|
MA7879D2 - 我们是否觉察到了「分裂」？
|
|
| Personally I don't like to sit on platforms. The little height doesn't give the speaker any authority. So, this morning let us talk over together as a dialogue between two friends concerned with their life, with all the calamity of daily existence around them, their confusion, their misery. They are not talking about their theories or beliefs, they are deeply concerned to understand their own problems, their own misery, their own confusion. So, if we could not discuss, or have a dialogue about theories, but actually be concerned with our daily life, then what shall we talk about together? It's up to you, sirs, this is a dialogue. | 就我个人而言，我并不喜欢坐在台子上。 这一点点台子的高度 并不能赋予演讲者任何的权威性。 所以，今天早上，让我们一起来深入讨论， 就像两个朋友那样彼此交谈， 谈论他们的生活， 谈论他们周围 日常生活中的所有灾难， 谈论他们的困惑、他们的痛苦。 他们并不会去谈论自己的理论或信仰， 因为他们深切关注的 是去了解他们自己的各种问题、 他们自己的痛苦、他们自己的困惑。 所以，如果我们可以不是就「理论」 进行讨论或对话， 而是切实地去关注 我们自己的日常生活， 那么，我们要一起来谈些什么呢？ 这取决于你，先生们， 这是一次交流对话。 |
| Q:Knowledge is essential and knowledge is also not essential, but living in a daily life we have to resort to knowledge, but as a matter of fact living in daily life we must corrupt others, or we have to be corrupted ourselves. How to remove this confusion otherwise if we don't corrupt others or if we are not corrupted then we cannot have our basic needs. | 提问者：「知识」是必需的， 但「知识」也并非必要之物， 然而在我们的日常生活中， 我们必须要诉诸于知识， 但事实上，在我们的日常生活中， 我们必然会腐化他人， 或者我们不得不让我们自己被腐化。 那么我们要如何消除掉这种混乱， 否则的话，如果我们不腐化别人， 或者如果我们不让自己被腐化， 我们就无法获得基本的生活所需了。 |
| K:Yes, sir. How can one live in this world, in India, and probably he means Madras, without being corrupted amongst people who are already corrupt, how to live such a life in which there is no corruption. Any other questions? Sir, this is a dialogue between us two, between that gentleman and you, and so let's all talk over, discuss, talk over what would you like to ask apart from that question? | 克：是的，先生。 生活在这个世界，生活在印度 ——他指的可能是马德拉斯—— 我们如何才能生活在已经腐化的人群中 却不被腐化呢？ 如何才能去过一种没有腐败堕落的生活？ 还有其他问题吗？ 先生，这是一次我们两人之间的对话， 是那位先生和你之间的对话， 所以让我们都参与到谈话中来， 来讨论和探讨一下， 除了那个问题，你们还想要问什么？ |
| Q:You said psychological memory has to go altogether. It is with reference to the question asked by my friend. Can we dispense with psychological memory altogether? | 提问者：你说心理上的记忆必须要彻底消除。 这个问题和我朋友问的问题相关： 那就是 我们能否彻底地摒弃心理上的记忆？ |
| K:Can we dispense with psychological memories altogether? Any others? | 克：我们能否彻底摒弃心理上的记忆？ 还有什么其他问题吗？ |
| Q:You said the observer is the same as the observed. Then in the same breath you ask us to observe... | 提问者：你说「观察者」和「被观察物」是一样的。 但同时你又要求我们去观察 |
| K:The observer is not different from the observed, and at the same time you say, observe without reference to the past. | 克：观察者和被观察物并没有什么不同， 然而同时，你（指克氏）却说： 要不带着「过去」地去观察。 |
| Q:Are there two kinds of observation? | 提问者：是不是存在两种观察呢？ |
| K:Yes, yes, we will go into it, sir. | 克：好的，好的，我们将会来探讨它的，先生。 |
| Q:Your teachings, sir, are very good directives so far as individual lives are concerned, but we are today in an atmosphere where politics is dominating the whole life, not merely our economic life, social life, political life, even philosophical life. How to combat that and improve the situation so that an atmosphere is created in which individuals can continue their own psychological and other ideas as well as the aims and objectives of individual lives. | 提问者：先生，你的教导是一种 非常好的指示 ——就个体生活而言， 然而如今我们是生活在 这样一种环境中 ——政治主导了全部的生活， 不仅仅是我们的经济生活、 社会生活、政治生活，甚至也包括哲学生活。 我们要如何与之战斗 从而改善这种情况， 从而创造出这样一种环境： 在其中个体可以继续保持他们自己心理方面 和其他方面的思想理念， 也可以继续追求个人生活的目的和目标。 |
| K:The questioner asks, politics dominate, all our lives are controlled, shaped by politics. And is it possible for the individual to be free from this pressure of politics. Right, sir? | 克：这位提问者问， 政治占据了主导地位， 我们所有的生活 都被政治所控制和塑造了。 那么，对于个体来说， 他是否可能 摆脱掉这种政治的压力。对吧，先生？ |
| Q:No, how to control that controller. | 提问者：不对，是如何去控制那个“掌控者”。 |
| K:How to control the government. (Laughter) Right, sir? | 克：如何去控制政府？（笑声） 对吧，先生？ |
| Q:Yes. | 提问者：对。 |
| Q:Sir, you said it is thought that creates the division between the thinker and the thought, and therefore this division can go only when we operate outside the realm of thought. But at the same time, sir, you consider that thought is necessary for certain mechanical things like driving a car, or locating a house, or taking (inaudible) which we did yesterday. To establish this order of keeping thought in that proper place, and excluding it, it means giving up every little thing that we're caught up in. I have been hearing you, sir, for so many years, it is an extraordinary and very difficult effort to give up every little thing to which we have been clinging to. | 提问者：先生，你说是思想制造出了 思想者和思想之间的分裂， 而只有当我们能在思想领域之外运作， 这种分裂才能消除。 然而与此同时，先生，你又将思想视为是必需的， 对于诸如驾驶汽车，或者找到自己的家， 或者……（听不清）我们昨天做过的事情 这类机械化的事情来说，知识是必不可少的。 要建立起这种秩序， 将思想保持在其正确合理的位置上， 同时又要排除掉它，这意味着 要放弃掉我们所陷入于其中的 每一样微小事物。 先生，我已经听你的演讲有很多年了， 这是一种非凡且极其困难的努力 ——那就是要放弃掉我们一直以来所执著于的 每一样微小事物。 |
| K:Right, sir. | 克：是的，先生。 |
| Q:This is the difficulty, sir. | 提问者：这就是困难所在，先生。 |
| K:How is one to be totally detached from all the things that man has accumulated through thought through millennia? Is that the question, sir? That's right. | 克：我们要如何才能彻底地脱离 人类成千上万年以来 通过思想所积累起来的所有事物？ 是这个问题吗，先生？ 好的。 |
| Q:Yes. | 提问者：是的。 |
| Q:Sir, in what sense god is not there? Then what is there? What is there? | 提问者：先生，从何种意义上来说， 「神」是不存在的？ （如果神不存在）那么存在的是什么呢？ 是什么东西在那里呢？ |
| K:What is there? Since you say, the speaker is asking, since you say there is no god except that which is created by thought, if there is no god then what is there. That's enough questions. Shall we... | 克：是什么东西在那里呢？ 他在问：既然你说， 既然你说「神」不存在 ——除了那个思想所创造出来的「神」—— 如果「神」不存在，那么存在的是什么呢？ 这些问题已经够了。 我们是否可以来 |
| Q:One more question. I am not indulging in a trick of words, but you say, keep your memory off except for facts, and do away with tradition. But we all listened to music yesterday, for example, and that music is wholly tradition and wholly memory. Without perfection of tradition and the perfection of memory there would not have been that music. How do you explain that, sir? | 提问者：我想再问一个问题。 我并不是在沉迷于文字游戏，但你说： 除了事实相关的记忆之外，请不要动用你的记忆， 此外也要摒弃掉传统。 但是，举个例子， 我们大家昨天都聆听了音乐， 而那个音乐就完全是传统音乐， 它完全是一种“记忆”。 没有对于传统的完善， 对于记忆的完善， 就不可能会有那种音乐。 你要如何解释这一点呢，先生？ |
| K:There would be no music as yesterday afternoon if it wasn't traditional, and all the content of the song were totally, completely traditional. | 克：如果音乐不是“传统”的东西， 就不会有像昨天下午那种音乐了， 而那首歌中的全部内容也是完全彻底传统的。 |
| Q:And also memory - perfect. | 提问者：它同样也是「记忆」 ——完善后的记忆。 |
| K:Memory is operating. I think that is enough. Just a minute, sir. All right, sir. | 克：也是记忆的运作。 我认为这些问题已经够了。 稍等一下，先生。 好了，先生。 |
| Q:Can we discuss observation is an instantaneous action. | 提问者：我们能否来讨论一下这件事： 即「观察」是一种即刻的行动。 |
| K:All right, you have stated it. Yes, sir? | 克：好的，你已经说清楚了。 这位先生，你想问什么？ |
| Q:Truth is unchangeable and indivisible, and how can it change from day to day, sir? | 提问者：真理是不会改变的、不可分割的， 那它又怎么可能会 日复一日地变化呢，先生？ |
| K:Truth is indivisible and unchangeable, how can truth change from day to day. I think we can discuss... If you don't mind my pointing out, how do you know what truth is? You have taken it for granted that there is truth, and how to apply that truth in daily life, from moment to moment. Sir, he very carefully explained - well, I will go into it later. Now, there are several questions put: the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought, is it possible to observe without the observer; governments are controlling all our lives, can we unburden ourselves of this weight of governments; and... what else are the other questions? I think generally all the questions apply, come to that point. Now which of the questions would you like to go into? And please bear in mind, has this any relationship with your daily life, or we are just playing with words outside somewhere? | 克：真理是不可分割的、不会改变的， 所以真理又怎么可能会日复一日地变化呢？ 我认为我们可以来讨论一下 如果你不介意我指出这一点的话： 你又怎么知道 什么是「真理」呢？ 你理所当然地认为存在着「真理」， 所以要如何一刻接一刻地 将这种真理应用于日常生活呢？ 先生，某人已经非常认真仔细地解释过了…… ——算了，我还是待会儿再来谈这个吧。 现在，你们提出了若干个问题： 观察者和被观察物， 思想者和思想， 我们是否可能去观察而没有「观察者」？ 政府正在掌控着我们所有的生活， 我们能否卸下这种政府施加的负担； 此外……还有什么问题来着？ 我认为一般来说，所有的问题都 适用于、都会触及到这一点。 那么，你们想要先探究哪一个问题呢？ 需要牢记在心的是， 这个问题是否与你的日常生活相关， 还是说，我们只是脱离生活之外， 在玩一些文字游戏？ |
| Q:Can we go into the question about relation which this gentleman put? | 提问者：我们能否来探讨一下 那位先生所提出的关于「关系」的问题？ |
| K:Does that help you, has that any effect in our daily life? Are you asking this question from your consideration of your daily life? | 克：这个问题对你会有帮助吗？ 它对我们的日常生活会有任何影响吗？ 你问这个问题 是不是源自于你对自己日常生活的思考？ |
| Q:Yes. | 提问者：是的。 |
| K:Can we go on with that question, do you want to discuss that question? | 克：我们可以继续来讲这个问题吗， 你们想要讨论这个问题吗？ |
| Q:We can discuss about the control of the government and our day-to-day life. | 提问者：我们可以来讨论一下 政府的控制，以及我们每天的生活。 |
| K:The control of government from day-to-day in our daily life. Can we dispense with that question? | 克：讨论我们日常生活中 政府日复一日的「控制」。 我们可以跳过这个问题吗？ |
| Q:Dispense with it? | 提问者：你要跳过它？ |
| K:No, I'll answer it, we'll discuss it. What is government? And who are the politicians who have taken the responsibility of governing the people? In a democratic society, in a free election society, you elect the government, the politicians. Right? You are responsible for the government. And if you don't want that government, pull it down. It's for you. Right? By your vote, change the government, if you don't like it. | 克：不是，我会来回答它， 我们将会来讨论它。 什么是「政府」？ 那些政客又是谁？ 他们已经肩负起了管理统治人民的责任。 在一个民主社会中， 在一个可以自由选举的社会中， 你们会选举出执政的政府、选举出政治家。 对吧？ 所以你们要对自己的政府负责。 而如果你们不想要那个政府了，那就推翻它。 这取决于你们自己。 对吧？ 如果你们不喜欢这届政府， 那就通过你们的投票来改换执政的政府。 |
| Q:The whole difficulty is with the majority of the people. | 提问者：但全部的难点在于， 它需要大多数人（的投票）。 |
| K:Wait. I am coming to that, sir. The whole difficulty is, a few of us may desire, or want, feel the urge to change the governments, but the vast majority of people, ignorant, they don't know actually what is going on - right, sir? They're hoodwinked, they're cheated, they are cleverly put into a corner where they cannot possibly respond, preferably, and what's one to do. Is that the question, sir? | 克：稍等一下。我正要来谈这个，先生。 全部的难点就在于： 我们中少数人或许渴望、想要， 或者感受到了要改换政府的迫切要求， 然而绝大多数的人 ——那些愚昧无知的人民，他们并不清楚 实际在发生的事情——对吧，先生？ 他们被蒙蔽了，他们被欺骗了， 他们被狡猾地置于某个角落 ——在那里他们不可能作出反应，这样是最好的。 那么我们该怎么做呢？ 是这个问题吗，先生？ |
| Q:Though the governments are democratic they have authoritarian power, and these voters are merely individuals. | 提问者：尽管政府是民主的， 但它们却拥有专制权力， 而那些投票人却只是一些个体。 |
| K:He explained that, sir. The questioner - now first of all, let's be clear. Those who are capable, desirous... wish through voting can bring about change, a few. The vast majority of people are ignorant, deceived, promised, and all the nonsense of electioneering goes on, what is one to do? You and another may want to change the government, you may vote right, liberal, centre, conservative, and so on. What will you do when the vast majority of people elect somebody who is corrupt, power-minded, concerned with his own self, with his own little family, what are you to do? Answer me, sir, it is your problem, not mine, what will you do? In a totalitarian government you have no choice, they are firmly fixed in their power. So, what will you do? It's your problem, sir, don't just leave it to me because I am off in a matter of month, half, in three weeks to Europe and America and so on, I have no vote, I don't want to vote. The whole rotten system, I don't want to come into it. What will you do? You understand, sir? This has been a human problem all along, from the ancient of times, the few want to change, live decently, not be corrupt - a few, but the vast majority is living a life of corruption, that is the way of living, smuggling and all the thing that is going on. And what are the few to do? | 克：他解释过这个了，先生。 这位提问者 ——现在，首先让我们清楚这件事： 即那些有能力、渴望、 希望通过投票而带来改变的人是少数。 而绝大多数的人还是无知的、 易受骗的、轻信承诺的， 而所有那些荒谬无意义的竞选活动 正在进行着， 那么我们该怎么办呢？ 你和另一个人或许想要改变这届政府， 你也许会投票给右派、自由派、 中间派、保守派等等。 然而当绝大多数民众所选的人是 腐败堕落的、充满权力欲的、只关心他自己、 关心他自己的小家族时，你该怎么做呢？ 回答我，先生，这是你的问题， 而不是我的，你会怎么做呢？ 在一个极权主义的政府中， 你是没得选择的， 他们牢牢地掌控着权力。 所以，你会怎么做呢？ 这是你的问题，先生， 不要只是把它丢给我， 因为我再过一个月，半个月， 再过三周就要离开这里， 然后去欧洲、美国等等地方了， 我没有投票权，我也不想去投票。 那整个腐败的体系制度，我并不想要参与其中。 所以你会怎么做呢？ 你理解了吗，先生？ 这是人类一直以来的问题， 自古以来就有了， 少数人想要改变，想过正派的生活， 不要腐败堕落——但只是少数人， 然而绝大多数人却是在过着 腐败堕落的生活， 这就是我们的生活方式， 走私偷运，所有这些事情正在发生着。 那么“少数人”该怎么做呢？ |
| Q:May I say a word, sir? On the lines we are discussing and on the lines we understand you. | 提问者：先生，我可以说句话吗？ 我们以某种方式进行了讨论， 然后我们以某种方式理解了你。 |
| K:No, you don't have to understand me, sir, at all. | 克：不，你并不用理解我，先生，完全不用。 |
| Q:No. On the lines you want us to work. | 提问者：不是的。你以某种方式希望我们去工作。 |
| K:Not on the... no. We are thinking together. | 克：不是以某种方式……不是的。 是我们一起在思考。 |
| Q:Yes, we work hard every day on this problem with ourselves and yet we find far too many stumbling blocks all the time, and so we continue to be clear and confused, clear and confused. That's what... | 提问者：是的，我们自己每天努力工作 来解决这个问题， 然而我们却始终发现有着太多的困难障碍， 因此我们持续不断地陷入于时而清楚时而困惑， 时而清楚时而困惑的状态中。这就是 |
| K:That what this gentleman was saying, the same thing, sir. Government is elected by the vast majority, the vast majority are ignorant - you know what they are. And the few wish to change, what will you do to bring about change in the vast majority? Please answer me, sir, it's your life. | 克：这就是那位先生所说的东西， 它们是一回事，先生。 绝大多数人选举出了政府， 然而“绝大多数人”都是愚昧无知的 ——你知道他们是怎样的。 而少数人希望能有所改变， 那么你要做些什么 才能改变绝大多数人呢？ 请回答我，先生，这是你的生活。 |
| Q:You have got to change yourself first. If you change totally and if you are at the centre of the change it permeates. | 提问者：你必须首先改变你自己。 如果你彻底地改变了，如果你就处于 那种改变的中心， 这种改变就会弥漫传播开来。 |
| K:Right, sir, change yourself first. Will you? (Laughter) No, sir, I am not asking an insulting question or an impudent question. | 克：说的对，先生，首先改变你自己。 那么你会改变吗？ （笑声） 不，先生，我的问题并没有侮辱的意思， 也没有放肆无礼的意思。 |
| Q:I didn't take it that way either. | 提问者：我也没有这样认为。 |
| K:No, sir, please just listen, sir. It is very easy to say somebody must change, I must change - will you radically, deeply change? | 克：不，先生，请认真听好，先生。 嘴上说说某人必须改变，我必须改变， 这是很容易的， ——那么你会根本地、深刻地去改变吗？ |
| Q:Why not? | 提问者：为什么不呢？ |
| K:I didn't say, why not. Will you? | 克：我并没有说“为什么不改变呢”。 而是：你会去改变吗？ |
| Q:I will. | 提问者：我会。 |
| K:When? | 克：什么时候（去改变）呢？ |
| Q:I am, right now. All those years I have been listening to you, yes. | 提问者：我现在就要改变。 这些年以来，我一直在听你的演讲，就是这样。 |
| K:Good, sir. Then how will you, if you change, affect the mass? That's the question, sir. That's one problem. Just listen to it. The other problem involved in governments, both totalitarian, communist, socialist, liberal, and so on, the question of power. Man desires power, both so-called siddhis as well as physical powers. Right, sir? That question has not been solved. So, how will you bring about a change in the cessation of power of the few, democratic, whatever party you have, and educate or help the vast majority who don't care as long as they have a little land, a little food, they are absolutely satisfied, what will you do? | 克：很好，先生。 那么如果你改变了， 你要如何影响到大多数人呢？ 这就是问题所在，先生。 这是一个难题。 你们只需要聆听就行。 而另一个难题则涉及到了政府：极权主义的政府、 共产主义者的政府、社会主义者的政府、 自由主义者的政府，等等，关于「权力」的问题。 人类渴望力量，既包括所谓的“神力”， 也包括外在物质上的权力。 对吧，先生？ 这个问题未曾被解决。 所以，你要如何带来一种改变 去制止少数人的权力呢？ ——不管是民主党的权力，还是无论什么党的权力。 然后去教育或帮助绝大多数人 ——这些人只要还是能有一小块土地、一些食物， 他们就不会在意这些事情了， 他们已经完全满足了，那么你要怎么做呢？ |
| Q:Educate is the only way, there is no other way. | 提问者：「教育」是唯一的出路，没有别的出路。 |
| K:Educate is the only way. Then why isn't there proper education in this country? Now education is being gradually controlled by the government, both in totalitarian states as well as here. Right, sir? Now, how will you change the government who will bring about the right kind of education? You see, you are dodging the question. You move from government, to education, to individual. So, it comes down to this, sir, doesn't it, if one may point it out: that we don't take the responsibility of each one of us to see that thing doesn't happen. Will you educate your servants, if you have them? Come on, sirs. Educate their children? | 克：教育是唯一的途径。 那为什么在这个国家，仍然没有正确合理的教育呢？ 如今，教育正在逐渐被政府所掌控， 不管是在极权主义的国家，还是在这里。 对吧，先生？ 那么，你要如何去改变政府， 让它带来那种正确的教育呢？ 你瞧，你正在回避这个问题。 你把问题从「政府」转移到了教育和个体。 所以，先生，它归根结底就是这个问题， 你看是不是 ——如果允许某人指出来的话—— 那就是我们并没有承担起 我们每一个人应有的责任， 来确保那样的事情不会发生。 你会去教育你的仆人们吗 ——如果你有仆人的话？ 来吧，先生们。 你们会去教育他们的孩子吗？ |
| Q:No. | 提问者：不会。 |
| K:Obviously you won't because you are only concerned with yourself, with your little family. Right, sir? So will you do it? Absolute silence! Therefore you are going to have the government that you want - you deserve. Right, sir? Right, sir? Let's face things as they are. One sees a great many officials, members of parliament, cabinet and all the rest of it. You know the game they are all playing so I don't have to go into it. So, will you, as people who have the capacity to vote, be responsible for the care of human beings? You understand, sir? Right? Will you do it? That means, sir, care implies love. Right, sir? Have you that care, that attention that love brings? Go on, sir, answer it. Which means you will educate your servants' children. You must begin very near to go very far. But you attack at the top and not begin near. Is that question answered, sir? | 克：很显然你们不会， 因为你只关心自己，关心自己那个小小的家庭。 对吧，先生？ 所以你们会这样去做吗？ 这下彻底安静了！ 所以你们将只会拥有那种 你们想要的政府——这是你应得的。 对吧，先生？ 是吧，先生？ 让我们如实地去面对这些事吧。 某人（指克氏自己）曾经见过很多的官员， 那些国会议员、内阁成员，等等。 你们都知道他们在玩的这个游戏， 所以我就不展开讲了。 因此，你们作为拥有投票权的人， 你们能够负起责任来，去关怀人类吗？ 你理解了吗，先生？ 对吧？ 你们会这样去做吗？ 先生，这意味着…… 「关怀」就意味着「爱」。 是吧，先生？ 你有那种「爱」所带来的关怀和关心吗？ 继续，先生，回答它。 这意味着，你将会去教育你仆人的孩子们。 千里之行 始于足下。 但你却在抨击顶层人士，而没有从身边做起。 先生，这个问题是否已经被回答了？ |
| Q:No, sir. See, how can a few individuals solve the problem? Unless you admit a solution that the whole vast majority changes itself into this programme of action nothing can be done. And how to change that vast majority? | 提问者：还没有，先生。 你瞧，极少数个体又怎么能够 解决这个问题呢？ 除非你承认有一个解决方案， 可以让绝大多数人 改变自己而参与到这种行动计划中来， 否则我们无法实现任何事情。 然而，我们要如何去改变绝大多数人呢？ |
| K:I am telling you, sir. The vast majority... - how will you change it, sir, why ask me? | 克：我想要告诉你，先生。 对于绝大多数人 你要如何去改变他们呢？ 先生，为什么你要问我呢？ |
| Q:Because I think I can get more light from you I ask you. | 提问者：因为我觉得我可以从你这里 获得更多了解启发，所以我才问你。 |
| K:All right. No, no, sir. We are friends. Right? | 克：好吧。不，不对，先生。 我们是朋友，对吧？ |
| Q:Yes, but there is... | 提问者：是的，但是…… |
| K:Wait, wait, wait, wait. We are friends. And I am pointing out what can be done. Right? The vast majority must be changed, must be made... I don't know if you want to go into the question of education, how to educate the vast majority. That's irrelevant for the moment. What am I to do, or you to do surrounded by a vast majority of people who are so ignorant, so deplorably, you know, inwardly nothing. Right? | 克：等等，等一下。 我们是朋友。 而我正在指出的是：我们能够去做些什么？ 对吧？ 绝大多数的人必须要有所改变， 必须要变得 我不知道你们是否想要来 探究一下关于「教育」的问题， 如何去教育“绝大多数人”？ 但这个话题暂时来说是不相干的。 而是：当围绕在我身边的绝大多数人 都是如此的愚昧无知， 如此的可悲——你知道的，他们内在很空虚。对吧？ 那么我该怎么做呢，或者说 你该怎么做呢？ |
| Q:When I say a vast majority, I don't mean those illiterate people alone. I mean the highly educated, learned, moneyed, elite of the society also. | 提问者：当我说“绝大多数人”的时候， 我指的并不只是那些文盲。 它也包括那些受过高等教育的人、有学问的人、 有钱的人和社会精英们。 |
| K:Yes, sir. The moneyed people, the educated people, the people who are very poor, and so on, how will they change? You tell me. | 克：是的，先生。 也包括那些有钱人、受过教育的人， 以及那些非常穷困的人，等等， 他们要如何才能改变呢？ 你来告诉我吧。 |
| Q:Sir, in our tradition individual salvation has been the goal, so those who are capable of changing society are looking after themselves and their own souls rather than caring for what is called the community, the society, the raising of it. So, they are as selfish as the other man who is pursuing money, wealth and pleasure. | 提问者：先生，在我们（印度）的传统中， 个人的救赎一直是我们的目标， 所以那些有能力改变社会的人都在 忙着照顾好自己和自己的灵魂，而不是去关怀 所谓的“社区”、“社会”，去改善提升它。 所以，他们和那些追求金钱、 财富和快感的人是一样自私的。 |
| K:Have we answered the question? | 克：我们是否已经回答了这个问题？ |
| Q:Sir, we have just discussed we could have that care and love. We may become that point of activity. I may care for my servant's children, or my employer's employees, as well as the leaders, but there is a limit to which an individual can act, beyond that he may not have the capacity to... | 提问者：先生，我们刚才讨论说 我们本可以拥有那种「关怀」和「爱」的。 我们是可能成为那种活动的中心的。 我或许可以去关怀我仆人的孩子， 或者我老板的雇员， 以及那些领袖们，但个人的行动终究是有限的， 在超出他行动力的范围之外， 他可能就没有能力去 |
| K:Yes, sir. Has one noticed that in history only very few individuals bring about a new change, don't they? Right, sir? Will you have the energy, the capacity, the drive, the love to bring about a different world? Sir, I do not know if you have realised that it is not a provincial problem, a tribal problem as it is becoming in India, tribal, but it is a global problem. You understand, sir? And the global problem can only be solved when we cease to be nationals. Right, sir? When we cease to be Indians. But nobody wants to do this. We want the top to bring about a change and then we comfortably fit into it. And the top, the highly political power-minded people are not going to change. Right? | 克：是的，先生。我们是否注意到了： 在人类历史上，少数几个人 便带来了全新的改变，不是吗？ 对吧，先生？ 那么你有这种能量、能力、 动力和「爱」 去造就一个截然不同的世界吗？ 先生，我不知道你是否意识到了 那就是 这并不是一个地方性的问题， 也不是部落性的问题 ——就像它在印度正在变成部落性的问题—— 它已经成了一个全球性的问题。 你理解了吗，先生？ 而只有当我们不再是“某个国家的人”时， 我们才能解决这个全球性的问题。 对吧，先生？ 当我们不再是“印度人”的时候。 然而没有人想要这么做。 我们想要顶层人士为我们带来改变， 然后我们只要舒服地去适应它就行了。 然而那些顶层人士，那些身居高位的、 充满权力欲的政治人士，他们并不准备去改变。 是吧？ |
| That's enough of this. Now, we want to discuss what is one to do in daily life, the question of the observer and the observed, the two divisions. Right, sir? Now, in understanding that, which we shall go into, will you see the relationship with your wife, with your children, with your neighbour, with the poor, it is related to that. Right, sir? So we are going to discuss that, talk over that to find a right kind of relationship with each other, with humanity. Right? Are you interested in that? That's what you asked, sir. And that is what most of you want to go into. First of all, let's begin at a very simple level which is, have you observed visually with your eyes, a tree? Have you? Just a tree. And when you observe the tree what is going on in that observation? There is that thing, and you call it a tree. You call it a tree because the memory has come into operation, and it is generally recognised, that thing is a tree. You give it a name, from recognition, and then the name, the recognition, the memory operates. Right, sir? Are you following - simple enough, isn't it? Now, can you observe the tree without naming it? Just look at the tree, sir. Just look at it and see if you can look at it without the operation of a single word or memory, just look. Can you? | 这个问题讲到这里就够了。 而现在，我们想要来讨论一下： 我们在日常生活中该怎么做， 关于「观察者」和「被观察物」的问题， 这两者之间的分裂。 对吧，先生？ 而现在，就在了解这个问题的过程中 ——我们将会来探讨它—— 你可以去看一下你和你妻子、孩子的关系， 你和你邻居、和那些穷人的关系吗？ 这和上述问题是联系在一起的。 对吧，先生？ 所以我们将会来讨论这个， 来谈论一下它， 从而去找到一种彼此之间、 我们和他人之间的正确的关系。 对吧？你们对它有兴趣吗？ 这就是你在问的东西，先生。 这就是你们大多数人想要探讨的东西。 首先，让我们从一个非常简单的层面开始吧， 也就是：你是否曾经用你的眼睛、 从视觉上去观察过一棵树？ 你观察过吗？ 只是去看一棵树。 而当你观察那棵树的时候， 在这种观察中发生了什么呢？ 存在着那个东西，然后你把它称为“树”。 你之所以把它叫做“树”，是因为记忆开始运作了， 而它通常会被记忆所识别， 识别出那个东西就是“一棵树”。 你经由这种识别而给了它一个名字， 然后那个名字、那种识别、 那种记忆就开始运作了。 对吧，先生？ 你跟上了吗？ ——这已经足够简单了，不是吗？ 那么，你能否观察那棵树 而不要去命名它呢？ 只是去看那棵树，先生。 只是去看它，然后看看你是否能够 不带着任何文字或记忆的运转而去看它， 单纯地去看它。 你可以吗？ |
| Q:Without an emotion, sir? | 提问者：是不带情绪地看吗，先生？ |
| K:Just begin, sir, begin slowly. | 克：只要开始去做就行，先生， 开始慢慢地这样去做。 |
| Q:Momentarily, yes, for a moment. | 提问者：我们可以短暂地这样去观察， 但它是暂时性的。 |
| K:Now, wait a minute. For the moment. | 克：好，请等一下。它是暂时性的。 |
| Q:Then we are in time. | 提问者：那我们就落入于时间中了。 |
| K:Just a minute, sir. For the moment. That's fairly easy, isn't it. Which implies - just listen to it, sir - that the word 'tree' is not the actual fact. Right? Right? No, sir, don't accept what I am saying, just see. The word is not the thing. Right, sir? The word 'microphone' is not this actual thing. Right? Just a minute. So, a description of a tree is not the described. Right, sir? So let's be clear. The word, the description, is not the thing or the described. | 克：稍等一下，先生。 它（这种观察）是暂时的。 它是相当简单的，不是吗？ 它意味着——请听好了，先生—— 那就是：“树”这个字，并不是现实中的存在物。 对吧？ 是吧？ 不，先生，请不要接受我所说的话， 只是去看就行。 词语并不是它所代表的那个东西。 对吧，先生？ “麦克风”这个词，它并不是这个现实中的麦克风。 对吧？ 稍等一下。 所以，对于那棵树的「描述」，它并非被描述之物。 是吧，先生？ 所以让我们清楚这一点： 即词语、描述，它并不是那个「东西」或者「被描述对象」。 |
| Q:How has it come into being? | 提问者：这种观察要如何才能出现呢？ |
| K:Wait, sir, wait, you're... Find out, sir, do it. | 克：等一下，先生，稍等一下，你太 去发现它，先生，去做一下它。 |
| Q:It has got a functional thing to perform, that word, finished. Communication will be paralysed. | 提问者：那个词语，它执行了一种功能性的用途， 就是这么回事儿。 否则沟通交流就难以进行下去了。 |
| K:I am coming to that, sir. | 克：我正要来谈这一点，先生。 |
| Q:Yes, sir. | 提问者：好的，先生。 |
| K:Have a little patience, sir. | 克：请稍微有点耐心，先生。 |
| Q:Sorry. | 提问者：对不起。 |
| K:Don't be sorry, sir. | 克：不用对不起，先生。 |
| Q:OK, I am not. (Laughter) | 提问者：好吧，没有对不起。（笑声） |
| K:OK. Don't say, OK (laughs). So the word is not the thing. Can you look at that without the word? That's all. And you say, 'I can.' Now, can you look at your wife, or your husband, without using the word 'my wife'? | 克：好的。不用说“好的”（笑声）。 所以文字词语并不是那个「东西」。 你能够没有文字词语地去看它吗？ 仅此而已。 然后你说，“我可以”。 那么，你能否看着你的妻子、 或者你的丈夫，而不使用“我的妻子”这个词吗？ |
| Q:Very rarely. | 提问者：极少的情况下可以。 |
| K:You are asking, the observer and the observed, are they different, if they are not different there is only observation. And we are going into this question very slowly, step by step, because if you once understand this there will be freedom from effort. The word is not the thing, the word 'door' is not the actual door. Right, sir? Right? The name 'K' is not the actual person, the reputation is not the actual person, the description is not the actual person, the photograph (laughs) is not the actual person, or the image that you have made about this person is not the person. Right? So let us be very, very clear on this point: the description is never the described. You can paint the most beautiful mountain, but the picture is not that. Right? So, the symbol is not that, the theory is not fact. So, can I look, can you look at your wife or your husband without the word, first. | 克：你们在问：观察者和被观察物， 他们是不是不同的？ 如果他们没有什么不同， 那么存在的就只有「观察」了。 而我们正在非常缓慢地、 一步一步地来探究这个问题， 因为一旦你理解了它，你就可以免于努力了。 词语文字并不是那个「东西」， “门”这个字 并不是现实中的那扇门。 对吧，先生？ 是这样吧？ “克（克里希那穆提）”这个名字 并不是实际的那个人， 一个人的名誉声望 并不是那个真实的人， 关于这个人的描述 也不是那个真实的人， 那张照片（笑）并不是那个真实的人， 或者你们所制作的那个人的雕像， 它也不是那个人。 对吧？所以我们需要非常非常清楚这一点： 即「描述」永远都不是那个「被描述物」。 你可以画出无比美丽的高山， 但那幅画并不是那座高山。 对吧？ 所以「符号标志」并不是真实之物， 理论并非事实。 所以，首先，我能否去看…… 你能否去看你的妻子 或者丈夫，而不带着文字词语呢？ |
| Q:Sir, possible only when we are in an ecstatic state. To look like that is only possible when we are in an ecstatic or blissful state, at other times it is not there. | 提问者：先生，只有当我们处于 狂喜状态中时，它才是可能的。 只有当我们处于狂喜或极乐的状态中时， 我们才有可能这样子去看，而其他时候 这种观察是不存在的。 |
| K:We are going to go into that, sir. | 克：我们将会来探讨这一点的，先生。 |
| Q:No, sir, I mean my point is whether I am going to attain this blissful state by some other means and start looking at things like this. | 提问者：不，先生，我的意思是…… 我的重点是：我是不是要通过某种方式 来达到这种极乐状态， 然后开始这样子去观察事物？ |
| K:Yes, I'll tell you other means: drugs (laughter), alcohol. They have tried that. They have tried LSD, cocaine, marijuana, hashish, there is the latest thing which is called angel foam or angel dust which really kills you or you see something out of this world. So there are other ways of doing it which destroys your brain, which destroys your body. If you want to go along that way this is a free country and if you have got drugs, go to it. But we are talking of a much more sane, rational way of doing this. That is, we are saying when you observe your wife - I am sticking to wife and child because that's your life, your boss, your servants, your children, your neighbour, your politicians - all of them, can you look without the word - slowly - without the word knowing the word is not the person, and the word represents a continuous memory, continuous association with the past. Right? That's simple, isn't it, sir? Sir, are you following this? | 克：好吧，那我可以告诉你，还有其他的方式： 你还可以嗑药（笑声），喝酒。 人们已经尝试过它了。 人们尝试过了LSD、可卡因、大麻、印度大麻， 还有一种最新的玩意儿，它叫做“天使泡沫” 还是“天使粉（一种强烈的迷幻药）”来着？ 它真的会杀死你，或者你会看到某种 脱离这个世界之外的东西。 所以我们还有其他办法可以来做这件事， 但它们会摧毁你的大脑， 摧毁你的身体。 如果你想要走这条路的话， 这是一个自由的国家（印度）， 而如果你搞到了一些毒品，你也可以这么做。 然而我们正在谈论的是： 以某种更加心智健全和理智的方式来做这件事。 也就是，我们在说：当你观察你的妻子—— 我坚持要提到妻子和孩子， 是因为 这是你的生活、 你的老板、你的仆人、你的孩子、 你的邻居、你们的政治家 ——所有这些人。 那么你能否不带文字地去看 ——慢慢来——不带词语地去看， 因为你知道文字词语并不是那个人， 文字词语代表的是 那种延续不断的记忆，连续不断的与「过去」的关联。 对吧？ 这是很简单的事儿，不是吗，先生？ 先生，你跟上它了吗？ |
| Q:Children alone can do that before they learn any language. | 提问者：只有孩子可以这么做 ——在他们还没学会任何语言之前。 |
| K:I know, I know. Children may do this. Yes, sir. At least children, you think, can do it. We are not children, we are grown up people so don't let's go back to children. Sorry, sir, I am not being rude. | 克：我知道，我明白。孩子或许可以这么做。 是的，先生。 你认为至少孩子 是能够这样做的。 但我们并不是孩子， 我们已经是成年人了， 所以就不要再回到「孩子」上去了。 抱歉，先生。我并没有不礼貌的意思。 |
| Q:Sir, even if the naming process is suspended in the act of perceiving you are still left with the problem of assuming. We assume on many levels. To assume means to act as if something were so. We assume the universe, you assume the presence of the audience. Now, we act on the deep level as if there was another obstacle - the world is outside. | 提问者：先生，即使在「看」的行动中， 命名的过程暂停了， 你仍旧要面临着「假定」的问题。 我们会在很多层面上去「假定」。 「假定」就意味着： 认为某个事物就是那样的，然后据此而行动。 我们假定了宇宙的存在，而你会假定听众的存在。 而现在，我们是在一个很深的层次上做出行动， 但好像还有另一个障碍—— 毕竟这个世界是在我们之外的。 |
| K:I understand, sir. May I just go on with this a little bit, step by step. So, can one observe without the association which the word awakens? You follow all this, sir? And to observe the person, intimate or not intimate, can you do it? The word, the memory is the past. Right? The past being all the incidents, events, all that you have accumulated during one's relationship between a husband and a wife, and a family, and a neighbour - and the government. Now, can you observe, is there an observation... - not 'can you,' - is there an observation without association? | 克：我懂你的意思，先生。 我可以继续再稍微深入一下它吗？ 让我们一步一步来。 所以，我们能否去观察 而没有那种文字词语 所唤起的种种关联？ 你跟上这一切了吗，先生？ 然后去观察那个人 ——无论是亲密的还是不亲密的人—— 你能够这样去做吗？ 文字词语、记忆，它就是「过去」。 对吧？ 「过去」就是所有的那些事件、 活动，所有你积累起来的事物 ——在你和丈夫、妻子、 家人、邻居，以及政府的关系中 所积累起来的事物。 而现在，你能否去观察……——不是“你能否……”—— 而是：是否存在这样一种观察 在这种观察中是没有「关联」的？ |
| Q:You have to tell the technique, sir. (Laughter) | 提问者：你要告诉我们那种（观察的）技巧，先生。（笑声） |
| K:What? | 克：你说什么？ |
| Q:I want to know the way, the actual, practical way. | 提问者：我想要知道那个方法， 那个现实的、实际的方法。 |
| K:You want to know the way? Yes, the gentleman wants to know the practical way. That is, tell me how to do it. That means what? Just listen to that. When you ask, how am I to do it, you are not actually doing it, are you? Please I am not insulting, sir, I am just asking. So you are not doing it. So you want somebody to tell you how to do it, which means somebody who has found, who has done it and says, if you do this, this, this, you will also do it. Right? So you want a system, a practice, a method. Right? | 克：你想要知道方法吗？ 是的，这位先生想要知道实际的方法。 也就是：请告诉我该怎么做。 而这意味着什么呢？ 请听好。 当你询问：我要怎么去做它呢？ 那么你实际上并没有在做，对吧？ 请注意，先生，我并没有冒犯的意思， 我只是在提问。 所以你并没有在做它。 于是你想要某人来告诉你该怎么做， 这意味着某个人，他已经找到了， 他已经实现了这件事，然后他告诉你说： 如果你这样做、或者那样做， 你也可以实现这件事。 对吧？ 所以你想要一个体系、 一种练习、一个方法。是吧？ |
| Q:Sir, for a genius like you... | 提问者：先生，对于像你这样的天才来说…… |
| K:I am not a genius. | 克：我可不是什么天才。 |
| Q:For us, lesser mortals, a way in which... | 提问者：对于我们这些凡夫俗子来说， 一种方法还是 |
| K:No, you are not listening, my darling, sir, please listen! Sir, if one has lived this way that we have lived in division, and from that division arose all the conflicts of humanity - the division of class, division of nations, division of people, division of tribes, division of beliefs, division... - you follow? - the whole set up of human existence is based on this. And that has brought about tremendous conflict, wars, misery. Right? So one asks, is there a different way of living - you understand, sir? - in which there will be no conflict. So one has to find out, and if you say, suppose somebody has found it and he says, do it. And if he says, follow this system, this method, this way, he is putting you back into the old rut of authority, following. You understand, sir? So as I explained many times, please: I am not your authority, I am not your guru, don't follow me, but as two people, friends, talking over together let's solve this problem. That's all. So I am saying, can you observe? You can observe that thing called tree without naming, can't you? That's fairly easy, if you have at all looked at nature, looked at birds, it is comparatively easy, to observe the world outside you is fairly easy. But the moment you turn it inward it becomes extremely difficult. Your reactions are so strong, so conditioned, so instantaneous that it's very difficult to say, well, I'll hold it back. So, we are going into it step by step. First, see what you are doing actually in daily life. You and your wife. Right? You, separate from your wife, and she, separate from you, or you and your neighbour, separate, and so on. Where there is division there must be conflict. That's understood. Right, sirs? | 克：不，你并没有在聆听， 我亲爱的先生，请听好！ 先生，如果我们是以这样的方式而生活 ——也就是我们是活在分裂中的—— 那么从这种分裂中， 就会产生出所有人类的冲突 ——阶级的区分， 国家的区分，民族的区分，部落的区分， 信仰的区分，那些划分…… ——你跟上了吗？ —— 人类「存在」的整个系统 都是建立在这个基础上的。 而它已经带来了惊人的冲突、 战争和苦难。 对吧？ 所以某人（指克氏自己）在问： 是否存在着一种截然不同的生活方式？ 你理解了吗，先生？ 在这种生活方式中，我们将不再有冲突。 所以我们必须要去发现， 如果你说：假如某个人已经发现了它， 而他告诉你说：去这样做。 然后如果他说：请遵循这个体系、这个方法、这条道路， 那么他就是把你拉回到 那条遵循权威的老路上了。 你明白了吗，先生？ 所以，正如我多次解释过的那样， 请注意： 我并不是你的权威，我并不是你的古鲁， 所以请不要追随我， 我们只是作为两个「人」，作为朋友， 在一起讨论交谈， 让我们来解决这个问题吧。 仅此而已。 所以，我在说：你能否去观察？ 你可以去观察那个被称为“树”的东西 而不去命名它，对吧？ 这还算容易的，如果你确实曾经 这样去观察过自然、观察过鸟儿的话， 这相对来说比较容易，去这样子观察 在你之外的世界，这还算是容易的。 然而一旦你转向了内在， 这种观察就变得极其困难了。 因为你的反应是如此的强烈、 如此的深受制约、 它瞬间就产生了，以至于你很难去说， “好吧，我先克制一下它。 ” 所以，我们将会一步一步地来深入它。 首先，你要看到自己在日常生活中 实际上在做的事。 你和你的妻子。 对吧？ 你，你是和你的妻子分开的， 而她，她也是和你分开的， 或者说你和你的邻居， 你们也是彼此分离独立的，等等。 而当有了「区分」，就必然会有冲突。 这一点很好理解。对吧，先生们？ |
| Q:Yes, sir, but this division is a fundamental sense of being alive. | 提问者：是的，先生，但这种区分 给予了我们基本的“存活”感。 |
| K:Yes, sir. | 克：没错，先生。 |
| Q:It's fundamental to the experience itself of existence. | 提问者：它对于体验「存在」本身来说是必不可少的。 |
| K:What? | 克：你说什么？ |
| Q:And it is the sense of being separate. | 提问者：而它是一种分离独立的感觉。 |
| K:No, no, that's what we have accepted. | 克：不，不是的， 这只是我们所接受的一种观点。 |
| Q:Right, that's what we have accepted, assumed. | 提问者：没错，这是我们已经接受的、假定的观点。 |
| K:We have accepted this illusion that we are living when we are separate. And that living when we are separate has brought such extraordinary misery. | 克：我们已经接受相信了这种错觉： 那就是 当我们彼此分离独立， 我们才算是活着。 然而这种我们彼此分离的生活 却已经带来了如此巨大的苦难。 |
| Q:What is the alternative, sir? | 提问者：有什么可替代方案吗，先生？ |
| K:Wait, I am doing... (laughs) You are all wanting the alternate road. | 克：等一下，我正在……（笑） 你们都想要另一条可供选择的道路。 |
| Q:No, not road, even mentally, to understand. | 提问者：不，不是道路，我们只是想要了解它 ——即使只是思想智力上了解。 |
| K:Yes, I am doing it, sir, we are doing it. I am asking you, or we are talking over together, will you find out how to look at your wife or your husband without all the memory of twenty or five days, or thirty days coming into operation, will you find out how to do it? Will you? | 克：是的，我正在做这件事， 先生，我们正在做这件事。 我正在问你，或者说我们正在一起讨论， 你能够去发现如何不带有任何记忆地 去看你的妻子或丈夫的方法吗？ ——无论是二十天还是五天的记忆， 还是三十天的记忆，不让记忆活跃起来， 你能去发现如何这样去做的方法吗？ 你可以吗？ |
| Q:If I reduce myself to a mirror, which has no reaction, I think one can do it. | 提问者：如果我把自己变成一面镜子 ——没有任何的反应—— 我认为我们就可以这样子去做了。 |
| K:Sir, if you say 'if,' when you introduce the word 'if' then we are not doing it. If I am queen of England it would be marvellous, but I am not! | 克：先生，如果你说“如果”， 当你引入了“如果”这个词， 那么我们就并没有在做它。 如果我是英国女王，那该有多棒啊， 可我并不是！ |
| Q:No, but that is the way in which we can wipe out all this. | 提问者：是的，但这是我们可以消除掉所有这一切的途径。 |
| K:No, sir, not by saying 'if I am this,' but only by facing the fact. The fact is governments want to control people, governments are incapable of governing as a whole humanity. Right, sir? So face the fact. Not, if we had a marvellous government, we haven't got a marvellous government, anywhere. So, the fact is we have this division, and this division bringing us as separate entities has caused tremendous misery in life, wars, destruction, and all the rest of it. And we have accepted that through centuries. That's our conditioning. So somebody comes along and says, let us find out if there is not a different way of living. So he says, first, can you find out why this division exists. Right, sir? Right, sir? | 克：不，先生，不要去说“如果我是怎么怎么样的……” 只要去面对「事实」。 事实就是政府想要控制人民， 各国政府们没有能力 作为一个人类的共同体去管理人们。 对吧，先生？ 所以，我们要面对这一事实。 而不是：如果我们有了一个了不起的政府 我们并没有这样一个了不起的政府 ——无论在哪里都没有。 所以，事实就是我们有着这种区分， 而这种让我们成为分离个体的区分 已经导致了生命中巨大的苦难、 战争、毁灭，等等所有这一切。 而世世代代以来， 我们已经接受认可了这一点。 这就是我们的局限。 这时某个人过来了，他说： 让我们去看看，是否存在着一种 截然不同的生活方式。 然后他说：首先，你能否去搞清楚 为什么这种「区分」会存在？ 对吧，先生？ 是吧，先生？ |
| Q:Sir, when I observe you there is only talking, there is no you and me. OK? | 提问者：先生，当我观察你的时候， 存在的只有「谈话」， 而并不存在「你」和「我」。对吧？ |
| K:That's right, sir, that's right. | 克：对，先生，说的很对。 |
| Q:That's understood. | 提问者：这个我们明白了。 |
| K:That's right, sir. You have said it! | 克：没错，先生。你说得对！ |
| Q:That is, we are living only in what we are talking about. | 提问者：换句话说，这时我们就只是活在 我们正在谈论的东西中了。 |
| K:Yes, that's right. Just listen, which means you are actually listening. Wait. There is no person. You don't exist and I don't exist, but you are actually listening to what is being said. | 克：是的，没错。请听好，这就意味着 你是真正地在聆听。 稍等一下。 这时没有任何「人」存在了。 「你」不存在了，「我」也不存在了， 你只是真切地在聆听对方所说的东西。 |
| Q:Yes, sir. | 提问者：是这样的，先生。 |
| K:That's all. Leave it there. You see, it is so difficult to go step by step into it when you bring in something all the time. Now, one realises our brains are conditioned to this division. Right? Do you realise it, sir, are you aware of this, that you are conditioned to accept this division: me - my wife, me and my country, me and my government, me and belief - you follow? - this constant division. Are you aware of this division? And the consequences of this division? Madame, you can't hear and at the same time take notes. Forgive me for pointing out. It is so impossible (laughs) to talk, to go into this. As most people don't, and as most people have accepted this conflict between two people or a group of people, between different religions, we accept it, that has become our habit, that has become our custom. And we say, help me to break that custom. Right? Right, sir? Nobody is going to help you. Right? The gurus have promised it, the books have promised it, and you are still keeping this division. Right? So, can you - please listen - can you discard your books, your gurus, all your authority and face the fact? Will you? Face the fact that this division must create a corrupt, disintegrating world. If you accept it and say, 'Look, one can't live that way,' you're challenging your brain, asking it to find a different way of living. Will you challenge your mind? No. You understand, sir? Will you? | 克：那就行了。到此为止就可以了。 你瞧，要一步一步地深入它是多么的困难 ——因为你们一直会插入某些话题。 现在，我们已经意识到自己的大脑 受到了这种「区分」的制约。 是吧？ 你意识到它了吗，先生？ 你们察觉到它了吗？ 那就是你已经被制约着 去接受相信了这种区分： 我——我的妻子，我和我的国家， 我和我的政府， 我和信仰——你跟上了吗？ 这种持续不断的区分。 你们察觉到这种区分了吗？ 察觉到这种区分所造成的后果了吗？ 这位夫人，你是无法在做笔记的同时去聆听的。 请原谅我指出这一点。 要谈论和深入这些东西，实在是不太可能啊（笑）。 由于大多数人没有察觉到它， 由于大多数人已经接受了这种冲突 ——这种存在于两个人之间、两个团体之间， 以及不同宗教之间的冲突， 我们接受了它，它已经变成了我们的习惯， 变成了我们的习性。 于是我们说：请帮助我打破这种习性。 对吧？ 是这样吧，先生？ 然而没有人会来帮助你。 是吧？ 那些古鲁曾经承诺会帮助你们， 那些圣书曾经承诺会帮助你们， 然而你们仍旧维持着这种区分。 对吧？ 所以，你能否——请听好了—— 你能否抛弃掉你的书本、 你的古鲁、你所有的权威， 然后去面对事实？ 你可以吗？ 去面对这个事实：即这种区分 它必然会创造出一个腐败的、分裂的世界。 如果你赞同这一点， 然后说，“瞧，我们的确不能再这样子生活了”， 那么你就向你的大脑发起了挑战， 你正在要求它找到一种不同的生活方式。 你会去挑战你的头脑吗？ 不会。 你理解了吗，先生？ 你会吗？ |
| Q:Yes. | 提问者：我会。 |
| K:Right. If you do then you have to find out, haven't you, not accept, not ask, 'Please tell me how to do it,' it is you have to do it. So, what will you do? First, see what is actually happening. Right, sir? Then you ask, why does this division exist? Right, sir? Is the division created by the word? Is the division created by the image which I have built about my wife or my husband? Right? Is it this division exists because I am pursuing one line of desire and she is pursuing her own particular desire? You follow? So, is it I am ambitious - one is ambitious and the wife is docile? Or is the wife ambitious and you are docile? You follow, sir? Are you aware of this? | 克：很好。如果你这样做的话， 那么你就必须自己去发现它， 不是吗？ 不是去接受， 不是去问，“请告诉我怎么做”， 而是你自己必须去做它。 所以，你将会怎么做呢？ 首先，你要看到实际上正在发生的事情。 对吧，先生？ 然后你就会问：为什么这种区分会存在？ 是吧，先生？ 这种区分是文字词语所造成的吗？ 这种区分是「意象」所造成的吗？ ——那种我所建立起来的、 关于我妻子或我丈夫的印象。 对吧？ 而这种区分之所以存在， 是不是因为我在追求某一类欲望， 而她也在追求着她自己特定的欲望？ 你们理解了吗？ 所以，是不是因为我是野心勃勃的 ——某人是野心勃勃的，而妻子却是温顺听话的？ 或者妻子是野心勃勃的，而你却是温顺听话的？ 你跟上了吗，先生？ 你觉察到它了吗？ |
| Q:What is there to observe if there is no division? | 提问者：如果没有了「区分」， 那么，是什么东西 在那里进行观察呢？ |
| K:We are going into it, sir, for god's... What is there to observe if there is no division. That's again, sir - you see, you haven't... you haven't even had the courtesy to listen! | 克：我们将会来探讨这一点的，先生， 看在上帝的份上 如果没有了「区分」， 那么，是什么在那里进行观察呢？ 这同样也是……先生 ——你瞧，你并没有 你甚至连听我说的礼貌态度都没有！ |
| Q:That is understood, sir, only when we are aware there is no division. | 提问者：这个我们理解了，先生， 那就是只有当我们觉察到并不存在「区分」的时候。 |
| K:'When you are aware, if you are aware, should be aware, must be aware' - it means you are not aware. So, I am asking, so, one is asking, are you aware of this division? If one is, then why is there this division? This division exists through millennia, through time immemorial. Right? Right, sir? Me and my god, me and my language, me and my belief. Right, sir? From the ancient times, from the Sumerian times, that is about 7,000 BC, it has been going on. And we have accepted it, and we say that is the way to live: with war, with destruction, with conflict, with hate. And so, we must find a different way of living, which means why is there this division, who has created it? You understand, sir? We are thinking together, please. Who has created this? Don't say, nature, god, something external force. Human beings have created it. Right? Right, sir? That is, what is a human being? His capacity to think. Right, sir? So, thought itself is limited, so whatever it creates, it must be limited. Right? So, in relationship with another when thought operates it must be limited. Right? When there is limitation there is division. When one tribe says, 'I am this particular tribe' and there is another tribe, there is a division. Right? So thought has brought about this division. Right, do you see this? | 克：“当你觉察到，如果你觉察到， 你应该觉察到，你必须觉察到” ——它意味着你并没有在觉察。 所以，我正在问： 所以，某人正在问：你是否觉察到了这种「区分」？ 如果你觉察到了，那么为什么还会有这种区分呢？ 这种区分已经存在了有几千年了， 自古以来就有了。 对吧？ 是这样吧，先生？ 我和我的神明，我和我的语言，我和我的信仰。 对吧，先生？ 从远古时代开始，从苏美尔时代 ——大约公元前7000年 开始， 一直持续至今。 而我们已经接受了它，然后我们说： 这就是应有的生活方式 ——战争、毁灭、冲突、仇恨。 所以，我们必须要找到一种 不同的生活方式， 也就是说：为什么会有这种「区分」， 是谁制造出了这种「区分」？ 你们明白了吗，先生？ 请注意，我们正在一起思考它。 是谁创造出了它？ 不要说：是「自然」，是「神」， 是某种外部的力量。 是人类创造出了它。 对吧？ 是吧，先生？ 换句话说，人类是什么？ 人类是具有思考能力的存在物。 对吧，先生？ 然而，思想本身就是局限的， 因此无论它创造出了什么， 那个东西必定也是局限的。 对吧？ 所以，在我们和他人的关系中，当思想开始运作起来， 那种关系就必定会受限。 对吧？ 而当有了局限，那么就会有分裂。 当一个部落说，“我是某某部落”， 然后又来了另一个部落， 那么就会有「区分」了。 是吧？ 所以思想已经带来了这种分裂。 对吧，你看到这一点了吗？ |
| Q:Sir, can you clarify something? My thought. Thought seems to be operative on all levels. The sensational level, and... | 提问者：先生，你能否澄清一些问题？ 那就是关于「我的思想」 「思想」似乎会在所有各个层面上运转。 比如感官感觉的层面，以及…… |
| K:Sir, I'm going... | 克：先生，我会来 |
| Q:What do you mean by thought? Is it just the internal verbalisation? | 提问者：那么你所说的「思想」， 它是什么意思呢？ 它仅仅是一种内心感受的言语化吗？ |
| K:Yes. Partly verbalisation, partly - just a minute! - I am describing the parts, but the parts do not make the whole. Right? I want to go into this a little bit. | 克：是的。部分的言语化， 只是部分的——请稍等一下！ —— 我正在描述「部分」， 但这些「部分」并不能构成整体。 好吧？ 我想要稍微来深入一下它。 |
| Q:Division need not necessarily be a conflict, it can be co-operative. | 提问者：「区分」不一定就是冲突， 它也可以演变为合作。 |
| K:Oh, sir, don't say 'necessary,' this is going on, why do you say 'necessary'? It's just an idea. Goodness, you can't listen to sequential listening. Sir, you are here to find out what the speaker has to say. Right? You have asked this question, so kindly first listen and then you can tear it to pieces. You can throw it overboard, tread on it, do whatever you like, but first have the courtesy, the amicable attention. First, I say, why has this division existed, why has man accepted this division, who has created it, and how has it come into being. So, one sees it's either belief - right? - tribalism, one tribe against another tribe. Right, sir? Are you following all this? One set of dogmas against another set of dogmas, one set of tribal god against another set of tribal god, language divides people, and so on, so on. How has this come about? | 克：噢，先生，不要说什么“不一定”了， 这就是正在发生的事， 为什么你还要说“不一定”呢？ 这只是你的一种想法而已。 天哪，你们都没法按照 逻辑的先后顺序来聆听。 先生，你到这里来是为了去搞清楚 演讲者所说的东西。 对吧？ 既然你们已经问了这个问题， 那就请先好好听吧， 然后你可以再把它打成碎片。 你可以把它扔得远远的， 然后践踏它， 做任何你想要做的事，但首先，请你礼貌地、 心平气和地集中注意力吧。 首先，我说的是：为什么这种「区分」会存在？ 为什么人类接受了这种「区分」？ 是谁制造出了「区分」？「区分」是如何出现的？ 然后，某人（指克氏自己）看到： 罪魁祸首是信仰——对吧？—— 或者是部落主义，一个部落会对抗另一个部落。 对吧，先生？ 你们跟上这一切了吗？ 一套教条对抗另一套教条， 一群部落神明对抗另一群部落神明， 而语言也区分了人类，等等，等等。 那么这种「区分」是如何出现的呢？ |
| Q:Isn't it, sir, that these things you have described have brought grosser levels of division, but there is a very subtle level of division, the very feeling that I am something separate seems to underlie all these other grosser forms of nationalism. | 提问者：先生，你所讲述的这些东西， 它们是不是只带来了 那种较为粗糙外显层次上的区分， 然而还存在着一种 非常精细微妙层次上的区分， 也就是那种“我是分离独立”的感觉， 而它似乎才是所有那些较为外显的 国家主义形式的底层原因。 |
| K:I can't hear, you have to speak much louder. | 克：我听不清楚，你必须要说得更大声一些。 |
| Q:The divisions that you have been talking about, tribalism, nationalism, religion, all seem to be on a somewhat gross level, and that they are things which, if you turn your attention towards them, you can see somewhat into them. | 提问者：你所谈到的那些区分，比如部落主义、 国家主义，或者宗教，它们似乎多多少少都是 处于一个较为外显的层次上的， 而这些东西…… 如果你将注意力 转向它们，你就可以多多少少看到 它们的内在原因。 |
| K:I am coming to that, sir, but first I must begin from the outside and come inside. | 克：我正要来谈这个，先生， 但首先，我必须 从外在入手，然后再转向内在。 |
| Q:So, what seems to me very difficult to see into is the very basic sense of separation of the self as an individual. | 提问者：所以，在我看来，要去洞察理解 那种作为个体的「自我」的最基本的分离感 ——这是一件非常困难的事。 |
| K:What does he say? | 克：他在说什么？ |
| Q:For him the difficulty is that there is a feeling, a sense of separation as an individual more fundamental to all of these separations. | 提问者：对他来说，困难在于 存在着一种感受，一种作为个体的分离感， 相比所有那些外显的区分， 它（分离感）是更加根本性的原因。 |
| K:I am coming to that, sir! We have nearly spent an hour and we haven't even reached the rock bottom of it. We are saying, man has lived not only on the senses, but also much more on the intellectual, verbal, thought level. And we are saying, thought in its very activity is divisive, divisive in the sense breaking up. Is that clear? You can observe it yourself, sir. All thinking is limited, fragmentary. Thought can conceive the whole, but the conception is still thought. Right? Right, sirs? So, now can thought, which is memory, experience, knowledge, which is the past, can that knowledge not operate when you are observing? That's all. When you are observing your wife, and your husband, and your family, or your servant, or your neighbour, can this memory associated with your wife or the husband, be in abeyance, just to look. Will you? Will you do it? Can you do it? Realising that thought is divisive, that thought is fragmentary, that thought is born of knowledge which is the past, and so you are always looking at your wife, at your neighbour with the eyes of the past. Or, look at yourself with the eyes of the past which gives you the traditional conditioning, which is: I am different from somebody else. Have you followed all this, sir? Are you doing it? So, I am saying... | 克：我马上就会讲到这一点了，先生！ 我们已经花费了将近一个小时， 然而我们甚至都还没触及问题的根本。 我们在说的是：人不仅仅是生活于感官层面的， 而更多的是活在思维智力、语言文字和思想层面的。 然后我们说：思想的活动本身就是分裂性的， 这里「分裂性」的意思是“打碎”。 这点清楚了吗？ 你自己也能观察到这一点，先生。 所有的思考都是局限的、碎片化的。 思想可以去设想那个“整体”， 但这种构想仍旧是思想。 对吧？ 对吧，先生们？ 所以，现在，思想是否能够…… 思想就是记忆、 经验、知识——也就是「过去」， 在你观察的时候，这种知识能否不要活动？ 就是这样。 当你观察你妻子、你丈夫、你的家人， 或者你的仆人、你的邻居时， 那些与你的妻子或丈夫相关的记忆 能否暂停？ 而只是去看。 你可以吗？你可以这么做吗？ 你能够这样做吗？ 你意识到了思想是分裂性的， 思想是支离破碎的， 思想是源自于知识的 ——而知识就是「过去」， 因此，你在观察你的妻子、你的邻居的时候， 永远都是带着「过去」的眼光在看他们。 或者，你也会带着「过去」的眼光看你自己 ——而这给你带来了基于传统的制约， 也就是： 我和别人是不同的。 你们跟上所有这一切了吗，先生？ 你们正在这么做吗？ 所以，我在说 |
| Q:Don't deceptualise your facts. What becomes of the neighbour, the fact of your neighbour? When you turn around facts like with your own self it is impossible. They are simply facts, stark facts, incontrovertible facts of the neighbour, or the wife, or the child or anything else. | 提问者：不要隐瞒歪曲事实。 邻居还能变成什么呢？ 事实上他就是你的邻居。 你试图用自我去扭转事实， 这是不可能的。 他们都只是事实， 明显的事实、无可争议的事实， 邻居就是邻居，妻子就是妻子， 孩子就是孩子，任何人都是如此。 |
| Q:It is all ego, sir, ego. | 提问者：那全是因为「自我」，先生，自我意识。 |
| K:What, sir? | 克：你说什么，先生？ |
| Q:It is all the ego in here that gives us all this sense. | 提问者：全都是因为「自我」在这里， 才让我们有了所有这些感觉。 |
| K:That is, that ego, you are saying, the 'me,' the self is put together by thought, your name, your form, your desires, your anxieties, your sorrow, your pleasures, your fears, your arrogance, your vanity, your desire for power, is you. | 克：换句话说，那个自我，你在说的是： 那个“我”，那个自我， 他是由思想所拼凑起来的， 你的名字、你的样子、你的欲望、 你的焦虑、你的痛苦、 你的快感、你的恐惧、 你的傲慢、你的虚荣、 你对权力的渴望——这些就是「你」。 |
| Q:Sir, as I understand, you're saying that this ego or this division is an activity maintained by the thinking process. | 提问者：先生，按照我的理解， 你在说的是：这个「自我」， 或者这种「分裂」， 它是一种由思考过程所维系的活动。 |
| K:Yes. So, can you observe - I am coming back to that - can you observe your wife and your husband without the past memories intruding? If it doesn't, then what takes place? You haven't even reached that point. You understand my question, sir? I look at my wife - I have no wife, but I can look at 'my wife.' Can I look at her without the sexual memories, without the memories of dominance, without the memory of having comfortable association, without all the petty little impatience, and all the rest of it. Can I look at her as though I was looking at her for the first time? Then when you do look in that way, which means there is no observer, only observation - right? - then what takes place? | 克：没错。 所以，你能否去观察 ——我又要回到它了——你能不能去观察 你的妻子、你的丈夫， 而不让过去的记忆介入进来呢？ 如果记忆没有介入进来， 那时会发生什么呢？ 你们甚至都还没有触及到这一步。 你理解我的问题吗，先生？ 我看着我的妻子——我本人并没有妻子， 但假设我在看着“我的妻子”。 我能否看着她，而没有性爱的记忆， 没有曾经支配她的回忆， 没有和她舒适交往的回忆， 也没有所有那些琐碎小事的不耐烦， 等等这些东西。 我能否看着她， 就好像我是第一次见到她那样？ 那时，当你真的这样去看， 那就意味着没有了「观察者」， 而只剩下了「观察」——对吧？ 那时会发生什么呢？ |
| Q:Absence of the self. | 提问者：「自我」不复存在了。 |
| K:Don't invent, sir. Don't say, if, when, absence. My god, you are not doing it! | 克：不要去编造，先生。 不要说，如果…… 当……，然后就不复存在了。 我的天哪，你并没有在做这件事！ |
| Q:I am not able to do it, the past interferes. | 提问者：我无法做到它，因为会有「过去」的干扰。 |
| K:Then find out why it interferes. | 克：那就去搞清楚为什么「过去」会干扰。 |
| Q:I am the past. | 提问者：我就是「过去」。 |
| Q:Sir, observation, is it different from the... without the observer, how can there be observation? | 提问者：先生，观察，它是否不同于 没有了观察者，还怎么可能会有观察呢？ |
| K:Do it, sir. | 克：去做就行了，先生。 |
| Q:Unless observer is equal to the ego. | 提问者：除非「观察者」等同于那个「自我」。 |
| K:Sir, just a minute, sir. Can you look at that tree without the word? Why can't you do it there? | 克：先生，稍等一下，先生。 你应该可以看着那棵树而不带着语言文字吧？ 那么，为什么你不能在那个领域也这么做呢？ |
| Q:But who is aware of it? | 提问者：但那时是谁在感知它呢？ |
| K:Oh, you people, you don't, sir, you don't test it, you don't work at it, you don't want to find out. You make statements. Sir, look. | 克：噢，你们这些人啊，你们并没有…… 先生，你并没有去试验一下它， 你并没有去为之努力一下， 你并不想要去发现它。 你只是做出了一些陈述。 先生，你瞧。 |
| Q:That thing, I suppose, is pure existence, we are aware only of existence and no division. | 提问者：我猜想那个东西是“纯粹的存在”， 我们只觉察到了那种存在，而没有分裂。 |
| K:It's all just theory, sir. What is the good of theories! Your books are full of theories. Your gurus, your churches, your temples, are full of theories. Where are you at the end of it? You and your country, your people, where are you? So, now, sir, just listen to it. I have been assured by prominent scientists when I have stated to them, 'The observer is the observed,' they took some time to understand the verbal meaning of it, then they explained something to me. They said, when you observe without theories, without memory, without all the things, through a microscope, as you watch it the very thing you are watching is undergoing a change. Don't agree to this, you know nothing. The very thing you are watching is moving, changing, it is never the same. So - please listen - when you watch your greed that is without the word, without the memory of 'I mustn't be greedy,' all the rest of it, when you watch that fact of the reaction called greed, that very reaction undergoes a radical change. That is the way to observe. To observe myself, my whole structure and nature of myself with all the qualities, with all the ugliness, with all the pleasure, with all the misery, when I watch it, when there is a watching without the past association, that very watching brings about a change in what is happening. | 克：这些全都只是理论，先生。 理论又有什么用呢！ 你们的书本中充满了各种理论。 你们的古鲁、你们的教会、你们的神庙， 它们充满了种种理论。 然而最后你们又变成啥样了呢？ 你和你的国家，你们整个民族， 你们现在是什么情况？ 所以，现在，先生，你只需要听好。 我已经从一些著名的科学家那里 得到了一个保证： 那时我和他们谈到了 “观察者就是被观察物”， 他们花了一些时间来理解 这句话的字面意思， 然后他们向我解释了一些东西。 他们告诉我说：在你透过显微镜观察的时候， 如果你不带着任何理论、记忆、 不带着任何东西时， 那么当你看它的时候，你所观察的那个东西 就会经历一种改变。 请不要同意这种看法，因为你们对此一无所知。 你在观察的那个东西， 它在不断运动着、改变着， 它永远不会是一样的。 所以——请听好了—— 当你观察你的「贪婪」时， 也就是不带着语言文字， 不带着那种“我绝不能贪婪”的记忆， 等等这些东西，当你观察这种 被称为“贪婪”的反应的事实时， 这种反应本身就会经历一次彻底的改变。 这就是观察之道。 去观察我自己， 观察我自己的整个结构和本质， 我所有的特质、所有的丑陋、 所有的快感、所有的痛苦， 当我观察它的时候， 当有了一种没有过去事物关联的观察， 那么这种「看」本身就会 改变那个正在发生的事物。 |
| Q:Putting it in words, in that state I am simple, humble, affectionate and loving. | 提问者：用言语表达出来就是， 在那种状态中，我是简单的、 谦卑的、有感情的、有爱的。 |
| K:What, sir? | 克：你说什么，先生？ |
| Q:Putting it in words, | 提问者：把它用言语表达出来， |
| K:Oh, no, no, don't put it into words! Have you understood what the speaker has to say? Look, sir, let's look: there is violence. Right? Now it has become in the world tribal violence. Right, sir? Right? Even the so-called Brahmins - they unfortunately don't exist any more - even the so-called Brahmins have now become tribalists. So, this very tribalism is creating violence. Can you look at violence - just listen to it follow the sequence of it, I am going to explain step by step. First, you have become aware of your violence, which is anger, imitation is a form of violence, imitating somebody. When you compare yourself with somebody it is a form of violence. When you try to achieve a result, a success, it is a form of violence. So I am using violence in its widest sense, not only physical violence but psychological violence. Now, when that feeling arises thought then comes and says, that is violence. Right, are you following this? Because thought can only operate through words, through pictures, through symbols, so it says, that's violence. So the past has recognised the new feeling and has called it violence. Are you following this, sir? So, can you observe that emotion that has been called violence without naming it? Because when you don't name it the very thing that is being observed changes. And in that there is no conflict. The moment the observer says, 'I am violent' then conflict begins: 'I mustn't be violent, tell me how not to be violent, I must pursue non-violence,' and all the rest of it begins. Right, sir? Right? So can you test it, do it. Test it out. That when a feeling arises - anger, jealousy, greed, violence, sex, which is most important to most people, when that feeling arises watch it, observe it without bringing all the images, the pictures, the contradictions - you follow? - only the fact, the fact of that feeling. Then you will discover for yourself that the fact has no opposite. Right? So, when you move away from the fact the opposite comes in, and therefore conflict begins. Now, we are saying just observe the feeling and realise thought is destructive in observation. Have you understood this, sir? | 克：噢，不，不，别把它用言语表达出来！ 你明白了演讲者说的东西吗？ 瞧，先生，让我们来看一下： 存在着「暴力」。 对吧？ 而现在，它已经发展演变为了 全球性的部落暴力。 对吧，先生？ 是吧？ 即使是那些所谓的“婆罗门” ——很遗憾，现在已经没有什么真正的婆罗门了—— 即使是所谓的“婆罗门”， 如今他们也变成了部落主义者。 所以，这种部落主义本身 就制造出了暴力。 那么你能否观察这种暴力 ——请听好了， 跟上它的顺序， 我会一步一步地来解释它。 首先，你已经觉察到了自己的暴力 ——也就是那种愤怒， 而「模仿」也是一种暴力的表现形式， 去模仿某个人。 当你拿自己去和别人比较时， 这也是一种暴力的形式。 当你努力去获得某个成果、 获得成功，这也是一种暴力形式。 所以我是在很宽泛的意义上 使用「暴力」这个词， 并不只是那种外在肉体上的暴力， 也包括了心理上的暴力。 好了，当那种（暴力的）感受升起， 这时思想就会介入进来， 然后说：这是“暴力”。 对吧，你们跟上它了吗？ 因为思想只能够通过语言文字、 通过画面、通过符号标志来运转， 因此它会说：这是暴力。 由此，「过去」就识别了这种全新的感受， 然后把它称为“暴力”。 你们跟上它了吗，先生？ 所以，你是否能够观察那种 被称为“暴力”的情绪，而不去命名它吗？ 因为当你不去命名它的时候， 那个正在被观察的事物就会发生改变。 在那之中是没有冲突的。 然而一旦那个观察者说，“我是暴力的”， 那么冲突就开始了： “我必须不能暴力，请告诉我如何才能不暴力， 我必须要追求‘非暴力’”，等等所有这类事情就开始了。 对吧，先生？ 是这样吧？ 所以你能否去试验一下它， 去这样做一下。 好好去检验一下它。 也就是：当某种感受升起的时候 ——比如愤怒、 嫉妒、贪婪、暴力、性欲 ——「性」对于绝大多数人来说 是最为重要的东西， 当那种感受出现的时候， 去看它，去观察它， 但不要带入所有相关的意象、画面 和矛盾冲突 ——你们理解了吗？—— 而只有那个事实， 那个感受存在的事实。 那时你自己就会发现： 那个事实是没有对立面的。 对吧？ 所以，只有当你离开了那个事实后， 对立面才会介入进来， 由此冲突便开始了。 而现在，我们说：只是去观察那个感受， 同时明白在观察中，思想是具有破坏性的。 你理解这一点了吗，先生？ |
| Q:This last sentence I don't understand. | 提问者：最后那句话，我没听明白。 |
| K:We said, thought is divisive. | 克：我们说了：思想是分裂性的。 |
| Q:Thought is destructive in operation. | 提问者：当思想运作的时候，它会具有破坏性。 |
| K:Yes, of course. When anything is divisive | 克：是的，当然了。 任何事物，当它是分裂性的。 |
| Q:It is destructive. | 提问者：它就是破坏性的。 |
| K:It is destructive. When I say, 'I am a Catholic, I only believe in the saviour of Jesus,' or whatever that stuff is, and you say, 'I am a Hindu with my...' and the Muslim says, with my... you are destructive, you are destructive people. So, we are saying, it is possible, not in theory, actually, in daily life, it's possible to live without any conflict when there's only pure observation. That demands no discipline, no control, just to watch: which means, the basic idea, the basic concept that me is essentially different from the other. | 克：它就会具有破坏性。 当我说，“我是天主教徒， 我只相信救世主耶稣”， 或者无论那个东西是什么， 而你说，“我是印度教徒，我有我的……” 而那个穆斯林则说“我也有我的……” 那么你们就是破坏性的， 你们就是会带来破坏的人类。 所以，我们在说：这件事是可能的 ——不是理论上可能， 而是在实际的日常生活中， 我们是可能没有任何冲突地生活的 ——那时存在的只有纯粹的观察。 这并不需要什么训练或控制， 只是去看就行了： 这意味着，那个最基本的观点， 那个最基本的概念就是： 这个“我”，它本质上来说 是不同于其他人的。 |
| Q:Sir, you are saying that that assumption, that assumption must be radically undermined, correct? It appears to me that when you watch, that watching is necessary, there is a tendency from the point of view of one who hears you to strengthen the sense of the ego it has appropriated to remove that... | 提问者：先生，你是想说：这种假定 这种假设必须被彻底推翻和纠正？ 在我看来，当你观察的时候， （你说的）那种「看」是必需的， 而一个聆听你话语的人，从他的观点来看， 他会有一种倾向： 那就是他会去增强「自我」感， 因为自我很适合于去消除掉那种 |
| K:Of course, of course. | 克：当然了，当然。 |
| Q:...and one isolates further. | 提问者：……于是一个人就愈发自我孤立了。 |
| K:Of course, of course. Because when you listen to it you are not listening to it completely, you're going... You are not listening, sir. We must go into again the question of listening. | 克：当然了，毫无疑问。 因为当你聆听它的时候， 你并没有完全充分地在听， 你会去…… 你并没有在听，先生。 我们必须再次来探究一下 关于「聆听」的问题。 |
| Q:That's failure in human consciousness... | 提问者：这是人类意识的不足之处 |
| K:Yes, sir, I know all that, we know all that. But look, sir, if one knows the art of listening, everything becomes extraordinarily simple. You listened to that music, some of you, if you listened to it, it is very simple. But our mind, our brains are so conditioned to complexity that we don't even listen. Now, at the end of this, an hour and a quarter, where are you? I know where I am, but where are you? Have you really understood this that there is a way of living without a single shadow of conflict? When there is no conflict then you bring about a different society for god's sake, and therefore different governments. | 克：是的，先生，这些我都知道， 这些我们都知道。 但是你看，先生， 如果我们知道了聆听的艺术， 那么所有事情就会变得极其简单了。 当你聆听那段音乐的时候 ——如果你们中某些人 聆听它的话，这种「听」是很简单的。 但我们的头脑、我们的大脑， 是如此地被「复杂性」所制约， 以至于我们甚至都无法去听了。 而现在，在这次演讲的结尾， 在经过了一小时十五分钟以后，你探究到哪一步了？ 我知道我探究到哪里了， 但你呢？ 你是否真正理解了这一点： 即存在着一种生活方式 ——它是没有丝毫冲突的阴影的。 而当没有了冲突， 你们就能带来一个截然不同的社会， 看在上帝的份上，由此便会有不同的政府。 |
| Q:Sir, a moment before, you said what is a human and you defined a human in terms of his ability to think. Now, granted that there must be some failure of listening or some misinterpretation of what you mean by thinking - may I finish? - because you seem to be asking for a radical change in the manner of experiencing, yet you are asking for it on the level of the mind, and that is the level on which it is done by humans, so that we seem to step more intensively into the process of separation. | 提问者：先生，就在刚才， 你谈到了“人是什么”， 然后你定义了人类 ——因为人类有思考的能力。 诚然，在我聆听的时候， 必然会有一些理解上的失误， 或者对你所说的“思考”有一些误解 ——可以让我说完吗？ 因为你似乎是在要求 我们以「直接体验」的方式 来获得一种根本性的改变， 然而你却是在头脑的层面上 要求这件事， 而头脑层面的事情 是由人类个体来完成的， 由此我们似乎更有力地走入了那个 分离孤立的过程。 |
| K:I understand, sir. Sir, one has to use words to communicate. If we could communicate without words, which means - just listen, to communicate without words means you and the speaker must be at the same level, with the same intensity, at the same time. Otherwise verbal communication is only possible. If you cannot meet the speaker at the same level, at the same time, at the same intensity, then words must be used to communicate. Love is that. When you have real love then communication is not necessary. So, I am asking, sir, before I stop, if I may, where are you, have you understood this? Which can be only tested when you go home, when you face your wife, when you face your boss, when you are working in an office, find out, test it. And the person who is seeking experience he doesn't realise the experiencer is the experience. Because the experiencer when he experiences, must recognise that experience. Which means he has already tasted it before, known it before, therefore the experiencer is the experience, the thinker is the thought, the observer is the observed. Right, sirs. | 克：我理解你的意思，先生。 先生，我们不得不使用语言文字 来进行交流。 如果我们可以不用语言文字来交流， 这就意味着——请听好， 不用语言文字而进行交流， 这意味着你和演讲者 必须在同一时间、处于同一层次上， 并带着同样强烈的情感。 否则的话，我们只可能进行口头文字上的交流。 如果你无法在同一时间、同一层次、 同一强度上理解演讲者， 那么我们就必然需要 使用语言文字来进行交流了。 「爱」就是如此。 当你拥有了真正的爱， 那就不需要什么沟通交流了。 所以，先生，在我结束演讲之前 ——如果允许的话——我想要问一下： 你探索到哪里了？ 你是否已经理解了这些东西？ 而只有当你回家以后， 当你面对你的妻子、当你面对你的老板， 当你在办公室里工作时，你才能去检验我的话， 去搞清楚它，去测试它。 然而那个寻找「经验」的人， 他并没有意识到经验者就是经验。 因为那个经验者， 当他去经验的时候，他必然会识别那个经验。 这意味着他以前经历体验过它， 他早就知道它了， 因此经验者就是那个经验， 思想者就是思想，观察者就是被观察物。 就讲到这里吧，先生们。 |
