克里希那穆提 - 「思想」可以结束吗？

BR84SBR3 - 「思想」可以结束吗？克氏与科学家们的第三次研讨会英国，布洛克伍德公园 1984年6月10日纯文本版本
0:24 Dr Hancke: During the last two days we have been talking about many topics, and what strikes me is that it seems to be very difficult to penetrate a topic. And I was wondering what does it mean to enquire into something in an intelligent way? And perhaps with that spirit, we can go into the question of intelligence, what we were talking about yesterday.	0:24 汉克博士：在过去的两天里，我们讨论了很多主题，而让我感到惊讶的是：要彻底理解一个主题似乎非常困难。而我想要知道： “以智慧的方式去探询事物” 是什么意思？而我们或许可以用这种精神态度来深入探讨关于「智慧」的问题，也就是我们昨天所谈论的问题。
0:58 Krishnamurti: I thought we did that yesterday. We said, if I remember rightly, that there is the intelligence of thought, and that intelligence is limited, and is there any other kind of intelligence which is not bound to time? And we said that there is, so we went into that, love and compassion, and out of that, that intelligence which is not limited at all. Because we said if love is limited then it's not love. If love has an opposite as hate, anger, jealousy and so on, then it's not love. That's what we discussed yesterday.	0:58 克：我想这事儿我们昨天已经做过了。当时我们说——如果我没记错的话—— 我们说：存在着思想的“智慧”，但这种“智慧”是局限的，那么是否存在任何其他种类的智慧 ——那种不被「时间」所束缚的智慧呢？而我们说这种「智慧」是存在的，于是我们探讨了它，探讨了「爱」和「慈悲」，从它们之中所产生出来的「智慧」就是完全没有任何局限的。因为我们说过了：如果爱是局限的，那它就不是「爱」了。如果爱是有对立面的 ——比如仇恨、愤怒、嫉妒等等，那它就不是「爱」了。这就是我们昨天所讨论的东西。
2:20 How would you enquire into that intelligence which is not born of thought?	2:20 那么你要如何去探询这种「智慧」呢？这种「智慧」并不是源自于思想的。
2:32 H: It seems to me that, if we are using thought, then we have to be very hesitant in what we say.	2:32 汉克：在我看来，如果我们是使用思想（探询它），那我们对于自己所说的东西就必须非常犹豫谨慎。
2:39 K: Not only that, but how would you enquire into that intelligence which is not the product of thought? How would you enquire into it? That's what you are saying. How would you enquire into it? Would you enquire into it by saying that which it is not?	2:39 克：不止如此，还有你要如何去探询那种并非思想产物的「智慧」呢？你要如何去探询它呢？这就是你在说的东西。你要怎么去探询它呢？你会通过说“它不是什么”来探询它吗？
3:05 H: You mean by what is false?	3:05 汉克：你的意思是通过找出“什么是假的”吗？
3:09 K: Yes, what it is not. I don't know if I am conveying this. We said hate is not love. So is there in our psyche, in the skull – I won't even use the brain now because I am a little apprehensive of experts – in the skull, which is all the enormous activity of human beings, all the activities of human beings are contained in the skull, within the skull, within that sphere. And is love within it, or outside it? Yesterday, we asked that question too. How would you enquire into it?	3:09 克：是的，通过搞清楚“它不是什么”。我不知道我是否表达出了我的意思。我们说「恨」并不是「爱」。所以在我们的心中、在我们的“脑袋”里 ——我现在甚至都不敢用 “大脑”这个词了，因为我有点怕这里的专家了—— 在这个脑袋里就有着所有人类复杂惊人的活动，人类所有的活动都包含在这个脑袋里了，藏在这个头骨中、这个“球体”内。那么「爱」是在它之中的吗？还是在它之外的？昨天，我们也问了这个问题。那么你们要如何来探询它呢？
4:24 H: Perhaps we could start by saying what is an action that is not intelligent? For example, if we take a machine, a machine that is repetitive, all the time doing the same thing. And in the same way one could say that the brain is disposed to work according to its condition. And this condition is somehow always the same. For example, when I see a person that I don't like, the brain seems to give meaning to that situation and plays itself out. In that sense I would say it's the same as a machine, a machine has a programme, a preset.	4:24 汉克：或许我们可以从指出 “什么行动是不智慧的”开始？举个例子，如果我们去看一台机器，机器是重复性的，它一直都是在做着同样的事情。同样的，我们也可以说：大脑倾向于依据它自身的「局限」来工作。而这种「局限」多多少少总是相同的。比如，当我看到了一个我不喜欢的人时，大脑似乎就会赋予这种情况以某种意义，然后发挥自己的作用。从这种意义上而言，我可以说它和机器是一样的，机器也会有一个程序、一种预设模式。
5:11 K: After all, we are programmed.	5:11 克：从根本上讲，我们都是“程序化的”。
5:13 Dr Varela: But also, this very same process, I wouldn't call it a machine, is capable of coming up with something which is completely new, novel, creative.	5:13 瓦雷拉博士：但是，对于这种相同的过程，我不会把它称为是“机器”，因为它也有能力提出某种完全崭新的、新奇的、创造性的东西。
5:25 K: Different.	5:25 克：某种不同的东西。
5:27 V: So in that sense it is nothing to do with a machine. And precisely the fact that it can up with creative acts, it means that the process cannot be so simply characterised as mere repetition, as in a trivial machine. I would make a distinction between what we call a trivial machine, which is a Coca-Cola machine, 10 pence or 50 pence going in, out comes a Coca-Cola. This is a trivial machine. This is not what life is about.	5:27 瓦雷拉：所以从这种意义上说，它和机器并没有什么关系。而确切的事实是：它可以有创造性的行为，这意味着这种过程不能这么简单地加以描述，仅仅认为它是一种重复、一台简单的机器。我想要来区分一下这两者：我们所说的“简单的机器”，比如可口可乐自动售货机，你扔个10便士或50便士进去，然后一罐可乐就出来了。这就是简单普通的机器。但生命并不是这个样子的。
5:59 H: Of course not.	5:59 汉克：当然不是了。
6:01 V: So let's not set up a straw man and say what the brain is not. The brain is not that kind of machine.	6:01 瓦雷拉：所以我们就不要再树立一个“稻草人”，然后说“大脑不是什么什么了”。大脑并不是那样的机器。
6:10 H: Could we say that intelligence has not to do with a pattern that is repetitive, would we agree to that? Because intelligence has to do with something that's new, out of the pattern.	6:10 汉克：我们可以说那种「智慧」它和重复性的模式是无关的吗？我们同意这点吗？因为「智慧」是和某种跳出模式的崭新事物相关的。
6:26 Dr Bergstrom: I think what you just said is true. We know in brain research, in brain physiology, when we are studying the brain in the usual way, we know for instance that the brain is capable of producing values. Constantly ordering the whole outer world in a new way. In that sense it produces quite a new kind of attention or values, and that is not the same as knowledge, ordinary information.	6:26 伯格斯特龙博士：我认为你刚刚说的是正确的。我们知道，在大脑的研究工作中，在大脑生理学中，当我们以通常的方式去研究大脑，我们就会知道……举个例子，大脑是能够创造出价值观的。它能够以一种全新的方式来不断地排列组合整个外部的世界。也就是说，大脑会生成一种全新的注意力机制或价值体系。而这有别于「知识」和「普通的信息」。
7:11 K: Is it new, or is it a different aspect of the old?	7:11 克：它是全新的吗？还是说它只是旧有事物的一个不同方面？
7:21 V: That's an interesting question. What is the nature of the creative act?	7:21 瓦雷拉：这是一个很有趣的问题。创造性行动的本质是什么？
7:29 K: Then we must go into what is creation, and what is invention.	7:29 克：那么我们就必须去深入探究一下什么是「创造」，以及什么是「发明物」。
7:33 V: All right, shall we do that? I don't know if I'm interrupting you, or somebody else.	7:33 瓦雷拉：很好，我们可以来做这件事吗？我不知道我是否打断了你，或者打断了别的什么人。
7:43 H: The question is how does one come about this intelligence?	7:43 汉克：问题在于：一个人要如何才能获得这种智慧呢？
7:55 K: That intelligence, can it be cultivated? All cultivation implies thought, time.	7:55 克：这种「智慧」，它是可以被培养出来的吗？所有的“培养”都暗示着「思想」与「时间」。
8:18 Dr Shainberg: Are we acting intelligently now?	8:18 西恩博格博士：我们现在的行为是智慧的吗？
8:22 K: Just a minute, let's finish this. What did I say just now?	8:22 克：先等一下，让我们把这个讲讲完。我刚才说到哪里来着？
8:30 V: That all cultivation is in time.	8:30 瓦雷拉：说到“所有的培养都是落入于「时间」中的”。
8:33 K: Is in time and also, it has a motive and a result. Cultivation implies motive, result and time. That is the factor of any cultivation. Is the intelligence, which is born of some totally different state, or whatever you like to call it, is that cultivable?	8:33 克：它是落入于「时间」中的，此外，它也会有动机和结果。 “培养”就意味着动机、结果和时间。这是任何一种“培养”中所包含的要素然而「智慧」——智慧是诞生于某个完全不同的维度的—— 或者无论你喜欢把它称为什么，这种智慧是可以被培养出来的吗？
9:08 H: It doesn't seem so.	9:08 汉克：它似乎无法被培养出来。
9:11 V: I am not so sure. Well, I would say that the cultivation would come from actually observing in our life this quality of the new, the flash of the creative, the fresh of perception, for example, the freshness of perception is something that is happening all the time but we normally tend to obscure it because our mind is too speedy. But it is possible to cultivate a more slow pace of thought and thereby one begins to see the constant flashes of this quality of creative insight, or creative intelligence happening all the time. So it seems to me that it can be cultivated, not so much as to cultivate it as such, but to cultivate one's accessibility to it.	9:11 瓦雷拉：我不是很确定。哦，我想说这种“培养” 是通过在我们生活中实际地去观察那种全新事物的品质而来的，那种创造性事物的灵光一闪，那种崭新的感知，举个例子，那种新鲜的感知它是某种一直在发生着的事物，但我们通常会倾向于去遮蔽它，因为我们的头脑实在太快了。但我们是有可能去培养一种更缓慢的思考节奏的，由此我们便会开始看到这种创造性洞察品质的持续闪光，或者那种创造性的智慧，它会一直不断发生。所以在我看来，它是可以被培养的，但与其说是要刻意培养它，不如说是要去培养我们自己对于它的领悟接受能力。
10:11 H: You mean by a process of observation rather?	10:11 汉克：你的意思是通过「观察的过程」吗？
10:14 V: Well, observation is not the word I would use. It's more a quality of taming the raw quality of one's mind.	10:14 瓦雷拉：哦，我不会使用 “观察”这个词。它更应该是一种“改良”的品质，这是我们头脑的原生品质。
10:20 K: Would you use the word attention?	10:20 克：你会使用「注意」这个词吗？
10:22 B: Attention would be good, yes.	10:22 伯格斯特龙：「注意」这个词会好一点，是的。
10:25 V: I am not so happy with attention because it implies something that is too forced somehow.	10:25 瓦雷拉：我对「注意」这个词并不是很满意，因为它暗示着某种多多少少有点过于「被迫」的东西。
10:31 K: No, I don't want to go into all that. What are we discussing now, let's be clear.	10:31 克：不是这样的，我并不想去探究所有这些了。我们现在讨论的是什么，让我们先搞清楚这一点。
10:40 S: Intelligence.	10:40 西恩博格：智慧。
10:42 V: You asked the question, can this intelligence be cultivated?	10:42 瓦雷拉：你提出了这个问题，即：这种智慧能否被培养？
10:46 K: Can that intelligence which is not born of thought, can that be cultivated? Obviously not. We'll come to that in a minute, go slowly, look at it. We said any kind of cultivation implies a motive, time, and a beginning and an end. Is love cultivable in that sense? I know you don't like that word, it is foreign to you, probably to all of you.	10:46 克：这种并非源自于思想的智慧，它可以被“培养”吗？很显然不可以。我们很快就会来探讨这点的，慢慢来，去观察一下它。我们说：任何一种“培养” 都暗示了动机、时间，以及“开始和结束”。那么从这个意义上说，「爱」是可以被培养的吗？我知道你并不喜欢这个词（注意），它对你来说很陌生，可能对你们所有人来说都很陌生。
11:32 B: I think it is. If I begin to evaluate things differently then I am changing my brain. We know that changes occur which we don't know from where they come. We just notice that they come. So I think, after all, there is a possibility of changing the brain and it is with the values.	11:32 伯格斯特龙：我认为的确如此。如果我以不同的方式开始去评估事物，那我就是在改变着我的大脑。我们知道这种「改变」会发生，但我们并不知道它（改变）是从哪里来的。我们只是注意到它们出现了。所以我认为，从根本上说，我们是有可能去改变大脑的，也包括它的那些价值观。
12:04 K: That means, doesn't it, a quality of silence.	12:04 克：而这就意味着一种「寂静」的品质，不是吗？
12:10 B: That is better, silence. Not thought.	12:10 伯格斯特龙：「寂静」这个词更好些。而不是「思想」。
12:14 K: A quality of quietness, a sense of everything in abeyance, and then in that tranquillity something happens.	12:14 克：一种「安静」的品质，一种一切事物都“暂停了”的感觉，然后在那种安定宁静中，某个事物就会发生了。
12:25 B: Yes, not of thought, but being quiet, letting the brain just be.	12:25 伯格斯特龙：是的，它不是属于「思想的」，而是一种「安静」，让大脑顺其自然。
12:32 K: Can that be? When our brain has been active from childhood, work, work, work, struggle, pain, learn, don't learn, you follow, the whole human struggle, human endeavour. Can the brain, which has been so conditioned, can it ever be quiet?	12:32 克：这可以实现吗？我们的大脑从小开始就一直很活跃，它在工作、工作、不停地工作，努力奋斗，痛苦，学习什么，不学习什么，你跟上了吗？所有人类的斗争和努力。那么这个一直以来都如此局限的大脑，它有可能安静下来吗？
13:03 B: There exists the possibility but it is difficult. Can you tell us, brain researchers, what could the value possibly be because we are in a limit, you see we know that in the brain, changes occur and these changes bring about new values, but what are they? We don't know because, with knowledge, we cannot go into them.	13:03 伯格斯特龙：可能性是存在的，但这很难。你能够告诉我们这些大脑研究者，它可能会具有的价值吗？因为我们身处于局限中，你瞧我们知道在大脑中，各种改变会发生，而这些「改变」会带来新的价值观，但这些「改变」是什么呢？我们并不知道，因为凭借知识，我们是无法深入探究它们的。
13:32 K: We both agree that there must be a certain ground of quietness, of tranquillity, so that something new can come. Would you agree to that?	13:32 克：我们双方都同意，那就是我们必须要有某种安静的、宁静的土壤，由此某种全新的事物才可能降临。你们同意这点吗？
13:55 V: And that can be cultivated.	13:55 瓦雷拉：而这是可以培养的。
13:57 K: Wait, question it.	13:57 克：等一下，你需要质疑这一点。
13:59 V: I mean the attitude.	13:59 瓦雷拉：我指的是那种态度。
14:02 K: No, silence is not an attitude.	14:02 克：不，「寂静」并不是一种“态度”。
14:05 V: No, but to make yourself available to silence is an attitude.	14:05 瓦雷拉：它不是，但让自己能够领悟接收到那种「寂静」 ——这就是一种态度。
14:09 K: Then who is it that is making you available?	14:09 克：那么是谁在让你去领悟接收它呢？
14:13 V: That which needs or requires or wants the silence.	14:13 瓦雷拉：是那个需要、要求或想要「寂静」的存在者。
14:18 K: That means again desire, again thought.	14:18 克：这同样也意味着「欲望」、意味着「思想」。
14:24 V: There has to be a desire to make itself available to non-desire.	14:24 瓦雷拉：我们必须要有「欲望」才能让它领悟接收到「无欲」。
14:29 K: You go back again, you see.	14:29 克：你瞧，你又再次回去了。
14:31 B: Physiologically no, because we let the brain be, it is just there.	14:31 伯格斯特龙：从生理学上来说不存在这种情况，因为我们已经让大脑顺其自然了，它只是存在着。
14:38 V: We might go into a very long discussion here when you say the brain stops. I have never seen a brain stop which is not dead.	14:38 瓦雷拉：这里我们或许会进入到一次非常漫长的讨论中。当你说大脑停止了。我从来没有见过一个仍未死亡的大脑“停止”过。
14:45 B: I have seen my brain stop, be silent.	14:45 伯格斯特龙：我曾经见过我的大脑“停止”过，那时它很安静。
14:49 V: But as an electro-physiologist you know that if I put electrodes in your brain, it will not be inactive, it will be just as active as now. That doesn't mean anything to say the brain stops, it doesn't stop.	14:49 瓦雷拉：但是作为一名电生理学家，你知道的如果我将电极放入你的大脑，那么大脑是不会毫无活动的，它会像现在一样活跃。所以说什么“大脑会停止” ——这并没有任何意义，因为它并不会停止。
15:01 K: Would you say that the brain, – I won't even say brain, that thing which is inside the skull – it has its own rhythm, and there is the rhythm of thought. Can the rhythm of thought be quiet? That is all we are saying.	15:01 克：你会说那个大脑 ——我甚至都不会称它为“大脑”，也就是那个在头骨里的东西—— 它有着它自身的节奏，存在着那种「思想」的节奏。那么这种「思想的节奏」，它可以安静下来吗？这就是所有我们正在说的东西。
15:26 V: Yes, it can.	15:26 瓦雷拉：是的，它可以。
15:27 K: Wait a minute. Quiet, not just temporarily, not off and on, but quiet.	15:27 克：等一下。安静下来，它不只是暂时安静下来，不是断断续续的，而是安静下来。
15:39 V: Once and for all?	15:39 瓦雷拉：一劳永逸地安静下来？
15:42 K: Yeap! You see, you are objecting to this when you say 'once and for all' it means time. You see, this is our difficulty. A silent mind, silence, is not once and for all. You want it once and for all. And then when you say, once and for all, you introduce the whole movement of time.	15:42 克：对啦！你瞧，当你说“一劳永逸”的时候，你就是在反对这件事了，因为它意味着「时间」。你瞧，这就是我们的困难所在。一个寂静的头脑，那种「寂静」，它并不是“一劳永逸”的。只是你想要它“一劳永逸”。而当你说“一劳永逸”的时候，你就引入了所有「时间的运动」。
16:20 V: Are we in time now, right now?	16:20 瓦雷拉：我们现在处于「时间」中吗，此时此刻？
16:23 K: Of course.	16:23 克：当然了。
16:25 V: Right, so we can only point to what we are not now, since we are in time and you are mentioning something which is out of time, how can we do it except by a pointer in time?	16:25 瓦雷拉：很好，所以我们只能指出 “我们现在不是什么”，因为我们是处于「时间」中的，而你提到了某种超脱于「时间」的事物，然而除了通过“时间的指针”，我们要如何才能做这件事呢？
16:42 K: We are asking whether the brain – the thing that's inside the skull – can ever be quiet, apart from its own rhythm? That's the question we are asking.	16:42 克：我们正在问：大脑 ——也就是这个在头骨里的东西—— 它是否可能安静下来，脱离其自身的节奏？这就是我们在问的问题。
16:56 B: It can.	16:56 伯格斯特龙：它可以。
17:00 H: I think this is important to clarify that perhaps quietness doesn't mean that the brain rhythm has to stop.	17:00 汉克：我认为澄清这一点是很重要的 ——那就是也许「安静」并不意味着大脑的节奏就一定要停止。
17:08 K: I said this. The rhythm goes on.	17:08 克：这个我已经说过了。那种“节奏”仍在持续着。
17:10 V: He is talking about the rhythm of thought, not the rhythm of the brain, which if it stops is dead.	17:10 瓦雷拉：他正在说的是「思想的节奏」，而不是「大脑的节奏」，因为大脑的节奏一旦停止，大脑就死亡了。
17:16 K: No oxygen and there is the end of it.	17:16 克：当大脑没有了氧气，那它就死掉了。
17:19 B: The old St Peter experiment, cut the head, there is no life.	17:19 瓦雷拉：也就是那个古老经典的「圣彼得实验」，它切开了头部，但它里面并没有什么生命。
17:22 B: It is possible for that which is inside – I don't mention the brain – it is possible. We know that thought stops, but nevertheless there are functions going on which are not thought. We call it, in brain research, we call it consciousness. It is just being, or whatever is inside, but not the thought, not the sensation, the sensory, not the perception, not action. That we know quite well, and you know that also, I think.	17:22 伯格斯特龙：对于那个（头骨）里的事物来说 ——我也不提什么“大脑”了—— 这对它来说是可能的。我们都知道思想停止了，然而尽管如此，一些并非属于思想的功能还是在继续运作着。在大脑研究工作中，我们把它称为“意识”。它（意识）只是存在，或者无论它里面是什么东西，但它并不是思想，并不是知觉，并不是感官感觉，并不是感知，也不是行动。我们都很清楚这个，我想你也应该知道它。
18:09 V: We would have to discuss that.	18:09 瓦雷拉：这个我们需要讨论一下才行。
18:14 K: This has been a question not only put now, but in the most ancient days they put this question: can the brain, can that thing, can thought – let's keep it to that – can thought come to an end, stop?	18:14 克：这并不只是一个现在才被提出来的问题，在最古老的时代中，人们就提出了这个问题：那就是：大脑、这个东西、或者说是“思想” ——让我们先用「思想」这个词吧—— 思想能够结束、能够停止吗？
18:36 S: But if we say thought can come to an end, would it be a function of choice? You don't think it would be choice?	18:36 西恩博格：但如果我们说思想是可以结束的，那么它（这种结束）会是一种选择的结果吗？你认为它不会是一种「选择」？
18:44 K: The sun is setting, it is finished. It may come up again tomorrow, but the sun has set.	18:44 克：太阳下山了，然后它就结束了。它也许明天还会再次升起，但（现在）太阳已经落下了。
18:51 S: And that's not an act of choice.	18:51 西恩博格：所以它不是一种「选择」的行为。
18:54 K: No, of course not.	18:54 克：是的，当然不是了。
18:56 V: But it is an event in time.	18:56 瓦雷拉：但它是一个落入于「时间」中的事件。
19:00 K: I question that.	19:00 克：我质疑这一点。
19:02 V: But the sun setting is not in time?	19:02 瓦雷拉：但“太阳落下了”，这难道不是属于时间范畴的吗？
19:04 K: I introduced that, forget the sunset. Silence, quietness, tranquillity, which means the ending of thought, not for a few seconds, but ending. Apart from the ryhthm.	19:04 克：我只是引入了这么个例子，忘掉“日落”吧。寂静、安静、宁静，这意味着「思想的结束」，不是结束几秒钟时间，而是「终结」。脱离了那种「节奏」。
19:32 S: Would you conceive of that as being some sort of event of the brain, or of thought?	19:32 西恩博格：你会把它设想成是某种大脑的事件或者思想的事件吗？
19:38 K: No, look, sir, I am thinking all day long about my problems, my wife, my children, my career, my research, I am at it all day long, and when I go to sleep it is there again going on, all day and all night, ceaselessly. And it is wearing itself out. Now I am just asking can all that movement stop? Stop, not stop for some days, or some hours, stop.	19:38 克：不，你瞧，先生，我一整天都在想着我自己的各种问题，我的妻子、我的孩子，我的职业生涯、我的研究工作，我一整天都在研究考虑这些东西，而当我睡觉以后，在睡梦中，它还是在继续进行着，日日夜夜，永不停息。所以大脑正在损耗殆尽。而现在，我只是在问：所有这些运动，它们可以停止吗？停止，不是停个几天，或者停若干小时，而是「终止」。
20:29 V: It's not my experience.	20:29 瓦雷拉：这并非我的经验。
20:32 K: Why?	20:32 克：为什么？
20:35 V: May I say something at this point please?	20:35 瓦雷拉：请问我可以就这一点说几句吗？
20:38 K: When you say, it is not my experience, then your experience may be very limited.	20:38 克：当你说，这不是我的经验，这说明你的经验或许是非常有限的。
20:47 V: Of course, but that's all I have.	20:47 瓦雷拉：当然了，但这就是我所拥有的一切。
20:51 K: Ah, no.	20:51 克：啊，不是的。
20:54 V: I can hear something when you say thought can stop, I can hear it as a possibility but it remains a mere possibility unless it becomes my experience.	20:54 瓦雷拉：当你说“思想可以停止”时，我可以听出一些东西，我听到了它是可能的，然而除非它能变成我自己的经验，否则它仍旧只是一种「可能性」。
21:07 K: Would you like to learn about it? Would you like to find out?	21:07 克：你想要学习它吗？你想要去发现它吗？
21:10 V: Yes, but can I say something right before? It seems that there is a third middle way, may I say possibility, which is not thought as ceaseless, neither thought as gone, but there is an intermediate possibility which is close to my own investigation, or experience, which is thought as being permeable. In other words, thought at the beginning, it seems that thought is a solid thing, that it never stops. Upon closer investigation, one sees that thought actually has lots of gaps. It is not like a solid veil but it has big holes in it.	21:10 瓦雷拉：是的，但是在这之前，我能先说几句吗？因为似乎还存在着第三条折中的道路，我可以谈谈这种可能性吗 ——也就是：它既不是无休止的思想，也不是思想的消亡，而是存在着一种“中间地带”的可能性，它更加接近我自己的探究或者说是经验，那就是：思想是“有渗透性”的。换句话说：在一开始的时候，思想似乎是一个坚实无空隙的事物，它永远不会停息。但随着更密切的探究，我们看到思想实际上是有许多“缺口”的。它并不像是一道坚实的帷幕，而是在它之上有一些“大孔”。
21:53 K: An interval between thoughts.	21:53 克：也就是思想之间会有「间隔」。
21:56 V: No, it is not just intervals, it is like thought is like little glimmers in a much larger space. It is not just a space, it is not just a thought.	21:56 瓦雷拉：不，它并不只是一些「间隔」，「思想」就像是一个更巨大空间中的一些隐隐闪烁的微光。它并不只是一个「空间」，它也并不只是「思想」。
22:06 K: But it is still the movement of thought.	22:06 克：但它仍旧是思想的运动。
22:08 V: Movement of thought but within a vaster context.	22:08 瓦雷拉：是思想的运动，但它是在一个更为广阔的背景中的。
22:11 K: Yes, it's still thought.	22:11 克：是的，但它仍然是思想。
22:13 V: Yes, but it is in a vaster context which is not the same as ceaseless thought. There is a dramatic change from one to the other. So I want to know whether this is not also part of your experience.	22:13 瓦雷拉：没错，但它是落入于一个更为广阔巨大的背景中的 ——它有别于那种“永无休止的思想”。从这个到另一个，已经有了一种戏剧性的改变。所以我想要知道，这是不是也是你经验的一部分。
22:32 K: I distrust all experience.	22:32 克：我不信任所有的经验。
22:34 V: Including yours?	22:34 瓦雷拉：也包括你自己的经验？
22:35 K: Including mine.	22:35 克：也包括我的。
22:37 S: Including yours?	22:37 西恩博格：也包括你的？
22:38 K: Yes sir, I am very sceptical about my own experiences, because you can get deceived terribly.	22:38 克：是的，先生。我对我自己的那些经验是非常怀疑的，因为你可以被欺骗得很厉害。
22:47 V: So what is the source of the understanding then if it is not your own experience, or my own experience?	22:47 瓦雷拉：那么，你的「了悟」，它源自于什么呢？ ——如果它不是源自于你自己的经验或者我自己的经验？
22:54 K: Let's leave the word experience, that's a complicated word.	22:54 克：让我们先把「经验」这个词放到一边吧，这是一个很复杂的词语。
22:59 V: OK. What would you use instead?	22:59 瓦雷拉：好的。那你会用什么词来代替它呢？
23:02 K: I don't know, we'll find out. We are asking a very simple question, which is very complex: there is the rhythm of the brain inside. You agree to that.	23:02 克：我也不知道，让我们来找到它吧。我们正在问一个非常简单的问题 ——但它同时也是非常复杂的：大脑内部存在着「节奏」。你们都同意这点。
23:18 V: Yes, no problem.	23:18 瓦雷拉：是的，没有问题。
23:19 K: Then there is the rhythm of thought. Can that rhythm, not in a vast consciousness, can that rhythm of thought stop? That's all. Not induced, not cultivated.	23:19 克：然后还存在着「思想的节奏」。那么这种节奏 ——它并不存在于广阔意识中—— 这种「思想的节奏」可以停止吗？仅此而已。这种「停止」并不是通过诱发、通过培养而来的。
23:51 S: Not chosen.	23:51 西恩博格：也不是通过「选择」。
23:53 K: Of course. When you choose there is the activity of desire. So is there a cessation of thought?	23:53 克：当然了。当你选择的时候，就存在着「欲望」的活动。所以思想可以停止吗？
24:08 B: Could it be that it should not be induced, but would there exist the possibility that if I devaluate the thoughts, if I don't give any value to thought, could it be possible that then thought ceases?	24:08 伯格斯特龙：会不会是这样：它不应该是诱发而来的，但有这么一种可能性：那就是如果我降低了思想的价值，如果我不赋予思想任何价值，那时思想是不是就有可能终止了？
24:36 K: How do we investigate into this?	24:36 克：那么我们要如何来探究这件事呢？
24:39 V: Fine. I hear the possibility now.	24:39 瓦雷拉：很好。我现在已经听到了这种可能性。
24:41 K: I don't even know the possibility.	24:41 克：我甚至都不知道这种「可能性」。
24:44 V: Or the question.	24:44 瓦雷拉：或者这个问题。
24:47 K: I just posed that question. Just a minute, see what happens: if I pose a question and you reply to it, and then I reply to your question, and we keep this dialogue going until only the question remains and you and I disappear. You follow? There is only the question, which then has a tremendous vitality. You understand?	24:47 克：我只是提出了这个问题。稍等一下，看看发生了什么：如果我提出了一个问题，然后你回答了它，接着我又回复了你的问题，然后我们让这种对话一直进行下去直到只剩下那个问题为止，而「你」和「我」都消失了。你们跟上了吗？那时只剩下了这个问题，然后这个问题就会具有巨大惊人的活力。你们理解了吗？
25:29 V: Absolutely.	25:29 瓦雷拉：完全理解。
25:30 K: Are we together in this?	25:30 克：我们是否就这一点达成了共识？
25:33 V: Yes.	25:33 瓦雷拉：是的。
25:36 K: That is, we have posed a question: can the rhythm of thought which has been going on from the beginning of one's life until they die, can that rhythm of thought come to an end? You reply and this dialogue goes on. And then you said, in that process only the question remains. You don't answer, I don't answer. Now when the question remains your brain is quiet, because you are not acting, I am not acting, only the question. Right? That's one. And this has been a problem of every human being, to have some quietness inside there, some peace, say, 'For God's sake, stop!'. And they have invented various methods to stop it, control, suppression, agreed?	25:36 克：换句话说：我们已经提出了一个问题：思想的节奏可以停止吗？ ——这种「节奏」从人们出生开始一直持续到人们死去，这种思想的节奏能够终结吗？你会对此作出回答，然后我…… 然后这场对话就会继续下去。然后你会说：在那个过程中，只有问题留下来了。对吧？你并没有回答它，我也没有回答它。然后，当只剩下问题的时候，你的大脑就会安静下来，因为你并没有做出行动，我也没有做出行动，只有那个问题。对吧？这是一点。而这一直以来也是每一个人的问题，那就是要在内心拥有某种「安静」、某种「平静」，他会说， “看在上帝的份上，停下来吧！ ” 于是他们发明出了各种方法去停止它，是这样吧？ ——控制、压抑，你们同意吗？
27:22 V: It seems that history records many attempts to do this.	27:22 瓦雷拉：历史上似乎记录了很多这样的努力尝试。
27:25 K: Many systems, many methods to say, for God's sake let me have some peace, so that my brain – the thing – is quiet apart from its own rhythm.	27:25 克：有很多的体系、很多的方法，人们说：看在上帝的份上，让我拥有一些「平静」吧，由此我的大脑——这个东西—— 它就可以安静下来，脱离它自身的节奏。
27:41 H: But why does the brain do that? This chattering, why did it fall into that from the very start?	27:41 汉克：但为什么大脑要这么做呢？这种喋喋不休，为什么它从一开始就会出现在大脑身上呢？
27:51 K: I don't understand.	27:51 克：我不太理解你的意思。
27:53 V: Why does it have to be so full of itself?	27:53 瓦雷拉：为什么大脑一定要如此关心烦恼自己的事情呢？
27:59 K: From childhood, we have been trained that way, we have been educated, all education is work, work, work, learn, learn.	27:59 克：因为从小开始，我们就一直是这样被培养训练的，我们一直被这样教育，所有的教育都是工作、工作，再工作，学习再学习。
28:09 H: You mean it has been conditioned that way?	28:09 汉克：你的意思是它一直有着这种制约？
28:12 K: Yes, of course.	28:12 克：是的，当然了。
28:27 V: It doesn't seem complete to put only the two alternatives of either having thought going or stopping it. There is again the middle way possibility of not stopping thought but making so much room for it that it's not bothersome anymore.	28:27 瓦雷拉：只给出这两个选项似乎并不完整 ——说要么让思想一直活动，要么就停止它。其实还是存在着一种 “折中方案”的可能性的 ——那就是不去停止思想，而是给予它一个很大的空间，那时它就不再是个麻烦了。
28:49 K: But it is still thought moving.	28:49 克：但那仍旧是思想……在运行。
28:50 V: Yes, but this is like having a very wild animal, a wild monkey in a small room. That is very bothersome and very complicated, but if the same monkey gets in a large field, it's fine, it doesn't bother anybody. It does what it does, it's monkey business.	28:50 瓦雷拉：是的，但是这就像是让一只非常狂野的动物 ——比如一只野猴子——待在一间小屋里。那时这只猴子就会变成一个大麻烦，它会变得非常复杂多变，但如果同样的这只猴子被放到了一个较大的场地中，那就没什么问题了，那时它就不会去烦扰任何人。猴子会去做它该做的事，这就是猴子的把戏。
29:07 K: Yes, but still give it any amount of space it is still the activity of thought.	29:07 克：是的，但它仍旧是…… 无论你给它多少的空间，它仍然是思想的活动。
29:14 V: Yes, it is still a monkey running around. But it doesn't bother anybody.	29:14 瓦雷拉：是的，它仍然是一只到处乱窜的猴子。但那时它不会去烦扰任何人了。
29:19 K: It is not a question of bother.	29:19 克：这并不是一个关于“烦扰”的问题。
29:21 V: No, but you say, I want some peace. Or men have said, give me some peace.	29:21 瓦雷拉：它是的，因为你说 “我想要一些平静”。或者人们曾经说过：给我一些平静吧。
29:28 K: People have asked this question thousands of years ago, saying can thought, however much it may have space, in that space, be silent.	29:28 克：人们在数千年前就已经问过这个问题了，人们问：思想是否能够…… ——不管它或许拥有多大的空间—— 在那个空间里，思想能否变得「寂静」？
29:46 S: Krishnaji, it could be that the very reason that people experience so much noise is because they're looking for it to be peaceful. In other words, if you take his position, to have a dialogue here with the question, the fact of the matter is that if you give it plenty of space you don't experience the desire to have that peace. That the people that experience 'give me that quiet peace' are people who are searching.	29:46 西恩博格：克里希那吉，事情可能是这样的：人们之所以会经历如此多的「嘈杂」，是因为他们正在寻求让大脑平静下来。换句话说：如果你站在他的立场上，在这里进行一场对话来讨论这个问题，那么实际情况就是：如果你给予大脑足够大的空间，你就不会再渴望拥有那种「平静」了。那些有“给我那种安宁的平静”想法的人就是那些正在寻找（空间）的人。
30:20 K: Are you saying, because I live in a city, in a drawer, various drawers, I want space and therefore that is my desire?	30:20 克：你是在说：由于我生活在城市里，生活在如“抽屉”般的公寓楼里，各种类型的“抽屉”，所以我想要有「空间」，因此我就有了这种渴望？
30:41 S: Yes. Your relationship inside your thought process that is the matter, not the fact that you have thought. You're so busy trying to get out of thought that you're cramped.	30:41 西恩博格：是的。你思想过程中的内在关系 ——这才是要紧的东西，而不是“你有思想”这个事实。而你却如此忙碌于努力去摆脱掉约束着你的思想。
30:53 K: If you are in the country, not in a city's drawer, you then say, my God, how beautiful all this is. You revel in it, you say, God, it is beautiful.	30:53 克：如果你是生活在乡村，而不是生活在城市的“抽屉”里，那么你就会说：我的天哪，所有这一切是多么的美丽。你会陶醉其中，你会说：上帝啊，它真美。
31:10 S: In some way, yes.	31:10 西恩博格：从某种程度上来说，是这样的。
31:11 K: But thought is still going on. That is all my point.	31:11 克：然而思想仍旧在运作着。这就是我要说的重点。
31:18 V: No, but you raised the question of stopping thought and that question was, and you yourself implied it and I agree: it has a motivation which is the desire to be free from that slavery. So we're raising the possibility that to be free from that slavery, maybe it's not necessary to stop thought but simply to give it space and maybe then that state of mystery can be equally attended.	31:18 瓦雷拉：不，但你提出了那个关于“停止思想”的问题，而那个问题就是你自己在其中暗示了它，而我也同意了：那就是它有一个动机：它渴望获得自由，摆脱掉束缚奴役。于是我们提出了这种可能性：那就是要摆脱掉这种奴役束缚，也许并不一定需要停止思想，而只需要给予它一些空间，这样的话，我们或许同样也能达到那种「不可思议的状态」。
31:47 K: Would you say thought is a material process?	31:47 克：你会认为「思想」是一个物质化的过程吗？
31:51 S: What does that mean?	31:51 西恩博格：你这话是什么意思？
31:53 K: I don't have to tell you that.	31:53 克：这不用我来告诉你们吧。
31:56 V: I am afraid I would have to ask you that because in some sense it is and in some sense it is not. In the same way that the image on the television screen, is that image a material process? It is, because it needs those little chips to work, but it is not, because it is a relationship.	31:56 瓦雷拉：这个我恐怕必须要问你一下了，因为从某种意义上说它是，从某种意义上说它并不是。同样的道理，对于电视屏幕上的影像来说，这种影像是一个物质化的过程吗？它肯定是，因为它需要那些小芯片才能工作，但同时它又不是，因为它是一种「关系」。
32:16 K: Agreed, but it is still a material process.	32:16 克：我同意，但这仍旧是一种物质化的过程。
32:18 S: Yes, but it's a relationship. What's more important, a relationship or material process?	32:18 西恩博格：是的，但它是一种「关系」。哪个更重要呢？是「关系」还是「物质化的过程」？
32:26 K: No, I'm not saying relationship, I'm just stating something. I'm not saying, what is the relationship, etc.	32:26 克：不，我并没有在说「关系」，我只是陈述了一些事实。我并没有在说：那种「关系」是什么等等这些。
32:33 V: If you just put the question so bluntly no, it is not a material process.	32:33 瓦雷拉：如果你只是如此单刀直入地提出这个问题，那我会说“不”，它并不是物质化的过程。
32:37 K: All right, let's put it more softly. He doesn't want it bluntly, so let's soften it.	32:37 克：好吧，那就让我们更委婉地提出这个问题吧。他并不想要那么“单刀直入”，所以让我们说得委婉一点吧。
32:53 S: How do you want to put it softly?	32:53 西恩博格：你想要怎么样来把它说得委婉一点呢？
32:57 K: What is thought?	32:57 克：什么是「思想」？
33:00 S: It's a relationship.	33:00 西恩博格：它是一种「关系」。
33:02 K: With what?	33:02 克：和什么东西的关系？
33:04 S: It's a relationship, like we were saying the other day, it is imminent in the fact of your existence as a human being on this earth. It emerges out of that.	33:04 西恩博格：它是一种关系，就像我们前几天所说的，作为地球上人类的一员，在你自身「存在」的事实之中必然很快会出现「关系」，关系就是从这之中产生出来的。
33:17 K: All right. The human being, what is he?	33:17 克：好吧。那么人类，他又是什么呢？
33:22 S: He is a relationship in the sense that he is a form that has taken place in all of this energy.	33:22 西恩博格：他就是「关系」，这么说的意思是：人类是在所有这些能量中形成的一种存在形式。
33:29 K: You want to discuss relationship?	33:29 克：所以你想要来讨论一下「关系」吗？
33:31 S: You can't discuss thought without discussing relationship. You have to discuss relationship when you discuss thought.	33:31 西恩博格：不讨论「关系」，你就无法去讨论「思想」。当你讨论「思想」的时候，你必须也要讨论一下「关系」。
33:38 K: Yes, sir. Let's discuss relationship. What is relationship? What do you mean by that word? To be related. I am related to my brother, my father, my mother, my wife, my children. I am related to the world.	33:38 克：是的，先生。那就让我们来讨论下「关系」吧。什么是「关系」？你所说的「关系」这个词是什么意思呢？和某事物产生关系。我和我的兄弟有关系，我和我的父亲、母亲、妻子、孩子有关系。我和这个世界有关系。
34:00 S: To the trees.	34:00 西恩博格：和树木有关系。
34:02 K: Nature.	34:02 克：也就是和大自然（有关系）。
34:03 S: You are not related, you express the relationship by the virtue of your presence. No, I am talking at a very basic level.	34:03 西恩博格：并不是你和某事物产生关系，而是你凭借你的「存在」表达出了那种「关系」。不，我是在非常基础的层面上谈论它。
34:15 K: Yes, so am I. So, are we related to nature?	34:15 克：是的，我也一样。那么，我们是否和大自然产生关系了呢？
34:21 S: By definition yes.	34:21 西恩博格：从（关系的）定义来说，是的。
34:23 K: By definition, I don't mean definition, it has no meaning. When you see that tree in all those marvellous fields, and flowers, and the animals, are you related to it?	34:23 克：从定义来说——我指的不是「定义」，定义并没有什么意义。当你看到美好的田野里的那棵树，还有那些花儿，以及各种动物时，你和它产生关系了吗？
34:35 S: Actually, yes. You are in actual connection to everything around you.	34:35 西恩博格：事实上是有关系的。实际上你和周遭的一切事物都是相关联的。
34:40 K: Are you? Sir, don't let's quibble.	34:40 克：你是这样的吗？先生，让我们不要诡辩。
34:43 S: No, I mean actually.	34:43 西恩博格：我没有，我说的是事实。
34:45 K: That means what? That you will not kill anything.	34:45 克：这意味着什么呢？那时你就不会去杀死任何东西了。
34:54 S: That doesn't necessarily mean that.	34:54 西恩博格：它不一定意味着这个。
34:57 K: Oh yes, if you kill that you kill yourself.	34:57 克：噢，它就是如此，如果你杀死了那个东西，就等于杀死了你自己。
35:00 S: Yes, but the fox is in relationship to the rabbit.	35:00 西恩博格：是的，但狐狸和兔子是有关系的。
35:03 K: Yes, but it kills the rabbit.	35:03 克：是的，可它会去猎杀兔子。
35:04 S: Yes, and it's in relationship to it.	35:04 西恩博格：对啊，但狐狸和兔子还是有关系的。
35:07 K: So you kill the fox.	35:07 克：所以你会去杀死那只狐狸。
35:08 S: That's right.	35:08 西恩博格：没错。
35:10 K: And somebody else kills you.	35:10 克：然后别人会把你杀死。
35:12 V: That seems to be the way of nature's relationship.	35:12 瓦雷拉：自然界的关系似乎就是如此。
35:16 K: Just a minute.	35:16 克：稍等一下。
35:17 V: Love and death.	35:17 瓦雷拉：爱与死亡。
35:18 K: This is the accepted way of living.	35:18 克：这是人们所接受认可的生活方式。
35:20 S: Yes, but that's built into nature.	35:20 西恩博格：没错，但这种生活方式已经镌刻在自然规律中了。
35:22 K: Just a minute, sir. I know this game, I have played this game. I know all this.	35:22 克：等一下，先生。我知道这个游戏，我也曾玩过这个游戏。这一切我清楚得很。
35:33 H: But are we not going a little bit away from the main point?	35:33 汉克：但我们是不是有点偏离主题了？
35:36 Dr Peat: There seems to be tremendous resistance. We asked can thought stop, can there be an end to it, and we won't go into the question. We want to go around, in different directions and nobody seems to want to stay with the question.	35:36 皮特博士：这里似乎有一种巨大的抵抗。我们问：思想能否停止？它是否可能结束？但我们并没有进入这个问题。我们想要兜圈子，往不同的方向上讨论，似乎没有人想要留在这个问题上。
35:51 V: No, I want to stay with the question but I want also to see that the entire question is dealt with, which is the possibility of thought continuing, the possibility of thought stopping, and the possibility of thought having so much space that it doesn't create the problems that we find it normally is creating. I would like the three possibilities to be considered and not discard one off hand.	35:51 瓦雷拉：不，我想要留在这个问题上，但我同样也想要看到整个问题被加以处理，那就是“思想延续”的可能性， “思想停止”的可能性，以及“思想拥有足够大空间”的可能性，由此思想就不会再像我们平常所看到的那样制造出问题了。我想要去考虑这三种可能性，而不是轻易舍弃任何一个。
36:16 S: And therefore relationship becomes an issue.	36:16 西恩博格：所以「关系」就变成了一个议题。
36:21 K: Now which shall we take?	36:21 克：那么现在，我们要来处理哪一个呢？
36:24 S: I don't know, what do you think? What would you consider an intelligent way to approach this issue? Since we've said that we want to consider all aspects of thought, and we've said thought is relationship, what is the intelligent way to proceed, given this fact?	36:24 西恩博格：我不知道，你觉得呢？你认为什么才是处理这个议题的最明智的方式？因为我们已经说了：我们想要去考虑一下「思想」的所有方面，而我们已经说了：思想就是关系，鉴于这一事实，进一步探讨下去的明智方式是什么呢？
36:44 K: I don't know.	36:44 克：我也不知道。
36:46 S: That's why we're here.	36:46 西恩博格：这就是我们来这里的原因。
36:50 P: I don't think we've quite come here to ask somebody to give us the answers.	36:50 皮特：我认为我们来到这里，并不是为了让某人告诉我们答案。
36:55 K: What is the question? Let's go step by step. First question, what is the question, desire? I'm asking. Is it desire? Is it space? Thought being contained in a small space? If it has vast space there would be no problem? Does space prevent thought from having problems?	36:55 克：那么问题是什么呢？让我们一步一步地来吧。第一个问题：问题是什么，是「欲望」吗？我还在问呢。是欲望吗？是空间吗？是那个在狭小空间里的「思想」吗？如果思想能拥有广阔的空间，我们就不会有问题了吗？「空间」能够防止思想产生各种问题吗？
37:43 V: That's a perfectly valid question.	37:43 瓦雷拉：这绝对是个合理有效的问题。
37:46 K: You are saying yes?	37:46 克：你的意思是说：它可以？
37:48 V: I am saying yes because that is something that I can explore and it is part of my experience. Thought stopping is foreign to my experience.	37:48 瓦雷拉：我之所以说“可以”，是因为它是某种我可以去探索的东西，它是我经验的一部分。而“思想停止”这种经验对我来说是陌生的。
38:00 K: Forget the stopping. Throw it overboard for the moment.	38:00 克：忘掉“思想停止”吧。暂时先把它扔到九霄云外去。
38:06 V: If I may say so, I would not like to throw it away because I am interested in learning something which is not available to me.	38:06 瓦雷拉：如果允许我这么说的话，我并不想要把它扔掉，因为我所感兴趣的是能够学习一些我所没有的东西。
38:14 K: We'll come to that presently. We said just before, yesterday and the other day, that thought is limited. It can have vast space, it is still limited.	38:14 克：我们很快就会来探讨它的。我们之前说过……昨天和前几天的时候，我们说：思想是局限的。尽管它可以拥有巨大广阔的空间，但它仍旧是局限的。
38:35 V: Yes, the monkey will still be a monkey.	38:35 瓦雷拉：是的，那只猴子仍旧是猴子。
38:37 K: It's well known, this monkey business.	38:37 克：大家都知道这种猴子的把戏。
38:42 V: Agreed.	38:42 瓦雷拉：我同意。
38:44 K: Next question: it is still the monkey, then what is the next question? You said there are three possibilities.	38:44 克：下一个问题就是：它仍然是只猴子，那接下来的问题又是什么呢？你之前说存在着三种可能性。
38:54 V: The three possibilities to me have to do with the fact that when I discover that I can relate or see the monkey's action in a vaster space...	38:54 瓦雷拉：对我而言，这三种可能性必须要与以下事实相关联才行：那就是当我发现我可以联想或看到猴子在一个更广阔空间中的行为时
39:10 K: It is still the monkey.	39:10 克：可它仍旧是猴子。
39:12 V: ...but the space around it has a completely new quality.	39:12 瓦雷拉：……但是它周围的空间已经具有了一种完全崭新的品质。
39:16 K: Yes, but it still remains the monkey.	39:16 克：是的，但它仍旧只是一只猴子。
39:20 V: The monkey does, but not the space around the monkey. That's new.	39:20 瓦雷拉：猴子的确还是猴子，但猴子周围的空间发生了变化。它是全新的空间。
39:26 P: Are you saying that you can control thought? You can put thought in a place.	39:26 皮特：你是不是在说你可以控制思想？你可以把思想放在一个地方。
39:30 V: Precisely not. This is what I'm not saying.	39:30 瓦雷拉：完全不是。我说的并不是这个。
39:33 S: But you have enough space.	39:33 皮特：但你说拥有足够大的空间。
39:34 V: Listen to me for a moment. Precisely, stopping, to me, is the synonym of control. Instead, if I take this wild animal which is uncontrolled thought, and not throw it away, and not hit it on the head and try to kill it, but simply make room for it, then by itself the wild monkey in a big field simply goes to sleep.	39:34 瓦雷拉：请先听我讲一下。确切地说，对我而言， “停止”其实是“控制”的同义词。但如果我不这么做，而是将这只野生动物 ——也就是这种不受控制的思想，不是将它丢弃，不是把它打得头破血流，试图去杀掉它。而只是为它腾出空间，那么它自己这只在广阔场地中的野猴子就只会睡过去了。
39:57 B: You think there is enough room in the universe for thought?	39:57 伯格斯特龙：你是认为宇宙中存在着足够多的、为思想预留的空间？
40:00 V: That is precisely my point, it seems to be that in human experience it is possible to grow infinitely. That this space, it can grow infinitely.	40:00 瓦雷拉：这正是我的重点，在人类的经验中，它（空间）似乎有可能无限地增长。这种「空间」，它可以无限地增加。
40:14 K: Grow? I question that. What is it to grow infinitely? What is growing?	40:14 克：它可以增加？我很怀疑这点。是什么东西在无限地增加？是什么东西在增长？
40:21 V: That which is around thought.	40:21 瓦雷拉：「思想」周围的东西。
40:24 K: The space. Space can go on.	40:24 克：也就是「空间」。「空间」是可以持续增加的。
40:28 V: I'm not talking about the literal physical space. I'm talking of that which is where thought lives, the space around thought.	40:28 瓦雷拉：我说的并不是字面意义上的外在物理上的空间。我说的是「思想」所生活于其中的那个区域，也就是思想周围的空间。
40:37 K: You see where he is leading to.	40:37 克：你瞧他都把话题带到哪里去了。伯格斯特龙：我不是很理解它。
40:39 B: I don't understand it.	40:39 西恩博格：它很有趣。
40:41 S: It's interesting.	40:41 克：它只是一种猜测。
40:43 K: It's speculative.	40:43 西恩博格：唔，那你说“思想可以停止”，这也是一种猜测了。
40:44 S: Well, it's speculative to say thought can stop too.	40:44 克：不，我只是提出了一个问题。
40:48 K: No, I am asking a question.	40:48 瓦雷拉：它之所以是猜测，只是由于
40:52 V: It is speculative only to the extent that one is not willing to see the source of the observation. The source of the observation is to remain in silence and see how thought moves.	40:52 我们不愿去看那个观察的源头。那个观察的源头仍旧存在于寂静之中，它在观察着思想是如何运动的。
41:03 K: I don't quite follow all this, sorry.	41:03 克：抱歉，我不是很理解这一切。
41:06 S: I think Krishnaji was having issue there because he wouldn't say, at least I have never heard you say in our previous discussions, he would say staying in silence is an act of control. In other words, to stay in silence implies that I am going to think my way into silence. That's just another form of control too.	41:06 西恩博格：我认为在这里，克里希那吉有一个问题，因为他并不会说 ——至少在我们过往的讨论中，我从来没有听你说过他没有说过：停留在寂静中其实是一种控制的行为。换句话说，停留在寂静中，暗示着我要去思考一下进入这种“寂静”的方式。但这同样也只是另一种形式的「控制」。
41:27 K: The observer is the observed.	41:27 克：观察者就是被观察物。
41:31 S: That's a real dilemma.	41:31 西恩博格：这真是一个困境。
41:33 V: I'm lost now.	41:33 瓦雷拉：我现在也有点困惑了。
41:37 P: Say that all these actions begin with some sense of desire, or a goal, or some sense of control, and if you begin with control, can you control thought? Either by giving it a lot of space, or by controlling it, by trying to stop it. I guess we're saying that doesn't seem possible, to begin that way.	41:37 皮特：可以说，所有这些行为都始于某种欲望、某个目的，或者某种控制感，如果你是从「控制」开始，那你能够控制思想吗？你要么是通过给予它极大的空间来控制它，要么是通过试图让它停止来控制它。我猜我们在说的是：以那样的方式开始似乎是不太可行的。
42:01 K: Sir, you used the word space. I can go to the Himalayas and there is immense space. I have been to one spot in the north where you see three hundred and fifty miles of snow. Tremendous. But the monkey is still there. That's all I am saying.	42:01 克：先生，你使用了“空间”这个词。我可以去喜马拉雅山，那里有着巨大的空间。我曾经去过喜马拉雅山上的某个地方，它位于印度的北部，在那里，你可以看到绵延三百五十英里的皑皑白雪。风景巍峨壮观。但那只“猴子”仍旧在那里。这就是所有我想说的东西。
42:39 V: I'm not disagreeing with that.	42:39 瓦雷拉：这点我并不反对。
42:42 K: And that space doesn't affect the monkey.	42:42 克：所以那种“空间”并未影响到那只猴子。
42:45 V: Oh, yes it does.	42:45 瓦雷拉：噢，它还是有所影响的。
42:46 K: Somewhat.	42:46 克：稍微有点儿影响。
42:48 V: It makes it tame and it usually just takes a nap, goes to sleep. It's like a monkey in a small cage is all neurotic but once it has all the jungle for it, it's a happy monkey.	42:48 瓦雷拉：它让那只“猴子”变得驯服了，猴子通常会打个盹，然后睡去。这就像是当猴子被关在一个小笼子里时，它就会变得非常神经质。然而一旦它被放到了整片丛林中，它就会变成一只快活的猴子了。
43:03 B: Not always.	43:03 伯格斯特龙：情况并不总是如此。
43:05 K: This isn't quite accurate, because you give man any amount of space, any amount, both physically, are you talking physical space?	43:05 克：这么说并不是太准确，因为无论你给一个人多大的空间，无论多大，既包括外在物理上的空间你说的是外在物理上的空间吗？
43:18 V: No.	43:18 瓦雷拉：不是。
43:19 K: Psychological space, inward space. Inward space.	43:19 克：那就是心理上的空间，内在的空间。内心的空间。
43:32 K: Who creates it?	43:32 克：那么是谁创造出了它（空间）？
43:33 V: Nobody.	43:33 瓦雷拉：没有人。
43:35 K: Then how does it come about?	43:35 克：那它是如何产生的呢？
43:38 V: It doesn't come about.	43:38 瓦雷拉：它并不是“产生”出来的。
43:41 K: Then human beings haven't got that space.	43:41 克：那么只能说人类还未拥有这种“空间”。
43:45 V: They have it, it's a matter of paying attention to it, of making yourself available to it. It's not that you create it.	43:45 瓦雷拉：人们拥有它，这只是一件关乎你是否注意到它， “你是否能让自己接收适应它”的事情。而不是你创造出了它。
43:52 K: Available to space.	43:52 克：能接收适应那个空间。
43:54 V: Yes, available to the gaps.	43:54 瓦雷拉：是的，能接收适应那些“缺口”。
43:57 K: Which means what?	43:57 克：那么这意味着什么呢？
43:59 V: Which means not speeding so much so that I don't see that they are there all the time.	43:59 瓦雷拉：这意味着不要过分快速前进，因为这样我就看不到它们其实一直就在那里。
44:06 K: Which means, would you say for the skull to have space there must be no self?	44:06 克：它意味着……你是否认为要让那个脑袋拥有「空间」，我们就必须没有「自我」？
44:17 V: Yes.	44:17 瓦雷拉：是的。
44:18 K: That's all.	44:18 克：就是这样。
44:19 V: I agree.	44:19 瓦雷拉：我同意这一点。伯格斯特龙：这种说法更好。
44:22 B: That's better.	44:22 克：这意味着那个「自我」是局限的，
44:26 K: That means the self is limited, there should be no activity of the self, no deception – saying, 'I have no self', but hiding there. Then the monkey doesn't exist.	44:26 我们不应该有自我的活动，不应该有欺骗 ——说什么，“我已经没有自我了”，然而却把自我藏在暗处。而那时，“猴子”就不存在了。
44:51 V: Well, this is again where I don't see it. It continues to exist.	44:51 瓦雷拉：唉，这里又是我不太明白的地方。它还是会继续存在吧。
44:57 K: Of course I exist, but the self I am talking about. The 'me', both the physical, psychological, all the me, memory, this vast bundle of memories which is me, if that bundle of memory ceases, then there is infinite space, that's all.	44:57 克：当然了，我这个人还存在着，但我说的是那个“自我”。这个“我”——它既包括外在身体上的“我”，也包括心理上的“我”，所有这些都是“我”，那些记忆，那一大堆的记忆——它就是“我”，如果那一大堆记忆止息了，那么就会有无限的空间了，就是这样。
45:27 S: Where is the monkey now?	45:27 西恩博格：那么这只“猴子” 现在在哪里呢？
45:29 K: There is no monkey.	45:29 克：现在没有猴子了。
45:31 V: Well, this is what I don't see. The monkey is still there, it's just in a bigger space.	45:31 瓦雷拉：唔，这就是我不明白的地方。（我认为）那只猴子仍旧在那里，它只是身处于一个更大的空间中罢了。
45:35 K: Let's define it. You mean the monkey as the body?	45:35 克：让我们先来定义下它吧。你所说的“猴子”指的是这副身体吗？
45:39 V: The monkey as the self, the monkey as the body, as the thought, as the memories, as the sense of I have a wife, etc.	45:39 瓦雷拉：“猴子”指的是「自我」，这只“猴子”就是身体、就是思想、就是记忆，就是那种“我拥有一位妻子”的感觉，等等。
45:46 K: We said that. We said memory, thought, experience, knowledge is limited. Therefore give him any amount of space inwardly it is still limited.	45:46 克：这个我们说过了。我们说记忆、思想、经验、知识，它们都是有限的。因此，无论你给予他多大的空间，内在而言，它仍旧是局限的。
46:03 V: One thing is that it is limited, the other thing is that, in its limitation, it is now tame so that it is not the source or the cause of further trouble.	46:03 瓦雷拉：一方面，它是局限的，而另一方面：尽管它是局限的，但它现在已经被驯服了。由此它不再是造成更多麻烦的源头或者说原因了。
46:13 K: But it is still limited. That's all.	46:13 克：但它仍然是局限的。就是这样。
46:17 V: OK. Sometimes I don't know what you mean by 'that's all'.	46:17 瓦雷拉：好吧，但有时候我不太理解你说“就是这样”是什么意思。
46:25 K: I mean: it may somehow create, or bring about, or exist, or live in that space. And I say, in that space, however wide, however extensive, however deep, the monkey, the self is still there. You agree to that?	46:25 克：我的意思是：它也许会以某种方式去创造或者带来一些东西、或者存在着、或者生活在那个“空间”中。而我说的是：在那个“空间”里，不管那个空间是多么宽广、多么广阔、多么深不可测，那只“猴子”，那个自我，它仍旧会在那儿。你们同意这点吗？
46:55 V: That's fine.	46:55 瓦雷拉：很对。
46:57 K: That's all.	46:57 克：就是这样。
46:58 V: We are in agreement.	46:58 瓦雷拉：我们达成共识了。
47:01 S: That's an agreement, the monkey is there.	47:01 西恩博格：这是一个共识：也就是 “猴子”在那里。
47:04 K: The monkey is still there. I know all the tricks of the monkey.	47:04 克：猴子仍旧在那里。我知道这只猴子所有的把戏。
47:13 V: It doesn't matter.	47:13 瓦雷拉：但这不重要。
47:15 K: No, I know all the tricks. I have watched the monkey operating at various levels, it is still the monkey. What is the next question? If the monkey is very satisfied, says, I've got a lot of space, I'm happy, I'm wiggling my tail and I'm related to everything and blah, blah, blah, you see, that's the end of it.	47:15 克：不，我清楚它所有的把戏。我已经观察过了这只“猴子” 在不同层面上的运作，但它仍旧是只猴子。那么接下来的问题是什么呢？如果那只“猴子”心满意足，说：我有了足够大的空间，我很满意了，我可以摇摇我的尾巴，我可以和大家交流联系，等等这些，你瞧，那这事儿就结束了。
47:46 V: Fine. So the next question that I would ask myself is: that seems to be the fruition of a process of cultivation which I need to start from where I am, which is the monkey in a small space, to cultivate the larger space.	47:46 瓦雷拉：很好。所以下一个我想要问自己的问题就是：这看起来像是那种培养的过程所带来的成果，我需要从我所身处的地方开始，也就是：那只“猴子”本来在一个狭小的空间里，然后“培养出”更大的空间。
48:07 K: Now can the space – it comes to the same thing – can that space be cultivated?	48:07 克：那么这个“空间”，它可以…… ——又回到了同样的问题—— 那个“空间”可以被培养吗？
48:12 V: The space itself, no. My attitude to it, yes.	48:12 瓦雷拉：那个空间本身是不能被培养的。但我对它（空间）的态度是可以被培养的。
48:17 S: I don't understand you.	48:17 西恩博格：我不理解你的意思。
48:18 V: Well, can I put an example. I can say for example – just a metaphor – if I close the curtains of this room it doesn't mean that there is no sky. I have to have an attitude to open up the curtains, and say oh, there is sky. So, it's not that I cultivate sky, I cultivate my attitude to make myself available to the perception of sky. It is the same sort of phenomenon.	48:18 瓦雷拉：唔，我可以举个例子吗？我想说……比方说 ——这只是个隐喻—— 如果我拉上了这个房间的窗帘，这并不意味着「天空」就没有了。这时我必须要有一种态度，那就是去拉开房间的窗帘，然后我就会说：噢，天空就在眼前。所以，并不是我“培养出了”天空，我只是培养了我的态度，让我自己能够感知到天空。这是同一种现象。
48:46 K: I have an attitude that war is ugly, brutal. I have an attitude. But I go on killing.	48:46 克：我有一种态度：认为战争是丑陋的、野蛮的。我有这种态度。但我仍然在杀戮。
48:58 V: It's a possibility. Or the attitude might bring me to say, I won't kill anymore.	48:58 瓦雷拉：有这种可能。或者那种态度也许会让我说：我不会再杀戮了。
49:06 K: It is not an attitude. What do you mean by attitude?	49:06 克：那这就不是一种「态度」了。你所说的“态度”是什么意思呢？
49:10 B: I wanted to ask what are they? Do attitudes have something to do with values? Attitudes, I can change.	49:10 伯格斯特龙：我想要问一下，它们是什么呢？「态度」是否和价值观有某些关系？态度，我可以改变它。
49:24 K: I am just asking, how does the monkey create space for itself?	49:24 克：我只是在问：猴子又怎么可能为自己创造出空间呢？
49:35 V: That is a great question. Let's examine that.	49:35 瓦雷拉：这是一个很重要的问题。让我们一起来检视它吧。
49:40 K: I put that question, and what do you do with that question?	49:40 克：我只是提出了这个问题，那么你们要怎么处理这个问题呢？
49:46 B: It needs a change.	49:46 伯格斯特龙：它需要一种改变。克：东拉西扯吗？
49:48 K: Kick it around? Put it this way, that way, and the other way, but the question still remains.	49:48 把它换成这种说法、那种说法，或者其他说法，然而那个问题仍旧存在着。
49:56 V: How about trying different ways?	49:56 瓦雷拉：那不妨尝试一下不同的方式？
50:01 K: You have tried it ten different ways this morning. I can see what we have done. You have kicked the monkey from corner to corner, in the same field. So, what is the next question: can the monkey create the space for itself? Which means, the monkey has to end, not as a physical monkey, but the whole inward structure, inward state, right? I'm putting it quickly. You can expand it, kick it around. We'll come back to the same thing. Can the monkey create its own space?	50:01 克：你们今天早上已经尝试过十种不同的方式了。我可以看到我们已经做过的尝试。你们把这只“猴子”从这个角落踢到另一个角落，但却还是在同一片场地中。所以，接下来的问题是什么呢：那只猴子可以为自己创造出空间吗？这意味着：那只“猴子”必须结束，不是外在身体层面的“猴子”，而是整个内心的结构，内在的状态，对吧？我表述得很快。而你会将其扩展，然后东拉西扯一下。但我们还是会回到同样的问题上。那只猴子可以创造出其自身的空间吗？
51:04 S: The question that comes up there is: the monkey is caught in the self, the monkey makes small space.	51:04 西恩博格：这里出现的问题就是：那只猴子深陷于「自我」之中，那只猴子造成了狭小的空间。
51:15 K: The monkey wherever it is, it will make a small space.	51:15 克：无论那只猴子在哪里，它都会造成狭小的空间。
51:19 S: Now, that monkey is in this small space. It seems to me that there is some understanding of seeing that small space that dissolves it.	51:19 西恩博格：现在来看，这只猴子身处于这个狭小的空间中。而在我看来，似乎存在这样一种认知：那就是当它看到这个狭小的空间，这种看清本身就可以消解掉这个空间。
51:38 K: Now wait, keep to that one statement: when the monkey realises, sees, perceives, pays attention, whatever word you like to use, that itself, whatever it does, is still limited – agreed? Whatever it does, prays to God, goes to science, whatever it does it is still the monkey, so it cannot create space.	51:38 克：现在，先等等，让我们先围绕着这一个观点来看：那只猴子意识到、看到、察觉到、注意到了这一点 ——无论你喜欢用什么词语—— 那就是无论它做了什么，它本身仍旧是局限的 ——这点你们同意吗？无论它做什么：向上帝祈祷，去研究科学，不管它做了什么，它都仍旧只是猴子，所以它是无法创造出「空间」的。
52:08 S: No, right.	52:08 西恩博格：是的，没错。
52:11 V: At that moment it makes itself available to it though.	52:11 瓦雷拉：然而在那一刻，它让自己接收适应了它（空间）。
52:14 K: No, when you say available, it is still the monkey.	52:14 克：不，当你说“接收适应”的时候，它仍然是只“猴子”。
52:20 V: The monkey, up until the point at which he actually lets go of his being the monkey.	52:20 瓦雷拉：是猴子没错，但当他能够真正地抛弃猴子身份的时候，他就不再是猴子了。
52:28 K: Wait, that's the whole point.	52:28 克：等一下，这就是全部的重点。
52:30 V: He has to be the monkey, make himself available to drop it before he can actually drop it.	52:30 瓦雷拉：在他可以真正地抛弃掉猴子身份之前，他必须是只猴子才行，由此才能让自己可以抛弃掉这种身份。
52:36 K: He is still the monkey, whether he can drop it or not, right? It cannot create space. Agree to that?	52:36 克：但不管他能否抛弃掉这种身份，他依旧是只猴子，对吧？它是无法创造出「空间」的。你们同意这点吗？
52:53 V: I'm sorry, but it's like going back to David's point, the monkey, to be a monkey, has to be very smart, to create all of the illusions of its own enclosure, it has to be very smart. That intelligence is so intelligent that he can also see his own trapping.	52:53 瓦雷拉：很抱歉，但这好像又回到了大卫的观点，那只猴子，作为一只猴子，它必须是非常聪明的，它能创造出所有自我封闭的错觉幻想，所以它必须要非常聪明才行。而那种智力是如此的聪慧，以至于他同样也能够看清他自身的陷阱。
53:11 K: We've said that.	53:11 克：我们已经说过这个了。
53:12 V: But that is precisely the interesting thing: that this intelligence is two sided. On the one hand, it can create this confusion and on the other hand it can see itself. But when it sees itself, it is in some sense limited, but nevertheless in some sense its own creation, its own undoing.	53:12 瓦雷拉：但这正是有趣之处：那就是：这种智力是有两面性的。一方面，它可以创造出这种混乱困惑，而另一方面，它也可以看清自身。然而当它看清自身时，它从某种意义上来说是局限的，但从某种意义上来说，它又是可以自我创造、自我消解的。
53:33 S: This is important Krishnaji because in our past discussions, at this point we usually say that the insight of the monkey into the fact that he's enclosed in a space, that in some way brings a stop to the monkey. But the question is, is there more to the stop than the insight?	53:33 西恩博格：克里希那吉，这一点很重要，因为在我们过去的讨论中，在讨论到这一步的时候，我们通常都会说：那就是当猴子洞察到这一事实：即他被封闭围困在某个空间里，这种「洞察」便能在某种程度上，让那只猴子“止息”。然而问题在于：要停止这只“猴子”，除了洞察，还有其他更多方式吗？
53:55 K: When does the monkey realise its own limitation?	53:55 克：什么时候这只猴子会意识到自身的局限？
54:03 S: When, did you say?	54:03 西恩博格：你是说“什么时候”吗？
54:05 K: When.	54:05 克：什么时候。
54:07 V: At the moment it sees its own futility.	54:07 瓦雷拉：当它看到自己徒劳无用的那一刻。
54:12 K: Now when does that happen? Go slowly. When does this happen? When you knock it on the head?	54:12 克：那么，这种事何时才会发生呢？慢慢来，先生，慢慢来。这样的事什么时候会发生？什么时候你才会去终止它呢？
54:28 B: When it's suffering.	54:28 伯格斯特龙：当它受苦的时候。
54:29 K: Wait, I'm coming to it. Let's go into it. When does it see, 'My God, whatever I do will always be limited?'	54:29 克：等一下，我正要来讲这个。让我们来探讨它。什么时候它才会明白这一点， “我的天哪，无论我做什么，永远都是局限的？”
54:39 V: When there is a breakdown in its world.	54:39 瓦雷拉：当它的世界崩溃的时候。
54:43 K: When does it break down?	54:43 克：什么时候它的世界会崩溃呢？
54:46 V: All the time there is a breakdown.	54:46 瓦雷拉：它的世界一直都在不断崩溃着。
54:48 K: No, look, I am the monkey.	54:48 克：不，你瞧，比方说我就是那只“猴子”。
54:52 V: OK, you lost your wife, or your house burned.	54:52 瓦雷拉：好，当你失去了你的妻子，或者你的房子被烧毁了以后。
54:56 K: So it means what? I am in crisis.	54:56 克：所以这意味着什么呢？这意味着我正处于危机中。
54:59 B: Crisis, suffering.	54:59 伯格斯特龙：危机，痛苦。克：等一下，先说危机。
55:01 K: Wait, a crisis. See what you are saying. That it needs a crisis for it to wake up. I question that.	55:01 看看你们在说的东西吧。那就是它需要「危机」才能觉醒。但我质疑这一点。
55:22 V: Wait a second. It needs it as a usual first step, but then, one realises that the breakdown is happening all the time. It's happening right now.	55:22 瓦雷拉：稍微等一下，它需要危机来作为通常的第一步，但在这之后，他会意识到这种「崩溃」其实一直都在发生着。此刻它就在发生着。
55:35 K: No, I asked just now, when does the monkey realise the fact, the reality, the truth, that it is limited? It can climb trees, it can run, it can swim, it can enter into laboratories and dissect, do everything it wants, it is still the terrible monkey. And when does it realise, when does it say, 'My God, I am limited' – not theoretically, but...	55:35 克：不，我刚才问了，什么时候这只猴子会意识到这一事实、这一真相、这一真理 ——即它是局限的？它可以去爬树，它可以奔跑，它可以游泳，它可以进入实验室，然后做解剖实验，它可以去做所有它想要做的事情，但它仍旧是那只可怕的猴子。那么，它什么时候才会意识到，它什么时候才会说， “我的天哪，我其实是局限的” ——不是理论上，而是
56:16 H: In a crisis, we said.	56:16 汉克：我们说了，在危机中的时候。
56:17 K: I question that. We have had crises. Every year we have crises, every day we have a crisis. I quarrel with my wife. Governments are cheating us, misruling us. You say one thing, another scientist says another thing. When do I realise that I am limited? I have had suffering, untold suffering, not only me but the world. When I see that D-Day entertainment, I suffer, I have suffered. That hasn't changed the monkey because we have suffered for thousands of years.	56:17 克：但我怀疑这一点。因为我们已经有过各种危机了。我们每年都会有各种危机，我们每天都会有危机。我会和我的妻子吵架。政府正在欺骗我们，对我们实施暴政。你说出某个观点，而别的科学家会说出其他观点。那么我什么时候会认识到自己是局限的呢？我已经受过苦了，无尽的苦难，不只是我在受苦，全世界都在受苦。当我看到关于「诺曼底登陆日」的娱乐化内容，我会感到痛心疾首，我已经痛苦过了。但这并没有改变那只“猴子”，因为我们已经受了几千年的苦了。
57:19 B: Why?	57:19 伯格斯特龙：为什么会这样呢？
57:21 K: We have had thousands of pleasures.	57:21 克：我们也体验过了成千上万的快感。
57:26 V: So you need the convergence of two things: the suffering and the possibility of somebody, or something, or some...	57:26 瓦雷拉：所以你需要将这两件事会聚起来：也就是「痛苦」和那种「可能性」 ——也就是某人、某事物，或者某个
57:38 K: You are now off again.	57:38 克：你又偏离主题了。
57:41 V: I am off to say that you have to have the combination...	57:41 瓦雷拉：我偏离主题是为了告诉你：那就是你必须要将它们结合起来
57:45 K: Because when you say, you mean outside agency.	57:45 克：因为当你说这个的时候，你指的是外在的媒介。
57:49 V: No, I'm saying that the outside agency can be a perfect, clear manifestation of the inside agency. But we have to have the combination of the two, of saying, this is futile, and there is an alternative. Like in your example the other day you run into somebody who says, you could go south. It is the same sort of thing.	57:49 瓦雷拉：不，我说的是那个外在的媒介它可以是完美的，能清楚地呈现出那个内在的媒介。但我们必须要将这两者会聚在一起，我们可以说：这是徒劳无用的，但还有一个替代方案。就像前几天，你所举的那个例子：你跑到了某人那里，然后说：你可以往南走。这是同样的事情。
58:12 K: Yes, so when does the monkey wake up and say, I am limited. Do you know what that means? Any action, any action of the monkey is still the monkey. Vertical, horizontal, create space, it's still the terrible little entity called the monkey. So man has invented God, outside agency will help me, he has prayed, he is still the monkey.	58:12 克：是的，那么什么时候这只“猴子”会醒来然后说“我是局限的”呢？你知道这意味着什么吗？那就是：任何行动、任何这只猴子的行动，它都仍旧是那只“猴子”。不管是纵向的、还是横向的行动，去创造出“空间”，它都仍然是那个被称为“猴子”的可怕卑微的实体。所以，人类已经发明出了“上帝” ——这个可以帮助我的外在的媒介，他曾经祈祷过，但他仍旧是那只猴子。
59:06 B: Can you say what should be done? I'm waiting.	59:06 伯格斯特龙：你能够说一下：我们应该做些什么吗？我在等待（回答）。
59:28 K: Right?	59:28 克：是这样吧？
59:30 V: Yes.	59:30 瓦雷拉：是的。
59:33 K: Have you come to an impasse?	59:33 克：你们是不是陷入僵局了？
59:39 V: In the dialogue, in the conversation?	59:39 瓦雷拉：是陷入了这次对话、这次谈话的僵局吗？
59:41 K: No. When I said whatever the monkey does, whatever, it is still the monkey. Agree?	59:41 克：不是。当我说无论这只猴子做了什么事，无论什么事，它都仍然是那只猴子。这时你们同意吗？
59:50 V: Yes, I agree.	59:50 瓦雷拉：是的，我同意。
59:52 K: That means you have come to a stop. It's an impasse, you have come against a wall. Wall. You understand? Don't misunderstand wall. You are stuck there.	59:52 克：这意味着，你停下来了。这是一条死路，你已经撞上墙壁了。墙壁——你们理解吗？不要误解“墙壁”的意思。你已经“卡在”那里了。
1:00:10 V: You come to a realisation.	1:00:10 瓦雷拉：你终于醒悟了。
1:00:12 K: You've come to the realisation whatever it does...	1:00:12 克：你已经醒悟到了一点：那就是无论它做了什么
1:00:16 V: ... is limited.	1:00:16 瓦雷拉：……都是局限的。
1:00:20 K: What does that mean? Is it a theory? Is it you say yes, let's discuss it, or it is an actuality that you are up against a wall, you can't move. There is no escape.	1:00:20 克：那么这意味着什么呢？它只是一个理论吗？它是否只是你说：是的，让我们来讨论下它吧，还是说，它是一个事实 ——也就是你撞上墙壁了，你无法前进了。你已经无处可逃了。
1:00:56 B: But there are people who know that. Researchers and scientists, we know that it is so. We agree.	1:00:56 伯格斯特龙：但是有一些人已经知道它了。那些研究人员和科学家们，我们知道它确实如此。我们都同意。
1:01:07 K: Then what do we do, sir?	1:01:07 克：那么我们该怎么办呢，先生？伯格斯特龙：我只是想要说：
1:01:09 B: I just wanted to say there are some of us who know that you are right.	1:01:09 我们中一些人已经知道你说的是对的。
1:01:15 K: But what do we do?	1:01:15 克：但接下来我们该怎么办呢？
1:01:16 B: I ask this. I don't know. What should we do? We should do something, we just can't wait.	1:01:16 伯格斯特龙：这就是我在问的。因为我也不知道。我们应该怎么做呢？我们应该去做些什么，我们不能只是等待。
1:01:24 P: We're stuck in the room now with the question, we can't go out of the room.	1:01:24 皮特：我们现在被困在这个房间里了，我们卡在这个问题上了，我们无法走出这个房间。
1:01:31 K: Look what you are doing. You don't stop and say look, I am at an impasse.	1:01:31 克：看看你们正在做什么吧。你并没有停下来，然后说：瞧，我陷入于僵局了。
1:01:42 S: Let's stop right there. You say, we don't stop. What about that act of stop?	1:01:42 西恩博格：让我们就停在这里吧。你说，我们并没有停下来。那么不如让我们停下来？
1:01:49 K: You are against a wall, you don't have to stop. The wall prevents you from moving. We never come to that point.	1:01:49 克：先生，你已经撞上墙了，用不着你自己停下来。那堵墙已经阻挡了你的前进。但我们从来没有走到这一步。
1:02:08 V: I question that.	1:02:08 瓦雷拉：我质疑这一点。
1:02:10 K: Otherwise you have the answer.	1:02:10 克：否则的话，你就会有答案了。
1:02:12 V: Of course.	1:02:12 瓦雷拉：当然了。
1:02:15 B: What should we do?	1:02:15 伯格斯特龙：那么我们应该做些什么呢？
1:02:16 P: Tell us, we're here now.	1:02:16 皮特：请告诉我们，我们现在都在这里。
1:02:22 V: We already said. One thing is that we don't know what to do, the other thing is that we don't apply ourselves to do it. Those are two different things. We talked about creating space around the monkey, didn't we.	1:02:22 瓦雷拉：我们已经说了。一方面是我们并不知道该怎么做，另一方面则是我们并没有全力以赴去做它。这是两件不同的事情。我们探讨了在“猴子”周围创造出空间，不是吗？
1:02:39 P: I think we've been taking the point, we are there now and there is nowhere else to move. We can't talk about it anymore. We're stuck.	1:02:39 皮特：我想我们一直都是接受你的观点的，我们现在探讨到了这一步，而我们已经无法再前往别的地方了。我们无法再继续探讨它了。我们已经“卡住”了。
1:02:47 V: We are not.	1:02:47 瓦雷拉：我们并没有卡住。
1:02:48 P: To speak about it is to move away from it. We're stuck there.	1:02:48 皮特：因为谈论它就等于逃离它。所以我们卡在这里了。
1:02:52 B: What should we do? Slowly, tell us. I am waiting, and very much in my being at Brockwood. I hope to say something for those people at home who are exactly of the same opinion. As you said, we are stuck.	1:02:52 伯格斯特龙：所以我们应该做些什么呢？请慢慢来，告诉我们吧。我在等待，在布洛克伍德的时候，我的整个存在都沉浸在等待中。我希望能告诉那些在家的人一些东西，他们也正持有着相同的观点。就如你所说的：我们已经卡住了。
1:03:10 K: Have I said I can't move anymore?	1:03:10 克：我有说过“我无法再前进”吗？
1:03:15 V: No, you have said we can't move anymore.	1:03:15 瓦雷拉：没有，你说的是 “我们无法再前进了”。
1:03:19 K: You have said that to yourself.	1:03:19 克：这是你对你自己说的吧。
1:03:22 V: No, sorry, I never said that.	1:03:22 瓦雷拉：不，很抱歉，我从来没说过这话。伯格斯特龙：那我们应该做些什么呢？
1:03:24 B: What should be done?	1:03:24 瓦雷拉：我感觉这并不对。
1:03:26 V: I don't feel that that's true. There is the realisation of the absolute impossibility, and at the same time there are all the gaps, all the hope, all the space right there together at the same time.	1:03:26 我认识到了这种绝对的「不可能性」，但同时也存在着所有那些“缺口”、那些希望，所有存在于那里的“空间”，它们是同时一起存在着的。
1:03:40 K: No, there is no hope when you are up against a wall.	1:03:40 克：不，当你撞到了墙壁以后，你是没有希望的。
1:03:43 V: No, that's not true, because the sudden realisation of the complete limitation brings with it the complete clarity of the space with it. Those things are both true.	1:03:43 瓦雷拉：不，这么说并不对。因为当你突然意识到了这种彻底的局限性以后，那么随之而来的就是你完全清楚了它的那个“空间”。这两件事情都是真实的。
1:03:56 K: Is that an actuality to you?	1:03:56 克：它对你来说是事实吗？
1:03:59 V: Is it not, sir? Why couldn't it be shared?	1:03:59 瓦雷拉：难道不是吗，先生？为什么我不能分享它呢？
1:04:11 K: We can share it together if we are both hungry and food is put.	1:04:11 克：如果我们两人都很饿，而食物也端上来了，那时我们才能一起分享它。
1:04:15 V: But it is here.	1:04:15 瓦雷拉：可它（食物）已经在这里了。
1:04:16 K: Yes, sir. Do I realise that whatever I do I am still the monkey? Either in the future, or in the past – whatever I do! It is a tremendous shock to realise that. Shock, both organically and psychologically. Right? Shock. And if you can remain with that shock, not dissipate it. So that there is no escape, no explanation, no rationalisation, anything I do is still the monkey. See what has happened. There is then a totally different action. Yes, sir.	1:04:16 克：是的，先生。我是否意识到了：那就是无论我做什么，我仍旧是那只“猴子”？不管是在未来，还是在过去 ——无论我做什么！认识到这一点是一个巨大的冲击。冲击——既包括对机体组织的冲击，也包括心理上的冲击。对吧？那种冲击。而如果你可以和「冲击」待在一起，而不是让其消散。那你就不会有任何逃避、任何解释、任何合理化了，因为我所做的任何事情都仍旧是“猴子”。然后看看会发生什么。那时就会有一种截然不同的行动了。就是这样，先生。
1:06:08 V: I thought you said there was no hope. This is exactly what I just said.	1:06:08 瓦雷拉：我想你之前说过并不存在什么希望。这也正是我刚才所说的东西。
1:06:12 K: No, it is not a hope. I have no hope. No, I have no hope because I am against the wall. If I hope, I want to escape.	1:06:12 克：不，这并不是一种“希望”。我并没有什么希望。是的，我没有任何希望，因为我已经撞上墙壁了。如果我有希望，我就会想要逃避了。
1:06:24 V: But you just said there's a totally different action coming out of that.	1:06:24 瓦雷拉：可是你刚刚说了：从这之中会产生出一种截然不同的行动。
1:06:31 K: For me, not for you, maybe.	1:06:31 克：这是对我来说的，而不是对你而言，但或许也是吧。
1:06:34 S: What do you mean, for me and not you?	1:06:34 西恩博格：你是什么意思，什么叫“对我来说”而非“对你而言”？
1:06:38 K: Do I realise, I, you, Shainberg, that whatever you do, whatever you think, whatever you act, whatever you hope, it is still the monkey playing? That means you have come to a complete stop. Have you? I am not asking personally, that's up to you. Have you? Complete stop. No argument.	1:06:38 克：我是否意识到了…… 我，还有你——西恩博格，那就是：无论你做什么，无论你想什么，无论你的行为是什么，你的希望是什么，它都仍旧是那只“猴子”在玩耍？这意味着你已经彻底停止了。但你停止了吗？我不是在向你个人提问，所以回不回答取决于你。你停止了吗？彻底的停止。不容辩驳。
1:07:19 S: No, let's take it another step. How can I put it... what happens with you and me now? Now we're together in this stop.	1:07:19 西恩博格：不，还是让我们换个角度来看看吧。我该怎么样表达它呢那么此时你和我会发生什么？现在我们已经一起处于这种「停止」中了。
1:07:33 K: I asked, has Shainberg, you are there in front of it, have you stopped?	1:07:33 克：我问的是：西恩博格你有没有（停止）…… 你正面对着这个问题，你停下来了吗？
1:07:46 S: There is no answer to that question.	1:07:46 西恩博格：这个问题是没有答案的。
1:07:48 K: Yes, there is. Don't dodge it. We have argued for three days, right?	1:07:48 克：不，它有答案。请不要回避它。我们都已经争论了三天了，对吧？
1:07:57 S: If I say, I've stopped, that's 'I', and I haven't stopped.	1:07:57 西恩博格：如果我说“我已经停止了”，这里还是有“我”，所以“我”并没有停止。
1:08:02 K: No, that would be absurd. But you have come to realise – not you, forgive me, I am not being impolite or impudent – you have come to realise whatever you do is still the monkey, and therefore always limited. You understand? I'll tell you something. I met a man, I used to know him, he was a judge. And one day he said, I am passing judgement left and right about crime and murder, all kinds of things, but I don't know what truth is. So he said to his family, I'm going away, I'm going to find it. 1:09:08 He spent twenty five years – these are facts – meditating to find out what truth is. So somebody brought him to one of the talks which I was giving, and he came to see me afterwards, he said, 'For twenty five years I've been mesmerising myself, deceiving myself. I haven't found truth.' You understand? There it is. For an old man to realise that he has for twenty five years deluded himself. To admit that, vous comprenez ?	1:08:02 克：不是这样的，这样事情就变得很荒谬了。但是你已经意识到了 ——不是你，请原谅我，我并没有不礼貌或者无礼—— 你已经意识到了：那就是无论你做什么它仍然是那只“猴子”，由此它永远是局限的。你理解了吗？让我来告诉你一件事情吧。我曾经见过一个人—— 一个我认识的人，他是一位法官。有一天，他对我说：我到处下判决，去评判犯罪、谋杀等等此类事情，但我却不知道「真理」是什么。于是他对自己的家人说，我要走了，我要去找到它（真理）。 1:09:08 然后他花费了二十五年的时间去冥想 ——这些都是事实—— 为了发现什么是「真理」。后来有一次当我在演讲的时候，有人把他带过来听我演讲，演讲结束后，他过来见我了，他告诉我说，“这二十五年以来，我一直在催眠我自己，欺骗我自己。我并没有找到真理。” 你们懂了吗？就是这样。对于一个老人，要让他意识到他骗了自己二十五年。能够承认这一点…… 你们明白了吗？
1:10:10 You see, when one actually faces the fact that you cannot do anything – the monkey – the brain, the inside, apart from the rhythm, comes to sit quiet, it says, 'right', no tricks any more. This has been the problem of meditation, you know the word? I'm not insulting you, I'm sure you know the word. They have tried every method, Zen, Buddhist, Tibetan, going off in solitude, following various systems invented by thought, to come up against this and say, look, that's the end. He is looking at you.	1:10:10 你瞧，当一个人真正地去面对这个事实：即你是无法做任何事情的 ——你这只猴子—— 那么你的大脑、你的内心，就脱离了那种节奏，它会安静地坐下来，然后说，“那好吧”，它不再耍花招了。一直以来，这就是冥想遇到的问题，你知道这个词语（冥想）吗？我没有侮辱你的意思，我确信你知道这个词。人们已经尝试过了每一种（冥想）方法，禅宗冥想、佛教冥想、西藏人的冥想，去独处生活，去遵循各种思想发明出来的冥想体系，直到他们“碰壁”了，于是他们说：瞧，这就是终点。他正在看你。
1:11:49 V: Well, maybe he is looking at me. Maybe to go back to about half way into our conversation this morning when I said it's not my experience.	1:11:49 瓦雷拉：哦，他也许是在看着我。也许我们可以回到我们今天早晨谈话过程中大约一半的地方，当时我说：这不是我的经验。
1:12:06 S: Yes, but what about right now? Right now in a sense I mean the stop and now. Now what?	1:12:06 西恩博格：是的，可是目前该怎么办呢？ “目前”的意思就是：我指的是那种“停止”和“现在”。现在该怎么办呢？
1:12:18 V: You cultivate that.	1:12:18 瓦雷拉：你在培养它。
1:12:22 S: Is that cultivating?	1:12:22 西恩博格：这是培养吗？
1:12:23 V: I don't know if it's cultivating according to Krishnaji.	1:12:23 瓦雷拉：我不知道根据克里希那吉的观点，这是否算是“培养”。
1:12:26 K: No, not according to me.	1:12:26 克：不，请不要根据我的观点。
1:12:32 V: I said I don't know, according to you.	1:12:32 瓦雷拉：如果根据你的观点，我想说我也不知道。
1:12:36 K: We all agreed cultivation implies motive, time, end, and effort.	1:12:36 克：我们都同意：那就是「培养」意味着动机、时间、目的和努力。
1:12:44 V: And I don't see that as an intrinsic problem. The problem would be that that motivation would not be cognisant of its limitations. But if a motivation says, I know of my lack of vision but it is an attitude that makes it possible to constantly come back to that realisation of limitation, then that is cultivating a meditative action. Motivation by itself is not problematic. Motivation is problematic when it's completely devoided of any context of its limitation, when it believes in itself. At least this is as far as any pragmatic, or any practical way of cultivation goes.	1:12:44 瓦雷拉：我并没有将其视为一个本质上的问题。问题在于那种动机没有认识到其自身的局限性。但如果那个动机说，我知道我缺乏洞见，那么这种态度就有可能让它不断地回到对自身局限性的认知中，而这就是在培养一种「冥想」的行为。这种“自我激励”就不会有问题。但「动机」是有问题的，因为那时它完全脱离了他自身局限性的「背景」，它完全相信自己了。至少这就是任何务实的、或者任何实际的培养方式所能达到的极限了。
1:13:39 K: You are still... Not you, sir, the monkey is still active.	1:13:39 克：但你还是……不是你，先生，那只“猴子”还是在活跃着。
1:13:43 V: I said again, I don't see a problem with the monkey acting and being a monkey. The problem is when the monkey is in a little room. I don't have any animosity against the monkey.	1:13:43 瓦雷拉：我再说一遍吧，我并不认为那只猴子的行动以及「成为猴子」有什么问题。问题在于：那只猴子正身处于小房间里。我对那只猴子并没有任何的憎恶。
1:13:57 K: Against being a monkey.	1:13:57 克：你并不反对“成为猴子”。
1:13:58 V: I do have animosity against being constrained.	1:13:58 瓦雷拉：我所憎恶反对的是被约束（constrained）。
1:14:01 K: No, I am not concerned. What do you mean by that word concerned?	1:14:01 克：不，我并没有“关注（concerned）”。你说的“关注”这个词是什么意思？
1:14:06 V: Constrained, I said.	1:14:06 瓦雷拉：我说的是“约束”。
1:14:11 K: Constrained. Aren't we constrained?	1:14:11 克：约束。我们难道不是受到约束的吗？
1:14:17 V: Indeed. That's precisely what needs to be worked on and dealt with. Therefore what really interests me is what are the actual practicalities, the actual practicalities of cultivating that spaciousness? The monkey is not the problem, the constraint is what makes the monkey crazy.	1:14:17 瓦雷拉：确实如此。这正是我们需要去研究和处理的问题。因此真正让我感兴趣的是有什么比较实际的办法，有什么实际的实践方法可以培养那种“宽广的空间”？因为“猴子”并不是问题，是那种“约束”让猴子变得疯狂了。
1:14:44 K: You see the difference? I say it's not the constraint, it's the monkey constraining himself.	1:14:44 克：你看到这其中的区别了吗？我说的是原因并不是那个“约束”，而是那只猴子自己束缚了自己。
1:14:50 V: All right, it comes to say the same thing. The way we cultivate it is to make room for it. Not to hit it on the head.	1:14:50 瓦雷拉：好吧，但这说的还是同一个意思。我们培养它（猴子）的方式就是为它创造出“空间”。而不是去消灭它。
1:14:58 K: The monkey cannot make room for itself.	1:14:58 克：猴子是无法为自己创造出空间的。
1:15:01 V: Oh, I thought we concluded that it can, because its same intelligence can apply to see its limitations.	1:15:01 瓦雷拉：噢，我想我们得出的结论是“它可以”，因为它身上同样的智慧可以被用来去看清自身的局限。
1:15:06 K: We said whatever it does is limited.	1:15:06 克：可我们说过，无论它做什么都是局限的。
1:15:10 V: Yes, and when it becomes aware of that limitation there is space right there.	1:15:10 瓦雷拉：是的，但是当它觉察到了那种局限，那么“空间”就会在那里了。
1:15:18 K: Yes, when it becomes aware that whatever it does...	1:15:18 克：是的，当它觉察到自己无论做了什么
1:15:23 V: ...is limited, it creates space right then and there.	1:15:23 瓦雷拉：……都是局限的，那它就在此时此地创造出了空间。
1:15:27 K: Yes, all right.	1:15:27 克：对，没错。
1:15:31 V: Isn't that a fact?	1:15:31 瓦雷拉：所以这难道不是一个事实吗？
1:15:38 K: If you say so.	1:15:38 克：你想怎么说都行吧。
1:15:39 V: I am posing you the question very much in the spirit of hearing what your experience is.	1:15:39 瓦雷拉：我之所以向你提出这个问题，主要是想要听听你的经验是什么。
1:15:46 K: I would question myself whether one has – not you, I am not trying to be impudent – whether one has really realised the nature of the monkey, the monkey, whatever it does is still the monkey, and the depth of that realisation, which may be very superficial, or it may be profound. When it is profound, it totally changes one's life. That's all I am saying. I am not saying anything else.	1:15:46 克：我会问问自己：某人是否 ——不是指你，我并没有傲慢无礼的意思—— 某人是否真的认识到了那只猴子的本质？那只猴子，无论它做什么，都仍旧只是猴子，而这种「认识」的深度，它也许是非常肤浅表面的，也许是很深刻的。而当这种认识是非常深刻的时候，它就会彻底地改变一个人的生活。这就是所有我在说的东西。我并没有在讲任何其他东西。
1:16:35 V: I guess I am saying that that is possible but it may not be possible for every human being. Wait a second. My experience, and this is all I have, my experience, I cannot go by your experience or anybody else's experience, my experience is that those realisations come and go and come in different degrees of depth. Sometimes it is a realisation of a stupid limitation that I have imposed on myself and I can drop it. Sometimes it can be profound, then it is forgotten again. It is not a one shot deal. It is not like that.	1:16:35 瓦雷拉：我想我在说的是：这是可能的，但它也许并不是对每个人来说都可能。等一下。这是我的经验，这就是我所拥有的全部东西，我只有我自己的经验，我不能根据你的经验或者其他某个人的经验来说，而我的经验就是：这些「认识」是来来去去的，它们以不同的深度而出现。有时候我们会认识到某种愚蠢的局限 ——某种我强加于自己的局限，于是我便会丢弃它。有时候这种「认识」会很深刻，但之后它又会再次被忘却。它并不是“一次性搞定”的东西。它不是这样子的。
1:17:12 S: I think you are raising another issue, if we can take a minute, and that is the fact, Krishnaji, what you seem to be saying is that when the monkey is the monkey, caught up in the monkeyness, in the monkey business, that there is no relationship to the intelligence whatsoever.	1:17:12 西恩博格：我认为你提出了另一个议题，如果我们能花一点时间来谈谈的话，事实上，克里希那吉你在说的似乎是：当那只猴子仍旧是猴子，受限于其“猴性”和那些猴子的把戏时，那时它和「智慧」是没有任何关系的。
1:17:38 K: It is still monkey.	1:17:38 克：因为它仍旧是猴子。
1:17:39 S: It's still monkey, therefore there is no intelligence involved. And in a way, that the brain itself, or some of its functions, that when that monkey business is going on, it's all monkey business. Now the question is whether the intelligence comes in, and if there is an aspect of the monkey which is intelligent. And therefore that the intelligence appreciates the limitations of the monkey and at the same time knows... You made a statement yesterday that the intelligence sees that thought is limited.	1:17:39 西恩博格：它仍然是猴子，所以这其中并没有「智慧」可言。而某种意义上来说，对于大脑本身或者大脑的一些功能来讲，当那种“猴子的把戏”在进行的时候，大脑及其功能也都是猴子的把戏。而现在的问题就是：那种「智慧」是否介入进来了，以及猴子身上是否存在某个方面是拥有智慧的？由此那种「智慧」就可以理解明白猴子的局限性，同时也能知晓你昨天曾经说过：那种「智慧」看到了思想是局限的。
1:18:21 K: No, sir. We went into the question of intelligence. The intelligence of thought, and the intelligence of love.	1:18:21 克：不是这样的，先生。当时我们探究了关于「智慧」的问题。思想所具有的智性，以及「爱」所蕴含的智慧。
1:18:37 S: Right, and I asked you, or we tried to get at and that's where we ended the other day: what is the relationship between the intelligence of love and the intelligence of thought?	1:18:37 西恩博格：没错，而我想要问你，或者说我们试图搞清楚的是这也是我们前几天结束中断的地方，那就是：「爱」的智慧和思想的智性，它们两者之间有什么关系？
1:18:51 K: What is the relationship – I understand your question – what is the relationship of the man who doesn't hate and the man who hates? There is no relationship.	1:18:51 克：它们两者的关系是什么 ——我明白你的问题—— 也就是：一个没有恨的人和一个有恨的人他们两人有什么关系？他们没有关系。
1:19:08 S: None?	1:19:08 西恩博格：没有关系吗？
1:19:09 K: No.	1:19:09 克：没有。
1:19:10 S: That's not true. That's not my experience.	1:19:10 西恩博格：这不对吧。就我的经验来看并非如此。
1:19:14 K: Not experience. I doubt everybody's experience, including my own. But I'm saying, let's discuss that, not experience, then you are lost: my experience, your experience. But what is the relationship of the man who loves – in the sense we are talking about – and the man who hates? Just look at it. How can there be?	1:19:14 克：不是“经验”的问题。我怀疑每一个人的经验 ——包括我自己的。我在说的是：让我们一起来讨论它，而不是依靠经验，依靠经验的话，你就迷失了：我的经验、你的经验。然而，那个有爱的人 ——我们所说的那种“有爱”—— 和那个有恨的人，他们的关系是什么呢？请你去看一下它。他们怎么可能会有关系呢？
1:19:46 S: I think there is a relationship.	1:19:46 西恩博格：我认为他们是存在一种关系的。
1:19:48 K: All right.	1:19:48 克：好吧。
1:19:50 S: I think you think so too. I have seen you embrace people who you know hate.	1:19:50 西恩博格：我认为你也是这么想的。我曾经看到过你拥抱那些你知道他们内心有恨的人。
1:19:55 K: Just a minute. Of course.	1:19:55 克：稍等一下。当然了。
1:19:59 S: So what is your relationship when you embrace a man you know who hates?	1:19:59 西恩博格：所以当你拥抱那个你知道他有恨的人时，你和他的关系是什么？
1:20:04 K: Ah! No. Hate has no relationship to love, but love has a relationship to hate.	1:20:04 克：啊！不是这样的。「恨」和「爱」是没有关系的，但「爱」和「恨」是有关系的。
1:20:13 S: OK.	1:20:13 西恩博格：好吧。
1:20:15 K: That's all. Not the other way round.	1:20:15 克：就是这样。而不是反过来。
1:20:20 S: So that intelligence has a relationship to thought?	1:20:20 西恩博格：也就是说，那种「智慧」和思想也有关系咯？
1:20:24 B: Love has to do with embracing, as I told you the first day. That's a good word, embrace, understand in Finnish, so that I can understand and not the other way round.	1:20:24 伯格斯特龙：就像我在第一天告诉你们的：「爱」和「拥抱」是有关系的。拥抱（embrace）是一个很好的词语 ——在芬兰语中，它的意思是“了解” 由此我便能够了解，而不是反过来。
1:20:38 S: So what is the relationship between intelligence and thought?	1:20:38 西恩博格：所以「智慧」和「思想」它们之间的关系是什么呢？
1:20:43 K: We said that.	1:20:43 克：这个我们已经说过了。
1:20:44 S: No, we haven't.	1:20:44 西恩博格：不，我们还没有。
1:20:46 K: Thought has its own intelligence. Right? We agreed to that. Love, compassion, has its own intelligence. The intelligence of thought has no relationship with that intelligence, but that intelligence has a relationship.	1:20:46 克：思想有其自身的“智性”。对吧？这点我们都同意。爱、慈悲，它们也有其自身的智慧。而思想的那种“智性”，它和「智慧」是没有关系的，但「智慧」和那种智性是有关系的。
1:21:06 S: So, what is the relationship of intelligence to the monkey?	1:21:06 西恩博格：那么，智慧和“猴子”的关系又是什么呢？
1:21:13 K: None.	1:21:13 克：他们没有关系。
1:21:14 S: Not this way?	1:21:14 西恩博格：这样子问就没有关系了？
1:21:16 K: That way, yes, but not the other.	1:21:16 克：那样问是有关系的，这样问就没关系了。
1:21:19 S: OK. Now, what is the event of intelligence seeing the limitations of the monkey?	1:21:19 西恩博格：好吧。那么，当「智慧」看到了那只猴子的种种局限 ——这件事又怎么理解呢？
1:21:33 K: Just a minute, it's very simple: you are no longer the monkey. I am the monkey. What is my relationship to you? None.	1:21:33 克：稍等片刻，这是非常简单的：你已经不再是“猴子”了。而我还是“猴子”。那么「我和你」会有什么关系吗？不会有关系。
1:21:47 S: But what is my relationship to you?	1:21:47 西恩博格：但是我和你会有什么关系吗？
1:21:49 K: You have relationship, you have love, compassion, all that. But I have no relationship with you, I am still the monkey. When I cease to be the monkey I don't want you, you are finished. We better stop. One of the most unfortunate things in all this – I am not referring to you gentlemen – each one is pursuing his own way.	1:21:49 克：但「你和我」是有关系的，因为你有着爱，有着慈悲，等等这些。但「我和你」是没有啥关系的，因为我仍旧还是“猴子”。而当我不再是“猴子”的时候，我就不需要你了，你已经“消失”了。我们该结束这次谈话了。在所有这些对话中，最为不幸的事情之一就是 ——先生们，我不是特指你们—— 每一人都在各说各的。
1:22:38 V: Is there a way to overcome that?	1:22:38 瓦雷拉：有什么方法可以克服这一点吗？
1:22:40 K: Yes, sir. I want my career, my business, all of us are doing this in the world. Creating havoc in the world.	1:22:40 克：事情就是这样，先生。我只想追求我的事业、我的生意，在这个世界上，我们所有人都在这么做。由此便制造出了这个世界的灾难混乱。
1:23:03 V: So how could it be otherwise? You do what you do, I do what I do?	1:23:03 瓦雷拉：那不然还能怎么样呢？你做你的，我做我的吗？
1:23:07 K: No. Can we all be together?	1:23:07 克：不。而是我们所有人能否在一起？
1:23:22 V: Yes.	1:23:22 瓦雷拉：可以啊。
1:23:24 K: Where?	1:23:24 克：在哪里呢？
1:23:26 V: Cultivate our love.	1:23:26 瓦雷拉：一起去培养我们的爱。
1:23:28 K: No, don't say cultivate love.	1:23:28 克：不，别再说“培养爱”了。
1:23:30 V: Why not?	1:23:30 瓦雷拉：为什么不能说呢？
1:23:32 K: Sir, that means what?	1:23:32 克：先生，它意味着什么呢？
1:23:34 V: That means making yourself available to that possibility. Why does it have to be a complete...	1:23:34 瓦雷拉：它意味着让你自己能够接收那种可能性。为什么它必须得是一种彻底的
1:23:40 K: Just a minute. We've discussed this point, you are going back to that again. That is not cultivable.	1:23:40 克：先生，请等一下。我们已经讨论过这一点了，你又再次退回到它了。「爱」是无法被培养的。
1:23:49 V: Itself it is not, but...	1:23:49 瓦雷拉：它本身是不可以，但是……
1:23:51 K: No, I won't...	1:23:51 克：不，我就不再
1:23:54 K: This is it: you stick to your point, another sticks to his point. And this world is like that.	1:23:54 克：是这样的你坚持你的观点，而另一个人坚持他的观点。这个世界就是如此。伯格斯特龙：同样的轮回循环又再次开始了。
1:24:05 B: Beginning again the same round.	1:24:05 瓦雷拉：哦，并不是这样。
1:24:07 V: Well, it is not that. Not because we have different styles I don't appreciate you.	1:24:07 并不是因为我们有着不同的方式，所以我就无法理解你了。
1:24:14 K: The communist sticks to his ideology, he won't budge.	1:24:14 克：共产主义者坚持他自己的意识形态，他是不会妥协让步的。
1:24:19 V: Krishnaji, I wouldn't harm you because you think differently from myself.	1:24:19 瓦雷拉：克里希那吉，我并不会因为你的想法和我不同就来伤害你。
1:24:23 K: I understand, but I am telling you...	1:24:23 克：我理解的，但我正在告诉你的是
1:24:26 V: Not for one minute.	1:24:26 瓦雷拉：我绝对不会。
1:24:28 K: Look, can we all be together, not physically but inwardly so that you are a light to yourself.	1:24:28 克：你瞧，我们能否「在一起」？不是外在身体上在一起，而是内心层面在一起，由此你便能成为自己的「光」。
1:24:46 S: For that to happen it seems to me, you have to see him as a monkey in your space who has plenty of room to play.	1:24:46 西恩博格：要这样的事情发生，在我看来，你必须要在你的“空间”里将他视为猴子 ——这只猴子有足够大的空间可以任其玩耍。
1:24:54 K: Don't go back to that monkey business. No, this is our difficulty.	1:24:54 克：不要再回过头去谈那只猴子的把戏了。不，先生，这就是我们的困难所在。
1:25:14 S: I think one of the difficulties is that we don't recognise, let the thing play, that we are different. You do your thing, I do mine, he does his, I even love that you are different, I love it.	1:25:14 西恩博格：我认为困难之一就是我们并没有认识到它，并没有让事情顺其自然，即我们是有所不同。你做你的事情，我做我的事情，他做他的事情，我甚至很喜爱有所不同的你，我爱这种不同。
1:25:31 K: If the love is there, there is no difference.	1:25:31 克：如果「爱」在那里的话，那就没有什么“不同”了。
1:25:34 S: Well, that's looking at it at a different level.	1:25:34 西恩博格：哦，那你是从一个不同的层面上在看这件事了。
1:25:38 K: If I love my wife, you think I have any difference? No.	1:25:38 克：如果我爱我的妻子，你认为我还会和她有所分别吗？不会了。
1:25:45 S: Yes, you have difference in similarity.	1:25:45 西恩博格：是的，你们在相似中存在差异。
1:25:47 K: No, sir. It's arguing again. It doesn't lead anywhere. We had better stop.	1:25:47 克：不，先生。这又是在争辩了。这样争论下去是没有结果的。我们还是到此结束吧。

🢁