is not going to answer. We are going, together, to investigate the question, which is much more intelligent than say, if one answers, you say, well, that is not good enough, or that is all right, that is satisfactory, or you begin to discuss the answer. But if we begin to look, probe, you know, play with it, it reveals a tremendous lot. | 所以某人（指克氏自己）觉得 ——如果允许我指出来的话——最重要的是 我们是如何去处理对待一个难题、 一个问题的。 那时头脑或大脑 是否正在寻求一个答案？ 那样的话，我们就没有在 探究这个难题、 这个议题、 这个挑战、这个问题， 而只是试图去找到一个 能立即让我们满意的答案。 所以我认为这一点是非常重要的 ——如果允许我再次指出它的话—— 那就是：我们是如何去接触一个问题的， 我们能够离那个问题有多近。 “处理问题” 就意味着去接近那个问题。 我们能够多么靠近、多么接近 那个问题呢？ 还是说，问题就在那里， 而我则在不断地靠近它。 你们理解了吗？ 或者说，那个问题就是“我”， 它不是在我身外的 某个地方 ——“我”就是那个难题。 所以我要如何去深入这一切呢？ 只是肤浅表面、漫不经心地探究一下它吗？ 还是说，我会带着极大的犹豫迟疑 与敏感觉察去探究它， 不得出任何结论， 而是越来越深入地去探究它？ 大脑能够 这样去做吗？ 还是说，我们都是 如此极度地受限， 以至于我们会说：看在上帝的份上， 让我们摆脱掉这个问题吧。 你们能理解这一切吗？ 我们将要来研究、 探讨这个问题， 但不是要为这个问题找到一个答案。 答案就在问题之中， 答案并不是远离问题的。 另外，谁要来回答 这个问题呢？ 是某个领袖、 某个先知、某个政治家、 某个古鲁、 某个牧师吗？ 这意味着我们总是在从别人那里 寻求一个答案。 所以请不要把演讲者 也放在那个位置上， 因为 他并不准备来回答。 我们将要一起来 探究这个问题， 这种做法才是更加明智的， 而不是说 某人回答了，然后你说： 啊，这个回答还不够好， 或者这个回答很棒， 我很满意， 或者你们会开始 讨论这个答案。 但如果我们开始去观察、去探究， 你懂的，去和它玩一下， 那它就会揭示出很多很多东西。 |
| There are several questions here. | 我这里还有好些个问题呢。 |
| 1st question: You have said that there is a group consciousness. What is the relationship between the group consciousness and the individual consciousness? How can human beings undergo a total psychological change while the group consciousness has not changed totally? | （第一个问题）你曾经说过 存在着一种“群体意识”。 那么这种 群体意识和个体意识 有着什么样的关系？ 如果群体意识 尚未完全地改变， 人类又如何才能够经历一次 彻底的、心理上的变革？ |
| May I read it once more? You have said that there is a group consciousness. What is the relationship between the group consciousness and the individual consciousness? How can a human being undergo a total psychological revolution or transformation while the group consciousness has not changed totally? | 我可以再读一遍吗？ 你曾经说过 存在着一种“群体意识”。 那么这种 群体意识和个体意识…… 有着什么样的关系？ 如果群体意识尚未 完全地改变， 人类又如何才能够 经历一次彻底的、心理上的变革 或者说是转变？ |
| K: We are going to investigate the question. There is no answer, but when one investigates this really important question, it reveals so much. | 克：我们将会来 探究一下这个问题。 我们不会给出什么答案， 然而当我们去探究这个 十分重要的问题时， 它将会揭示出很多东西。 |
| First of all, is there a group consciousness? Some scientists are experimenting, I have been told by one of them, that certain species of animals are undergoing certain experiments and achieving a certain result, these results are communicated to the whole group: rats, wolves, and so on. So they are trying to establish a consciousness of a group which is affected by a few individuals who learn something very quickly. They are doing this. Perhaps some of you have heard about it or read about it. And if this is so, then is human consciousness different from the individual consciousness? And is the group consciousness like the British – it is a group: British consciousness, French consciousness, German, American. Now, take a group of British, the British group consciousness: traditional, very proud of their past empire, ready to kill – the British probably have the greatest number of wars to their record – and so on. They have a certain consciousness – the group. And in that group, there is the individual consciousness. That is what the questioner is asking. What is the relationship between the group consciousness and the one who lives in that group, who is separate from the group? Right? Are we following each other? Need I repeat that again? Yes? All right. There is the Indian consciousness. British consciousness – you may object to it, so let's go for the... There is the Indian or Japanese consciousness, as a group. And in that group, I live with my consciousness. The questioner asks, is that group consciousness separate from my consciousness, or is my consciousness similar to the group? That is the question, we are investigating it, we are not trying to find an answer. | 首先， 是否存在“群体意识”？ 有一些科学家做了这方面的实验， 他们中有一位曾经和我讲过这方面的事， 某些物种的动物经过了 特定的实验， 然后那个动物实现了某些结果， 而这些成果 会传递至整个动物群体： 比如老鼠、狼 等等。 所以他们试图建立起一种群体的意识， 而这种群体意识 会被少数个体所影响 ——那些很快就学会了某些东西的个体。 科学家们正在做着这样的事。 也许你们中有些人 也曾经听说过它或者读到过它。 如果是这样的话， 那么人类的意识 会有别于 个体/个人的意识吗？ 而群体意识 比如英国人的意识 ——英国人就是一个“群体”：英国意识、 法国意识、 德国意识、美国意识。 现在，就拿英国人这个群体、 拿英国人的群体意识来看： 他们因循守旧、墨守成规， 对于他们昔日的帝国时代非常骄傲， 并且准备好了去杀戮 ——英国人参与过的 战争的数量， 可能位居全球之首—— 等等，等等。 他们会有某种特定的意识 ——那种群体意识。 而在那个群体之中， 也会有个体意识。 这就是那位提问者 在问的东西。 那么 群体意识 和那个 生活在群体中的人…… ——那个分离独立于群体的人——他们两者的关系是什么？ 是吧？ 我们是否理解了对方的意思？ 需要我再重复一遍吗？需要吗？ 好的。 存在着 “印度人意识”。 因为如果我说“英国人意识”， 你们也许会抵触反对， 所以我们还是来说说 存在着“印度人意识” 或者“日本人意识” ——那种群体意识。 我会带着我自己的意识 生活在那个群体中。 而那位提问者问， 那个群体意识和我的意识 是彼此分离的吗？ 还是说：我的意识 是类似于群体意识的？ 就是这个问题， 而我们正在探究它， 我们并没有试图 找到一个答案。 |
| In that group consciousness of India, there are various levels of consciousness: the Brahmanical, and so on. And if you are born amongst one of those separate little groups contained in India, what is the relationship of that individual to that group? It may be a limited group, but it is the whole of Indian consciousness. You understand? You have to think with me a little bit. Now, the relationship is, surely there is a coating of group consciousness, a level of it, layers of it, and within those layers, the individual consciousness. The individual being his sorrows, his anxieties, etc. The group says, 'you are an idealist' – if they say so. And you, within that group, also have learned the importance or unimportance of an ideal. So what is the relationship of one who believes or doesn't believe in idealism, and to the group that believes? If he has no belief whatsoever in idealism then he is totally out of that group. But if he believes in idealism, he belongs to that group. | 而在那个印度的 群体意识中， 有着各种 不同层次的意识： 婆罗门的意识，等等这些。 而如果你是出生于 印度的这些 分离独立的小群体中的某一个， 那么这个“个体” 和群体的关系是什么呢？ 它也许只是一个规模有限的群体， 但它却是整个的 印度人的意识。 你们理解了吗？ 你们必须要和我一起来 稍微思考一下。 你瞧，毫无疑问，那种关系就是 群体意识 会有一个表象、 一个层级，它会有各种层次， 而在这些层次中， 就有着个体意识。 「个体」就是一个人的各种痛苦、 各种焦虑 等等。 那个群体说，“你是一个理想主义者” ——如果他们这么说的话。 而你，因为身处那个群体中， 所以也懂得了 理想的重要性或者理想的无足轻重。 因此，一个信仰理想主义的人 或不信仰 理想主义的人， 他和那个信仰理想主义的群体的关系是什么呢？ 如果他对于理想主义 没有任何相不相信之说， 那他就完全脱离了 那个群体。 但如果他信仰理想主义， 那他就属于那个群体了。 |
| Now, the questioner asks, How can a human being undergo a total psychological change while the group consciousness has not changed at all? I am also reading the question for the first time. | 而现在，这个提问者问： 当群体意识 尚未完全改变时， 一个人又如何能够经历一次 彻底的心理转变呢？ 我也是第一次 读到这个问题。 |
| First of all, is the group consciousness separate from me, from the individual consciousness? That we have to establish completely. Are you, an individual, different from the group consciousness of the British, or the French, or the Dutch, or whatever it is? Are you different radically, from the country, the culture, the economic condition, the cultural education, all that, are you different from the rest of the group? Are you, are we, each one of us? Or are we the result of all that? You understand? Am I the result of all of India, of Europe, of America, because one has lived in these parts for most of one's life, am I the result of all that? You are following all this? Are we moving together? Or am I totally different from all that? Are you totally different from your culture, from your environment from your heredity, from your thousand years of evolution, wars, and so on? Are you not the result of all that? You are, obviously. Now, if you are the result of all that, another group is also the result of all that too. Right? You may call yourself British, I may call myself Dutch, you may call yourself French, but we are the result of all that, though linguistically we may be different. So go a little further. | 首先， 群体意识和“我”、 和个体意识 是彼此分离的吗？ 我们必须先 完全确定这一点才行。 你、你这个“个体”， 你和群体意识是有所不同的吗 ——不管是英国人的群体意识、 还是法国人、荷兰人 或者无论什么人的群体意识。 从根本上来说， 「你」是不同于 你的国家、习俗、 经济状况、 文化教育等等这些东西的吗？ 「你」是不同于 群体中的其他人的吗？ 你是有所不同的吗？ 我们……我们每个人是有所不同的吗？ 还是说，我们就是 所有这一切的产物？ 你们明白了吗？ 我是否就是印度所有那些东西的产物、 或者欧洲所有那些东西的产物、或者美国所有那些东西的产物， 因为我已经在这些地区 生活了大半辈子， 所以我是否就是所有那些东西的结果？ 你们跟上所有这些了吗？ 我们正在一起前行吗？ 或者说，我是完全不同于 所有那些东西的？ 你是完全不同于 你们的文化习俗的吗？ 你是完全不同于 你们的环境、遗传继承、 上千年以来 的进化、 战争 等等这些东西的吗？ 你不就是 所有这些东西的产物吗？ 很显然，你是的。 现在来看，如果你们是 所有这些东西的结果， 那么另一个群体也会是 所有那些东西的结果。 对吧？ 你也许会把自己称为英国人， 我也许会自称是荷兰人， 或者你可能会称自己是法国人， 但我们全都是所有那些东西的结果 ——尽管从语言学角度来说， 我们也许是有所不同的。 所以，让我们来稍微深入一下它吧。 |
| Is our consciousness, which is our entire being, with its beliefs, with its faith, with its dogmas, fears, superstitions, and longings, and anxieties, and loneliness, and all that, is that not common to all mankind? Right? You will not accept the next step if you don't understand this. Are we not, each human being, the representative, or are the rest of humanity, psychologically? What do you say? Obviously. You suffer, the man in Japan suffers. Though he may be, technologically, terribly advanced, highly disciplined, industrious, keeping his place, it is part of the Confucian education, culture, but inwardly, he is just like you and me. | 我们的意识 ——也就是我们全部的存在 及其信仰、 信念、教条、 恐惧、迷信、 渴望、焦虑、 孤独，等等这些—— 这种意识难道不也是 全人类所共有的吗？ 对吧？ 如果你还没有理解这一点的话， 那你就难以接受下一步了。 我们……我们每一人难道不是代表了 或者说我们就是 其余所有的人吗 ——从心理层面来说？ 你们觉得呢？ 这是显而易见的。 你会痛苦， 那个在日本的人也会痛苦。 尽管日本人也许在科技方面 是极其先进的， 他们高度自律、 勤奋努力、恪守本分 ——这是儒家教育、 儒家文化的一部分， 然而从内心层面来看， 日本人和你我是一样的。 |
| So if the human being – who is the rest of mankind, psychologically – if he changes completely, is he not adding, helping, increasing a totally different kind of mind to it? Are you following this? All right, suppose I change radically, belonging, recognising that I am the rest of mankind. And personally, I mean it, it is not just intellectual assumption. I am the rest of mankind, psychologically. I may be darker skinned than you are, but you suffer, and so on, and I am the rest of mankind. If I change radically, am I not bringing into the consciousness of humanity – which I am – am I not bringing to it something which is totally different? And if all of us were changing rapidly, and adding to that, the content of human consciousness will also be affected. You are following all this? Right? Are we together in this? | 所以如果一个人 ——从心理层面而言， 一个人就是其他所有的人—— 如果这个人彻底改变了， 他难道不就是在为人类的意识 增添、助长和增加某种 完全不同的 心灵意识吗？ 你们跟上它了吗？ 好吧，假如我发生了 根本性的改变， 有了那种归属感， 认识到我就是其余的人类。 而且就个人而言，我对此是认真的， 它并不只是一种 智力上的设想。 而是从心理上来说， 我就是其他的人， 我的肤色 也许要比你更深一点， 但你同样也会受苦，等等这些， 而我就是其余的人类。 所以如果我从根本上改变了， 那我难道不就是在为 全人类的意识 ——我就是全人类的意识—— 我不就是在为它带来某种 截然不同的内容吗？ 而如果我们所有人都能迅速地改变， 并为其增添内容的话， 那么 人类意识的内容 也将会受到影响。 你们理解所有这些了吗？ 理解了吗？ 我们就此达成共识了吗？ 所以， 人类是否可能 |
| So, is it possible for human beings, living wherever they are, assessing that our consciousness is similar to the rest of mankind, but clothed in different garments, when there is a radical change, it does affect the whole. Like Hitler affected the whole of human consciousness. Like the war that is going on, it is affecting the whole of mankind. | ——无论他们生活在哪里—— 人类是否可能认定自身的意识 和其他所有人的意识是相似的， 只不过意识的表象 有所不同罢了， 而当一个人发生了根本性的改变， 这确实会影响全人类。 就像希特勒已经影响了 人类的整体意识。 就像正在发生进行着的战争， 它也在影响着全人类。 对吧？ |
| So the next investigation into this question is: Why don't you change? That is what is implied in this question. Why is it, human beings who have lived on this marvellous, beautiful earth – which they are trying to destroy – why have they not, after so many centuries upon centuries of civilization, experience, sorrow, tears, joy, etc., why are they like this? Always waiting for somebody to lead them, always waiting to be told what to do. And even when they are told what to do, they don't do it. | 所以，关于这个问题的 下一步的探究就是： 你为什么不改变呢？ 这就是这个问题 所隐含的意思。 为什么人类 人类一直生活在这个 不可思议的、美丽的地球上 ——虽然如今人类正在试图 毁灭地球—— 为什么他们还是不改变 在经历了无数世纪 漫长的文明、 经验、苦难、泪水、欢愉 等等之后， 为什么他们还是像现在这样？ 总是在等待着某个人 来引领他们， 总是在等待着别人 来告诉他们该怎么做。 而即使别人告诉了他们该怎么做， 他们也不会去做。 |
| Now, why? Please answer this question, not for me to answer it, question it. Why is it, human beings: affluent, well-to-do, fairly well-placed, having to struggle endlessly for food, like in Asia, certain parts of Asia, why is it they don't see the extraordinary importance, the urgency of all this? Why don't they move? Is it they need more suffering? – which would be too callous. You understand? Suffering has not changed man. Reward has not changed man, nor punishment. Those are the two principles upon which we act: reward and punishment. Neither of those two principles have helped man. Nor externalizing some agency, like God, worshipping him. Which is, thought has invented it, then thought worships him. Crazy business. And that too has not helped man. So, what? Please ask these questions yourself. We have looked to leaders, we have looked to outside agency, some great influence, some pressure, none of these things have helped man. So what will he do? Go on, answer this question. Go off into communes, and little this and little that? Or see the great danger of what is going on? See the utter lack of love in all this, utter callousness of human beings: killing for some piece of land, for some honour, a whole group of human beings. You understand? So what will you all do? Go back to our daily routine, to our jobs? You can't help that. We have responsibilities, so we have to do all that. So what shall we do apart from all that? Is it that our brains have become so utterly mechanical that any new challenge is immediately translated into the old pattern, and go on with the old pattern? Please investigate all this. | 所以，这是为什么呢？ 请回答这个问题， 不是为我来回答它，而是去质疑它。 为什么人类 有的人很富裕、 小康生活、境遇优渥， 有的人却不得不为一日三餐而无尽地挣扎求生 ——就像在亚洲地区一样 亚洲的部分地区， 为什么他们没有看到这一切 非凡的重要性 与紧迫性呢？ 为什么他们没有行动起来？ 是他们还需要更多的痛苦吗？ 这样的话就太冷酷无情了。 你们理解了吗？ 「痛苦」并没有改变人类。 「奖励/奖赏」并没有改变人类， 「惩罚」也没有改变人类。 而我们都是 基于这两个法则而行动的： 奖励和惩罚。 然而这两个法则 都没能帮到人类。 而某个外化的「中介者」——比如“上帝”，去崇拜上帝 ——也没能帮到人类。 也就是：思想发明了“上帝”， 然后思想又去崇拜这个“上帝”。 真是一件疯狂的事。 但它也没能对人类 有所帮助。 所以，什么东西才能帮到人类呢？ 请问问你自己 这些问题。 我们曾经指望那些领袖， 我们曾经指望 外在的“中介者”， 指望某种巨大的影响力、 某种压力来帮助我们， 然而所有这些东西 都没能帮到人类。 所以一个人能做些什么呢？ 继续，来回答这个问题。 躲到某个社群中去、 躲到这个小群体或那个小群体中去吗？ 还是说，去看到正在发生的事情的 巨大危险性？ 看到所有这些东西中 是完全没有「爱」的， 而只有人类的 极度冷漠麻木： 为了一块地、 为了某种荣誉而去屠杀 一大群人。 你们能理解吗？ 所以，你们所有人要怎么做呢？ 返回到我们日常生活的例行公事中去吗？ 返回到我们的工作岗位吗？ 你们也无力改变现状。 我们都肩负着责任， 我们必须要去做所有这些事情。 所以，除了上述这一切， 我们还可以去做些什么呢？ 是不是因为我们的大脑 已经变得如此彻底的机械化， 以至于任何新的挑战 都会立即被翻译诠释至 旧有的模式中去， 然后我们会继续那个老的模式？ 请你们去探究一下所有这些东西吧。 |
| 2nd question: Can right action ever encompass violence? | （第二个问题）正确的行动 是否也可能会包含暴力？ |
| Can 'right action' ever encompass violence? | “正确的行动”——这里是加引号的—— 它是否可能会包含暴力？ |
| K: Now we are probing into the question. What is right action? Right action must be right under all circumstances not depending on pressure, on climate, or one's prejudices, conclusions, ideals. But when it is right action, it must be right under all circumstances. So what is right action? What is right? Which means: correct, precise, actual, objective, non-personal. Right? All that is implied in that word: right. Right is not opposed to wrong. If right is opposed to wrong then the right has its roots also in the wrong. This needs a little bit of enquiry. | 克：现在让我们来探究一下 这个问题。 什么是「正确的行动」？ 正确的行动必然在所有情况下 都是正确的， 而无需依赖于 压力、气候， 或者个人的偏见、 结论、理想。 当它是正确的行动时， 那它必然在所有情况下 都会是正确的。 所以，什么才是「正确的行动」？ 什么是「正确」？ 「正确」意味着： 准确无误、精确、真实、 客观、非个人化的。 对吧？ 所有这些都包含在了 “正确”这个词中。 「正确」并不是「错误」的对立面。 如果「正确」是「错误」的反面， 那么「正确」的根源 便存在于「错误」之中了。 |
| Is goodness totally separate from that which is bad? We are using the words good and bad in the ordinary sense of the word. Is it separate, totally separate, or is goodness born out of badness? You understand? I am bad – whatever that may mean – and I am trying to be good. That goodness is the opposite of what I am. I am bad, I am saying I must be good. So it is an opposite, and the opposite is created by thought which says, this is bad and I must be good. You are following all this? So, is right the opposite of the wrong? If it is the opposite, there must be conflict between the two, and therefore, the right is not right. Where there is a conflict between good and bad, that conflict is wrong. Therefore, we are asking, is right totally independent, totally divorced, has no relationship to the bad? Then it is right under all circumstances. But if it is the outcome of the bad, that is, I want to be good, creating the opposite of the bad, and then fighting for that, then that which I call right is wrong. I wonder if you have understood this, if we have understood each other, this. | 这一点需要我们 稍微来探询一下。 「好」是不是 完全脱离于 「坏」的？ 我们这里所使用的 「好」与「坏」这两个词…… 指的是这两个词 通常的含义。 它是否是与之分离的、 完全分离的？ 还是说 「好」是源自于「坏」的？ 你们听懂了吗？ 我是个坏人 ——不管这句话代表了什么意思—— 然后我努力去做个好人。 “好人”就是 我现在的真实模样的反面。 我很坏， 然后我说：我必须要做个好人。 所以它就是一个「反面」， 而这个「反面」 是由思想所创造出来的， 思想说：做个坏人很不好， 所以我必须做个好人。 你们跟上这一切了吗？ 所以， 「正确」是「错误」的反面吗？ 如果它是反面， 那么这两者之间 就必定会有冲突， 由此“正确”就不再是 正确的了。 因为当「好」与「坏」之间 有了冲突， 那种冲突本身便是错误的。 所以，我们在问的是： 「正确」是不是完全独立于、 完全脱离于「坏」的？ 它是不是和「坏」没有任何关系？ 这样的话，它便能够在所有情况下 都是正确的。 但如果它是 来自于「坏」的结果， 换句话说：我想要做个好人， 我创造出了 「坏」的对立面， 然后努力奋斗去达到它，是吧？ 但这样的话，我所称之为“正确”的事物 便是错误的了。 我不知道你们是否 理解了这一点， 我们是否就这一点 达成了共识。 |
| So, we more or less can go much more into it, but we must also go into action. What is action? Any movement is action. Going from here to your house, sitting here, listening. Action: the doing, not 'having done', or 'will do'. That means acting: present participle. So, acting. | 这样的话，我们差不多就可以 进一步地去探讨它了， 但我们也必须要来探讨一下「行动」。 什么是「行动」？ 任何活动都是「行动」。 从这里去你的家， 坐在这里，听演讲。 行动：它就是「正在做」， 不是“已经做了”或者“将会去做”。 它的意思是「正在做」： 它是个现在分词。 所以它是“正在行动”。 |
| Now, what is the root of that acting, the cause of that acting? Has acting a cause? Please, this is very interesting if you go into it. This is not intellectual assessment, intellectual entertainment, but if you go into it very deeply, it brings out something extraordinary. Our present action is based on past memories, or on a future principle. The idea: according to a pattern, I am going to live. And act according to that pattern. That pattern is established by thought, from what I have learned or imitated, and I copy that pattern, and I call that action. Which is, I am acting according to a principle which is rewarding, which will be pleasurable, and I act according to that. All the ideologists do this. All the theoreticians, whether the capitalist theoretician, or the totalitarian theoreticians act upon this, establish theories, and act according to those theories, hypothesis. So our action is either based on a reward or punishment – obviously. So action has a motive. That is, I am acting according to my desire, my pleasure, my past memories, or I am acting according to some principle, some ideal. But I am not acting, I am acting according to something. Do we understand this? So can the mind be free of the past and the future, and act? It is really very interesting to go into this. Can my brain, which has evolved in time, and so it functions in time, time being past rewards, past memories, past accomplishments, and so on, and the future, with all its rewards, etc. So my brain has been conditioned to that, as most brains are. And it is acting according to the past or to the future, and that is its conditioning. Now, we are asking that brain, is it possible to act without the whole burden of the past and the future business? You understand the question? We will come back to that. | 那么， 这种行动的源头是什么， 这种行动的起因是什么呢？ 「行动」会有一个起因吗？ 你瞧，如果你可以深入一下它的话， 它是非常有趣的。 这并不是在进行什么 智力评估， 或者玩什么智力游戏， 而是，如果你非常深入地 去探究它， 那它就会带来某种 非凡惊人的东西。 我们当前的行动 都是基于过去的记忆 或者某种未来的原则的。 我有某种理念，我将会根据 那种模式来生活。 根据那种模式 而行动。 那种模式 是由思想建立起来的， 而我已经学习了解了这种模式， 或者我模仿了这种模式， 我会复制这种模式， 然后我就把这称为“行动”。是吧？ 也就是说，我是根据某种原则来行动的 ——它会给我带来奖励回报， 它是令人愉悦的， 所以我会根据它来采取行动。 所有的思想理论家都是这么做的。 所有的理论家 ——不管是资本主义的理论家， 还是极权主义的理论家 都是基于此而行动的： 建立起各种理论， 然后根据这些理论、 假说来行动。 对吧？ 所以我们的行动要么是建立在奖励之上的， 要么就是建立在惩罚之上 ——这是显而易见的。 由此行动便有了一个动机。 也就是说，我是根据 我的欲望、 我的快感、我过去的记忆来行动的， 或者我会根据 某种原则、 某种理想来行动。 然而这样的话，我并没有「在行动」， 我只是「根据某个东西而行动」。 我们是否能理解这一点？ 所以，头脑是否能够摆脱掉「过去」和「未来」， 然后去行动？ 去探究这一点 真的非常有趣。 我的大脑是否能够…… 我的大脑已经在「时间」中进化了， 所以它也是在「时间」中运作的， 「时间」就是过去的奖励回报、 过去的记忆、 过去的成就， 等等， 「时间」也是 「未来」及其所有的奖赏 等等。 所以我的大脑 一直受限于此 ——就像大多数人的大脑一样。 它正在根据 「过去」或者「未来」而行动， 而这便是它的「局限」。 而现在，我们正在问： 这个大脑是否可能以这样的方式去行动 ——那就是不带着所有「过去」的负担 和「未来」的思虑？ 你们听懂这个问题了吗？ 我们回头再来讲它吧。 |
| And the questioner asks, violence, he uses the word violence. What is violence? Physical violence? Killing each other, hurting each other, maiming each other, physically, by a word, by a gesture, by a look. We hurt each other. That is also part of violence: the word, the gesture, the blow, the bayonet, the bomb. And also, is there not violence when we imitate people? Is there not violence when we are caught in a movement of comparison? I am comparing myself with you: clever brat, and so on, or I want to be somebody – that is also part of violence. Conformity, comparison, following, obeying – all that is part of violence. We are not saying, going against the law. We must be careful here, otherwise, the policeman will be after us. Realising this is violence, then we proceed to create a state, or a principle called non-violence – quite the opposite of what I am, what we are. Then what takes place? I have created the idea of non-violence because I am violent. This is a fact, and that is non-fact, and I pursue the non-fact. I don't know if you realise all this: that then, it leads to all kinds of illusions. Whereas, there is only the fact: violence. There is no other fact. Now, to understand the nature of violence, to go into it, to encompass the whole content of that word, and not move away from it. Which is not to escape, not to submerge it, not to suppress it, not to go beyond it. | 而这位提问者问…… 暴力， 他使用了“暴力”这个词。 什么是暴力？ 是身体上的暴力吗？ 互相杀戮、 互相伤害、 互相残杀， 肉体物理层面，通过一个词语、 一个手势、一个眼神来施加暴力。 我们会彼此伤害。 这也是暴力的一部分： 言语、手势、 打人、 刺刀、炸弹。 此外， 当我们去模仿别人的时候， 是不是也蕴含了暴力？ 当我们陷入于 「比较」的活动中时， 不也是隐藏着暴力吗？ 我会拿自己 和你这个聪明的家伙比，等等， 或者我会想要成为某号人物 ——这同样也是暴力的一部分。是吧？ 遵从、 比较、 追随、 服从——所有这些都是 暴力的一部分。 我们的意思并不是说 要去反对法律。 在这一点上我们必须小心一点， 否则的话， 警察就会来找我们了。 而在意识到了它就是暴力之后， 接下来我们便创造出了一种状态、 或者说是一种原则 ——我们将其称为“非暴力” ——而它恰恰是我真实模样、 我们实际模样的反面。 然后会发生什么呢？ 我已经创造出了 “非暴力”的理念 ——因为我是暴力的。 暴力是一个事实， 而“非暴力”并非事实， 然后我会去追求那个并非事实的东西。 我不知道你们是否 醒悟到了这一切： 由此，它便导致了 各种错觉幻想。 然而，存在的只有那个事实： 也就是「暴力」。 其他的东西都不是事实。 现在，我们要去了解 暴力的本质， 去探究它， 探究这个词 全部的内容， 而不要离开它 也就是不要逃避它， 不要沉迷于它， 不要去压抑它， 也不要去超越它。 |
| So, what is right action which will encompass the whole movement of violence? What is right action? Which is non-action. I don't know if you follow this. Any action born of violence, is violence. One country is aggressive, and you respond with aggressiveness to that country. This is what has happened. That is positive action, which is considered positive action. You hit me, I hit you back. But seeing the whole nature of violence, observing it closely, there is only a state which is non-action. I wonder if you understand this? What is considered positive action with regard to violence in the ordinary, accepted, traditional sense, is to retaliate. This has been our tradition. We own that particular piece of land miles away, and if anybody is aggressive, enters into that land, I will send all my warships to it. This is what is happening all the world over, meet aggression by aggression. And that is considered positive, realistic action. And this has been the history of mankind for thousands of years. So, when one investigates into this whole problem of violence, any movement from violence is still violence. Right? If one understands this. Therefore, when there is violence: no response to violence. Which is the most positive action. Right? | 所以，那种包含了 所有暴力运动的…… 正确行动是什么呢？ 什么是“正确的行动”？ 正确的行动就是「非行动」。 我不知道你们是否跟上了这点。 任何源自于暴力的行动 都是「暴力」。 某个国家是侵略国， 于是你的回应就是 去反击那个国家。 这就是发生的事情。 这就是“积极正面”的行动， 它被认为是“积极正向的行为”。 你打了我，我要打回来。 然而我们要看到 暴力的全部本质， 去仔细严密地观察它， 只存在着一种 「非行动」的状态。 我不知道你们是否理解了这点？ 在应对暴力方面，什么样的行动 会被认为是“积极正向”的行动 ——从常见的、公认的、传统的角度来看， “积极正向”的行动就是去反击。 这是我们一直以来的传统做法。 那块数英里之外的土地 是归我们所有的， 所以如果有任何人 入侵、进入了那片土地， 我就会派出 我所有的战船前往那里。 这就是全世界 正在发生的事情， 以牙还牙、以暴制暴。 而这被认为是 积极正面的、务实的行动。 这就是人类数千年以来的 历史进程。 所以当我们探究 这整个关于暴力的问题时， 任何逃离暴力的运动 仍旧是暴力。 对吧？ 我们是否明白了这点。 因此， 当有了暴力： 请不要对暴力有任何回应 ——这才是 最积极正面的行动。 好了吧？ |
| 3rd question: You speak of compassion, but claim that action should have no cause. In what way does compassion act without being a cause of action? | （第三个问题）： 你谈论了「慈悲」， 但也宣称 行动不应该有“起因”。 但如果行为没有了起因动机， 慈悲要以什么样的方式发挥作用呢？ |
| You speak of compassion – well, I'll go into it. You speak of compassion, but claim that action should have no cause. In what way does compassion act without having a cause? | 你谈论了「慈悲」 ——很好，我会来探讨一下它。 你谈论了「慈悲」， 但却宣称 行动不应该有起因动机。 但如果没有了起因动机， 慈悲要以怎样的方式发挥作用呢？ |
| K: The questioner says, 'You speak of compassion, and you claim'. Please, the speaker doesn't claim anything. Then you can kick him around if he claimed. But as he doesn't claim anything, and he doesn't speak of compassion as though something extraordinary that human beings have lost, or not found. So we have to go into this question together. | 克：这位提问者说： 你谈到了慈悲， 但你又宣称 请注意， 演讲者并没有“宣称”任何东西。 如果他“宣称”了任何东西， 那你们尽可以随意地喷他。 但他其实并没有 “宣称”任何东西， 他所谈论的「慈悲」也并非是某种 非凡奇特的东西、 某种人类已经失去、 或者尚未找到的东西。 所以让我们一起来 探究一下这个问题吧。 什么是「慈悲」？ |
| What is compassion? What is love? As it is generally understood, love is sensory, sensuous, sexy. Love is understood as pleasure, as some form of self-fulfilment. I am just stating what is commonly understood. So we have to enquire, probe into this word, the content of the word, the depth of the word, the real quality of that word. That word has been ruined, spat upon, trodden down, vulgarised, any other word you like to use. So pushing all that aside, what is love? If it has a cause: 'I love you because...' then obviously, it is not love. Let's be clear on that. Right? 'I love God because I hope some day he will help me.' 'I love my wife because...' etc. I don't have to go into all that. Or my girlfriend. So, if we are very clear that love has no cause – it hasn't. If it has, then it is not love, it is a convenience, self-satisfaction, it is gratification, companionship, escape from loneliness, and all that kind of stuff. But if it is real, it has no cause. I don't love you because you are an audience which helps me to fulfil myself, which is too silly. | 什么是「爱」？ 就如人们通常所理解的那样， 爱是诉诸于「感觉」的、 是感官化的、 是性欲。 “爱”被理解为是快感， 是某种形式的自我满足。 我只是在陈述 人们通常所理解的“爱”。 所以我们必须要去探询、 去探究这个字， 探究这个字的内容、 这个字的深层含义、 这个字真实的品质。 「爱」这个字 已经被毁了、被唾弃了、 被践踏、被庸俗化了 ——或者无论你喜欢用什么词来形容。 所以，将所有这些东西抛开， 什么是「爱」呢？ 如果爱是有一个起因动机的： “我爱你是因为……” 那么很显然，它就不是「爱」了。 我们需要明确这一点。好吧？ “我爱上帝是因为 我希望有一天他将会拯救我。 ” “我爱我的妻子是因为……”等等那些东西。 这就不需要我展开讲了吧。 或者我爱我的女朋友。 所以，如果我们可以非常清楚： 爱是没有起因动机的 ——它就是没有起因动机的。 如果它有起因动机，那它就不是「爱」了， 它成了一种“方便”、 一种自我欲望的满足， 它是为了满足、为了陪伴、 为了逃避孤独， 等等诸如此类的事情。 但如果它是真正的爱， 它就不会有起因动机。 我并不是因为 你是我的听众、 可以帮助我实现我自己，我才爱你的 ——这样就太蠢了。 |
| So, love has no cause. Right? This is not a verbal assessment, a verbal, intellectual agreement. It is a deep truth. When one perceives that truth, then the cause which we have had, disappears altogether. And is love different from compassion? Or it is the furthering of the same thing? Can there be compassion, that sense of enormity of it, the beauty of it, the quality, the depth of that word, can that compassion exist where there is sorrow? I may be suffering because I have lost this, and I am suffering from loneliness. I am suffering, and out of that suffering I attach myself to certain ideological principles. I become a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Christian. I anchor my being in there, and then go out to help you because I think I am compassionate. Is that compassion? Are we together in this? We are investigating, we are not asking that you should agree. If I am attached to some principle, to some belief, to some faith, and that is my strength, my anchor, and then I talk about compassion, go to the world, go to China and help there, or India – the poor people. Is that compassion? Or is it pity, sympathy, kindliness, generosity, which I call compassion? Or compassion cannot possibly exist when there is any kind of anchorage, when I am no longer a Hindu, a Buddhist, Catholic, and so on. Which is, compassion has its own intelligence. It is unintelligent to have an anchorage of security in some deity, some symbol, some faith. That indicates a lack of intelligence. But when there is compassion, it has its own intelligence. So intelligence has no cause. Because if it has a cause – I am intelligent because: I have read books, I have clever arguments, and so on. that is not intelligence, that is cleverness, erudition, professional activity. So compassion, love, have no cause and therefore, as intelligence has no cause, love, compassion, intelligence go together. | 所以，「爱」是没有起因的。 对吧？ 这并不是一个口头上的评定， 一种语言文字上的、 智力上的赞同。 它是一个深刻的真理。 当我们看到了这个真理， 那么我们所抱持的那个起因/动机 就会完全消失了。 那么「爱」是否 不同于「慈悲」呢？ 还是说它是同一个东西的 进一步拓展？ 而慈悲 那种巨大惊人的慈悲感、 那种慈悲的美、 那种慈悲的品质与深度， 当有了「苦」以后， 那种「慈悲」还会存在吗？ 我也许会因为 我失去了某人而痛苦， 我因为孤独 而痛苦。 我很痛苦， 而因为有这种痛苦， 于是我便执著于某些 意识形态上的原则。 我变成了一个印度教徒、 一个佛教徒或者一个基督教徒。 我固守于此， 然后我走过来帮助你， 因为我认为 我是慈悲为怀的。 可这是「慈悲」吗？ 我们是否都理解了这一点？ 我们正在探究它， 我们并没有 要求你要同意它。 如果我执著于 某个原则、 某个信仰、某个信念， 那它就成了我的力量、 我的支柱， 然后我会 谈论“慈悲”， 我会前往世界各地， 前往中国，然后帮助那里的人， 或者前往印度——帮助那些穷人。 那么这是「慈悲」吗？ 还是说它只是一种怜悯、 一种同情、 一种仁慈、一种慷慨 ——只不过我把它称为“慈悲”罢了？ 还是说， 当有了任何“支柱”， 慈悲 就不可能存在了， 当我不再是一个印度教徒、 佛教徒、天主教徒 等等时， 也就是说， 「慈悲」 有其自身的智慧。 而去拥有 某个安全的支柱 ——比如某个神明、 符号、信念——这是不智慧的。 这表明了 智慧的缺乏。 然而当有了「慈悲」， 它便会拥有其自身的智慧。 所以智慧是没有「起因」的。 因为如果它有一个起因 ——我很智慧是因为 我读了很多书， 我可以机智地与人争论，等等， 那么它就不是智慧了， 它只是聪明机灵、博学广识、 专业向的活动罢了。 所以「慈悲」和「爱」 是没有起因的，因此 由于智慧也是没有起因的， 所以爱、慈悲、智慧， 这三者是如影随形的。 |
| Then the questioner asks, when there is that compassion, what is action? You understand the question? I haven't got it, but tell me about it. I don't know what love is, but what is the action of that love? We are back into theories, hypotheses and idealisms. Tell me what it is to live with love though in my heart, I don't know what that flame is. And it would be foolish to talk about what that is when one hasn't got the flame. So the question then arises, Why is it human beings, who have undergone such tremendous agonies, dreadful wars, shedding tears beyond all the rivers, and yet, they are going on the same way: killing each other, all the rest of it. Where there is compassion and intelligence, that very intelligence is action. But I haven't got it. It sounds good in this tent, but when I leave it, it is gone. I have been stimulated by the speaker or by somebody else, and it is not there. And that is a tragedy. So again, what am I to do? How am I to capture that flame? You see, love is not an experience. All experiences are sensual, reactions. As love is not desire, pleasure, reward, escape from one's own misery – if one sees that, observes it, then out of that observation, the thing may flower. | 然后这位提问者问道： 当有了这种慈悲后， 「行动」会是怎样的呢？ 你们听懂这个问题了吗？ 我还没有拥有慈悲， 但请你告诉我答案。 我还不知道什么是「爱」， 但那种「爱」会有怎样的行动？ 所以说我们又回到了理论空谈， 回到了各种假设和唯心主义。 请告诉我什么才是 拥有「爱」的生活…… ——尽管在我的心中， 我并不知道那种「爱的火焰」是什么。 而当一个人尚未拥有 这种「爱的火焰」， 却去谈论它是什么时，这是很愚蠢的。 于是问题就出现了， 人类已经经历过了 如此巨大的 痛苦折磨， 各种骇人的战争， 泪流 成河， 但为什么人类 仍旧继续在走老路： 互相残杀， 等等这些事情。 当有了 「慈悲」与「智慧」， 那么这种「智慧」本身就是「行动」。 但我还没有拥有它们。 当我在这个帐篷里时，它听起来很棒， 然而当我离开了帐篷，一切都烟消云散了。 我之前只是受到了 演讲者、 或者其他某个人的刺激， 而现在这种刺激已经没了。 这真是一个悲剧。 所以，同样的，我该怎么办呢？ 我要如何才能捕捉到 那团火焰呢？ 你瞧， 「爱」并不是一种经验。 所有的经验都是感官化的、 都是「反应」。 而「爱」并不是欲望、快感、 奖励回报、 也不是对于自身痛苦的逃避 ——如果我们看到了这一点、观察到了这一点， 那么经由这种观察， 那个东西也许就会开花绽放了。 |
| Shall we go on to the next question? It seems a pity, doesn't it? | 我们可以继续来谈 下一个问题吗？ 这看起来有点可怜，不是吗？ （第四个问题）为了生存， 我不得不从事那些 |
| 4th question: To exist, I have to perform daily, mechanical tasks without any meaning. This lack of meaning leads to a feeling of destructiveness and inner rage. I see this clearly in myself, and the same process growing in the rise of terrorism, crime and delinquency. There is the feeling that nothing can be done about this rising chaos. That society is destined to collapse. How does one approach this tremendous chaos both without and within oneself? | 机械性的、毫无意义的 日常工作。 这种意义感的缺失导致了一种 想要去破坏的冲动 和内心的狂怒。 我在自己身上清楚地看到了这一点， 而同样的过程不断发展， 导致了恐怖主义、 犯罪活动和青少年不良行为的萌发崛起。 对于这种 日益加剧的混乱， 我感到束手无策。 这样的社会 注定要崩溃。 那么我们要如何去处理 这种巨大的混乱呢 ——既包括我们外在的混乱、 也包括内心的混乱？ |
| To exist, I have to perform daily, mechanical tasks without much meaning. This lack of meaning leads to a feeling of destructiveness and inner rage. I see this clearly in myself, and the same process growing in the rise of terrorism, crime and delinquency. There is the feeling that nothing can be done about this increasing chaos, that society is destined to collapse. How does one approach this tremendous chaos both without and within oneself? | 为了生存，我不得不从事那些 没有多大意义的、 机械性的日常工作。 这种意义感的缺失导致了一种 想要去破坏的冲动 和内心的狂怒。 我在自己身上清楚地看到了这一点， 而同样的过程不断发展， 导致了恐怖主义、 犯罪活动和青少年不良行为的萌发崛起。 对于这种 日益加剧的混乱， 我感到束手无策。 这样的社会 注定要崩溃。 那么我们要如何去处理 这种巨大的混乱呢 ——既包括我们外在的混乱、 也包括内心的混乱？ |
| K: I wonder how many of us are aware of this fact. Economically, socially, morally, the structure of society as we have known is gradually collapsing, imperceptibly, or very, very quickly. How many of us are aware of this? Or we just live from day to day and forget the whole bally show? Please enquire in oneself, if one is really aware of this? Not in the newspapers, not in the magazines, not in the editorials, not in any book, but this is actually going on. Are we aware of it? Are we sensitive to all that is happening? What the scientists are doing? Because they also want to fulfil. Russia invents something, and the other scientists invent something more, greater, and so they keep this up. | 克：我不知道我们中有多少人 觉察到了这个事实。 那就是：经济上、 社会上、道德上， 那种我们所知的 社会结构 正在逐渐崩溃瓦解， 悄然无息地、或者非常非常迅速地 崩溃瓦解。 我们中有多少人 察觉到了这一点？ 还是说，我们只是过一天算一天， 把所有这些破事儿都抛到了脑后？ 请你们询问一下自己： 你是否真的察觉到了它？ 不是通过报纸， 不是通过杂志， 不是通过那些社论， 也不是通过任何书籍， 因为它们就是实际正在发生的事情。 我们是否觉察到了它？ 对于所有那些 正在发生的事情、 那些科学家们正在做的事情，我们是否敏感？ 因为科学家 也想要有所成就。 俄罗斯发明了某种东西， 于是其他国家的科学家便发明了 某种更厉害的、更牛的东西， 他们就这样你追我赶。 |
| If one is aware of the chaos, the catastrophe – I wonder if one is really aware of it. It is really very important to question this, whether one is really, deeply aware of this, sensitively. Not just what is happening in one's own country, but in the world: poverty in certain areas is increasing, overpopulation, total indifference, callousness. If one is aware of it, why does one have rage, anger about it? Or be depressed by it? This is a fact. Right? The thing is collapsing. Why should one get angry about it? Have a tremendous anxiety, rage about it? Why? Why don't we look at the fact, and see what we can do? If you get depressed, full of anxiety, rage, and say my God, what is going to happen to my family, this and that, you are lost. But if one acknowledges the real fact of this, not verbally, but inside yourself, deeply, in your heart. Then the questioner says, what is one to do? | 而如果我们察觉到了 这些混乱与灾祸 ——但我很怀疑我们是否真的 感知意识到了它。 去质疑这一点 真的非常重要： 即我们是否真正地、 深刻地觉察到了它， 我们对此是否敏感。 不只是对于我们自己国家 正在发生的事情敏感， 也包括全世界正在发生的事情： 某些地区的贫穷 正在不断增长， 人口过剩， 人心全然冷漠、麻木不仁。 而如果我们觉察到了它， 为什么我们要对此 感到狂怒、感到生气、 感到沮丧呢？ 它就是事实。对吧？ 那个东西正在崩溃倒塌。 但为什么我们要对此 感到愤怒呢？ 为什么我们要对此 极度的焦虑和狂怒呢？为什么？ 为什么我们就不能去观察那个事实， 然后看看我们能做点什么呢？ 如果你感到很沮丧， 充满了焦虑和愤怒， 然后说：天哪，我的家庭 将会发生什么呢， 想这个或者想那个，那么你就迷失了。 但如果我们承认它是一个 真切的事实， 不是口头上承认它， 而是从你内心、 在你内心深处承认它。 那么，提问者就会问了： 我该怎么做呢？ |
| Where would you begin to understand this chaos? The house is burning. We are not saying something that is not actual. The speaker is not pessimistic or optimistic, just facing things as they are. Where would you begin to bring about order out of this chaos? More leaders? Better prime ministers? Better labour leaders? Better police order, suppressing crimes? Not that there shouldn't be all that, but where will you begin? Please ask the question, where will you begin? Out there, or in here? Who has created the outward chaos in this world? We human beings have created it, each one of us. Right? Obviously. Our grandparents, or great-great-great-grandparents, and we have inherited what they have done, and we are contributing to it. This is a fact. So where shall I begin, realising the outward chaos? I realise that we human beings have created it, and as a human being who is the rest of mankind, I must begin with myself. Which is not a selfish movement. I have contributed, caused, brought about this chaos. Each one of us has brought about this chaos, the collapse, or the impending collapse. And I must begin with myself, because I – please, this is really important – I am the mankind, not just a verbal statement. it is in my blood: I am the rest of mankind. I must begin to bring about order in myself because I have lived, and I still live in chaos, inwardly. Chaos being disorder, conflict, struggle. Now, can there be order in all this? Can order be created out of disorder? Please, I am the result of disorder. I am disorder. I am not saying, disorder is out there, and I am looking at it – I am disorder. There is no part of me which is not in disorder. I may invent a part, I may think there is a part of me which is completely orderly, beautifully orderly. The rest of me is chaos. So if I assert that, then I am pursuing something which I have invented: that there is some pure order. Which is, out of disorder I have created order, hoping that the order is real. I see the fallacy of it, so I say to myself, I am the cause and the trap of disorder, and can I clear up this disorder? Not search for order. You understand this? How can my mind which is disorderly chaotic, how can such a mind, brain, create order? It can't. All it can do is to understand the nature of disorder, the structure, the movement, the quality of disorder. The essence of disorder is conflict. When you have no conflict, there is order. So what is the cause of conflict? I hope you are thinking, you are investigating with the speaker otherwise you are just listening to a lot of ideas, they will have no meaning whatsoever. He will become another stupid leader. And please, I beg of you, don't put the speaker in that position. | 你要从哪里入手 来了解这种混乱呢？ 房子已经着火了。 我们并没有在说某种 脱离现实的东西。 演讲者并不是 悲观或者乐观， 他只是在如实地面对这些事情。 你要从哪里入手， 才能为这种混乱带来秩序呢？ 指望更多的领袖吗？ 指望更好的首相吗？ 更好的工党领袖吗？ 更好的、 抑制犯罪的治安吗？ 不是说 不应该有这些东西， 而是你要从哪里开始呢？ 请问问这个问题： 你会从哪里开始呢？ 是从外部世界开始，还是从内在世界开始？ 是谁创造出了 这个世界上外在的混乱？ 是我们人类自己 ——是我们每一个人——创造出了它。对吧？ 这是显而易见的。 我们的祖父母， 或者我们的曾曾曾祖父母创造出了它， 而我们已经遗传继承了 他们所做的事情， 并且我们正在助长这些事情。 这是一个事实。 所以，在意识到了这些外在的混乱以后， 我要从哪里开始呢？ 我意识到 我们人类已经创造出了它， 因此我作为人类的一员 ——我其实就是所有其他的人—— 我就必须从我自己开始。 这并不是一种自私的举动。 因为是我助长、 引发和带来了这种混乱。 是我们每一个人 带来了这种混乱， 带来了这种崩溃瓦解 ——或者说是即将到来的崩溃瓦解。 而我必须要 从我自己开始，因为我 ——请注意， 这一点真的很重要—— 因为我就是全人类。 这不只是口头上的声明。 这种了解已经深入骨髓： 即「我就是其他所有的人」。 所以我必须开始 给我的内心带来秩序， 因为我曾经活在混乱之中， 而我现在仍旧活在这种内心的混乱中。 混乱就是失序、 冲突、斗争。 那么，所有这一切 可以回归有序吗？ 「秩序」能够从「混乱失序」中 被创造出来吗？ 你瞧， 我就是混乱失序的产物。 我就是混乱失序。 我不会说：混乱失序是 在我之外的某个东西， 然后我再去观察它 ——而是「我就是混乱失序」。 我身上并没有哪一个部分 不是混乱失序的。 我也许可以发明出某个（不混乱的）部分， 我也许会认为 我身上有某个部分是完全有序的， 拥有优美的秩序。 而其余的部分则是混乱的。 所以如果我坚持这种看法， 那我就会去追求某个 我所发明出来的东西： 即那种“完全的秩序”。 也就是说，我从混乱失序之中 创造出了“秩序”，是吧？ 并希望这种“秩序”是真实的。 我看到了这其中的谬误， 于是我对自己说： 「我」就是混乱失序的原因 和陷阱所在， 所以「我」能够清除掉 这种混乱吗？ 不是去寻求秩序。 你们理解它了吗？ 我的头脑是 失序的、混乱的， 而这样的头脑、这样的大脑， 它又怎么可能创造出秩序呢？ 它做不到。 所有它能够做的 就是去了解混乱失序的本质、 了解它的结构、 运动与特征。 混乱失序的本质 就是冲突。 因为当你没有了冲突， 那时就会有秩序了。 所以，导致冲突的原因 是什么呢？ 我希望你们正在思考、 正在和演讲者一起 探究它， 否则的话，你就只是听了一大堆的 观点想法， 这些观点想法 是没有任何意义的。 而演讲者将会成为 又一个愚蠢的领袖。 拜托了，算我求求你们， 请不要把演讲者 置于这样的位置上。 |
| So, can there be dissolution of disorder? We are not seeking order. The order, like the universe, will be when there is no disorder. So what are the contributory causes that bring about disorder? Are you tired? Shall I finish this? You are not tired? I am sorry. What are the many causes that bring about disorder? Or is there only one cause? We like to think there are many causes because then it gives us time to play around, investigating the very many causes. That is part of the psychological game which human beings play. But looking at it all, perhaps, there is only one cause. Or shall we investigate various other causes? Which is a waste of time, obviously. What is the one cause that is bringing about this great disorder out there and in oneself? Is it the 'me', the self, with all its conflicts, desires, hopes, fears, past memories? The self-centred entity who is concerned with himself, isolating himself, holding on, clinging to that which thought has invented as the me. Go on, look at it. And if that self-centred entity, the me, the form, the name, all the accumulated memories, which is the me, which is in essence, isolation. The me is always in isolation. I may be related to you, but 'I' am related to 'you'. I am the principal, and you are the second. I, though I am related to you intimately, I am pursuing my own desires, ambitions, fulfilment. And you are also doing the same, like two parallel railway lines never meeting. That is, the me, with all this sense of isolation that is the root cause of this chaos out there and in me. And do I realise this? Or this verbal accumulation which I have gathered, and I am living with the words? I say yes, that is me, what am I to do about it? If I realise that is me, I can't do anything. You understand? I can't do anything because the doer is still the me. So there is only a state of pure observation of the fact. And that observation, with its intense attention, brings out its own action, which is intelligence. | 所以，我们是否能够 化解掉混乱呢？ 我们并没有在寻找秩序。 因为当没有了混乱以后，就会存在秩序了 ——宇宙的存在也是这个道理。 所以，导致了混乱失序的 促成因素是什么呢？ 你们累了吗？ 我是不是该结束演讲了？ 你们还不累吗？ 不好意思。 导致了混乱失序的 诸多原因是什么？ 还是说，只存在着一个原因？ 我们倾向于认为 存在着很多的原因， 因为这样的话， 我们就可以花时间去捣鼓、 去研究 无数那些原因了。 这就是人类正在玩的 心理学游戏的一部分。 然而当你看到了这一切后， 或许只存在着一个原因。 还是说，我们应该去研究调查 各种其他原因？ 但很显然， 这就是在浪费时间了。 那么这个唯一的原因是什么呢 ——正是它带来了 我们外在和内在的 巨大的混乱？ 这个原因是不是就是“我”、就是自我 及其所有的冲突、欲望、 希望、恐惧和过去的记忆？ 那个以自我为中心的实体， 他只关心他自己， 他在孤立他自己， 他紧紧抓住、 并执著于那个 思想所发明出来的“我”。 请你们继续，去观察一下它。 那个自我中心的实体、 那个我、我的模样、我的名字， 以及所有那些积累起来的记忆 ——它就是“我”， 这个“我”本质上来说是孤立排外的。 “我”永远都是处于孤立排外的状态中的。对吧？ 我也许和你有关系， 但这也是：“我”和你有关系。 “我”是首要的， 而“你”是次要的。 而我……尽管我和你 有着很亲密的关系， 我却仍在追求着我自己的种种欲望、 野心与满足。 而你也在做着同样的事， 我们就像是两条平行的铁轨， 永不相交。 换句话说，那个“我” 及其所有的孤立感， 它就是外在混乱 和我内在混乱的根本原因。 而我是否意识到了这一点？ 还是说，它只是我收集积累起来的 一堆言语， 而我只是活在这堆言语中？ 我说：是的，原因就是“我”， 那么我要对它做些什么呢？ 如果我意识到原因就在于“我”， 那我是无法做任何事情的。 你们理解了吗？ 我是无法做任何事的， 因为那个“做事者”仍旧是“我” 所以那时只存在一种 对于事实纯然观察的状态。 而那种观察 及其强烈的注意， 就会带来它自身的行动 ——而这种行动便是智慧。 |
| Right, sir. Finished for today. | 好了，先生。 今天就讲到这里吧。 |
