|
MA8384Q1 - 第一场问答
|
|
| Krishnamurti: We have got a whole basket full of questions. I don't think we shall be able to answer all of them. Perhaps it will take a few weeks to answer them. So we have chosen some of the questions. I haven't seen them before, but the questions have been chosen so we will answer them. First of all, I would like to ask, if I may, why do we put questions at all? And to whom do we put the questions? Do you expect another to answer one's questions? Or do we put the questions to ourselves and try to find the right answer? To find the right answer, one cannot have prejudices, convictions, some extravagant or friendly convictions. So one must, if one asks questions, and one must, is the answer is more important than the question, or does the answer lie in the understanding of the depth of the question? What do you say to it? The understanding of the question itself is the answer. Are we all rather early, too early in the morning? So I am asking, if I may, is the question more important than the answer? If the answer lies in the question then what is important is to understand the depth of the question and not try to find an answer of the question, rather, investigate the question itself. So we are going to do that. Please, don't expect the speaker to answer the questions but rather together investigate the question. And in the investigation or exploration of that question, the answer is there, not outside the question. I hope I am making oneself quite clear. | 克里希那穆提（以下简称“克”）：我们收到了 满满一篮子的问题。 我觉得我们将无法全部回答它们。 回答完它们也许要花费好几周的时间。 所以我们从中选择了一些问题。 我并没有预先看过它们， 但这些问题已经被挑选出来了， 所以我们将会来回答它们。 首先，如果可以的话，我想要问一下： 我们究竟为什么要提问？ 我们又是在向谁提出这些问题？ 你在期待着别人来回答你的问题吗？ 或者说，我们是在向自己提出这些问题， 并试图找到正确的答案？ 要找到正确的答案， 我们就不能持有偏见 和深信不疑的观点， 某些不切实际的、或者无害的信念。 所以我们必须…… 如果你们要提问的话， 你们必须要发问， 答案要比问题更加重要吗？ 还是说，答案就存在于 对于那个问题的深刻了解之中？ 你们对此有什么看法？ 对于问题本身的了解 ——它就是「答案」。 我们是不是都起得太早了， 今天早上来得太早了？ 所以我正在问 ——如果允许我问一下的话—— 问题是不是要比答案更加重要？ 如果答案就隐藏在问题之中的话， 那么重要的事情就是 去了解那个问题的深层意义。 不是试图去找到问题的答案， 而是去探究问题本身。 所以我们将会来这样做。 请不要指望演讲者来回答这些问题， 而是我们要一起来探究问题。 在对问题的探究或探索中， 就有着答案， 答案并不是在问题之外的。 我希望我已经非常清楚地 表达了我的意思。 |
| Question 1: If there are no ideals, one cannot deal adequately with the psychological crises and the resultant social conflict. And how can mere individuals change or affect the whole? | 问题1：如果我们没有理想， 我们就无法充分妥善地应对 心理上的危机， 以及由此产生的社会冲突。 而仅仅依靠个人，又如何能够 改变或影响这个世界呢？ |
| If there are no ideals, one cannot deal adequately with the psychological crises and the resultant social conflict. And how can mere individuals change or affect the whole? | 如果我们没有了理想， 我们就无法充分妥善地应对 心理上的危机， 以及由此产生的社会冲突。 而仅仅依靠个人，又如何能够 改变或影响这个世界呢？ |
| Waiting for me to answer this? Why do we have ideals at all? Is it a means of avoiding the present and therefore giving importance to the future, or do ideals actually guide us? That is the implication, one of the implications in the question of ideals, why we have ideals. Most of us do, unfortunately. What is more important, it seems to one, is what is actually going on in our own consciousness, in our own behaviour, in our own attitudes and so on. If I have an ideal, a direction, then the direction, the ideal becomes far more important doesn't it, than the actual. We are together in this. You and the speaker are investigating the question together. The speaker is not answering the question, but together, if you will, a nice, quiet, not too noisy morning – fortunately they have stopped all that racket that goes on, so we can talk over together this idea, this concept of having ideals. You have ideals, many of them, and they actually don't affect our daily living. We like to have these ideals affecting our lives, but actually they have no value at all, because it is nice to think we have marvellous ideals, marvellous utopian ideals, communist, socialist and religious ideals, capitalist ideals, ideals of a nation, a group, and you know, the whole network of ideals. And as they have no direct influence or direct relationship with our daily life, one doesn't see the point of having them at all. It is nice to dream about something, imagine a lot of lovely things in life, but life is much more complex, much more important than the projection of ideals which are brought about by thought. | 你们是在等我来回答它吗？ 我们究竟为什么要有理想呢？ 它是不是一种回避「当下」的手段， 从而可以赋予「未来」重要性， 或者说，那些理想真的在指引着我们吗？ 这就是这个问题所暗示的东西， 这个关于「理想」的问题中 所暗示的一个东西， 即：为什么我们要有理想？ 很遗憾，我们大多数人都有理想。 而在某人（指克氏自己）看来： 更重要的东西是 那些实际正在发生的事情， 那些我们自己意识中、 自己的行为中、自己的态度中等等 正在发生的事。 如果我有了一个理想、一个方向， 那么那个方向和理想就会变得远远比 现实情况更重要，不是吗？ 我们正在一起探讨它。 你和演讲者正在一起探究这个问题。 并不是演讲者在回答这个问题， 而是我们一起在探究它 ——如果你们也愿意的话， 这是一个美好、安静、不太吵闹的早晨 ——幸运的是，那些人已经停止打球了， 所以我们可以一起来讨论一下 这个关于“拥有理想”的观点、理念。 你们都有着理想，很多理想， 然而这些理想实际上并没有 影响到我们的日常生活。 我们想要让这些理想影响到我们的生活， 然而实际上，它们根本没有任何价值， 因为认为我们有着美好的理想， 这让人感觉很棒， 美好的乌托邦的理想， 共产主义的理想、社会主义的理想 和各种宗教理想， 资本主义的理想， 某个国家、某个团体的理想， 你知道的，这整个理想的网络体系。 而由于它们并没有带来直接的影响， 或者与我们的日常生活产生直接的关系， 所以某人（指克氏自己）不明白 拥有理想究竟有什么用。 去梦想一些东西让人感觉很棒， 去想象无数生活中美好的东西， 然而生活远远要比 那些理想的投射物更加复杂、 更加重要 ——那些理想的投射都是思想所带来的。 |
| Are we together so far? So can we put away our ideals and face actual facts? Facts being that which has happened before, which has happened previously, and that which is happening now. Those are facts. The future is not a fact. The future may affect, may be shaped by the present, but the present is the fact. So could we forget the future, which is the ideal, 'what should be', the goal, the purpose? All that implies a motive and motive means a movement, movement in a particular direction. So you have already established the direction towards which you are going, which is your ideal, and therefore you are not facing the present. I don't know if you follow all this. Is this a little too complex? And it is one of the factors in life that all through history, from the Greek and the ancient people, these ideals have existed. The Greeks have principles, ideals. These ideals have existed for millennia, and we are still slave to them. So can one be free of ideals, that is, the future, and face the present, which is the fact? | 到目前为止，我们是否一直在一起探索它？ 所以我们能否抛弃掉我们的理想， 然后去面对真正的事实？ 「事实」指的是那些以前发生过的事情， 那些从前发生过的事， 以及此时此刻正在发生的事。 这些就是事实。 但「未来」并不是事实。 「未来」或许会影响 或许会被「现在」所塑造， 但「现在」才是事实。 所以我们能否忘掉「未来」 ——「未来」就是理想，就是“应该怎么样”， 那个目标，那个目的。 所有这些都暗示了有一个动机， 而动机就意味着「运动」， 朝着特定方向的运动。 所以你们已经设定了一个方向， 然后你们朝着这个方向前进 ——这个方向就是你们的理想， 因此你们并没有在面对「当下」。 我不知道你们是否跟上了这一切。 这是不是有点过于复杂了？ 而理想也是生命中的要素之一， 纵观历史， 从古希腊和古代的民族开始， 「理想」就已经存在了。 古希腊人有着那些道德/行为准则和理想。 这些理想已经存在了有数千年了， 而我们至今仍旧是理想的奴隶。 所以，我们能否摆脱掉理想 ——也就是摆脱掉「未来」—— 然后去面对「当下」 ——也就是（面对）事实？ |
| I am unhappy and I want to be happy, I am dull but I want to be clever, bright. I don't examine why I am unhappy, what are the causes of disturbance. That is a fact, what are the causes, but if I have an ideal that I must be happy, the future is still unhappiness – I don't know if you understand – because I have not investigated the causes of my unhappiness. And when the cause can be changed, as causes can be put aside or demolished or understood, then the change takes place. Unless the cause has been understood, merely the pursuit of happiness has no meaning. I wonder if you are meeting all this. Am I working for you or are you working together? Would you kindly tell me? Is the speaker working for you, thinking, looking at it all, or we are thinking together, looking at it together? If we are thinking together, the questioner asks: if there are no ideals can one adequately, clearly act when there is a psychological crisis? If there are no ideals, no direction – this is very complex – no direction, which means no motive, can one deal then with the psychological crises that arise in our daily life? | 我感到不快乐， 我想要变得快乐， 我很愚笨，但我想要变得聪明、机灵。 我并没有去检视一下 为什么我不快乐， 干扰我快乐的原因是什么。 这（不快乐）是一个事实， 导致这个事实的原因是什么呢？ 但如果我有一个“我必须快乐”的理想， 那么我的未来仍旧会不快乐 ——我不知道你们是否听懂了—— 因为我还没有去探究过 导致我不快乐的原因。 而如果那个原因可以被改变， 因为那些原因是可以被抛弃、 消灭或加以了解的， 那时「改变」就会发生了。 而除非我们了解了那个原因， 否则仅仅去追求快乐是没有意义的。 我不知道你们是否理解了所有这些东西。 是我在为你们工作吗？ 还是说你们在和我一起工作？ 你们可以告诉我吗？ 究竟是演讲者在为你们工作、 思考和观察这一切， 还是说 我们是在一起思考，一起观察它？ 如果我们是在一起思考 那就来看下这位提问者的问题： 如果我们没有了理想， 那么当遭遇了心理危机的时候， 我们还能够充分妥善地、明智地行动吗？ 如果没有了理想， 没有了方向 ——这个问题非常复杂—— 没有方向，这意味着没有了动机， 那时我们还能去处理应对 我们日常生活中出现的心理危机吗？ |
| What are crises? What would you call a problem, a challenge? Crises are the product of our past inadequate attention. A crisis, a problem, a challenge – how do we face them? That is more important, surely, than the crisis. How we face a crisis, how we look at a problem. Right? Would you agree to that? How we approach a problem. If I have a problem and I want that problem to be solved in a particular way, then I am not meeting the problem. I want that problem to be solved in my way, for my comfort, for my selfishness, for my wellbeing both psychologically and physically. So isn't it important to find out how we approach a problem? Not the problem but our coming near it. Approach means come near. How do we approach it? Do we approach it with a brain that has already been conditioned to solve problems? You understand? May we go into it? Though perhaps you have heard this before in the talks, may we again repeat it without too much boredom? From childhood we are trained to solve problems. The whole educational system is to solve problems – mathematical problems, scientific problems, biological problems, architectural problems. So our brain is conditioned to solve problems. So, the brain is already conditioned to the resolution of problems. It is not free to solve problems, it is conditioned to solve problems. I wonder, is this clear? Don't say yes. A problem, the meaning of that word 'problem' means something thrown at you. The etymological meaning of that word is something propelled towards you, thrown at you. And if it is a defensive reaction then you withdraw, you tighten up. But if you have freedom to look at the problem, not the resolution of the problem – I wonder, am I making myself clear, yes? – then the brain is free from its conditioning to solve problems. Therefore you approach it afresh. You understand? To have a brain that has no problems, then it can solve problems. But if it has problems then it can't solve any problem. Which is what is happening, politically, religiously, all up and down our social structure, or science, business. | 什么是「危机」？ 你们会把什么称之为“问题”， 称之为“挑战”呢？ 「危机」是我们过去没有给予事物充分「注意」的结果。 危机、问题、挑战 ——我们要如何去面对它们呢？ 这无疑要比危机本身更加重要。 我们是如何去面对危机的？ 我们是如何去看待一个问题的？ 是吧？ 你们同意这点吗？ 我们是如何去处理一个问题的？ 如果我有了一个问题， 我就会想要以特定的方式 解决掉这个问题， 但这样的话，我就没有在面对这个问题。 我想要用我自己的方式 来解决那个问题， 为了我的舒适、我的一己私利、 我的幸福 ——既包括心理上的幸福， 也包括外在物质上的幸福。 所以，重要的难道不是 要去搞清楚 我们是如何处理问题的吗？ 重点不是那个「问题」， 而是我们要去“靠近”它。 “处理（Approach）”就意味着“靠近”。 我们是如何靠近它的？ 我们是带着一个 已经习惯于去解决问题的大脑 而靠近它的吗？ 你们理解了吗？ 我们可以来探究一下它吗？ 尽管你们或许已经在之前的演讲中 听过这些东西了， 但我们可以再来重复一下它吗？ 请不要感到太厌烦。 从小开始，我们就被培养训练着去「解决问题」。 我们整个的教育体系就是要去「解决问题」 ——数学的问题、科学的问题、 生物学的问题、建筑学的问题。 所以我们的大脑已经习惯于去「解决问题」了。 因此，大脑已经受制于那种“问题的解决方案”了。 它已经无法自由地去解决问题了， 它只是习惯了去「解决问题」。 我不知道……这一点讲清楚了吗？ 不要说“讲清楚了”。 问题……“问题”这个词的意思是 它意味着某个朝你扔过来的东西。 这个词语 词源学的含义就是 某个推向你的东西、 扔向你的东西。 而如果你对此是一种防卫性的反应， 那你就会退缩，你就会绷紧。 但如果你能自由地去观察这个问题， 而不是去解决这个问题 ——我不知道…… 我是否把自己的意思表达清楚了，表达清楚了吗？—— 那时大脑就摆脱了那种「解决问题」的制约。 由此你便能够以崭新的姿态去接近那个问题。 你们理解了吗？ 要拥有一个没有问题的大脑， 然后这个大脑才能够去解决问题。 但如果它本身就带着各种问题， 那它就无法去解决任何问题了。 而这就是正在发生的事情， 无论是在政治领域，还是宗教领域， 它贯穿于我们整个的社会结构， 它也存在于科学领域和商业领域中。 |
| So one must ask, how do I approach a problem? With fear or with a desired solution, or something that will give me more profit in the business world or in the psychological world. So if the brain is free from its conditioning then it can solve any problem without creating more problems in the solution of problems. You understand? Look, it is fairly simple. Look what the governments are doing in the world. They try to solve one problem and in the very solution of that problem they bring about a dozen other problems. The speaker has discussed with several high politicians. They are depending on votes to be elected, therefore they – can I go on with this kind of stuff? You are not politicians here? And most of us are politicians all right. So, what is happening is, throughout the world, most unfortunately for human beings, these politicians who are conditioned to solve problems bring about many more problems. And they cannot, as we have discussed with some of them, cannot see this question at all. Because there are so many problems in this country – poverty, overpopulation, industrial slackness, you know, GNP and so on. So can we look at a problem, something thrown at you, with freedom? Then you will solve the problem. | 所以我们必须要问一下： 我要如何去处理一个问题呢？ 是带着恐惧…… 还是带着预期的解决方案去处理它呢， 或是带着某种可以让我在生意场上 或心理世界中获得更多利益好处的东西。 所以如果大脑摆脱了它的制约， 那它就可以去解决任何问题， 且不会在解决问题的过程中 制造出更多问题了。 你们理解了吗？ 你瞧，这是很简单的道理。 看看世界各国的政府 正在做的事情吧。 他们试图去解决某个问题， 然而在解决这个问题的过程中， 他们却带来了一大堆其他问题。 演讲者曾经和若干位 身居高位的政治家进行过讨论。 他们依赖于民众投票而当选，因此他们会 ——我可以继续讲这些东西吗？ 在座的各位都不是政治家吧？ 但其实我们大多数人都是政治家。 所以，全世界正在发生的事情是 ——对于人类来说，这实在是最为不幸的—— 这些习惯于去“解决问题”的政治家， 他们带来了更多的问题。 而就如我们和他们中的一些人讨论过的那样， 他们也无法 无法真的看到问题所在。 因为在这个国家里（印度）有着如此多的问题 ——贫穷、人口过剩、 工业萧条，你知道的，国民生产总值的问题，等等。 所以，我们能否自由地去观察一个问题 ——观察某个“朝你扔过来的东西”？ 那时你就可以解决问题了。 |
| And the questioner further asks: how can mere individual change affect the whole? This is one of our favourite questions. Which means, if I can't affect the whole, what is the point of my changing? That is a good slack way of thinking. First of all, to answer this question, one must go very deeply into the whole problem of whether we are individuals at all. Please, question this. Are we separate human beings? Physically we are, biologically we are. You are a man, I am a woman, or you are a child, and so on. You may have a separate bank account and I may have no account. You may do a very good business, especially in this country under the table, etc. | 然后这位提问者进一步问到： 只靠个人又怎么能够改变、影响这个世界呢？ 这是我们最喜欢问的问题之一。 它的意思就是： 如果我无法影响整体，我的改变又有什么意义呢？ 这是一种非常巧妙的、 偷懒懈怠的思维方式。 首先，要回答这个问题， 我们就必须非常深入地来探讨一下这整个问题： 即 我们究竟是不是“个体”？ 请你们去质疑这一点。 我们是彼此分离独立的人吗？ 从物理学上来说 是的， 从生物学上来说 是的。 你是一个男人，我是一个女人， 或者你是一个小孩，等等。 你或许会有一个单独的银行账户， 而我也许没有银行账户。 你的生意也许做得很好 ——尤其是在这个国家里， 那些不光明正大的交易买卖，等等。 |
| So biologically, physically, we are separate, you are tall, I am short, you are bright, I am not, and so on. Psychologically, inwardly, are we individuals? Question this, please. I know our conditioning, throughout long periods of time we have been conditioned to think we are separate individuals psychologically: our personal salvation, the soul, the ego, the atman, all the structure of separate individualistic psychological attitudes. We are questioning that, whether we are actually individuals. Your name may be different from mine, your culture may be different, which is superficial coating. Have you noticed something extraordinary that has happened in this country? Have you noticed something? This country has had, whether you like it or not, a culture for 3000 to 5000 years. Good or bad, that is not the point – the Brahmanical, non-Brahmanical. Don't be against Brahmins. I am not, or for – I am just saying there has been a certain culture and overnight it has disappeared. Right? Completely gone. Why? Not that there mustn't be change, not that the people who exploited it shouldn't be put aside, but the meaning of that word 'culture', the growth, the culture of a flower, the culture of a human being, all that has completely gone in this country. So, culture is rather superficial, traditional, a verbal repetition. So there has never been a depth to this, from what historically one observes. So, have you observed – that is why I asked, if I may – have you observed this strange fact that is taking place all over the world? | 所以从生物学上、物理学上来说， 我们是彼此分离独立的， 你很高，我很矮， 你很聪明，我不那么聪明，等等。 然而心理上、内在而言， 我们是“个体”吗？ 去质疑一下它，好吗？ 我知道我们的局限所在， 在漫长的岁月里，我们已经习惯于 去认为心理上而言， 我们也是彼此分离的个体： 我们个人的救赎， 灵魂、自我、阿特曼（注：宇宙灵魂，大我）， 所有这些关于 独立分离的个人化心理态度的结构。 但我们正在质疑这一点： 我们是否真的是个体？ 你的名字或许和我的不一样， 你的文化习俗或许有所不同 ——文化习俗只是表面现象。 你是否注意到了一些奇特的事情 在这个国家里发生了？ 你有没有注意到一些事情？ 这个国家（印度）曾经有过…… ——无论你们喜欢与否—— 它有着3000-5000年的文化习俗。 不管这些文化习俗是好是坏， 这不是重点 ——婆罗门的文化习俗， 非婆罗门的文化习俗。 不要反对婆罗门。 我并没有在反对或者支持它—— 我只是在说：这个国家一直有着某种文化习俗， 然而一夜之间，这种文化习俗就消失了。 是这样吧？ 完全彻底地消失了。 为什么呢？ 不是说我们必须不能去改变， 不是说那些剥削之人不应该被抛弃， 而是说“文化习俗（culture）”这个词的含义， 它有“培养成长”的意思， 一朵花的培养成长，一个人的培养成长， 所有这些东西在这个国家都完全消失了。 所以，「文化习俗」是相当肤浅表面的东西， 一种传统的、口头文字上的重复。 所以文化习俗从来就没有什么深度可言， 我们可以通过历史而观察到这一点。 所以，你是否观察到了 ——这就是我提问的原因，如果我可以问一下的话—— 你是否观察到了这个 正在全世界发生着的奇怪的事实？ |
| So are we separate psychological individuals, a separate soul? You don't mind if we go into it? Not you are going to listen to the speaker – we are working together, please. I am not, if I may say, the speaker is not your guru, he has no followers. One must make this absolutely clear. You want to follow, and the speaker says don't. The speaker is not your guru, he is not instructing what you should think or do, but together let's proceed. Therefore if we together work these questions out, you then become the teacher and the disciple. You understand this? That is, in investigating this very complex question of whether we are individuals, in investigating together you are learning. In the process of learning, you want to instruct others, tell others. So you yourself become the guru and the disciple at the same time. I wonder if you understand this. So that this terrible division between the knower and the not-known becomes absurd. You may know mathematics, I don't, you inform me, I accept it. But we are not psychologically put together that way, we are a living thing. So we must look and find out whether we are individuals. That means one must have a sceptical attitude about individuality. Right? Now, our consciousness, which is what we are, both the unconscious and the conscious is what we are. Consciousness is made up of all our beliefs, dogmas, theories, ideals, hopes, anxiety, fears, sorrow, pain, affection if one has it – all that is our consciousness. That is what you are. Your belief, your tradition, your despair, your urge to fulfil, your gods, your fulfilment, the pursuit – all that is your consciousness. That is what you are essentially, to which is added a name – K or Y or X. Now, that consciousness is shared by all human beings. They suffer whether they live in Russia, China or America or other parts, they are anxious like you, they have their own beliefs like you, they are frightened, suffer, shed tears, laughter, see the beauty of the world, just like you, if you see the beauty of the world, which I doubt. So, your consciousness is not yours, it is shared by all human beings. I wonder if you agree to that. Not agree, see the fact. I am educated abroad. My learning, my superficial acquisition of a different culture, different education, this is all a coating outside, but inside, inside the skin as it were, I suffer as you do, I am anxious as you are – I am not but I am supposing – I am frightened as you are, I am seeking security as you are, I quarrel with my wife and she quarrels with me. We sensuously enjoy each other, sexually, sensuously. And this is happening the world over, whether in Japan, in China or in Indonesia or in Ceylon, everywhere human beings are unconsciously sharing the same thing. And therefore they feel they are separate because it is 'my suffering'. When my son dies I suffer, I am lost, I am confused. I may go to the temple, which is I find absolutely useless, but I still suffer after being at the temple or the mosque or the church. And you suffer because your wife may be turned away from you. So we both suffer. Suffering is shared by each one of us. So where is there individuality in suffering? Do you understand my question? Is this clear? I like to think it is my suffering, it is not like your suffering. And in suffering I feel isolated. Right? Haven't you noticed all these things? | 所以我们在心理上真的是独立的个体、 是彼此分离的灵魂吗？ 你们不介意我们来探讨一下它吧？ 不是让你来听演讲者的观点 ——而是我们一起来探讨它，好吗？ 我并不是……——如果允许我说一下的话—— 演讲者并不是你们的古鲁， 他并没有什么追随者。 我们必须要完全清楚这一点。 你们想要追随这位演讲者， 但他说：请不要追随我。 演讲者并不是你们的古鲁， 他并没有在教导你们应该怎么想， 或者应该怎么做， 而是我们要一起携手前进。 如果我们是一起解决了这些问题， 那么你就同时成为了导师和追随者。 你们理解这点了吗？ 也就是说， 在探究这个关于 “我们是否是个体”的非常复杂的问题时， 在我们一起探究的过程中，你就是在学习着。 而在学习的过程中，你就会想要教导别人、告诉别人这些东西。 于是你自己便同时成为了古鲁和弟子。 我不知道你们是否明白了这一点。 因此这种“知道者”和“不知道者”之间 的可怕区分 就变得很荒谬可笑了。 你也许通晓数学，而我不太懂， 于是你告诉了我，然后我接受了它。 但我们在心理上并不是这样构成的， 我们是活生生的存在物。 所以我们必须要去看看， 然后搞清楚我们是否是“个体”。 这意味着 我们必须对“个体性”这个概念持怀疑态度。 是吧？ 现在来看，我们的意识 ——我们的意识就是我们的真实模样， 既包括潜意识部分，也包括显意识部分 ——它们就是我们的实际模样。 而「意识」是由这些东西组成的： 我们所有的信仰、 教条、理论、理想、希望、焦虑、恐惧、 悲伤、痛苦、关爱——如果你有关爱的话， 所有这些东西就是我们的意识。 它们就是你的真实模样。 你的信仰、你的传统、你的绝望、 你想要满足的冲动、你的神明、 你的实现与追求 ——所有这些就是你的意识。 你本质上来说就是这些东西， 只不过再加个名字而已 ——K或者Y或者X。 然而，这个「意识」是被全人类所共享的。 全人类都在受苦——不管他们是生活在俄罗斯、 中国、美国还是其他什么地方， 别人也会像你一样焦虑， 他们也有自己的信仰 ——就像你有你的信仰一样， 他们和你一样，也会害怕、痛苦、流泪、欢笑， 看到这个世界的美 ——如果你看到了这个世界的美的话， 虽然我对此很怀疑。 所以，你的意识并不是你个人的， 它是被全人类所共享的。 我不知道你们是否同意这点。 不是同意它，而是看到这个事实。 我在国外受过教育。 我很有学问， 表面上看起来，我有一种不同的文化习俗、 不同的教育， 然而这一切都只是外在的表象， 但我的内心——这么说吧——就我的内在而言， 我和你一样，也会受苦， 我和你一样，也会焦虑 ——我本人没有焦虑，我只是在假设—— 我和你一样，也会害怕， 我和你一样，也在寻求安全， 我和我的妻子吵架，而我的妻子也会和我争吵。 我们会在感官上彼此享受对方， 在性爱方面、在肉体感官方面。 而这是全世界都在发生的事情， 无论是在日本、中国、印度尼西亚， 还是在斯里兰卡， 全世界各地的每一个人， 都在无意识层面共享着同样的东西。 因此他们觉得自己是分离独立的， 因为这是“我的痛苦”。 当你痛苦时 当我的儿子死去，我会痛不欲生， 我感到迷失，我感到混乱困惑。 我也许会去参拜神庙， 然后我便发现这是完全没用的， 因为在去过了神庙、 清真寺或教堂以后，我仍然很痛苦。 而你也会痛苦，你痛苦或许是因为 你的妻子转身离你而去了。 所以我们两人都在受苦。 「苦」是我们每个人共有的东西。 所以，哪里有什么“个人化的痛苦”呢？ 你们理解我的问题了吗？ 这一点清楚了吗？ 我喜欢认为这是“我的痛苦”， 而它不同于你的痛苦。 而在这种痛苦中，我感到很孤立。 对吧？你们难道没有注意到所有这些事情吗？ |
| Questioner: Sir, excuse me. If you have pain in your toe, I don't feel it. | 提问者：先生，打扰一下。 如果你的脚趾很痛，我是感受不到它的。 |
| K: No, sir. The gentleman says, if I have pain in my toe, naturally I don't share it with you. Bananas, sir. I am talking psychologically, inwardly. Suppose I have a headache. Of course you haven't got a headache. You may never know what a headache is. As the speaker doesn't know what headache is, you may have a headache, but we are talking of common suffering of mankind. No? We have had thousands of wars. Historically there have been 5 to 6000 years of wars. Imagine, if you can, how many people have suffered these 5000 years – maimed, shed tears, lost their sons, their husbands – and we are still pursuing the same path. So we share the common suffering of the whole of mankind and therefore we are mankind. You understand the beauty of this? Please, not here, it is not a theory, it is not a speculative appreciation of the whole, but these are facts. You may not be able to travel. If you go to America and talk to some of the people, they are exactly like you. You may have brown skin, they have a lighter skin. But below the skin they have a hell of a time, and so do you. Sorry to use that word. It is a good word. So where is there individuality, except you have a bank account? You are darker, taller, shorter, but inwardly our consciousness is similar. There is modifications depending on environment, culture and so on, but essentially it is shared, common to all of us. So when one realises that, not as an idea, as a theory, as an ideal, then you become tremendously responsible. Right? And probably we don't want to be responsible therefore we talk about our own individual group, individual achievements, individual ambitions, which is tearing the world apart. I don't know if you notice all this. We are so terribly conceited about our own individual existence that the world is broken up into little groups, into little individuals. There is never a feeling of the whole human existence, human beings. Right? Now, we have answered the question. That is, we have investigated the question. And therefore the answer is in the question, not outside the question. I wonder if you see this. So to have the capacity, the art of questioning, the art, so that you don't look to another. You do affect the whole. The questioner says, what affect is there if you... You see, I won't use the word 'you'. If there is a fundamental change in consciousness you are stepping out of that consciousness, of greed, envy, all that. When the brain steps out of that, it affects the quality of the rest. Which is, Hitler has affected the whole world, the Christian, Jesus, has affected certain parts of the world, the Buddha has affected, Attila, Napoleon, your own kings have affected the world, they are all so-called separate individuals. They have had tremendous effect on human consciousness. So it is foolish to ask 'What effect has my changing, will it change society?' Society is created by you, by your greed, by your envy, by your desire to compete, ruthlessness, brutal – and that is what society is. So, the socialists, the communists, and even the democrats try to change the environment hoping that will affect human behaviour – but it hasn't. So, to step out of the stream of our daily consciousness is to change consciousness. Right? I hope you are all having fun with these questions. Anyhow, it is a nice morning so instead of going to the office so quickly you can start with this. | 克：不是这样的。这位先生说：如果我脚趾很痛， 那么很自然地，我无法和你“共享”这种疼痛。 这话真傻，先生。 先生，我在谈论的是心理领域、内在的事情。 而假如我头痛了。 那么毫无疑问，你并不会头痛。 你也许永远不会知道“头痛”是什么。 就像演讲者并不知道什么是“头痛”一样， 但你或许头痛过，你明白了吗？ 可我们在谈论的是人类普遍共同的痛苦。 不是吗？ 先生，我们曾经有过成千上万次战争。 从历史上看，我们已经历了五六千年的战争。 想象一下——如果你可以的话—— 去想象一下这五千年以来，有多少人为此而受苦： 他们残废了，他们流泪哭泣， 他们失去了自己的儿子、自己的丈夫—— 然而我们却仍在沿着同样的道路行进。 所以我们在分享着全人类共同的痛苦， 因此我们就是全人类。 你能理解这其中的「美」吗？ 请注意，不是用头脑来理解， 因为它并不是一种理论， 它并不是对于「人类整体」的一种推测性的理解， 这些都是事实。 你或许无法旅行世界各地。 但如果你去了美国， 和那里的一些人交谈过以后， （你会发现）他们和你是一模一样的。 你们或许有棕色的皮肤，而他们的肤色可能浅一点。 然而在皮肤的表象背后，他们的日子也是 “水深火热、度日如年” ——就和你们一样。 很抱歉用了这些词语 ——但这些形容词是很棒的。 所以哪里有什么“个体性”可言呢 ——除了你有一个银行账户之外？ 你的皮肤更深一些， 你会更高一些或更矮一些， 但内在而言，我们的意识都是类似的。 虽然根据环境、 文化习俗等等的不同，会有一些修改变化， 然而从根本上来说， 那个东西是被我们所有人所共享和共有的。 所以当我们意识到这一点 ——不是把它当成一种观点、理论或理想， 那么你就会肩负起巨大的责任。 对吧？ 但我们可能并不想要负责任， 所以我们才会谈论 我们个人所属于的团体， 个人的成就、个人的野心， 而这些东西正在撕裂这个世界。 我不知道你们是否注意到了所有这一切。 我们对于自己个体的存在 是如此的骄傲自负， 以至于这个世界被分裂成了 各种小团体和无数渺小的个体。 我们从来没有感受到人类整体性的存在， 感知到「全人类」。 是吧？ 好了，我们已经回答了这个问题。 换句话说，我们已经探究了这个问题。 所以问题的答案就藏在问题之中， 而不是在问题之外的。 我想知道你们是否明白了这点。 所以，要拥有那种能力，那种质疑的艺术， 它是一种艺术， 这样的话，你就不会再去 寻求他人的帮助了。 你确实可以影响全世界。 提问者说：如果你……又能产生什么影响呢？ 你瞧，我不会使用“你”这个字。 如果「意识」发生了一次 根本性的改变， 那你就是离开走出了这种意识 ——贪婪、妒忌，所有这些东西。 而当大脑脱离了这些东西， 它就可以影响其余人类的特质。 也就是说：希特勒已经影响了整个世界， 基督教的耶稣 也已经影响了这个世界某些地区的人， 而佛陀也产生了影响，还有匈奴王、拿破仑、 你们自己的国王，他们也影响了这个世界， 虽然他们都是所谓的“分离独立的个体”， 但他们却已经对人类意识 产生了巨大的影响。 所以当你问“我的改变能产生什么样的影响， 它能够改变这个社会吗？ ” ——这是很愚蠢的。 因为这个社会就是你们所创造出来的， 对吧？ 经由你们的贪婪、妒忌、竞争的欲望、 无情、残忍，你们创造出了这个社会 ——于是社会也变成了这个样子。 所以，社会主义者、共产主义者， 甚至是民主主义者，他们都试图去改变环境， 希望这样就可以影响人类的行为态度 ——然而它并没有影响到人类。 所以，脱离我们日常生活意识的洪流 就是要去改变「意识」。 是这样吧？ 我希望你们都能从这些问答中获得乐趣。 不管怎样，这是一个美好的早晨， 你们可以不用匆忙赶去办公室上班， 而是可以通过这个问题来开启新的一天。 |
| Question 2: Is mutation purely a psychological happening? Is there any 'chemistry' involved in the happening? Is there any psychological change in the brain cells themselves? | 问题2：「突变」纯粹是一种心理现象吗？ 在这种「突变」中，是否包含了 某种“化学变化”？ 大脑细胞本身会有任何心理上的改变吗？ |
| Is mutation purely a psychological happening? Is there any 'chemistry' involved in the happening? Is there any psychological change in the brain cells themselves? | 「突变」仅仅是一种心理现象吗？ 这种「突变」中是否包含了某种“化学变化”？ 大脑细胞本身会有任何心理上的改变吗？ |
| That is, the questioner asks, is mutation, change – mutation means complete change, not change of form, which is transforming. Transforming means changing forms. When you use the word 'mutation' it means complete change, that which has not been before. Right? And the questioner asks also: is there chemistry involved in it? Is there change in the very brain cells themselves? Right? We are going into this rather complex question, if you are really interested in it, it is great fun to go into this question. Fun in this sense investigating like a scientist. He spends days and days and days and years to find something, but we don't do that into ourselves. | 换句话说，这位提问者问： 「突变」，那种改变 ——「突变」就意味着彻底的改变， 不只是改变外在形式 ——那只是「改造」。 「改造」意味着改变外在形式。 然而当你使用「突变」这个词， 它意味着“完全彻底的改变”， 变成一种前所未有的事物。 对吧？ 而这位提问者还问到： 这（突变）之中是否包含了“化学变化”？ 大脑细胞本身是否也发生了改变？ 是吧？ 我们将会来探讨这个相当复杂的问题 ——如果你们真的对其感兴趣的话， 深入研究这个问题是非常有趣的。 这里“有趣”的意思是： 像科学家那样去研究调查。 科学家会日复一日、年复一年地 去发现某些东西， 但我们并不会这么做 ——对自己做这样的事。 |
| So, he is enquiring: is there a mutation in the very brain cells? Is that possible? And is mutation of a brain cell, which is conditioned – brain cells which carry the memory, the experience, the knowledge – can that be radically, fundamentally mutated? You understand the question? Am I making the question clear? Don't go to sleep, please. It is really a great, exciting thing to find out. Not according to some scientist but in oneself, then you can go infinitely far, inwardly. But if you are trying to go very far outwardly, you can't go very far. Even the astrophysicists are examining the heavens – it is according to their chemistry, according to their conclusions. But if we begin to inquire into ourselves, that is, to know ourselves, to have tremendous enquiry of knowing, to find what we are, not according to some philosophers, some book, some psychologist, but actually what we are, then in the discovery of that, what we are, you can go on, that is infinity. You understand? | 好了，他在询问的是： 大脑细胞本身是否会有一种「突变」？ 这种「突变」可能发生吗？ 而这种大脑细胞的突变 ——大脑细胞是深受制约的， 脑细胞携带着记忆、 经验、知识， 那么它能够彻底地、从根本上产生突变吗？ 你们理解这个问题吗？ 我是否把这个问题说清楚了？ 请不要睡着，拜托了。 它真的是一件值得我们去发现的、 很棒很令人兴奋的事情。 不是根据某个科学家的说法， 而是去探究你自己， 然后你将可以探究得无限远 ——就内在领域而言。 但如果你试图在外在领域走得很远， 那你是走不了多远的。 即使是那些天体物理学家观测天空 ——那也是根据他们的化学知识、 根据他们的结论来进行的。 但如果我们开始去探究我们自己， 也就是去知晓我们自己， 去强烈地探询，从而知晓 去发现“我们是什么？ ” 不是根据某个哲学家、某本书、 某个心理学家的观点， 而是我们实际的模样， 然后就在发现它——即“我们是什么”——的过程中， 你就可以继续前行了， 这个旅程是无限的。 你们理解了吗？ |
| Now, the question is: is it possible for the brain cells themselves to bring about a mutation? Not through compulsion, not through pressure, not through reward and punishment, these are all our motives. If there are such motives then it is not possible, then you are merely pursuing the old pattern. Is this clear? First of all, do we agree, see the point – not agree – see the point that our brain cells carry the memories, the knowledge, the experience? Our brain is the instrument, is the storehouse of experience. From experience, knowledge, from knowledge, memory, and from memory the reaction is thought. Right? Do we see that, first? Not up here, verbally, but do we see the fact? That is, you have an experience of any kind – sexual, a car accident – any kind of experience becomes knowledge. The scientists, step by step by step for the last two hundred years, from Galileo and so on and so on, have gathered information, knowledge, step by step, and the future scientist learns from them, stored in the brain, which becomes his knowledge. So, the brain cells contain all the past knowledge, all the remembrances, memories, and thought. Thought – please listen, if you are interested – thought is a material process, because thought is born out of memory, out of knowledge, out of experience, which is physical, material. So thought is a material process. The speaker has discussed this with several scientists – they slightly, hesitantly agree. That is, thought is a material process but they don't want to completely commit themselves because it is rather too dangerous. It affects their livelihood, it affects their position, it affects their whole structure of living. But it is a fact, apart from scientists, apart from the speaker, this is a fact. | 而现在，我们的问题就是： 大脑细胞本身是否可能 带来一种「突变」？ 不是通过强迫， 不是通过施压， 不是通过奖励与惩罚， 你们理解了吗？ 这些全都是我们的动机。 而如果我们有了这样的动机， 「突变」就不可能发生了， 那时你就仅仅是在追求旧有的模式。 这点清楚了吗？ 首先，我们是否同意， 是否看到了这一点 ——不是“同意”—— 而是看到这一点： 即我们的大脑细胞，它们携带着记忆、 知识和经验？ 我们的大脑就是一个工具， 就是装着经验的“仓库”。 通过经验，我们有了知识， 通过知识又产生了记忆， 而那种记忆的反应就是「思想」。 对吧？首先，我们是否看到了这一点？ 不是通过头脑看到——口头文字上看到， 而是：我们是否看到了这个事实？ 换句话说，你曾有过某种经历 ——性爱、一场车祸—— 而任何一种经验都会变成「知识」。 科学家们， 在过去的两百年里，他们一步一步又一步地 从伽利略开始，等等，等等， 他们积聚起了信息、知识， 一步一步地积累起来， 于是未来的科学家便学习这些知识， 将其储存在大脑里， 这些知识就变成了他自己的知识。 对吧？ 所以，大脑细胞包含着所有过去的知识， 所有的回忆、记忆与思想。 思想——请听好了，如果你感兴趣的话—— 思想就是一个物质化的过程， 因为思想是源自于记忆的， 源自于知识，源自于经验的， 而这些东西都是物理学意义上的、 物质化的东西。 所以「思想」是一个物质化的过程。 演讲者曾经和几位科学家讨论过这件事 ——他们略显迟疑地同意了。 也就是说：思想是一个物质化的过程， 但那些科学家并不想要对此完全明确地表态， 因为这实在太危险了。 这会影响到他们的生计，影响到他们的身份地位， 影响到他们生活的整个结构。 但这是一个事实， 先不管科学家们的看法， 也不管演讲者的看法， 它的确是事实。 |
| Now, the questioner asks: can those cells which have carried all the past, all the experience of humanity, all the experiences which have brought tremendous knowledge, stored in the brain cells, can there be mutation in those brain cells? Is that understood? You answer it. You answer that question. May I most respectfully request you to answer that question? That is, I am going north. I have been going north for the last thousand years. That is my direction. And you come along and tell me, 'My dear chap, if you go along that way there is nothing there. Turn east or south then you might discover something.' Right? So when I turn, I have already brought about a mutation. It is as simple as that. I wonder if you understand this. I have been thinking all my life I am an individual. You come along and show me the fact, and I say, by Jove, you are right, and I have changed. The moment there is a perception of truth, there is a mutation taking place. I wonder if you see this. But if I stick to my going north, there can be no mutation – it is a repetition. But whereas if I listen to you, I say, look, you are no longer individual, you are the rest of mankind, you are mankind, and you show me the beauty of it, the love, the compassion that was born out of this realisation. Then I have left the north. Then there is a mutation taking place. I wonder if you see this. It is not an action of will, it is not an action of desire, but it is an action which comes when you perceive that which is true. Right, sir? I wonder if you see all this. | 而现在，这位提问者问： 这些细胞已经携带了所有的过去、 所有人类的经验、 所有那些曾经带来了惊人知识的经验 ——这些知识被储存在大脑细胞中—— 那么这些大脑细胞可以发生一次「突变」吗？ 你们听懂它了吗？ 你们来回答它吧。 你们来回答这个问题。 我可以无比尊敬地请求你们 来回答这个问题吗？ 换句话说，我要往北走。 在过去的一千年里，我一直都是往北走的。 这是我行进的方向。 然而你过来了，告诉我说，“我亲爱的小伙子， 如果你沿着这个方向走，你将一无所获。 所以请向东边或者南边走吧， 那样你也许才会有所发现。” 是这样吧？ 所以当我转过身的时候， 我就已经带来了一种「突变」。 就是这么的简单， 我不知道你们是否理解了这点。 终其一生，我一直都认为 我是一个独立个体。 然而你过来了，并告诉了我这个事实， 然后我说：天哪，你是对的， 于是我就已经改变了。 你理解了吗？ 一旦我洞察到了真相， 「突变」就已经发生了。 我不知道你们是否明白了这一点。 然而如果我执意要往北走， 那就不可能有「突变」了 ——因为它只是一种重复。 然而如果我能聆听你的话语， 我就会说：瞧，你已经不再是个体了， 你就是其余的人类，你就是「全人类」， 然后你向我展示了它的美， 以及从这种了悟中所产生出来的 「爱」与慈悲。 于是我便不再往北走了。 而那时「突变」就发生了。 我不知道你是否明白了它。 它并不是一种意志的行为， 它并不是一种欲望的行为， 它是一种当你看到了真相以后 所产生的行动。 是吧，先生？ 我不知道你是否明白了这一切。 |
| Q: What is it which perceives the truth? | 提问者：是什么东西洞察到了真相？ |
| Q: Who is the perceiver? | 提问者：那个洞察者是谁？ |
| K: The good old question. | 克：这是一个很好的、老生常谈的问题。 |
| K: Who is the perceiver. You want to trap me? I see a lot of grins. When you look at that tree, who is the perceiver? Look at that tree, look at it carefully, if you don't mind. Don't look at me, I am asking you to look at the tree. And how do you look at that tree? You have used the word 'tree', which you have given to all the things that grow out of the earth. So the word has become more important than the tree. Right? If there is no word, the 'tree', if there is no word and you look, what happens? You understand my question? I have looked at that thing, calling it a tree, for the last 50 years. And you come and say, don't look at it with the word tree, and I say, I can't look at it that way, because I am so used to the word tree, and when I look I say, it is a tree. And you are asking me don't do that, look at it, look at it without the word. Look at your wife without the word, or your husband or your girl – whatever you have. Right? So, our brain is a network of words. Right? | 克：谁才是那个洞察者。 你想要“套路”我是吧？ 我看到很多人都咧嘴笑了。 当你看着那棵树的时候， 谁才是那个观看者？ 看着那棵树， 请小心仔细地看着它 ——如果你们不介意的话。 不要看着我， 我在请求你们去看那棵树。 那么你们是如何去看那棵树的？ 你们使用了“树”这个字， 对于从地球上生长出来的所有这类事物， 你们都给了它“树”这个名称。 所以“树”这个字 变得远远比那棵树本身更加重要了。 对吧？ 而如果没有“树”这个字， 如果你不带着“树”这个字而去观察， 那时会发生什么呢？ 你们理解我的问题吗？ 我曾经观察过那个东西， 而在过去的五十年里，我把它称为“树”。 这时你过来了，对我说： 请不要带着“树”这个字去看那棵树， 然后我说：我无法这样子去看它， 因为我已经如此地习惯于“树”这个字， 以至于当我看它的时候， 我就会说：这是一棵树。 是吧？ 而你叫我别这么做，而是去观察它 不带文字词语地去观察它。 观察你的妻子 而不带着“妻子”这个词， 或者以这种方式去观察 你的丈夫、女朋友，或者无论你的什么人。 好吗？ 因此，我们的大脑就是一个文字词语的网络。 是吧？ |
| I am a Hindu, I am a communist – no, not here, you are all too respectable – I am a communist, I am a socialist, I am a German, I am Catholic – words. Now, who is the observer who is watching all this? That is the question you asked just now. What is the observer? Who is the observer? Answer that question: who is the observer? You say 'I', or there is an observer, the 'I', the witness, the one who is observing – who is the observer? Go on, sir, who is the observer? Your past knowledge. Is that so? Your past memories, your past remembrances. So, the observer is the past. It is a fact, you are not agreeing with me, look at the fact. The past is the observer looking at the present. So there is a division between the past and the present. Look at it logically first and then you might see the reality of it actually. The observer is always the past and that which he observes – I am going to take an example presently, then we will see – that which he observes is still the past. Because he is looking at it from the past, therefore it is still the past. I wonder if you see this. For God's sake, come on, sir. Right? | 我是一个印度教徒， 我是一个共产主义者 ——不，在这里就不说这个了， 你们都是非常可敬的体面人—— 我是一个共产主义者，我是一个社会主义者， 我是一个德国人，我是一个天主教徒 ——这些都是词语名称。 那么，谁才是那个观察者， 是谁在观察着这一切呢？ 这就是你们刚才问的问题。 什么是观察者？ 谁才是那个观察者？ 请回答这个问题：谁才是那个观察者？ 你说：是“我” 或者存在着一个“观察者”， 存在着那个“我”，那个目击者， 那个在观察的人 ——那么这个观察者是谁呢？ 继续，先生，谁才是那个观察者？ 这个“观察者”就是你过去的「知识」。 是这样吧？ 你过去的记忆， 你过去的种种回忆。 所以，那个观察者就是「过去」。 这是一个事实， 你们不用同意我的看法， 只要去看那个事实就行。 好吧？ 「过去」就是那个观察者，他在看着「现在」。 所以「过去」和「现在」之间存在着一种分裂。 请先运用逻辑而看到这一点， 然后你们或许就可以切实地看到它的真相了。 那个观察者永远都是「过去」， 而那个他所观察的事物 ——我马上就会来举个例子，然后我们就会明白了—— 那个他所观察的东西仍旧是「过去」。 因为他是经由「过去」来看那个东西的， 因此那个东西仍旧是「过去」。 我不知道你们是否明白了这一点。 看在上帝的份上，加油啊，先生。 是这样吧？ |
| Now, let's move from there. That is very good idea, a marvellous thing, that you are always looking with the past. So the present is the past, and the present contains the past, the present and the future. I won't go into that now, it is too complex, let's leave that for the moment. I am angry. Is anger different from me? I am jealous. Is that jealousy, that reaction which is called jealousy, is that different from me? Go on, answer it. Or is it part of me? Anger is part of me, jealousy is part of me, the sexual urge is part of me, ambition is part of me. Right? So, I am all that. So the observer is all that. No? So there is no difference between the observer and the observed. Yes sir, intellectually be bright enough, move. You understand my question? I observe that tree. Fortunately I am not the tree, unless psychopathically I think I am the tree, there are lots of people who think that. | 好了，让我们从这里开始探讨吧。 这是一个很棒的观点， 一件令人惊奇的事情， 那就是：你总是带着「过去」在观察事物。 所以「当下」就是「过去」， 而这个「当下」就包含着过去、现在和未来。 我现在就不展开讲了，因为它太复杂了， 我们暂时先不谈这个了。 我很愤怒。 这个「愤怒」与“我”是不同的吗？ 我心怀嫉妒。 那么这个「嫉妒」，这种被称为“嫉妒”的反应 它和我是不同的吗？ 继续，先生，回答它。 还是说，它是我的一部分？对吧？ 愤怒是我的一部分， 嫉妒也是我的一部分， 性冲动是我的一部分， 野心也是我的一部分。 是吧？ 所以，我就是所有这些东西。 因此，观察者就是所有这一切事物。 难道不是吗？ 所以观察者和被观察物， 这两者并没有什么不同。 好了，先生，至少在思想智力上， 你要足够聪明，行动起来吧。 你们理解我的问题吗？ 我观察那棵树。 幸运的是，我并不是那棵树， 除非我精神错乱了， 我才会认为我是那棵树， 但其实有很多人都会有这种想法。 |
| And my anger is me. I separate myself from anger and then I say, 'I have been angry.' There is a separation taking place immediately: 'I have been angry.' But anger is me. So the observer is the observed. Right? Isn't it simple, this? Logically it is very simple but when you begin to apply then the rub begins. Because if anger is me, what can I do about it? I can't do anything. But I have been accustomed to do something about it, therefore I have a conflict. Whereas if anger is me, which is, 'I' and anger are the same, therefore there is no duality, no separation, then there is no conflict. | 而我的「愤怒」，它就是我。 但我会把自己和愤怒分开，然后说， “我刚才很愤怒”。 于是一种区分立即就产生了： “「我」刚才很「愤怒」。 ” 然而那个「愤怒」就是我。 所以观察者就是被观察物。 对吧？ 这难道不是很简单的道理吗？ 从逻辑上看起来，它是非常简单的，是吧？ 然而当你开始去运用它， 那时问题就开始了。 因为……如果愤怒就是我， 那么我又能对它做些什么呢？ 我无法做任何事情。 但我已经习惯于去对它做一些事情， 因此我便有了冲突。 然而如果“愤怒就是我”， 也就是：“我”和愤怒是一样的东西， 由此我们两者之间便没有了二元性、 没有了分别， 所以也就没有冲突了。 |
| Conflict exists only when there is separation. Right? Don't look so puzzled, sir. Conflict exists between you and another, between you as a Hindu and Muslim, because you are separate, conditioned as a Hindu, conditioned as a Muslim, the Jew and the Arab. So wherever there is a division there must be conflict. That is a law. Right? So, the experiencer is the experience. The thinker is the thought. The thinker is not separate from his thought. Are you following all this? Naturally, this is something new, you won't accept, but look at it, please, kindly find out. Not because the speaker says so – whatever the speaker says, doubt, question, tear it to pieces, but find out. Don't say, I don't know what he is talking about, or he is talking Advaita, Vedanta or some other bilge, but find out. That means to enquire whether conflict can end. We live in conflict. Can that conflict end? And that can end only when there is no division, no 'me' and 'you'. You understand this? I know this is extremely difficult for people to do this because they are so caught up in their own self-centred activity. | 只有当有了分别，冲突才会存在。 对吧？ 先生，请不要看起来如此困惑。 在你和他人之间有着冲突， 作为印度教徒的你和穆斯林之间会有冲突， 因为你们是有区别的， 你们被制约为印度教徒， 被制约为穆斯林，对吧？ 被制约为犹太人或阿拉伯人。 所以当存在区分，就必然会有冲突。 这是一个定律。 是吧？ 所以，经验者就是经验。 思想者就是思想。 思想者和他的思想并不是分离的。 你们跟上所有这些了吗？ 当然了，这是某种全新的东西，你们不会接受它， 但请你们去审视一下它， 请你们去搞清楚它。 不是因为演讲者这么说 ——无论演讲者说了什么，请你们去怀疑它、 去质疑它、去摧毁它， 但你要去把它搞清楚。 不要说：我不知道他（克氏）在说些什么， 或者说：他说的就是“不二论”、“吠檀多” 或者其他什么无聊的东西， 而是去搞清楚它。 那意味着去探询“冲突是否可以终结”。 我们活在冲突中。 那么冲突可以结束吗？ 而只有当没有了区分， 没有了“我”和“你”，那时冲突才能够结束。 你们理解它了吗？ 我知道 要人们这么做是极其困难的， 因为人们是如此地深陷于他们自己 自我中心的活动中。 |
| We said there is a radical change, mutation, when the chain of conditioning is broken. And that chain is broken not by volition but by observing it very attentively. Not through analysis, because the analyser is the analysed. Right? So, there is a mutation when you see the fact and pursue the fact step by step, giving attention, giving care. Sir, if you love something you care for it. If I love, to find out if my wife is faithful, I find out, but if I love my wife I wouldn't care. You don't understand all this. So, a mutation can take place so completely that you are a different brain. | 我们说：要有一次彻底的改变、突变， 局限的镣铐就必须被打破才行。 而这副镣铐是无法通过意志力来打破的， 而是要通过全神贯注地观察它。 不是通过分析， 因为分析者就是那个被分析物。 对吧？ 所以 当你看到了这个事实， 然后一步一步地追踪该事实， 去注意到它，去关心它， 那时就会有「突变」了。 先生，如果你爱某个东西， 你就会关心在意它。 如果我爱它，我就会去搞清楚它， 如果我的妻子很忠诚，我就会发现这一点， 但如果我爱我的妻子， 我就不会在乎（她是否忠诚）了。 你们还不理解所有这些东西。 所以，「突变」是可能发生的， 完全彻底的「突变」， 使得你拥有一个截然不同的大脑。 |
| Have you ever enquired into the degeneration of the brain? Have you ever thought about it, asked why the brain deteriorates? Are your brains deteriorating? Don't look at me, please. Are your brains deteriorating? What are the factors of deterioration? Conflict. Right? The brain is an extraordinary instrument. Look at what it has done technologically, for benefit and for the destruction of human beings – tremendous advancement. So the brain has an extraordinary capacity, infinite capacity, but we have taken one direction. But we have not taken another direction, which is inwardly. You understand? So, when one understands conflict, repetition, pursuing the same old tradition, like a gramophone, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, the player, the gramophone plate deteriorates. They have invented a new plate which never goes wrong, worn out, through laser – I won't go into all that. It is too expensive. So our brain has become a gramophone recording that keeps on repeating, repeating, repeating. Even the most intellectual, all the intellectual people that are here, all the theorists, all the philosophers repeat. They have found a cliche, they have found a system, and go on. And that is one of the factors of the brain degenerating. It is like my saying, 'There must be justice in the world.' Right? Justice. I keep on repeating there must be justice in the world, and if I am a politician, I find out, pass laws that will bring justice. I never question if there is justice at all. You understand what I am saying? Is there justice in the world? | 你是否曾经探询过大脑的衰退堕落？ 你是否曾经思考过它，问一下为什么大脑会退化？ 你们的大脑是不是也在退化？ 不要看着我，拜托了。 你们的大脑在退化吗？ 那么是什么因素导致了退化呢？ 是冲突。 对吧？ 大脑是一个非凡的工具。 看看大脑在科技领域所做的事情 ——那些有益于人类的事，以及那些毁灭人类的事—— 惊人的科技进步。 所以大脑有着非凡的能力、无限的能力， 可我们只将它用在了一个方向上。 我们并没有将其转向另一个方向 ——也就是内在领域。 你们理解了吗？ 所以，当我们了解了冲突、重复， 追求同样的老传统， 就像一台留声机那样， 不断地重复、重复、再重复， 那么那个唱机， 留声机的唱片就会损耗坏掉。 而人们已经发明了一种新型唱片， 这种唱片永远不会坏掉和磨损， 它是通过激光来读取的 ——这个我就不展开讲了。 这种唱片太贵了。 因此我们的大脑已经变成了 一台留声机，它在录音， 它在不断地重复、重复、再重复。 即使是最具聪明才智的人， 所有这里的知识分子、 所有的理论家、所有的哲学家， 他们都在重复着。 他们创立了一种陈词滥调， 他们创立了一个思想体系， 然后就这样继续（重复）下去了。 而这就是造成大脑堕落退化的因素之一。 这就像是我说， “这个世界必须要有公平”一样。 对吧？ 公平。 我在不断地重复说： 这个世界必须要有公平， 而如果我是一个政治家， 我就会去想办法， 去批准颁布法律从而带来公平。 但我从来没有去质疑过：究竟是否存在公平？ 你们理解我说的话吗？ 这个世界上有公平可言吗？ |
| Q: No, sir. | 提问者：没有，先生。 |
| K: Of course not. You are tall, I am short. You are bright, I am not. You are well born of a rich family, I am not. You are bright, I am not. You have got the world before you and I live in a small little village, uneducated, poor. Where is there justice? You have all the security and I haven't got any – one meal a day. Come on, sir, look at it. | 克：当然没有了。 你很高，我很矮。 你很聪明，我不聪明。 你出生高贵，生在一个富裕家庭，我却不是。 你聪明伶俐，我并不聪明。 你面前有着整个世界，充满无限可能， 而我却生活在一个小村庄里， 没有文化且贫穷。 所以“公平”在哪里呢？ 你有着所有各种安全保障， 而我毫无安全感可言 ——一天只能吃一顿饭。 来吧，先生，去看看它。 |
| Q: God could have done the justice, sir. | 提问者：「神」本可以主持公道的，先生。 |
| K: God. God is created by thought. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact. If you have no fear there is no God. You won't go to temples if you have no fear. I won't go into that question now. Love has no time. Right? But we don't love anything. You don't love your wife, do you? Do you love anybody? In the sense not attachment, not you use me, I use you. Love has no jealousy. Do you love anybody that way, your children, your wives? You don't even love your gods because you are so frightened of them. You go to this temple nearby to look at these gold... you understand – a million dollars in three days. And this God, money. So, is love an ideal? Answer these questions, sir. If you loved your children, loved them with your heart, not bloody minds, would you have wars, would you have this appalling poverty in this country? Love has nothing to do with self-centred activity. | 克：神。 「神」是由思想所创造出来的。 无论你喜欢与否，这是一个事实。 如果你无所畏惧，那就不存在什么「神」了。 如果你没有恐惧，你就不会去参拜神庙了。 我现在就不深入这个问题了。 先生，「爱」是没有「时间」的。 对吧？ 然而我们并不爱任何东西。 你并不爱你的妻子，你爱她吗？ 你是否爱任何人呢？ 这里说的“爱”的意思是： 没有执著依恋， 不是你利用我，我利用你。 「爱」是没有嫉妒的。 你们是否以这样的方式爱过某人、 爱过你们的孩子和妻子？ 你们甚至都不爱你们的神明， 因为你们是如此害怕他们。 你们去附近的那座神庙， 去看那些金色的 你们知道的 ——那神庙三天就能进账一百万美元。 而这个神，他就是金钱。 所以，「爱」是一个理想吗？ 请你回答这些问题，先生。 如果你爱自己的孩子， 用你的心去爱他们——而不是用那该死的头脑 那么你们还会有战争吗？ 你们还会让这个国家（印度）有这种骇人的贫穷吗？ 「爱」和自我中心的活动是没有任何关系的。 |
| Q: Sir? | 提问者：先生？ |
| K: Sir, please let me finish. So, where there is love there is no observer. Right, sir? Because love is not a past remembrance of sexual excitement or any other form of remembrances. | 克：先生，请让我先把话讲完。 所以，当有了「爱」，就不会有「观察者」了。 对吧，先生？ 因为「爱」并不是关于过去的记忆， 关于令人兴奋的性爱的回忆， 或者任何其他回忆。 |
| Q: May I ask a question? | 提问者：我可以问个问题吗？ |
| K: Yes, sir? | 克：请问，先生？ |
| Q: You claim to have love and compassion. What have you done about poverty? | 提问者：你自称拥有「爱」与「慈悲」。 那么对于「贫穷」问题，你又做了些什么呢？ |
| K: The gentleman asks, you seem to have love and compassion. | 克：这位先生问，你似乎拥有「爱」与「慈悲」。 |
| Q: Not you seem, you claim. | 提问者：不是“你似乎……”，而是“你自称……” |
| K: Yes, you have asked a question. What have you done about poverty. Yes, sir, I understand your question. | 克：是的，你已经问过这个问题了。 你对于「贫穷」又做了些什么。 是的，先生，我理解你的问题。 |
| Q: I will complete my question – because you live in style. | 提问者：让我把问题说说完 ——因为你过着很有格调的生活。 |
| K: Yes, I know. | 克：是的，先生，我明白。 |
| Q: You have always lived in style. | 提问者：你一直以来都过着有格调的生活。 |
| K: Yes, forgive me, I know that. I will answer all these questions. The gentleman asks – you are getting excited, aren't you. I can see it in your faces. You see what you are? You don't wake up to realities but you wake up to this. | 克：是的，先生，请原谅我，这些我都知道。 我将会来回答这些问题。 这位先生问…… 你们都变得兴奋起来了，不是吗？ 我可以从你们的脸上看到这一点。 你们看到自己的情况了吧？ 你们并没有意识到现实，而是意识到了这件事。 |
| Q: This is reality, sir. | 提问者：这件事就是现实，先生。 |
| K: I understand, sir. | 克：我明白，先生。 |
| K: You have asked a question, you are good enough to ask the question, I am going to answer it. | 克：你已经问了一个问题， 你很棒，问了这个问题， 而我将要来回答它。 |
| Q: I meant this is reality. | 提问者：我的意思是：这就是现实。 |
| K: Yes, sir. So am I. | 克：是的，先生。我也认为它是现实。 |
| K: I have been dealing all the morning with reality. So I won't skip it, I won't doubt it. You seem to have, the questioner says, love and compassion. Please, you have asked a question, that is enough. | 克：我整个早上谈论处理的都是「现实」。 所以我不会跳过它，我不会怀疑这一点。 这位提问者说：你似乎拥有 「爱」与「慈悲」。 请不要……你已经问了一个问题，这就够了。 |
| Q: You are telling it wrongly. I said you claim to have. | 提问者：因为你说错了。我说的是： 你“自称”拥有 |
| K: No, you said seem to have. | 克：不，你说的是“似乎拥有……”。 |
| Q: No, sir. | 提问者：我没这么说，先生。 |
| K: I don't claim it. Sir, all right, 'I claim'. I have never claimed it. I wish you had said 'seem' to have. | 克：我并没有“自称”过这种事情。 先生，好吧，就算“我自称过……”。 但我从来没有自称过这种事。 我希望你刚才说的是“你似乎拥有……”。 |
| Q: No, sir. | 提问者：不，先生。 |
| K: 'You claim.' | 克：是“你自称……”。 |
| Q: You are disturbing. | 提问者：你在干扰他（克氏）回答。 |
| K: I know this gentleman, I have met him before. You claim to have love and compassion. The speaker has never claimed it. It would be shockingly absurd to claim something, which means I am better than you, I am something different from you. So I am not claiming, the speaker is not claiming a thing. And the gentleman says: if as you claim, what have you done about poverty? Answer my question, sir. What have you done about poverty? Not what I have done but what have you done about poverty, each one of you? There are different kinds of poverty, physical poverty and psychological poverty. You understand? The poverty of the brain and the physical poverty. | 克：我认识这位先生，我以前见过他。 你自称拥有「爱」和「慈悲」。 演讲者从未宣称过这一点。 自称某些东西 这是荒谬至极的事情， 这意味着：我要比你更好， 我和你是不同的。 所以我不会去自称什么， 演讲者不会去自称什么事情。 而这位先生说： 虽然你宣称了这一点， 那么你对「贫穷」又做了些什么事情呢？ 回答我的问题，先生。 你自己对于「贫穷」问题又做了些什么事呢？ 不是我做了些什么事， 而是你自己对于贫穷问题又做了些什么？ 包括你们每一个人？ 存在着各种不同类型的“贫穷”， 既包括物质上的贫困， 也包括心理上的贫乏。 你们理解了吗？ 存在着大脑的贫乏和物质上的贫困。 |
| K: Which is more important first? | 克：那么哪个才是首要的东西呢？ |
| Q: Both. | 提问者：两个都重要。 |
| K: No, please, I am answering, you don't have to say it. You have put your question, so do you mind? I am answering it. We have always said: solve poverty first. This has been the cry in this country – the social reformer, the social worker, the rural educator – first solve that, the rest is all nonsense. Now, why has poverty existed in this country? Whose fault? Is it government, each one of us, to resolve this enormous poverty, overpopulation? Is it the function of a good government? You understand? I am asking all these questions. Or as a human being separate, start in a little village school, rural school, will that solve the problem? Or a whole psychological change has to take place before we solve this problem. You understand my question? There is poverty in Russia, poverty in America, tremendous unemployment in Europe, in England. There is poverty in England. Right, sir? How is this going to be solved? Poverty, which means lack of food, lack of clothes, lack of housing – who is going to solve it? You and I separately acting in a little place, or – please, look at it carefully – or it is a universal problem, it is a problem of the whole of the world. And the whole world doesn't do anything because we are nationalistic, separate, economically, socially. You follow? So, the solution lies not in mere individual activity but in putting an end to this economic, social, political division, racial division. It is a problem to be solved by the whole world, not by separate individuals or by separate governments. This is logical. And also this implies a sense of affection, care. Now, the next question. | 克：不，拜托了，我正在回答问题， 你不需要插进来。 你已经问完了自己的问题，所以你不介意 让我来回答它吧？ 我们总是在说：先解决贫困问题。 这是这个国家（印度）一直以来的呼声 ——那些社会改革家、社会工作者， 那些乡村教师—— 解决贫穷问题才是首要任务， 其他东西都是扯淡。 那么，为什么贫穷会存在于这个国家中呢？ 这是谁的过错？ 是政府吗，还是需要我们每个人 来解决这惊人的贫穷 和人口过剩问题？ 这是一个优秀政府的职责吗？ 你们理解了吗？ 我正在询问所有这些问题。 还是说，我们要作为单独的个人， 从小村庄的学校开始、 从农村学校开始行动起来， 这能够解决问题吗？ 还是说，我们必须发生一次 整体性的心理上的变革？ 然后再去解决这个问题。 你们明白我的问题了吗？ 在俄罗斯有着贫穷， 在美国也有贫穷， 在欧洲、在英国，有无数人失业。 英国也存在着贫困问题。 对吧，先生？ 那么这个问题要如何才能解决呢？ 贫穷，它的意思就是缺乏食物、 缺乏衣物、缺乏住所 ——那么谁要来解决它呢？ 是你和我单独地在各自的小范围中行动， 还是 ——请小心仔细地看好了—— 还是说，它是一个全球性的问题，对吧？ 它是一个全世界所面临的问题。 然而全世界并没有携起手来 对此做任何事情， 因为我们都是国家主义的， 我们都是分离独立的 ——无论是在经济上还是社会上。你们理解了吗？ 所以，解决之道并不仅仅在于 个人的活动， 而在于要去结束这种经济上的、 社会上的、政治上的分裂， 以及种族之间的分裂。 这是一个有待全世界来解决的问题， 而不是让单独的个体 或者单独的政府来解决它。 这是合乎逻辑的。 此外，这也意味着一种关心和关爱之情。 好了，来说下一个问题。 |
| Q: Sir? | 提问者：先生？ |
| K: You have finished, sir. You seem to live in luxury, you said? | 克：先生，你的问题已经问完了。 你问：你似乎过着一种奢华的生活？ |
| Q: In style. | 提问者：有格调的生活。 |
| K: You seem to live in style. What do you mean by that word 'style'? I am not asking you, sir. One must have style: the way you walk, the way you look, the way you gesture, the way you talk, the way you have behaved – there is a style in it. Like a good dancer, he has a style. What do you object to style? Because you haven't got style? | 克：你似乎过着有格调的生活。 你所说的“格调”这个词是什么意思呢？ 我不是在问你，先生。 一个人必须要有“格调”： 你走路的方式， 你看东西的方式， 你的手势姿态， 你的谈吐风格， 你的行为举止——这些事情中 都有着你的“格调”。 就像一位卓越的舞蹈家， 他的舞蹈会很有格调。 你们为什么反对“格调”呢？ 是因为你们自己没有格调吗？ |
| Q: The luxury that goes with style. | 提问者：格调通常伴随着奢华。 |
| K: Luxury doesn't go with style. Please, let me finish. You can carry on afterwards – not with me. Style does not mean luxury. Style means living in a particular way which isn't selfish, which isn't personal. Style. Sir, an architect who builds a house, if he has got style he makes the most beautiful thing. If you love somebody it has got marvellous style of its own. And because most of us are so shoddy, both inwardly and outwardly, we have lost all style and dignity. I have answered the question. Sorry we have only answered two questions. | 克：奢华与格调并不是相伴而行的。 请让我把话说完吧。 在我讲完以后，你可以继续讲 ——但请不要和我一起讲。 “格调”并不意味着奢华。 “格调”意味着以某种特定的方式生活 ——这种生活方式并不是自私的、 也不是个人化的。 它只是有格调。 先生，一位建筑师会建造一座房子， 如果他有自己的格调， 他就会造出最美丽的房子。 如果你爱某人，它就会拥有其自身 无比美妙的格调。 然而由于我们大多数人都是如此的卑劣 ——不管是内在还是外在， 因此我们已经失去了所有的格调与尊严。 我已经回答完了这个问题。 很抱歉，我们只回答了两个问题。 |
