克里希那穆提 - 是否存在一种没有局限的行动？

BR84SBR2 - 是否存在一种没有局限的行动？克氏与科学家们的第二次研讨会英国，布洛克伍德公园 1984年6月9日纯文本版本
0:25 Dr Hancke: I would like to say a few words today, at the beginning of the seminar. It would be nice if we could have a friendly dialogue, in the sense that when we go into the questions we have a certain hesitation rather than asserting things. And if all of us together could go into the questions we are going to discuss. Yesterday we opened up the seminar by asking whether thought can help us to understand the brain, and we also went into the question whether it is possible for the brain not to have psychological recording. 1:17 And finally, we very briefly opened up the question of insight and I think that is where we stopped. So I wonder what question we would like to start with. It doesn’t seem too clear, the question of whether the brain can be in a state of not recording. I think perhaps that might need a little bit of clarification. What do you think?	0:25 汉克博士：今天，在这场讨论会的一开始，我想要先说几句。如果我们可以有一次亲切友好的对话，这将会是很好的，它的意思就是：当我们去探究这些问题时，我们会有一定程度的犹豫不决，而不是去断言什么东西。而如果我们所有人可以一起去深入这些我们将要讨论的问题。在昨天的讨论会上，我们以这个问题开场：即思想是否能够帮助我们了解大脑？我们同样也探讨了这个问题，那就是：大脑是否可能不要有任何心理上的记录。 1:17 最后，我们非常简要地开启了关于「洞察」的问题，我想我们就是…… 停在了这里。所以我想知道这次我们要从什么问题开始呢？一个似乎还不太清楚的问题就是：大脑是否可以处于那种不去记录的状态中。我认为这或许需要稍微澄清一下。你的看法是什么？
2:06 Krishnamurti: I would like to ask whether we are discussing speculatively, theoretically, or actually? Actually in the sense, applying. Apply in the sense, functioning not theoretically but with facts. Could we do that? Am I proposing something outrageous?	2:06 克里希那穆提（以下简称“克”）：我想要问一下我们的讨论，它是猜测性的、理论性的，还是立足于实际的？「立足于实际」的意思就是：你可以应用实施它。而「应用实施」的意思就是不是基于理论而运作，而是基于事实运作。我们能够这样做吗？我难道是在提出什么很离谱的建议吗？
2:46 H: No.	2:46 汉克：没有。
2:51 K: Because theories, speculations, whether psychological, spiritual, have no meaning to me. What has significance to the speaker, to K, is dealing with facts. Facts being that which has happened, that which is happening – not what will happen.	2:51 克：因为各种理论、各种猜测 ——不管是心理学上的、还是灵性上的——，它们对我来说都没有什么意义。对于演讲者来说对于「克」来说，有意义的是去处理那些事实。「事实」就是那些已经发生了的、以及正在发生的事情 ——而不是将要发生的事情。
3:28 Dr Varela: So, is the brain a fact now?	3:28 瓦雷拉博士：那么现在来看，大脑是一个事实吗？
3:31 K: Of course.	3:31 克：当然了。
3:32 V: How so?	3:32 瓦雷拉：它怎么会是事实呢？
3:33 K: Because it is functioning. Functioning in the sense that it wants to communicate something verbally, and also perhaps non-verbally.	3:33 克：因为它（大脑）正在运作着。这里“运作”的意思是：它想要在口头文字层面，或许也包括非口头文字层面去沟通传达一些东西。
3:49 V: All right, communication is fact but when you call it 'the brain' that is an inference, a theoretical inference.	3:49 瓦雷拉：好吧，交流沟通是事实，然而当你把它称为“大脑”的时候，这是一种推论，一种理论上的推断。
3:57 K: Beg your pardon?	3:57 克：你能再说一遍吗？
3:58 V: When you describe that as the brain doing something or other, that is a theoretical inference.	3:58 瓦雷拉：当你把它描述为是大脑正在做这样或那样的事时，这就是一种理论上的推断。
4:05 K: That's a fact.	4:05 克：这是一个事实。
4:07 V: No, because there is a gap. There is an inference between the fact of communication now and when you used the word the 'brain', because the brain is associated to communication through a long series of observations which are not now.	4:07 瓦雷拉：不，因为存在着一道“鸿沟”。在“当下交流沟通”的这个事实和你使用“大脑”这个词之间存在着一种「推断」，因为大脑和“沟通交流”关联起来了 ——通过一系列漫长的观察以后，但这些观察并不是在「当下」的。
4:21 K: Of course.	4:21 克：当然了。
4:23 K: Which is now taking place. Observation has been, I said that. Fact is what has been, what is now. What has happened, what is happening now, right?	4:23 克：「当下」是正在发生的事情，「观察」则是过去的东西 ——这个我已经说过了。「事实」是过去的事物，以及当下的事物。那些已经发生的事情，以及正在发生的事情，对吧？
4:45 Dr Bergstrom: May I ask, do you mean that insight really has something to do with the brain, or would it be apart from the brain?	4:45 伯格斯特龙博士：我能否问一下你的意思是不是「洞察」其实和大脑有着某种关系，还是说它是脱离于大脑的？
4:58 K: Are we discussing insight, or are we establishing first whether we are theoretically discussing, or... I have pain, suppose I have pain.	4:58 克：我们是要讨论「洞察」呢，还是说我们先要去发现我们是否只是在理论上讨论这些事情，还是说我感到疼痛，假如我感到疼痛。
5:12 Dr Shainberg: That’s the fact.	5:12 西恩博格博士：这（疼痛）是一个事实。
5:14 V: OK, now the question is, how are we going to address such a fact?	5:14 瓦雷拉：好了，现在的问题是：我们要如何去处理这个事实？
5:20 K: No, how am I going to be free of my pain? That’s all I am concerned with.	5:20 克：不，应该是：我要如何摆脱掉我的痛苦？这就是所有我所关心的东西。
5:27 S: No, you've made a jump though. First you have your pain, that's your fact.	5:27 西恩博格：不，可是你在这里跳跃了一步。首先，你感到了痛苦，这是你的事实。
5:32 K: Wait. The fact is I am in pain.	5:32 克：请等一下，先生。事实是我处于痛苦之中。
5:36 S: Period.	5:36 西恩博格：在一段时间中处于痛苦中。
5:37 K: Full stop. And also the fact that there must be freedom from pain.	5:37 克：就此打住。而另外一个事实就是：我必须要摆脱掉痛苦。
5:43 S: What do you mean there must be?	5:43 西恩博格：你所说的“必须要……”是什么意思？
5:46 K: That's human nature. What are you saying?	5:46 克：人性就是如此。你想要表达什么呢？
5:50 H: What K might be saying is that when you are in pain you want to get rid of it.	5:50 汉克：克在说的或许是：当你处于痛苦中时，你多多少少会想要摆脱掉痛苦。
5:56 K: That's all a fact.	5:56 克：这些全都是事实。
6:00 S: The thing I am trying to say is that the fact is the pain, the next fact is...	6:00 西恩博格：我所试图表达的意思是：痛苦是事实，而下一个事实是
6:06 K: ... is also wanting to get rid of it.	6:06 克：我想要摆脱掉痛苦…… 这也是事实。
6:08 S: Ah, that’s two facts.	6:08 西恩博格：啊，这是两个事实。
6:09 K: Those are both facts.	6:09 克：不，这两个都是事实。
6:11 S: Right. Those are the facts.	6:11 西恩博格：好吧。这两个都是事实。
6:16 K: But wait a minute, are we discussing 'about pain', 'not having pain', which becomes a theory?	6:16 克：但是，请等一下，我们是不是在讨论“关于痛苦”的事情，以及“不要有痛苦” ——而它们已经变成了某种理论？
6:27 V: Fine. I would like to discuss pain as a fact. Now, I want to go back to the fact that you used the word brain as related to pain.	6:27 瓦雷拉：好吧。我想要把「痛苦」当作事实来加以讨论。现在，我想要回到这一事实：那就是你所使用的“大脑”这个词 ——它是和「痛苦」关联在一起的。
6:37 K: Yes, otherwise if the brain didn’t function I wouldn’t know what pain was.	6:37 克：是的，否则的话，如果大脑不运作，我也不会知道什么是「痛苦」了。
6:42 V: But isn’t that an inference? How is that happening now? The fact is you used the word 'brain' is because there have been people in the past who made a relationship...	6:42 瓦雷拉：然而它难道不是一种推论吗？它是如何在此刻发生的呢？事实是：你之所以使用“大脑”这个词，是因为过去有人建立了这样一种关系……
6:52 K: I would like to get at this, I don’t quite understand this. I'm not disputing.	6:52 克：我需要来理解一下它，我不是很明白它。我并没有在和你争论。
6:56 V: No, maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but when you say, I experience pain, it is clear to all of us that this is now. Now I come around and say, pain has to do with brain. The relationship to juxtapose these two words, brain and pain, has a long series of intermediate steps, which required work from the past of people who actually pointed out the existence of such a thing as brain, which is not something we are doing now. We are not opening up a skull and saying this is brain, and cutting the brain in parts...	6:56 瓦雷拉：不，或许是我没有正确地理解你的意思，但是当你说：我经历了痛苦，对于我们所有人来说，我们很清楚它就是「当下」的事物。而现在，我回过头来说：痛苦和大脑有关。这两个词是并列/并置的关系，大脑和痛苦，它们（的关联）有着一系列漫长的中间步骤，它需要过去人们的研究工作，这些人切实地指出了这样一个叫做“大脑”的东西的存在，然而它（大脑）并不是某种我们此刻正在经历体验的东西。我们并没有打开头骨，然后说：这就是大脑，然后把大脑切割成不同部分，做所有这类事情
7:42 K: Don’t do it with me, please.	7:42 克：你可别对我做这样的事。
7:44 V: I won’t. So, you see what I'm saying, that the moment I invoke the word brain I'm bringing with it a huge edifice of inferences and relationships which are not now.	7:44 瓦雷拉：我不会的。所以，你应该明白了我说的意思，也就是在我提及“大脑”这个词的那一刻，我就带来了一座由推论和关系所构建起来的巨大的大厦 ——而这座“大厦”并非「当下」的事物。
8:00 K: Yes, which is all the past.	8:00 克：是的，它们全都是过去的东西。
8:02 V: So, how is the fact that you used the word brain now consistent with your desire to deal only with present facts? Could you clarify that?	8:02 瓦雷拉：所以，此刻你使用“大脑”这个词的事实它要怎么样才能和你只想要去处理「当下」事实这件事协调一致起来呢？你能否阐明这一点？
8:16 K: I don’t quite follow. I'm trying to understand, I'm not resisting.	8:16 克：我不是很理解你的意思。但我在试着理解它，我不是在抗拒你的话。
8:22 V: Can I say it in some other way?	8:22 瓦雷拉：能不能让我换个方式来说一下？
8:25 K: Please understand between us, I'm not resisting anything.	8:25 克：请互相理解一下，我并没有在抗拒任何东西。
8:28 V: Absolutely.	8:28 瓦雷拉：这是肯定的。
8:30 K: I am enquiring.	8:30 克：我只是在询问。
8:32 V: May I phrase it some other way? You are trying correctly, as far as I am concerned, to establish the ground of what we are dealing with, and you say, can we deal with facts as they are now and not theories about things. So the next moment you say 'brain', which I am claiming cannot be said unless we invoke theories.	8:32 瓦雷拉：我可以用其他的方式来表达它吗？就我所理解的来看，你正在试图正确地建立起我们要处理的事物的基础，你说：我们是否能够只去处理那些「当下」的事实，而不要把事物理论化。然而下一刻，你却提到了“大脑”，而我所说的就是，除非我们援引相关的理论，否则我们是不能说出“大脑”这个词的。
9:03 K: I agree.	9:03 克：这点我同意。
9:04 V: OK, so how are these two things then consistent?	9:04 瓦雷拉：好，所以这两件事情是如何协调一致起来的？
9:08 K: The brain is the result of long evolution, right?	9:08 克：大脑是人类漫长进化的结果，对吧？
9:14 V: That's also a theory.	9:14 瓦雷拉：这同样也是「理论」。
9:17 K: No, it's a fact.	9:17 克：不，这是「事实」。
9:20 V: Can we say that from what we are experiencing now?	9:20 瓦雷拉：我们能否从我们此刻正在经历体验的事物说起？
9:25 K: That's a fact.	9:25 克：这是一个事实。伯格斯特龙：那么“大脑”也是事实了。
9:27 B: Then the brain is a fact.	9:27 皮特博士：如果我的手感到很疼痛，疼痛切实存在，
9:28 Dr Peat: If I have a pain in my hand, there's a pain, but to talk about the brain is to talk about something that I've read about in a textbook. That up here there are lots of nerve cells...	9:28 然而当我谈论“大脑”时，我只是在谈论某种我从教科书里读到过的东西。也就是我的头部会有很多的神经细胞
9:39 K: Yes, if I had no brain I wouldn’t feel. Nerves and all the rest of it.	9:39 克：是的，如果我没有大脑的话，我就不会有任何感受了。神经，等等这类东西。
9:46 V: But, that you don’t know from the observations you're having now.	9:46 瓦雷拉：但是通过你当下的观察，你是无法知道“大脑”这个东西的。
9:50 P: We don't experience our brains. We don’t experience the fact of anything being in here, I don’t experience the nerves, the connections.	9:50 皮特：我们是无法“体验”到我们的大脑的。我们是无法体验感受到这里面（头部）的任何事实性的东西的，我无法体验感受到我的神经、各种连接。
10:06 K: Tell me simply, sir. I am a stupid man so tell me simply.	10:06 克：先生，请说得简单一点。我是一个比较笨的人，所以请说得简单点。
10:11 H: Perhaps what we are trying to say is that there are facts that are actually taking place now, and some facts that are in the future.	10:11 汉克：我们所试图说的或许是：存在着一些当下正在实际发生着的「事实」，以及一些存在于未来之中的「事实」。
10:20 K: Not future, I said past. I said the past with all the memories, etc., are also facts.	10:20 克：不是「未来」，我说的是「过去」。我说「过去」及其所有的记忆等等，这些也是事实。
10:31 S: But that’s a jump. What we're saying is all you really have is the fact of your pain, then you have the fact that you want to be free of the pain. But when you make the statement, the brain is responsible for the experience of pain, you have entered a whole new world of language whereby when using the word brain it connects you to assumptions that people have made about what a brain is, what a brain does, theories.	10:31 西恩博格：但这里你跳跃了一大步。我们在说的是：所有你拥有的，其实只有“你很痛苦”这个事实，然后你还有另一个事实：那就是你想要摆脱掉这种痛苦。然而当你做出这样的陈述：说“大脑”负责那种「痛苦的体验」，你就进入到了一个全新的语言世界中，在其中，当你使用“大脑”这个词时，它会将你连接到人们已经做出的各种假设 ——关于“大脑”是什么，大脑会做什么（的假设），而这些都是「理论」。
11:05 K: I know nothing about that.	11:05 克：但我对此一无所知。
11:07 S: Then you can’t use 'brain'. All you've got is fact, pain, and that's all.	11:07 西恩博格：那你就不能用 “大脑”这个词了。你所拥有的一切就只有那个「痛苦」的事实，仅此而已。
11:12 K: Wait, all right. All that I have is pain.	11:12 克：等一下，好吧。我所拥有的就只有「痛苦」。
11:18 S: You've got pain.	11:18 西恩博格：你只有「痛苦」。
11:19 K: And also the fact I must be free of pain.	11:19 克：以及那个「我必须摆脱痛苦」的事实。
11:22 S: That's all you have.	11:22 西恩博格：这就是你所拥有的一切。
11:26 K: All right, proceed from there.	11:26 克：好吧，那就从这里开始继续下去。
11:29 V: No, the point is, and I really appreciate it, honestly, to have these conversations, and we are all biologists or scientists. So, supposedly the enquiry has something to do with what science can contribute to it, maybe not, but maybe yes, it’s open. If there is something that science has to contribute, then it must address to what science can say. Things like brain, or atoms, or whatever.	11:29 瓦雷拉：不，关键是，我真的很感激 ——我是说真的—— 能够参与这几次讨论对话，而我们都是生物学家或者科学家。所以，假设我们这次探询能够关联到科学能够为此贡献些什么，也许没有贡献，但也许会有贡献，答案是开放性的。如果科学能够为此贡献些什么的话，那它就必须涉及到科学所能阐释的东西。比如像“大脑”、“原子” 或者无论什么诸如此类的东西。
12:11 K: Yes, I understand.	12:11 克：是的，这我能理解。
12:13 V: So if you rip that apart and you say, all we have is the moment of experience now.	12:13 瓦雷拉：所以，如果你把它剥离掉，然后说：我们所拥有的一切只有我们正在经历体验的「当下」。
12:18 K: I don’t rip all that apart, naturally.	12:18 克：我并没有把所有这些东西都剥离掉，这是很显然的。
12:20 V: OK, so we have to evoke brain, we have to jump out of the immediate experience of now.	12:20 瓦雷拉：好，那这样的话我们就必须提及“大脑”这个东西，我们必须要跳出当下直接的经验。
12:26 K: Yes, I agree.	12:26 克：是的，这点我同意。
12:27 V: Fine.	12:27 瓦雷拉：很好。
12:28 B: So that in order to be free from pain we need to do something with the brain, with medicine...	12:28 伯格斯特龙：所以，为了摆脱掉痛苦，我们就需要做一些事情 ——大脑方面的事情，医学方面的事情
12:39 K: I go to the doctor, he gives me a pill, I take it and the pain is gone.	12:39 克：是的，我去医生那里，他给了我一片药，我服用了它，然后痛苦就消除了。
12:43 B: Yes, it influences the brain. Is that a fact? This process of getting free from pain, getting pills, or something, is that a fact or is that a theory, or how would you say?	12:43 伯格斯特龙：是的，因为它（药物）影响了大脑。那么这是一个事实吗？这个摆脱掉痛苦的过程，吃点药，或者别的什么，它是一个事实吗？还是说它是一个理论？或者说你对此的看法是什么？
13:00 H: Could we say that whatever goes inside the brain is a fact, whether it's an illusion, whether it's a pain or so on, but perhaps the difference is whether it is actually taking place in this moment or not.	13:00 汉克：我们能不能说：任何在大脑内部发生进行的事情，它都是事实？不管它是幻觉也好、是痛苦也好，等等，但也许区别在于它是不是在此刻真实发生的东西。
13:17 K: Is that it?	13:17 克：它是吗？
13:19 H: Perhaps, I don't know.	13:19 汉克：也许是，我也不知道。
13:22 P: You have the pain which is the fact, and the fact you want to be rid of the pain, then does knowledge and science have anything to do with any next step? Does knowledge and science come in in the next step?	13:22 皮特：你感到了痛苦，这是事实，然后你想要摆脱掉痛苦 ——这也是事实，而接下来，知识和科学，它们会和下一步的某些事情有关吗？知识和科学会介入到下一步的事情中来吗？
13:33 V: Yes, what is the relationship between the actuality...	13:33 瓦雷拉：是的，也就是现实（事实）和……的关系是什么？
13:37 K: ... and knowledge. Keep it to that. At last. What is the relationship between what is happening now, pain, and knowledge.	13:37 克：……和知识的关系。保持住它。终于理解你们的意思了。此刻正在发生的事情——也就是「痛苦」—— 它和「知识」的关系是什么？瓦雷拉：也就是“大脑”等等这类东西。
13:52 V: Such as brain, etc.	13:52 克：你们所说的“知识”是什么意思？
13:54 K: What do you mean by knowledge? Go slowly, I am not a scientist.	13:54 慢慢来，我并不是一个科学家。
14:02 V: I am only an apprentice.	14:02 瓦雷拉：我也只是一个新手。
14:04 K: I am a human being, I am not a scientist. What do we mean by knowledge? What is knowledge? Knowledge is accumulation of various experiences, incidents, and those experiences can be enormous or very small, and all those experiences have become knowledge. Knowledge stored in the brain as memory, that’s all. And, from that, thought.	14:04 克：我只是一个普通人，我不是什么科学家。我们所说的“知识”是什么意思呢？什么是「知识」？「知识」就是各种经验和事件的积累，而这些经验可以是很伟大的或者非常琐碎渺小的，而所有这些经验都变成了「知识」。知识化作记忆而被储存在了大脑中，仅此而已。然后由此便产生出了「思想」。
14:46 V: Yes, absolutely. I would add one more thing which is that scientific knowledge is accumulated by language agreement between people who say, this is a fact, do we agree, yes we agree, so we put it aside and move to the next. So it becomes this network of assumptions and presuppositions.	14:46 瓦雷拉：是的，完全正确。我想要再多加一个东西，那就是「科学知识」也通过语言上的共识而被积累起来了，人们会说：这是一个事实，我们同意它吗？是的，我们同意，由此我们就把它放到了一边，然后转到了下一个。于是它就变成了这种由各种「假定」和「预设」所构成的网络。
15:08 K: It's all that, I said that. Knowledge is all that. Now, what place has knowledge, what is the relationship of knowledge to pain? It's not a question, it is a fact. If there was no knowledge I would have no pain.	15:08 克：就是这样，这个我已经说过了。知识就是所有这些东西。那么，知识有着什么样的位置？「知识」和「痛苦」的关系又是什么呢？这并不是一个问题，它是事实。如果没有了「知识」，我就不会有痛苦了。
15:36 S: What?	15:36 西恩博格：你说什么？
15:41 V: Can you go slowly now, please? You must go slowly at this point.	15:41 瓦雷拉：你现在可以慢点讲吗，拜托了？在这一点上，你必须要慢慢讲。
15:47 K: I am going slowly. Please, you are all scientists, you are all experts, I am not.	15:47 克：我正在慢慢讲它。请注意，你们都是科学家，你们都是专家，而我并不是。
15:52 V: I am only a human being.	15:52 瓦雷拉：我也只是个普通人。
15:55 K: I am saying knowledge is stored in the brain, or in the heart or wherever you like to call it, it's stored, and we function with that knowledge, as a carpenter, as a surgeon, as a psychologist. We function with what we have learned, as knowledge, accumulated.	15:55 克：我说的是：知识被储存在「大脑」中或「心」中，或者无论你喜欢把那个地方称为什么 ——知识被储存起来了，而我们是带着那种知识而运作的 ——去当木匠，去当外科医生，去当心理学家。对吧？我们是基于我们所学到的东西而运作的，也就是「知识」，那些积累起来的知识。
16:33 V: Absolutely.	16:33 瓦雷拉：确实如此。
16:35 K: I communicate with you in English, or French if you want it, or Italian, or Spanish. I know those four. So we can communicate with each other. So there is knowledge, accumulated, and what is the relationship of that knowledge to action? Let’s put it that way. Not pain, let’s leave pain for the moment. Would you agree?	16:35 克：我用英语和你交流，或者如果你愿意的话，我们也可以用法语、意大利语或西班牙语来交流。这四种语言我都会。所以我们可以彼此互相交流。因此存在着「知识」，积累下来的知识，那么这种知识和行动的关系是什么呢？让我们这样子来表述它。不提“痛苦”了，让我们暂时先把痛苦放到一边。你们同意吗？
17:02 V: The actualness.	17:02 瓦雷拉：（行动是知识的）现实化/实际化。
17:05 K: There is this knowledge, and I have to act. Is action born of knowledge?	17:05 克：存在着这种知识，是吧？而我必须要去行动。那么行动是源自于知识的吗？
17:20 H: It seems to be that way.	17:20 汉克：看起来好像是这样的。
17:23 V: That's the question you are asking?	17:23 瓦雷拉：你是在问这个问题吗？
17:25 K: I am questioning. Apparently it seems so. Right, agreed?	17:25 克：我正在询问它。很显然，它看起来就是如此。对吧，你同意吗？
17:34 V: That’s not too clear.	17:34 瓦雷拉：这一点还不太清楚。
17:37 B: In the brain, not only.	17:37 伯格斯特龙：就大脑而言，并不仅仅是这样。
17:39 K: Leave the brain for the minute, we'll come back to it a little later.	17:39 克：暂时先别管大脑了，我们稍微过一会儿再回来讲它 ——如果你们不介意的话。
17:43 V: It's not so clear because if I look at that I see that knowledge has something to do with action, with the manifestation of a present situation.	17:43 瓦雷拉：它之所以不是那么清楚，是因为如果我去观察一下它，我会看到那种知识与行动、与当下状况的显现是有某种关系的。
17:57 K: So we have to enquire what is action.	17:57 克：所以我们必须要来探询一下什么是「行动」。
18:00 V: It doesn’t follow that it's just knowledge that initiates.	18:00 瓦雷拉：但我们并不能由此而得出结论：认为只是「知识」触发了行动。
18:04 K: There is knowledge, we have come to that. What is action? Either action according to a memory, knowledge, from the past, or action with an idea, in the future, or an ideal. Either according to the past, or according to the future: 'I will do this'.	18:04 克：存在着「知识」，我们谈到了这里。那么什么是「行动」呢？行动，它要么是依据记忆、依据知识而来的——这些都来自于「过去」，要么是基于某种想法的行动 ——某种未来的想法，或者某个理想。所以行动要么是依据「过去」的，要么是依据「未来」的： “我将会去做这件事”。
18:45 V: But what about the actions that your description doesn’t cover? In my experience, it's those actions that seem to be born out of nowhere.	18:45 瓦雷拉：但是对于那些你的描述未能覆盖到的行动，你又怎么说呢？就我的经验来看，这些行动似乎是“凭空出现”的。
18:53 K: Wait, I am coming to that. Out of language.	18:53 克：等一下，我正要来讲这个。那种“语言之外”的行动。
18:56 V: Out of nowhere, out of a place which I cannot pin down.	18:56 瓦雷拉：它是凭空产生的，它来自于一个我无法确定的地方。
19:00 K: We will come to that in a minute. Action born from the past, memory, I have done this, I will do that tomorrow. So, what we know of action is born of the past or of the future.	19:00 克：我们会来探讨它的，马上。「行动」是来自于过去、来自于记忆的，我曾经做过这件事，我明天将会去做那件事。所以，我们所知道的「行动」，它是来自于「过去」或者「未来」的。
19:18 H: So action involves information.	19:18 汉克：所以「行动」会包含涉及到知识信息。
19:24 K: Agree? Then that is a limited action.	19:24 克：你们同意吗？那样的话，它就是一种有局限的行动。
19:36 V: It's limited by the knowledge you have.	19:36 瓦雷拉：它（行动）被你所拥有的知识所局限了。
19:38 K: Or knowledge which you have accumulated, which the race has accumulated.	19:38 克：或者那些你已经积累起来的知识，那些你的种族所积累起来的知识。
19:44 H: Whereas the present, the past or the future doesn't matter, are you saying that?	19:44 汉克：而现在、过去或者未来都是无关紧要的，你是想说这个吗？
19:49 K: When action is based on the past or on the future that action must invariably be limited.	19:49 克：当行动是建立在「过去」，或者建立在「未来」之上的，那这种行动必然始终都是局限的。
19:56 B: Is there another kind of action?	19:56 伯格斯特龙：那么是否存在着另一种行动？
19:59 K: Just a minute, we will come to that.	19:59 克：稍等一下，我们会讲到这个的。
20:01 B: I am interested in that.	20:01 伯格斯特龙：我对这个很感兴趣。
20:05 K: So is there an action which is not limited? Because if action is limited it must create conflict.	20:05 克：所以，是否存在一种「没有局限」的行动？因为如果行动是有局限的，它就必定会制造出冲突。
20:19 P: Maybe I haven’t quite gone that distance. I don’t quite go that whole distance. If every action born of knowledge must be limited...	20:19 皮特：也许我还没有探究得这么远。我还没有完全理解你所说的全部内容。如果任何源自于知识的行动必定是局限的
20:30 K: I didn’t say that.	20:30 克：我可没有这么说。
20:31 P: Action born of knowledge must be limited.	20:31 皮特：源自于「知识」的行动必定是局限的。
20:34 K: We said action according to the past or the future is limited.	20:34 克：我们说的是：依据「过去」或「未来」而来的行动是局限的。
20:42 V: By definition, because you are acting on the limited resources of knowledge.	20:42 瓦雷拉：依据「定义」而来的行动，因为那时你是基于有限的知识储备而行动的。
20:46 P: Wait, I pick up this glass and drink the water, is that limited, does that lead to conflict?	20:46 皮特：等一下，我拿起了这只玻璃杯，然后喝水，这难道是局限性的行动，会导致冲突吗？
20:53 V: I'm not sure about the leading to conflict. As I understand it, it is limited in the sense, for example, you are a right hander, and you pick it up with your right hand, not with your left, but I pick it up with my left hand. Why you do that and I do this is because we have accumulated a different style of approach and it's limited. That's why you pick it up with your hand, not with your foot.	20:53 瓦雷拉：我不是很确定「导致冲突」这件事。就我所理解的，它之所以是局限的，其含义是举个例子，你是个右撇子，所以你会用你的右手拿起杯子，而不是用左手，但我会用左手拿起杯子。为什么你会那样做，而我会这样做呢，这是因为我们已经积累起了不同的处理事情的方式，而这就是局限性。所以你会用你的手去拿起杯子，而不是用你的脚。
21:18 P: But can that be just a simple, mechanical, self contained action which begins and ends and that's the end of it?	21:18 皮特：但它可不可以只是一个简单的、机械化的、独立的行动，它发生了、结束了，然后就完事儿了？
21:24 V: This is the point that we're coming to, why is the limited action leading to conflict – necessarily? It can, it's clear that it can.	21:24 瓦雷拉：这就是我们即将要来谈的重点，为什么这种局限性的行动会导致 ——必定会导致——冲突呢？它是会导致冲突，很显然它会导致冲突。
21:32 K: I am going to explain. If I am thinking about myself all day long, which most people do, it's a very small action, a limited action. When I am associated or identified with a nation, it's a very small action. Therefore there are wars. One of the reasons of war is nationalism, based on economic division, and so on. That is all very limited. Agree?	21:32 克：我将会来解释这一点。如果我一天到晚都在想着我自己 ——大多数人都是如此，这就是一种非常卑微渺小的行动，一种局限性的行为。当我把自己和一个国家关联起来，或者将自己认同于某个国家，这就是一种非常琐碎渺小的行为。由此便会有战争。导致战争的原因之一就是「国家主义」 ——国家主义是建立在经济的割裂等等之上的。这一切都是非常局限的东西。你们同意吗？
22:21 V: Absolutely.	22:21 瓦雷拉：确实如此。
22:22 P: Well, these are psychological actions. They're actions in relationship.	22:22 皮特：唔，这些都是心理上的行动。它们都是关系中的行动。
22:26 K: Even physical action.	22:26 克：即使是外在身体上的行动（也是如此）。
22:27 P: Well yes, but are they to do with simple things like digging a hole, lighting a fire? Let’s make the distinction between that and the larger actions which are motivated by nationalism or relationships.	22:27 皮特：嗯，是的，但是这些行动和那些简单的事情有关吗？比如挖一个洞，点燃火堆？让我们区分一下，简单的行动和那些“宏大”行动的区别 ——也就是那种由国家主义或「关系」所驱动的行为。
22:44 H: It seems that you might have an action within the limitation that can also be rational, it might not necessarily create conflict. It seems to be obvious. But I think you are addressing another question, which is, psychologically, when your action is based on the limitation, there is conflict.	22:44 汉克：看起来你的那种落入于局限中的行动，它也可以是理性/理智的，它可能不一定会造成冲突。这似乎也是显而易见的。但我认为你在说的是另一个问题：也就是：在心理上当你的行为是建立在「局限」之上的，那么就会有冲突。
23:06 K: I said, when I am thinking about myself I am digging a hole for myself, it is small. Right?	23:06 克：我说了，当我总是考虑我自己，那我就是在给自己挖坑 ——而这是非常卑微渺小的行为。对吧？
23:18 V: Yes.	23:18 瓦雷拉：没错。
23:20 K:When I am thinking about my future, my problems, it is all enclosed, small.	23:20 克：当我总是想着我的前程未来，我的各种问题，这些全都是自我封闭的、卑微渺小的行动。
23:28 H: So it is the opposing limits that create conflict.	23:28 汉克：所以是这种彼此对立的「局限」制造出了冲突。
23:31 K: Yes, naturally. Right? You are doubtful.	23:31 克：是的，这是自然而然的事。对吧？但你还是怀疑这一点。
23:35 V: Yes, I'm doubtful because it seems when you say that if the knowledge has 'me' as the reference point it will create conflict, yes. Question, does it have to have that 'me' reference by necessity, or is there not a possibility of a limited action, a limited understanding, but which does not have 'me' as a reference point?	23:35 瓦雷拉：是的，我很怀疑，因为看起来当你说如果知识是以“我”作为参照点的话，那它就会制造出冲突，的确如此。问题来了：它是否必然需要以“我”作为参照？或者说，难道就没有这种可能性 ——即某种有限的行为、有限的理解，但它们并不以“我”作为参照点？
24:01 K: There may be limited action when I am digging a hole, to take his example, but we are talking of a much wider issue.	24:01 克：当我挖洞的时候，这或许也是局限性的行动 ——就拿他的例子来说吧，但我们正在谈论的是一个更为广泛宏大的问题。
24:12 V: No, even wider issues for example...	24:12 瓦雷拉：不，即使是更广泛宏大的问题，举个例子
24:14 K: Let me finish what I want to say. Any action born out of limitation must inevitably create conflict. If I am a scientist and I am only concerned with my career, with my investigation, with my research, it is a very small affair, and I don’t care a hang what happens in the outside world.	24:14 克：让我先把我想要说的东西讲讲完。任何源自于局限的行动必定不可避免地会制造出冲突。如果我是一个科学家，而我只关心我自己的职业生涯，关心我自己的学术研究、我自己的科学研究，这就是一件非常卑微渺小的事情，因为我丝毫不在乎外在世界发生了什么。
24:50 V: Is that a limitation of thought or it's a limitation of that kind of thought?	24:50 瓦雷拉：这是「思想」的局限性吗？还是说它只是那一种思想的局限性？
24:54 K: It is a limitation of thought, limitation of capacity, limitation of environment. I include everything.	24:54 克：它是「思想」的局限性、能力的局限性、环境的局限性。我已经把所有一切包含在内了。
25:04 B: How can we widen this?	25:04 伯格斯特龙：那么我们要如何才能扩展它呢？
25:06 K: Just a minute, we will come to that. You understand, have we communicated with each other?	25:06 克：稍等一下，我们会讲到它的。你理解了吗？先生，我们是否在彼此交流沟通着？
25:13 V: I think I understand what you are saying but again you seem to me to be shifting from the nature of knowledge to the nature of a kind of knowledge.	25:13 瓦雷拉：我想我理解了你说的东西，但是同样的在我看来，你似乎从「知识本质」的问题切换到了某种类型知识本质的问题。
25:24 K: No. We started with knowledge, we know we agree, and I said, what relationship has action to knowledge?	25:24 克：我没有。我们是从「知识」的问题开始的，我们都知道它，我们达成共识了，然后我说：行动和知识的关系是什么？
25:32 V: Right, and you said every action born of knowledge is limited and it creates conflict.	25:32 瓦雷拉：对，然后你说：任何源自于「知识」的行动都是局限的，它会制造出冲突。
25:40 K: Yes, because knowledge is limited.	25:40 克：是的，因为知识是局限的。
25:43 V: Yes, but again I am trying to examine that step of the relationship between the limited actions born of limited knowledge, which we agree is limited, to the conclusion that such actions necessarily lead to conflict. Where you invoked an extra quality to knowledge which is self-centred knowledge.	25:43 瓦雷拉：是的，但我同样也试图去检视这一步：那种源自于局限知识的局限性的行动 ——我们都同意它是局限的，去检视它和以下结论的关系：即这种行动必定会导致冲突。而这里你提到了知识的一种额外的品质 ——也就是那种自我中心的知识。
26:07 K: We said knowledge and action, we both understand that, and action born of any limited knowledge, the action also must be limited. Next step, such action breeds division. Let’s take it step by step.	26:07 克：我们谈论了知识和行动 ——这个我们双方都已经理解了，而源自于任何局限知识的行动，那种行动也必然是局限的。而下一步就是：这种行动会滋生「分裂」。让我们一步一步地来处理它。
26:41 V: Division, yes. Distinction.	26:41 瓦雷拉：分裂，是的。区分。
26:43 K: Where there is division there must be conflict.	26:43 克：而当有了分裂，就必定会有冲突。
26:46 B: Yes.	26:46 伯格斯特龙：是的。西恩博格：这是真的吗？
26:48 S: Is that true?	26:48 克：稍等一下，他正在解决这个问题。
26:50 K: Just a minute, he is working it out.	26:50 瓦雷拉：我必须要说
26:57 V: I must say that I can see the conflict arising only when this extra quality of having an absolute reference point to the division arises, such as me.	26:57 只有当这种额外的品质…… 也就是那种「分裂」的绝对参照点 ——比如“我”——出现的时候，我才会看到那种冲突产生。
27:09 K: I see this, sir.	27:09 克：我明白这一点，先生。
27:11 V: The division in itself is not conflictive. It is the division plus a solid reference point that makes the division divisive.	27:11 瓦雷拉：但那种「分裂」本身并不会造成冲突。而是那种「分裂」加上顽固的“参照点”，才使得「分裂」造成了割裂。
27:19 P: Suppose you work in the laboratory and your knowledge is limited and you're working on this drug or this chemical, you forget about everything outside. Now, you may say there is no self in that but that does create a lot of conflict for the world, the fact that your starting point is so limited. You don’t take into account the whole environment, and the implications of what you are doing.	27:19 皮特：假设你在实验室里工作，你的知识是有局限的，你正在研制这种药物或者这种化学制剂，而你已经忘记了外在世界的一切事物。而现在，你或许会说：这其中是不存在「自我」的，但这却给这个世界造成了很多的冲突，而事实就是你的起点是如此的局限。你并没有考虑到整个环境以及你正在做的事情的暗示含义。
27:41 V: I don’t see that. Let’s transport that metaphor to an ecological metaphor. If I take the foxes, foxes like rabbits. Is the limited inclination of foxes to chase these other animals a limitation because they do not take into account the entire ecosystem? It doesn’t seem to be the case. The ecosystem is a very harmonious totality in which every part of it has a limited part but they all work as a harmonious totality.	27:41 瓦雷拉：我不是很明白。让我们把这个隐喻改换成生态学的比喻吧。我拿「狐狸」来举个例子，狐狸会喜欢吃兔子。这就是狐狸局限性的倾向 ——也就是去追捕其他动物，这就是它的局限，只是因为它们并没有去考虑整个生态体系？但事实似乎并非如此。因为生态系统是一个非常和谐的整体，在其中，它的每一个部分都会“有所局限”，但它们却能共同协作，而形成一个和谐的整体。
28:16 K: We don’t.	28:16 克：但我们并不是这样的。
28:17 V: Why not?	28:17 瓦雷拉：为什么不是呢？
28:19 V: No, I mean the ecosystem, not human beings. Human beings add something extra, which is what you are pointing out, add something extra to knowledge, to limited knowledge, which is a solid reference point of me-ness. This the fox does not do, it simply does what it does.	28:19 瓦雷拉：不，我指的是「生态系统」，而不是人类的世界。人类已经增加了一些额外的东西 ——也就是你所指出的那个东西，它给知识——给那种局限的知识—— 增加了一些额外的东西，也就是那个顽固的、作为「我」的“参照点” 但狐狸并不会这么做，它只是自然地做它要做的事。
28:37 S: Isn’t it the distinction between difference and division? You seem to put differences and division into one pot.	28:37 西恩博格：这难道不就是「差异」和「分裂」之间的区别吗？但你似乎将「差异」和「分裂」混为一谈了。
28:46 K: Division, let’s stick to the word division.	28:46 克：是「分裂」，让我们紧盯「分裂」这个词吧。
28:48 S: No, let’s make a distinction between difference and division.	28:48 西恩博格：不，还是让我们先区分一下「差异」和「分裂」吧。
28:52 H: What do you mean by difference and division?	28:52 汉克：你所说的「差异」和「分裂」是什么意思呢？
28:54 S: In other words, foxes are different from rabbits.	28:54 西恩博格：换句话说，狐狸和兔子是有所差异的。
28:58 V: And they only know how to chase rabbits and not birds.	28:58 瓦雷拉：狐狸只知道如何追捕兔子，而不会去追逐鸟儿。
29:02 S: And that's a difference but that's not a division.	29:02 西恩博格：这是它们之间的「差异」，但这并不是「分裂」。
29:06 K: No, of course not. That tree is different from me.	29:06 克：是的，当然不是「分裂」。那棵树只是和我有所「差异」。
29:10 S: Exactly.	29:10 西恩博格：正是如此。
29:11 V: And there is no conflict there necessarily.	29:11 瓦雷拉：而在它（差异）之中不一定会有冲突。
29:14 K: Of course not.	29:14 克：当然不会有。
29:15 V: OK, so we agree then that the step from knowledge as limited and creating divisions or distinctions does not necessarily lead to conflict. Because for example the fox, being limited in his knowledge of the world, doesn’t create the conflict.	29:15 瓦雷拉：很好，所以我们同意了这点：那就是从这一步出发：即知识是局限的，它制造出了分裂或差异，但它不一定会导致冲突。因为，就拿「狐狸」来举个例子，狐狸对于这个世界的知识是有局限的，但这并没有制造出冲突。
29:31 K: See what is happening in India or in Beirut, or the Arab and Israel.	29:31 克：看看印度，或者贝鲁特（黎巴嫩一港口）发生的事情吧，或者阿拉伯和以色列发生的事情。
29:42 V: Sir, I have been through a civil war myself.	29:42 瓦雷拉：先生，我也曾亲身经历过内战。
29:44 K: Yes sir, you know that. So what happens? What has brought about this division?	29:44 克：很好，先生，你也知道它。所以，发生了什么呢？是什么带来了这种分裂？
29:53 V: It has been brought about by division plus the sense of me being right.	29:53 瓦雷拉：之所以会有这种状况是由于分裂加上那种“我才是对的”感觉。
29:59 K: Yes, that’s all.	29:59 克：是的，就是这样。
30:03 V: No, but please understand me. I am not denying that point, I entirely see it, But it seems to me that we have to separate that extra, which is the me-ness or the self-centredness from knowledge as such. That knowledge as such can exist in a limited aspect.	30:03 瓦雷拉：不，请你理解我的意思。我并没有否定这一点，我完全看到了它。但是在我看来，我们已经把这个额外东西 ——也就是「我」或者说是「自我中心」—— 和这种知识分离开来了。而这种知识只能以局限的形态而存在。
30:21 K: I understand. Knowledge as such in those books.	30:21 克：我懂你的意思。也就是书本中的那些知识。
30:25 V: No, knowledge as such as my knowledge, for example, that I can pick up this glass of water, or larger knowledge such as how to run an economy, or a railway station.	30:25 瓦雷拉：不不，是诸如“我的知识”这样的知识，举个例子，我可以拿起这杯水，或者我拥有更广泛宏大的知识 ——比如如何管理运行经济系统或者火车站。
30:39 K: Of course, that's understood.	30:39 克：当然了，这个我们都理解。
30:44 V: I am trying not to put what seems to be a distinction of knowledge for a particular kind of knowledge.	30:44 瓦雷拉：我试图不把看似知识之间的差异归类于某种特定的知识。
30:55 P: I can’t quite go along all the way with you on that, particularly on the one with the foxes. I don’t think that's a good analogy between foxes and humans. I think maybe we are going off the track.	30:55 皮特：在这件事上，我无法完全赞同你，特别是关于「狐狸」这个例子。我认为拿「狐狸」和「人类」来进行类比并不是很恰当。我认为我们或许正在偏离主题。
31:07 H: Perhaps we should go back to the question, that all our actions seem to be born out of knowledge.	31:07 汉克：或许我们应该回到这个问题，那就是我们所有的行动似乎都是源自于「知识」。
31:14 K: Yes, and that knowledge, as we already said, is limited. So action is limited, right? Let’s start from that.	31:14 克：是的，而就如我们说过的：那种「知识」是局限的。所以行动也是局限的，对吧？让我们从这里开始吧。
31:27 The next step for me is that, as knowledge is limited, action is limited, and that's one of the reasons, or one of the causes of human division in their relationship, the me, my ideas, my ambition, his ideas, his ambition, his competitiveness and my competitiveness, my aggression and so on. This constant division is naturally breeding conflict in the world. That’s all. Wait, let’s agree to that. And I say, for God’s sake let’s stop this conflict because it is killing human beings – the Russians, the Americans, the democrats, the totalitarians, you know. The Arab and the Jew, the Muslim and the Hindu, the Sikh and the... We are destroying each other. 32:51 And I say to myself, is there an action, seeing all this, which is not limited? That’s all. Which transcends this, goes beyond this, otherwise we can’t solve this. I stick to my Indian, and he sticks to his Arab, and we fight. So can we communicate, dropping your Arab and my dropping my Hindu, and say, as human beings, let’s solve this problem, not to kill each other. So is there an action which is not divisive, which is not limited? Would you agree to that? Now how are we going to find that out? That’s all my point.	31:27 对我来说，接下来的一步就是：由于知识是局限的，所以行动也是局限的，而这就是造成人类分裂的理由或原因之一，在人类的关系中，会有“我” ——我的理念、我的野心；他的理念、他的野心；他的竞争力和我的竞争力、我的好斗性等等。这种持续不断的分裂很自然地就会滋生出这个世界的冲突。就是这样。等一下，让我们先同意这一点。而我说：看在上帝的份上，让我们停止这种冲突吧因为它正在杀死人类 ——俄罗斯人、美国人，民主主义者、极权主义者，你们都知道这些东西。阿拉伯人和犹太人，穆斯林和印度教徒，锡克教教徒和…… 我们正在彼此摧毁。 32:51 于是我问自己：在看到了这一切以后，是否存在着一种「没有局限」的行动？仅此而已。而它已经超脱了这个问题，超越了这个问题，否则的话，我们是无法解决这个问题的。我坚持我印度人的身份，而他坚持他阿拉伯人的身份，然后我们彼此战斗。所以我们能否彼此沟通交流，你放下你阿拉伯人的身份，而我扔掉我印度人的身份，然后说：我们都是人类的一员，让我们来解决这个问题吧，不要再彼此杀戮了。所以是否存在着一种「没有分裂」的行动、一种没有局限的行动？你们赞同这一点吗？而现在，我们要如何才能发现它呢？这就是所有我要说的东西。
34:14 V: It seems to me that you are asking two questions at the same time. If the hope is to find a way in which this strife can be stopped.	34:14 瓦雷拉：在我看来你同时问了两个问题。是否有望找到一种可以停止这种冲突斗争的途径？
34:29 K: That’s one question.	34:29 克：这是一个问题。
34:31 V: I fully agree it is something absolutely essential and necessary. It seems to me that there are two possibilities of answering. One is the one you propose which is: can we have an action which is not born out of limitation? But the other possibility is to say, is there not a possibility of learning action born out of knowledge, therefore limited, but which is not centred in defending the point of view, or the me-ness? But both are equally valid to me, equally valid courses of action.	34:31 瓦雷拉：我完全同意它是完全必需和必要的东西。而在我看来，有两种可能的回答。一种就是你所提议的，也就是：我们能否有一种 “并非源自于局限”的行动？而另一种可能的回答就是：难道就不可能存在这样一种知识性的行动：它源自于知识因而是受限的，但它却不聚焦于护卫自我观点或者护卫「我」？但这两种行动对我来说都是合理正当的，这两者都是有效合理的行动方案。
35:08 K: Both are valid and both are contained in this one question.	35:08 克：这两者都是有效合理的，两者都包含在了这一个问题中。
35:14 V: Both are contained in the same question.	35:14 瓦雷拉：这两者都包含在了同样的问题中。
35:17 S: I want to add another question, both are contained in this one question but there's another question now. We're all scientists sitting here and one of the things that has come out of science, or investigation of the brain in a scientific way has been the fact that we never perceive anything except with reference to what we already know.	35:17 西恩博格：我还想再加上一个问题：这两者都包含在这一个问题中，但是现在，另一个问题出来了。在座的各位，我们都是科学家，而科学所证实的事情之一，或者以科学的方式研究大脑所得出的结论之一，就是：事实上，我们感知任何事物时，总是会参照我们已知的事物。
35:40 K: I question that.	35:40 克：但我质疑这一点。
35:42 S: I know you question it, but it seems to me that there is some sort of edge of discussion there because if that's true then the only way we can discover an unlimited action, the only road that we can take is through that kind of situation. If that's not true then it may be possible to have an unlimited action. Now, you question it, and there is all this other statement to the effect that it questions you.	35:42 西恩博格：我知道你会质疑这一点，但在我看来，这里存在着某种讨论的极限边界，因为如果这个事实是正确的，那么我们可以发现 “无局限行动”的唯一途径，我们可以走的唯一道路，就是通过这种情境来处理它。但如果它不正确，那么我们或许才有可能拥有那种“没有局限的行动”。而现在，你质疑这一点，然而所有其他的（科学）陈述，它们却对你的观点提出了质疑。
36:19 K: What are you trying to say?	36:19 克：你想说什么呢？
36:20 S: I'm saying that there is some question among scientists as to whether it is possible to have an action that is not born out of knowledge. Perception is always governed by knowledge.	36:20 西恩博格：我要说的是：科学家们仍然存在着一些疑问：那就是关于“我们是否可能拥有某种并非源于知识的行动？ ” 因为我们的「感知」总是会被「知识」所支配控制。
36:34 P: And action goes from perception.	36:34 皮特：而行动是来自于「感知」的。
36:36 V: Absolutely fair. There are two separate questions therefore. One is: can we actually discover action which is unlimited, and two: is that action something that can be possibly related to what science is, or has to say.	36:36 瓦雷拉：完全合理。所以这里有两个独立的问题。第一个问题是：我们能否真的发现「没有局限的行动」？第二个问题是：这种行动是否可能与科学有关，或者与科学所阐述的内容相关？
36:51 K: Or to human life or to human existence, which is part of science.	36:51 克：或者与人类生活或人类存在相关 ——它们也是科学的一部分。
36:59 S: What I am interested in is we really only know limited action. That’s all we know. That's the only fact.	36:59 西恩博格：我所感兴趣的是我们其实只知道「局限的行动」。这就是所有我们知道的东西。这是唯一的事实。
37:07 K: Agreed, don’t go on. And somebody comes along and says, perhaps there is an action which is not limited.	37:07 克：我们都同意这点，不必再讲下去了。然后有个人过来了，他说：或许存在着一种没有局限的行动。
37:20 S: Exactly.	37:20 西恩博格：正是如此。
37:23 K: Unless I am totally blind, and deaf and dumb and stupid, I listen to him.	37:23 克：而除非我完全是个瞎子、是个聋子和哑巴，或者笨蛋，否则我就会聆听他的话。
37:30 B: I just wanted to go back, not to the brain but yesterday I talked about small children. There is a stage in childhood where action is not that limited. It begins, of course, the limitation then, but in the beginning they have some quality of action which is not that limited. They are open to the whole of the environment, to the family, to other children. They don’t distinguish between nationalities.	37:30 伯格斯特龙：我想要返回之前的话题，不是关于「大脑」的话题，而是昨天我谈到了小孩子。在孩子很小的时候，会有一个阶段：在其中行动并没有那么局限。当然了，之后「局限」便开始了，但是在一开始的时候，他们（孩子）具有某种行动的品质 ——它没有那么的局限。孩子们对于环境中的一切事物都是持开放态度的，对于家人、对于其他孩子，他们都很开放。他们也不会有国家之分。
38:11 K: Yes, babies don't, children don’t. Later on they are trained.	38:11 克：是的，婴儿不会这样，孩子们也不会这样。但之后他们就会被培养训练。伯格斯特龙：正是如此。
38:17 B: Quite.	38:17 克：他们被教育着要去憎恨黑色皮肤、紫色皮肤和蓝色皮肤的人。
38:19 K: They are educated to hate the black and purple and blue.	38:19 伯格斯特龙：我可以说一件事吗，那就是当我们长大以后，
38:22 B: May I say one thing, when we grow older we still have the brain of the little child in our brain, in our mature brain. We have it, we know it, and as I see it we have in our brain, – I beg your pardon, I am talking about brain – we have this part which can act not quite unlimited, but not that limited. So I think we have to – as a scientist I am saying that – that being adult we have to find this childlike view. The values of the little child.	38:22 我们仍旧有着“小孩子的大脑”，在我们的大脑中，在我们成年人的大脑中，有着“小孩的大脑”。我们有这样的大脑，我们知道它，就如我所观察到的，在我们的大脑中，我们有着这种大脑， ——请你们谅解，我还是在谈论大脑—— 我们有着这个部分，而它的行动并不是那么的「毫无局限」，但也不是那么的局限。所以我认为我们必须要 ——我是作为一名科学家在说这话—— 作为成年人，我们必须要找到这种孩子般的视野。这种小孩子的价值观。
39:18 K: You are also saying the same thing in a different way that there is in all of us a divine spark. It comes to the same thing. Please, I am not laughing at it.	39:18 克：你还是在说着同样的东西 ——只不过是以不同的方式罢了。那就是我们所有人内心存在着“神性的火花”。它讲的还是同一件事。请注意，我并不是在嘲笑它。
39:39 V: No, I'm laughing because I thought the analogy was wonderful.	39:39 瓦雷拉：没有，我之所以笑是因为我认为这个类比很绝妙。
39:43 K: Millions of people feel that there is in them something far superior than the ordinary brain, far superior to environment, economics, etc.	39:43 克：有成百上千万的人觉得他们内在有着某种远远比普通大脑、比环境、比经济状况等等更高级的东西。
39:57 S: Krishnaji, if you take a small child, there was an experiment that was done with a child three months old, and these children were hooked up to, where they were sucking a breast. If they sucked that breast, there was a picture on the wall that was out of focus. There was a moving picture on the wall. If they sucked this breast a certain way – these were three month old children – the picture came into focus, and the child responded – at three months old – positively to the fact that he was able to focus that. So there's something built into the organism which responds to focus.	39:57 西恩博格：克里希那吉，如果你去看看小孩子的话，人们曾经对三个月大的孩子做过这么一个实验：这些孩子被连接在一起，他们在那里吮吸乳房。如果他们吮吸乳房，那么墙上的一幅画就会脱离他们的视觉焦点。因为墙上有一幅正在摆动的画。而如果他们以特定的方式吮吸乳房 ——要知道他们只是三个月大的孩子—— 他们就能够聚焦于这幅画了，而孩子会作出积极正面的反应 ——他才三个月大—— 从而能够聚焦于那幅画。所以我们的有机体中内置了某种事物，它可以作出聚焦的反应。
40:52 H: May I say something, K raised the question whether there is an action not born out of limitation.	40:52 汉克：我可以说几句吗，克（克里希那穆提）提出了这个问题：是否存在着一种并非源于局限的行动？
41:00 V: Not born out of limitation.	41:00 瓦雷拉：不是源自于「局限」的行动。
41:06 H: How are we going to find out?	41:06 汉克：那么我们要如何才能找到答案呢？
41:08 P: I think David added the question, could there be any perception that doesn’t require knowledge?	41:08 皮特：我想大卫已经补充了这个问题：即是否可能存在某种并不需要知识的「感知」？
41:16 V: OK, let’s stick to that one.	41:16 瓦雷拉：很好，让我们紧扣这个问题吧。
41:20 B: But in a little child there is this kind of perception.	41:20 伯格斯特龙：但是在小孩子身上却存在着这种感知。
41:24 V: I disagree with you actually, because your little child is still perceiving, it's still limited.	41:24 瓦雷拉：事实上我并不同意你的看法，因为你的那个“小孩子”，他仍旧在感知，而这种感知仍然是局限的。
41:31 B: I am a little child, now, here.	41:31 伯格斯特龙：此时此刻，在这里，我就是那个“小孩子”。
41:33 V: Yes, but a little child is different. Not because it's different it is less limited. It's just as limited.	41:33 瓦雷拉：是的，但小孩是有所不同的。不是因为他和我们不同，而是说他的局限会少一些。但小孩和我们一样也是局限的。
41:40 H: Can we go back perhaps to the original question? Let’s try by asking what is perception.	41:40 汉克：也许我们可以回到最初的那个问题了？让我们试着来问下：什么是「感知」？
41:52 V: Let’s continue with the investigation of how can we know, or come to know this unlimited action, unlimited perception.	41:52 瓦雷拉：让我们继续来探究一下我们如何才能知晓或者开始了解这种无限的行动、无限的感知。
42:03 S: Is it possible? That’s the whole question. Science says no, there is no such thing as unlimited action.	42:03 西恩博格：这可能吗？这就是全部的问题。科学说“不可能”，并不存在诸如“无限的行动”这样的东西。
42:09 B: No, science says yes, in the children.	42:09 伯格斯特龙：不，科学认为它是可能的，比方说在孩子身上。
42:15 K: Just a minute. There are millions of people in the world who say there is God. You come along and say, that's just the invention of thought. They say all right, go to hell, I'll go on worshipping, and that’s that. We are not in that position, I hope.	42:15 克：稍微等一下，先生。这个世界上有成百上千万人说 “上帝是存在的”。然而你却跑过来说：它（上帝）只是思想的发明物。于是人们说：好，那你就下地狱吧，而我将会继续崇拜下去，就是这样。我希望我们并没有处于这种境地。
42:35 V: So let’s investigate.	42:35 瓦雷拉：那就让我们来探究一下它吧。
42:38 K: So we have to explore it. We have come to a point where we have said action born of limited knowledge is divisive, and therefore conflict arises where there is division. That is all we have stated. Then the next question arose, is there an action which is not limited?	42:38 克：所以我们必须要来探索它。我们已经探究到了这一步：我们说：源自于局限知识的行动会带来分裂，而当有了分裂，冲突就会产生。这就是所有我们所说的东西。然后下一个问题就出现了：是否存在一种没有局限的行动？
43:10 S: OK.	43:10 西恩博格：很好。
43:13 K: Now, how are you going to find out?	43:13 克：那么，你要如何去找到答案呢？
43:20 H: Do you have any suggestions?	43:20 汉克：你有什么建议吗？
43:22 K: I am asking, you are the scientists.	43:22 克：我正在问你们，你们是科学家。
43:24 V: I said before, I agree entirely with David, from the point of view of the scientific framework there is no way to approach that question. But at the same time, as a human being, by examining my own mind...	43:24 瓦雷拉：我之前已经说过了：我完全同意大卫的观点，那就是：从科学框架的视角来看，我们是无法去处理这个问题的。然而同时，作为一个「人」，通过检视我自己的头脑
43:39 K: You are a human being, not a scientist. Thank God. We can talk as human beings. Good.	43:39 克：你其实是一个「人」，而不是科学家。谢天谢地。我们可以作为人类来进行交谈。这很好。
43:44 V: But also I happen to have this craft as a scientist.	43:44 瓦雷拉：我也只是碰巧有了这份科学家的职业。
43:49 K: Yes. That is of secondary importance.	43:49 克：是的，但它是次要的东西。
43:53 V: But as a human being, when I observe my mind I do notice that there are certain actions I do which do not seem to come out of knowledge but seem to be born out of themselves.	43:53 瓦雷拉：然而当我作为「人」去观察我的头脑时，我确实会注意到我所做出的某些行为，它似乎并不是源自于知识的，而是自然自发地产生的。
44:05 K: We'll find out.	44:05 克：我们将会把它搞清楚的。
44:07 V: OK. This is observation now.	44:07 瓦雷拉：很好。这就是我此刻的观察。
44:09 K: Yes. So it may be false, it may be true.	44:09 克：是的。所以这种观点也许是错误的，也许是正确的。
44:14 V: It is observation.	44:14 瓦雷拉：我们在观察。
44:16 S: Before we go on, I want to present him this question, is it conceivable, or isn’t it true that in our scientific investigation very often when we think that this action is born out of an unlimited... it seems to appear, that on further investigation we discover how limited it was. More often than not.	44:16 西恩博格：但是在我们继续讲下去之前，我想要向他提一个问题：有没有这种可能，或者说这难道不是事实吗 ——那就是在我们的科学研究中，经常会出现这种情况：我们认为这种行动是源自于某种无限的事物然而在经过进一步的研究后，它看起来却我们就会发现它是多么的局限。多半会是如此。
44:42 V: There is nothing I could counter to that.	44:42 瓦雷拉：对此我无法反驳。
44:45 K: I want to find out if there is an action which is not limited, and which is not consciously or unconsciously connected with knowledge. The same thing.	44:45 克：我想要搞清楚是否存在一种没有局限的行动，这种行动无论在意识层面还是无意识层面都没有和知识相关联。它们（有意识和无意识）是同一个东西。
45:03 V: Fine, there we are.	45:03 瓦雷拉：很好，就是这样。
45:06 S: That means that you have to be available for my most astute going after it to find out if I can find a way to show to you that really did come out of your knowledge.	45:06 西恩博格：这意味着你必须能够配合我进行最精明的追查，以确定我是否能找到一种方式向你证明这种行动其实还是源自于你的知识。
45:22 K: Yes, I am willing.	45:22 克：是的，我很乐意。
45:26 S: OK.	45:26 西恩博格：很好。
45:31 K: What is your response to that question?	45:31 克：那么你对于这个问题的反应是什么呢？
45:35 V: I think I said all I know.	45:35 瓦雷拉：我想我已经说了我所知道的一切。
45:38 K: I know what you said but let’s go a little deeper.	45:38 克：我知道你说的东西，但让我们再深入一点吧。
45:42 V: Fine.	45:42 瓦雷拉：可以。
45:48 K: We are asking a question: is there action in which there is no limitation? The self is limited, the me. The self is knowledge. Go slow, I’II explain. The self is a bundle of memories. So, as long as that self is acting there is limitation. So is there an ending to the self? Ending, not continuing. That's our first question. To end the whole... May I use the word consciousness ? With all its memories, with all its fears, sorrows, pain, anxieties, depression, faith, belief, the whole content of consciousness is the movement of thought. That is the self. That is knowledge. We said the self is a whole series of memories, it's a bundle. And as long as that action is born from there, it is limited, therefore conflict. We agreed to that.	45:48 克：我们正在问一个问题：是否存在一种行动，在其中是没有局限的？「自我」是局限的，也就是这个“我”。「自我」就是知识。慢慢来，我会来解释它的。「自我」就是一大堆的记忆。所以，只要这个「自我」还是在运作着，那么就会有「局限」。所以，「自我」能结束吗？结束掉它，不让它继续下去。这是我们的第一个问题。那就是去结束掉整个…… 我能用这个词吗——也就是结束掉「意识」？结束掉意识中所有的记忆、恐惧、悲伤、痛苦、焦虑、抑郁、信念、信仰，意识全部的内容就是思想的运动。它就是「自我」。它就是「知识」。我们说了：「自我」就是所有一系列的记忆，一大堆的记忆。而只要「行动」还是源自于「自我」，那它就会是局限的，由此便会有冲突。我们已经同意了这点。
48:01 V: Yes.	48:01 瓦雷拉：是的。
48:02 K: So can the self end? It is only then there is action which is not limited. It's a logical step.	48:02 克：所以「自我」能否结束呢？只有那时才会有没有局限的行动。这是符合逻辑的推论步骤。
48:18 V: Yes, absolutely.	48:18 瓦雷拉：是的，完全符合逻辑。
48:21 K: Can the self end? And the self is so deceptive, it can hide behind the most holy things, and the most extraordinary imagination, and in the scientific, in anything it can hide like a cockroach. Can that self end? The word mantra, you have heard that word, means that. The original root meaning of that word is ponder, think over, meditate on not becoming, and also put away all self-centred activity. The meaning of that word is that – the root meaning. You understand what I'm saying? 49:33 Meditate on not becoming, which is an immense factor. That means there is no psychological evolution for the me, there is no me to evolve. But we think there is me continuing, in heaven, in hell, I write a book, there it is, immortal. Or you throw it in the waste paper basket. So can the self, which is a whole series of memories and time, can that completely end, knowing that it is the most deceptive thing. Right? Find out. I say it can totally end, and live in this world.	48:21 克：那么「自我」能够结束吗？「自我」是如此的具有欺骗性，它可以隐藏在最神圣的事物后面，隐藏在最奇特的想象背后，隐藏在科学或任何事物背后，它可以像蟑螂一样躲藏起来。那么这个「自我」可以结束吗？咒语（mantra）这个词就包含了这层意思 ——你们应该听过这个词语吧。这个词语最初的词根含义就是沉思和反复思考，去冥想「无我」，同样也要抛弃所有自我中心的活动。这个词语的意思就是如此 ——它的词根含义。你们理解我在说什么吗？ 49:33 去冥想「无我」 ——这是关键所在。这意味着没有了“心理上进化”的概念 ——没有“我”的进化，没有一个在进化发展的“我”。但我们认为存在着“我”，它会不断延续下去，进入天堂、进入地狱，我写了一本书，它在那里了，它就永存了。或者你会把它丢进废纸篓里。所以这个「自我」 ——自我就是所有一系列的记忆与时间—— 这个自我能否彻底地结束？因为我们知道它是最具欺骗性的东西。对吧？去搞清楚它。我说它是可以彻底结束的，同时这个人也能生活在这世上。
50:48 V: Well, if indeed it can end, and you are saying you are still in this world,	50:48 瓦雷拉：哦，如果它确实可以结束，并且你说，你仍旧可以生活在这世上，
50:55 K: Absolutely.	50:55 克：完全正确。
50:56 V: It means that, for example, this person who has no self but who is in this world, drives a car.	50:56 瓦雷拉：那这就意味着……举个例子来说：这个没有「自我」的人，他仍然生活在这个世界上，他也能驾驶汽车。
51:08 K: Of course, there he has to use knowledge.	51:08 克：当然了，在这方面他必须要使用知识。
51:10 V: Fine, but then it means that that knowledge is there. So that action out of knowledge is present.	51:10 瓦雷拉：很好，但这就意味着「知识」还是在那里。所以那种源于知识的行动仍然存在着。
51:18 K: Of course.	51:18 克：当然了。但我们同样也说了
51:20 V: So, this is the question I'm asking you...	51:20 瓦雷拉：所以，我要问你的就是这个问题
51:23 K: It's simple, you can see for yourself. Don’t ask me, it's simple.	51:23 克：它很简单。你自己就可以看到这一点。不要问我，它是很简单的东西。
51:28 V: No, let me put it this way...	51:28 瓦雷拉：不，让我这样来说吧
51:31 K: Sir, I have to write a letter, which means a great deal of knowledge, writing the letter, sequence, the words. Tremendous knowledge is involved in writing a stupid letter. That knowledge is necessary.	51:31 克：先生，我必须要写一封信，这意味着我需要大量的知识，关于怎么写这封信，内容的顺序，遣词用句。写这封该死的信会涉及到大量的知识。这类知识是必需的
51:52 V: And it's self-centred action.	51:52 瓦雷拉：那它就是自我中心的行动了。
51:54 K: It is not.	51:54 克：它不是。
51:55 V: Why not?	51:55 瓦雷拉：为什么不是呢？
51:56 K: If the self is not, that is not.	51:56 克：如果这其中没有「自我」，它就不是（自我中心的行动）。
51:58 V: But how could it not be self-centred action, according to your definition of self, since it is a bunch of memories.	51:58 瓦雷拉：但它怎么可能不是自我中心的行动呢？因为根据你对于「自我」的定义，自我就是一大堆的记忆啊。
52:04 K: No, not my definition. Please, we agreed.	52:04 克：不，这不是我的定义。拜托了，这是我们已经认可同意的东西。
52:09 V: Wait a second, we agreed but I repeated at least a couple of times that to me there was a difference between knowledge, and self-centred knowledge, and that not all knowledge was self-centred knowledge.	52:09 瓦雷拉：等一下，我们是同意了，但我至少已经重复说了好几次了：那就是对我来说，「知识」和「自我中心的知识」是有所不同的，也就是说：并非所有的知识都是自我中心的知识。
52:26 K: I said, sir, the self is knowledge.	52:26 克：我说过了，先生，「自我」就是「知识」。
52:30 V: So if there is no self, there is no knowledge, that follows.	52:30 瓦雷拉：所以如果没有了自我，也就没有了知识，这是顺理成章的事。
52:34 K: But I can use it. Just a minute, careful. So we have to enquire into something totally different, which is, what is intelligence?	52:34 克：但是我可以使用它（知识）啊。稍等一下，在这里我们要小心仔细一点。这样的话，我们就必须要探询某个完全不同的东西了，也就是：什么是「智慧」？
52:49 V: OK, I am willing to enquire into that, but why do we have to do that?	52:49 瓦雷拉：好的，我很愿意来探询一下它，但为什么我们必须要探讨它呢？
52:53 K: I'll tell you why in a minute, I'll show it to you. Where there is intelligence, that intelligence can use knowledge. And intelligence is not born of knowledge.	52:53 克：我马上就会来告诉你为什么，我会向你解释它的。当有了「智慧」，那种「智慧」也可以使用知识。但智慧并不是源自于知识的。
53:20 B: From where is it?	53:20 伯格斯特龙：那它是来自于哪里的？
53:22 K: Take is slowly. You may all disagree, tear it to pieces, but I'll go into it. So we have to enquire what is knowledge? If knowledge can say, Well, I'll use this here and nowhere else. Knowledge has a certain place, but psychologically, etc., it has no place whatsoever.	53:22 克：慢慢来。你们也许都不同意这点，把它批得体无完肤，但我会来解释它的。所以我们必须要来探询一下什么是「知识」？「知识」是否能够说，很好，我将会把它用在这里，而不会在其他地方使用它。知识具有某种位置，然而在心理上，等等地方，是没有任何它的位置的。
53:53 H: From what you say, it seems to me that being free from the self doesn’t mean that you are completely free of knowledge.	53:53 汉克：从你所说的来看，在我看来：「摆脱掉自我」并不意味着你就完全脱离了知识。
54:01 K: I said to drive a car, to write a letter, to speak a language, right?	54:01 克：我说过了，要驾驶一辆汽车，要写一封信，要说一门语言（它们都需要知识），对吧？
54:10 V: But we are back to the question. We have to be careful in analysing this question.	54:10 瓦雷拉：但这样我们又回到了这个问题。在分析这个问题的过程中，我们必须要小心谨慎才行。
54:17 K: We have settled all that.	54:17 克：我们已经解决了所有这些问题。
54:18 B: Intelligence.	54:18 伯格斯特龙：智慧。克：什么是「智慧」？
54:21 K: What is intelligence? Is it born of knowledge, born of thought? It required tremendous knowledge to go to the Moon. Tremendous. The work of three hundred thousand, or ten thousand people, co-operating, making every part perfect, to go the Moon. That is the intelligence of thought.	54:21 它是源自于知识、源自于思想的吗？要登上月球，我们需要无数的知识。惊人的知识。它需要三十万或一万人的集体工作，彼此协作，让每一个环节都尽善尽美，这样才能登上月球。这就是思想的“智慧”。
55:00 V: Yes, and then you are asking the question where does intelligence come from.	55:00 瓦雷拉：是的，但之后你问了一个问题：这种智慧是从何而来的？
55:04 K: That intelligence is limited.	55:04 克：这种“智慧”是局限的。
55:09 V: It seems very clear.	55:09 瓦雷拉：这看起来是显而易见的事。
55:13 K: Prego, prego, avanti!	55:13 克：（意大利语）请继续，继续说下去吧！
55:17 V: Ma io non parlo italiano. So when I examine, what happens is that in thought there is intelligence that is proper to thought, which is limited, like when I resolve an equation. And there is also an intelligence which seems again to have a quality of being out of nowhere.	55:17 瓦雷拉：（意大利语）可我不会说意大利语。所以，当我检视它的时候，发生的事情就是：在思想中存在着“智慧”，这种“智慧”是思想所特有的，但它是局限的，就像我去解决一个方程式那样。此外，还存在着一种智慧，它似乎拥有一种品质：那就是它是凭空出现的。
55:42 K: We will come to that.	55:42 克：我们将会来探讨这点。
55:45 V: All right, but to me there are the two intelligences.	55:45 瓦雷拉：很好，但对我来说，存在着两种智慧。
55:48 K: Yes, let’s... Wait. There is the intelligence which thought has brought about.	55:48 克：是的，让我们……等一下。存在着那种思想所带来的“智慧”。
55:57 H: Rational thought. Logical thought.	55:57 汉克：那种理性思维、逻辑思维。
56:01 K: Rational or logical, clever, cunning. The businessman is very intelligent in his business. A terrorist organises beautifully to kill somebody.	56:01 克：理性的或逻辑的，那种聪明、狡猾的思维。商人在做生意的时候是非常聪明智慧的。恐怖分子也会精心地组织策划去刺杀某个人。
56:19 V: There is an intelligence to build itself as ego, or as self.	56:19 瓦雷拉：还有一种“智慧”是把自己构建成自我或者“我”。
56:23 K: So, there is so-called ordinary intelligence born of thought, therefore that intelligence becomes cruel, kindly, the whole series of human activity, which is limited. Then is there an intelligence which is not born of thought? I say there is – I may be cuckoo – I say there is. And that intelligence can only come about... if you want to go into it I will go into it.	56:23 克：所以，存在着来自于思想的、所谓的“通常的智力”，这种智力会变得残忍抑或友善，所有一系列人类的行为举动 ——这些行为举动都是局限的。那么，是否存在着一种并非源自于思想的智慧呢？我说它存在——我可能是疯了—— 但我说它是存在的。但要这种「智慧」出现，只有当如果你们想要探讨它的话，我会深入地来讲一下。
57:07 V: Yes, but we have gone into investigating the nature of intelligence out of the quandary or the paradox of what you said before, that in order to find out unlimited action I have to finish with the self, which was a collection of memories. But if I am finished with the self as a collection of memories it seems from what we said before, that there would be no knowledge, therefore that this person could not write a letter.	57:07 瓦雷拉：可以，但是我们之所以探讨、探究智慧的本质，是因为你之前提到的那个困境或悖论：那就是为了找到那种「无限的行动」，我就必须结束掉「自我」 ——而「自我」是一堆记忆。但要是我结束掉了那个本质上是“一堆记忆”的「自我」，那么根据我们之前讨论的东西来看，那时也不会有「知识」了，由此那个人也就无法写一封信了。
57:34 K: No, I did not say that. On the contrary he can write a letter.	57:34 克：不，我可没这么说。相反，他仍旧可以写信。
57:39 V: But if he writes a letter it requires knowledge.	57:39 瓦雷拉：但如果他要写信的话，这件事需要知识。
57:42 K: That's why I said let’s enquire into intelligence, then that intelligence says, I'll use knowledge here and nowhere else.	57:42 克：所以我才会说：让我们来探询一下「智慧」，因为那时这种智慧会说：我将会在这里使用知识，而不会在其他地方使用它。
57:52 V: I see, so the intelligence is now the mediator.	57:52 瓦雷拉：我明白，所以「智慧」现在就成了“调停者”。
57:58 K: Don’t use the word mediator. Keep the word for a minute.	57:58 克：不要使用“调停者”这个词。暂时还是先用这个词（智慧）吧。
58:03 S: So what is intelligence?	58:03 西恩博格：所以，什么是「智慧」呢？
58:06 K: If we say thought, with its extraordinary capacity has created a certain intelligence, building a cathedral, most beautiful houses, gardens, furniture, implements of war, it's all the result of thought. The atom bomb. Such intelligence is limited. Agree? Now is there an intelligence which is not limited? Now, how do you enquire into this? Exercising thought? Wait, wait!	58:06 克：我们说：思想及其非凡的能力已经创造出了某些“智慧”，建造大教堂，创造无比美丽的房子、花园、家具、各种战争工具，对吧？这些全都是思想的产物。还有原子弹。是吧？但这种“智慧（智力）”是局限的。你们同意这点吗？那么，是否存在一种没有局限的「智慧」呢？现在，你要如何来探询这个问题呢？是运用思想（来探询它）吗？等一下，等一下！
58:57 V: The same way you would investigate action which is unlimited, namely by observing, by completely observing without thought.	58:57 瓦雷拉：它和你去探究没有局限的行动是同样的方式 ——也就是通过「观察」，通过完整地、没有思想的观察。
59:08 K: Is that possible, first?	59:08 克：但首先，它可能吗？
59:10 V: Well, it seems that it is possible.	59:10 瓦雷拉：唔，它看起来是可能的。
59:13 K: Not a theory.	59:13 克：不是理论上。
59:15 V: No, you can do it.	59:15 瓦雷拉：是的，你是可以这样去做的。
59:17 K: Let’s be clear. That perception is not based on thought.	59:17 克：让我们先搞清楚这一点。那种「感知」并不是建立在思想之上的。
59:25 V: Yes, right.	59:25 瓦雷拉：是的，没错。
59:30 K: Keep that perception going.	59:30 克：保持那种「感知」的运作。
59:35 P: Do you agree with that?	59:35 皮特：你同意这点吗？
59:36 S: I don’t agree, no.	59:36 西恩博格：我不同意，不。
59:38 V: You don't?	59:38 瓦雷拉：你不同意吗？
59:39 K: Convince him please.	59:39 克：请你说服他吧。
59:40 V: You mean it is not possible for you, you are walking out of your house, it is a very sharp beautiful day, and you open the door and you see the tree, and there is a moment when you simply see the tree, there is no thought coming in. The quality of the experience is that there is no thought, there is a gap in your thoughts there is absolute purity of perception, a complete sense of present centredness, and the tree-ness of the tree is right there. And then thought comes up again. Isn’t that an experience for you?	59:40 瓦雷拉：你的意思是这对你来说不可能？当你走出你的房子，这是非常清爽明媚和美好的一天，你打开了门，然后看见了树木，然后会有那么一个时刻，你眼中只有那棵树了，当时并没有什么思想出现在你的脑海中。而这种经验的特征就是「其中没有思想念头」，在你的思想中存在着一个「间隔」，在其中有着绝对纯粹的「感知」，一种完全的“聚焦于当下”的感觉，而那棵树的“树之本质”就在那里了。但之后思想会再次出现。你难道没有过这种经验吗？
1:00:17 S: I'm going to play the devil’s advocate, and it is: I think in that very experience there is a sense in which we project out our knowledge.	1:00:17 西恩博格：我要唱唱反调了，那就是：我认为在这种经验中，从某种意义上说：我们在其中投射出了我们的知识。
1:00:30 K: No.	1:00:30 克：不是这样的。
1:00:32 V: I didn’t say there is no knowledge. I said there is no thought.	1:00:32 瓦雷拉：我并没有说不存在知识。我说的是不存在思想。
1:00:36 S: Did you hear the distinction?	1:00:36 西恩博格：你是否听到了这种区别？
1:00:39 K: Please, just a minute. Is there a perception without the word?	1:00:39 克：拜托了，请稍等一下。是否存在着一种没有词语文字的感知？
1:00:48 P: Without the word?	1:00:48 皮特：没有词语文字？
1:00:50 S: Yes.	1:00:50 西恩博格：是的。
1:00:52 K: Just answer step by step.	1:00:52 克：请一步一步地来回答它。
1:00:54 S: Well, your step by step, sometimes you set up a question that's already a trap.	1:00:54 西恩博格：唔，但你的“一步一步地来” 有时候是你提出了一个问题，但它已经是一个“陷阱”了。
1:01:01 K: I am not trapping you, for God’s sake.	1:01:01 克：看在上帝的份上，我并没有在给你设陷阱。
1:01:03 S: Perception without a word, yes.	1:01:03 西恩博格：那么“没有词语文字的感知”是什么意思呢。
1:01:04 K: Without the network of words.	1:01:04 克：也就是没有词语文字的网络。
1:01:06 S: But there is a sense in which perception without the word is already based in some sort of knowledge.	1:01:06 西恩博格：但我的感觉是：这种“没有词语文字的感知”，它已经是基于某种知识了。
1:01:15 K: No, I am just saying, we've been through all this.	1:01:15 克：不，我只是想说：所有这些我们都已经讨论过了。
1:01:20 S: No, this is our question.	1:01:20 西恩博格：不，这是我们的问题。
1:01:22 K: Can you look at me without all the image, all the nonsense, just look at me?	1:01:22 克：你能否看着我，而没有所有那些意象、所有那些荒谬的想法。只是单纯地看着我？
1:01:31 S: I don’t think you can, no.	1:01:31 西恩博格：我认为你是无法做到的。你做不到。
1:01:33 V: Are you saying scientifically?	1:01:33 瓦雷拉：你是从科学角度讲这话吗？
1:01:36 S: I am saying actual fact, I think in some way we are always operating out of some knowledge.	1:01:36 西恩博格：我说的是实际的事实。我认为从某种程度上来说，我们总是经由某种知识在行事。
1:01:45 V: Can we take this slowly.	1:01:45 瓦雷拉：我们能否慢慢地来处理这个问题。
1:01:47 S: Very slowly.	1:01:47 西恩博格：非常慢地来处理它。
1:01:50 V: I can look at you, I think, I can look at you or a tree or whatever, and not have thought.	1:01:50 瓦雷拉：我认为，我可以看着你我可以看着你或者一棵树或者任何东西，而没有思想。
1:01:57 K: Yes, that's all I am saying.	1:01:57 克：是的，这就是所有我在说的东西。
1:02:01 V: Question, when I see the tree, nevertheless I see a tree, I don’t see a cat. What he is saying, which I think is important, that that is knowledge. It is limited knowledge.	1:02:01 瓦雷拉：但问题是：当我看着那棵树的时候，然而当我看到了一棵树时，我是不会看到猫的。他所说的东西，我认为是很重要的。那就是：这是「知识」。这是局限的知识。
1:02:15 K: All right, agreed. Move.	1:02:15 克：很好，我同意。继续说下去。
1:02:18 V: So there was a point.	1:02:18 瓦雷拉：所以关键点就在这里。
1:02:20 K: I understand this.	1:02:20 克：我理解它。
1:02:22 S: It is an important question, what is the relationship of intelligence to the actuality that I am saying that you can’t have a perception without knowledge?	1:02:22 西恩博格：这是一个很重要的问题，那就是「智慧」和「现实」的关系是什么？而我说的是：你是无法在没有知识的情况下去感知的。
1:02:32 K: We are going to find out.	1:02:32 克：我们将会来搞清楚它的。
1:02:33 S: That’s what I want to get at.	1:02:33 西恩博格：这就是我想要弄清楚的东西。
1:02:34 K: We are coming to the same thing in a different way. What is this intelligence – if there such intelligence – which is not cultivated by thought.	1:02:34 克：我们只是在以不同的方式说着同样的东西。这种「智慧」是什么呢？ ——如果存在这种智慧的话—— 这种并非由思想所培育出来的智慧。
1:02:49 H: But it uses thought.	1:02:49 汉克：但它会使用思想。
1:02:51 V: We don’t know if it uses it yet. We have come to the point of seeing that there is an intelligence that seems to come out without being based on a train of thought.	1:02:51 瓦雷拉：我们还不知道它是否会使用思想。我们谈到了这一步：那就是我们看到存在着一种智慧：这种智慧似乎并不是基于一系列的思想而产生的。
1:03:02 K: Yes, that’s all I am asking. Is it temporary, is it something casual, perchance? All those. Or is there an intelligence which is not intermittent, which is not fiction, theoretical, and so on? Or imagination, deceptive, illusory, all the implication of all those words. I say there is.	1:03:02 克：是的，这就是所有我在问的东西。它是不是暂时的？它是不是某种临时的、偶然的东西？诸如此类的。还是说存在着一种并非“断断续续”的智慧，它不是虚构编造的、不是理论假设，等等？也不是想象、欺骗、错觉。它不是所有这些词语所暗示包含的东西。而我说它是存在的。
1:03:40 V: How do we find that out?	1:03:40 瓦雷拉：那我们要如何才能发现它呢？
1:03:44 K: I am coming to that. I am ninety years old, I've been at it for a long time. What place has love in all this? Is love desire? Is love pleasure? Is love sensation? Is it?	1:03:44 克：我会讲到这一点的。我都九十岁了，我已经研究了它很长时间。那么「爱」在这一切中有着什么样的位置呢？「爱」是欲望吗？「爱」是快感吗？「爱」是感官感觉吗？它是吗？
1:04:33 B: Yes, limited love.	1:04:33 伯格斯特龙：它是的，但那是局限的爱。
1:04:36 K: Love is love, not limited, unlimited. Go slowly. Is love desire? All the rest of it.	1:04:36 克：「爱」就是「爱」，它不分什么“局限的”和“不局限的”。慢慢来吧。「爱」是欲望吗？等等这些。
1:04:51 V: Why do we need to examine love now?	1:04:51 瓦雷拉：为什么我们现在需要去检视「爱」？
1:04:53 K: I will tell you in a minute, we will come to it. The ball is in my court.	1:04:53 克：我马上就会来告诉你，我们会谈到它的。 “球”现在在我这里。
1:05:04 V: You are now asking us to examine the nature of love because it seems necessary to answer the question, of how to we get to examine...	1:05:04 瓦雷拉：你现在正在要求我们去检视「爱」的本质，因为检视它对于回答这个问题来说似乎是有必要的，关于我们如何去得到、去检视
1:05:12 K: Not get. How does that intelligence exist? Exist. I say it cannot exist without love.	1:05:12 克：不是去“得到”。而是…… 这种智慧要如何才能存在？「存在」。而我说：没有「爱」，「智慧」就无法存在。
1:05:31 B: What is love?	1:05:31 伯格斯特龙：那么什么是「爱」呢？
1:05:32 K: We are saying what is love. You understand? I say that intelligence which is not born of thought – which is limited – that intelligence is the essence of love. Therefore I say, is love desire? Is love ambition? Is there love when there is pleasure, and so on. Or is love something outside of the brain? You understand? Let me finish. You can jump on me afterwards. It's still in my court.	1:05:32 克：我们现在就在讨论什么是「爱」。你们理解了吗？我说那种并非源自于思想的智慧 ——思想是局限的—— 那种智慧就是「爱」的本质。所以我问：「爱」是欲望吗？「爱」是野心吗？当有了快感等等此类东西后，还会有「爱」吗？还是说，「爱」是某种大脑之外的东西？你理解了吗？让我先讲讲完啊。讲完之后你可以尽情反驳我。球还在我这儿。
1:06:40 V: OK, that’s a question.	1:06:40 瓦雷拉：好的，那就来谈这个问题吧。
1:06:43 K: And which means compassion. Where there is love and compassion there is that intelligence which is not the product of thought. And that is not intermittent, that doesn’t come and go. And that love is not the opposite of hate. Love has no opposite. And compassion, love, cannot exist if there is any form of attachment. I am a Catholic, or a Hindu, or a Sikh, and I am attached to my God, attached to my anchor and say I have compassion. That's not compassion.	1:06:43 克：而它就意味着「慈悲」。当有了「爱」与「慈悲」，就会有那种「智慧」了，那种「智慧」并不是思想的产物。它并不是“断断续续”的，它不会来来去去。并且这种「爱」也不是「恨」的反面。「爱」是没有对立面的。如果有了任何形式的执著，「慈悲」和「爱」就不可能存在了。我是一个天主教徒或印度教徒，或者是一个锡克教徒，我执著于我的神明，执著于我的精神支柱，然后我说我拥有「慈悲」。但它并不是什么「慈悲」。
1:07:49 B: It's limited.	1:07:49 伯格斯特龙：它是局限的。
1:07:58 K: Limited. Right? Now, proceed. Wait! Take your racket. Get ready. To me, or to K, that's the only thing that matters. If that does not exist, the rest is all limited. And therefore you will have perpetual conflict between each other, between the world and so on. That’s all.	1:07:58 克：它是局限的。对吧？很好，我们继续下去。等一下！拿起你们的球拍。做好准备就行。对我来说，或者对克（即克氏）来说，这才是唯一重要的事情。如果它不存在了，那其余的东西都会是局限的。由此你将会有连续不断的冲突 ——人与人之间的冲突，人与世界的冲突等等。我要说的就是这些。
1:08:38 S: Are you ready for me?	1:08:38 西恩博格：你准备好听我说几句了吗？
1:08:41 K: Wait, have you understood what the speaker has said? What K said?	1:08:41 克：等等，先生，你是否已经理解了演讲者所说的东西呢？是否理解了克所说的话？
1:08:46 S: I think I have but I have a question.	1:08:46 西恩博格：我想我已经理解了，但我这里有一个问题。
1:08:48 K: Wait. Have you felt it, smelt it, have you tasted it, have you swallowed it before you kick it?	1:08:48 克：等一下。在你踢开它之前，你是否感受到了它，嗅到了它，品尝过了它？你是否已经把它吞下去了？
1:08:59 S: I don’t want to kick it.	1:08:59 西恩博格：我并不想要踢开它。
1:09:02 K: No, I am asking you.	1:09:02 克：不，我正在问你。
1:09:05 S: I say, I think I have.	1:09:05 西恩博格：我已经说了，我认为我已经理解它了。
1:09:11 K: Sir, it means unconditioning the whole human, the structure and the nature of thought.	1:09:11 克：先生，它意味着消除全人类的局限，消除思想结构和思想本性的局限。
1:09:24 V: Now we have grasped that, and listened to that.	1:09:24 瓦雷拉：现在，我们已经领会了它，也聆听了它。
1:09:30 K: Now proceed, it is in your court.	1:09:30 克：好了，你们讲吧，球在你们那里了。
1:09:32 S: Now I want to ask you a question. A few minutes ago I brought up this three month old infant. A minute ago I mentioned this experiment with the three month old infant and the focus.	1:09:32 西恩博格：现在，我想要问你一个问题。几分钟前，我提到了三个月大婴儿的事情。我刚才提到了这个实验：也就是对三个月大的婴儿及其聚焦力的实验。
1:09:47 K: I have seen it with my eyes actually, I don’t have to look up there.	1:09:47 克：实际上，我曾亲眼见过这个实验，所以不需要再抬头看了。
1:09:51 S: Fine, what I want to say is this, here we have a three month old infant that I told you about, and this in a way is the basis for desire. In other words, the desire for that focus. That's the essence of desire at three months of age. Now given that fact, that desire is so central to the brain, – we'll use that word – what is the relationship of what you've just said to this basic fact that desire is so...	1:09:51 西恩博格：很好，但我想要说的是：我们有了这个关于三个月大婴儿的实验 ——我已经和你讲过它了，而从某种程度上来说，它就是欲望的基础。换句话说就是那种对于专注聚焦的渴望。这就是欲望的本质 ——三个月大的婴儿就这样了。所以现在，鉴于这一事实，那就是欲望在大脑中占据着如此核心的位置 ——我们先用下（大脑）这个词吧—— 那么你刚刚所说的东西，它和这个基本事实的关系是什么？ ——也就是欲望是如此的
1:10:34 K: Yes, I'll tell you. Then you have to ask what is desire.	1:10:34 克：是的，我会来告诉你的。那么你就必须要问一下：什么是「欲望」？
1:10:42 V: I have another question which is related. We might be able to handle both at the same time. Which is that I have heard you, I have grasped it or felt it, then I have the question, how do I know it is true?	1:10:42 瓦雷拉：我还有另一个与之相关的问题。我们或许可以同时来处理这两个问题。这个问题就是：我聆听了你的话，然后我理解了它或者我感同身受。然后我就有了这个问题：我怎么知道它就是真实正确的呢？
1:10:57 K: You don’t know. Which means?	1:10:57 克：你并不知道。那么这意味着什么呢？
1:10:59 V: Which means that I have to investigate it.	1:10:59 瓦雷拉：这意味着我必须要去探究它。
1:11:02 K: With what?	1:11:02 克：靠什么去探究它呢？
1:11:03 V: Well, this is exactly the point, with what? The only way I know is to observe very carefully what happens in my experience, which means that what I see is not the continuity of that intelligence but the intermittency of that intelligence. So how can you, beyond saying, actually make it possible for people to see that it's not just words?	1:11:03 瓦雷拉：哦，这正是问题的关键，用什么去探究它？我所知道的唯一方式就是非常小心仔细地去观察在我的经验中所发生的一切，这意味着我所看到的并不是那种“智性认知”的延续，而是那种“智性”的「间歇」。所以除了口头讲述，你要怎么样才能够切实地让人们有可能看到你说的东西并不仅仅是一些语言文字呢？
1:11:51 K: Therefore you have to go into the whole question of what is the place of desire?	1:11:51 克：所以你就必须要去深入关于「欲望该占据什么位置？」的整个问题。
1:12:01 V: Yes, that is why the two things are related.	1:12:01 瓦雷拉：是的，所以这两件事是关联在一起的。
1:12:03 K: What is the place of desire, and why has desire become so important in our life, the whole movement of desire. Have we time?	1:12:03 克：「欲望」的位置是什么？为什么欲望在我们的生活中变得如此重要？以及欲望的全部运动。我们还有时间吗？
1:12:19 S: A few minutes.	1:12:19 西恩博格：还有几分钟时间。
1:12:22 V: It's up to you, I'm happy to go on.	1:12:22 瓦雷拉：讲不讲取决于你。我很乐意继续下去。
1:12:25 K: There are people waiting for lunch.	1:12:25 克：但有人等着吃午饭呢。
1:12:29 S: Well, this is a crucial issue.	1:12:29 西恩博格：啊，这是一个很关键的问题。
1:12:32 K: Yes, I will come to that.	1:12:32 克：是的，我将会来探讨它的。
1:12:37 V: You mean to continue more?	1:12:37 瓦雷拉：你的意思是继续讲下去？
1:12:39 H: Yes, around the idea we're talking about, because we have about five minutes.	1:12:39 汉克：是的，围绕着我们正在讨论的这个观点讲下去，因为我们还有大约五分钟时间。
1:12:44 B: Desire and love. That would be important.	1:12:44 伯格斯特龙：「欲望」和「爱」。这是非常重要的主题。
1:12:49 K: If there is no becoming psychologically, there is no self. Theoretically it sounds all right.	1:12:49 克：如果我们在心理上不去“成为什么”，那就不会有「自我」了。理论上来说，这听起来没问题。
1:13:09 S: You keep going back to this, in theory it sounds all right...	1:13:09 瓦雷拉：你不断地返回到这一点，虽然从理论上来说，它听起来很好
1:13:12 K: To see the reality of it and cut it!	1:13:12 克：先生，去看到它的真实性，然后切断它！
1:13:17 H: How do you see that?	1:13:17 汉克：你要如何才能看到它呢？
1:13:21 K: He tells me, he has been at it for a number of years, he says, look, there is no becoming. Is it this becoming has spilled over from the physical becoming, becoming a clerk, stepping up the ladder. Has that movement spilled over into the other field and therefore you're still thinking in terms of becoming psychologically, inwardly. And don’t let it spill. Expand from there. Then is there a becoming? 'I will be'. 'I must not'. I am comparing myself. So, the ending of measurement. Complete ending of measurement, which is comparison.	1:13:21 克：他告诉我说：他已经探究了这个问题有许多年了，他说：你瞧，并不存在什么“变成”。这种「变成」是不是已经从外在物质世界中的“变成” ——变成一名职员，然后逐步晋升—— 这种运动是不是已经蔓延扩散到了其他领域，因此在心理上、在内心领域，你仍旧在依照“变成”的思维模式去思考。所以不要让它蔓延开去。不要让它从这里扩散开去。而那时，还会有“变成”吗？ “我将会成为什么什么”。“我必须不能怎样怎样”。我正在拿自己和其他人相比较。所以，去结束那种「量度」。彻底结束「量度」 ——「量度」就是「比较」。
1:15:01 H: Stop?	1:15:01 汉克：可以结束了吗？
1:15:04 V: I was ready to continue. It's up to you.	1:15:04 瓦雷拉：我还准备继续说下去呢。这取决于你（指克氏）。
1:15:14 K: Is there an end to knowledge?	1:15:14 克：先生，「知识」是否可以终结？
1:15:20 S: Is there an end to desire?	1:15:20 西恩博格：「欲望」是否可以终结？
1:15:22 K: No, is there an end to knowledge?	1:15:22 克：不，应该是「知识」是否可以终结？
1:15:29 V: I don’t see that.	1:15:29 瓦雷拉：我不知道。
1:15:32 K: Ask that question, sir.	1:15:32 克：问问这个问题，先生。
1:15:36 B: I think there is an end.	1:15:36 伯格斯特龙：我认为它是可以终结的。
1:15:41 K: If we are functioning all the time within the field of knowledge, it is very limited. Therefore, is there an end to something...	1:15:41 克：如果我们一直都是在知识的范畴中运作活动，这就是非常局限的。所以，所以我们是否可以去终结某个事物
1:15:53 V: Oh, is there an end in the sense of is there an edge, a place where it's no longer there.	1:15:53 瓦雷拉：噢，是否可以结束 ——它的意思就是：是否有一个边界、一个地方，在那里它不复存在了。
1:15:59 B: Yes there is.	1:15:59 伯格斯特龙：是的，有。
1:16:01 K: Which means what?	1:16:01 克：那么这意味着什么呢？
1:16:03 B: That means we are not coming forward with only knowledge, this kind of knowledge.	1:16:03 伯格斯特龙：这意味着我们不再只是借助「知识」而前行 ——我们所说的那种「知识」。
1:16:16 K: Could I put another question? Can the brain stop chattering, completely, empty. Only act when it is asked, like a drum, highly tuned, but it is always empty, it is only when you strike on it that it gives a note.	1:16:16 克：我可以再提另外一个问题吗？大脑是否可以停止喋喋不休？彻底地停止，变得「空无」。只有在它接收到请求时才去行动？就像一面调音调得很高的鼓，但鼓的内部却永远都是空的，只有当你敲击它的时候，它才会发出声音。
1:17:00 B: What is emptiness?	1:17:00 伯格斯特龙：什么是「空无」呢？
1:17:03 K: That's what I am saying, is there an end to knowledge? Of course. That’s another matter.	1:17:03 克：这就是我在说的东西，即：知识是否可以结束？当然了。这又是另一个问题了。

🢁