制作者：lai1021

目录
Content

第 1 段

第 2 段

第 1 段

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE

By Jiddu Krishnamurti

《轉變的緊迫性》

J.克裡希那穆提

Sue 譯

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'AWARENESS'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“覺察”

Questioner: I should like to know what you mean by awareness because you have often said that awareness is really what your teaching is about. I've tried to understand it by listening to your talks and reading your books, but I don't seem to get very far. I know it is not a practice, and I understand why you so emphatically repudiate any kind of practice, drill, system, discipline or routine. I see the importance of that, for otherwise it becomes mechanical, and at the end of it the mind has become dull and stupid. I should like, if I may, to explore with you to the very end this question of what it means to be aware. You seem to give some extra, deeper meaning to this word, and yet it seems to me that we are aware of what's going on all the time. When I'm angry I know it, when I'm sad I know it and when I'm happy I know it.

發問者：我想知道你說的覺察是什麼意思，因為你經常說，覺察是你的教誨真正的核心。我曾嘗試通過聽你的演講和讀你的書，來理解這點，但是我似乎並沒有走多遠。我知道這不是一種練習，而且我也明白你為什麼如此強調否定任何形式的練習、訓練、體系、戒律以及例行程式。我看到了這一點的重要性，因為否則事情就會變得機械，最後心智就變得遲鈍和愚蠢。如果可以的話，我想和你探討一下，覺察到底意味著什麼，並把這個問題深究到底。你似乎賦予了這個詞某種特別的深刻的含義，但是對我來說，我們似乎一直都能覺察到發生著什麼事情。我生氣的時候我知道，傷心的時候我知道，開心的時候我也知道。

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we really are aware of anger, sadness, happiness? Or are we aware of these things only when they are all over? Let us begin as though we know nothing about it at all and start from scratch. Let us not make any assertions, dogmatic or subtle, but let us explore this question which, if one really went into it very deeply, would reveal an extraordinary state that the mind had probably never touched, a dimension not touched by superficial awareness. Let us start from the superficial and work through. We see with our eyes, we perceive with our senses the things about us - the colour of the flower, the humming bird over the flower the light of this Californian sun, the thousand sounds of different qualities and subtleties, the depth and the height, the shadow of the tree and the tree itself. We feel in the same way our own bodies, which are the instruments of these different kinds of superficial, sensory perceptions. If these perceptions remained at the superficial level there would be no confusion at all. That flower, that pansy, that rose, are there, and that's all there is to it. There is no preference, no comparison, no like and dislike, only the thing before us without any psychological involvement. Is all this superficial sensory perception or awareness quite clear? It can be expanded to the stars, to the depth of the seas, and to the ultimate frontiers of scientific observation, using all the instruments of modern technology.

克：我想知道，我們是否真的覺察到了憤怒、悲傷和快樂？還是我們在它們都結束了的時候才覺察到這些事情？讓我們這樣開始，就好像關於覺察我們一無所知，從頭開始。我們不要做任何武斷或者巧妙的斷言，而是一起來探討這個問題，如果你真的願意非常深入地探索的話，那這個問題將揭示一種心智也許從未觸及的非凡狀態，一種膚淺的覺知從未觸及的境界。我們先從淺層的覺知出發，一路走下去。我們用我們的眼睛看，我們用感官來感知我們周圍的東西——花的顏色，花上飛著的蜂鳥，加州的陽光，有著不同質地和細微之處以及不同深度和高度的千萬種天籟之音，樹影以及樹的本身。從我們自己的身體我們也能有相同的感覺，身體是這些不同的各種淺層感官覺知的工具。如果這些覺知保持在淺層，那麼就完全不會產生困擾。那朵花，那朵紫羅蘭，那朵玫瑰，就在那兒，對它們來說，僅此而已。沒有偏好，沒有比較，沒有喜歡或不喜歡，只有我們面前的那樣東西，而不涉及任何心理活動。所有這些淺層的感官覺知或者說覺察都清楚了嗎？通過所有的現代科技儀器，這種覺知可以擴展到繁星，擴展到深海，擴展到科學觀測的最前沿。

Questioner: Yes, I think I understand that.

發問者：是的，我想我明白這點。

Krishnamurti: So you see that the rose and all the universe and the people in it, your own wife if you have one, the stars, the seas, the mountains, the microbes, the atoms, the neutrons, this room, the door, really are there. Now, the next step; what you think about these things, or what you feel about them, is your psychological response to them. And this we call thought or emotion. So the superficial awareness is a very simple matter: the door is there. But the description of the door is not the door, and when you get emotionally involved in the description you don't see the door. This description might be a word or a scientific treatise or a strong emotional response; none of these is the door itself. This is very important to understand right from the beginning. If we don't understand this we shall get more and more confused. The description is never the described. Though we are describing something even now, and we have to, the thing we are describing is not our description of it, so please bear this in mind right through our talk. Never confuse the word with the thing it describes. The word is never the real, and we are easily carried away when we come to the next stage of awareness where it becomes personal and we get emotional through the word.

克：於是我們看到了那朵玫瑰，整個宇宙和其中的人們，你自己的妻子，如果你有的話，星星，大海，山脈，微生物，原子，中子，這間屋子，門，它們都真實地存在著。現在，開始下一步；你對這些東西有什麼想法，或者對它們有什麼感覺，這是你對它們的心理反應。而我們把這叫做思想或者感情。所以說，淺層的覺知是非常簡單的事情：門在那兒。但是，對門的描述不是那門本身，當你將情感注入那描述時，你就看不到那門了。這描述可以是一句話，或者一篇科學論文，或者一種強烈的情感反應；這些都不是那門本身。從一開始就要清楚這點，這非常重要。如果我們不清楚這點，我們就會越來越困惑。描述從來都不是所描述之物。儘管我們現在也是在進行描述，我們不得不這麼做，但是我們所描述的事情，並不是對它的描述，所以在我們的談話中請務必把這一點牢記心中。永遠不要把語言和語言所描述之物混為一談。語言從來都不是那真實的東西本身，而我們卻很容易被語言帶走，尤其是當我們下一步要談到覺察的時候，我們很容易把覺察變得個人化，透過這個詞我們變得情緒化。

So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there is the response to that, which is thought, feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, we might call it a second depth of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to the rose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. In reality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speak of the outer and inner awareness. When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the "me" in relationship and the "non-me". This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the "me" of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. Are you very clear that you perceive this? When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the "me" and the "non-me", the "me" who is different from the thing observed. This "me" is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of "me" and "non-me", both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

那麼有了對樹、鳥和門的淺層覺知，然後對它們產生反應，也就是思想、感覺和情感。現在，當我們覺察到這些反應，我們可以把它稱為第二深度的覺察。有對那玫瑰的覺察，還覺察到對玫瑰的反應。我們經常覺察不到對玫瑰的反應。實際上看到反應的覺察和看到玫瑰的覺察是同一個覺察。這是同一個運動，覺察有內外之別的說法是錯誤的。當對樹產生視覺感知而沒有涉及心理活動時，這裡的關係就沒有分裂。但是當對樹產生心理反應時，那反應就是局限的反應，那反應來源於過去的記憶、過去的經驗，這反應就變成關係中的分裂。在這反應中，就誕生了我們關係中所謂的“我”和“非我”。你就是如此把自己置入與世界的關係中的。這就是你如何製造出了個體和團體。世界再也不是如實地被看到，而是，與記憶組成的“我”形成了各種關係，從這關係中去看這個世界。這種分裂，就變成了生活，滋養壯大了我們稱為心理存在的各種事情，從這裡就產生了所有的矛盾和分別。你很清楚你已經看到這點了嗎？當對那棵樹有覺察的時候，是沒有評判的。但是如果對那棵樹有了心理反應，當那棵樹被判定為喜歡還是不喜歡，那麼在這覺察中就發生了分裂，分成了“我”和“非我”，“我”不同於所觀之物。這個“我”就是關係中來自過去的記憶和經驗的反應。現在，能不能覺察、觀察那棵樹，而不帶有任何評判？能不能不帶有任何評判地觀察那反應和回應？這樣我們就消除了分裂的根源，“我”和“非我”的根源，觀察那棵樹的同時也觀察我們自己。

Questioner: I'm trying to follow you. Let's see if I have got it right. There is an awareness of the tree, that I understand. There is a psychological response to the tree, that I understand also. The psychological response is made up of past memories and past experiences, it is like and dislike, it is the division into the tree and the "me". Yes, I think I understand all that.

發問者：我正努力跟上你。我們來看看我是不是理解對了。有對樹的覺察，這點我理解。然後產生了對樹的心理反應，這點我也理解。心理反應來源於過去的記憶和過去的經驗，是喜歡和不喜歡，這就產生了樹和“我”之間的分裂。是的，我想我都懂了。

Krishnamurti: Is this as clear as the tree itself, or is it simply the clarity of description? Remember, as we have already said, the described is not the description. What have you got, the thing or its description?

克：這點就像那樹本身一樣清楚呢，還是只是描述的很清楚？請記得，正如我們已經說過的，被描述之物並非描述。你明白的是什麼，是事情本身還是對它的描述？

Questioner: I think it is the thing.

發問者：我想是事情本身。

Krishnamurti: Therefore there is no "me" who is the description in the seeing of this fact. In the seeing of any fact there is no "me". There is either the "me" or the seeing, there can't be both. "Me" is non-seeing. The "me" cannot see, cannot be aware.

克：那麼就沒有了那個看到這個事實並對它進行描述的“我”。看到任何事實時，都沒有“我”。要麼有“我”，要麼有覺察，不可能兩者同時都在。“我”就是無覺察。“我”無法看清，也無法覺察。

Questioner: May I stop here? I think I've got the feeling of it, but I must let it sink in. May I come again tomorrow?

發問者：到這裡我能停一下嗎？我想我對此有所感覺，但是我必須完全領會吸收這一點。我可以明天再來嗎？

* * *

Questioner: I think I have really understood, non-verbally, what you said yesterday. There is the awareness of the tree, there is the conditioned response to the tree, and this conditioned response is conflict, it is the action of memory and past experiences, it is like and dislike, it is prejudice. I also understand that this response of prejudice is the birth of what we call the "me" or the censor. I see clearly that the "me", the "I", exists in all relationships. Now is there an "I" outside of relationships?

發問者：我想我真的已經理解了，從非語言層面上理解了你昨天說的話。有對樹的覺知，有對樹的局限的反應，這局限的反應就是衝突，是出自過去的記憶和經驗的行為，比如喜歡和不喜歡，這是偏見。我也明白了，這偏見的反應催生了我們所謂的“我”或者審查官。我清楚地看到，“我”，“自我”，存在於所有的關係中。那麼，有沒有一個“我”存在於關係之外？

Krishnamurti: We have seen how heavily conditioned our responses are. When you ask if there is a "me" outside of relationship, it becomes a speculative question as long as there is no freedom from these conditioned responses. Do you see that? So our first question is not whether there is a "me" or not outside of conditioned responses, but rather, can the mind, in which is included all our feelings, be free of this conditioning, which is the past? The past is the "me". There is no "me" in the present. As long as the mind is operating in the past there is the "me", and the mind is this past, the mind is this "me".

克：我們已經看清我們的反應是多麼嚴重地受限了。當你問有沒有一個“我”存在於關係之外，只要沒辦法從這些局限的反應中解脫，那麼它就變成了一個思想性的問題。你看到這點了嗎？所以我們首要的問題，不是有沒有那樣一個“我”，在局限的反應之外，而應該是，包含了我們所有感情的心智能否從這過去的局限中解脫出來？過去就是“我”。活在現在這一刻就不會有“我”的存在。只要心智還在過去中運作，就會有“我”，而心智就是這過去，心智就是這個“我”。

You can't say there is the mind and there is the past, whether it is the past of a few days ago or of ten thousand years ago. So we are asking: can the mind free itself from yesterday? Now there are several things involved, aren't there? First of all there is a superficial awareness. Then there is the awareness of the conditioned response. Then there is the realization that the mind is the past, the mind is this conditioned response. Then there is the question whether this mind can free itself of the past. And all this is one unitary action of awareness because in this there are no conclusions. When we say the mind is the past, this realization is not a verbal conclusion but an actual perception of fact. The French have a word for such a perception of a fact, they call it "constatation". When we ask whether the mind can be free of the past is this question being asked by the censor, the "me", who is that very past?

你不能說，心智是存在著的，過去是存在的著的，不管是幾天前的過去，還是一萬年前的過去。所以我們要問：心智慧把自己從昨天解脫出來嗎？現在這裡涉及到幾件事情，是不是？首先，有淺層的覺知。然後是對局限的反應的覺察。然後是意識到心智就是過去，心智就是這局限的反應。然後問題是，心智能否把自己從過去中解脫出來。這一切都是一個整體的覺察行動，因為其中沒有結論。當我們說心智就是過去，這種認識不是一個文字結論，而是對事實真實的覺知。法語裡有個詞表達這樣一種對事實的覺知，他們把它叫做“證實”。當我們問，心智能否從過去中解脫，那麼這個問題是不是那個審查官，那個正是過去的“我”提出來的？

Questioner: Can the mind be free of the past.

發問者：心智能否從過去中解脫出來。

Krishnamurti: Who is putting that question? Is it the entity who is the result of a great many conflicts, memories and experiences - is it he who is asking - or does this question arise of itself, out of the perception of the fact? If it is the observer who is putting the question, then he is trying to escape from the fact of himself, because, he says, I have lived so long in pain, in trouble, in sorrow, I should like to go beyond this constant struggle. If he asks the question from that motive his answer will be a taking refuge in some escape. One either turns away from a fact or one faces it. And the word and the symbol are a turning away from it. In fact, just to ask this question at all is already an act of escape, is it not? Let us be aware whether this question is or is not an act of escape. If it is, it is noise. If there is no observer, then there is silence, a complete negation of the whole past.

克：是誰在問這個問題？是作為許多衝突、記憶和經驗的結果的那個存在體——是他在問嗎？還是這個問題是它自己從對過去的覺察中產生的？如果是那個觀察者在提出這個問題，那麼他只是在試圖從自己的事實中逃脫，因為，他說，我已經在痛苦中，在困境中，在悲傷中生活了這麼久，我想要超越這不停的掙扎。如果他是從這個動機問的這個問題，那麼他的答案就會是在某種逃避中尋求庇護。他要麼轉身逃開事實，要麼面對它。而語言和符號就是一種轉身逃避。事實上，僅僅提出這個問題本身就已經是一種逃避行為了，不是嗎？讓我們來弄清楚這個問題是不是一種逃避行為。如果是逃避，那它就是一種噪音。如果沒有觀察者，那麼就會有寂靜，就會有對整個過去的全然否定。

Questioner: Here I am lost. How can I wipe away the past in a few seconds?

發問者：在這裡我迷失了。我要怎樣在幾秒鐘內抹掉過去？

Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussing awareness. We are talking over together this question of awareness.

克：我們討論的是覺察，讓我們把這點記在心中。我們在一起討論覺察這個問題。

There is the tree, and the conditioned response to the tree, which is the "me" in relationship, the "me" who is the very centre of conflict. Now is it this "me" who is asking the question? - this "me" who, as we have said, is the very structure of the past? If the question is not asked from the structure of the past, if the question is not asked by the "me", then there is no structure of the past. When the structure is asking the question it is operating in relationship to the fact of itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape from itself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is not acting in relationship to itself. To recapitulate: there is the tree, there is the word, the response to the tree, which is the censor, or the "me", which comes from the past; and then there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the "me" is asking this question it is perpetuating itself.

有樹，以及對樹局限的反應，也就是關係中的“我”，而“我”就是衝突的最核心。那麼，是這個“我”在問這個問題嗎？——我們說過，這個“我”就是過去構造出來的。如果這個問題不是從過去的構造中問出的，如果問題不是“我”問出的，那麼就沒有了過去的構造。當那構造在問出這個問題時，它就是在和它本身這個事實的關係中運作，它把自己嚇壞了，想要採取行動逃開自己。當那構造不再問出這個問題時，它就沒有在和自己的關係中運作。再重申一下：有樹，有語言，有對樹的反應，也就是來自於過去的審查官，或者“我”；然後就有了這個問題：我能從這一切混亂和痛苦中逃脫嗎？如果是這個“我”在問這個問題，那它就是在無休止地延續自己。

Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. It does not ask the question at all because it sees the trap. Now do you see that all this awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree.

現在，覺察到這點，它就不會再問那個問題了！覺察，看到其中的所有涵義，就不會再問這個問題了。它根本不會問這個問題，因為它看到了其中的陷阱。現在你是不是看到了所有這些覺察都是淺層的？它就和看到樹的覺察是一樣的。

Questioner: Is there any other kind of awareness? Is there any other dimension to awareness?

發問者：有沒有其他類型的覺察？覺察有沒有其他的境界？

Krishnamurti: Again let's be careful, let's be very clear that we are not asking this question with any motive. If there is a motive we are back in the trap of conditioned response. When the observer is wholly silent, not made silent, there is surely a different quality of awareness coming into being.

克：我們又得小心點，我們得非常清楚我們並不是出於任何動機來問這個問題。如果有動機，我們就又落入局限的反應這個陷阱裡去了。當觀察者完全安靜的時候，不是製造出的安靜，那就必然會有一種不同品質的覺察產生。

Questioner: What action could there possibly be in any circumstances without the observer - what question or what action?

發問者：沒有觀察者的情況下，會有怎樣的行動產生——怎樣的問題或者行動？

Krishnamurti: Again, are you asking this question from this side of the river, or is it from the other bank? If you are on the other bank, you will not ask this question; if you are on that bank, your action will be from that bank. So there is an awareness of this bank, with all its structure, its nature and all its traps, and to try to escape from the trap is to fall into another trap. And what deadly monotony there is in all that! Awareness has shown us the nature of the trap, and therefore there is the negation of all traps; so the mind is now empty. It is empty of the "me" and of the trap. This mind has a different quality, a different dimension of awareness. This awareness is not aware that it is aware.

克：再問你一次，你是從河的此岸問出這個問題，還是從彼岸問的？如果你在彼岸，你不會問這個問題；如果你在彼岸，你就會從彼岸行動。所以對此岸有一種覺察，連同此岸的一切結構，它的本質，它所有的陷阱，而試圖逃離陷阱就會落入另一個陷阱。這一切都是多麼致命地無聊乏味啊！覺察已經展示給我們那陷阱的本質，進而把所有陷阱都否定掉；所以心智現在是清空的。清掉了“我”和那陷阱。這心智就具有了一種不同的品質，一種不同境界的覺察。這種覺察並不知道它在覺察。

Questioner: My God, this is too difficult. You are saying things that seem true, that sound true, but I'm not there yet. Can you put it differently? Can you push me out of my trap?

發問者：我的天，這太難了。你說的話似乎是真的，聽起來是真的，但是我還沒到那裡。你能換個說法嗎？你能把我從我的陷阱里拉出來嗎？

Krishnamurti: Nobody can push you out of your trap - no guru, no drug, no mantra, nobody, including myself - nobody, especially myself. All that you have to do is to be aware from the beginning to the end, not become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is attention, and in this attention there is no frontier made by the "me". This attention is the highest form of virtue, therefore it is love. It is supreme intelligence, and there cannot be attention if you are not sensitive to the structure and the nature of these man-made traps.

克：沒人能把你從你的陷阱里拉出來——沒有上師，沒有藥物，沒有曼陀羅，沒人，包括我自己——沒人，特別是我自己。所有你能做的就是從始至終都在覺察，不在中途變得漫不經心。這種嶄新品質的覺察就是全神貫注，在這全神貫注中，沒有“我”製造的疆域。這種全神貫注是最高形式的美德，所以就是愛。它是至高無上的智慧，如果你對這些人造陷阱的結構和本質不敏感的話，全神貫注就不可能出現。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'IS THERE A GOD?'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“有神嗎？”

Questioner: I really would like to know if there is a god. If there isn't life has no meaning. Not knowing god, man has invented him in a thousand beliefs and images. The division and the fear bred by all these beliefs have divided him from his fellow men. To escape the pain and the mischief of this division he creates yet more beliefs, and the mounting misery and confusion have engulfed him. Not knowing, we believe. Can I know god? I've asked this question of many saints both in India and here and they've all emphasized belief. "Believe and then you will know; without belief you can never know." What do you think?

發問者：我真的想知道是不是有神。如果沒有，那生命就沒有意義。因為不知道神，人類就發明了關於神的千萬種信仰和形象。所有這些信仰滋生的分別和恐懼，把他和他的夥伴們分離了。為逃避這種分離的痛苦和不幸，他就製造了更多的信仰，而不斷增加的苦難和困惑把他吞沒了。因為不瞭解，所以我們才會相信。我們能知道神嗎？這個問題我曾經問過很多聖人，印度的和這兒的，他們都強調信仰。“相信，然後你就會知道；沒有信仰，你永遠不會知道。”你怎麼看？

Krishnamurti: Is belief necessary to find out? To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word?

克：是不是需要去發現信仰是什麼？瞭解要遠比知道重要。對信仰的瞭解就是信仰的終結。當心智從信仰中解脫出來，它就能觀察了。互相糾結的，是信仰，或者不信仰；因為不信仰和信仰是一回事：它們都是同一個硬幣的正反兩面。所以我們可以把肯定或否定的信仰完全放在一邊；信仰者與不信仰者都是一樣的。如果真的做到了這點，那麼“有神嗎？”這個問題就有了完全不同的意義。神這個詞，連同這個詞所包含的所有傳統，記憶，以及智識上的和感情上的內涵——這一切都不是神。詞語並非真實之物。那麼心智慧擺脫這個詞嗎？

Questioner: I don't know what that means.

發問者：我不知道那句話是什麼意思。

Krishnamurti: The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought.

克：那個詞是想要找到那絕對真理的傳統、希冀和渴望，是對那終極之物的追求，是賦予其自身存在以生命力的一種活動。所以那個詞本身變成了那終極之物，但是你能看出那個詞並非所指之物。心智就是那個詞，而那個詞就是思想。

Questioner: And you're asking me to strip myself of the word? How can I do that? The word is the past; it is memory. The wife is the word, and the house is the word. In the beginning was the word. Also the word is the means of communication, identification. Your name is not you, and yet without your name I can't ask about you. And you're asking me if the mind can be free of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its own activity?

發問者：而你是在讓我自己把那個詞擺脫掉？我怎麼才能做到這點？詞語是過去；是記憶。妻子是個詞，房子是個詞。開始的時候只是個詞而已。而且詞語也是溝通、確認的方式。你的名字不是你，但是如果沒有你的名字，我就不能問起你。你在問我，心智能否擺脫詞語——也就是，心智能否擺脫它自身的行為？

Krishnamurti: In the case of the tree the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement. Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference. The theologian does it in one way, the intellectual in another, and the believer and the non-believer in their own different ways. Hope generates this belief, and then seeking. This hope is the outcome of despair - the despair of all we see around us in the world. From despair hope is born, they also are two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope there is hell, and this fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. Then illusion begins. So the word has led us to illusion and not to god at all. God is the illusion which we worship; and the non-believer creates the illusion of another god which he worships - the State, or some utopia, or some book which he thinks contains all truth. So we are asking you whether you can be free of the word with its illusion.

克：拿我們眼前的樹這個物體來舉個例子，全世界公認“樹”這個詞指的就是樹。而用神這個詞，它所指的東西空無一物，所以每個人就對這個無所依據的東西創造出他自己的形象來。神學家用一種方式創造出形象，知識份子用另一種方式，信仰者和不信仰者用他們各自不同的方式。希望催生了這些信仰，然後就開始追尋。這希望是絕望的結果——這種絕望我們在世界上在我們周圍都能看見。從絕望中誕生了希望，它們也是同一個硬幣的兩面。如果沒有希望就是地獄，這種對地獄的恐懼就給我們的希望賦予了生命力。然後幻想就開始了。所以語言將我們導向幻象，而根本不是引向神。神是我們崇拜的幻象；而不信仰者創造出別的神的幻象來崇拜——國家，或者某種烏托邦，或者他們認為包含著所有真理的某本書。所以我們在問，你能否從詞語及其幻象中解脫出來。

Questioner: I must meditate on this.

發問者：我必須得好好想想這點。

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

克：如果沒有幻象，那剩下的是什麼？

Questioner: Only what is.

發問者：只有實際狀況。

Krishnamurti: The "what is" is the most holy.

克：“實際狀況”才是最神聖的。

Questioner: If the "what is" is the most holy then war is most holy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then we must not speak of any change at all. If "what is" is sacred, then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, "Don't touch me, what I'm doing is sacred".

發問者：如果“實際狀況”是最神聖的，那麼戰爭就是最神聖的，還有仇恨，失序，痛苦，貪婪和掠奪。那麼我們就根本不能談論任何改變了。如果“實際狀況”是神聖的，那麼每個殺人犯和掠奪者以及剝削者都會說，“別碰我，我做的事情是神聖的。”

Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

克：正是簡簡單單的那句話，“‘實際狀況’是最神聖的”，導致了巨大的誤解，因為我們沒有看到它揭示的真相。如果你明白實際狀況是神聖的，那麼你就不會謀殺，你就不會發動戰爭，你就不會希望，你就不會剝削。要是做了這些事情，你就不能聲稱對你所違背的真理享有豁免權。如果白人對黑人暴動者說，“實際狀況是神聖的，不要干涉，不要焚燒”，那他就沒有看到這一點，因為如果他明白這點，那麼對他來說，黑人就是神聖不可侵犯的，那麼就沒必要去焚燒了。所以，如果我們每個人都看到了這個真相，就必然會有改變。看到這個真相本身，就是改變。

Questioner: I came here to find out if there is god, and you have completely confused me.

發問者：我來這是為了弄清是不是有神，而你把我完全弄糊塗了。

Krishnamurti: You came to ask if there is god. We said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the observer who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.

克：你來這問是否有神。我們說：詞語導致我們崇拜幻象，為了這個幻象我們願意摧毀彼此。如果沒有幻象，“實際狀況”就是最神聖的。現在讓我們來看看實際狀況究竟如何。在某個特定的時刻，“實際狀況”也許是恐懼，或者完全的絕望，或者飛逝的快樂。這些東西在不停地變化。同時又有個觀察者說，“我周圍的這些東西都在變，而我保持恒定”。這是事實嗎，這是實際的狀況嗎？在他自己之上加加減減，修修補補，調整自己，想變成或者不變成，他不是也在變嗎？所以觀察者和被觀察者都在不停地變化。實際狀況就是變化。這是個事實。這就是實際狀況。

Questioner: Then is love changeable? If everything is a movement of change, isn't love also part of that movement? And if love is changeable, then I can love one woman today and sleep with another tomorrow.

發問者：那麼愛是可變的嗎？如果所有東西都是變化的運動，難道愛不也是那變動的一部分嗎？如果愛是可變的，那麼我就能今天愛上一個女人，明天又和另一個女人上床。

Krishnamurti: Is that love? Or are you saying that love is different from its expression? Or are you giving to expression greater importance than to love, and therefore making a contradiction and a conflict. Can love ever be caught in the wheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love is hate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.

克：那是愛嗎？還是你是說，愛與它的表現是不同的？還是你在賦予表現形式比賦予愛更大的重要性？因而就製造了矛盾和衝突。愛能被困在改變的車輪裡嗎？如果是如此，那麼它就也能變成恨；那麼愛就是恨了。只有沒有幻象了，“實際狀況”才是最神聖的。如果沒有幻象，“實際狀況”就是神或者你能使用的任何其他名字。所以，神，或者不管你管它叫什麼名字，只有當你不在的時候，才存在。如果有你，它就不在。沒有了你，就有了愛。有你，就沒有愛。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'FEAR'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“恐懼”

Questioner: I used to take drugs but now I am free of them. Why am I so frightened of everything? I wake up in the mornings paralysed with fear. I can hardly move out of bed. I'm frightened of going outside, and I'm frightened of being inside. Suddenly as I drive along this fear comes upon me, and I spend a whole day sweating, nervous, apprehensive, and at the end of the day I'm completely exhausted. Sometimes, though very rarely, in the company of a few intimate friends or at the house of my parents, I lose this fear; I feel quiet, happy, completely relaxed. As I came along in my car today, I was frightened of coming to see you, but as I came up the drive and walked to the door I suddenly lost this fear, and now as I sit here in this nice quiet room I feel so happy that I wonder what I was ever frightened about. Now I have no fear. I can smile and truthfully say: I'm very glad to see you! But I can't stay here for ever, and I know that when I leave here the cloud of fear will engulf me again. That is what I'm faced with. I've been to ever so many psychiatrists and analysts, here and abroad, but they merely delve into my memories of childhood - and I'm fed up with it because the fear hasn't gone at all.

發問者：我曾經嗑藥，但是現在我擺脫了它們。為什麼我對所有事情都是那麼恐懼？早上醒來的時候，我恐懼得動彈不得。我幾乎下不了床。我害怕出去，也害怕待在屋裡。在我開車的時候，這種恐懼會突然襲來，然後我一整天都冒汗，緊張，害怕，在一天結束的時候，我精疲力竭。有時候，儘管很少，在幾個密友的陪伴下，或者在我父母的家裡，我沒有這種恐懼；我感覺安寧，快樂，完全放鬆。在我今天駕車開往這裡的路上，我害怕來見你，但是當我來到這條大道走到門口的時候，我突然不恐懼了，當我現在坐在這個漂亮安靜的屋子裡的時候，我覺得太開心了，以致於我不知道我究竟怕什麼。現在我沒有恐懼。我能微笑，真心地說：見到你非常高興！但是我不能永遠都待在這兒，我知道當我離開的時候，恐懼的烏雲會再次吞噬我。這就是我正面對的。我見過太多的精神科醫生和分析師，這兒的和國外的，但是他們僅僅是一頭紮入我童年的記憶——而我受夠了這些，因為恐懼根本就沒有消失。

Krishnamurti: Let's forget childhood memories and all that nonsense, and come to the present. Here you are, and you say you are not frightened now; you're happy for the moment and can hardly imagine the fear you were in. Why have you no fear now? Is it the quiet, clear, well-proportioned room, furnished with good taste, and this sense of welcoming warmth which you feel? Is that why you are not frightened now?

克：讓我們忘了兒時記憶和所有那些無稽之談，來到現在吧。你在這兒，你說現在不害怕；這會兒你很開心，幾乎想像不出你曾身處其中的恐懼。你現在為什麼沒有恐懼？是不是因為這間安靜的，整潔的，比例勻稱的，裝飾得很有品位的屋子，以及你感受到的這種怡人的溫暖感覺？是這些讓你現在不害怕嗎？

Questioner: That's part of it. Also perhaps it is you. I heard you talk in Switzerland, and I've heard you here, and I feel a kind of deep friendship for you. But I don't want to depend on nice houses, welcoming atmospheres and good friends in order not to be afraid. When I go to my parents I have this same feeling of warmth. But it is deadly at home; all families are deadly with their little enclosed activities, their quarrels, and the vulgarity of all that loud talk about nothing, and their hypocrisy. I'm fed up with it all. And yet, when I go to them and there is this certain warmth, I do feel, for a while, free of this fear. The psychiatrists can't tell me what my fear is about. They call it a "floating fear". It's a black, bottomless, ghastly pit. I've spent a great deal of money and time on being analysed and it really hasn't helped at all. So what am I to do?

發問者：這是一部分原因吧。也可能是因為你。我聽過你在瑞士的講話，也聽過你在這裡的講話，我感到對你有一種深深的友愛。但是我不想依靠漂亮的房子，怡人的氣氛和好朋友才能不害怕。當我去我父母那兒時，我同樣感覺到溫暖。但是回家就很恐怖；所有家庭都很恐怖，因為它們瑣碎而封閉的活動，它們的爭吵，因為微不足道的事情而引發的所有那些粗俗的大聲喧嘩，以及它們的虛偽。我受夠了這一切。但是，當我去見他們的時候，有這麼一種溫暖感，我確實能感覺到，有那麼一會我從這恐懼中解脫了。精神科醫生無法告訴我我因為什麼而恐懼。他們管它叫做“浮動恐懼”。這是個黑黑的，無底的，可怕的陷阱。我花了大量的金錢和時間做分析，但是並沒有任何幫助。那我該怎麼辦？

Krishnamurti: Is it that being sensitive you need a certain shelter, a certain security, and not being able to find it, you are frightened of the ugly world? Are you sensitive?

克：是不是因為你太敏感所以需要某種庇護，某種安全感，但是遍尋不獲，所以就對這個醜陋的世界滿懷恐懼？你敏感嗎？

Questioner: Yes, I think so. Perhaps not in the way you mean, but I am sensitive. I don't like the noise, the bustle, the vulgarity of this modern existence and the way they throw sex at you everywhere you go today, and the whole business of fighting your way to some beastly little position. I am really frightened of all this - not that I can't fight and get a position for myself, but it makes me sick with fear.

發問者：是的，我想是的。也許不是你說的那個意思，但我是敏感的。我不喜歡噪音，喧鬧，不喜歡這個現代世界的粗俗，現在不管你去哪兒到處都會碰到性，還有苦苦爭鬥只是為了得到某個極其卑微的職位，我不喜歡這整件事情。我真的害怕這一切——不是因為我自己不能奮鬥無法為自己謀得一個職位，而是這讓我恐懼而厭惡。

Krishnamurti: Most people who are sensitive need a quiet shelter and a warm friendly atmosphere. Either they create it for themselves or depend on others who can give it to them - the family, the wife, the husband, the friend. Have you got such a friend?

克：敏感的人大多都需要一個安靜的庇護和一種溫暖友好的氣氛。不管他們是為自己創造這些出來，還是依靠別人給他們——家庭，妻子，丈夫，朋友。你有這樣一個朋友嗎？

Questioner: No. I'm frightened of having such a friend. I'm frightened of being dependent on him.

發問者：沒有。我害怕有這樣一個朋友。我害怕依賴他。

Krishnamurti: So there is this issue: being sensitive, demanding a certain shelter, and depending on others to give you that shelter. There is sensitivity, and dependence; the two often go together. And to depend on another is to fear losing him. So you depend more and more, and then the fear increases in proportion to your dependence. It is a vicious circle. Have you enquired why you depend? We depend on the postman, on physical comfort and so on; that's quite simple. We depend on people and things for our physical well-being and survival; it is quite natural and normal. We have to depend on what we may call the organizational side of society. But we also depend psychologically, and this dependence, though comforting, breeds fear. Why do we depend psychologically?

克：那麼就有這個問題：敏感，需要某種庇護，依賴別人給你那種庇護。有敏感，有依賴；這兩者通常是如影隨形的。而依靠別人就害怕會失去他。所以你就越來越依賴，然後恐懼隨著你的依賴而增強。這是個惡性循環。你是否探詢過你為什麼依賴？我們依賴郵差，依賴身體上的舒適，等等；這非常簡單。我們因為身體上的安康和生存而依賴人們和東西；這很自然，很正常。我們還依賴社會上我們稱為組織的那一面。但是我們在心理上也依賴，這種依賴，雖然令人很欣慰，但是滋生了恐懼。我們為什麼在心理上會依賴？

Questioner: You're talking to me about dependence now, but I came here to discuss fear.

發問者：你現在跟我討論依賴，可我來這兒是為了探討恐懼的。

Krishnamurti: Let's examine them both because they are interrelated as we shall see. Do you mind if we discuss them both? We were talking about dependence. What is dependence? Why does one psychologically depend on another? Isn't dependence the denial of freedom? Take away the house, the husband, the children, the possessions - what is a man if all these are removed? In himself he is insufficient, empty, lost. So out of this emptiness, of which he is afraid, he depends on property, on people and beliefs. You may be so sure of all the things you depend on that you can't imagine ever losing them - the love of your family, and the comfort. Yet fear continues. So we must be clear that any form of psychological dependence must inevitably breed fear, though the things you depend on may seem almost indestructible. Fear arises out of this inner insufficiency, poverty and emptiness. So now, do you see, we have three issues - sensitivity, dependence and fear? The three are interrelated. Take sensitivity: the more sensitive you are (unless you understand how to remain sensitive without dependence, how to be vulnerable without agony), the more you depend. Then take dependence: the more you depend, the more there is disgust and the demand to be free. This demand for freedom encourages fear, for this demand is a reaction, not freedom from dependence.

克：讓我們來一起檢視，因為它們兩個是互相關聯的，我們將會看到這點。你介不介意我們把兩個問題一同探討？我們在討論依賴。什麼是依賴？一個人為什麼在心理上會依賴另一個人？難道依賴不是否定了自由嗎？把房子，丈夫，孩子，擁有的東西都拿走——如果這一切都拿走了，那一個人是什麼？他自身無法自足，空虛，迷失。那麼，他害怕這種空虛，因為這種空虛，他依賴財產，依賴人們和信仰。你也許對所有這些你依賴的東西太確信了，你從來無法想像失去它們——你家庭的愛，和舒適。但是，恐懼持續著。所以我們必須清楚任何形式的心理依賴必然會滋生恐懼，儘管你依賴的東西可能看起來幾乎堅不可摧。恐懼來源於這種內在的不足，貧乏和空虛。那麼現在，你是否看到，我們有三件事情——敏感，依賴和恐懼？這三者是互相關聯的。拿敏感來說：你越敏感（除非你瞭解如何不依賴就能保持敏感，如何不痛苦就能保持敏感），你就越依賴。然後再說依賴：你越依賴，反感就越嚴重，就越想要自由。這種對自由的渴望會增強恐懼，因為這種渴望是一種反應，而不是從依賴中解脫。

Questioner: Are you dependent on anything?

發問者：你依賴任何東西嗎？

Krishnamurti: Of course I'm dependent physically on food, clothes and shelter, but psychologically, inwardly, I'm not dependent on anything - not on gods, not on social morality, not on belief, not on people. But it is irrelevant whether or not I am dependent. So, to continue: fear is the awareness of our inner emptiness, loneliness and poverty, and of not being able to do anything about it. We are concerned only with this fear which breeds dependence, and which is again increased by dependence. If we understand fear we also understand dependence. So to understand fear there must be sensitivity to discover, to understand how it comes into being. If one is at all sensitive one becomes conscious of one's own extraordinary emptiness - a bottomless pit which cannot be filled by the vulgar entertainment of drugs nor by the entertainment of the churches, nor the amusements of society: nothing can ever fill it. Knowing this the fear increases. This drives you to depend, and this dependence makes you more and more insensitive. And knowing this is so, you are frightened of it. So our question now is: how is one to go beyond this emptiness, this loneliness - not how is one to be self-sufficient, not how is one to camouflage this emptiness permanently?

克：當然身體上我依賴食物，衣服和住所，但是心理上，內在地，我不依賴任何東西——不依賴神，不依賴社會道德，不依賴信仰，不依賴人們。但是我是不是依賴，這不重要。那我們繼續：恐懼是知道我們內在的空虛，孤獨和貧乏，對此我們無能為力。我們只關心滋生依賴的這種恐懼，這種恐懼又隨著依賴增強。如果我們懂得了恐懼，我們就也能懂得依賴。而要懂得恐懼，就必須敏感地去發現，去瞭解它是怎麼形成的。如果一個人真的敏感，他就能發覺自己那巨大的空虛——一個無底洞，無法用粗俗的藥物消遣填滿，也無法用教會的娛樂或者社會的消遣滿足：沒東西能填滿它。知道這一點，恐懼就增強了。這驅使你去依賴，這種依賴讓你越來越敏感。知道這些就是現實，你會害怕。所以現在我們的問題是：一個人要怎樣超越這種空虛，這種孤獨？——不是一個人要如何變得自滿，不是一個人要如何永遠地掩飾這種空虛。

Questioner: Why do you say it is not a question of becoming self-sufficient?

發問者：你為什麼說這不是一個如何變得自滿的問題？

Krishnamurti: Because if you are self-sufficient you are no longer sensitive; you become smug and callous, indifferent and enclosed. To be without dependence, to go beyond dependence, doesn't mean to become self-sufficient. Can the mind face and live with this emptiness, and not escape in any direction?

克：因為如果你自滿就不會再敏感了；你變得沾沾自喜而麻木，冷漠而封閉。沒有依賴，超越依賴，並不意味著變得自滿。心智能不能面對並與這種空虛共處，而不向任何方向逃避？

Questioner: It would drive me mad to think I had to live with it for ever.

發問者：想想我得永遠與它共處，會讓我發瘋的。

Krishnamurti: Any movement away from this emptiness is an escape. And this flight away from something, away from "what is," is fear. Fear is flight away from something. What is is not the fear; it is the flight which is the fear, and this will drive you mad, not the emptiness itself. So what is this emptiness, this loneliness? How does it come about? Surely it comes through comparison and measurement, doesn't it? I compare myself with the saint, the master, the great musician, the man who knows, the man who has arrived. In this comparison I find myself wanting and insufficient: I have no talent, I am inferior, I have not "realised; I am not, and that man is. So out of measurement and comparison comes the enormous cavity of emptiness and nothingness. And the flight from this cavity is fear. And the fear stops us from understanding this bottomless pit. It is a neurosis which feeds upon itself. And again, this measurement, this comparison, is the very essence of dependence. So we are back again at dependence, a vicious circle.

克：任何離開這種空虛的行為都是一種逃避。這種從某事中逃離，從“實際狀況”中逃離的行為，是恐懼。恐懼是逃離某事。實際狀況不是恐懼；逃離才是恐懼，這會讓你發瘋，而不是空虛本身。所以，這種空虛，這種孤獨是什麼？它是怎麼產生的？顯然，它來自比較和衡量，不是嗎？我拿自己和聖人，和大師，和偉大的音樂家比較，和知道的人，和達成了的人比較。在這種比較中，我發現自己想要得到，我不滿足：我沒有天分，我差勁，我沒有“實現”；我不是，而那個人是。那麼從衡量和比較，就產生了空虛和一無是處的巨大空洞。從這空洞逃離，就是恐懼。而恐懼阻止了我們對這無底洞的瞭解。這是一種自給自足的神經官能症。而這種衡量，這種比較，再次成為依賴的核心。所以我們又回到了依賴，一個惡性循環。

Questioner: We have come a long way in this discussion and things are clearer. There is dependence; is it possible not to depend? Yes, I think it is possible. Then we have the fear; is it possible not to run away from emptiness at all, which means, not to escape through fear? Yes, I think it is possible. That means we are left with the emptiness. Is it possible then to face this emptiness since we have stopped running away from it through fear? Yes, I think it is possible. Is it possible finally, not to measure, not to compare? For if we have come this far, and I think we have, only this emptiness remains, and one sees that this emptiness is the outcome of comparison. And one sees that dependence and fear are the outcome of this emptiness. So there is comparison, emptiness, fear, dependence. Can I really live a life without comparison, without measurement?

發問者：通過這次討論我們已經走了很遠，事情也清晰些了。有依賴的問題；可能不依賴嗎？是的，我想是可能的。然後我們討論了恐懼；到底有沒有可能完全不從空虛中逃離，也就是，不通過恐懼來逃避？是的，我想是可能的。那就意味著我們就剩空虛了。那麼是不是有可能面對這空虛？因為我們已經不再通過恐懼逃離這空虛了。是的，我想是可能的。那麼最後，是不是有可能不衡量，不比較？因為如果我們走到這一步了，我想我們確實到了，那就只剩這空虛了，而且也看到了這空虛是比較的結果。也看到了依賴和恐懼是這空虛的結果。所以談到的有比較，空虛，恐懼，和依賴。我能過一種沒有比較，沒有衡量的生活嗎？

Krishnamurti: Of course you have to measure to put a carpet on the floor!

克：當然你得衡量才能把地毯鋪在地板上！

Questioner: Yes. I mean can I live without psychological comparison?

發問者：是的。我是說我能在心理上不比較地生活嗎？

Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to live without psychological comparison when all your life you have been conditioned to compare - at school, at games, at the university and in the office? Everything is comparison. To live without comparison! Do you know what it means? It means no dependence, no self-sufficiency, no seeking, no asking; therefore it means to love. Love has no comparison, and so love has no fear. Love is not aware of itself as love, for the word is not the thing.

克：當你的整個生命——在學校裡，在遊戲中，在大學裡，在辦公室裡都被局限於比較，那你知道心理上不比較地生活是什麼意思嗎？每件事情都比較。不比較地生活！你知道那意味著什麼嗎？那意味著沒有依賴，沒有自滿，沒有追尋，沒有要求；因而那就意味著愛。愛沒有比較，所以愛沒有恐懼。愛不知道自己是愛，因為詞語並非所指之物。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'HOW TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“怎樣活在這個世界上”

Questioner: Please, sir, could you tell me how I am to live in this world? I don't want to be part of it yet I have to live in it, I have to have a house and earn my own living. And my neighbours are of this world; my children play with theirs, and so one becomes a part of this ugly mess, whether one wants to or not. I want to find out how to live in this world without escaping from it, without going into a monastery or around the world in a sailing boat. I want to educate my children differently, but first I want to know how to live surrounded by so much violence, greed, hypocrisy, competition and brutality.

發問者：請問，先生，你能否告訴我該怎樣活在這個世界上？我不想成為它的一部分，但是我還得生活在其中，我得有棟房子，養活我自己。而我的鄰居是這個世界的一部分；我的孩子和他們的孩子一起玩，這樣一個人就變成了這個亂糟糟醜陋世界的一部分，不管他想不想如此。我想發現如何生活在這個世界上，不從中逃避，不躲到寺院裡去，也不坐一艘帆船去環遊世界。我想以不同的方式來教育孩子，但是首先我想知道，在如此之多的暴力、貪婪、虛偽、競爭和殘酷的包圍之中，要如何生活。

Krishnamurti: Don't let's make a problem of it. When anything becomes a problem we are caught in the solution of it, and then the problem becomes a cage, a barrier to further exploration and understanding. So don't let us reduce all life to a vast and complex problem. If the question is put in order to overcome the society in which we live, or to find a substitute for that society, or to try to escape from it though living in it, it must inevitably lead to a contradictory and hypocritical life. This question also implies, doesn't it, the complete denial of ideology? If you are really enquiring you cannot start with a conclusion, and all ideologies are a conclusion. So we must begin by finding out what you mean by living.

克：讓我們不要把它變成一個問題。如果任何事情變成了問題，我們就困在對它的解決之道中了，那個問題就會變成一個牢籠，變成了對更深入的探索和瞭解的一個障礙。所以讓我們不要把所有生活降減為一個複雜龐大的問題。如果提出問題是為了戰勝我們生活於其中的社會，或者為了找到這個社會的某種替代品，或者儘管生活於其中卻試圖從中逃避，那它就不可避免地會導致一種矛盾的虛偽的生活。這個問題也意味著，對思想觀念的完全否定，難道不是嗎？如果你真的在探詢，那麼你就不能從一個結論開始，所有的思想觀念都是一種結論。所以我們必須從發現你所說的活著意味著什麼開始。

Questioner: Please, sir, let's go step by step.

發問者：先生，請讓我們一步步來。

Krishnamurti: I am very glad that we can go into this step by step, patiently, with an enquiring mind and heart. Now what do you mean by living?

克：我很高興我們能一步步耐心地深入這個問題，用一顆探詢的頭腦和心靈。那麼你說的活著是什麼意思？

Questioner: I've never tried to put it into words. I'm bewildered, I don't know what to do, how to live. I've lost faith in everything - religions, philosophies and political utopias. There is war between individuals and between nations. In this permissive society everything is allowed - killing, riots, the cynical oppression of one country by another, and nobody does anything about it because interference might mean world war. I am faced with all this and I don't know what to do; I don't know how to live at all. I don't want to live in the midst of such confusion.

發問者：我從未試過要把它付諸語言。我很迷惑，我不知道該怎麼辦，怎麼生活。我對所有事情都失去了信心——宗教，哲學和政治烏托邦。個人之間和國家之間都有戰爭。在這個悲觀的社會裡，所有事情都是允許的——殺戮，暴亂，一個國家被另一個國家毫不留情地壓迫著，沒有人對此做點什麼，因為干涉也許就意味著世界大戰。我不想生活在如此的困惑當中。

Krishnamurti: What is it you are asking for - a different life, or for a new life which comes about with the understanding of the old life? If you want to live a different life without understanding what has brought about this confusion, you will always be in contradiction, in conflict, in confusion. And that of course is not a new life at all. So are you asking for a new life or for a modified continuity of the old one, or to understand the old one?

克：你想要的是什麼——一種不同以往的生活，還是伴隨著對以往生活的瞭解而來的一種全新生活？如果你想未經瞭解以往就過上一種不同的生活，它已經帶來了這些困惑，那麼你將始終處於矛盾中，衝突中，困惑中。當然那根本不是一種新生活。所以，你是想要一種新生活呢，還是想要以往生活經過改良後的某種延續，還是去瞭解以前的生活方式？

Questioner: I'm not at all sure what I want but I am beginning to see what I don't want.

發問者：我不確定我想要什麼，但是我開始看到我不想要什麼。

Krishnamurti: Is what you don't want based on your free understanding or on your pleasure and pain? Are you judging out of your revolt, or do you see the causation of this conflict and misery, and, because you see it, reject it?

克：你不想要的東西，是基於你自由的瞭解，還是基於你的歡愉和痛苦？你的評判是出於你的反抗，還是你看清了這衝突和苦難的根源，因為你看清了它，就拋棄了它？

Questioner: You're asking me too many things. All I know is that I want to live a different kind of life. I don't know what it means; I don't know why I'm seeking it; and, as I said, I'm utterly bewildered by it all.

發問者：你問我太多事情了。我所有知道的只是我想過一種不同的生活。我不知道那是什麼意思；我不知道我為什麼追求它；而且，正如我所說，為此我極其困惑。

Krishnamurti: Your basic question is, isn't it, how are you to live in this world? Before you find out let us first see what this world is. The world is not only all that surrounds us, it is also our relationship to all these things and people, to ourselves, to ideas. That is, our relationship to property, to people, to concepts - in fact our relationship to the stream of events which we call life. This is the world. We see division into nationalities, into religious, economic, political, social and ethnical groups; the whole world is broken up and is as fragmented outwardly as its human beings are inwardly. In fact, this outer fragmentation is the manifestation of the human being's inner division.

克：你基本的問題是，你該怎樣活在這個世界上，不是嗎？在你找出答案之前，讓我們先看看這個世界是什麼。世界不只是我們周圍的一切，它也是我們與所有這些事情和人們的關係，與我們自己、與想法的關係。也就是，我們與財產，與人們，與概念的關係——實際上是我們與我們稱為生活的一連串事件的關係。這就是世界。我們看到世界劃分成了民族，劃分成了宗教的、經濟的、政治的、社會的和種族的團體；整個世界破碎不堪，人類的內在和外在一樣支離破碎。事實上，這種外在的支離破碎正是人類內在分裂的表現。

Questioner: Yes, I see this fragmentation very clearly, and I am also beginning to see that the human being is responsible.

發問者：是的，我非常清楚地看到這種破碎，我也正開始看到人類是有責任的。

Krishnamurti:You are the human being!

克：你就是人類！

Questioner: Then can I live differently from what I am myself? I'm suddenly realizing that if I am to live in a totally different way there must be a new birth in me, a new mind and heart, new eyes. And I realize also that this hasn't happened. I live the way I am, and the way I am has made life as it is. But where does one go from there?

發問者：那麼我能以不同於我自己現在的方式生活嗎？我突然意識到，如果我要過一種完全不同的生活方式，我就必須新生，重生一顆新的頭腦和心靈，一雙新的眼睛。我也意識到這還沒有發生。我以現有的方式生活著，我現有的生活方式把生活變成了現在這個樣子。但是一個人要從這裡走向哪裡？

Krishnamurti: You don't go anywhere from there! There is no going anywhere. The going, or the searching for the ideal, for what we think is better, gives us a feeling that we are progressing, that we are moving towards a better world. But this movement is no movement at all because the end has been projected out of our misery, confusion, greed and envy. So this end, which is supposed to be the opposite of what is, is really the same as what is, it is engendered by what is. Therefore it creates the conflict between what is and what should be. This is where our basic confusion and conflict arises. The end is not over there, not on the other side of the wall; the beginning and the end are here.

克：從這兒你哪也不去！沒有什麼地方可去。去向，或者追尋理想，追求我們認為更好的，給我們一種感覺，好像我們正在進步，我們正在朝著一個更好的世界前進。但是這種運動根本不是運動，因為那終點是由我們的苦難、困惑、貪婪和嫉妒投射出來的。所以這個終點，本以為是與現實狀況相反的，實際上和現實狀況是一樣的，它正是由現實狀況產生的。因此，就在實際狀況和應當如何之間製造了衝突。這就是我們的困惑和衝突根本的發源地。終點並不在那邊，並不在牆的另一邊；起點和終點都在這兒。

Questioner: Wait a minute, sir, please; I don't understand this at all. Are you telling me that the ideal of what should be is the result of not understanding what is? Are you telling me that what should be is what is, and that this movement from what is to what should be isn't really a movement at all?

發問者：請等一下，先生；我根本不明白這點。你是不是在告訴我，理想中的應當如何就是不瞭解現實狀況的結果？你是不是在告訴我，應當如何就是現實狀況，從現實狀況向應當如何行進的這種運動，根本就不是真的運動？

Krishnamurti: It is an idea; it is fiction. If you understand what is, what need is there for what should be?

克：那是個想法；是虛構的。如果你瞭解了現實狀況，還有什麼必要有應當如何？

Questioner: Is that so? I understand what is. I understand the bestiality of war, the horror of killing, and because I understand it I have this ideal of not killing. The ideal is born out of my understanding of what is, therefore it is not an escape.

發問者：是這樣嗎？我瞭解實際狀況。我瞭解戰爭的殘忍，殺戮的恐怖，因為我瞭解這些，所以我有了不殺生的理想。這個理想誕生于我對現實狀況的瞭解，所以這不是一種逃避。

Krishnamurti: If you understand that killing is terrible do you have to have an ideal in order not to kill? Perhaps we are not clear about the word understanding. When we say we understand something, in that is implied, isn't it, that we have learnt all it has to say? We have explored it and discovered the truth or the falseness of it. This implies also, doesn't it, that this understanding is not an intellectual affair, but that one has felt it deeply in one's heart? There is understanding only when the mind and the heart are in perfect harmony. Then one says "I have understood this, and finished with it", and it no longer has the vitality to breed further conflict. Do we both give the same meaning to that word understand?

克：如果你瞭解了殺戮是可怕的，你還要有個不去殺生的理想嗎？也許我們還沒弄清瞭解這個詞的意思。當我們說我們瞭解了某事，這難道不就意味著，我們已經學到了它要說的一切？我們已經探索過了，發現了它的真實或者它的謬誤。這也意味著，這種瞭解不是一件智識上的事情，而是一個人在他的內心深處深切地體會到了，不是嗎？只有當頭腦和心靈處於完美的和諧中時，才有這種瞭解。然後一個人說“我瞭解了這點，結束了它”，它再也不會有進一步滋生衝突的能力了。我們是不是都給瞭解這個詞賦予了相同的含義？

Questioner: I hadn't before, but now I see that what you are saying is true. Yet I honestly don't understand, in that way, the total disorder of the world, which, as you so rightly pointed out, is my own disorder. How can I understand it? How can I completely learn about the disorder, the entire disorder and confusion of the world, and of myself?

發問者：我以前沒有看到，但是現在我看到你所說的是真實的。然而誠實地說，我並沒有以那種方式瞭解到整個世界的失序，正如你確切指出的那樣，那失序就是我自己的失序。我怎樣才能瞭解這點？我要怎樣才能完全瞭解失序，世界的和我自己的徹底失序和困惑？

Krishnamurti: Do not use the word how, please.

克：請不要用怎樣這個詞。

Questioner: Why not?

發問者：為什麼不能用？

Krishnamurti: The how implies that somebody is going to give you a method, a recipe, which, if you practise it, will bring about understanding. Can understanding ever come about through a method? Understanding means love and the sanity of the mind. And love cannot be practised or taught. The sanity of the mind can only come about when there is clear perception, seeing things as they are unemotionally, not sentimentally. Neither of these two things can be taught by another, nor by a system invented by yourself or by another.

克：怎樣這個詞意味著某人要給你一個方法，一個訣竅，如果你練習它，會帶來瞭解。瞭解難道能夠通過方法得來嗎？瞭解意味著愛和心智的清明健全。而愛無法被練習或者教授。只有清晰地覺知，不感情用事不多愁善感地如實看清事情本身，心智的清明健全才能發生。這兩件事都無法被別人教授，也不能經由你自己或者別人發明的體系傳授。

Questioner: You are too persuasive, sir, or is it perhaps that you are too logical? Are you trying to influence me to see things as you see them?

發問者：你太有說服力了，先生，還是也許你太擅長邏輯了？你是在試圖影響我讓我像你那樣看待事情嗎？

Krishnamurti: God forbid! Influence in any form is destructive of love. Propaganda to make the mind sensitive, alert, will only make it dull and insensitive. So we are in no way trying to influence you or persuade you, or make you depend. We are only pointing out, exploring together. And to explore together you must be free, both of me and of your own prejudices and fears. Otherwise you go round and round in circles. So we must go back to our original question: how am I to live in this world? To live in this world we must deny the world. By that we mean: deny the ideal, the war, the fragmentation, the competition, the envy and so on. We don't mean deny the world as a schoolboy revolts against his parents. We mean deny it because we understand it. This understanding is negation.

克：但願不是如此！任何形式的影響都破壞了愛。想讓心智變得敏感、警覺的宣傳活動，只會將其變得遲鈍和不敏感。所以我們根本不是在試圖影響你或者說服你，或者讓你依賴。我們只是指出來，一起探索。而要一起探索，你必須從我和你自己的偏見和恐懼中解脫出來。否則你只是在來回兜圈子。所以我們必須回到我們最初的問題：我要怎樣活在這個世界上？要活在這個世界上我們必須否定這個世界。這意味著：否定理想、戰爭、支離破碎、競爭、嫉妒，等等。我們說否定這個世界的意思，不是像男學生那樣叛逆他的父母。我們的意思是因為我們瞭解了它所以否定它。這種瞭解就是否定。

Questioner: I am out of my depth.

發問者：這超出了我能理解的深度。

Krishnamurti: You said you do not want to live in the confusion, the dishonesty and ugliness of this world. So you deny it. But from what background do you deny it, why do you deny it? Do you deny it because you want to live a peaceful life, a life of complete security and enclosure, or do you deny it because you see what it actually is?

克：你說你不想生活在這個困惑、不誠實和醜陋的世界中。所以你否定它。但你是從什麼背景來否定它的，你為什麼要否定它？你否定它，是不是因為你想過和平的生活，一種徹底安全和封閉的生活，還是因為你如實看清了它所以你才否定它的？

Questioner: I think I deny it because I see around me what is taking place. Of course my prejudices and fear are all involved. So it is a mixture of what is actually taking place and my own anxiety.

發問者：我想我否定它是因為我看到了周圍發生著的事情。當然，其中都涉及到了我的偏見和恐懼。所以這是摻雜了實際發生的事情和我自己的焦慮的一種混合物。

Krishnamurti: Which predominates, your own anxiety or the actual seeing of what is around you? If fear predominates, then you can't see what is actually going on around you, because fear is darkness, and in darkness you can see absolutely nothing. If you realize that, then you can see the world actually as it is, then you can see yourself actually as you are. Because you are the world, and the world is you; they are not two separate entities.

克：哪個占主導地位，是你自己的焦慮，還是真實地看到了你周圍的一切？如果恐懼占主導，那麼你就不能看清你周圍實際上發生著什麼，因為恐懼是黑暗，在黑暗中你根本什麼都看不見。如果你意識到了這一點，那麼你就能如實地看清這個世界了，那麼你就能如實地看清你自己了。因為你就是世界，世界就是你；他們不是兩個分開的實體。

Questioner: Would you please explain more fully what you mean by the world is me and I am the world?

發問者：你能不能更充分地解釋一下，你說的世界就是我和我就是世界是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: Does this really need explaining? Do you want me to describe in detail what you are and show you that it is the same as what the world is? Will this description convince you that you are the world? Will you be convinced by a logical, sequential explanation showing you the cause and the effect? If you are convinced by careful description, will that give you understanding? Will it make you feel that you are the world, make you feel responsible for the world? It seems so clear that our human greed, envy, aggression and violence have brought about the society in which we live, a legalized acceptance of what we are. I think this is really sufficiently clear and let's not spend any more time on this issue. You see, we don't feel this, we don't love, therefore there is this division between me and the world.

克：這真的需要解釋嗎？你是想讓我詳細描述你是什麼，並且指給你看這和世界的樣子是一樣的嗎？這解釋能讓你確信你就是世界嗎？給你一個符合邏輯順序的解釋，指給你看原因和結果，你會因此確信嗎？如果你因詳細的描述而確信，那能讓你有瞭解嗎？它會讓你感覺到你就是世界，讓你感覺到要對這個世界負責嗎？非常明顯，是我們人類的貪婪，嫉妒，侵略，暴力造就了我們身處其中的這個社會，我們的樣子被合法化地接受了。我想這點真的十分清楚了，讓我們不要在這個問題上再花時間了。你看，我們沒感覺到這點，我們不愛，所以就有了我和世界之間的這種分裂。

Questioner: May I come back again tomorrow?

發問者：我可以明天再來嗎？

* * *

He came back the next day eagerly, and there was the bright light of enquiry in his eyes.

第二天他很熱切地回來了，他的眼中有著探詢的亮光。

Questioner: I want, if you are willing, to go further into this question of how I am to live in this world. I do now understand, with my heart and my mind, as you explained yesterday, the utter importance of ideals. I had quite a long struggle with it and have come to see the triviality of ideals. You are saying, aren't you, that when there are no ideals or escapes there is only the past, the thousand yesterdays which make up the "me"? So when I ask: "How am I to live in this world?" I have not only put a wrong question, but I have also made a contradictory statement, for I have placed the world and the "me" in opposition to each other. And this contradiction is what I call living. So when I ask the question, "How am I to live in this world?" I am really trying to improve this contradiction, to justify it, to modify it, because that's all I know; I don't know anything else.

發問者：我想，如果你願意的話，進一步深入我要怎樣活在這個世界上這個問題。現在我確實以我的心靈和我的頭腦瞭解到了，正如你昨天解釋的，理想絕對的重要性。我曾與它做過漫長的鬥爭，已經看到了理想的瑣碎。你說，如果沒有理想或者逃避，就只有過去，一千個昨天構成的“我”，不是嗎？所以當我問：“我要怎樣活在這個世界上？”我不僅僅是提出了一個錯誤的問題，而且我也做了一個自相矛盾的表述，因為我把世界和“我”放在彼此對立的位置上。而這種矛盾，就是我們所謂的生活。所以當我問這個問題，“我要怎樣活在這個世界上？”，我實際上是在努力強化這種矛盾，合理化它，調整它，因為這是我知道的所有事情；別的我什麼也不知道。

Krishnamurti: This then is the question we have now: must living always be in the past, must all activity spring from the past, is all relationship the outcome of the past, is living the complex memory of the past? That is all we know - the past modifying the present. And the future is the outcome of this past acting through the present. So the past, the present and the future are all the past. And this past is what we call living. The mind is the past, the brain is the past, the feelings are the past, and action coming from these is the positive activity of the known. This whole process is your life and all the relationship and activity that you know. So when you ask how you are to live in this world you are asking for a change of prisons.

克：那麼這就是我們現在有的問題了：是不是必須總是生活在過去，是不是所有的行為都必須源於過去，是不是所有的關係都是過去的結果，生活是不是過去的複雜記憶？這是我們知道的所有東西——過去調整現在。而未來是這個過去通過現在運作的結果。所以過去，現在和未來都是過去。而這過去我們稱之為生活。心智是過去，頭腦是過去，感情是過去，從這些而來的行動是來自已知的正向活動。這整個過程就是你所知道的你的生活，所有的關係和活動。所以當你問你要怎樣活在這個世界上，你只是想要換換監獄。

Questioner: I don't mean that. What I mean is: I see very clearly that my process of thinking and doing is the past working through the present to the future. This is all I know, and that's a fact. And I realize that unless there is a change in this structure I am caught in it, I am of it. From this the question inevitably arises: how am I to change?

發問者：我不是這個意思。我的意思是：我非常清晰地看到，我思考和行為的過程是過去通過現在運作到未來。這是我知道的所有東西，這是個事實。我意識到除非我受困於其中的這個結構有種轉變，否則我就是它的一部分。從這個問題必然產生另一個問題：我要怎樣轉變？

Krishnamurti: To live in this world sanely there must be a radical change of the mind and of the heart.

克：要清明健全地活在這個世界上，頭腦和心靈必須要有徹底的轉變。

Questioner: Yes, but what do you mean by change? How am I to change if whatever I do is the movement of the past? I can only change myself, nobody else can change me. And I don't see what it means - to change.

發問者：是的，但是你說的轉變是什麼意思？如果我無論做什麼都是過去的運動，那我要如何轉變？我只能改變我自己，別人無法改變我。我不知道這意味著什麼——去轉變。

Krishnamurti: So the question "How am I to live in this world?" has now become "How am I to change?" - bearing in mind that the how doesn't mean a method, but is an enquiry to understand. What is change? Is there any change at all? Or can you ask whether there is any change at all only after there has been a total change and revolution? Let's begin again to find out what this word means. Change implies a movement from what is to something different. Is this something different merely an opposite, or does it belong to a different order altogether? If it is merely an opposite then it is not different at all, because all opposites are mutually dependent, like hot and cold, high and low. The opposite is contained within, and determined by, its opposite; it exists only in comparison, and things that are comparative have different measures of the same quality, and therefore they are similar. So change to an opposite is no change at all. Even if this going towards what seems different gives you the feeling that you are really doing something, it is an illusion.

克：所以“我要怎樣活在這個世界上？”這個問題現在變成了“我要如何轉變？”——請銘記在心，如何並不意味著一個方法，而是為了瞭解的一種探詢。什麼是轉變？究竟有任何轉變這回事嗎？或者你能不能問，是否只有在一場徹底的轉變和革命之後，才可能有所改變？讓我們還是先來弄清這個詞的意思。轉變意味著從現實狀況向不同的某物的運動。這某物只是個對立面呢，還是它屬於一種全然不同的秩序？如果它只是對立面，那麼它根本沒有任何不同，因為所有的對立面都是相互依存的，像熱和冷，高和低。對立面包含在它的對立面中，並且由其決定；它只存在於比較中，比較級的事物具有的是相同品質的不同尺度，因而它們是相似的。所以變成對立面根本不是轉變。即使這種似乎在朝著不同方向的行進給你一種你確實在做什麼的感覺，那還是個幻覺。

Questioner: Let me absorb this for a moment.

發問者：讓我先消化一下這些。

Krishnamurti: So what are we concerned with now? Is it possible to bring about in ourselves the birth of a new order altogether that is not related to the past? The past is irrelevant to this enquiry, and trivial, because it is irrelevant to the new order.

克：那我們現在關注的是什麼？是否有可能在我們自己身上誕生一種與過去無關的全然的新秩序？過去與這探詢無關，過去是瑣碎的，因為它與那新秩序無關。

Questioner: How can you say it is trivial and irrelevant? We've been saying all along that the past is the issue, and now you say it is irrelevant.

發問者：你怎麼能說它是瑣碎的不相干的？我們一直在說過去就是問題所在，現在你說它是不相干的。

Krishnamurti: The past seems to be the only issue because it is the only thing that holds our minds and hearts. It alone is important to us. But why do we give importance to it? Why is this little space all-important? If you are totally immersed in it, utterly committed to it, then you will never listen to change. The man who is not wholly committed is the only one capable of listening, enquiring and asking. Only then will he be able to see the triviality of this little space. So, are you completely immersed, or is your head above the water? If your head is above the water then you can see that this little thing is trivial. Then you have room to look around. How deeply are you immersed? Nobody can answer this for you except yourself. In the very asking of this question there is already freedom and, therefore, one is not afraid. Then your vision is extensive. When this pattern of the past holds you completely by the throat, then you acquiesce, accept, obey, follow, believe. It is only when you are aware that this is not freedom that you are starting to climb out of it. So we are again asking: what is change, what is revolution? Change is not a movement from the known to the known, and all political revolutions are that. This kind of change is not what we are talking about. To progress from being a sinner to being a saint is to progress from one illusion to another. So now we are free of change as a movement from this to that.

克：過去似乎是唯一的問題，因為它是唯一掌控我們頭腦和心靈的東西。它本身對我們是重要的。但是，我們為什麼要賦予它重要性？為什麼這個狹小的空間那麼重要？如果你完全沉浸其中，徹底禁錮其中，那麼你就永遠不會去聆聽著改變。沒有完全禁錮其中的人，是僅有的能夠聆聽，探究和質詢的人。只有這時，他才能看到這個狹小空間的瑣碎。所以，你是完全沉浸其中，還是你的頭還在水面之上？如果你的頭在水面之上，那麼你就能看到這個小東西是瑣碎的。那麼你就有空間去看看周圍了。你沉浸其中的程度有多深？沒有人能回答這個問題，除了你自己。在提出這個問題本身時，就有了自由，所以你就不會害怕。接著你的視野就寬闊了。當這種過去的模式完全扼住你的喉嚨，你就會默認，接受，服從，追隨，相信。只有當你意識到這不是自由時，你才能開始爬出來。所以我們再問一次這個問題：什麼是轉變，什麼是革命？轉變不是從已知到已知的運動，所有的政治革命都是這樣。這種改變不是我們正在討論的東西。從一個罪人進步為一個聖人，只是從一個幻覺向另一個幻覺前進而已。所以現在我們擺脫了從這到那的運動這樣的改變。

Questioner: Have I really understood this? What am I to do with anger, violence and fear when they arise in me? Am I to give them free reign? How am I to deal with them? There must be change there, otherwise I am what I was before.

發問者：我真的明白了這點嗎？當我內在產生了憤怒、暴力和恐懼，我該拿它們怎麼辦？我要讓它們自由發揮嗎？我該怎麼處理它們？那裡必須得有改變，否則我就會和以前一樣。

Krishnamurti: Is it clear to you that these things cannot be overcome by their opposites? If so, you have only the violence, the envy, the anger, the greed. The feeling arises as the result of a challenge, and then it is named. This naming of the feeling re-establishes it in the old pattern. If you do not name it, which means you do not identify yourself with it, then the feeling is new and it will go away by itself. The naming of it strengthens it and gives it a continuity which is the whole process of thought.

克：這些事情不能由它們的對立面來克服，這一點對你來說清楚了嗎？如果是的話，你就只有暴力，嫉妒，憤怒和貪婪。這感覺作為一種挑戰的結果出現，隨後它就被命名了。對感覺的命名就把它在舊有的模式裡重建了。如果你不給它命名，也就是說你不把自己與它認同在一起，那麼這感覺就是新鮮的，它會自己消失掉。對它的命名加強了它，賦予了它延續性，這正是思想的整個過程。

Questioner: I am being driven into a comer where I see myself actually as I am, and I see how trivial I am. From there what comes next?

發問者：我被趕到了一個角落裡，我如實地看到了自己的樣子，我也看到了自己有多麼瑣碎。從這裡接下來會發生什麼？

Krishnamurti: Any movement from what I am strengthens what I am. So change is no movement at all. Change is the denial of change, and now only can I put this question: is there a change at all? This question can be put only when all movement of thought has come to an end, for thought must be denied for the beauty of non-change. In the total negation of all movement of thought away from what is, is the ending of what is.

克：任何離開我的現實狀況的運動，都會增強我的這種狀況。所以那改變根本不是運動。轉變是對改變的否定，只有現在我才能提出這個問題：究竟有轉變這回事嗎？只有當所有思想運動都停止的時候，才能提出這個問題，因為思想必須因為不變的美而被否定。在對所有離開實際狀況的思想運動的全然否定中，就有了現實狀況的終結。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'RELATIONSHIP'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“關係”

Questioner: I have come a long way to see you. Although I am married and have children I have been away from them, wandering, meditating, as a mendicant. I have puzzled greatly over this very complicated problem of relationship. When I go into a village and they give me food, I am related to the giver, as I am related to my wife and children. In another village when somebody gives me clothes I am related to the whole factory that produced them. I am related to the earth on which I walk, to the tree under which I take shelter, to everything. And yet I am alone, isolated. When I am with my wife, I am separate even during sex - it is an act of separation. When I go into a temple it is still the worshipper being related to the thing he worships: separation again. So in all relationships, as I see it, there is this separation, duality, and behind or through it, or around it, there is a peculiar sense of unity. When I see the beggar it hurts me, for I am like him and I feel as he feels - lonely, desperate, sick, hungry. I feel for him, and with him, for his meaningless existence. Some rich man comes along in his big motor car and gives me a lift, but I feel uncomfortable in his company, yet at the same time I feel for him and am related to him. So I have meditated upon this strange phenomenon of relationship. Can we on this lovely morning, overlooking this deep valley, talk over together this question?

發問者：我走了很長的路來見你。儘管我結婚了，有了孩子，但是我一直遠離他們，像一個托缽僧一樣流浪，冥想。對於關係這個非常複雜的問題，我感到極其困惑。當我進到一個村子裡，他們給我食物，我和施與者有了某種關係，就像我與我的妻子和孩子有關係一樣。在另一個村子裡，有人給衣服，我就與生產衣服的整個工廠有了關係。我與我行走於其上的土地有關，與我在其下遮蔭的樹木有關，與所有東西都有關係。然而，我還是那麼孤獨，隔絕。當我和我妻子在一起時，即使在性中我也是分離的-這是種分離的行為。當我去到寺廟裡，還有膜拜者與他所膜拜的東西有關係：這又是分離。所以在所有的關係中，如我所見，都有這種分離，二元性，而在其後或其中或周圍，有一種特別的一體感。當我看到乞丐，那讓我心痛，因為我和他很像，我感覺到他的感受-孤獨，分離，疾病，饑餓。我對他毫無意義的存在與他感同身受，與他在一起。有富人坐著大汽車過來，載我一程，但是有他的陪伴我感覺不舒服，但是同時我也能感覺到他，我與他有關係。所以我對這奇怪的關係現象進行冥想。我們能不能在這個可愛的早晨，眺望這幽深的山谷，一起來談談這個問題？

Krishnamurti: Is all relationship out of this isolation? Can there be relationship as long as there is any separateness, division? Can there be relationship if there is no contact, not only physical but at every level of our being, with another? One may hold the hand of another and yet be miles away, wrapped in one's own thoughts and problems. One may be in a group and yet be painfully alone. So one asks: can there be any kind of relationship with the tree, the flower, the human being, or with the skies and the lovely sunset, when the mind in its activities is isolating itself? And can there be any contact ever, with anything at all, even when the mind is not isolating itself?

克：所有的關係都出於這種分離嗎？只要有任何分離，分別，還可能有關係嗎？如果不只是在身體上，而且在我們生命的每個層面上，和另一個人沒有聯結，可能有關係存在嗎？一個人也許能牽著另一個人的手但同時相隔數英里之遙，包裹在他自己的思緒和問題中。一個人也許在一個團體中，但是痛苦地孤獨著。所以有人會問：當頭腦在它自己的活動中隔絕自己，那麼它與樹，與花，與人類，或者與天空和可愛的落日有任何關係嗎？即使頭腦不隔絕自己，它與任何東西究竟可曾有任何聯結？

Questioner: Everything and everybody has its own existence. Everything and everybody is shrouded in its own existence. I can never penetrate this enclosure of another's being. However much I love someone, his existence is separate from mine. I can perhaps touch him from the outside, mentally or physically, but his existence is his own, and mine is for ever on the outside of it. Similarly he cannot reach me. Must we always remain two separate entities, each in his own world, with his own limitations, within the prison of his own consciousness?

發問者：每件事物和每個人都有自己的存在形式。每件事物和每個人都被其自身的存在形式遮蔽了。我永遠無法穿透另一個存在者的這種包裹。不管我多麼愛一個人，他的存在與我的存在是分離的。我也許能在心理上或者身體上從外在接觸到他，但是他的存在是他自己的，我的存在永遠都在其外。同樣他也夠不到我。我們必須始終作為兩個分離的實體存在嗎，每個人在他自己的世界裡，帶著他自己的局限，在他自己意識的牢籠裡？

Krishnamurti: Each lives within his own tissue, you in yours, he in his. And is there any possibility, ever, of breaking through this tissue? Is this tissue - this shroud, this envelope - the word? Is it made up of your concern with yourself and his with himself, your desires opposed to his? Is this capsule the past? It is all of this, isn't it? It isn't one particular thing but a whole bundle which the mind carries about. You have your burden, another has his. Can these burdens ever be dropped so that the mind meets the mind, the heart meets the heart? That is really the question, isn't it?

克：每個生命在他自己的軀殼裡，你在你的軀殼裡，他在他的軀殼裡。而究竟有沒有任何可能穿透這軀殼？這軀殼——這包裹，這皮囊——是這詞語嗎？它是不是由你對你自己的關注、他對他自己的關心，以及你與他相悖的欲望，這些東西構成的？你有你的負擔，另一個人有他的。這些負擔到底能不能放下，這樣就能頭腦聯結頭腦，心靈溝通心靈？這是真正的問題，不是嗎？

Questioner: Even if all these burdens are dropped, if that were possible, even then he remains in his skin with his thoughts, and I in mine with my thoughts. Sometimes the gap is narrow, sometimes it is wide, but we are always two separate islands. The gap seems to be widest when we care most about it and try to bridge it.

發問者：即使所有這些負擔都放下了，如果可能的話，即使那時他還是留在自己的皮囊裡，帶著他的思想，我帶著我的思想留在我的軀殼裡。這隔閡有時候窄些，有時候寬些，但是我們始終是兩個分離的島嶼。當我們極其在意這一點，想要在其中搭建橋樑的時候，這隔閡反而顯得最寬。

Krishnamurti: You can identify yourself with that villager or with that flaming bougainvillaea - which is a mental trick to pretend unity. Identification with something is one of the most hypocritical states - to identify oneself with a nation, with a belief and yet remain alone is a favourite trick to cheat loneliness. Or you identify yourself so completely with your belief that you are that belief, and this is a neurotic state. Now let's put away this urge to be identified with a person or an idea or a thing. That way there is no harmony, unity or love. So our next question is: can you tear through the envelope so that there is no more envelope? Then only would there be a possibility of total contact. How is one to tear through the envelope? The "how" doesn't mean a method, but rather an enquiry which might open the door.

克：你能把自己和那個村民或者那盛放的九重葛花認同在一起——這只是一個假裝一體的心理伎倆。與某物相認同是最深的催眠狀態之一——把自己與一個國家，與一個信念認同起來，而又保持獨立，這是人們最愛用的一個欺騙孤獨的伎倆。或者你把自己完全認同於你的信仰，以致於你就是那個信仰，而這是一種神經質狀態。現在讓我們把這種想要和一個人或者一個觀念或者一件東西相認同的渴望放在一邊。要是那樣就沒有和諧，沒有一體或者愛。所以我們下一個問題是：你能不能撕開這軀殼，然後就再沒有包裹了？只有這時，才有完全聯結的可能。人要怎樣穿破那包裹？“怎樣”並不意味著方法，而是指也許會打開那扇門的一種質詢。

Questioner: Yes, no other contact can be called relationship at all, though we say it is.

發問者：是的，根本沒有其他的聯結可以被稱為關係，儘管我們說那是關係。

Krishnamurti: Do we tear the envelope bit by bit or cut through it immediately? If we tear it bit by bit, which is what analysts sometimes claim to do, the job is never done. It is not through time that you can break down this separation.

克：我們是一點點地撕開這包裹還是立即穿透它？如果我們一點點地撕開，也就是分析師們有時候聲稱要做的，那這個工作就永遠做不完了。你不能通過時間來打破這種分離。

Questioner: Can I enter into the envelope of another? And isn't his envelope his very existence, his heartbeats and his blood, his feelings and his memories?

發問者：我能進入另一個人的包裹嗎？他的包裹不就是他本身的存在嗎，他的心跳和他的血液，他的感情和他的記憶？

Krishnamurti: Are you not the very envelope itself?

克：你不就是那包裹本身嗎？

Questioner: Yes.

發問者：是的。

Krishnamurti: The very movement to tear through the other envelope, or extend outside of your own, is the very affirmation and the action of your own envelope: you are the envelope. So you are the observer of the envelope, and you are also the envelope itself. In this case you are the observer and the observed: so is he, and that's how we remain. And you try to reach him and he tries to reach you. Is this possible? You are the island surrounded by seas, and he is also the island surrounded by seas. You see that you are both the island and the sea; there is no division between them; you are the entire earth with the sea. Therefore there is no division as the island and the sea. The other person doesn't see this. He is the island surrounded by sea; he tries to reach you, or, if you are foolish enough, you may try to reach him. Is that possible? How can there be a contact between a man who is free and another who is bound? Since you are the observer and the observed, you are the whole movement of the earth and the sea. But the other, who doesn't understand this, is still the island surrounded by water. He tries to reach you and is everlastingly failing because he maintains his insularity. It is only when he leaves it and is, like you, open to the movement of the skies, the earth, and the sea, that there can be contact. The one who sees that the barrier is himself can no longer have a barrier. Therefore he, in himself, is not separate at all. The other has not seen that the barrier is himself and so maintains the belief in his separateness. How can this man reach the other? It is not possible.

克：去撕破另一個包裹，或者想延伸到你自己的包裹之外，這種行為本身正是你自身包裹的行為以及對其的肯定：你就是那包裹。所以你是那包裹的觀察者，同時你又是那包裹本身。在這種情況下，你既是觀察者又是被觀察者：他也一樣，我們就是這樣保持原樣的。而你想夠到他，他也試圖夠到你。這可能嗎？你是被海水包圍的島嶼，他也是被海水包圍的島嶼。你看到你既是島嶼也是海水；它們之間沒有分離；你是擁有海洋的整個大地。因此沒有島嶼和海水的劃分。而另一個人沒有看到這點。他是被海水包圍的島嶼；他試圖夠到你，或者，如果你夠蠢的話，你也許會努力去夠到他。這可能嗎？一個自由的人和一個被束縛的人之間怎麼可能有聯結呢？既然你同時是觀察者和被觀察者，你就是大地和海洋的整體運動。但是另一個人，他不明白這點，他還是那個被水包圍的島嶼。他努力夠到你，但永遠都會失敗，因為他保持著他的孤立。只有當他離開孤立狀態，像你一樣，向天空，大地，海洋的運動敞開懷抱，才可能有聯結。看到障礙就是他自己的人，就不會再有障礙了。因此，他本身完全不是分離的。另一個人沒有看到障礙就是他自己，所以保持著對他的分離狀態的信念。這個人怎麼可能夠到另一個人？不可能。

* * *

Questioner: If we may I should like to continue from where we left off yesterday. You were saying that the mind is the maker of the envelope around itself, and that this envelope is the mind. I really don't understand this. Intellectually I can agree, but the nature of perception eludes me. I should like very much to understand it - not verbally but actually feel it - so that there is no conflict in my life.

發問者：如果可以，我希望我們從昨天停下來的地方繼續探討。你說過頭腦是它自身包裹的製造者，而這個包裹就是頭腦。我真的不理解這點。從智識上我能同意，但是我沒有抓住那見解的本質。我非常想理解它——不是從字面上，而是真正地感受到它——那樣我的生活裡就沒有衝突了。

Krishnamurti: There is the space between what the mind calls the envelope which it has made, and itself. There is the space between the ideal and the action. In these different fragmentations of space between the observer and the observed, or between different things it observes, is all conflict and struggle, and all the problems of life. There is the separation between this envelope around me and the envelope around another. In that space is all our existence, all our relationship and battle.

克：頭腦自己製造的所謂包裹，與頭腦本身之間，有一種距離。在理想和行動之間有種距離。在觀察者和被觀察者，或者它觀察的不同事物之間，在這些支離破碎的不同空間裡，滿是衝突和掙扎，以及生活的所有問題。在我的包裹和別人的包裹之間，有著分離。我們的所有存在，我們的所有關係和爭鬥，都在這個空間裡。

Questioner: When you talk of the division between the observer and the observed do you mean these fragmentations of space in our thinking and in our daily actions?

發問者：當你談到觀察者和被觀察者之間的分裂，你的意思是不是指我們的思維和日常行為中的這些支離破碎的空間？

Krishnamurti: What is this space? There is space between you and your envelope, the space between him and his envelope, and there is the space between the two envelopes. These spaces all appear to the observer. What are these spaces made of? How do they come into being? What is the quality and the nature of these divided spaces? If we could remove these fragmentary spaces what would happen?

克：這空間這距離是什麼？你和你的包裹之間有距離，他和他的包裹之間有距離，兩個包裹之間也有距離。這些空間這些距離觀察者都看到了。這些距離是什麼組成的？它們是怎麼形成的？這些分割的空間的品質和本質是什麼？如果我們能去除這些支離破碎的空間，那會發生什麼？

Questioner: There would then be true contact on all levels of one's being.

發問者：那樣一個人存在的所有層面都會有真正的聯結。

Krishnamurti: Is that all?

克：就這些嗎？

Questioner: There would be no more conflict, for all conflict is relationship across these spaces.

發問者：就不再有衝突，因為所有的衝突都是跨過這些距離的關係。

Krishnamurti: Is that all? When this space actually disappears - not verbally or intellectually - but actually disappears - there is complete harmony, unity, between you and him, between you and another. In this harmony you and he cease and there is only this vast space which can never be broken up. The small structure of the mind comes to an end, for the mind is fragmentation.

克：這就是所有的了嗎？當這個距離真的消失了——不是字面上的或者智識上的——而是真的消失了——你和他之間，你和另一個人之間，就會有完全的和諧，一體。在這種和諧中，你和他都消失了，只有這種永遠不會被打破的廣闊空間。頭腦的狹小結構結束了，因為頭腦就是支離破碎的。

Questioner: I really can't understand this at all, though I have a deep feeling within me that it is so. I can see that when there is love this actually takes place, but I don't know that love. It's not with me all the time. It is not in my heart. I see it only as if through a misty glass. I can't honestly grasp it with all my being. Could we, as you suggested, consider what these spaces are made of, how they come into being?

發問者：我真的完全不明白這點，儘管我內心深深地感覺到就是這麼回事。我能看到當有愛的時候，這些就會真的發生，但是我不知道那種愛。我一直沒有這種愛。它不在我心裡。我好像只能透過一片毛玻璃看到它。老實說我無法用我的整個存在把握住它。正如你所建議的，我們能不能思考一下這些空間距離是由什麼組成的，它們是怎麼形成的？

Krishnamurti: Let's be quite sure that we both understand the same thing when we use the word space. There is the physical space between people and things, and there is the psychological space between people and things. Then there is also the space between the idea and the actual. So all this, the physical and psychological, is space, more or less limited and defined. We are not now talking of the physical space. We are talking of the psychological space between people and the psychological space in the human being himself, in his thoughts and activities. How does this space come about? Is it fictitious, illusory, or is it real? Feel it, be aware of it, make sure you haven't just got a mental image of it, bear in mind that the description is never the thing. Be quite sure that you know what we are talking about. Be quite aware that this limited space, this division, exists in you: don't move from there if you don't understand. Now how does this space come about?

克：讓我們非常明確一點，我們用空間距離這個詞的時候，理解的都是同一個意思。人們和事物之間有物理距離，人們和事物之間也有心理距離。而觀念和現實之間也有距離。那麼所有這些物理上的和心理上的距離，或多或少都是有限的確定的。我們談的不是物理距離。我們談的是人們之間的心理距離，一個人本身內在的，他的思想和行為中的心理距離。這種距離是怎麼形成的？它是虛假的幻覺，還是真實的？感覺一下，覺察到它，確認你不是只對它有了個心理意象，請把這點記在心裡，描述永非所指之物。要非常確定你知道我們在談什麼。非常清楚地知道，你身上存在著這有限的空間，這種分隔：如果你不明白，不要從那裡離開。那麼這空間這距離是怎麼形成的？

Questioner: We see the physical space between things....

發問者：我們看到事物之間的物理距離....

Krishnamurti: Don't explain anything; just feel your way into it. We are asking how this space has come into being. Don't give an explanation or a cause, but remain with this space and feel it. Then the cause and the description will have very little meaning and no value. This space has come into being because of thought, which is the "me", the word - which is the whole division. Thought itself is this distance, this division. Thought is always breaking itself up into fragments and creating division. Thought always cuts up what it observes into fragments within space - as you and me, yours and mine, me and my thoughts, and so on. This space, which thought has created between what it observes, has become real; and it is this space that divides. Then thought tries to build a bridge over this division, thus playing a trick upon itself all the time, deceiving itself and hoping for unity.

克：不要解釋任何事情；只是深入感覺一下。我們在問這距離是怎麼產生的。不要給出一個解釋或者原因，而是與這距離共處，感受它。然後原因和描述就會沒什麼意義和價值了。這距離的產生，是由於思想，也就是“我”，這個詞——就是整個分隔。思想本身就是這距離，這分隔。思想總是把自己打成碎片，製造分裂。思想總是把它觀察的東西切割成距離中的碎片——切割成你和我，你的和我的，我和我的思想，等等。這個距離，是思想在它觀察的東西之間製造的，這距離變得真實起來；是這種距離在分割。然後思想試圖在這種分割之上架起橋樑，總是這樣跟自己耍個詭計，欺騙自己，希望找到合一。

Questioner: That reminds me of the old statement about thought: it is a thief disguising himself as a policeman in order to catch the thief.

發問者：這讓我想起一句關於思想的老話：它是把自己偽裝成員警的小偷，想要抓到這個小偷。

Krishnamurti: Don't bother to quote, sir, however ancient it is. We are considering what actually is going on. In seeing the truth of the nature of thought and its activities, thought becomes quiet. Thought being quiet, not made quiet, is there space?

克：不用費事去引用了，先生，不管它有多古老。我們考慮的是現在實際上發生著什麼。看到了思想及其行為本質的真相，思想就變得安靜了。思想自己安靜下來，不是讓它安靜下來，那麼是不是就有了空間？

Questioner: It is thought itself which now rushes in to answer this question.

發問者：是思想本身現在急於回答這個問題。

Krishnamurti: Exactly! Therefore we do not even ask the question. The mind now is completely harmonious, without fragmentation; the little space has ceased and there is only space. When the mind is completely quiet there is the vastness of space and silence.

克：一點都不錯！所以我們甚至都不要問這個問題。頭腦現在是徹底和諧了，沒有分裂；那狹小的距離止息了，只剩下空間。當頭腦完全安靜下來，就有了無限的空間和寂靜。

Questioner: So I begin to see that my relationship to another is between thought and thought; whatever I answer is the noise of thought, and realizing it, I am silent.

發問者：那我開始看到我與別人的關係只是思想和思想之間的關係；不管我怎麼回答都是思想的噪音，意識到這點，我就安靜了。

Krishnamurti: This silence is the benediction.

克：這種寂靜就是至福。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'CONFLICT'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“衝突”

Questioner: I find myself in a great deal of conflict with everything about me; and also everything within me is in conflict. People have spoken of divine order; nature is harmonious; it seems that man is the only animal who violates this order, making so much misery for others and for himself. When I wake up in the morning I see from my window little birds fighting with each other, but they soon separate and fly away, whereas I carry this war with myself and with others inside me all the time; there is no escaping it. I wonder if I can ever be at peace with myself. I must say I should like to find myself in complete harmony with everything about me and with myself. As one sees from this window the quiet sea and the light on the water, one has a feeling deep within oneself that there must be a way of living without these endless quarrels with oneself and with the world. Is there any harmony at all, anywhere? Or is there only everlasting disorder? If there is harmony, at what level can it exist? Or does it only exist on the top of some mountain which the burning valleys can never know?

發問者：我發現自己處於大量的衝突中，與我周圍的一切都衝突不斷；而且我內在的一切也是衝突的。人們說起過神聖的秩序；自然界是和諧有序的；似乎只有人類是唯一違背這秩序的動物，給別人和自己製造了如此多的苦難。我早上醒來的時候，從視窗看到小鳥在互相交戰，但是它們很快就散開了飛走了，但是我把自己內在的和自己和別人的這種戰爭一直背負在身上；完全無法逃避。我想知道我究竟能否與自己和平相處。我不得不說，我想發現自己與我周圍的每件事和我自己是處於完全和諧中的。當一個人從這視窗望出去，看到平靜的大海和水面上的光芒，他內心深處深深地感覺到，必然有一種生活方式，其中沒有這些與自己與世界的無盡爭吵。不管在哪裡，究竟可有任何的和諧？還是只有無休止的失序？如果有和諧，那麼它存在於哪個層面上？還是它只能存在于某座高山之巔，而這是燃燒的山谷永遠無法知道的？

Krishnamurti: Can one go from one to the other? Can one change that which is to that which is not? Can disharmony be transformed into harmony?

克：一個人能由此及彼嗎？他能把是什麼的變成不是什麼嗎？不和諧能被轉化成和諧嗎？

Questioner: Is conflict necessary then? It may perhaps, after all, be the natural order of things.

發問者：那衝突是必然的了？畢竟，那也許就是事物的自然規律。

Krishnamurti: If one accepted that, one would have to accept everything society stands for: wars, ambitious competition, an aggressive way of life - all the brutal violence of men, inside and outside of his so-called holy places. Is this natural? Will this bring about any unity? Wouldn't it be better for us to consider these two facts - the fact of conflict with all its complicated struggles, and the fact of the mind demanding order, harmony, peace, beauty, love?

克：如果一個人接受了這一點，那麼他就得接受社會主張的一切：戰爭，野心勃勃的競爭，咄咄逼人的生活方式——人類所有野蠻殘忍的暴力，存在於他所謂的神聖之地的裡裡外外。這是自然的嗎？這會帶來任何和諧一體嗎？我們難道不該來考慮一下這兩個事實——衝突的事實及其所有複雜的爭鬥，以及想要秩序、和諧、和平、美和愛的頭腦的事實？

Questioner: I know nothing about harmony. I see it in the heavens, in the seasons, in the mathematical order of the universe. But that doesn't give me order in my own heart and mind; the absolute order of mathematics is not my order. I have no order, I am in deep disorder. I know there are different theories of gradual evolution towards the so-called perfection of political utopias and religious heavens, but this leaves me where I actually am. The world may perhaps be perfect in ten thousand years from now, but in the meantime I'm having hell.

發問者：關於和諧，我一無所知。我在天空中，季節中，宇宙的數學秩序中看到了和諧。但是，那並不能給我自己的心靈和頭腦帶來秩序；數學的絕對秩序不是我的秩序。我沒有秩序，我處於深深的失序中。我知道有很多種逐漸進化的理論，聲稱能通向所謂完美的政治烏托邦和宗教天堂，但是這把我帶到了我現在實際的這個樣子。世界也許會在從現在起的一萬年後變得完美，但是在這個過程中我身處地獄。

Krishnamurti: We see the disorder in ourselves and in society. Both are very complex. There are really no answers. One can examine all this very carefully, analyse it closely, look for causes of disorder in oneself and in society, expose them to the light and perhaps believe that one will free the mind from them. This analytical process is what most people are doing, intelligently or unintelligently, and it doesn't get anybody very far. Man has analysed himself for thousands of years, and produced no result but literature! The many saints have paralysed themselves in concepts and ideological prisons; they too are in conflict. The cause of our conflict is this everlasting duality of desire: the endless corridor of the opposites creating envy greed ambition aggression, fear, and all the rest of it. Now I wonder if there isn't an altogether different approach to this problem? The acceptance of this struggle and all our efforts to get out of it have become traditional. The whole approach is traditional. In this traditional approach the mind operates but, as we see, the traditional approach of the mind creates more disorder. So the problem is not how to end disorder, but rather whether the mind can look at it freed from tradition. And then perhaps there may be no problem at all.

克：我們看到了自己身上和社會中的失序。兩者都非常複雜。真的沒有答案。一個人能夠非常仔細地研究這一點，近距離地分析，尋找自己和社會失序的原因，把它們曝光，相信或許如此他就能把心智從中解脫出來。這種分析過程就是大多數人正在做的，不管用聰明還是不聰明的方式，但是這並沒有讓任何人走多遠。人類分析自己分析了幾千年，除了文學沒有得到任何結果！很多聖人把自己麻痹在概念和思想體系的牢籠裡；他們也滿是衝突。我們衝突的原因是欲望那無窮的二元性：對立面那沒有盡頭的通道，製造著嫉妒、貪婪、野心、侵略、恐懼以及等等一切。現在我想知道是不是有一種完全不同的方式來著手這個問題？接受這種掙扎，接受我們為了從中擺脫所做的一切努力，已經成為傳統。整個處理方式都是傳統的。頭腦在這種傳統中運作，但是，正如我們所看到的，頭腦傳統的方式製造了更多的衝突。所以問題不是如何終結失序，而是頭腦能否從傳統中解脫出來看這個問題。然後也許就根本沒有問題了。

Questioner: I don't follow you at all.

發問者：我完全不明白你的意思。

Krishnamurti: There is this fact of disorder. There is no doubt about it: it is an actual fact. The traditional approach to this fact is to analyse it, to try to discover the cause of it and overcome the cause, or else to invent its opposite and battle towards that. This is the traditional approach with its disciplines, drills, controls, suppressions, sublimations. Man has done this for thousands upon thousands of years; it has led nowhere. Can we abandon this approach completely and look at the problem entirely differently - that is, not try to go beyond it, or to resolve it, or to overcome it, or to escape from it? Can the mind do this?

克：存在著失序這個事實。這一點毫無疑問：這確實是個事實。處理這個事實的傳統方式是分析它，試圖發現它的原因，克服那原因，或者編造出它的對立面，並為此而奮鬥。這就是傳統的方式，通過戒律，訓練，控制，壓抑和高尚化。人們這麼做了幾千年；它哪兒也沒去到。我們能不能完全拋棄這種方式，以完全不同的方式來看問題——也就是，不去試圖超越它，解決它，克服它，或者逃避它？頭腦能否做到這點？

Questioner: Perhaps....

發問者：也許...

Krishnamurti: Don't answer so quickly! This is a tremendous thing I am asking you. From the beginning of time man has tried to deal with all his problems, either by going beyond them, resolving them, overcoming them or escaping from them. Please do not think you can push all that aside so lightly, simply with a verbal agreement. It makes up the very structure of everybody's mind. Can the mind now, understanding all this non-verbally, actually free itself from the tradition? This traditional way of dealing with the conflict never solves it, but only adds more conflict: being violent, which is conflict, I add the additional conflict of trying to become non-violent. All social morality and all religious prescriptions are that. Are we together?

克：不要那麼快回答！我在問你一件非同尋常的事情。從時間之初，人類就試圖處理他所有的問題，要麼通過超越它們，解決它們，克服他們或者逃避它們。請不要以為你能如此輕易地把這一切推在一邊，簡簡單單地說句話就完了。這恰恰構成了每個人頭腦的結構。現在頭腦能不能，不通過語言地理解這一切，把自己從傳統中真正地解脫出來？處理衝突的這種傳統方式永遠無法解決衝突，只會增加更多的衝突：暴力著，也就是衝突著，我試圖變得不暴力，這就額外增加了更多的衝突。所有的社會道德和所有的宗教對治方法都是如此。我們是在一起的嗎？

Questioner: Yes.

發問者：是的。

Krishnamurti: Then do you see how far we have come? Having, through understanding, repudiated all these traditional approaches, what is the actual state of the mind now? Because the state of the mind is far more important than the conflict itself.

克：那你有沒有看到我們走了多遠？通過瞭解，否定了所有這些傳統的方式，現在頭腦的實際狀態是怎樣的？因為頭腦的狀態比衝突本身重要多了。

Questioner: I really don't know.

發問者：我真的不知道。

Krishnamurti: Why don't you know? Why aren't you aware, if you have really abandoned the traditional approach, of the state of your mind? Why don't you know? Either you have abandoned it or you haven't. If you have, you would know it. If you have, then your mind is made innocent to look at the problem. You can look at the problem as though for the first time. And if you do this, is there a problem of conflict at all? Because you look at the problem with the old eyes it is not only strengthened but also moves in its well-worn path. So what is important is how you look at the problem - whether you look at it with new eyes or old eyes. The new eyes are freed from the conditioned responses to the problem. Even to name the problem through recognition is to approach it in the traditional way. Justification, condemnation, or translation of the problem in terms of pleasure and pain, are all involved in this habitual traditional approach of doing something about it. This is generally called positive action with regard to the problem. But when the mind brushes all that aside as being ineffectual, unintelligent, then it has become highly sensitive, highly ordered, and free.

克：你為什麼不知道？如果你真的已經拋棄了傳統的方式，你為什麼不知道你頭腦的狀態？你為什麼不知道？要麼你拋棄了傳統方式，要麼你沒有。如果你已經拋棄了它，你就會知道。如果你做到了，那麼你的頭腦就可以純真地看問題了。你就能像第一次看到這個問題一樣。如果你做到了這點，難道還會有衝突的問題嗎？因為如果你用過去的眼光看問題的話，就不只是加重了問題，而且還會重蹈覆轍。所以重要的是如何看問題——你是用新的眼光還是過去的眼光看著它。新的眼光就從對問題局限的反應中解脫出來了。即使通過認知來給問題命名，也還是在用傳統的方式在處理問題。辯解，譴責，或者通過歡愉和痛苦來詮釋，都包含在了這種習慣性的要對它做點什麼的傳統方式裡。這通常被稱為對於問題採取的積極行動。但是當頭腦把這一切當作無效的和不智慧的掃在一邊，那麼它就變得高度敏感，高度有序和自由了。

Questioner: You're asking too much of me, I can't do it. I'm incapable of it. You're asking me to be superhuman!

發問者：你對我要求太高了，我做不到。我沒有這個能力。你在讓我做個超人！

Krishnamurti: You're making difficulties for yourself, blocking yourself, when you say you must become superhuman. It's nothing of the kind. You keep on looking at things with eyes that want to interfere, that want to do something about what they see. Stop doing anything about it, for whatever you do belongs to the traditional approach. That's all. Be simple. This is the miracle of perception - to perceive with a heart and mind that are completely cleansed of the past. Negation is the most positive action.

克：當你說你必須變成超人，你是在為自己製造困難，為自己製造障礙。完全不是這樣的。你一直用想要干涉的雙眼看事情，想要對它們看到的東西做點什麼。停止對它做任何事情，因為無論你做什麼，都屬於傳統的方式。就是這樣。簡單點。這就是覺察的奇跡——用完全清除了過去的心靈和頭腦去覺察。否定是最積極的行動。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE RELIGIOUS LIFE'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“宗教性的生活”

Questioner: I should like to know what a religious life is. I have stayed in monasteries for several months, meditated, led a disciplined life, read a great deal. I've been to various temples, churches and mosques. I've tried to lead a very simple, harmless life, trying not to hurt people or animals. This surely isn't all there is to a religious life. I've practised yoga, studied Zen and followed many religious disciples. I am, and have always been, a vegetarian. As you see, I'm getting old now, and I've lived with some of the saints in different parts of the world, but somehow I feel that all this is only the outskirts of the real thing. So I wonder if we can discuss today what to you is a religious life.

發問者：我想問問宗教性的生活是怎樣的。我在修道院裡待過幾個月，冥想，過一種持戒的生活，讀很多書。我去過各種寺廟，教堂和清真寺。我努力過一種非常簡單、無害的生活，努力不去傷害人們或者動物。對於一種宗教性的生活來說，這當然不是全部。我練過瑜伽，學過禪修，遵循過很多宗教戒律。我是個素食主義者，一直都是。就像你看到的，我現在年紀越來越大，我跟世界上不同地方的一些聖人一起生活過，但是或多或少我總感覺到這只是那真實之物的週邊。所以，如果我們今天能討論這一點的話，我想知道對你來說，怎樣才是一種宗教性的生活。

Krishnamurti: A sannyasi came to see me one day and he was sad. He said he had taken a vow of celibacy and left the world to become a mendicant, wandering from village to village, but his sexual desires were so imperious that one morning he decided to have his sexual organs surgically removed. For many months he was in constant pain, but somehow it healed, and after many years he fully realized what he had done. And so he came to see me and in that little room he asked me what he could do now, having mutilated himself, to become normal again - not physically, of course, but inwardly. He had done this thing because sexual activity was considered contrary to a religious life. It was considered mundane, belonging to the world of pleasure, which a real sannyasi must at all costs avoid. He said, "Here I am, feeling completely lost, deprived of my manhood. I struggled so hard against my sexual desires, trying to control them, and ultimately this terrible thing took place. Now what am I to do? I know that what I did was wrong. My energy has almost gone and I seem to be ending my life in darkness." He held my hand, and we sat silently for some time.

克：一天有個遁世者來見我，他很悲哀。他說他曾經宣誓過獨身生活，並離開了俗世成為了一個托缽僧，從一個村落到一個村落地流浪，但是他的性欲是那麼強烈，以致於有一天早上他決定通過手術把他的性器官切除掉。好幾個月他都處於持續的痛苦中，但是不管怎樣還是痊癒了，在很多年之後，他才完全意識到自己做了什麼。於是他來見我，在那個小房間裡，他問我他現在能怎麼辦，他殘害了自己，要怎樣才能再變得正常——當然，不是生理上的，而是內在的正常。他做了這件事，是因為性行為被認為是和宗教生活相悖的。它被認為是世俗的，屬於欲樂的範疇，而這是一個真正的隱士必須不惜一切代價避免的。他說，“我成了現在這個樣子，感到完全地迷失了，我的男子氣被剝奪了。我與我的性欲苦苦鬥爭，努力去控制它們，最終發生了這件可怕的事情。現在我該怎麼辦？我知道我做錯了。我的精力幾乎都消失了，我似乎要在黑暗中結束我的生命了。”他握住我的手，我們靜靜地坐了一會兒。

Is this a religious life? Is the denial of pleasure or beauty a way that leads to a religious life? To deny the beauty of the skies and the hills and the human form, will that lead to a religious life? But that is what most saints and monks believe. They torture themselves in that belief. Can a tortured, twisted, distorted mind ever find what is a religious life? Yet all religions assert that the only way to reality or to God, or whatever they call it, is through this torture, this distortion. They all make the distinction between what they call a spiritual or religious life and what they call a worldly life.

這就是宗教性的生活嗎？對歡愉或者美的拒絕是通向宗教生活的道路嗎？拒絕天空、群山和人類形體的美，這會通向宗教性的生活嗎？但是這就是多數聖人和僧人們所相信的。他們在那個信仰中折磨著自己。一個備受折磨的、變態的、扭曲的心靈能夠發現什麼是宗教性的生活嗎？然而所有的宗教都堅稱，要通向真相或者通向神，或者不管他們管它叫什麼，唯一的道路就是通過這種折磨，這種扭曲。在他們所謂的靈性生活或者宗教生活，與所謂的世俗生活之間，他們都做了這種劃分。

A man who lives only for pleasure, with occasional flashes of sorrow and piety, whose whole life is given to amusement and entertainment is, of course, a worldly man, although he may also be very clever, very scholarly, and fill his life with other people's thoughts or his own. And a man who has a gift and exercises it for the benefit of society, or for his own pleasure, and who achieves fame in the fulfilment of that gift, such a man, surely, is also worldly. But it is also worldly to go to church, or to the temple or the mosque, to pray, steeped in prejudice, bigotry, utterly unaware of the brutality that this implies. It is worldly to be patriotic, nationalistic, idealistic. The man who shuts himself up in a monastery - getting up at regular hours with a book in hand, reading and praying - is surely also worldly. And the man who goes out to do good works, whether he is a social reformer or a missionary, is just like the politician in his concern with the world. The division between the religious life and the world is the very essence of worldliness. The minds of all these people - monks, saints, reformers - are not very different from the minds of those who are only concerned with the things that give pleasure.

一個隻為了歡愉而活的人，偶爾有些悲傷或者虔誠的火花，整個生命都付諸享受和娛樂，當然，他是個世俗的人，儘管他也許非常聰明，非常博學，用別人的思想或者自己的思想塞滿他的生活。而一個有天份的人，為了社會的利益或者為了自己快樂去運用這種天份，並且因此獲得了名聲，這樣一個人，當然也是世俗的。但是，去教堂，去寺廟或者清真寺，祈禱，沉浸於偏見、偏執之中，對其中隱含的殘酷毫無察覺，這也是世俗的。愛國主義，民族主義，理想主義，都是世俗的。一個把自己關進修道院的人——固定時間起床，手裡拿本書，誦讀，祈禱——當然也是世俗的。而一個出去做所謂善舉的人，不管他是個社會改革家還是個傳教士，就跟以自己的方式關注世界的政客一樣。宗教生活和世俗生活之間的劃分，本身就是世俗的最核心。所有這些人的頭腦——僧侶，聖人，改革者——與那些只關注能帶來快樂的事情的人們，沒有多少不同。

So it is important not to divide life into the worldly and the non-worldly. It is important not to make the distinction between the worldly and the so-called religious. Without the world of matter, the material world, we wouldn't be here. Without the beauty of the sky and the single tree on the hill, without that woman going by and that man riding the horse, life wouldn't be possible. We are concerned with the totality of life not a particular part of it which is considered religious in opposition to the rest. So one begins to see that a religious life is concerned with the whole and not with the particular.

所以，不把生活劃分成世俗的和非世俗的，這很重要。重要的是不在世俗的和所謂宗教的生活之間進行區分。如果沒有物質的世界，這個物質世界，那麼我們就不會在這裡。沒有天空和山上那棵孤樹的美，沒有那個路過的女人和那個騎馬的男人，生命就是不可能的。我們關心的是生命的整體，不是其中一個特定的部分，一個被認為與其他相反的所謂宗教部分。所以一個人開始看到，具有宗教情懷的生活是對整體而不是局部的關注。

Questioner: I understand what you say. We have to deal with the totality of living; we can't separate the world from the so-called spirit. So the question is: in what way can we act religiously with regard to all the things in life?

發問者：我理解你說的話。我們得面對生活的整體；我們不能把這個世界與所謂的精神世界分離開來。所以問題是：對於生活中的所有事情，我們要以何種方式來行動，宗教性地行動？

Krishnamurti: What do we mean by acting religiously? Don't you mean a way of life in which there is no division - division between the worldly and the religious, between what should be and what shouldn't be, between me and you, between like and dislike? This division is conflict. A life of conflict is not a religious life. A religious life is only possible when we deeply understand conflict. This understanding is intelligence. It is this intelligence that acts rightly. What most people call intelligence is merely deftness in some technical activity, or cunning in business or political chicanery.

克：我們說的宗教性地行動是什麼意思？你難道不是說一種沒有分裂的生活方式嗎——沒有世俗和宗教之間的劃分，應該如何和不該如何之間的劃分，你和我之間的劃分，喜歡和不喜歡之間的劃分？這種分別就是衝突。衝突的生活不是宗教性的生活。只有當我們深刻地理解了衝突，宗教性的生活才成為可能。這種瞭解就是智慧。是這種智慧在正確地行動。多數人們說的智慧，只是在某種靈巧的技術行為，或者在商業中的狡猾或政治伎倆。

Questioner: So my question really means how is one to live without conflict, and bring about that feeling of true sanctity which is not simply emotional piety conditioned by some religious cage - no matter how old and venerated that cage is?

發問者：所以我的問題真正的意思是，一個人要怎樣沒有衝突地活著，帶來那種真正神聖的感覺，而不只是被某種宗教牢籠禁錮的情緒化的虔誠——不管那個牢籠有多麼古老和崇高？

Krishnamurti: A man living without too much conflict in a village, or dreaming in a cave on a "sacred" hillside, is surely not living the religious life that we are talking about. To end conflict is one of the most complex things. It needs self-observation and the sensitivity of awareness of the outer as well as of the inner. Conflict can only end where there is the understanding of the contradiction in oneself. This contradiction will always exist if there is no freedom from the known, which is the past. Freedom from the past means living in the now which is not of time, in which there is only this movement of freedom, untouched by the past, by the known.

克：一個生活在村子裡沒有多少衝突的人，或者在一個“神聖”的山邊發夢的人，過的當然不是我們正在討論的那種宗教生活。終結衝突時最複雜的事情之一。這需要自我觀察，需要對外在以及內在靈敏的覺察。只有當瞭解了自身的矛盾時，衝突才能終止。如果沒有從已知也就是過去中解脫出來，這種矛盾就永遠都會存在。從過去中解脫意味著活在現在，現在是沒有時間的，其中只有這種自由的運動，沒有被過去和已知損害和污染。

Questioner: What do you mean by freedom from the past?

發問者：你說的從過去中解脫出來是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: The past is all our accumulated memories. These memories act in the present and create our hopes and fears of the future. These hopes and fears are the psychological future: without them there is no future. So the present is the action of the past, and the mind is this movement of the past. The past acting in the present creates what we call the future. This response of the past is involuntary, it is not summoned or invited, it is upon us before we know it.

克：過去是我們積累的所有記憶。這些記憶現在運作著，製造出了我們對未來的希望和恐懼。這些希望和恐懼是心理上的未來：沒有它們，就沒有未來。所以現在是過去的運作，心智就是過去延伸到現在的這種運動。過去在現在運作著，製造出了我們所謂的未來。這種過去的反應是無意間作出的，不是被命令或者邀請的，在我們知道這點之前就已經發生在我們身上了。

Questioner: In that case, how are we going to be free of it?

發問者：這樣的話，我們要怎樣才能從中解脫？

Krishnamurti: To be aware of this movement without choice - because choice again is more of this same movement of the past - is to observe the past in action: such observation is not a movement of the past. To observe without the image of thought is action in which the past has ended. To observe the tree without thought is action without the past. To observe the action of the past is again action without the past. The state of seeing is more important than what is seen. To be aware of the past in that choiceless observation is not only to act differently, but to be different. In this awareness memory acts without impediment, and efficiently. To be religious is to be so choicelessly aware that there is freedom from the known even whilst the known acts wherever it has to.

克：無選擇地覺知這種運動——因為選擇又是同樣的這種過去的運動——去觀察在運作中的過去：這種觀察就不再是過去的運動了。沒有思想意象的觀察，是過去終止了的行動。不帶念頭地觀察那棵樹，就是沒有過去的行動。觀察過去的運作，也是沒有過去的行動。看的狀態比看到了什麼重要多了。在無選擇的觀察中覺察過去，不僅僅是在以不同的方式行動了，而且是在以不同的方式活著了。在這種覺察中，記憶沒有障礙地，高效地運作著。宗教性，就是無選擇地覺察，那裡有從已知中的解脫，即使其間已知還在做著不得不做的事情。

Questioner: But the known, the past, still sometimes acts even when it should not; it still acts to cause conflict.

發問者：但是已知，過去，有時候還在不應該的時候運作著；它的行動還是會帶來衝突。

Krishnamurti: To be aware of this is also to be in a state of inaction with regard to the past which is acting. So freedom from the known is truly the religious life. That doesn't mean to wipe out the known but to enter a different dimension altogether from which the known is observed. This action of seeing choicelessly is the action of love. The religious life is this action, and all living is this action, and the religious mind is this action. So religion, and the mind, and life, and love, are one.

克：覺察這一點，對於正在運作著的過去，也處於一種不作為的狀態。所以從已知中解脫是真正宗教性的生活。無選擇地看，這種行動，就是愛的行動。宗教性的生活，是這種行動，整個生活都是這種行為，宗教性的心靈就是這種行動。所以，宗教，心智，生活，和愛，是一體的。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SEEING THE WHOLE'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“看到整體”

Questioner: When I listen to you I seem to understand what you are talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeper level. I am part of it; I fully grasp with my whole being the truth of what you say. My hearing is sharpened, and the very seeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow, makes me feel I am part of them. In this awareness I have no conflict, no contradiction. It is as though I could do anything, and that whatever I did would be true, would not bring either conflict or pain. But unfortunately that state doesn't last. Perhaps it lasts for an hour or two while I'm listening to you. When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm back where I was. I try to be aware of myself; I keep remembering the state I was in when I listened to your talks, keep trying to reach it, hold on to it, and this becomes a struggle. You have said, "Be aware of your conflict, listen to your conflict, see the causes of your conflict, your conflict is yourself". I am aware of my conflict, my pain, my sorrow, my confusion, but this awareness in no way resolves these things. On the contrary, being aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration. You talk of choiceless awareness, which again breeds another battle in me, for I am full of choice, decisions and opinions. I have applied this awareness to a particular habit I have, and it has not gone. When you are aware of some conflict or strain, this same awareness keeps looking to see if it has already gone. And this seems to remind you of it, and you never shake it off.

發問者：當我聽你演講的時候，我似乎能理解你所說的內容，不只從字面上能理解，而且能在更深的層次上理解。我已經融入其中；我以我的整個存在充分領會了你所說的真相。我的聽覺敏銳了，看到花朵、樹木與那些積雪的山脈，就讓我感覺我是它們的一部分。在這份覺察之中，我沒有衝突，沒有矛盾。好像我可以做任何事情，我不論做什麼，都是正確的，都不會帶來衝突與痛苦。但是很不幸，這種狀態無法持續。或許在聽你演講的時候，能持續一兩個小時。在我離開演講時，那狀態似乎就全都蒸發掉了，我又回到了原來的樣子。我努力地覺察自己，不斷回想我在聽你演講時的狀態，一直努力再進入並保持那種狀態，於是這就變成了一種掙扎。你曾經說過，“覺知你的衝突，聆聽你的衝突，認清你衝突的原因，你的衝突就是你自己。”我知道自己的衝突、痛苦、悲傷和困惑，但是這份覺察並沒有解決這些問題。相反地，這種覺知反而給它們賦予了生命力和持久性。你還談到毫無選擇地覺察，這又滋生了我內心的另一種衝突，因為我的心中充滿了選擇、決斷及觀點。我曾把這份覺察應用於自己的某個特殊習慣，可是那習慣並沒有因此消失。當你覺察到某種衝突或壓力時，那覺察同樣會一直注意看它是不是已經消失了。這似乎總在提醒你那衝突的存在，這麼一來你就永遠無法擺脫它了。

Krishnamurti: Awareness is not a commitment to something. Awareness is an observation, both outer and inner, in which direction has stopped. You are aware, but the thing of which you are aware is not being encouraged or nourished. Awareness is not concentration on something. It is not an action of the will choosing what it will be aware of, and analysing it to bring about a certain result. When awareness is deliberately focused on a particular object, as a conflict, that is the action of will which is concentration. When you concentrate - that is, put all your energy and thought within your chosen frontiers, whether reading a book or watching your anger - then, in this exclusion, the thing you are concentrating upon is strengthened, nourished. So here we have to understand the nature of awareness: We have to understand what we are talking about when we use the word awareness. Now, you can either be aware of a particular thing, or be aware of that particular as part of the total. The particular by itself has very little meaning, but when you see the total, then that particular has a relationship to the whole. Only in this relationship does the particular have its right meaning; it doesn't become all-important, it is not exaggerated. So the real question is: does one see the total process of life or is one concentrated on the particular, thus missing the whole field of life? To be aware of the whole field is to see also the particular, but, at the same time, to understand its relationship to the whole. If you are angry and are concerned with ending that anger, then you focus your attention on the anger and the whole escapes you and the anger is strengthened. But anger is interrelated to the whole. So when we separate the particular from the whole, the particular breeds its own problems.

克：覺察並不是對某件事情的專注。覺察是沒有方向的觀察，內心和外在所有的事物你都能觀察到。你是覺知的，而你覺察到的東西又不會被助長或增強。覺察不是專注於某個特定的事物上。覺察不是意志力的行為，也不揀選任何覺察的物件，更不是通過分析來達到某種結果。如果刻意把覺知集中在某個特定的物件上，譬如某個衝突，那麼這時的覺察就變成了意志力的行為，也就是專注。在專心的時候，也就是把你全部的精力和思想都集中在自己所選擇的區域中，不管是讀書還是觀察自己的憤怒，如此一來，在這種排外的行為中，你就增強了、滋養了自己所專注之物。因此我們首先必須瞭解覺察的本質，我們得瞭解我們用“覺察”這個詞時探討的究竟是什麼。要麼你覺察的是某個特定的事物，要麼覺察的是作為整體的一部分的某個特定的事物。特定的事物本身並沒有什麼意義，但是你如果能看到整體，特定事物就和整體產生了關係。只有在這種關係之中，特定的事物才有真正的意義；而同時又不會變得特別重要，不會被誇大。因此真正的問題就在於：我們看到的是人生的整個過程，還是專注於其中的細節，從而錯過了生命的整個領域？對整個領域的覺知，也能看到細節，但同時，還能瞭解細節與整體的關係。假設你發怒了，而你又很想息怒，然後你把所有的注意力集中在憤怒上，這麼一來你不但看不清整體，反而助長了怒氣。而憤怒是和整體關聯在一起的。如果你把細節從整體中分離出來，細節就會自己滋生出問題。

Questioner: What do you mean by seeing the whole? What is this totality you talk about, this extensive awareness in which the particular is a detail? Is it some mysterious, mystical experience? If so then we are lost completely. Or is this perhaps what you are saying, that there is a whole field of existence, of which anger is a part, and that to be concerned with the part is to block out the extensive perception? But what is this extensive perception? I can only see the whole through all its particulars. And what whole do you mean? Are you talking about the whole of the mind, or the whole of existence, or the whole of myself, or the whole of life? What whole do you mean, and how can I see it?

Krishnamurti: The whole field of life: the mind, love, everything which is in life.

發問者：你所謂的看到整體是什麼意思？你說的這個整體，在這廣泛的覺知中局部只是細節而已，這整體到底是什麼東西？它是不是某種神秘的、不可思議的經驗？如果是的話，我們就徹底迷失了。或者你也許指的是，存在的整個領域中有個局部是憤怒，如果只關心這一小部分，就會阻礙廣泛的覺知？然而廣泛的覺知又是什麼？只有透過所有的細節，我才能看到整體。你所謂的整體到底是什麼意思？你說的是心智的整個領域，存在的整個領域，我自己的全部，還是整個生命？你說的整體是什麼意思，我要如何才能看到這點?

克：我指的是生命的整個領域:包括心智、愛與生命中的所有事物。

Questioner: How can I possibly see all that! I can understand that everything I see is partial, and that all my awareness is awareness of the particular, and that this strengthens the particular.

Krishnamurti: Let's put it this way: do you perceive with your mind and your heart separately, or do you see, hear, feel, think, all together, not fragmentarily?

Questioner: I don't know what you mean.

Krishnamurti: You hear a word, your mind tells you it is an insult, your feelings tell you you don't like it, your mind again intervenes to control or justify, and so on. Once again feeling takes over where the mind has concluded. In this way an event unleashes a chain-reaction of different parts of your being. What you hear had been broken up, made fragmentary, and if you concentrate on one of those fragments, you miss the total process of that hearing. Hearing can be fragmentary or it can be done with all your being, totally. So, by perception of the whole we mean perception with your eyes, your ears, your heart, your mind; not perception with each separately. It is giving your complete attention. In that attention, the particular, such as anger, has a different meaning since it is interrelated to many other issues.

發問者：我怎麼可能看得到所有的那些！我知道自己看到的都是局部，我所有的覺察也只限於特定的局部，這反而助長了局部的問題。

克：讓我們換一種方式來探討：你在覺知的時候，心智與情感是不是分開的？還是你的聽覺、視覺、感覺和思想，不分割地一起並用？

發問者：我不知道你說的是什麼意思。

克：假設你聽到一句話，你的心智告訴你，這是一句侮辱的話，你的感覺又告訴你，你不喜歡這句話，接著你的心智又插手進來，企圖控制自己或為自己辯解，等等。當心智下了一個結論，感覺又一次占了主導。如此一來，一個事件便從你的存在的不同局部引發了一連串的連鎖反應。你所聽到的變得支離破碎，而你如果只專注於其中的一個碎片，你就錯過了整個的聆聽過程。聆聽可以是支離破碎的，也可以用你的整個存在完整地做到。所以我們所謂的覺察整體指的就是你的視覺、聽覺、情感和心智同時並用，而不是各自分開去覺察。你付出全部的注意力。在全神貫注之下，那局部，比如憤怒，就有了不同的意義，因為它和很多其他的問題是相互關聯的。

Questioner: So when you say seeing the whole, you mean seeing with the whole of your being; it is a question of quality not quantity. Is that correct?

Krishnamurti: Yes, precisely. But do you see totally in this way or are you merely verbalizing it? Do you see anger with your heart, mind, ears and eyes? Or do you see anger as something unrelated to the rest of you, and therefore of great importance? When you give importance to the whole you do not forget the particular.

Questioner: But what happens to the particular, to anger?

Krishnamurti: You are aware of anger with your whole being. If you are, is there anger? Inattention is anger, not attention. So attention with your entire being is seeing the whole, and inattention is seeing the particular. To be aware of the whole, and of the particular, and of the relationship between the two, is the whole problem. We divide the particular from the rest and try to solve it. And so conflict increases and there is no way out.

發問者：因此你所謂的看到整體，指的就是以你的整個存在去觀察；這是質而不是量的問題，對不對？

克：是的，完全正確。但是你真的能這樣看到全部嗎？還是只說說就算了？在觀察自己的憤怒時，你的視覺、聽覺、心智與情感，能同時並用嗎？還是你看到的憤怒是和你其他的部分無關的，因而顯得特別重要？當你賦予整體重要性時，並不表示你就忽略了局部。

發問者：但是局部的憤怒又會怎麼樣？

克：你以你的整個存在去覺察憤怒。如果是這樣，憤怒還會產生嗎？粗心大意之下才會產生憤怒，全神貫注之中絕沒有憤怒。以你的整個存在全神貫注就是看到整體，粗心大意則只能看到局部。覺察整體和覺察局部，以及兩者之間的關係，就是整個問題。我們總是把局部和其他部分分開，然後再企圖解決它。於是衝突就加深了，沒有解決的出路。

Questioner: When you speak then of seeing only the particular, as anger, do you mean looking at it with only one part of your being?

Krishnamurti: When you look at the particular with a fragment of your being, the division between that particular and the fragment which is looking at it grows, and so conflict increases. When there is no division there is no conflict.

Questioner: Are you saying that there is no division between this anger and me when I look at it with all my being?

Krishnamurti: Exactly. Is this what you actually are doing, or are you merely following the words? What is actually taking place? This is far more important than your question.

發問者：你所謂的只看到局部的憤怒，你的意思是不是僅以生命的某一部分來觀察憤怒？

克：如果你僅以生命的某個片段來觀察那個特定的問題，那個特定的問題和正在觀察它的碎片之間的距離就會拉大，如此一來衝突便增強了。假如根本沒有那種距離，就不會有衝突。

發問者：你是說，我能以我的整個存在去觀察憤怒，憤怒和我之間就不會產生距離？

克：一點也不錯。你是真的做到了這點，還是只聽聽話語而已？實際發生了什麼？這比你的問題重要多了。

Questioner: You ask me what is taking place. I am simply trying to understand you.

Krishnamurti: Are you trying to understand me or are you seeing the truth of what we are talking about, which is independent of me? If you actually see the truth of what we are talking about, then you are your own guru and your own disciple, which is to understand yourself. This understanding cannot be learnt from another.

發問者：你問我實際發生了什麼。我只是想明白你的意思罷了。

克：你是在努力地弄明白我的意思，還是你看到了我們所討論的真相？而這真相是獨立於我而存在的。如果你真的能認清我們所討論的真相，也就是瞭解你自己，那麼你不但是自己的老師，同時也是自己的學生。這份自我瞭解，你無法從別人那裡學到。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'MORALITY'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“道德”

Questioner: What is it to be virtuous? What makes one act righteously? What is the foundation of morality? How do I know virtue without struggling for it? Is it an end in itself?

發問者：什麼是美德？是什麼讓人行為正直？道德的基礎是什麼？若不為之努力，我怎麼能夠知道美德？它本身就是個結束嗎？

Krishnamurti: Can we discard the morality of society which is really quite immoral? Its morality has become respectable, approved by religious sanctions; and the morality of counter-revolution also soon becomes as immoral and respectable as that of well-established society. This morality is to go to war, to kill, to be aggressive, to seek power, to give hate its place; it is all the cruelty and injustice of established authority. This is not moral. But can one actually say that it is not moral? Because we are part of this society, whether we are conscious of it or not. Social morality is our morality, and can we easily put it aside? The ease with which we put it aside is the sign of our morality - not the effort it costs us to put it aside, not the reward, not the punishment for this effort but the consummate ease with which we discard it. If our behaviour is directed by the environment in which we live, controlled and shaped by it, then it is mechanical and heavily conditioned. And if our behaviour is the outcome of our own conditioned response, is it moral? If your action is based on fear and reward, is it righteous? If you behave rightly according to some ideological concept or principle, can that action be regarded as virtuous? So we must begin to find out how deeply we have discarded the morality of authority, imitation, conformity and obedience. Isn't fear the basis of our morality? Unless these questions are fundamentally answered for oneself one cannot know what it is to be truly virtuous. As we said, with what ease you come out of this hypocrisy is of the greatest importance. If you merely disregard it, it doesn't indicate that you are moral: you might be merely psychopathic. If you live a life of routine and contentment that is not morality either. The morality of the saint who conforms and follows the well-established tradition of sainthood is obviously not morality. So one can see that any conformity to a pattern, whether or not it is sanctioned by tradition, is not righteous behaviour. Only out of freedom can come virtue.

克：我們能不能拋棄社會道德？社會道德實際上非常地不道德。它的道德被宗教約束所推崇，流於體面；就像根深蒂固的社會道德一樣，反革命的道德也很快變得不道德，流於體面。這種道德是去打仗，去殺戮，去侵略，追求權力，讓恨大行其道；它就是當局者所有的殘忍和不公。這不道德。但是你真的能說它不道德嗎？因為我們就是這個社會的一部分，不管我們是否意識到了這一點。社會道德是我們的道德，我們能輕鬆地把它擱置一旁嗎？我們把它擱置一旁的這種輕鬆，正體現了我們的道德——不是把它放在一邊所需要花費的努力，也不是為這種努力而得到的獎賞或者懲罰，而是我們拋棄掉它所用的那種完全的輕鬆。如果我們的行為被我們生活在其中的環境所左右，被其控制和塑造，那麼我們的行為就是機械的，嚴重局限的。如果我們的行為是我們自己局限反應的結果，那它是道德的嗎？如果我們的行為基於恐懼和獎勵，那它是正直的嗎？如果你根據某種理論觀念或者原則正確地行動，那行動能被認為是美德嗎？所以我們必須開始去發現我們在多大程度上拋棄了權威、仿效、遵從和服從這些道德。恐懼是我們道德的基礎嗎？一個人無法知道什麼是真正的美德，除非他自己從根本上解答了這些問題。正如我們所說，你從怎樣的輕鬆中擺脫了這種虛偽，這是最重要的。如果你只是忽視它，那並不表明你是道德的：你可能只是精神錯亂。如果你過一種例行公事心滿意足的生活，那也不是道德。遵從並追隨既定的聖徒傳統，這些聖徒的道德，顯然都不是道德。所以一個人能夠看到，任何對模式的遵從，不管它是不是被傳統所認可，都不是正直的行為。只有從自由中才能誕生美德。

Can one free oneself with great skill from this network of what is considered moral? Skill in action comes with freedom, and so virtue.

一個人能非常巧妙地把自己從被視為道德的這種網路中解脫出來嗎？行動中的技巧來自于自由，美德也一樣。

Questioner: Can I free myself from social morality without fear, with the intelligence which is skill? I'm frightened at the very idea of being considered immoral by society. The young can do it, but I am middle-aged, and I have a family, and in my very blood there is respectability, the essence of the bourgeois. It is there, and I am frightened.

發問者：我能沒有恐懼地運用智慧也就是技巧把自己從社會道德中解脫出來嗎？被社會視為不道德，這個念頭本身就讓我很害怕。年輕人能這麼做，但是我已經中年了，我有個家庭，在我的血液裡本身就有體面，那是資產階級的核心品質。它就在那兒，我很害怕。

Krishnamurti: Either you accept social morality or reject it. You can't have it both ways. You can't have one foot in hell and the other in heaven.

克：你要麼接受社會道德，要麼拒絕它。你不能兩邊都占。你不能一隻腳在地獄另一隻腳在天堂。

Questioner: So what am I to do? I see now what morality is, and yet I'm being immoral all the time. The older I grow the more hypocritical I become. I despise the social morality, and yet I want its benefits, its comfort, its security, psychological and material, and the elegance of a good address. That is my actual, deplorable state. What am I to do?

發問者：那我該怎麼辦？我現在看到了道德是什麼，而我始終是不道德的。年紀越大，我就變得越虛偽。我鄙視社會道德，但是我想要它的好處，它的舒適，它的安全，心理上和物質上的安全，以及有個好住址的體面。這就是我真實的可悲境地。我該怎麼辦？

Krishnamurti: You can't do anything but carry on as you are. It is much better to stop trying to be moral, stop trying to be concerned with virtue.

克：你什麼也不能做，只能繼續你現在的樣子。停止想要變得道德，停止努力關注美德，這要好多了。

Questioner: But I can't, I want the other! I see the beauty and the vigour of it, the cleanliness of it. What I am holding on to is dirty and ugly, but I can't let it go.

發問者：但是我做不到，我想要另一個！我看到了它的美和生命力，它的純淨。我正抱守的東西又髒又醜，但是我丟不掉它。

Krishnamurti: Then there is no issue. You can't have virtue and respectability. Virtue is freedom. Freedom is not an idea, a concept. When there is freedom there is attention, and only in this attention can goodness flower.

克：那就沒問題了。你無法同時擁有美德和體面。美德是自由。自由不是一個想法，一個概念。有了自由就有了關注，只有在這種全神貫注中，良善才能綻放。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SUICIDE'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“自殺”

Questioner: I would like to talk about suicide - not because of any crisis in my own life, nor because I have any reason for suicide, but because the subject is bound to come up when one sees the tragedy of old age - the tragedy of physical disintegration, the breaking up of the body, and the loss of real life in people when this happens. Is there any reason to prolong life when one reaches that state, to go on with the remnants of it? Would it not perhaps be an act of intelligence to recognise when the usefulness of life is over?

發問者：我想談談自殺——不是因為我自己生活中有任何危機，也不是我有任何自殺的理由，只是這個主題註定會出現在一個人面前，當他看到了生命衰老的悲劇——身體的崩潰，身體的破壞，當這悲劇發生的時候人們便失去了真正的生命。當一個人到達了這樣的處境，還有任何理由延長生命，繼續苟延殘喘下去嗎？當生命的用處已經完結時，意識到這一點難道不可以是一個智慧的行為嗎？

Krishnamurti: If it was intelligence that prompted you to end life that very intelligence would have forbidden your body to deteriorate prematurely.

克：假如是智慧在促使你結束生命，那麼這個智慧本身早就應該阻止了你身體的過早退化。

Questioner: But is there not a moment when even the intelligence of the mind cannot prevent this deterioration? Eventually the body wears out - how does one recognise that time when it comes?

發問者：但是難道沒有即使是頭腦的智慧也無法阻止退化的時候嗎？最終身體耗損殆盡——一個人要怎樣才能意識到這個時刻的來臨呢？

Krishnamurti: We ought to go into this rather deeply. There are several things involved in it, aren't there? The deterioration of the body, of the organism, the senility of the mind, and the utter incapacity that breeds resistance. We abuse the body endlessly through custom, taste and negligence. Taste dictates - and the pleasure of it controls and shapes the activity of the organism. When this takes place, the natural intelligence of the body is destroyed. In magazines one sees an extraordinary variety of food, beautifully coloured, appealing to your pleasures of taste, not to what is beneficial for the body. So from youth onwards you gradually deaden and destroy the instrument which should be highly sensitive, active, functioning like a perfect machine. That is part of it, and then there is the mind which for twenty, thirty or eighty years has lived in constant battle and resistance. It knows only contradiction and conflict - emotional or intellectual. Every form of conflict is not only a distortion but brings with it destruction. These then are some of the basic inner and outer factors of deterioration - the perpetually self-centred activity with its isolating processes. Naturally there is the physical wearing out of the body as well as the unnatural wearing out. The body loses its capacities and memories, and senility gradually takes over. You ask, should not such a person commit suicide, take a pill that will put him out? Who is asking the question - the senile, or those who are watching the senility with sorrow, with despair and fear of their own deterioration?

克：關於這點，我們應該相當深入地探討一下。其中涉及了幾個問題，不是嗎？身體和器官的退化，心智的衰老，這完全的無能為力滋生了抗拒。我們通過習慣、嗜好和粗心大意無休止地濫用著身體。嗜好以及它帶來的快感支配、控制和塑造著有機體的活動。當這些發生的時候，身體自然的智慧就被破壞了。有人在雜誌上看到了品種極其豐富的食物，色彩豔麗，吸引著你對味覺快感的訴求，而不管是否有益於你的身體。所以從年輕時起，你就在逐漸地壓抑和破壞著身體這具本應像一台完美的機器一樣高度敏感、活躍地運作著的儀器。那還只是一部分，還有心智，在二十年，三十年或者八十年內一直處於不間斷的鬥爭和抗拒中。它只知道矛盾和衝突——情緒上的或者理智上的。每種形式的衝突都不僅僅是扭曲，而且還帶來了破壞。而這些東西就是導致退化的內在和外在的一些基本因素——退化即是無休止的自我中心活動和自我孤立過程。自然地身體會有物理的磨損，而且也有非自然的磨損。身體失去了它的能力和記憶，年邁就逐漸接手。你問，這樣一個人不應該自殺嗎，吃片兒藥就把他結果了？是誰在問這個問題——是年邁的人，還是正在以悲痛和絕望的心情注視著年邁，心存對自身衰老的恐懼的那些人？

Questioner: Well, obviously the question from my point of view is motivated by distress at seeing senility in other people, for it has not presumably set in in myself yet. But isn't there also some action of intelligence which sees ahead into a possible breakdown of the body and asks the question whether it is not simply a waste to go on once the organism is no longer capable of intelligent life?

發問者：好吧，顯然地從我的觀點來看，那個問題是在我看到他人的年邁時候，受悲傷的驅使提出來的，因為年邁大概還沒有植入我自己吧。但這其中不也是有一些智慧的行為嗎？當預先看到自己的身體可能垮掉時，然後就問這樣一個問題，既然有機體再也沒能力去過智慧的生活了，它再繼續存在下去不就純粹是一種浪費嗎？

Krishnamurti: Will the doctors allow euthanasia, will the doctors or the government permit the patient to commit suicide?

克：醫生允許安樂死嗎，醫生或者是政府允許病人自殺嗎？

Questioner: That surely is a legal, sociological or in some people's minds, a moral question, but that isn't what we are discussing here, is it? Aren't we asking whether the individual has the right to end his own life, not whether society will permit it?

發問者：當然這是一個法律上、社會學上的問題，或者在某些人心裡，這是一個道德問題，但是我們在這裡談的不是這些，不是嗎？難道我們不是在問個體是否有權結束自己的生命，而不是社會是否允許？

Krishnamurti: You are asking whether one has the right to take one's own life - not only when one is senile or has become aware of the approach of senility, but whether it is morally right to commit suicide at any time?

克：你是問，是否一個人有權奪去自己的生命——不僅僅是當他年邁或者意識到接近了年邁的時候，而且是在任何時候進行自殺，這從道德上講是不是正確的？

Questioner: I hesitate to bring morality into it because that is a conditioned thing. I was attempting to ask the question on a straight issue of intelligence. Fortunately at the moment the issue does not confront me personally so I am able to look at it, I think, fairly dispassionately; but as an exercise in human intelligence, what is the answer?

發問者：我不想把道德引進來，因為道德是很局限的一件事。我想把這個問題單純地看作是智慧的問題。幸運的是，這一刻我自己不需要面對這個問題，所以我能夠看著它，我認為，是相當的冷靜地看著；而把它僅僅作為人類智慧的一個練習，那答案是什麼呢？

Krishnamurti: You are saying, can an intelligent man commit suicide? Is that it?

克: 你是說，一個智慧的人會自殺嗎？是這樣嗎？

Questioner: Or, can suicide be the action of an intelligent man, given certain circumstances?

發問者：或者，在特定的環境下，自殺可以成為一個智者的行為嗎？

Krishnamurti: It is the same thing. Suicide comes, after all, either from complete despair, brought about through deep frustration, or from insoluble fear, or from the awareness of the meaninglessness of a certain way of living.

克：那是一回事。畢竟結果都是自殺，或者是由於完全的絕望，由於深受挫折，或者來自無法消融的恐懼，或者因為意識到了某種特定的生活方式是毫無意義的。

Questioner: May I interrupt to say that this is generally so, but I am trying to ask the question outside any motivation. When one arrives at the point of despair then there is a tremendous motive involved and it is hard to separate the emotion from the intelligence; I am trying to stay within the realm of pure intelligence, without emotion.

發問者：我能插一句嗎，情形大多確是如此，但是，我想問的問題是在所有動機之外的。當一個人瀕臨絕望的那一刻，其中就涉及了巨大的動機，而且很難把情感和智慧分開；我想要待在純粹智慧的領域內，那裡沒有情感。

Krishnamurti: You are saying, does intelligence allow any form of suicide? Obviously not.

克：你是說，智慧會允許任何一種形式的自殺嗎？顯然不會。

Questioner: Why not?

發問者：為什麼不會？

Krishnamurti: Really one has to understand this word intelligence. Is it intelligence to allow the body to deteriorate through custom, through indulgence, through the cultivation of taste, pleasure and so on? Is that intelligence, is that the action of intelligence?

克：一個人必須要真正地理解智慧這個詞。是智慧允許身體衰退的嗎，通過習慣，通過沉溺，通過培養嗜好，快感等等？那是智慧嗎，那是智慧的行為嗎？

Questioner: No; but if one has arrived at a point in life where there may have been a certain amount of unintelligent use of the body which has not yet had any effect on it, one can't go back and re-live one's life.

發問者：不是；但是如果一個人的生命已經那樣了，他也許對身體有過某些不明智的使用，即使身體還沒有感覺到任何的影響，可是他再也無法返回去重活一次了。

Krishnamurti: Therefore, become aware of the destructive nature of the way we live and put an end to it immediately, not at some future date. The act of immediacy in front of danger is an act of sanity, of intelligence; and the postponement as well as the pursuit of pleasure indicate lack of intelligence.

克：因此，要知道我們生活方式的破壞性，並且立即結束它，而不是在將來的某一天再結束。在危險面前立即行動，是明智的，智慧的行動；推遲以及對快感的追求則顯示了缺乏智慧。

Questioner: I see that.

發問者：我知道了。

Krishnamurti: But don't you also see something quite factual and true, that this isolating process of thought with its self-centred activity is a form of suicide? Isolation is suicide, whether it is the isolation of a nation or of a religious organization, of a family or of a community. You are already caught in that trap which will ultimately lead to suicide.

克：但是你難道沒有同時看到某樣特別真實和正確的事情，那就是，伴隨著自我中心的行為，思想的孤立過程即是某種形式的自殺？孤立就是自殺，無論它是一個國家還是一個宗教組織的孤立，一個家庭或者一個團體的孤立。你已經落入那陷阱中了，這個陷阱最終會導致自殺。

Questioner: Do you mean the individual or the group?

發問者：你是說一個個體還是一個團體?

Krishnamurti: The individual as well as the group. You are already caught in the pattern.

克：是個體和團體。你已經陷入在那個模式中了。

Questioner: Which will ultimately lead to suicide? But everybody doesn't commit suicide!

發問者：那個模式會最終導致自殺？可是並不是每個人都會自殺呀！

Krishnamurti: Quite right, but the element of the desire to escape is already there - to escape from facing facts, from facing ''what is'', and this escape is a form of suicide.

克：沒錯，但是想要逃避的渴望已經作為要素存在了——逃離面對事實，逃離面對“實際狀況”，這種逃避就是自殺的一種形式。

Questioner: This, I think, is the crux of what I am trying to ask, because it would seem from what you have just said that suicide is an escape. Obviously it is, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but can there not also be - and this is my question - can there not also be a suicide that is not an escape, that is not an avoidance of what you call the ''what is'', but is on the contrary a response of intelligence to ''what is''? One can say that many kinds of neurosis are forms of suicide; what I am trying to ask is whether suicide can ever be other than a neurotic response? Cannot it also be the response of facing a fact, of human intelligence acting on an untenable human condition?

發問者：這個，我想，就是我正設法詢問的癥結，因為從你剛才所說的看起來，自殺就是逃避。顯然是的，99%都是，但是難道就不能有——這即是我的問題——難道就不能有一種自殺不是逃避，不是避免你所謂的“實際狀況”，而正相反，是智慧應對“實際狀況”的反應？可以說自殺的形式多數都是各種神經症；我想問的是，是否自殺可以不是神經質的反應？它就不能是面對事實的反應嗎，不能是人的智慧對一種不堪一擊的人類處境所做的反應嗎？

Krishnamurti: When you use the words ''intelligence'' and "untenable condition" it is a contradiction. The two are in contradiction.

克：當你用“智慧”和“不堪一擊的處境”這些詞的時候，這本身就是一種矛盾。這兩者是矛盾的。

Questioner: You have said that if one is facing a precipice, or a deadly snake about to strike, intelligence dictates a certain action, which is an action of avoidance.

發問者：你已經說過了，當一個人面對一個懸崖，或者一條致命的毒蛇就要攻擊的時候，智慧支配了某種行動，那種行動就是躲避。

Krishnamurti: Is it an action of avoidance or an act of intelligence?

克：這是一個逃避的行為還是一個智慧的行為？

Questioner: Can they not be the same sometimes? If a car comes at me on the highway and I avoid it...

發問者：難道在某個時候它們就不能一樣嗎？如果公路上一輛車朝我奔來我就躲開它...

Krishnamurti: That is an act of intelligence.

克:那是一個智慧的行為。

Questioner: But it is also an act of avoiding the car.

發問者：但同時也是躲避車的行為。

Krishnamurti: But that is the act of intelligence.

克：但那是一個智慧的行為。

Questioner: Exactly. Therefore, is there not a corollary in living when the thing confronting you is insoluble and deadly?

發問者：確實。因此，當你在生活中所面對的某件事情是無法解決以及致命的，就不能有同樣的一個結果嗎?

Krishnamurti: Then you leave it, as you leave the precipice: step away from it.

克：那你就離開它，就像離開那個懸崖：遠離它。

Questioner: In that case the stepping away implies suicide.

發問者：如果那樣的話遠離就意味著自殺。

Krishnamurti: No, the suicide is an act of unintelligence.

克：不是，自殺是一種不明智的行為。

Questioner: Why?

發問者：為什麼？

Krishnamurti: I am showing it to you.

克：我正把它展示給你。

Questioner: Are you saying that an act of suicide is categorically, inevitably, a neurotic response to life?

發問者：你是說自殺的行為毫無例外地、不可避免地是一種對生活的神經質反應?

Krishnamurti: Obviously. It is an act of unintelligence; it is an act which obviously means you have come to a point where you are so completely isolated that you don't see any way out.

克：顯然是。它是一種不明智的行為；這種行為顯然意味著你已經走到了完全孤立的境地以至於你看不到任何的出路。

Questioner: But I am trying for the purpose of this discussion to assume that there is no way out of the predicament, that one is not acting out of the motive of avoidance of suffering, that it is not stepping aside from reality.

發問者：但是我想討論的目的就是假設沒有任何出路擺脫困境，人的行為並不是出於躲避受苦的動機，不是避開事實。

Krishnamurti: Is there in life an occurrence, a relationship, an incident from which you cannot step aside?

克：生活中有這樣的事，有某種關係，某個意外是你無法躲開的嗎？

Questioner: Of course, there are many.

發問者：當然，有很多。

Krishnamurti: Many? But why do you insist that suicide is the only way out?

克：很多？但是為什麼你堅持自殺是唯一的出路？

Questioner: If one has a deadly disease there is no escaping it.

發問者：如果有人得了絕症就沒辦法逃避了。

Krishnamurti: Be careful now, be careful of what we are saying. If I have cancer, and it is going to finish me, and the doctor says, ''Well, my friend, you have got to live with it'', what am I to do - commit suicide?

克：現在注意了，注意你說的話。如果我得了癌症，它將結束我的生命，醫生說，“好吧，我的朋友，你必須要和它一起生活了”，那麼我會做什麼——自殺？

Questioner: Possibly.

發問者：有可能。

Krishnamurti: We are discussing this theoretically. If I personally had terminal cancer, then I would decide, I would consider what to do. It wouldn't be a theoretical question. I would then find out what was the most intelligent thing to do.

克：我們是從理論上談論這件事。如果我個人得了晚期癌症，那麼我就會決定，我會考慮一下去做什麼。它不會是一個理論問題。我那時會找出最具智慧的事去做。

Questioner: Are you saying that I may not ask this question theoretically, but only if I am actually in that position?

發問者：你是說我不應該從理論上問這個問題，除非我真的處於那種境地?

Krishnamurti: That is right. Then you will act according to your conditioning, according to your intelligence, according to your way of life. If your way of life has been avoidance and escape, a neurotic business, then obviously you take a neurotic attitude and action. But if you have led a life of real intelligence, in the total meaning of that word, then that intelligence will operate when there is terminal cancer. Then I may put up with it; then I may say that I will live the few more months or years left to me.

克：沒錯。那時你就會根據你的局限，依據你的智慧，依據你的生活方式做出反應。如果你的生活方式就是逃避和逃跑，神經質之類的，那麼顯然你就會採取神經質的態度和行為。但是如果你過著真正智慧的生活，活出了那個詞全部含義，那麼當得了晚期癌症的時候智慧就會運作。那時我也許會接納它；那時我也許會說我會在好好度過留給我的最後幾個月或者幾年。

Questioner: Or you may not say that.

發問者：或者也許你不會那樣說。

Krishnamurti: Or I may not say that; but don't let us say that suicide is inevitable.

克：也許我不會那樣說；但是我們也不要說自殺是不可避免的。

Questioner: I never said that; I asked if under certain stringent circumstances, such as terminal cancer, suicide could possibly be an intelligent response to the situation.

發問者：我從來沒那樣說；我是問如果在特定的迫切環境下，例如晚期癌症，自殺也許會是一種針對那種狀況的智慧的反應。

Krishnamurti: You see, there is something extraordinary in this; life has brought you great happiness, life has brought you extraordinary beauty, life has brought you great benefits, and you went with it all. Equally, when you were unhappy you went with it, which is part of intelligence: now you come to terminal cancer and you say, ''I cannot bear it any longer, I must put an end to life.'' Why don't you move with it, live with it, find out about it as you go along?

克：你看，這其中有一種非凡的東西；生活帶給你巨大的快樂，生活帶給你非凡的美，生活帶給你巨大的益處，並且你和這一切共處。同樣地，當你不高興的時候你也和它共處，這即是智慧的一部分：現在你得了晚期癌症，然後你說，“我再也無法忍受了，我必須要結束生命。”為什麼你不能和它共進，與它一起生活，並在前進中瞭解它？

Questioner: In other words, there is no reply to this question until you are in the situation.

發問者：換言之，你無法回答這個問題，除非你就處在那種狀況中。

Krishnamurti: Obviously. But you see that is why it is very important, I feel, that we should face the fact, face ''what is'', from moment to moment, not theorize about it. If someone is ill, desperately ill with cancer, or has become completely senile - what is the most intelligent thing to do, not for a mere observer like me, but for the doctor, the wife or the daughter?

克：顯然如此。但你知道那就是為何這個問題很重要，我覺得，我們應該面對事實，面對“實際狀況”，一刻接著一刻地，而不是將它理論化。如果某人病了，絕望地得了癌症，或者已經徹底衰老——什麼才是最智慧的行動？這並不是僅僅像我這樣的旁觀者需要回答的問題，它同樣也需要醫生、妻子和女兒來面對。

Questioner: One cannot really answer that, because it is a problem for another human being.

發問者：別人並不能真正回答這個問題，因為這個問題是屬於另一個人的。

Krishnamurti: That's just it, that is just what I am saying.

克：正是如此，這就是我所說的。

Questioner: And one hasn't the right, it would seem to me, to decide about the life or death of another human being.

發問者：並且別人並沒有權力，這其中也包括我，來決定另一個人的生死。

Krishnamurti: But we do. All the tyrannies do. And tradition does; tradition says you must live this way, you mustn't live that way.

克：但我們卻這麼做了。所有的暴政都這麼做了。傳統也這麼做；傳統總是告訴你們必須如此生活，你們不能那樣生活。

Questioner: And it is also becoming a tradition to keep people alive beyond the point where nature would have given in. Through medical skill people are kept alive - well, it's hard to define what is a natural condition - but it seems most unnatural to survive for as long as many people do today. But that is a different question.

發問者：還有當依循自然規律應該放棄生命時，使人繼續活下去也成為了一項傳統。通過醫學技術讓人們繼續存活下去——當然，也很難定義什麼是自然狀態——但現在很多人活了那麼久，這看起來似乎也極其不自然。但那是另外一個問題。

Krishnamurti: Yes, an entirely different question. The real question is, will intelligence allow suicide - even though doctors have said one has an incurable disease? One cannot possibly tell another what to do in this matter. It is for the human being who has the incurable disease to act according to his intelligence. If he is at all intelligent - which means that he has lived a life in which there has been love, care, sensitivity and gentleness - then such a person, at the moment when it arises, will act according to the intelligence which has operated in the past.

克：是的，這是個完全不同的問題。真正的問題是，智慧會允許自殺存在嗎——儘管醫生說某人得了不治之症？在這件事情上，一個人並不能告訴另一個人該如何做。這需要得了不治之症的當事人自己依智慧去處理。如果他確實是智慧的——這意味著他生活中充滿了愛、關懷、敏感以及溫柔——那麼這樣的人，在事情發生的時候，將會根據過去一直運作著的智慧來行動。

Questioner: Then this whole conversation is in a way meaningless because that is what would have happened anyway - because people would inevitably act according to what has happened in the past. They will either blow their brains out or sit and suffer until they die, or something in between.

發問者：那麼這整個談話從某種意義上說就毫無價值，因為無論怎樣，事情還是會照樣發生——因為人們必然會根據過去的習性來行動。他們要麼用槍把自己腦袋打開花，要麼受著苦坐等死亡，要麼用個折中的辦法。

Krishnamurti: No, it hasn't been meaningless. Listen to this; we have discovered several things - primarily that to live with intelligence is the most important thing. To live a way of life which is supremely intelligent demands an extraordinary alertness of mind and body, and we've destroyed the alertness of the body by unnatural ways of living. We are also destroying the mind, the brain, through conflict, through constant repression, constant explosion and violence. So if one lives a way of life that is a negation of all this, then that life, that intelligence, when confronted with incurable disease will act in the moment rightly.

克：不，這並非沒有意義。聽著，我們已經發現了幾件事情——首先智慧地生活是最重要的事情。過一種極其智慧的生活，需要對心智和身體都有一種非凡的敏銳，而我們已經用不自然的生活方式，破壞了這種身體的敏銳。我們也正在通過衝突，通過不斷的壓抑，不斷的爆發和暴力，破壞我們的心智和頭腦。所以如果一個人能否定這一切，以一種截然不同的方式生活，那麼在面對不治之症時，那生活，那智慧，將會馬上恰當地運作起來。

Questioner: I see that I have asked you a question about suicide and have been given an answer on how to live rightly.

發問者：我發現我問了你一個關於自殺的問題，但得到的是一個如何正確生存的答案。

Krishnamurti: It is the only way. A man jumping over the bridge doesn't ask, ''Shall I commit suicide? '' He is doing it; it is finished. Whereas we, sitting in a safe house or in a laboratory, asking whether a man should or should not commit suicide, has no meaning.

克：這是唯一的出路。當一個人從橋上跳下時他不會問：“我應該自殺嗎？”他這麼做了；一切都結束了。而我們，坐在安全的房子裡或實驗室裡，問一個人應該還是不應該自殺，這毫無意義。

Questioner: So it is a question one cannot ask.

發問者：所以不能問這個問題。

Krishnamurti: No, it must be asked - whether one should or should not commit suicide. It must be asked, but find out what is behind the question, what is prompting the questioner, what is making him want to commit suicide. We know a man who has never committed suicide, although he is always threatening to do so, because he is completely lazy. He doesn't want to do a thing, he wants everybody to support him; such a man has already committed suicide. The man who is obstinate, suspicious, greedy for power and position, has also inwardly committed suicide. He lives behind a wall of images. So any man who lives with an image of himself, of his environment, his ecology, his political power or religion, is already finished.

克：不，必須問這個問題——人應該還是不應該自殺。必須要問，但是要發現問題背後是什麼，是什麼促使提問者問了這個問題，是什麼使他想自殺。我們認識一個人，儘管他一直威脅說要自殺，但是卻從來不曾實施過，因為他太懶了。他一件事情都不想做，他只想讓所有的人支持他；這樣的人已經自殺了。固執的、多疑的、貪求權利和地位的人，也已經在內心中自殺了。他活在意象之牆的背後。所以，任何活在他自己、他的環境、他的領地、他的政治權力和信仰所構築的意象裡的人，已經死了。

Questioner: It would seem to me that what you are saying is that any life that is not lived directly...

發問者：在我看來你所說的是指，任何沒有直接地生活著的生活...

Krishnamurti: Directly and intelligently.

克：直接地以及智慧地。

Questioner: Outside the shadows of images, of conditioning, of thinking.... Unless one lives that way, one's life is a kind of low-key existence.

發問者：遠離意象、局限、思想陰影地生活...除非一個人如此生活，否則他的生命就是一種壓抑的存在。

Krishnamurti: Of course it is. Look at most people; they are living behind a wall - the wall of their knowledge, their desires, their ambitious drives. They are already in a state of neurosis and that neurosis gives them a certain security, which is the security of suicide.

克：當然如此。看看大多數的人們，他們生活在一堵牆的背後——那是他們的知識、欲望、野心驅使的圍牆。他們已然生活在神經質的狀態下，這種神經症給他們某種安全感，一種自殺式的安全感。

Questioner: The security of suicide!

發問者：自殺式的安全感！

Krishnamurti: Like a singer, for example; to him the voice is the greatest security, and when that fails he is ready to commit suicide. What is really exciting and true is to find out for oneself a way of life that is highly sensitive and supremely intelligent; and this is not possible if there is fear, anxiety, greed, envy, the building of images or the living in religious isolation. That isolation is what all religions have supplied: the believer is definitely on the threshold of suicide. Because he has put all his faith in a belief, when that belief is questioned he is afraid and is ready to take on another belief, another image, commit another religious suicide. So, can a man live without any image, without any pattern, without any time-sense? I don't mean living in such a way as not to care what happens tomorrow or what happened yesterday, that is not living. There are those who say, ''Take the present and make the best of it"; that is also an act of despair. Really one should not ask whether or not it is right to commit suicide; one should ask what brings about the state of mind that has no hope - though hope is the wrong word because hope implies a future; one should ask rather, how does a life come about that is without time? To live without time is really to have this sense of great love, because love is not of time, love is not something that was or will be; to explore this and live with it is the real question. Whether to commit suicide or not is the question of a man who is already partially dead. Hope is the most dreadful thing. Wasn't it Dante who said, ''Leave hope behind when you enter the Inferno''? To him, paradise was hope, that's horrible.

克：舉個例子，就像一個歌手；對他來說，嗓音是最大的安全，當失去嗓音他就想去自殺。真正激動人心和真實的事情是，自己去發現一種高度敏感和極其智慧的生活方式；可一旦有恐懼、焦慮、貪婪、嫉妒，建立意象或是生活在宗教孤立中，就不可能發現智慧的生活方式。這種孤立是所有宗教都在提供的：信仰者無疑活在自殺的陰影中。因為他把自己所有的信心投入他的信仰中，當這信仰遭到質疑時，他會害怕並準備接受另一種信仰，另一種意象，進行另一種宗教自殺。所以，一個人能不能沒有意象，沒有模式，沒有時間感地生活？我不是指一種對於昨天和明天發生的事漠不關心的生活，那樣不是生活。有些人說，“把握現在，好好珍惜”，那同樣是一種絕望的行為。其實我們不該問自殺是對還是錯；而應該問是什麼導致我們的心智處於一種無望的狀態——儘管希望是個錯誤的詞，因為它暗含著未來；我們應該問，如何才能帶來一種沒有時間的生活？沒有時間的生活，就是真正擁有這偉大的愛的感覺，因為愛沒有時間，愛不是過去如何和將來如何；探索這點並如此生活，才是真正的問題。是否應該自殺，是已經部分死亡的人才會提出的問題。而希望是最糟糕的事情。但丁不是曾說，“當進入地獄時，請把希望留在身後”？對他來說，天堂就是希望，那太可怕了。

Questioner: Yes, hope is its own inferno.

發問者：是的，希望就是它自身的地獄。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'DISCIPLINE'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“紀律”

Questioner: I've been brought up in a very restricted environment, in strict discipline, not only as to outward behaviour but also I was taught to discipline myself, to control my thoughts and appetites and to do certain things regularly. The result is that I find myself so hedged about that I can't do anything easily, freely and happily. When I see what is going on around me in this permissive society - the sloppiness, the dirt, the casual behaviour, the indifference to manners - I'm shocked, although at the same time I secretly desire to do some of these things myself. Discipline imposed certain values though; it brought with it frustrations and distortions, but surely some discipline is necessary - for instance, to sit decently, to eat properly, to speak with care? Without discipline one can't perceive the beauties of music or literature or painting. Good manners and training reveal a great many nuances in daily social commerce. When I observe the modern generation they have the beauty of youth, but without discipline it will soon fade away and they will become rather tiresome old men and women. There is a tragedy in all this. You see a young man, supple, eager, beautiful with clear eyes and a lovely smile, and a few years later you see him again and he is almost unrecognizable - sloppy, callous, indifferent, full of platitudes, highly respectable, hard, ugly, closed and sentimental. Surely discipline would have saved him. I, who have been disciplined almost out of existence, often wonder where the middle way is between this permissive society and the culture in which I was brought up. Isn't there a way to live without the distortion and suppression of discipline, yet to be highly disciplined within oneself?

發問者：我在一個限制很多的環境中在嚴格的紀律中長大，不只有外在的行為約束，我也被教導要約束自己，控制我的思想和欲望，常規地做某些事情。這樣做的結果是，我發現自己深受束縛，以致於無法輕鬆、自由、開心地做任何事。當我看到我周圍這個悲觀的世界都發生著什麼——草率，污穢的言語，輕浮的行為，對禮貌的漠視——我感到震驚，儘管同時我自己私下裡也想做些這樣的事情。儘管紀律強加了某些價值觀；它帶來的是挫折和扭曲，但是某些紀律當然是必要的——例如，體面地坐著，得體地進食，關切地談話？沒有紀律，人就無法領會音樂、文學或者繪畫的美。良好的教養和訓練揭示出日常社會事務中許許多多的細微差別。當我觀察年輕一代，他們有青春的美，但是若沒有紀律，這種美很快就消退了，他們會變成相當乏味的老男人和老女人。所有這一切之中都是悲劇。你看到一個年輕人，柔韌靈活，熱切，美麗，有著清澈的眼睛和可愛的笑容，但是幾年後你再次見到他，幾乎認不出他——邋遢，麻木，冷漠，充滿老生常談，非常體面，僵硬，醜陋，封閉，以及多愁善感。當然，紀律應該拯救了他。我幾乎生來就持戒，我常常會疑惑，這個悲觀的社會和我成長起來的文化之間的中間道路在哪裡。難道沒有一種生活方式之中沒有紀律的扭曲和壓抑嗎，而同時一個人自己內在又非常的有紀律？

Krishnamurti: Discipline means to learn, not to conform, not to suppress, not to imitate the pattern of what accepted authority considers noble. This is a very complex question for in it are involved several things: to learn, to be austere, to be free, to be sensitive, and to see the beauty of love.

克：紀律意味著學習，而不是遵從，不是壓抑，不是仿效公認的權威所認為的高尚模式。這是一個非常複雜的問題，因為其中涉及了幾件事情：學習，簡樸，自由，敏感，以及看到愛的美。

In learning there is no accumulation. Knowledge is different from learning. Knowledge is accumulation, conclusions, formulas, but learning is a constant movement, a movement without a centre, without a beginning or an end. To learn about oneself there must be no accumulation in one's learning: if there is, it is not learning about oneself but merely adding to one's accumulated knowledge of oneself. Learning is the freedom of perception, of seeing. And you cannot learn if you are not free. So this very learning is its own discipline - you don't have to discipline yourself and then learn. Therefore discipline is freedom. This denies all conformity and control, for control is the imitation of a pattern. A pattern is suppression, suppression of "what is", and the learning about "what is" is denied when there is a formula of what is good and what is bad. The learning about "what is" is the freedom from "what is". So learning is the highest form of discipline. Learning demands intelligence and sensitivity.

學習中沒有積累。知識與學習是不同的。知識是積累，結論，模式，但是學習是一種不停的運動，沒有中心的運動，沒有開始或者結束。要瞭解自己，在瞭解過程中就不能有積累：如果有，那就不是瞭解自己了，而只是添加積累起來的關於自己的認識。學習是覺察和觀看的自由。如果你不自由就無法學習。所以這學習本身就有它自己的紀律——你不用約束自己就能學習。所以紀律就是自由。這否定了所有的遵從和控制，因為控制只是仿效一種模式。模式就是壓抑，對“現在如何”的壓制，如果有什麼是好什麼是壞的模式，就對“現在如何”的瞭解就被否定了。瞭解“現在如何”，就從“現在如何”中解脫了出來。所以學習是最高形式的紀律。學習需要智慧和敏感。

The austerity of the priest and the monk is harsh. They deny certain of their appetites but not others which custom has condoned. The saint is the triumph of harsh violence. Austerity is generally identified with self-denial through the brutality of discipline, drill and conformity. The saint is trying to break a record like the athlete. To see the falseness of this brings about its own austerity. The saint is stupid and shoddy. To see this is intelligence. Such intelligence will not go off the deep end to the opposite extreme. Intelligence is the sensitivity which understands, and therefore avoids, the extremes. But it is not the prudent mediocrity of remaining half-way between the two. To perceive all this clearly is to learn about it. To learn about it there must be freedom from all conclusions and bias. Such conclusions and bias are observation from a centre, the self, which wills and directs.

牧師和僧侶的苦行很嚴苛。他們否定自己的某些欲望，不否定習俗所寬恕的另一些欲望。苦行通常被認為是通過殘酷的戒律、訓練和遵從進行的自我否定。聖人像運動員一樣努力打破記錄。看到這些的謬誤，就帶來了它自身的簡樸。聖人是愚蠢的卑劣的。看到這一點，就是智慧。這種智慧不會走到對立的另一個深深的極端。智慧是瞭解進而避免極端的敏感。但智慧不是停在兩個極端中間的審慎的平庸。清晰地看到這一切，就是去瞭解這些。要瞭解就必須有從所有結論和偏見中解脫出來的自由。這些結論和偏見是從一個中心，也就是自我進行的觀察，自我有意志力以及方向。

Questioner: Aren't you simply saying that to look properly you must be objective?

發問者：你難道不就是在說要恰當地看你就必須是客觀的？

Krishnamurti: Yes, but the word objective is not enough. What we are talking about is not the harsh objectiveness of the microscope, but a state in which there is compassion, sensitivity and depth. Discipline, as we said, is learning, and learning about austerity does not bring about violence to oneself or to another. Discipline, as it is generally understood, is the act of will, which is violence.

克：是的，但是客觀這個詞還不夠。我們在討論的不是顯微鏡這種嚴苛的客觀，而是一種有慈悲、敏感和深度的狀態。紀律，正如我們所說，是學習，對苦行的瞭解，並不會帶來對自己或者對別人的暴力。通常所理解的紀律，是意志力的行為，也就是暴力。

People throughout the world seem to think that freedom is the fruit of prolonged discipline. To see clearly is its own discipline. To see clearly there must be freedom, not a controlled vision. So freedom is not at the end of discipline, but the understanding of freedom is its own discipline. The two go together inseparably: when you separate them there is conflict. To overcome that conflict, the action of will comes into being and breeds more conflict. This is an endless chain. So freedom is at the beginning and not at the end: the beginning is the end. To learn about all this is its own discipline. Learning itself demands sensitivity. If you are not sensitive to yourself - to your environment, to your relationships - if you are not sensitive to what is happening round you, in the kitchen or in the world, then however much you discipline yourself you only become more and more insensitive, more and more self-centred - and this breeds innumerable problems. To learn is to be sensitive to yourself and to the world outside you, for the world outside is you. If you are sensitive to yourself you are bound to be sensitive to the world. This sensitivity is the highest form of intelligence. It is not the sensitivity of a specialist - the doctor, the scientist or the artist. Such fragmentation does not bring sensitivity.

全世界的人們似乎都認為自由是長期守紀律的結果。看到這一點，本身就是紀律。要清楚地看到，就必須有自由，而不是某種受控的視野。所以自由不在紀律的結尾，而是，對自由的瞭解就是它自身的紀律。這兩者不分離地並肩而行：當你把它們分開就有了衝突。要克服這衝突，就形成了意志力的行為，滋生了更多的衝突。這是個無窮無盡的鏈條。所以開始就要自由，而不是在結束的時候自由：開始就是結束。瞭解了這一切，就有了它自己的紀律。學習本身需要敏感。如果你對自己——對你的環境，對你的關係不敏感——如果你對自己周圍發生的事情不敏感，不管是在廚房裡還是在世界上，那麼，不管你怎麼約束自己，你只會變得越來越不敏感，越來越自我中心——而這滋生了無數的問題。學習就是對你自己，對你周圍的世界敏感，因為外部世界就是你。如果你對自己敏感，那麼你就必然會對世界敏感。這種敏感是最高形式的智慧。它不是一個專家——醫生，科學家或者藝術家的敏感。這種細分無法帶來敏感。

How can one love if there is no sensitivity? Sentimentality and emotionalism deny sensitivity because they are terribly cruel; they are responsible for wars. So discipline is not the drill of the sergeant - whether in the parade-ground or in yourself - which is the will. Learning all day long, and during sleep, has its own extraordinary discipline which is as gentle as the new spring leaf and as swift as the light. In this there is love. Love has its own discipline, and the beauty of it escapes a mind that is drilled, shaped, controlled, tortured. Without such a discipline the mind cannot go very far.

如果沒有敏感，一個人要如何去愛？多愁善感和感情用事否定了敏感，因為它們極其殘忍；它們對戰爭負責。所以紀律不是士兵的操練——不管是閱兵場上的還是你自身的——這是意志力。在整個白天和睡眠中都學習，就有它自己不同尋常的紀律，那就像春天的嫩葉一樣輕柔，像陽光一樣迅捷。其中就有愛。愛有它自身的紀律，它的美是一個受訓的、被塑造、控制和折磨的頭腦所無法捕捉的。沒有這樣的紀律，心智永遠無法走得太遠。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'WHAT IS'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“現在如何”

Questioner: I have read a great deal of philosophy, psychology, religion and politics, all of which to a greater or lesser degree are concerned with human relationships. I have also read your books which all deal with thought and ideas, and somehow I'm fed up with it all. I have swum in an ocean of words, and wherever I go there are more words - and actions derived from those words are offered to me: advice, exhortations, promises, theories, analyses, remedies. Of course one sets all these aside - you yourself have really done so; but for most of those who have read you, or heard you, what you say is just words. There may be people for whom all this is more than words, for whom it is utterly real, but I'm talking about the rest of us. I'd like to go beyond the word, beyond the idea, and live in total relationship to all things. For after all, that is life. You have said that one has to be a teacher and a pupil to oneself. Can I live in the greatest simplicity, without principles, beliefs, and ideals? Can I live freely, knowing that I am enslaved by the world? Crises don't knock on the door before they appear: challenges of everyday life are there before you are aware of them. Knowing all this, having been involved in many of these things, chasing various phantoms, I ask myself how I can live rightly and with love, clarity and effortless joy. I'm not asking how to live, but to live: the how denies the actual living itself. The nobility of life is not practising nobility.

發問者：我讀了大量的哲學、心理學、宗教和政治學，這些東西或多或少都在某種程度上關注人類的關係。我也讀過你的書，都著眼於思想和觀念，從某種程度上說，這些我都受夠了。我遊弋于語言的海洋，不管我走到哪兒，都是更多的語言——從這些語言裡產生的行動被提供給我：建議，規勸，承諾，理論，分析，治療方法。當然一個人得把這些都擱置一旁——你自己就真的這麼做了；但是對於那些讀過你的書或者聽過你演講的多數人來說，你所說的不過是語言而已。也許有些人，對他們來說這一切不只是語言，對他們來說這些極其真實，但是我說的是另外一些人。我想要超越文字，超越觀念，生活在與所有事物完整的關係中。因為，畢竟這是生活。你說過，一個人必須同時是自己的老師和學生。我能不能生活得極其簡單，沒有原則、信念和理想？知道我被這個世界奴役了，我能不能自由地活著？危機在出現之前是不會來敲門的：日常生活的挑戰在你覺察到它們之前，就已經在那裡了。知道了這一切，身處這些事情之中，追尋各種幻象，我問自己我要如何才能正確地生活，帶著愛、清晰和不費力的喜悅。我問的不是如何生活，而是生活本身：這個如何就否定了真實的生活本身。生命的高貴並不是練習高貴。

Krishnamurti: After stating all this, where are you? Do you really want to live with benediction, with love? If you do, then where is the problem?

克：說出這一切之後，你到了哪裡？你真的想帶著至福帶著愛生活嗎？如果是的，那麼問題在哪裡？

Questioner: I do want to, but that doesn't get me anywhere. I've wanted to live that way for years, but I can't.

發問者：我真的想這樣，但是這沒有把我帶到任何地方。多年來我一直想要這樣生活，但是我做不到。

Krishnamurti: So though you deny the ideal, the belief, the directive, you are very subtly and deviously asking the same thing which everybody asks: this is the conflict between the "what is" and the "what should be".

克：所以儘管你否定了理想、信念、指導，但是你還在很隱蔽地拐彎抹角地問所有人都問的同一件事：這就是“現在如何”與“應當如何”之間的衝突。

Questioner: Even without the "what should be", I see that the "what is" is hideous. To deceive myself into not seeing it would be much worse still.

發問者：即使沒有“應當如何”，我也看到了“現在如何”是醜陋的。欺騙我自己無視這一點，那更要糟糕得多。

Krishnamurti: If you see "what is" then you see the universe, and denying "what is" is the origin of conflict. The beauty of the universe is in the "what is; and to live with "what is" without effort is virtue.

克：如果你看到了“現在如何”，那麼你就看見了宇宙，否認“現在如何”，正是衝突的根源。宇宙的美就在“現在如何”中；不費力地與“現在如何”共處就是美德。

Questioner: The "what is" also includes confusion, violence, every form of human aberration. To live with that is what you call virtue. But isn't it callousness and insanity? Perfection doesn't consist simply in dropping all ideals! Life itself demands that I live it beautifully, like the eagle in the sky: to live the miracle of life with anything less than total beauty is unacceptable.

發問者：“現在如何”也包含了困惑，暴力，人類各種形式的異常行為。與現在如何共處就是你所說的美德。但是它難道不是冷酷和瘋狂嗎？完美並不是簡簡單單地存在於放下所有的理想中！生活本身要求我美麗地活著，就像天空中的鷹一樣：不帶著完全的美活出生命的奇跡，這是不可接受的。

Krishnamurti: Then live it! Questioner: I can't, and I don't.

克：那麼就活出來！發問者：我不能，我辦不到。

Krishnamurti: If you can't, then live in confusion; don't battle with it. Knowing the whole misery of it, live with it: that is "what is". And to live with it without conflict frees us from it.

克：如果你不能，那就生活在困惑中；不要與它鬥爭。知道它所有的痛苦所在，與它共處：這就是“現在如何”。沒有衝突地與之共處就把我們從中解脫了出來。

Questioner: Are you saying that our only fault is to be self-critical?

發問者：你是說我們唯一的錯就是自我批判嗎？

Krishnamurti: Not at all. You are not sufficiently critical. You go only so far in your self-criticism. The very entity that criticizes must be criticized, must be examined. If the examination is comparative, examination by yardstick, then that yardstick is the ideal. If there is no yardstick at all - in other words, if there is no mind that is always comparing and measuring - you can observe the "what is", and then the "what is" is no longer the same.

克：完全不是。你的批判性還不夠。你僅僅止步於你的自我批判。批判的那個實體本身必須被批判，必須被審視。如果這審視是比較性的，用標準來衡量，那麼那個標準就是理想。如果完全沒有標準——換句話說，如果沒有那個一直在比較和衡量的頭腦——你就能觀察到“現在如何”，那麼“現在如何”就不再依然如故了。

Questioner: I observe myself without a yardstick, and I'm still ugly.

發問者：我不用標準來觀察我自己，可我還是醜陋的。

Krishnamurti: All examination means there is a yardstick. But is it possible to observe so that there is only observation, seeing, and nothing else - so that there is only perception without a perceiver?

克：所有的檢驗都意味著有個標準。但是否可能有這樣一種觀察，只有觀察和看到，別的什麼都沒有——這樣就只有覺察而沒有覺察者？

Questioner: What do you mean?

發問者：你是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: There is looking. The assessment of the looking is interference, distortion in the looking: that is not looking; instead it is evaluation of looking - the two are as different as chalk and cheese. Is there a perception of yourself without distortion, only an absolute perception of yourself as you are?

Questioner: Yes.

克：存在著觀察。對觀察的評估是對觀察的干擾和扭曲：那不是觀察；相反，那是對觀察的評價——這兩者的區別就像粉筆和乳酪的區別。有沒有一種對你自己的覺知，其中沒有扭曲，只有對你自己如實而單純的覺察？

發問者：有的。

Krishnamurti: In that perception is there ugliness?

Questioner: There is no ugliness in the perception, only in what is perceived.

克：在那種覺察中有醜陋嗎？

發問者：在那種覺察中沒有醜陋，只有在覺察到的東西中才有醜陋。

Krishnamurti: The way you perceive is what you are. Righteousness is in purely looking, which is attention without the distortion of measure and idea. You came to enquire how to live beautifully, with love. To look without distortion is love, and the action of that perception is the action of virtue. That clarity of perception will act all the time in living. That is living like the eagle in the sky; that is living beauty and living love.

克：你覺察的方式就是現在的你。正直在單純的觀察中，也就是在沒有被衡量和觀念扭曲的關注中。你來詢問如何美麗地有愛地活著。不扭曲地觀察就是愛，那覺察的行動就是美德的行動。覺知的清澈會一直在生活中運作。那就是像天空中的鷹一樣的生活；那就是活生生的美和活生生的愛。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE SEEKER'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“追尋者”

Questioner: What is it I'm seeking? I really don't know, but there is a tremendous longing in me for something much more than comfort, pleasure and the satisfaction of fulfilment. I happen to have had all these things, but this is something much more - something at an unfathomable depth that is crying to be released, trying to tell me something. I've had this feeling for many years but when I examine it I don't seem to be able to touch it. Yet it is always there, this longing to go beyond the mountains and the skies to find something. But perhaps this thing is there right in front of me, only I don't see it. Don't tell me how to look: I've read many of your writings and I know what you mean. I want to reach out my hand and take this thing very simply, knowing very well that I cannot hold the wind in my fist. It is said that if you operate on a tumour neatly you can pluck it out in one pocket, intact. In the same way I should like to take this whole earth, the heavens and the skies and the seas in one movement, and come upon that blessedness on the instant. Is this at all possible? How am I to cross to the other shore without taking a boat and rowing across the waters? I feel that's the only way.

發問者：我在追尋什麼？我真的不知道，但是我內心有一種強烈的渴望，渴望一種遠遠超出舒適、快樂和成就感的東西。那些東西碰巧我都有，但我渴望的遠遠不只這些——在深不可測的地方有某種東西急切地想要釋放出來，試圖告訴我什麼。多年來我一直有這種感覺，但是當我審視它時，我似乎無法觸及它。但是它始終在那兒，這種想要跨越高山和天空去發現什麼的渴望。但是也許這東西就在我面前，只是我看不到它。不要告訴我怎麼去看：我讀過你寫的很多書，我知道你的意思是什麼。我想要伸出我的手，輕而易舉地拿到這東西，同時又很明白我無法把風握在我的拳頭裡。聽說如果你乾淨利索地對一個腫瘤動手術，你能一下子就把它摘除下來，而且完好無損。同樣，我想把這整個地球，天空和海洋一舉拿下，即刻遭遇那天賜的幸福。這究竟可能嗎？我要怎樣跨到彼岸而不用乘船或者劃過水面？我覺得那是唯一的途徑。

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's the only way - to find oneself strangely and unaccountably on the other shore, and from there to live, act and do everything that one does in daily life.

克：是的，那是唯一的途徑——發現自己不可思議地莫名其妙地就在彼岸了，從那裡開始生活，行動，以及做日常生活中的所有事情。

Questioner: Is it only for the few? Is it for me? I really don't know what to do. I've sat silent; I've studied, examined, disciplined myself, rather intelligently I think, and of course I've long ago discarded the temples, the shrines and the priests. I refuse to go from one system to another; it is all too futile. So you see I have come here with complete simplicity.

發問者：只有少數人才能這樣嗎？我可以嗎？我真的不知道該怎麼辦。我靜坐過；我研究過，審視過，約束過我自己，我想我用的是相當明智的方式，當然我很早以前就拋棄了寺廟、神龕和牧師。我拒絕從一個體系進入另一個體系；那些都毫無意義。所以你看，我來到了這裡，內心有完完全全的簡單。

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you really are so simple as you think! From what depth are you asking this question, and with what love and beauty? Can your mind and heart receive this? Are they sensitive to the slightest whisper of something that comes unexpectedly?

克：我想知道你是否真的如你所想的那麼簡單！你是從怎樣的深度來問出這個問題的，帶著怎樣的愛和美？你的頭腦和心靈能接收到這些嗎？它們對不期而來的極其低微的細語都很敏感嗎？

Questioner: If it is as subtle as all that, how true is it, and how real? Intimations of such subtlety are usually fleeting and unimportant.

發問者：如果像所有那些一樣微妙，那麼它有多真實，多真切？這種微妙的蛛絲馬跡通常轉瞬即逝，並不重要。

Krishnamurti: Are they? Must everything be written out on the blackboard? Please, sir, let us find out whether our minds and hearts are really capable of receiving immensity, and not just the word.

克：是嗎？每件事都必須寫在黑板上嗎？先生，請你讓我們去發現我們的頭腦和心靈是否真的能夠接收到無限，而不僅僅是詞語。

Questioner: I really don't know, that's my problem. I've done almost everything fairly intelligently, putting aside all the obvious stupidities of nationality, organized religion, belief - this endless passage of nothings. I think I have compassion, and I think my mind can grasp the subtleties of life, but that surely is not enough? So what is needed? What have I to do or not to do?

發問者：我真的不知道，這就是我的問題。我相當明智地做過了幾乎所有事情，把所有顯而易見的愚蠢的民族主義、有組織的宗教、信仰都拋在了一邊——那是一條毫無意義的沒有盡頭的通道。我想我有慈悲，我想我的頭腦能夠抓住生命的微妙之處，但這顯然是不夠的？那麼還需要什麼？我必須做什麼或者不做什麼？

Krishnamurti: Doing nothing is far more important than doing something. Can the mind be completely inactive, and thereby be supremely active? Love is not the activity of thought; it is not the action of good behaviour or social righteousness. As you cannot cultivate it, you can do nothing about love.

克：什麼都不做比做點什麼要重要多了。頭腦能不能完全不活動，因而就能極其活躍？愛不是思想的活動；愛不是善行或者社會正義的行動。因為你無法培育愛，所以對愛你什麼也做不了。

Questioner: I understand what you mean when you say that inaction is the highest form of action - which doesn't mean to do nothing. But somehow I cannot grasp it with my heart. Is it perhaps only because my heart is empty, tired of all action, that inaction seems to have an appeal? No. I come back to my original feeling that there is this thing of love, and I know, too, that it is the only thing. But my hand is still empty after I have said that.

發問者：當你說不行動是最高形式的行動，我明白你的意思——那並不意味著什麼都不做。但是在某種程度上我就是無法用我的心把握這一點。或許只是因為我的心太空了，厭倦了所有行動，那種不行動似乎就有了某種訴求？不是的。我回到了我最初的那種感覺，也就是有愛這樣東西，我也知道，這是唯一的東西。但是說了這些話以後我的手還是空的。

Krishnamurti: Does this mean that you are no longer seeking, no longer saying to yourself secretly: "I must reach, attain, there is something beyond the furthest hills?"

Questioner: You mean I must give up this feeling I have had for so long that there is something beyond all the hills?

克：這是否意味著你不再追尋了，不再偷偷地對自己說：“我必須達成，取得，越過最遠的山那邊有某種東西？”

發問者：你的意思是我必須放棄我擁有了這麼久的這種感覺，也就是越過所有山那邊有某種東西的感覺？

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of giving up anything, but, as we said just now, there are only these two things: love, and the mind that is empty of thought. If you really have finished, if you really have shut the door on all the stupidities which man in his search for something has put together, if you really have finished with all these, then, are these things - love and the empty mind - just two more words, no different from any other ideas?

克：這不是一個放棄任何東西的問題，而是，正如我們剛才所說的，只有這兩樣東西：愛，和清空了思想的頭腦。如果你真的完成了，如果你真的把人類在追尋過程中製造出來的所有那些愚蠢之事關在了門外的話，如果你真的完成了這一切，那麼，這兩樣東西——愛和空寂的頭腦——還僅僅是與其他觀念沒有區別的另兩個詞嗎？

Questioner: I have a deep feeling that they are not, but I am not sure of it. So again I ask what I am to do.

Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to commune with what we have just said about love and the mind?

Questioner: Yes, I think so.

發問者：我有種深深的感覺它們不再是詞語，但是我不確定。所以我再一次問我該怎麼做。

克：你知不知道就我們剛才關於愛和頭腦所說的話進行交流是什麼意思？

發問者：是的，我想我知道。

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you do. If there is communion with these two things then there is nothing more to be said. If there is communion with these two things then all action will be from there.

Questioner: The trouble is that I still think there is something to be discovered which will put everything else in its right place, in its right order.

克：我懷疑你是不是真的知道。如果與這兩樣東西有交流的話，那就沒什麼更多要說的了。如果與這兩樣東西有交流的話，那麼所有的行動就會從那裡開始。

發問者：問題是我還是認為有什麼東西需要去發現，它會把其他的所有事情都以正確的秩序，放在正確的位置上。

Krishnamurti: Without these two things there is no possibility of going further. And there may be no going anywhere at all!

Questioner: Can I be in communion with it all the time? I can see that when we are together I can be somewhat in communion with it. But can I maintain it?

Krishnamurti: To desire to maintain it is the noise, and therefore the losing of it.

克：沒有這兩樣東西就沒有更進一步的可能。也許根本就哪也去不了。

發問者：我能與它一直有交流嗎？我發現當我們在一起時，我能在某種程度上與它交流。但是我能保持住它嗎？

克：想要保持住它的願望就是噪音，因而就失去了它。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'ORGANISATION'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“組織”

Questioner: I have belonged to many organizations, religious, business and political. Obviously we must have some kind of organization; without it life couldn't continue, so I've been wondering, after listening to you, what relationship there is between freedom and organization. Where does freedom begin and organization end? What is the relationship between religious organizations and Moksha or liberation?

發問者：我曾屬於很多組織，宗教的、商業的以及政治組織。顯然我們必須有某些類型的組織；沒有組織，生活就無法繼續，所以聽了你的講話後，我一直想知道，自由和組織之間是什麼關係。自由從哪裡開始，組織又從哪裡結束？宗教組織與解脫或者解放之間的關係是什麼？

Krishnamurti: As human beings living in a very complex society, organizations are needed to communicate, to travel, to bring food, clothes and shelter, for all the business of living together whether in cities or in the country. Now this must be organized efficiently and humanely, not only for the benefit of the few but for everyone, without the divisions of nationality, race or class. This earth is ours, not yours or mine. To live happily, physically, there must be sane, rational, efficient organizations. Now there is disorder because there is division. Millions go hungry while there is vast prosperity. There are wars, conflicts and every form of brutality. Then there is the organization of belief - the organization of religions, which again breeds disunity and war. The morality which man has pursued has led to this disorder and chaos. This is the actual state of the world. And when you ask what is the relationship between organization and freedom, are you not separating freedom from everyday existence? When you separate it in this way as being something entirely different from life, isn't this, in itself, conflict and disorder? So really the question is: is it possible to live in freedom and to organize life from this freedom, in this freedom?

克：由於人類生活在一個非常複雜的社會裡，需要組織來溝通，旅行，製造食物、衣服和住所，供給生活事務的方方面面，不管是在城市還是鄉村。現在不僅僅是為了少數人，也是為了所有人的利益，這些事情必須高效地人道地加以組織，不劃分國家、種族或者階級。這個地球是我們的，不是你的也不是我的。在物質層面要活得快樂，必須有明智的，理性的，高效的組織。而如今存在的失序，就是因為有劃分。數以百萬計的人忍饑挨餓，可同時又存在著大範圍的繁榮。存在著戰爭，衝突以及各種形式的殘酷。還有信仰的組織——宗教組織，也滋生了不團結和戰爭。人類追求的道德導致了這些失序和混亂。這就是世界的真實狀況。當你問組織和自由之間的關係是什麼，你不就是把自由與每天的生存分離開了嗎？當你把自由當做與生活完全不同的某種東西，把它這樣分離出來時，難道這本身不就是衝突和失序嗎？所以真正的問題是：是否可能生活在自由中，從這自由中，在這自由中來組織生活？

Questioner: Then there would be no problem. But the organization of life isn't made by yourself: others make it for you - the government and others send you to war or determine your job. So you cannot simply organize for yourself out of freedom. The whole point of my question is that the organization imposed on us by the government, by society, by morality, is not freedom. And if we reject it we find ourselves in the midst of a revolution, or some sociological reformation, which is a way of starting the same old cycle all over again. Inwardly and outwardly we are born into organization, which limits freedom. We either submit or revolt. We are caught in this trap. So there seems to be no question of organizing anything out of freedom.

發問者：那就沒有問題了。但是生活中的組織不是你自己製造出來的：別人為你組建了出來——政府和別人把你送到戰場上或者決定你的工作。所以你無法簡簡單單地從自由出發自己來組織。我的問題的整個重點是，由政府，由社會，由道德強加於我們的組織，不是自由。如果我們拒絕它們，我們就發現自己置身於一場革命，或者某種社會改革中了，而這只是再一次重蹈覆轍而已。不管內在還是外在，我們誕生於組織中，這限制了自由。我們要麼服從要麼反抗。我們被困在這個陷阱中了。所以，從自由中組織任何東西出來，這個問題似乎並不存在。

Krishnamurti: We do not realize that we have created society, this disorder, these walls; each one of us is responsible for it all. What we are, society is. Society is not different from us. If we are in conflict, avaricious, envious, fearful, we bring about such a society.

克：我們沒有意識到是我們製造了這個社會，製造了這些失序，這些圍牆；我們每個人都要為之負責。我們如何，社會就如何。社會與我們並無不同。如果我們處於衝突中，貪婪，嫉妒，恐懼，我們就製造出這樣的一個社會。

Questioner: There is a difference between the individual and society. I am a vegetarian; society slaughters animals. I don't want to go to war; society will force me to do so. Are you telling me that this war,is my doing?

發問者：個人與社會之間是不同的。我是個素食者；社會屠殺動物。我不參戰；社會卻會逼迫我這麼做。你難道告訴我說，這場戰爭是我的作為？

Krishnamurti: Yes, it's your responsibility. You have brought it about by your nationality, your greed, envy and hate. You are responsible for war as long as you have those things in your heart, as long as you belong to any nationality, creed or race. It is only those who are free of those things who can say that they have not created this society. Therefore our responsibility is to see that we change, and to help others to change, without violence and bloodshed.

克：是的，是你的責任。你是由你的國家，你的貪婪、嫉妒和仇恨培養出來的。只要你心裡有這些東西，只要你屬於任何國家、信條或者種族，你就要為戰爭負責。只有擺脫了這些東西的人，才能說他們沒有創造這樣一個社會。所以我們的責任是我們自己轉變，並幫助別人轉變，而且不通過暴力和流血。

Questioner: That means organized religion.

Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Organized religion is based on belief and authority.

發問者：那意味著組織化的宗教。

克：當然不是。組織化的宗教是基於信仰和權威的。

Questioner: Where does this get us in our original question regarding the relationship between freedom and organization? Organization is always imposed or inherited from the environment, and freedom is always from the inside, and these two clash.

發問者：我們最初的問題是關於自由和組織之間的關係的，現在這些把我們帶到了哪裡？組織總是外在強加的，或者從環境中繼承的，而自由總是來自內在，這兩者互相衝突。

Krishnamurti: Where are you going to start? You must start from freedom. Where there is freedom there is love. This freedom and love will show you when to co-operate and when not to cooperate. This is not an act of choice, because choice is the result of confusion. Love and freedom are intelligence. So what we are concerned with is not the division between organization and freedom but whether we can live in this world without division at all. It is division which denies freedom and love, not organization. When organization divides, it leads to war. Belief in any form, ideals, however noble or effective, breed division. Organized religion is the cause of division, just like nationality and powergroups. So be concerned with those things which divide, those things which bring about division between man and man, whether they be individual or collective. The family, the church, and the State bring about such division. What is important is the movement of thought which divides. Thought itself is always divisive, so all action based on an idea or an ideology is division. Thought cultivates prejudice, opinion, judgement. Man in himself, being divided, seeks freedom out of this division. Not being able to find it he hopes to integrate the various divisions, and of course this is not possible. You cannot integrate two prejudices. To live in this world in freedom means to live with love, eschewing every form of division. When there is freedom and love, then this intelligence will act in co-operation, and will also know when not to cooperate.

克：你打算從哪裡開始？你必須從自由開始。有自由就有愛。這自由和愛會告訴你什麼時候合作，什麼時候不合作。這不是選擇的行為，因為選擇是困惑的結果。愛和自由就是智慧。所以我們關心的不是組織和自由之間的區分，而是我們能否完全沒有分別地生活在這個世界上。是分別否定了自由和愛，而不是組織。當組織進行分別，就導致戰爭。任何形式的信仰、理想，不管多麼高尚或者多麼有效，都滋生分別。組織化的宗教是分裂的根源，就像國家和權力集團一樣。所以關注這些分裂的事物，這些在人與人之間帶來分別的事物，不管它們是個人的還是集體的。家庭、教會和國家製造了這些分別。重要的是分別著的思想的運動。思想本身總是分裂的，所以基於想法或者觀念意識的所有行為都是分別。思想培植出偏見、觀點、評判。人本身，在分別著，追求從這分別中解脫出來的自由。找不到，他就希望把各種分別整合在一起，當然這是不可能的。你無法整合兩個偏見。自由地生活在這個世界上，意味著帶著愛生活，避開任何形式的分別。有自由和愛，那麼這種智慧就會在合作中運作，也會知道什麼時候不合作。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'LOVE AND SEX'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“愛與性”

Questioner: I'm a married man with several children. I've lived rather a dissipated life in search of pleasure, but a fairly civilized life too, and I've made a success of it financially. But now I'm middle-aged and am feeling concerned, not only about my family but also about the way the world is going. I'm not given to brutality or violent feelings, and I have always considered that forgiveness and compassion are the most important things in life. Without these man becomes subhuman. So if I may I should like to ask you what love is. Is there really such a thing? Compassion must be part of it, but I always feel that love is something much vaster, and if we could explore it together perhaps I should then make my life into something worthwhile before it is too late. I have really come to ask this one thing - what is love?

發問者：我是個有了幾個孩子的已婚男人。我曾經生活得相當放縱，追求快感，但也生活得相當文明，在財務方面我很成功。但是現在我中年了，我感覺到我不只關心我的家庭，同時也關心世界運行的方式。我並沒有殘忍或者暴力的感覺，我始終認為寬恕和慈悲是生活中最重要的事情。沒有這些，人會變得不太人道。所以，如果可以的話，我想問問你，愛是什麼。真的有這個東西嗎？慈悲肯定是它的一部分，但是我總是覺得愛是廣闊得多的東西，如果我們能夠一起探索它的話，也許在太遲之前，我能把我的生命變得有價值。我真的是來問這件事情的——愛是什麼？

Krishnamurti: Before we begin to go into this we must be very clear that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described, because any amount of explanation, however subtle and clever, will not open the heart to the immensity of love. This we must understand, and not merely stick to words: words are useful for communication, but in talking about something that is really non-verbal we must establish a communion between us, so that both of us feel and realize the same thing at the same time, with a fullness of mind and heart. Otherwise we will be playing with words. How can one approach this really very subtle thing that cannot be touched by the mind? We must go rather hesitatingly. Shall we first see what it is not, and then perhaps we may be able to see what it is? Through negation we may come upon the positive, but merely to pursue the positive leads to assumptions and conclusions which bring about division. You are asking what love is. We are saying we may come upon it when we know what it is not. Anything that brings about a division, a separation, is not love, for in that there is conflict, strife and brutality.

克：在我們開始深入這點之前，我們必須非常清楚，語言並非它所指之物，描述並非描述之物，因為任何解釋，不管多麼細緻多麼精巧，不會把心靈向無限的愛敞開。這點我們必須明白，而且不能僅僅去攀援詞語：語言對溝通來說是有用的，但是在探討某種非語言所能表達的東西時，我們之間必須建立一種交流，這樣我們兩個就都能同時全心全意地感受到、意識到同一種東西。否則我們就只是在玩弄詞句。一個人要怎樣接近這個真的十分微妙的、頭腦所無法觸及的東西？我們必須小心翼翼地前進。我們能不能先看看它不是什麼，然後也許我們就能看到它是什麼？通過否定，我們可能會遭遇那正確之物，但是單單去追求正確的，就會導致假設和結論，這會帶來分裂。你在問愛是什麼。我們說，當我們知道它不是什麼時，也許就能遇到它。任何帶來分裂、分離的事物，都不是愛，因為其中有衝突、爭鬥和殘忍。

Questioner: What do you mean by a division, a separation that brings about strife - what do you mean by it?

Krishnamurti: Thought in its very nature is divisive. It is thought that seeks pleasure and holds it. It is thought that cultivates desire.

Questioner: Will you go into desire a bit more?

發問者：你說的會帶來衝突的分裂、分離是什麼意思——你這麼說是什麼意思？

克：思想本身的性質就是分裂的。是思想在追求並緊抓快感。是思想滋生了欲望。

發問者：你能更深入地說說欲望嗎？

Krishnamurti: There is the seeing of a house, the sensation that it is lovely, then there is the desire to own it and to have pleasure from it, then there is the effort to get it. All this constitutes the centre, and this centre is the cause of division. This centre is the feeling of a "me", which is the cause of division, because this very feeling of "me" is the feeling of separation. People have called this the ego and all kinds of other names - the "lower self" as opposed to some idea of a "higher self" - but there is no need to be complicated about it; it is very simple. Where there is the centre, which is the feeling of "me", which in its activities isolates itself, there is division and resistance. And all this is the process of thought. So when you ask what is love, it is not of this centre. Love is not pleasure and pain, nor hate nor violence in any form.

克：看見一棟房子，覺得它很可愛，然後就有了想要擁有它並從中得到快樂的欲望，然後就會努力去得到它。這一切都構成了一個中心，這個中心就是分裂的原因。這個中心就是“我”的感覺，也就是分裂的原因，因為“我”的這種感覺本身就是分離感。人們稱之為自我以及其他各種名稱——“低我”，與某個“高我”的概念相對——但是沒有必要把它搞複雜；這很簡單。如果有中心，也就是“我”的感覺，它的行為就是在孤立它自己，就有了分裂和抗拒。所有這些都是思想的過程。所以當你問愛是什麼，愛並不來自那個中心。愛不是快樂和痛苦，也不是任何形式的仇恨和暴力。

Questioner: Therefore in this love you speak of there can be no sex because there cannot be desire?

Krishnamurti: Don't, please, come to any conclusion. We are investigating, exploring. Any conclusion or assumption prevents further enquiry. To answer this question we have also to look at the energy of thought. Thought, as we have said, sustains pleasure by thinking about something that has been pleasurable, cultivating the image, the picture. Thought engenders pleasure. Thinking about the sexual act becomes lust, which is entirely different from the act of sex. What most people are concerned with is the passion of lust. Craving before and after sex is lust. This craving is thought. Thought is not love.

Questioner: Can there be sex without this desire of thought?

發問者：那麼在你說的這種愛裡，是不是就沒有了性，因為沒有欲望？

克：請不要得出任何結論。我們在審視，在探索。任何結論或者假設都阻止了進一步的探詢。要回答這個問題，我們還必須來看看思想的能量。思想，正如我們所說的，通過思考曾經快樂的事情、培植意象和畫面來維持快感。思想產生快感。想著性行為就變成了貪欲，這與性行為本身是完全不同的。大多數人關心的是欲望的激情。在性行為發生之前和之後對性的渴望是貪欲。這種渴望是思想。思想不是愛。

發問者：是否存在沒有思想的這種欲望的性？

Krishnamurti: You have to find out for yourself. Sex plays an extraordinarily important part in our lives because it is perhaps the only deep, firsthand experience we have. Intellectually and emotionally we conform, imitate, follow, obey. There is pain and strife in all our relationships, except in the act of sex. This act, being so different and beautiful, we become addicted to, so it in turn becomes a bondage. The bondage is the demand for its continuation - again the action of the centre which is divisive. One is so hedged about - intellectually, in the family, in the community, through social morality, through religious sanctions - so hedged about that there is only this one relationship left in which there is freedom and intensity. Therefore we give tremendous importance to it. But if there were freedom all around then this would not be such a craving and such a problem. We make it a problem because we can't get enough of it, or because we feel guilty at having got it, or because in getting it we break the rules which society has laid down. It is the old society which calls the new society permissive because for the new society sex is a part of life. In freeing the mind from the bondage of imitation, authority, conformity and religious prescriptions, sex has its own place, but it won't be all-consuming. From this one can see that freedom is essential for love - not the freedom of revolt, not the freedom of doing what one likes nor of indulging openly or secretly one's cravings, but rather the freedom which comes in the understanding of this whole structure and nature of the centre. Then freedom is love.

克：這你得自己去發現。在我們的生活中，性是一個極其重要的部分，因為它也許是我們擁有的唯一深刻而一手的經驗。在智力上，在情感上，我們遵從、模仿、追隨以及服從。除了性行為，在我們所有的關係中都有痛苦和衝突。這種行為，是那麼的與眾不同和美好，我們變得沉溺其中，所以它就變成了一種束縛。這種束縛是渴望它能持續——這又是分裂的中心的行為。人是那麼衝突不安——在智力上，在家庭裡，在社團裡，置身社會道德和宗教制裁之中——人是如此衝突不安，只剩下這一種關係裡有自由和熱情。所以我們就賦予了它極度的重要性。但是如果到處都有自由的話，那麼性就不會成為如此強烈的渴望和這麼巨大的問題。我們把它變成了一個問題，因為我們無法得到足夠的性，或者因為我們因為得到了它而有負罪感，或者因為在得到它的過程中我們打破了社會定下的規則。舊體制的社會稱新體制的社會是放縱的，因為在新社會裡性是生活的一部分。把頭腦從模仿、權威、遵從和宗教條規的束縛中解放出來，性就有了它自己的位置，但是它不會強烈無度。從這裡你能看到自由是愛的精髓——不是反叛的自由，不是為所欲為的自由，也不是公開或者秘密地沉溺於自己的渴望中的自由，而是來自於對這個中心的整個結構和本質的瞭解的自由。這自由就是愛。

Questioner: So freedom is not licence?

Krishnamurti: No. Licence is bondage. Love is not hate, nor jealousy, nor ambition, nor the competitive spirit with its fear of failure. It is not the love of god nor the love of man - which again is a division. Love is not of the one or of the many. When there is love it is personal and impersonal, with and without an object. It is like the perfume of a flower; one or many can smell it: what matters is the perfume, not to whom it belongs.

發問者：那麼自由不是放縱？

克：不是。放縱是束縛。愛不是恨，不是嫉妒，不是野心，也不是懷著自己對失敗的恐懼的競爭精神。不是對神的愛，也不是對人的愛——那還是一種分別。愛不是對一個人的，也不是對很多人的。當有了愛，它就既是個人的也是非個人的，既有又沒有一個物件。就像花朵的芬芳；一個人或者很多人都能聞到：重要的是那芬芳，而不是它屬於誰。

Questioner: Where does forgiveness come in all this?

Krishnamurti: When there is love there can be no forgiveness. Forgiveness comes only after you have accumulated rancour; forgiveness is resentment. Where there is no wound there is no need for healing. It is inattention that breeds resentment and hate, and you become aware of them and then forgive. Forgiveness encourages division. When you are conscious that you are forgiving, then you are sinning. When you are conscious that you are tolerant, then you are intolerant. When you are conscious that you are silent, then there is no silence. When you deliberately set about to love, then you are violent. As long as there is an observer who says, "I am" or "I am not", love cannot be.

發問者：在所有這些中，寬恕是怎麼個位置？

克：有愛就不可能有寬恕。只有在你積累了冤仇之後，才會有寬恕；寬恕是憎恨。沒有傷害就不需要療愈。是漫不經心滋生了憎惡和仇恨，你意識到了它們，然後寬恕。寬恕助長了分裂。如果你意識到自己在寬恕，那麼你就是在犯罪。當你意識到你是寬容的，那麼你就是心胸狹窄的。當你意識到你是寂靜的，那麼就沒有寂靜了。當你有意地出發去愛，那麼你就是暴力的。只要有個觀察者在說，“我如何”或者“我不如何”，就不可能有愛。

Questioner: What place has fear in love?

Krishnamurti: How can you ask such a question? Where one is, the other is not. When there is love you can do what you will.

發問者：恐懼在愛中有什麼位置？

克：你怎麼能問這樣一個問題？有一個在，另一個就不在。如果有愛，你就能做想做的任何事情。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'PERCEPTION'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“覺知”

Questioner: You use different words for perception. You sometimes say "perception", but also "observe", "see", "understand", "be aware of". I suppose you use all these words to mean the same thing: to see clearly, completely, wholly. Can one see anything totally? We're not talking of physical or technical things, but psychologically can you perceive or understand anything totally? Isn't there always something concealed so that you only see partially? I'd be most obliged if you could go into this matter rather extensively. I feel this is an important question because it may perhaps be a clue to a great many things in life. If I could understand myself totally then perhaps I would have all my problems solved and be a happy superhuman being. When I talk about it I feel rather excited at the possibility of going beyond my little world with its problems and agonies. So what do you mean by perceiving, seeing? Can one see oneself completely?

發問者：你使用各種不同的詞語來表達覺知。有時候你用到“覺知”，也會用到“觀察”、“看到”、“瞭解”和“覺察”。我想，你用所有這些詞都是在表達同一件事情：清晰地，徹底地，完整地看到。一個人能完整地看到任何事情嗎？我們說的不是物理上的或者技術上的事情，而是在心理層面，你能完整地覺察或者瞭解任何事情嗎？難道不是總有些東西隱藏著，所以你只能看到局部？如果你能相當深入地探討這個問題，我將不勝感激。我覺得這是一個很重要的問題，因為它可能是瞭解生命中很多事情的線索。如果我能夠完全瞭解我自己，那麼也許我就能解決我所有的問題，並成為一個快樂而非凡的人。在我談到這點的時候，我感覺非常興奮，因為我有可能超越自己充滿問題和痛苦的狹隘世界。所以，你說的覺知、看到，究竟是什麼意思？一個人能夠完全看清自己嗎？

Krishnamurti: We always look at things partially. Firstly because we are inattentive and secondly because we look at things from prejudices, from verbal and psychological images about what we see. So we never see anything completely. Even to look objectively at nature is quite arduous. To look at a flower without any image, without any botanical knowledge - just to observe it - becomes quite difficult because our mind is wandering, uninterested. And even if it is interested it looks at the flower with certain appreciations and verbal descriptions which seem to give the observer a feeling that he has really looked at it. Deliberate looking is not looking. So we really never look at the flower. We look at it through the image. Perhaps it is fairly easy to look at something that doesn't deeply touch us, as when we go to the cinema and see something which stirs us for the moment but which we soon forget. But to observe ourselves without the image - which is the past, our accumulated experience and knowledge - happens very rarely. We have an image about ourselves. We think we ought to be this and not that. We have built a previous idea about ourselves and through it we look at ourselves. We think we are noble or ignoble and seeing what we actually are either depresses us or frightens us. So we cannot look at ourselves; and when we do, it is partial~ observation, and anything that is partial or incomplete doesn't bring understanding. It is only when we can look at ourselves totally that there is a possibility of being free from what we observe. Our perception is not only with the eyes, with the senses, but also with the mind, and obviously the mind is heavily conditioned. So intellectual perception is only partial perception, yet perceiving with the intellect seems to satisfy most of us, and we think we understand. A fragmentary understanding is the most dangerous and destructive thing. And that is exactly what is happening all over the world. The politician, the priest, the businessman, the technician; even the artist - all of them see only partially. And therefore they are really very destructive people. As they play a great part in the world their partial perception becomes the accepted norm, and man is caught in this. Each of us is at the same time the priest, the politician, the businessman, the artist, and many other fragmentary entities. And each of us is.

克：我們總是偏頗地看事情。首先是因為我們漫不經心，其次是因為我們總是透過我們關於所見事物形成的偏見，透過語言和心理意象去觀察事物。所以我們從未完整地看到任何事物。即使客觀地去觀察自然，也變得十分費力。不帶有意象地觀察一朵花，不帶著任何植物學知識——只是單純地觀察它——變得非常困難，因為我們的心智總是在遊蕩，漠不關心。即使心智感興趣，它還是會帶著某種欣賞之情和語言描述去觀察這朵花，這似乎給了觀察者一種他確實在觀察的感覺。刻意地去看，根本就不是觀察。所以我們從未真正觀察過花朵。我們透過意象觀察它。或許去看某個並沒有深深觸動我們的東西，會相當容易，而當我們去看電影，會有那麼一刻我們被某種東西深深打動，但是我們很快就忘記了。而不帶有意象地觀察我們自己——這個意象就是過去，是我們積累的經驗和知識——這樣的觀察鮮有發生。我們對自己抱有意象。我們覺得我們自己應該這樣，不應該那樣。我們已經為自己建立了先入為主的觀念，再透過這些觀念去觀察我們自己。我們認為自己是高尚的或者卑微的，而如實地看到我們自己，要麼會讓我們沮喪，要麼會嚇壞我們。所以我們不能完整地觀察自己，而在那完整的觀察中，是有可能從我們所觀察到的情形中解脫的。我們的覺知，不僅僅是通過眼睛，通過感官進行的，而且要用到心智，而心智顯然是嚴重受限的。所以智力上的理解，只是片面的覺知，而智力上的覺知似乎已經讓我們大多數人都心滿意足了，我們覺得自己明白了。支離破碎的瞭解是最危險和最具破壞性的東西。而這正是全世界都在發生著的事情。政客，牧師，商人，技術人員；還有藝術家——他們所有人都只是在片面地觀察。所以他們是真正非常具有破壞性的人們。因為他們在世界上佔有非常重要的地位，他們片面的覺知就變成了公認的規則，而人類也就深陷其中了。我們每個人都同時是牧師，政客，商人，藝術家，以及許多其他支離破碎的實體。我們每個人都是。

Questioner: I see this clearly. I'm using the word see intellectually, of course.

發問者：我清楚地看到了這點。當然，我用“看到”這個詞，也是從智識上講的。

Krishnamurti: If you see this totally, not intellectually or verbally or emotionally, then you will act and live quite a different kind of life. When you see a dangerous precipice or are faced by a dangerous animal there is no partial understanding or partial action; there is complete action.

克：如果你完全看到了這一點，不是從智識上、字面上或者情感上，那麼你就會行動，並開始過一種完全不同的生活。當你看到一個危險的懸崖，或者面對一個危險的動物時，就沒有片面的瞭解或者片面的行動；就會有全然的行動。

Questioner: But we are not faced with such dangerous crises every moment of our lives.

發問者：但是我們的生活中並不是每時每刻都面臨這麼兇險的危機。

Krishnamurti: We are faced with such dangerous crises all the time. You have become accustomed to them, or are indifferent to them, or you leave it to others to solve the problems; and these others are equally blind and lopsided.

克：我們確實始終一直面臨著這樣兇險的危機。你只是習慣了它們，或者對它們漠不關心了，或者你把它們留給別人去解決這些問題了；而這些別人一樣的盲目和偏頗。

Questioner: But how am I to be aware of these crises all the time, and why do you say there is a crisis all the time?

發問者：但是我要怎樣才能始終都覺察到這些危機，而你又為什麼說一直是有危機的？

Krishnamurti: The whole of life is in each moment. Each moment is a challenge. To meet this challenge inadequately is a crisis in living. We don't want to see that these are crises, and we shut our eyes to escape from them. So we become blinder, and the crises augment.

克：整個生命都在每個瞬間中。每個瞬間都是一項挑戰。不恰當地應對這挑戰就是生命中的危機。我們不想看到這些是危機，我們閉上眼睛逃避面對。所以我們變得更加盲目，危機就升級了。

Questioner: But how am I to perceive totally? I'm beginning to understand that I see only partially, and also to understand the importance of looking at myself and the world with complete perception, but there is so much going on in me that it is difficult to decide what to look at. My mind is like a great cage full of restless monkeys.

發問者：但是我要怎樣才能完整地覺知呢？我開始瞭解到我只是在片面地觀察，而且明白了以完全的覺知來觀察自己和世界的重要性，但是，我的內在有那麼多事情在進行著，很難決定該觀察些什麼。我的心智就像一個裝滿了煩躁不安的猴子的大籠子。

Krishnamurti: If you see one movement totally, in that totality every other movement is included. If you understand one problem completely, then you understand all human problems, for they are all interrelated. So the question is: can one understand, or perceive, or see, one problem so completely that in the very understanding of it one has understood the rest? This problem must be seen while it is happening, not after or before, as memory or as an example. For instance, it is no good now for us to go into anger or fear; the thing to do is to observe them as they arise. Perception is instantaneous: you understand something instantly or not at all: seeing, hearing, understanding are instantaneous. Listening and looking have duration.

克：如果你完整地觀察一項活動，在那完整中，所有其他的活動就都包括在其中了。如果你徹底明白了一個問題，那麼你就瞭解了人類的所有問題，因為它們都是相互關聯的。所以問題是：一個人能否如此徹底地瞭解、覺察或者看到一個問題，在那對問題的瞭解中，他就明白了所有其他的一切？這個問題必須在發生時被看清，而不是之前或之後，不是作為記憶或者一個例子。比如說，現在我們探討憤怒或者恐懼，就沒有意義；要做的事情是，在它們發生的時候觀察它們。覺知是即刻發生的：你要麼立即瞭解某件事情，要麼什麼都沒明白：看到，聽到，瞭解都是即刻發生的。而聽和看是有持續性的。

Questioner: My problem goes on. It exists in a span of time. You are saying that seeing is instantaneous and therefore out of time. What gives jealousy or any other habit, or any other problem, duration?

發問者：我的問題還在繼續。它在一段時間內都存在著。你說看到是即刻發生的，因而擺脫了時間。而是什麼給嫉妒或者別的什麼習慣或者問題帶來了持續性呢？

Krishnamurti: Don't they go on because you have not looked at them with sensitivity, choiceless awareness, intelligence? You have looked partially and therefore allowed them to continue. And in addition, wanting to get rid of them is another problem with duration. The incapacity to deal with something makes of it a problem with duration, and gives it life.

克：它們在繼續，難道不是因為你沒有敏銳地、以智慧和無選擇的覺知去觀察它們嗎？你只是片面地觀察，因而就讓它們得以繼續。此外，想要去除它們，是造成持續性的另一個癥結。沒能力解決某件事情，就讓它成為了一個持續的問題，並賦予了它生命力。

Questioner: But how am I to see that whole thing instantly? How am I to understand so that it never comes back?

發問者：但是我要怎樣即刻看到事情的全貌？我要如何去瞭解它，它才再不會反復出現？

Krishnamurti: Are you laying emphasis on never or on understanding? If you lay emphasis on never it means you want to escape from it permanently, and this means the creation of a second problem. So we have only one question, which is how to see the problem so completely that one is free of it. Perception can only be out of silence, not out of a chattering mind. The chattering may be the wanting to get rid of it, reduce it, escape from it, suppress it or find a substitute for it, but it is only a quiet mind that sees.

克：你把重點放在再不出現上還是瞭解上？如果你把重點放在再不出現上，那就意味著你想要永遠地從中逃脫，而這意味著製造出了另一個問題。所以我們只有一個問題，也就是要如何完全看清那個問題，從而從中解脫出來。覺知只能出自於寂靜，一個喋喋不休的心智是無法覺知的。喋喋不休的心智也許想要除掉那問題，減輕它，逃避它，壓抑它，或者尋找一個替代品，但是只有安靜的心靈才能看清。

Questioner: How am I to have a quiet mind?

發問者：我要如何獲得一顆安靜的心靈？

Krishnamurti: You don't see the truth that only a quiet mind sees. How to get a quiet mind doesn't arise. It is the truth that the mind must be quiet, and seeing the truth of this frees the mind from chattering. Perception, which is intelligence, is then operating, not the assumption that you must be silent in order to see. Assumption can also operate but that is a partial, fragmentary operation. There is no relationship between the partial and the total; the partial cannot grow into the total. Therefore seeing is of the greatest importance. Seeing is attention, and it is only inattention that gives rise to a problem.

克：只有安靜的心靈才能看清，你看不到這個真相。如何獲得安靜的心靈，這個問題不會被提出來。真相是，心智必須安靜，看到這個真相，就把心智從喋喋不休中解脫了出來。覺知，也就是智慧，就開始運作了，而不是推斷你為了看到而必須安靜。推斷也能夠運作，但是那是片面的，破碎的運作。片面和整體之間沒有關係；片面不能融入整體。因此，看到是最重要的。看到就是全神貫注，而只有漫不經心才會導致問題。

Questioner: How can I be attentive all the time? It's impossible!

發問者：我要怎樣才能一直全神貫注？那是不可能的！

Krishnamurti: That's quite right, it is impossible. But to be aware of your inattention is of the greatest importance, not how to be attentive all the time. It is greed that asks the question, "How can I be attentive all the time?" One gets lost in the practice of being attentive. The practice of being attentive is inattention. You cannot practice to be beautiful, or to love. When hate ceases the other is. Hate can cease only when you give your whole attention to it, when you learn and do not accumulate knowledge about it. Begin very simply.

克：非常對，那是不可能的。但是，覺察到你的漫不經心，這點是最重要的，而不是如何一直全神貫注。因為貪婪才會提出這個問題，“我要怎樣才能一直全神貫注？”一個人會在練習全神貫注中迷失。練習全神貫注就是漫不經心。你不能練習變得美麗，或者練習去愛。當恨止息時，就有了另一個，愛。只有當你對恨付出全部的注意力，當你在學習但是不再累積關於它的認識時，恨才會止息。很簡單地開始。

Questioner: What is the point of your talking if there is nothing we can practise after having heard you?

發問者：如果聽你說了之後我們沒什麼可練習的，那你的演講還有什麼意義？

Krishnamurti: The hearing is of the greatest importance, not what you practise afterwards. The hearing is the instantaneous action. The practice gives duration to problems. Practice is total inattention. Never practise: you can only practise mistakes. Learning is always new.

克：聽到是最重要的，而不是你之後去練習些什麼。傾聽是即刻發生的行動。而練習會使問題持續下去。練習完全就是漫不經心。永遠不要練習：你只能練習錯誤。學習永遠都是新鮮的。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SUFFERING'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“苦難”

Questioner: I seem to have suffered a great deal all my life, not physically, but through death and loneliness and the utter futility of my existence. I had a son whom I greatly loved. He died in an accident. My wife left me, and that caused a great deal of pain. I suppose I am like thousands of other middle-class people with sufficient money and a steady job. I'm not complaining of my circumstances but I want to understand what sorrow means, why it comes at all. One has been told that wisdom comes through sorrow, but I have found quite the contrary.

發問者：我的整個一生似乎受盡了苦難，不是身體上的痛苦，而是歷經死亡和寂寞，以及我那毫無意義的生存。我有個摯愛的兒子。他死於一次事故。我的妻子離開了我，這帶來了巨大的痛苦。我想我就像成千上萬的中產階級一樣，有足夠的錢和一份穩定的工作。我不是在抱怨我的境遇，而是我想瞭解悲傷意味著什麼，究竟為什麼會有悲傷。有人說智慧來自悲傷，但是我發現情況正相反。

Krishnamurti: I wonder what you have learnt from suffering? Have you learnt anything at all? What has sorrow taught you?

Questioner: It has certainly taught me never to be attached to people, and a certain bitterness, a certain aloofness and not to allow my feelings to run away with me. It has taught me to be very careful not to get hurt again.

Krishnamurti: So, as you say, it hasn't taught you wisdom; on the contrary it has made you more cunning, more insensitive. Does sorrow teach one anything at all except the obvious self-protective reactions?

克：我想知道你從苦難中學到了什麼？你究竟學到任何東西了嗎？悲傷教會了你什麼？

發問者：當然，它教我永遠不要執著於任何人，教會了我某種苦澀，某種超然，不讓我逃避我的感覺。它教我要十分小心不再受傷害。

克：那麼，如你所說，它沒有教你智慧；相反，它使你變得更狡猾，更不敏感。除了這些明顯的自我保護反應，悲傷究竟教你任何東西了嗎？

Questioner: I have always accepted suffering as part of my life, but I feel now, somehow, that I'd like to be free of it, free of all the tawdry bitterness and indifference without again going through all the pain of attachment. My life is so pointless and empty, utterly self-enclosed and insignificant. It's a life of mediocrity, and perhaps that mediocrity is the greatest sorrow of all.

發問者：我一直接受痛苦是我生活的一部分，但是我現在覺得，從某種程度上，我想從中解脫出來，擺脫所有世俗的苦難和冷漠，不再經歷所有執著的痛苦。我的生命是如此的沒有意義和空虛，極其自我封閉和微不足道。這是平庸的生活，也許平庸是最深重的悲傷。

Krishnamurti: There is the personal sorrow and the sorrow of the world. There is the sorrow of ignorance and the sorrow of time. This ignorance is the lack of knowing oneself, and the sorrow of time is the deception that time can cure, heal and change. Most people are caught in that deception and either worship sorrow or explain it away. But in either case it continues, and one never asks oneself if it can come to an end.

克：有個人的悲傷，也有世界的悲傷。有無知的悲傷和時間的悲傷。這種無知是缺乏對自己的認識，時間的悲傷是自欺欺人地認為時間能夠治癒，療傷以及改變。大多數人都被困在這個謊言中，要麼禮拜悲傷，要麼用解釋來打發悲傷。但是，不管用哪種方式，悲傷還是會繼續，而人們從來不問問自己悲傷是否能夠終止。

Questioner: But I am asking now if it can come to an end, and how? How am I to end it? I understand that it's no good running away from it, or resisting it with bitterness and cynicism. What am I to do to end the grief which I have carried for so long?

發問者：但是我現在就在問，它能否終止，以及怎樣才能停止？我要如何停止悲傷？我知道，用苦澀嘲諷和玩世不恭來逃避或者抗拒悲傷沒有什麼好處。我要怎樣才能終止我背負了這麼久的悲傷？

Krishnamurti: Self-pity is one of the elements of sorrow. Another element is being attached to someone and encouraging or fostering his attachment to you. Sorrow is not only there when attachment fails you but its seed is in the very beginning of that attachment. In all this the trouble is the utter lack of knowing oneself. Knowing oneself is the ending of sorrow. We are afraid to know ourselves because we have divided ourselves into the good and the bad, the evil and the noble, the pure and the impure. The good is always judging the bad, and these fragments are at war with each other. This war is sorrow. To end sorrow is to see the fact and not invent its opposite, for the opposites contain each other. Walking in this corridor of opposites is sorrow. This fragmentation of life into the high and the low, the noble and the ignoble, God and the Devil, breeds conflict and pain. When there is sorrow, there is no love. Love and sorrow cannot live together.

克：自憐是悲傷的一個因素。另一個因素是執著於某人，並助長或加強他對你的執著。不僅僅是在你所執著的人離你而去的時候才會有悲傷，而是悲傷的種子在執著剛剛開始的時候就已經種下了。這一切的麻煩都來自於對自己極其缺乏瞭解。瞭解自己就是悲傷的終結。我們害怕瞭解自己，因為我們把自己分成了好和壞，邪惡和高尚，純潔和不純潔。好的總是在評判壞的，這些碎片在彼此交戰。這戰爭就是悲傷。終結悲傷就是看到這個事實，而不去臆造它的對立面，因為對立面之中就包含著彼此。在這對立面的通道中行走，就是悲傷。把生活分成高的和低的，高尚的和卑微的，上帝和魔鬼，這種支離破碎的劃分就滋生了衝突和痛苦。有悲傷就沒有愛。愛和悲傷無法共存。

Questioner: Ah! But love can inflict sorrow on another. I may love another and yet bring him sorrow.

Krishnamurti: Do you bring it, if you love, or does he? If another is attached to you, with or without encouragement, and you turn away from him and he suffers, is it you or he who has brought about his suffering?

Questioner: You mean I am not responsible for someone else's sorrow, even if it is on my account? How does sorrow ever end then?

發問者：啊！但是愛會帶給別人悲傷。我可能愛上別人，但是也可能給他帶來悲傷。

克：如果你愛著，是你帶來了悲傷，還是他帶來的？如果別人執著於你，不管這執著有沒有受到鼓勵，然後你離他而去，他就痛苦，那麼是你還是他帶來了他的痛苦？

發問者：你的意思是我不用為別人的悲傷負責，即使那是由於我的原因？那麼悲傷要怎樣才能終止？

Krishnamurti: As we have said, it is only in knowing oneself completely that sorrow ends. Do you know yourself at a glance, or hope to after a long analysis? Through analysis you cannot know yourself. You can only know yourself without accumulation, in relationship, from moment to moment. This means that one must be aware, without any choice, of what is actually taking place. It means to see oneself as one is, without the opposite, the ideal, without the knowledge of what one has been. If you look at yourself with the eyes of resentment or rancour then what you see is coloured by the past. The shedding of the past all the time when you see yourself is the freedom from the past. Sorrow ends only when there is the light of understanding, and this light is not lit by one experience or by one flash of understanding; this understanding is lighting itself all the time. Nobody can give it to you - no book, trick, teacher or saviour. The understanding of yourself is the ending of sorrow.

克：正如我們說過的，只有在對自己完全的瞭解中，悲傷才能終止。你是在一瞥之間就瞭解了自己，還是希望經過漫長的分析來瞭解自己？通過分析你無法瞭解自己。只有一刻接一刻地在關係中，沒有任何積累，你才能瞭解自己。這就意味著你必須沒有任何選擇地覺察到真實發生著的事情。如果你是在用憎惡或者仇恨的雙眼來看自己的話，那麼你所看到的就被過去染上了顏色。當你看自己的時候始終能夠剝離過去，那就是從過去中解脫了出來。只有當有了這種瞭解的光芒時，悲傷才能終結，這光不是由一次經驗或者一次一閃而過的領悟點亮的；這種瞭解始終都在點亮著自己。沒人能把它給你——也沒有書本、訣竅，老師或者救主能夠給你。瞭解自己就是悲傷的終結。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE HEART AND THE MIND'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“心靈與頭腦”

Questioner: Why is it that man has divided his being into different compartments - the intellect and the emotions? Each seems to exist independently of the other. These two driving forces in life are often so contradictory that they seem to tear apart the very fabric of our being. To bring them together so that man can act as a total entity has always been one of the principal aims of life. And added to these two things within man there is a third which is his changing environment. So these two contradictory things within him are further in opposition to the third which appears to be outside himself. Here is a problem so confusing, so contradictory, so vast that the intellect invents an outside agency called God to bring them together, and this further complicates the whole business. There is only this one problem in life.

發問者：為什麼人們把自己的存在分成了兩個不同的部分——理智和情感？其中的任何一個似乎都獨立於另一個而存在。這兩個生活中的驅動力常常互相矛盾，以致於它們似乎在撕裂著我們存在的每個方面。把它們整合在一起，這樣人就能作為一個完整的實體來運作，這始終是生命中主要的目標之一。除了人們內在的這兩個因素之外，第三個因素就是不斷變化的環境。所以人內在這互相矛盾的兩者，與表現為他的外在的環境又進一步地對立。這個問題是這麼令人困擾，這麼矛盾重重，這麼巨大，所以心智就發明出一個被稱為“上帝”的外在媒介來把它們整合在一起，而這又進一步把整個事情弄得更複雜了。生命中只有這一個問題。

Krishnamurti: You seem to be carried away by your own words. Is this really a problem to you or are you inventing it in order to have a good discussion? If it is for a discussion then it has no real content. But if it is a real problem then we can go into it deeply. Here we have a very complex situation, the inner dividing itself into compartments and further separating itself from its environment. And still further, it separates the environment, which it calls society, into classes, races and economic, national and geographic groups. This seems to be what is actually going on in the world and we call it living. Being unable to solve this problem we invent a super-entity, an agency that we hope will bring about a harmony and a binding quality in ourselves and between us. This binding quality which we call religion brings about another factor of division in its turn. So the question becomes: what will bring about a complete harmony of living in which there are no divisions but a state in which the intellect and the heart are both the expression of a total entity? That entity is not a fragment.

克：你似乎被自己的語言給帶跑了。對你來說，這真的是個問題嗎，還是你只是為了能好好討論而編造了這個問題？如果只是為了討論，那麼它就沒什麼真正的內容。但是，如果它真是一個問題，那麼我們可以深入探討一下。我們這裡有一種非常複雜的狀況，內在地把自己分成了兩部分，進一步又把自己跟環境分離開來。更甚者，它還把環境給劃分成了所謂的社會、階級、種族以及經濟、國家和地域上的團體。這看起來就是世界上實際正在發生著的事情，我們把它叫做生活。解決不了這個問題，我們就發明了一個超級實體，一個媒介，希望它能帶來我們自身和我們之間的和諧與一種持久的品質。這種我們稱之為宗教的持久品質，回過頭來又帶來了另一個分裂的因素。所以問題就變成了：怎樣才能帶來生活的徹底和諧，其中沒有分裂，只有一種狀態，在這個狀態中，理智和心靈都是一個完整實體的表現。這個實體不是一個碎片。

Questioner: I agree with you, but how is this to be brought about? This is what man has always longed for and has sought through all religions and all political and social utopias.

發問者：這點我同意，但是要怎樣才能實現這點？這是人類一直渴望的，通過所有的宗教，所有的政治和社會烏托邦，在一直追尋的東西。

Krishnamurti: You ask how. The "how" is the great mistake. It is the separating factor. There is your "how" and my "how" and somebody else's "how". So if we never used that word we would be really enquiring and not seeking a method to achieve a determined result. So can you put away altogether this idea of a recipe, a result? If you can define a result you already know it and therefore it is conditioned and not free. If we put away the recipe then we are both capable of enquiring if it is at all possible to bring about a harmonious whole without inventing an outside agency, for all outside agencies, whether they are environmental or superenvironmental, only increase the problem.

First of all, it is the mind that divides itself as feeling, intellect and environment; it is the mind that invents the outside agency; it is the mind that creates the problem.

克：你問應該怎樣。“怎樣”是個巨大的錯誤。這就是分裂的因素。有你的“怎樣”和我的“怎樣”，還有別人的“怎樣”。所以，如果我們從沒用過那個詞，我們就真的是在探詢了，而不是在尋找一個方法來達成某個設定的結果。所以，你能不能把尋找一個方法或者結果的想法完全放在一邊？如果你明確了一個結果，你就已經知道了它，那麼就受限了，不自由了。如果我們把方法放在一邊，那麼我們兩個就都能探索了，看看究竟是否可能帶來一個和諧的整體，而不用發明一個外在的媒介，因為所有外在的媒介，不管它們是環境裡的還是超越環境的，都只會增加問題。

首先，是頭腦把自己劃分成了感情、理智和環境；是頭腦編造出了外在的媒介；是頭腦製造了問題。

Questioner: This division is not only in the mind. It is even stronger in the feelings. The Muslims and Hindus do not think themselves separate, they feel themselves separate, and it is this feeling that actually makes them separate and makes them destroy each other.

發問者：這種分裂不只是在頭腦裡有。在感情裡這種分裂更嚴重。穆斯林們和印度教徒們並不認為他們是分離的，他們是感覺到彼此是分離的，實際上是這種感覺在分離他們，讓他們互相摧毀對方。

Krishnamurti: Exactly: the thinking and the feeling are one; they have been one from the beginning and that is exactly what we are saying. So our problem is not the integration of the different fragments but the understanding of this mind and heart which are one. Our problem is not how to get rid of classes or how to build better utopias or breed better political leaders or new religious teachers. Our problem is the mind. To come to this point not theoretically but to see it actually is the highest form of intelligence. For then you do not belong to any class or religious group; then you are not a Muslim, a Hindu, a jew or a Christian. So we now have only one issue: why does the mind of man divide? It not only divides its own functions into feelings and thoughts but separates itself as the "I" from the "you", and the "we" from the "they". The mind and the heart are one. Don't let us forget it. Remember it when we use the word "mind". So our problem is, why does the mind divide?

克：確實如此：思想和感覺是一體的；它們一開始的時候是一體的，這確實正是我們所說的。所以我們的問題不是把不同的碎片整合在一起，而是瞭解一體的頭腦和心靈。我們的問題不是如何去除階級，不是如何建立更好的烏托邦，也不是如何培養更好的政治領導人或者新的宗教導師。我們的問題就是頭腦。不是從理論上得出這點，而是如實地看到這一點，就是最高形式的智慧。因為那樣你就不再屬於任何階級、任何宗教團體；你就不再是一個穆斯林，一個印度教徒，一個猶太教徒或者一個基督徒。那麼我們現在就只有一個問題了：為什麼人類的頭腦要劃分？它不僅僅把自己的功能劃分為情感和思想，它還把自己作為“我”和“你”分開，把“我們”和“他們”分離開來。頭腦和心靈是一體的。我們不要忘了這點。當我們用“頭腦”這個詞的時候，請記住這點。所有我們的問題是，頭腦為什麼要劃分？

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: The mind is thought. All the activity of thought is separation, fragmentation. Thought is the response of memory which is the brain. The brain must respond when it sees a danger. This is intelligence, but this same brain has somehow been conditioned not to see the danger of division. Its actions are valid and necessary when they deal with facts. Equally, it will act when it sees the fact that division and fragmentation are dangerous to it. This is not an idea or an ideology or a principle or a concept - all of which are idiotic and separative: it is a fact. To see danger the brain has to be very alert and awake, all of it, not just a segment of it.

發問者：是的。

克：頭腦就是思想。思想的所有行為都是分離，分裂。思想是記憶也就是大腦的反應。大腦看到危險的時候必然會反應。這是智慧，但是這同一個大腦受到了某種局限，看不到分別的危險。在應對事實的時候，它的行動就是有效的必要的。同樣，當它看到分別和分裂對它來說是危險的這個事實，它會行動。這不是一個想法、觀念、原則或者概念——那些都是愚蠢的分裂的：這是個事實。看到危險，大腦必須非常警覺和清醒，整個大腦都是這樣，而不只是其中的一個部分。

Questioner: How is it possible to keep the whole brain awake?

Krishnamurti: As we said, there is no "how" but only seeing the danger, that is the whole point. The seeing is not the result of propaganda or conditioning; the seeing is with the whole brain. When the brain is completely awake then the mind becomes quiet. When the brain is completely awake there is no fragmentation, no separation, no duality. The quality of this quietness is of the highest importance. You can make the mind quiet by drugs and all kinds of tricks but such deceptions breed various other forms of illusion and contradiction. This quietness is the highest form of intelligence which is never personal or impersonal, never yours or mine. Being anonymous, it is whole and immaculate. It defies description for it has no quality. This is awareness, this is attention, this is love, this is the highest. The brain must be completely awake, that's all. As the man in the jungle must keep terribly awake to survive, so the man in the jungle of the world must keep terribly awake to live completely.

發問者：怎麼可能讓整個大腦都清醒呢？

克：正如我們說過的，沒有“如何”，只有看到危險，這就是整個關鍵所在。這看到不是宣傳或者局限的結果；是用整個大腦看到。當大腦完全清醒，心智就變得安靜了。當大腦完全清醒，就沒有了分裂，沒有了分離，沒有了二元性。這種寂靜的品質是最重要的。你可以用藥物和各種把戲讓心智變得安靜，但是這種欺騙滋生出別的各種形式的幻覺和衝突。這種寂靜是最高形式的智慧，它永遠不是個人的也不是非個人的，永遠不是你的也不是我的。它是無名的，是完整的，完美無暇的。它無法描述，因為它沒有特性。這就是覺察，這就是關注，這就是愛，這就是至高無上者。大腦必須完全清醒，就這些。就像叢林裡的人必須極度清醒才能生存一樣，在世界這個叢林裡的人也必須保持極度清醒才能完整地生活。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE 'BEAUTY AND THE ARTIST'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“美與藝術家”

Questioner: I wonder what an artist is? There on the banks of the Ganges, in a dark little room, a man sits weaving a most beautiful sari in silk and gold, and in Paris in his atelier another man is painting a picture which he hopes will bring him fame. Somewhere there is a writer cunningly spinning out stories stating the old, old problem of man and woman; then there is the scientist in his laboratory and the technician putting together a million parts so that a rocket may go to the moon. And in India a musician is living a life of great austerity in order to transmit faithfully the distilled beauty of his music. There is the housewife preparing a meal, and the poet walking alone in the woods. Aren't these all artists in their own way? I feel that beauty is in the hands of everybody, but they don't know it. The man who makes beautiful clothes or excellent shoes, the woman who arranged those flowers on your table, all of them seem to work with beauty. I often wonder why it is that the painter, the sculptor, the composer, the writer - the so-called creative artists - have such extraordinary importance in this world and not the shoemaker or the cook. Aren't they creative too? When you consider all the varieties of expression which people consider beautiful, then what place has a true artist in life, and who is the true artist? It is said that beauty is the very essence of all life. Is that building over there, which is considered to be so beautiful, the expression of that essence? I should greatly appreciate it if you would go into this whole question of beauty and the artist.

發問者：我想知道藝術家是什麼？在恒河岸邊的一個小黑屋子裡，一個人坐著用絲線和金線織出一件極其漂亮的紗麗，而在巴黎，另一個人在他的畫室裡畫出一幅畫，希望藉此獲得美名。在某個地方有個作家在巧妙地編寫故事，講述男人和女人之間那非常非常古老的問題；還有在自己實驗室裡的科學家，以及在組裝無數個零件的技術人員，那樣火箭或許就能登月了。在印度，一個音樂家在過一種極其簡樸的生活，為了能忠實地傳達他音樂中那昇華出來的美。還有在準備飯菜的家庭主婦，和在林中獨行的詩人。這些人難道不都是有他們自己方式的藝術家嗎？我覺得美在每個人的手中，但是他們不知道這點。製作出漂亮的衣服或者極好的鞋子的男人，在你的桌子上擺放那些鮮花的女人，他們所有人似乎都在與美一起工作。我常常納悶，為什麼那些畫家，雕塑家，作曲家，作家——所謂創造性的藝術家——在這個世界上擁有如此非凡的重要性，而鞋匠或者廚師就沒有。他們難道不也具有創造力嗎？如果你把人們認為美的所有表現形式都考慮進來的話，那麼一個真正的藝術家在生活中有怎樣的位置，誰又是真正的藝術家？有人說美是所有生命的最核心之處。那邊的那棟樓，被認為非常漂亮，它是那核心的表現嗎？如果你能深入這整個關於美和藝術家的問題，我將不勝感激。

Krishnamurti: Surely the artist is one who is skilled in action? This action is in life and not outside of life. Therefore if it is living skilfully that truly makes an artist. This skill can operate for a few hours in the day when he is playing an instrument, writing poems or painting pictures, or it can operate a bit more if he is skilled in many such fragments - like those great men of the Renaissance who worked in several different media. But the few hours of music or writing may contradict the rest of his living which is in disorder and confusion. So is such a man an artist at all? The man who plays the violin with artistry and keeps his eye on his fame isn't interested in the violin, he is only exploiting it to be famous, the "me" is far more important than the music, and so it is with the writer or the painter with an eye on fame. The musician identifies his "me" with what he considers to be beautiful music, and the religious man identifies his "me" with what he considers to be the sublime. All these are skilled in their particular little fields but the rest of the vast field of life is disregarded. So we have to find out what is skill in action, in living, not only in painting or in writing or in technology, but how one can live the whole of life with skill and beauty. Are skill and beauty the same? Can a human being - whether he be an artist or not - live the whole of his life with skill and beauty? Living is action and when that action breeds sorrow it ceases to be skilful. So can a man live without sorrow, without friction, without jealousy and greed, without conflict of any kind? The issue is not who is an artist and who is not an artist but whether a human being, you or another, can live without torture and distortion. Of course it is profane to belittle great music, great sculpture, great poetry or dancing, or to sneer at it; that is to be unskilled in one's own life. But the artistry and beauty which is skill in action should operate throughout the day, not just during a few hours of the day. This is the real challenge, not just playing the piano beautifully. You must play it beautifully if you touch it at all, but that is not enough. It is like cultivating a small corner of a huge field. We are concerned with the whole field and that field is life. What we always do is to neglect the whole field and concentrate on fragments, our own or other people's. Artistry is to be completely awake and therefore to be skilful in action in the whole of life, and this is beauty.

克：擅長行動的人當然就是藝術家？這行動是生活裡的，並不在生活之外。因此，如果嫺熟地生活，那就真正地造就了一個藝術家。如果他演奏某種樂器，寫詩，或者畫畫，這技藝就在一天中運作幾個小時，如果他在很多這樣的細碎領域都很擅長，這種技藝就能多運作一會——就像文藝復興時期的那些偉人，在很多媒質上都能創作。但是搞音樂或者寫作的幾個小時，也許會和他生活的其他方面相衝突，他生活在失序和困惑中。那麼究竟有藝術家這樣的人嗎？一個人技藝高超地演奏小提琴，同時眼睛緊盯自己的名聲，他其實對小提琴並不感興趣，他只是利用它來成名，“我”比音樂重要多了，著眼于名聲的作家或者畫家也是一樣。音樂家把他的“自我”與他認為的美妙音樂認同在一起，宗教人士把他的“自我”與他認為至高無上的東西認同在一起。所有這些人都在他們特定的小小領域很擅長，卻無視生活其他方面的廣闊領域。所以我們得去發現行動中，生活中的技藝是什麼，而不只是在繪畫中、寫作中或者技術中的技藝，而是一個人要怎樣以技巧和美來過一種完整的生活。技巧和美是一樣的嗎？一個人能不能——不管他是不是藝術家——以技巧和美來過他完整的生活？生活是行動，當那行動滋生出悲傷，它就不再是技巧嫺熟的了。所以，一個人能不能沒有悲傷，沒有摩擦，沒有嫉妒和貪婪，沒有任何衝突地生活？這個問題不是誰是藝術家誰不是藝術家，而是一個人能不能，你或者別人，能不能沒有折磨和扭曲地生活。當然，貶低或者嘲笑偉大的音樂，偉大的雕塑，偉大的詩歌或者舞蹈，是種不敬；那是一個人不擅長過自己的生活。但是，藝術和美，也就是行動中的技巧，應該整天都在運作，而不是一天只運作幾個小時。這是真正的挑戰，而不只是動聽地彈奏鋼琴。如果你接觸了鋼琴，你就必須動聽地彈奏，但是這還不夠。這就像只耕作一大片土地中的一個小角落。我們關心的是整片土地，這片土地就是生活。我們總是忽略整個領域，只專注於我們自己的或者別人的那些碎片。藝術即是完全的覺醒，進而在整個生活中擅長行動，而這就是美。

Questioner: What about the factory worker or the office employee? Is he an artist? Doesn't his work preclude skill in action and so deaden him that he has no skill in anything else either? Is he not conditioned by his work?

發問者：那工廠的工人或者辦公室雇員呢？他是藝術家嗎？難道他的工作不正妨礙了行動的技巧，如此壓抑他以致於他在其他任何事情上都不擅長？他難道不是被他的工作局限了嗎？

Krishnamurti: Of course he is. But if he wakes up he will either leave his work or so transform it that it becomes artistry. What is important is not the work but the waking up to the work. What is important is not the conditioning of the work but to wake up.

克：他當然如此。但是如果他覺醒了，他要麼會離開他的工作，要麼把它變成一門藝術。重要的不是工作，而是對工作醒覺過來。重要的不是工作的局限，而是覺醒。

Questioner: What do you mean, wake up?

發問者：你說的覺醒是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: Are you awakened only by circumstances, by challenges, by some disaster or joy? Or is there a state of being awake without any cause? If you are awakened by an event, a cause, then you depend on it, and when you any dependence is the end of skill, the end of artistry.

克：你是不是只因為環境，因為挑戰，因為某種災難或者快樂才會醒來？還是有一種覺醒的狀態不需要任何原因？如果你因為一件事，一個原因醒來，那麼你就會依賴它，如果你有任何依賴，技巧就結束了，藝術就結束了。

Questioner: What is this other awakened state that has no cause? You are talking about a state in which there is neither a cause nor an effect. Can there be a state of mind that is not the result of some cause? I don't understand that because surely everything we think and everything we are is the result of a cause? There is the endless chain of cause and effect.

發問者：這另一種沒有原因的覺醒狀態是什麼？你說的是一種既沒有原因也沒有結果的狀態。能有一種不是某種原因的結果的心智狀態嗎？我不明白，是不是因為我們思考的所有事情，我們所是的一切，必然都是某個原因的結果？因果的鏈條無休無止。

Krishnamurti: This chain of cause and effect is endless because the effect becomes the cause and the cause begets further effects, and so on.

克：因果的鏈條無休無止，那是因為果會變成因，因又導致更多的果，如此往復。

Questioner: Then what action is there outside this chain?

發問者：那麼在這鏈條之外的行動是什麼？

Krishnamurti: All we know is action with a cause, a motive, action which is a result. All action is in relationship. If relationship is based on cause it is cunning adaptation, and therefore inevitably leads to another form of dullness. Love is the only thing that is causeless, that is free; it is beauty, it is skill, it is art. Without love there is no art. When the artist is playing beautifully there is no "me; there is love and beauty, and this is art. This is skill in action. Skill in action is the absence of the "me". Art is the absence of the "me". But when you neglect the whole field of life and concentrate only on a little part - however much the "me" may then be absent, you are still living unskilfully and therefore you are not an artist of life. The absence of "me" in living is love and beauty, which brings its own skill. This is the greatest art: living skilfully in the whole field of Life.

克：我們所有知道的，只是有原因，有動機的行動，這行動是個結果。所有的行動都處於關係中。如果關係基於原因，那它就是狡猾的調整，因而不可避免地會導致另一種形式的遲鈍。愛是唯一沒有原因的東西，那是自由的；那是美，是技巧，是藝術。沒有愛就沒有藝術。當藝術家動聽演奏的時候，沒有“我”；只有愛和美，這是藝術。這就是行動的技巧。行動的技巧是“我”的缺席。藝術是“我”的缺席。但是當你忽略了生命的整個領域，只集中於一小部分的時候——不管那時“我”如何不在，你還是沒有技藝嫺熟地生活著，因而你不是生活的藝術家。在生活中“我”的缺席，就是愛和美，這會帶來它自己的技巧。這是最偉大的藝術：在整個生命的領域裡技藝嫺熟地生活。

Questioner: Oh Lord! How am I to do that? I see it and feel it in my heart but how can I maintain it?

發問者：哦天哪！我要怎樣做到這點？我看到了這點，內心也感受到了，但是我要如何保持它？

Krishnamurti: There is no way to maintain it, there is no way to nourish it, there is no practising of it; there is only the seeing of it. Seeing is the greatest of all skills.

克：沒有辦法保持它，沒有辦法滋養它，沒有辦法練習它；只有看清這點。看清，是所有技藝中最偉大的。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'DEPENDENCE'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“依賴”

Questioner: I should like to understand the nature of dependence. I have found myself depending on so many things - on women, on different kinds of amusement, on good wine, on my wife and children, on my friends, on what people say. Fortunately I no longer depend on religious entertainment, but I depend on the books I read to stimulate me and on good conversation. I see that the young are also dependent, perhaps not so much as I am, but they have their own particular forms of dependence. I have been to the East and have seen how there they depend on the guru and the family. Tradition there has greater importance and is more deeply rooted than it is here in Europe, and, of course, very much more so than in America. But we all seem to depend on something to sustain us, not only physically but, much more, inwardly. So I am wondering whether it is at all possible to be really free of dependence, and should one be free of it?

發問者：我想瞭解依賴的本質。我發覺自己對很多事物都有依賴，我依賴女人、各種娛樂、美酒、妻子和孩子、朋友以及人們的言論。幸運的是，我不再依賴宗教的把戲了，但我還得靠讀書來激勵自己，還依賴良好的交談。我看到年輕人同樣也有依賴性，也許沒有我這樣嚴重吧，但他們有自己特定的依賴形式。我曾到過東方，看到那裡的人是多麼依賴上師和家庭。比起歐洲這裡，傳統在那兒顯得更加重要，更加根深蒂固，當然，與美國相比，就更甚了。但是似乎我們所有人都依賴某些東西才能生存下去，不僅身體層面是這樣，內在更是如此。因此我想知道，究竟有沒有可能真正地擺脫所有依賴，而且人是不是應該從中解脫？

Krishnamurti: I take it you are concerned with the psychological inward attachments. The more one is attached the greater the dependence. The attachment is not only to persons but to ideas and to things. One is attached to a particular environment, to a particular country and so on. And from this springs dependence and therefore resistance.

克：我想你關心的是心理上內在的執著。一個人越是執著，依賴性就越強。執著的物件不僅可以是人，也可以是觀念和實物。一個人可能執著於某種特定的環境，一個特定的國家等等。從執著中就產生了依賴，進而產生了抗拒。

Questioner: Why resistance?

發問者：為什麼會有抗拒？

Krishnamurti: The object of my attachment is my territorial or my sexual domain. This I protect, resisting any form of encroachment on it from others. I also limit the freedom of the person to whom I am attached and limit my own freedom. So attachment is resistance. I am attached to something or somebody. That attachment is possessiveness; possessiveness is resistance, so attachment is resistance.

克：我執著的物件就是我的領地或我的性範疇。我要保護它們，抵抗任何形式的外來入侵。我也限制了我所執著的那個人的自由，同時也為自己的自由設了限。所以，執著就是抗拒。我執著於某人或某物。那種執著就是佔有；佔有就是抗拒，因此，執著就是抗拒。

Questioner: Yes, I see that.

發問者：是的，我懂了。

Krishnamurti: Any form of encroachment on my possessions leads to violence, legally or psychologically. So attachment is violence, resistance, imprisonment - the imprisonment of oneself and of the object of attachment. Attachment means this is mine and not yours; keep off! So this relationship is resistance against others. The whole world is divided into mine and yours: my opinion, my judgement, my advice, my God, my country - an infinity of such nonsense. Seeing all this taking place, not in abstraction but actually in our daily life, we can ask why there is this attachment to people, things and ideas. Why does one depend? All being is relationship and all relationship is in this dependence with its violence, resistance and domination. We have made the whole world into this. Where one possesses one must dominate. We meet beauty, love springs up, and immediately it turns to attachment and all this misery begins and the love has gone out of the window. Then we ask, "What has happened to our great love?" This is actually what is happening in our daily life. And, seeing all this, we can now ask: why is man invariably attached, not only to that which is lovely, but also to every form of illusion and to so many idiotic fancies?

克：如果我的財產被人以任何形式侵佔，就會導致暴力，通過法律，或者在心理上與其對抗。因此，執著即暴力、抗拒和牢籠——執著的主體和物件都被囚禁了。執著意味著這是我的，不是你的；離遠點！由此可見，這種關係乃是對別人的抗拒。整個世界被分成了你的和我的：我的觀點，我的判斷，我的建議，我的上帝，我的國家——這樣的無稽之談從未休止。看到所有這些事情實實在在地發生在我們的日常生活中，而不是在抽象的思維中，我們會問為什麼會有對人、事物和觀念的依賴。為什麼人必須依賴？一切存在都是關係，所有的關係都處於這種依賴中，與之相伴的是暴力、抗拒和控制。是我們把整個世界變得如此。哪裡有佔據，哪裡就必然會有控制。我們遇見了一個美人，愛情噴湧而出，很快，愛情變成了執著，所有這些苦惱就都開始了，然後愛就悄悄溜出了窗外。之後，我們會問，“我們偉大的愛情到底怎麼了?”這就是我們日常生活中實際發生著的事情。看到這一切，我們不禁會問：為什麼人類一味地執著，不僅執著於可愛的事物，還執著於各種形式的幻覺以及數不清的愚蠢念頭？

Freedom is not a state of non-dependence; it is a positive state in which there isn't any dependence. But it is not a result, it has no cause. This must be understood very clearly before we can go into the question of why man depends or falls into the trap of attachment with all its miseries. Being attached we try to cultivate a state of independence - which is another form of resistance.

自由並不是非依賴狀態；這是一種積極的狀態，其中沒有任何的依賴。但它不是結果，也沒有起因。在我們深入探討人類為何依賴或陷入執著的陷阱以及所有與之相伴的痛苦之前，必須清楚地理解上面這點。一旦有執著，我們就會想辦法培養一種獨立的狀態——而這恰是另一種形式的抗拒。

Questioner: So what is freedom? You say it is not the negation of dependence or the ending of dependence; you say it is not freedom from something, but just freedom. So what is it? Is it an abstraction or an actuality?

發問者：那什麼才是自由？你剛才說自由並不是對依賴的否定，或者依賴性的終結；你說自由就只是自由而已，而不是相對於某物的解脫。那它是什麼樣子？它只是一個抽象的概念，還是真實的存在？

Krishnamurti: It is not an abstraction. It is the state of mind in which there is no form of resistance whatsoever. It is not like a river accommodating itself to boulders here and there, going round or over them. In this freedom there are no boulders at all, only the movement of the water.

克：它並不抽象。它是一種心境，其中沒有任何形式的抗拒。它並不是根據亂石處處調整自己的一條河，或繞過砂礫，或自其上流過。在這自由中，根本沒有砂礫，只有水的流動。

Questioner: But the boulder of attachment is there, in this river of life. You can't just speak about another river in which there are no boulders.

發問者：可是，執著的砂礫還在那兒，就在生命之河中呀。你不能只說還有另一條河，那裡沒有砂礫吧。

Krishnamurti: We are not avoiding the boulder or saying it doesn't exist. We must first understand freedom. It is not the same river as the one in which there are the boulders.

克：我們並不避開砂礫，或說它不存在。我們首先要懂得自由。它已經與原先那條滿是砂礫的河流不是同一條河了。

Questioner: I have still got my river with its boulders, and that's what I came to ask about, not about some other unknown river without boulders. That's no good to me.

發問者：可我的河流裡還是砂礫密佈，我因此才來問你，我不是來問你什麼沒有砂礫的未知河流。那對我一點用處也沒有。

第 2 段

克：沒錯。但要瞭解你的砂礫，你必須先懂得自由是什麼。但是我們不要在這個比喻上死纏爛打下去了。我們應該同時來考慮自由和執著。

Questioner: What has my attachment to do with freedom or freedom with my attachment?

發問者：我的執著和自由有什麼關係，或者自由和我的執著有什麼關係？

Krishnamurti: In your attachment there is pain. You want to be rid of this pain, so you cultivate detachment which is another form of resistance. In the opposite there is no freedom. These two opposites are identical and mutually strengthen each other. What you are concerned with is how to have the pleasures of attachment without its miseries. You cannot. That is why it is important to understand that freedom does not lie in detachment. In the process of understanding attachment there is freedom, not in running away from attachment. So our question now is, why are human beings attached, dependent?

克：在你的執著中存在著痛苦。你想擺脫這痛苦，所以你培養超脫，這是抗拒的另一種形式。執著的反面並沒有自由。這兩種對立之物是相同的，相輔相成互相增強的。你關心的是如何只享受依附的快感，而不想要其中的痛苦。你做不到。因此，超脫之中沒有自由，明瞭這一點非常重要。自由就在瞭解執著的過程中，而不在對執著的逃避中。所以，現在，我們的問題變成了：為什麼人類會執著以及依賴？

Being nothing, being a desert in oneself, one hopes through another to find water. Being empty, poor, wretched, insufficient, devoid of interest or importance, one hopes through another to be enriched. Through the love of another one hopes to forget oneself. Through the beauty of another one hopes to acquire beauty. Through the family, through the nation, through the lover, through some fantastic belief, one hopes to cover this desert with flowers. And God is the ultimate lover. So one puts hooks into all these things. In this there is pain and uncertainty, and the desert seems more arid than ever before. Of course it is neither more nor less arid; it is what it was, only one has avoided looking at it while escaping through some form of attachment with its pain, and then escaping from that pain into detachment. But one remains arid and empty as before. So instead of trying to escape, either through attachment or through detachment, can we not become aware of this fact, of this deep inward poverty and inadequacy, this dull, hollow isolation? That is the only thing that matters, not attachment or detachment. Can you look at it without any sense of condemnation or evaluation? When you do,are you looking at it as an observer who looks at the observed, or without the observer?

一個一無所是，孤身處於荒漠的人，期望通過別人找到水源。一個人感到空虛、貧窮、可憐、無能、百無聊賴或無足輕重，希望通過別人來充實他。他想藉由別人的愛來忘卻自己，希望藉由他人的美讓自己獲得美麗。他想藉由家庭、民族、情人以及一些光怪陸離的信念，為那一無所有的荒漠栽滿鮮花。最後，上帝成為了終極情人。於是人們將精力投入於所有這些事物中。痛苦和不確定性隨之而來，內心的荒漠似乎比以往更貧瘠了。當然，它既沒有更貧瘠，也沒有更肥沃；它還是原來的樣子，這個人只是藉由某種形式的執著以及與之相伴的痛苦，逃避面對現實，然後，又為了逃避那痛苦而選擇超脫。可這個人照樣貧乏空虛。因此，除了逃避，無論通過執著還是超脫來逃避，我們就不能看清事實，看清這深刻的內在貧乏和欠缺，這沉悶空洞的孤立嗎？這才是唯一重要的事情，而不是執著或超脫。你能不帶著譴責和評估地看著它嗎？當你看著它時，你是作為一個觀察者，看著被觀察的對象，還是根本就沒有觀察者？

Questioner: What do you mean, the observer?

發問者：你說的“觀察者”是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: Are you looking at it from a centre with all its conclusions of like and dislike, opinion, judgement, the desire to be free of this emptiness and so on - are you looking at this aridness with the eyes of conclusion - or are you looking with eyes that are completely free? When you look at it with completely free eyes there is no observer. If there is no observer, is there the thing observed as loneliness, emptiness, wretchedness?

克：你是從一個中心看出去，帶著所有喜歡或不喜歡的結論、觀點、判斷以及擺脫空虛的欲望去觀察的嗎？你在用帶有結論的雙眼，還是用一雙完全自由的眼睛去看那片貧瘠之地呢？當你用完全自由的眼光看時，觀察者就消失了。如果沒有觀察者，被看作孤獨、空虛、悲哀的東西還在嗎？

Questioner: Do you mean to say that that tree doesn't exist if I look at it without conclusions, without a centre which is the observer?

發問者：你的意思是說，如果我不帶結論，不以觀察者為中心地看時，那棵樹就不存在了？

Krishnamurti: Of course the tree exists.

克：那棵樹當然存在。

Questioner: Why does loneliness disappear but not the tree when I look without the observer?

發問者：當我進行沒有觀察者的觀察時，為什麼消失的是孤獨感，而不是那棵樹？

Krishnamurti: Because the tree is not created by the centre, by the mind of the "me". But the mind of the "me', in all its self-centred activity has created this emptiness, this isolation. And when that mind, without the centre, looks, the self-centred activity ends. So the loneliness is not. Then the mind functions in freedom. Looking at the whole structure of attachment and detachment, and the movement of pain and pleasure, we see how the mind of the "me" builds its own desert and its own escapes. When the mind of the "me" is still, then there is no desert and there is no escape.

克：因為樹並不是由那個中心，那個“我”的心智創造的。但那個“我”的心智，通過它自我中心的種種活動製造出了這種空虛和孤立的感覺。當心智不再帶著那個中心去看時，自我中心的活動就結束了。孤獨感自然也不存在了。然後，心智的運作就自由了。通過觀察執著與超脫的整個結構，痛苦和快樂的起伏，我們就會發現“我”的心智如何製造了自己的荒漠，又自行策劃著逃脫。當“我”的心靈沉靜無波時，既沒有荒漠，也不用逃脫。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'BELIEF'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“信仰”

Questioner: I am one of those people who really believe in God. In India I followed one of the great modern saints who, because he believed in God, brought about great political changes there. In India the whole country throbs to the beat of God. I have heard you talk against belief so probably you don't believe in God. But you are a religious person and therefore there must be in you some kind of feeling of the Supreme. I have been all over India and through many parts of Europe, visiting monasteries, churches and mosques, and everywhere I have found this very strong, compelling belief in God whom one hopes shapes one's life. Now since you don't believe in God, although you are a religious person, what exactly is your position with regard to this question? Why don't you believe? Are you an atheist? As you know, in Hinduism you can be an atheist or a theist and yet be equally well a Hindu. Of course it's different with the Christians. If you don't believe in God you can't be a Christian. But that's beside the point. The point is that I have come to ask you to explain your position and demonstrate to me its validity. People follow you and therefore you have a responsibility, and therefore I am challenging you in this way.

發問者：我是真的信神的那些人之一。在印度我追隨過一個偉大的現代聖人，他因為信神，在印度實現了巨大的政治變革。印度這整個國家都隨著神的節奏跳動。我聽說你在講話裡反對信仰，所以也許你不信神。但你是個宗教人物，所以你內在必然對那至高無上者有某種感覺。我走遍了印度，也去過歐洲的很多地方，拜訪過修道院、教堂和清真寺，我發現到處都有這種非常強烈的無法抗拒的對神的信仰，人們希望神來塑造他們的生命。那麼，儘管你是個宗教人物，既然你不信神，那麼對於這個問題來說，你究竟是個什麼立場？你為什麼沒有信仰？你是個無神論者嗎？你知道，在印度教裡，你可以是個無神論者，也可以是個有神論者，但都同樣地還是印度教徒。當然對於基督徒來說，情形是不同的。如果你不信上帝，你就不可能是個基督徒。但那是次要的問題。問題是，我來請你解釋一下你的立場，並向我說明一下你立場的正確性。人們追隨你，因而你有這個責任，所以我是在用這種方式來挑戰你。

Krishnamurti: Let us first of all clear up this last point. There are no followers, and I have no responsibility to you or to the people who listen to my talks. Also I am not a Hindu or anything else, for I don't belong to any group, religious or otherwise. Each one must be a light to himself. Therefore there is no teacher, no disciple. This must be clearly understood from the very beginning otherwise one is influenced, one becomes a slave to propaganda and persuasions. Therefore anything that is being said now is not dogma or creed or persuasion: we either meet together in understanding or we don't. Now, you said most emphatically that you believe in God and you probably want through that belief to experience what one might call the godhead. Belief involves many things. There is belief in facts that you may not have seen but can verify, like the existence of New York or the Eiffel Tower. Then you may believe that your wife is faithful though you don't actually know it. She might be unfaithful in thought yet you believe she is faithful because you don't actually see her going off with someone else; she may deceive you in daily thought, and you most certainly have done the same too. You believe in reincarnation, don't you, though there is no certainty that there is any such thing? However, that belief has no validity in your life, has it? All Christians believe that they must love but they do not love - like everyone else they go about killing, physically or psychologically. There are those who do not believe in God and yet do good. There are those who believe in God and kill for that belief; those who prepare for war because they claim they want peace, and so on. So one has to ask oneself what need there is to believe at all in anything, though this doesn't deny the extraordinary mystery of life. But belief is one thing and "what is" is another. Belief is a word, a thought, and this is not the thing, any more than your name is actually you.

克：讓我們首先來澄清一下這最後一點。沒什麼追隨者，我對你沒有責任，對那些來聽我講話的人也沒有責任。我也不是一個印度教徒或者別的什麼身份，因為我不屬於任何一個團體，不管是不是宗教性的。每個人都必須做他自己的光。所以沒有老師，也沒有弟子。從一開始這點就必須明明白白，否則你就會被影響，你就會變成宗教宣傳或者說教的奴隸。所以，我說的任何話，都不是教條、信條或者信仰：我們要麼在瞭解中相遇，要麼沒有。現在，你說最重要的是你信神，你也許希望通過這信仰來體驗所謂的神性。信仰涉及到很多事情。有對事實的相信，這事實你不一定親眼看到，但是可以驗證，就像紐約或者埃菲爾鐵塔的存在一樣。然後你可能相信你的妻子是忠誠的，儘管你並不知道事實是不是這樣。她也許在思想上不忠，但是你相信她忠誠，因為你並沒有真的看到她跟別人跑掉；她可能在日常思想上欺騙你，而你很可能也做著同樣的事情。儘管沒法確定確實有轉世這回事，但是你相信轉世，不是嗎？然而，這信仰在你的生活中並沒有什麼效力，不是嗎？所有的基督徒都相信他們必須去愛，但是他們不愛——就跟別人一樣，他們四處殺戮，不管是身體上還是心理上的殺戮。有些人不信神但是做著善事。有些人信神，並為這個信仰去殺人；那些備戰的人聲稱那是因為他們想要和平，等等等等。所以一個人得問問自己，到底有什麼必要去相信任何事情，儘管這麼說並不否定生命那異乎尋常的神秘。但是信仰是一回事，“現實狀況”是另一回事。信仰是一個詞語，一個想法，那不是事實本身，真實的你遠遠不只是你的名字而已。

Through experience you hope to touch the truth of your belief, to prove it to yourself, but this belief conditions your experience. It isn't that the experience comes to prove the belief, but rather that the belief begets the experience. Your belief in God will give you the experience of what you call God. You will always experience what you believe and nothing else. And this invalidates your experience. The Christian will see virgins, angels and Christ, and the Hindu will see similar deities in extravagant plurality. The Muslim, the Buddhist, the Jew and the Communist are the same. Belief conditions its own supposed proof. What is important is not what you believe but only why you believe at all. Why do you believe? And what difference does it make to what actually is whether you believe one thing or another? Facts are not influenced by belief or disbelief. So one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear, is it the uncertainty of life - the fear of the unknown the lack of security in this everchanging world? Is it the insecurity of relationship, or is it that faced with the immensity of life, and not understanding it, one encloses oneself in the refuge of belief? So, if I may ask you, if you had no fear at all, would you have any belief?

你希望通過體驗來觸及你的信仰的真實性，向你自己證明這點，但是這信仰局限了你的體驗。不是由體驗來證明信仰，而是由信仰引發了體驗。你對神的信仰會帶給你所謂神的體驗。你體驗到的始終只是你所相信的而已，別的什麼也沒有。而這就證明了你的體驗的錯誤。基督徒會看見聖母、天使和基督，印度徒會看見不計其數的類似的神祗。穆斯林、佛教徒、猶太教徒和共產主義者也都一樣。信仰限定了它自身想要的證明。重要的不是你相信什麼，而是你到底為什麼要去相信。你為什麼相信？你相信這個還是相信那個，對於事實究竟如何，有任何改變嗎？相信或者不信影響不了事實。所以一個人必須要問一問，究竟為什麼要去相信任何事情；信念的基礎是什麼？是不是恐懼，是不是生命的不確定性——對未知的恐懼，在這個無時無刻不在改變的世界中缺乏安全感？是不是關係中的不安全感，是不是面對廣闊無垠的生命，無法瞭解它，人就會把自己封閉在信仰的避難所裡？所以，如果我可以問你的話，如果你根本沒有恐懼，你還需要任何信仰嗎？

Questioner: I am not at all sure that I am afraid, but I love God, and it is this love that makes me believe in Him.

Krishnamurti: Do you mean to say you are devoid of fear? And therefore know what love is?

Questioner: I have replaced fear with love and so to me fear is non-existent, and therefore my belief is not based on fear.

發問者：我根本不確定我是不是恐懼，但是我熱愛神，是這種愛讓我相信他。

克：你的意思是說你沒有恐懼了？所以你知道愛是什麼？

發問者：我用愛替換掉了恐懼，所以對我來說恐懼是不存在的，所以我的信仰不是基於恐懼的。

Krishnamurti: Can you substitute love for fear? Is that not an act of thought which is afraid and therefore covers up the fear with the word called love, again a belief? You have covered up that fear with a word and you cling to the word, hoping to dissipate fear.

克：你能用愛代替恐懼嗎？那不正是恐懼著的思想的行為嗎，然後用愛這個詞，也就是又一個信仰來掩蓋恐懼？你用一個詞掩蓋起了恐懼，你緊抓著這個詞，希望能驅散恐懼。

Questioner: What you are saying disturbs me greatly. I am not at all sure I want to go on with this, because my belief and my love have sustained me and helped me to lead a decent life. This questioning of my belief brings about a sense of disorder of which, quite frankly, I am afraid.

發問者：你說的話讓我感到深深不安。我完全不確定我是否願意繼續探討下去，因為我的信仰和我的愛一直支撐著我，幫我過著一種體面的生活。對我的信仰的這種質疑帶來了一種失序感，坦白地說，這點我很害怕。

Krishnamurti: So there is fear, which you are beginning to discover for yourself. This disturbs you. Belief comes from fear and is the most destructive thing. One must be free of fear and of belief. Belief divides people, makes them hard, makes them hate each other and cultivate war. In a roundabout way, unwillingly, you are admitting that fear begets belief. Freedom from belief is necessary to face the fact of fear. Belief like any other ideal is an escape from "what is". When there is no fear then the mind is in quite a different dimension. Only then can you ask the question whether there is a God or not. A mind clouded by fear or belief is incapable of any kind of understanding, any realization of what truth is. Such a mind lives in illusion and can obviously not come upon that which is Supreme. The Supreme has nothing to do with your or anybody else's belief, opinion or conclusion.

克：所以是有恐懼的，你正開始自己去發現這點。這讓你不安。信仰來自恐懼，而這是最具破壞力的東西。一個人必須擺脫恐懼，擺脫信仰。信仰將人們分裂，把他們變得冷酷，讓他們彼此憎恨，催生戰爭。你在用一種迂回的方式，不情願地承認了恐懼產生信仰。從信仰中解脫出來，需要面對恐懼這個事實。只有這時你才能問有沒有神這個問題。被恐懼或者信仰籠罩的頭腦是無法有任何瞭解的，完全無法領悟真相是什麼。這樣的頭腦生活在幻象中，顯然不可能遭遇那至高無上者。那至高無上者與你的或者別人的信仰、觀念或者結論完全無關。

Not knowing, you believe, but to know is not to know. To know is within the tiny field of time and the mind that says, "I know" is bound by time and so cannot possibly understand that which is. After all, when you say, "I know my wife and my friend", you know only the image or the memory, and this is the past. Therefore you can never actually know anybody or anything. You cannot know a living thing, only a dead thing. When you see this you will no longer think of relationship in terms of knowing. So one can never say, "There is no God", or "I know God". Both these are a blasphemy. To understand that which is there must be freedom, not only from the known but also from the fear of the known and from the fear of the unknown.

因為不知道，所以你相信，但是知道就是不知道。知道是在時間這個狹小的範圍內的，說“我知道”的頭腦受限於時間，所以不可能瞭解真實狀況。畢竟，當你說，“我知道我的妻子和我的朋友”，你知道的只是意象或者記憶，那是過去。所以你永遠無法真正知道任何人或者任何事情。你無法知道一個活生生的東西，只能知道死去的東西。當你看到了這點，你就不會再以知道的方式來看待關係了。所以你永遠不會說，“沒有神”，或者“我知道神”。這兩者都是褻瀆。要瞭解真實狀況，就必須有自由，不只是從已知中解脫的自由，而且是從對已知的恐懼和對未知的恐懼中解脫出來的自由。

Questioner: You speak of understanding that which "is" and yet you deny the validity of knowing. What is this understanding if it is not knowing?

發問者：你說瞭解“真實”狀況，但是你又否定了知道的正確性。如果不知道，那這種瞭解又是什麼？

Krishnamurti: The two are quite different. Knowing is always related to the past and therefore it binds you to the past. Unlike knowing understanding is not a conclusion, not accumulation. If you have listened you have understood. Understanding is attention. When you attend completely you understand. So the understanding of fear is the ending of fear. Your belief can therefore no longer be the predominant factor; the understanding of fear is predominant. When there is no fear there is freedom. It is only then that one can find what is true. When that which "is" is not distorted by fear then that which "is" is true. It is not the word. You cannot measure truth with words. Love is not a word nor a belief nor something that you can capture and say, "It is mine". Without love and beauty, that which you call God is nothing at all.

克：這兩個是非常不同的。知道總是與過去相關，因而它就把你和過去捆綁在一起了。與知道不同，瞭解不是一個結論，不是積累。如果你剛才聆聽了，你就已經明白了。瞭解是關注。當你全神貫注時，你會瞭解。所以對恐懼的瞭解，就是恐懼的終結。你的信仰就不再是主導因素了；對恐懼的瞭解占了主導。沒有了恐懼就有了自由。只有這時你才能發現真實的是什麼。當“真實”狀況沒有被恐懼扭曲的時候，“真實”狀況才是實實在在的。那不是詞語。你無法用語言衡量真相。愛不是一個詞，不是一個信念，也不是你能捕捉到的什麼東西，說“這是我的”。沒有愛和美，你所謂的神根本什麼都不是。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'DREAMS'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“夢”

Questioner: I have been told by professionals that dreaming is as vital as daytime thinking and activity, and that I would find my daily living under great stress and strain if I did not dream. They insist, and here I'm using not their jargon but my own words, that during certain periods of sleep the movement of the eyelids indicates refreshing dreams and that these bring a certain clarity to the brain. I am wondering whether the stillness of the mind which you have often spoken about might not bring greater harmony to living than the equilibrium brought about by patterns of dreams. I should also like to ask why the language of dreams is one of symbols.

發問者：有專業人士曾經告訴我，做夢就像白天的思考和行為一樣至關重要，如果我不做夢，就會發現自己的日常生活處於巨大的壓力和緊張之中。他們堅稱，這裡我用的不是我自己的話，而是他們的術語，在睡眠的某些階段中，眼瞼的運動標誌著夢在更新，而這給大腦帶來某種清晰。我想知道，相對於各種形式的夢為心情帶來的平靜，你經常提到的頭腦的寂靜，是否並不能給生活帶來更多和諧。我也想問問為什麼夢的語言是一種象徵性的符號。

Krishnamurti: Language itself is a symbol, and we are used to symbols: we see the tree through the image which is the symbol of the tree, we see our neighbour through the image we have about him. Apparently it is one of the most difficult things for a human being to look at anything directly, not through images, opinions, conclusions, which are all symbols. And so in dreams symbols play a large part and in this there is great deception and danger. The meaning of a dream is not always clear to us, although we realize it is in symbols and try to decipher them. When we see something, we speak of it so spontaneously that we do not recognise that words are also symbols. All this indicates, doesn't it, that there is direct communication in technical matters but seldom in human relationships and understanding? You don't need symbols when somebody hits you. That is a direct communication. This is a very interesting point: the mind refuses to see things directly, to be aware of itself without the word and the symbol. You say the sky is blue. The listener then deciphers this according to his own reference of blueness and transmits it to you in his own cipher. So we live in symbols, and dreams are a part of this symbolic process. We are incapable of direct and immediate perception without the symbols, the words, the prejudices and conclusions. The reason for this is also quite apparent: it is part of the self-centred activity with its defences, resistances, escapes and fears. There is a ciphered response in the activity of the brain, and dreams must naturally be symbolic because during the waking hours we are incapable of direct response or perception.

克：語言本身就是一種符號，而我們都對符號習以為常：我們通過意象觀察樹，而這意象是樹的符號，我們通過對我們的鄰居抱有的意象來看他。很顯然，不通過意象、觀點、結論這些符號，直接地觀察事物，對人類來說是最困難的事情之一。同樣在夢裡，符號也有巨大的影響，其中有巨大的欺騙和危險。夢的含義對我們來說並不總是那麼清晰，儘管我們意識到夢裡充滿符號，並且試圖去破解它們。當我們看到了點什麼，我們就會不由自主地談論起來，卻沒有意識到語言也是符號。這一切都表明，在技術方面可以直接溝通，但是在人類的關係和理解方面，卻鮮有直接的交流，不是嗎？有人打你的時候，你並不需要符號。那是一種直接的交流。這點非常有趣：頭腦拒絕直接看到事物，不帶語言和符號地覺察它自己。你說天空是藍色的。然後聽者根據他自己對藍色的理解來破解你的話，再用他自己的密碼傳達給你。所以我們生活在符號裡，而夢也是這符號化過程的一部分。我們無法不帶著符號、語言、偏見和結論即刻直接地去覺察。而造成這點的原因也相當明顯：這是帶著防禦、抵抗和結論的自我中心行為的一部分。在頭腦的活動中有一種密碼式的反應，而夢必然是符號化的，因為在醒著的時候，我們無法直接地反應或者觀察。

Questioner: It seems to me that this then is an inherent function of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Inherent means something permanent, inevitable and lasting. Surely any psychological state can be changed. Only the deep, constant demand of the brain for the physical security of the organism is inherent. Symbols are a device of the brain to protect the psyche; this is the whole process of thought. The "me" is a symbol, not an actuality. Having created the symbol of the "me", thought identifies itself with its conclusion, with the formula, and then defends it: all misery and sorrow come from this.

發問者：在我看來，這就是大腦固有的一種功能。

克：固有意味著某種永久的、不可避免的、持續的東西。但任何心理狀態都是肯定會改變的。只有大腦對有機體身體上安全的持久需求才是固有的。符號是大腦為了保護心智的一種設置；而這就是整個思想過程。“我”是個符號，不是真實。思想製造出了“我”這個符號，把自己等同於它的結論和模式，然後對其進行捍衛：所有的苦難和悲傷由此而生。

Questioner: Then how do I get around it?

Krishnamurti: When you ask how to get around it, you are still holding on to the symbol of the "me", which is fictitious; you become something separate from what you see, and so duality arises.

Questioner: May I come back another day to continue this?

發問者：那麼我要如何避開它？

克：當你問如何避開它時，你還是在緊抓著“我”這個虛幻的符號不放；你就變成了不同於你所見的某種東西，而這就產生了二元性。

發問者：我可以改天再回來繼續這個話題嗎？

* * *

Questioner: You were good enough to let me come back, and I should like to continue where we left off. We were talking about symbols in dreams and you pointed out that we live by symbols, deciphering them according to our gratification. We do this not only in dreams but in everyday life; it is our usual behaviour. Most of our actions are based on the interpretation of the symbols or images that we have. Strangely, after having talked with you the other day, my dreams have taken a peculiar turn. I have had very disturbing dreams and the interpretation of those dreams took place as they were happening within the dreams. It was a simultaneous process; the dream was being interpreted by the dreamer. This has never happened to me before.

發問者：能讓我回來，你真好，我想從我們上次說到的地方繼續探討。我們說到了夢裡的符號，你指出我們依靠符號生活，並根據我們的喜好來對其進行破解。我們不只是在夢裡會這麼做，而且在日常生活中也如此；這是我們經常的行為。我們的大部分行為都基於對我們抱有的各種符號或意象的詮釋。奇怪的是，那天跟你談了之後，我的夢發生了一種特別的轉變。我做了些非常令人困擾的夢，對那些夢的詮釋發生在做夢的同時。這是個同時進行的過程；發夢者在解釋著夢。這些以前我從未遇到過。

Krishnamurti: During our waking hours, there is always the observer, different from the observed, the actor, separate from his action. In the same way there is the dreamer separate from his dream. He thinks it is separate from himself and therefore in need of interpretation. But is the dream separate from the dreamer, and is there any need to interpret it? When the observer is the observed what need is there to interpret, to judge, to evaluate? This need would exist only if the observer were different from the thing observed. This is very important to understand. We have separated the thing observed from the observer and from this arises not only the problem of interpretation but also conflict, and the many problems connected with it. This division is an illusion. This division between groups, races, nationalities, is fictitious. We are beings, undivided by names, by labels. When the labels become all important, division takes place, and then wars and all other struggles come into being.

克：我們在醒著的時候，總是有不同於被觀察者的觀察者，與他的行為分離的行為者。同樣，有與他的夢分離的發夢者。他認為夢是與他分開的，因此需要解釋。但是，夢與發夢者是分開的嗎，而且有任何必要去解釋夢嗎？當觀察者就是被觀察者，還有什麼必要去解釋、判斷和評估呢？只有觀察者不同於所觀之物的時候，才存在這種需要。理解這一點非常重要。我們把所觀之物與觀察者分離開來，從中不僅產生了詮釋的問題，還產生了衝突，以及與之相關的諸多問題。這種分離是一種幻覺。群體、種族、國家之間的分別是虛幻的。我們是未被名字、標籤分割的生命體。當這些標籤變得無比重要時，分別就發生了，然後就產生了戰爭以及其他所有的爭鬥。

Questioner: How then do I understand the content of the dream? It must have significance. Is it an accident that I dream of some particular event or person?

發問者：那麼我要如何理解夢的內容呢？它必然有它的意義。我夢到某個特別的事件或者人，這難道是一樁意外嗎？

Krishnamurti: We should really look at this quite differently. Is there anything to understand? When the observer thinks he is different from the thing observed there is an attempt to understand that which is outside himself. The same process goes on within him. There is the observer wishing to understand the thing he observes, which is himself. But when the observer is the observed, there is no question of understanding; there is only observation. You say that there is something to understand in the dream, otherwise there would be no dream, you say that the dream is a hint of something unresolved that one should understand. You use the word "understand", and in that very word is the dualistic process. You think there is an "I", and a thing to be understood, whereas in reality these two entities are one and the same. Therefore your search for a meaning in the dream is the action of conflict.

克：我們真應該以相當不同的視角來看這個問題。有什麼要理解的嗎？當觀察者以為他與所觀之物不同時，就會試圖理解他自身之外的東西。而同樣的過程就發生在他的內在。有個觀察者希望理解他觀察的事物，也就是他自己。但是當觀察者就是被觀察者時，就沒有理解的問題了；只有觀察。你說夢裡有些東西需要理解，否則就不會有夢，你說夢暗示了人應該去瞭解但尚未解答的某些事物。你用“理解”這個詞，這個詞本身就是二元化的過程。你認為有個“我”，有個要被瞭解的東西，而實際上這兩個實體是同一個，是同樣的。所以你從夢裡尋找意義，這是衝突的行為。

Questioner: Would you say the dream is an expression of something in the mind?

Krishnamurti: Obviously it is.

Questioner: I do not understand how it is possible to regard a dream in the way you are describing it. If it has no significance, why does it exist?

發問者：你說夢是頭腦中某些東西的表達嗎？

克：顯然是的。

發問者：我不知道怎麼可能以你描述的方式來看待夢。如果夢沒有意義，那它為什麼要存在？

Krishnamurti: The "I" is the dreamer, and the dreamer wants to see significance in the dream which he has invented or projected, so both are dreams, both are unreal. This unreality has become real to the dreamer, to the observer who thinks of himself as separate. The whole problem of dream interpretation arises out of this separation, this division between the actor and the action.

克：“我”是發夢者，這個發夢者想看到他在夢裡編造或者投射出來的意義，而這兩者都是夢，都是不真實的。這種不真實，對於發夢者，對於認為自己是分離的觀察者來說，變得真實起來。從這種分離中，從這種行為者和行為的分裂中，就產生了詮釋夢的整個問題。

Questioner: I am getting more and more confused, so may we go over it again differently? I can see that a dream is the product of my mind and not separate from it, but dreams seem to come from levels of the mind which have not been explored, and so they seem to be intimations of something alive in the mind.

發問者：我越來越困惑了，所以我們可不可以換種方式再來探討一下？我能明白夢是我頭腦的產物，不是分離的，但是夢似乎來自頭腦中未被探索的那些層面，所以它們似乎暗示了頭腦中某些活躍著的東西。

Krishnamurti: It is not your particular mind in which there are hidden things. Your mind is the mind of man; your consciousness is the whole of man. But when you particularize it as your mind, you limit its activity, and because of this limitation, dreams arise. During waking hours observe without the observer, who is the expression of limitation. Any division is a limitation. Having divided itself into a "me" and a "not me", the "me", the observer, the dreamer, has many problems - among them dreams and the interpretation of dreams. In any case, you will see the significance or the value of a dream only in a limited way because the observer is always limited. The dreamer perpetuates his own limitation, therefore the dream is always the expression of the incomplete, never of the whole.

克：並不是你那個特別的頭腦裡才會有隱藏的東西。你的頭腦就是整個人類的頭腦；你的意識就是整個人類。但是當你把它特殊化為你的頭腦時，你就局限了它的活動，因為這種局限，夢就產生了。在醒著的時候，沒有觀察者地去觀察，觀察者就是局限的表現。任何分別都是局限。把自己劃分為“我”和“非我”，“我”，也就是觀察者、發夢者，就有了很多問題——其中就有夢和對夢的詮釋。無論如何，你只能以局限的方式看到夢的意義或者價值，因為觀察者始終是局限的。發夢者將自己的局限永久化，因此夢始終是不完整的表達，永遠不是全部。

Questioner: Pieces are brought back from the moon in order to understand the composition of the moon. In the same way we try to understand human thinking by bringing back pieces from our dreams, and examining what they express.

發問者：通過從月球上取回碎片，來瞭解月球的構成。同樣，通過從我們的夢裡取出碎片並對其表達的含義進行檢驗，我們試圖來瞭解人類的思維。

Krishnamurti: The expressions of the mind are the fragments of the mind. Each fragment expresses itself in its own way and contradicts other fragments. A dream may contradict another dream, one action another action, one desire another desire. The mind lives in this confusion. A part of the mind says it must understand another part, such as a dream, an action or a desire. So each fragment has its own observer, its own activity; then a super-observer tries to bring them all into harmony. The super-observer is also a fragment of the mind. It is these contradictions, these divisions, that breed dreams.

克：頭腦所表達的，只是頭腦的碎片而已。每個碎片以自己的方式表達著自身，並與其他碎片互相矛盾。一個夢可能會與另一個夢矛盾，一個行為與另一個行為，一個欲望與另一欲望也可能是矛盾的。頭腦就生活在這種困惑中。頭腦的一部分說必須要去理解另一個部分，比如一個夢、一個行為或者欲望。所以每個碎片都有它自己的觀察者，它自己的行為；然後一個超觀察者試圖將它們和諧地組織在一起。這個超觀察者也是頭腦的一個碎片。是這些矛盾，這些劃分，產生了夢。

So the real question is not the interpretation or the understanding of a particular dream; it is the perception that these many fragments are contained in the whole. Then you see yourself as a whole and not as a fragment of a whole.

所以真正的問題，不是詮釋或者理解某個特定的夢；而是看到這許多的碎片都是包含在整體中的。然後你就能將自己作為一個整體看到，而不是整體的一個碎片。

Questioner: Are you saying, sir, that one should be aware during the day of the whole movement of life, not just one's family life, or business life, or any other individual aspect of life?

發問者：先生，你是不是說，一個人應該在白天對整個生活的運作都知曉，而不是僅僅注意他的家庭生活，事業生活或者生活中其他任何一個單獨的方面？

Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the whole of man and does not belong to a particular man. When there is the consciousness of one particular man there is the complex problem of fragmentation, contradiction and war. When there is awareness of the total movement of life in a human being during the waking hours, what need is there for dreams at all? This total awareness, this attention, puts an end to fragmentation and to division. When there is no conflict whatsoever the mind has no need for dreams.

Questioner: This certainly opens a door through which I see many things.

克：意識是整個人類的，並不屬於一個特定的人。如果有某個特定的人的意識，就會有支離破碎、矛盾和戰爭這些複雜的問題。如果在醒著的時候覺察到一個人生活的整體運動，那還有什麼必要做夢？這種全然的覺察，這種全神貫注，就終結了支離破碎和分別。如果任何衝突都沒有了，頭腦就不需要夢了。

發問者：當然這開啟了一扇門，通過它，我看到了很多。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'TRADITION'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“傳統”

Questioner: Can one really be free of tradition? Can one be free of anything at all? Or is it a matter of sidestepping it and not being concerned with any of it? You talk a great deal about the past and its conditioning - but can I be really free of this whole background of my life? Or can I merely modify the background according to the various outward demands and challenges, adjust myself to it rather than become free of it? It seems to me that this is one of the most important things, and I'd like to understand it because I always feel that I am carrying a burden, the weight of the past. I would like to put it down and walk away from it, never come back to it. Is that possible?

發問者：一個人能真的擺脫傳統嗎？一個人究竟能擺脫任何事情嗎？還是一個回避並且不再參與其中的問題？關於過去及其局限性，你講了很多——但是我真的能擺脫我生活的這整個背景嗎？還是我只能根據各種外部的需求和挑戰來調整這個背景，調整我自己，而不是從中解脫？這對我來說似乎是最重要的事情之一，我很想瞭解這點，因為我總是覺得自己在背負著一個重擔，過去的重負。我想把它放下，離開它，永遠不再回去。這可能嗎？

Krishnamurti: Doesn't tradition mean carrying the past over to the present? The past is not only one's particular set of inheritances but also the weight of all the collective thought of a particular group of people who have lived in a particular culture and tradition. One carries the accumulated knowledge and experience of the race and the family. All this is the past - the carrying over from the known to the present - which shapes the future. Is not the teaching of all history a form of tradition? You are asking if one can be free of all this. First of all, why does one want to be free? Why does one want to put down this burden? Why?

克：傳統不正是意味著把過去背負到現在嗎？過去不只是一個人自己特定的一系列遺傳，而且也是一個特定人群所有集體思想的重負，這群人一直生活在某種特定的文化和傳統中。人背負著種族和家庭積累下來的知識和經驗。這一切都是過去——從已知中傳承到現在的東西——而這些又塑造了未來。教授所有的歷史，這難道不是傳統的一種形式嗎？你問一個人能不能從這一切中解脫出來。首先，一個人為什麼想要解脫出來？他為什麼想要放下這個負擔？為什麼？

Questioner: I think it's fairly simple. I don't want to be the past - I want to be myself; I want to be cleansed of this whole tradition so that I can be a new human being. I think in most of us there is this feeling of wanting to be born anew.

Krishnamurti: You cannot possibly be the new just by wishing for it. Or by struggling to be new. You have not only to understand the past but also you have to find out who you are. Are you not the past? Are you not the continuation of what has been, modified by the present?

發問者：我想這很簡單。我不想成為過去——我想做我自己；我想清除掉這整個傳統，這樣我就能成為一個新人類。我想我們大部分人都有這種想要新生的感覺。

克：你不可能單憑有這麼個願望就能變成新人類。奮力求新也不行。你不僅僅需要瞭解過去，而且要明白你是誰。你不就是過去嗎？你不就是經過現在修改的過去的延續嗎？

Questioner: My actions and my thoughts are, but my existence isn't.

Krishnamurti: Can you separate the two, action and thought, from existence? Are not thought, action, existence, living and relationship all one? This fragmentation into "me" and "not-me" is part of this tradition.

Questioner: Do you mean that when I am not thinking, when the past is not operating, I am obliterated, that I have ceased to exist?

發問者：我的行為和我的思想是這樣的，但是我的存在不是。

克：你能把行為和思想這兩者與存在分開嗎？思想、行為、存在、生活和關係不都是一體的嗎？這種對“我”和“非我”的劃分，就是這傳統的一部分。

發問者：你的意思是不是，當我不思考，當過去不運作了，我就被消滅掉了，我就停止生存了？

Krishnamurti: Don't let us ask too many questions, but consider what we began with. Can one be free of the past - not only the recent but the immemorial, the collective, the racial, the human, the animal? You are all that, you are not separate from that. And you are asking whether you can put all that aside and be born anew. The "you" is that, and when you wish to be reborn as a new entity, the new entity you imagine is a projection of the old, covered over with the word "new". But underneath, you are the past. So the question is, can the past be put aside or does a modified form of tradition continue for ever, changing, accumulating, discarding, but always the past in different combinations? The past is the cause and the present is the effect, and today, which is the effect of yesterday, becomes the cause of tomorrow. This chain is the way of thought, for thought is the past. You are asking whether one can stop this movement of yesterday into today. Can one look at the past to examine it, or is that not possible at all? To look at it the observer must be outside it - and he isn't. So here arises another issue. If the observer himself is the past then how can the past be isolated for observation?

克：我們不要一下子問那麼多問題，而是要想一下從哪裡開始。一個人能否擺脫過去——不只是最近的過去，而且是遠古的，集體的，種族的，作為人類和動物的整個過去？你就是那一切，你與那些是分不開的。而你問你能否把這一切放在一邊，獲得新生。“你”就是那一切，當你希望作為一個新實體獲得新生時，那個你想像出來的新實體只是來自過去的一種投射，冠以了一個“新”的名詞而已。然而掩藏其下的，你就是過去。所以問題是，能否把過去放在一邊，還是傳統以某種修整過的形式永遠持續下去，改動，積累，丟棄，但永遠是那個以不同形式組合著的過去？過去是因，現在是果，今天是昨天的果，又會變成明天的因。這個鏈條就是思想的運作方式，因為思想就是過去。你問一個人能否停止從昨天到今天的這種運動。一個人能否觀察過去，審視過去，還是這根本就不可能？要觀察這點，觀察者必須置身事外——而實際上他並不是存在於其外的。所以這裡就產生了另一個問題。如果觀察者本身就是過去，那麼過去怎麼能從觀察中孤立出來？

Questioner: I can look at something objectively....

Krishnamurti: But you, who are the observer, are the past trying to look at itself. You can objectify yourself only as an image which you have put together through the years in every form of relationship, and so the "you" which you objectify is memory and imagination, the past. You are trying to look at yourself as though you were a different entity from the one who is looking, but you are the past, with its old judgements, evaluations and so on. The action of the past is looking at the memory of the past. Therefore there is never relief from the past. The continuous examination of the past by the past perpetuates the past; this is the very action of the past, and this is the very essence of tradition.

發問者：我能客觀地看待某些事情....

克：但是，你作為觀察者，你就是那個試圖去觀察自身的過去。你只能把自己客觀化為一個意象，這個意象是你多年來在各種形式的關係中形成的，所以這個你客觀化了的“你”只是記憶和想像，也就是過去。你試圖觀察自己，就好像你是某個不同的存在體，不同於正在觀察著的那個人，但你就是過去，帶著它舊有的判斷、評估等等。看著過去的記憶的，正是過去的行為。所以永遠不會從過去中解脫出來。過去不停地檢視著過去，這使過去得以永續；這正是過去的行為，這正是傳統的核心。

Questioner: Then what action is possible? If I am the past - and I can see that I am - then whatever I do to chisel away the past is adding to it. So I am left helpless! What can I do? I can't pray because the invention of a god is again the action of the past. I can't look to another, for the other is also the creation of my despair. I can't run away from it all because at the end of it I am still there with my past. I can't identify myself with some image which is not of the past because that image is my own projection too. Seeing all this, I am really left helpless, and in despair.

發問者：那麼什麼樣的行為才是可能的？如果我就是過去——我看到自己確實如此——那麼無論我做什麼去除過去的事情，都只是在加強過去。所以我完全無助了！我能怎麼辦？我不能祈禱，因為捏造出一個神來又是過去的行為。我不能求助於另一個神，因為那個神也是我絕望的產物。我不能從這一切中逃避，因為逃到最後，我還是和我的過去待在一起。我無法把自己等同於某個不屬於過去的意象，因為那意象也是我自己的投射。看到了這一切，我真的無助了，絕望了。

Krishnamurti: Why do you call it helplessness and despair? Aren't you translating what you see as the past into an emotional anxiety because you cannot achieve a certain result? in so doing you are again making the past act. Now, can you look at all this movement of the past, with all its traditions, without wanting to be free of it, change it, modify it or run away from it - simply observe it without any reaction?

克：你為什麼把它叫做無助和絕望？你難道不是在把你所看到的過去詮釋成了一種感情上的焦慮，因為你無法實現某個結果？你這麼做，就又是讓過去在運作了。現在，你能不能看著過去的這整個運動，及其所有的傳統，而不想從中解脫，不想改變它、調整它或者逃避它——只是觀察它而沒有任何反應？

Questioner: But as we have been saying all through this conversation, how can I observe the past if I am the past? I can't look at it at all!

Krishnamurti: Can you look at yourself, who are the past, without any movement of thought, which is the past? If you can look without thinking, evaluating, liking, disliking, judging, then there is a looking with eyes that are not touched by the past. It is to look in silence, without the noise of thought. In this silence there is neither the observer nor the thing which he is looking at as the past.

發問者：但是正如我們在這次談話中一直在說的，如果我就是過去，我要如何觀察過去？我根本沒法看！

克：你能不能看著自己，也就是過去，而沒有任何思想活動，也就是沒有過去？如果你能不思考、不評估、無好惡、不評判地看著，那麼就有一雙沒有被過去污染的眼睛在看。那是寂靜中的觀察，沒有思想的噪音。在這寂靜中，既沒有觀察者，也沒有他作為過去在觀察著的東西。

Questioner: Are you saying that when you look without evaluation or judgement the past has disappeared? But it hasn't - there are still the thousands of thoughts and actions and all the pettiness which were rampant only a moment ago. I look at them and they are still there. How can you say that the past has disappeared? It may momentarily have stopped acting....

發問者：你是不是說，當你不評估、不判斷地看時，過去就消失了？但是它沒有——片刻之前猖獗著的成千上萬的想法和行為，以及所有的瑣碎卑微都在還。我看著它們，可它們還在。你怎麼能說過去消失了呢？它或許可以暫時地停止運作....

Krishnamurti: When the mind is silent that silence is a new dimension, and when there is any rampant pettiness it is instantly dissolved, because the mind has now a different quality of energy which is not the energy engendered by the past. This is what matters: to have that energy that dispels the carrying over of the past. The carrying over of the past is a different kind of energy. The silence wipes the other out, the greater absorbs the lesser and remains untouched. It is like the sea, receiving the dirty river and remaining pure. This is what matters. It is only this energy that can wipe away the past. Either there is silence or the noise of the past. In this silence the noise ceases and the new is this silence. It is not that you are made new. This silence is infinite and the past is limited. The conditioning of the past breaks down in the fullness of silence.

克：當頭腦安靜了，那寂靜就是一種新的空間，而當有任何猖獗的卑微瑣碎時，那空間立刻就消失了，因為頭腦現在擁有了一種不同品質的能量，這能量不是過去產生的。這是真正重要的事情：擁有能驅散過去的重負的能量。過去的重負是另一種能量。寂靜清除了這另一種能量，更大的能量吸收了較小的能量，同時保持原樣。就像大海，接納渾濁的河流，同時保持清澈。這是真正重要的事情。只有這種能量能夠消除過去。要麼有寂靜，要麼有過去的噪音。在這寂靜中，噪音止息了，新生的是這種寂靜。不是你被新生了。這寂靜是無限的，而過去是有限的。這完滿的寂靜打破了過去的局限。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'CONDITIONING'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“局限”

Questioner: You have talked a great deal about conditioning and have said that one must be free of this bondage, otherwise one remains imprisoned always. A statement of this kind seems so outrageous and unacceptable! Most of us are very deeply conditioned and we hear this statement and throw up our hands and run away from such extravagant expression, but I have taken you seriously - for, after all, you have more or less given your life to this kind of thing, not as a hobby but with deep seriousness - and therefore I should like to discuss it with you to see how far the human being can uncondition himself. Is it really possible, and if so, what does it mean? Is it possible for me, having lived in a world of habits, traditions and the acceptance of orthodox notions in so many matters - is it possible for me really to throw off this deep-rooted conditioning? What exactly do you mean by conditioning, and what do you mean by freedom from conditioning?

發問者：關於局限，你講了很多，你說人必須擺脫這種束縛，否則他就始終身陷囹圄。這種說法似乎太聳人聽聞，太讓人無法接受了！我們大部分人都深受局限，我們聽到這樣的主張，會舉起雙手，逃離這不切實際的說法，但是我對你是認真的——因為，畢竟你或多或少地把自己的生命奉獻給了這樣的事情，不是把它當作一個嗜好，而是以極其認真的態度——所以我想和你討論一下這點，來看看人類能在多大程度上解放自己。這是不是真的可能，如果可能，那又意味著什麼？我一直生活在習慣、傳統中，在如此眾多的事情上一直接受公認的觀念和看法，這對我來說可能嗎——我真的有可能擺脫這根深蒂固的局限嗎？你說的局限究竟是什麼意思，你說的從局限中解脫是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: Let us take the first question first. We are conditioned - physically, nervously, mentally - by the climate we live in and the food we eat, by the culture in which we live, by the whole of our social, religious and economic environment, by our experience, by education and by family pressures and influences. All these are the factors which condition us. Our conscious and unconscious responses to all the challenges of our environment - intellectual, emotional, outward and inward - all these are the action of conditioning. Language is conditioning; all thought is the action, the response of conditioning.

克：讓我們先來談第一個問題。我們是局限的——身體上，精神上，心理上——受限於我們所生活的氣候條件和所攝入的食物，受限於我們身處其中的文化，受限於我們整個的社會、宗教和經濟環境，受限於我們的經驗、教育以及家庭的壓力和影響。這一切都是局限我們的因素。我們有意識或者無意識地對我們環境中的所有挑戰作出的反應——理智上的，情感上的，外在的和內在的——這一切都局限的行為。語言是局限；所有思想都是局限的活動和反應。

Knowing that we are conditioned we invent a divine agency which we piously hope will get us out of this mechanical state. We either postulate its existence outside or inside ourselves - as the atman, the soul, the Kingdom of Heaven which is within, and who knows what else! To these beliefs we cling desperately, not seeing that they themselves are part of the conditioning factor which they are supposed to destroy or redeem. So not being able to uncondition ourselves in this world, and not even seeing that conditioning is the problem, we think that freedom is in Heaven, in Moksha, in Nirvana. In the Christian myth of original sin and in the whole eastern doctrine of Samsara, one sees that the factor of conditioning has been felt, though rather obscurely. If it had been clearly seen, naturally these doctrines and myths would not have arisen. Nowadays the psychologists also try to get to grips with this problem, and in doing so condition us still further. Thus the religious specialists have conditioned us, the social order has conditioned us, the family which is part of it has conditioned us. All this is the past which makes up the open as well as the hidden layers of the mind. En passant it is interesting to note that the so-called individual doesn't exist at all, for his mind draws on the common reservoir of conditioning which he shares with everybody else, so the division between the community and the individual is false: there is only conditioning. This conditioning is action in all relationships - to things, people and ideas.

知道我們是局限的，我們就發明了一個神聖的媒介，虔誠地希望借此能帶我們走出這機械的狀態。我們假設這神聖要麼存在於我們之外，要麼在我們之內——內在地作為本我，靈魂，或者天界存在著，天知道還有什麼！我們不顧一切地堅守這些信仰，看不到它們本身就是局限因素的一部分，而這些信仰本打算是用來打破或者擺脫這些局限因素的。所以我們無法在這個世界裡解放自己，甚至都看不到局限就是問題所在，於是我們以為自由在天堂裡，在輪回裡，在涅磐裡。在基督教關於原罪的神話中，在整個東方的輪回說裡，你可以看到，這種局限的因素，已經被感覺到了，儘管這感覺相當的模糊。如果清晰地看到了局限的因素，這些學說和神話故事顯然就不會產生了。現在心理學家們也試圖把握這個問題，而他們的這種做法，卻把我們局限得更深了。所以宗教專家們局限了我們，社會規則局限了我們，作為社會的一部分的家庭也局限了我們。這一切都是過去，構成了我們頭腦顯露於外和深藏於內的各個層面。順便提一下很有趣的一件事，即所謂的個人根本不存在，因為他的頭腦與其他所有人共用著共同的局限儲備並從中汲取著，所以團體和個人之間的分別是虛妄的：其中只有局限。這種局限是所有關係——與事物、人們和觀念的關係中的行為。

Questioner: Then what am I to do to free myself from it all? To live in this mechanical state is not living at all, and yet all action, all will, all judgements are conditioned - so there is apparently nothing I can do about conditioning which isn't conditioned! I am tied hand and foot.

發問者：那我要做什麼才能把自己從中完全解脫出來？生活在這種機械的狀態中根本就不是生活，而所有的行為，所有的意願，所有的評判都是局限的——所以很顯然，對於局限我無法做出任何一件不局限的事情。

Krishnamurti: The very factor of conditioning in the past, in the present and in the future, is the "me" which thinks in terms of time, the "me" which exerts itself; and now it exerts itself in the demand to be free; so the root of all conditioning,is the thought which is the "me". The "me" is the very essence of the past, the "me" is time, the "me" is sorrow - the "me" endeavours to free itself from itself, the "me" makes efforts, struggles to achieve, to deny, to become. This struggle to become is time in which there is confusion and the greed for the more and the better. The "me" seeks security and not finding it transfers the search to heaven; the very "me" that identifies itself with something greater in which it hopes to lose itself - whether that be the nation, the ideal or some god - is the factor of conditioning.

克：在過去、現在和未來中的局限因素，正是按照時間進行思考的“我”，運用著自身的“我”，而現在它想讓自己自由；所以所有局限的根源，是思想，也就是“我”。“我”正是過去的核心，“我”就是時間，“我”就是悲傷——“我”努力想把自己從自己中解脫出來，是“我”在努力，在奮力去實現，去拒絕，去成為。這種想要成為的努力就是時間，其中有困惑，有想要更多和更好的貪婪。“我”尋求安全卻找不到，於是把追尋轉向天堂；這個“我”把自己與更偉大的某種東西認同在一起，“我”希望如此就能沒了自己——不管認同的是國家、理想還是某個神——這個“我”正是局限的因素。

Questioner: You have taken everything away from me. What am I without this "me"?

Krishnamurti: If there is no "me" you are unconditioned, which means you are nothing.

Questioner: Can the "me" end without the effort of the "me"?

Krishnamurti: The effort to become something is the response, the action, of conditioning.

Questioner: How can the action of the "me" stop?

發問者：你把我的一切都拿走了。沒有了這個“我”，那我是什麼？

克：如果沒有“我”，你就沒有了局限，那就意味著你什麼都不是。

發問者：沒有“我”的努力，這個“我”能結束嗎？

克：想要變成什麼的努力，是局限的反應和活動。

發問者：“我”的活動怎樣才能停止？

Krishnamurti: It can stop only if you see this whole thing, the whole business of it. If you see it in action, which is in relationship, the seeing is the ending of the "me". Not only is this seeing an action which is not conditioned but also it acts upon conditioning.

Questioner: Do you mean to say that the brain - which is the result of vast evolution with its infinite conditioning - can free itself?

克：只有當你看到了這整件事情，看清了這整個過程，它才能停止。如果你在行為中，也就是在關係中看到了這一點，這看到就是“我”的終結。這看到，不僅僅是一種沒有局限的行動，而且它也作用於局限。

發問者：你的意思是不是說，大腦——也就是漫長進化及其無盡局限的產物——能夠解放它自己？

Krishnamurti: The brain is the result of time; it is conditioned to protect itself physically, but when it tries to protect itself psychologically then the "me" begins, and all our misery starts. It is this effort to protect itself psychologically that is the affirmation of the "me". The brain can learn, can acquire knowledge technologically, but when it acquires knowledge psychologically then that knowledge asserts itself in relationship as the "me" with its experiences, its will and its violence. This is what brings division, conflict and sorrow to relationship.

克：大腦是時間的產物；它因為要在生理上保護自己而受限，但是如果它試圖在心理上保護自己，那麼“我”就產生了，我們所有的苦難就開始了。是這種想要在心理上保護自己的努力，在強化著“我”。大腦可以學習，能夠獲得技術上的知識，但是當它獲取了心理上的知識，那知識就在關係中把自己確認為“我”，帶著它所有的經驗、意願和暴力。這就給關係帶來了分裂、衝突和痛苦。

Questioner: Can this brain be still and only operate when it has to work technologically - only operate when knowledge is demanded in action, as for example in learning a language, driving a car or building a house?

發問者：這個大腦能夠安靜下來，只在必須進行技術工作的時候才運作嗎——只在行動中需要知識的時候才運作，比如學習一門語言、開車或者蓋房子的時候？

Krishnamurti: The danger in this is the dividing of the brain into the psychological and the technological. This again becomes a contradiction, a conditioning, a theory. The real question is whether the brain, the whole of it, can be still, quiet, and respond efficiently only when it has to in technology or in living. So we are not concerned with the psychological or the technological; we ask only, can this whole mind be completely still and function only when it has to? We say it can and this is the understanding of what meditation is.

克：這其中的危險是，從心理上的和技術上把大腦一分為二了。這也成為了一種衝突，一種局限，一種理論。真正的問題是，大腦，整個大腦，能不能安靜下來，變得寂靜，只在技術上或者生活中必須的時候才有效地反應。所以我們關心的不是心理層面，也不是技術層面；我們只是在問，這整個頭腦能不能完全安靜，只在必要時才運作？我們說這是可能的，而這就是對冥想是什麼的瞭解。

* * *

Questioner: If I may I should like to continue where we left off yesterday. You may remember that I asked two questions: I asked what is conditioning and what is freedom from conditioning, and you said let us take the first question first. We hadn't time to go into the second question, so I should like to ask today, what is the state of the mind that is free from all its conditioning? After talking with you yesterday it became very clear to me how deeply and strongly I am conditioned, and I saw - at least I think I saw - an opening, a crack in this structure of conditioning. I talked the matter over with a friend and in taking certain factual instances of conditioning I saw very clearly how deeply and venomously one's actions are affected by it. As you said at the end, meditation is the emptying of the mind of all conditioning so that there is no distortion or illusion. How s one to be free of all distortion, all illusion? What is illusion?

發問者：如果可以，我想從昨天我們談到的地方繼續探討。你可能還記得我問了兩個問題：我問局限是什麼，從局限中解脫出來是什麼，你說讓我們先來看第一個問題。我們當時沒時間探討第二個問題，所以今天我想問一下，從所有局限中解脫出來的頭腦是怎樣的一個狀態？昨天和你談了之後，我清晰地看到自己的局限是多麼深重和牢固，我看到——至少我覺得我看到了——這局限的結構中有個缺口，有個裂縫。我和一個朋友談了這個問題，從一些局限的實際例子中，我非常清楚地看到一個人的行為是如何深受影響和深受其害的。正如你最後所說的，冥想是清空頭腦所有的局限，這樣就沒有了扭曲或者幻覺。一個人要怎樣擺脫所有扭曲，所有幻覺？幻覺是什麼？

Krishnamurti: It is so easy to deceive oneself, so easy to convince oneself of anything at all. The feeling that one must be something is the beginning of deception, and, of course, this idealistic attitude leads to various forms of hypocrisy. What makes illusion? Well, one of the factors is this constant comparison between what is and what should be, or what might be, this measurement between the good and the bad - thought trying to improve itself, the memory of pleasure, trying to get more pleasure, and so on. It is this desire for more, this dissatisfaction, which makes one accept or have faith in something, and this must inevitably lead to every form of deception and illusion. It is desire and fear, hope and despair, that project the goal, the conclusion to be experienced. Therefore this experience has no reality. All so-called religious experiences follow this pattern. The very desire for enlightenment must also breed the acceptance of authority, and this is the opposite of enlightenment. Desire, dissatisfaction, fear, pleasure, wanting more, wanting to change, all of which is measurement - this is the way of illusion.

克：自欺太容易了，讓自己相信點什麼真是太容易了。一個人有必須成為什麼的感覺，是自欺的開始，當然，這種理想主義的態度會導致各種形式的虛偽。是什麼製造了幻覺？其中一個因素是不斷地比較現在如何和應當如何，或者可能如何，這種好壞之間的衡量——思想試圖改善自己，快樂的回憶，想要獲得更多的快樂，等等。是這種想要更多的欲望，這種不滿，使人接受或者相信某事，而這必然會導致各種形式的自欺和幻覺。是欲望和恐懼，希望和絕望，在投射目標，投射想體驗到的結論。所以這種體驗沒有真實性。所有所謂的宗教體驗都遵循這種模式。對覺悟的渴望本身，也必然會滋生對權威的接受，而這是與覺悟背道而馳的。欲望，不滿，恐懼，歡愉，想要更多，想要改變，所有這些都是衡量——這就是幻覺的形式。

Questioner: Do you really have no illusion at all about anything?

Krishnamurti: I am not all the time measuring myself or others. This freedom from measurement comes about when you are really living with what is - neither wishing to change it nor judging it in terms of good and bad. Living with something is not the acceptance of it: it is there whether you accept it or not. Living with something is not identifying yourself with it either.

發問者：你真的對任何事情都完全沒有幻覺了嗎？

克：我並沒有一直在衡量自己或者別人。當你真的與現在如何共處時——既不希望改變也不用好壞來評判，那麼就有了從衡量中解脫出來的自由。與某事共處，並不是接受它：不管你接受不接受，它都在那兒。與某事共處，也不是把你自己與它認同在一起。

Questioner: Can we go back to the question of what this freedom is that one really wants? This desire for freedom expresses itself in everybody, sometimes in the stupidest ways, but I think one can say that in the human heart there is always this deep longing for freedom which is never realized; there is this incessant struggle to be free. I know I am not free; I am caught in so many wants. How am I to be free, and what does it mean to be really honestly free?

發問者：我們能回到一個人真正想要的這種自由是什麼這個問題上來嗎？對自由的渴望，表現在每個人身上，有時候以最愚蠢的方式，但是我想可以這麼說，在人類的心靈深處一直有這種對自由的強烈渴望，而這自由從未實現過；一直有這種對自由的不停追求。我知道我不自由；我困在如此之多的欲望裡。我要怎樣才能自由，真正的自由到底意味著什麼？

Krishnamurti: Perhaps this may help us to understand it: total negation is that freedom. To negate everything we consider to be positive, to negate the total social morality, to negate all inward acceptance of authority, to negate everything one has said or concluded about reality, to negate all tradition, all teaching, all knowledge except technological knowledge, to negate all experience, to negate all the drives which stem from remembered or forgotten pleasures, to negate all fulfilment, to negate all commitments to act in a particular way, to negate all ideas, all principles, all theories. Such negation is the most positive action, therefore it is freedom.

克：或許下面的話能夠幫助我們來理解這點：全然的否定就是那自由。否定我們認為正確的所有事情，否定整個社會道德，否定所有內在對權威的接受，否定人們關於真相說過的所有話和所有結論，否定所有傳統，所有教誨，所有知識，除了技術知識，否定所有經驗，否定所有來自記得不記得的快感的動機，否定所有的成功，否定所有按特定方式行事的承諾，否定所有觀念，所有原則，所有理論。這樣的否定是最積極的行動，因而就是自由。

Questioner: If I chisel away at this, bit by bit, I shall go on for ever and that itself will be my bondage. Can it all all wither away in a flash, can I negate the whole human deception, all the values and aspiration and standards, immediately? Is it really possible? Doesn't it require enormous capacity, which I lack, enormous understanding, to see all this in a flash and leave it exposed to the light, to that intelligence you have talked about? I wonder, sir, if you know what this entails. To ask me, an ordinary man with an ordinary education, to plunge into something which seems like an incredible nothingness.... Can I do it? I don't even know what it means to jump into it! It's like asking me to become all of a sudden the most beautiful, innocent, lovely human being. You see I am really frightened now, not the way I was frightened before, I am faced now with something which I know is true, and yet my utter incapacity to do it binds me. I see the beauty of this thing, to be really completely nothing, but....

發問者：如果我一點點地清除掉這些，那麼我就得永遠這麼清除下去，這本身就變成了我的制約。這些能一下子都消失掉嗎，我能立刻就否定掉整個人類的自欺，所有的價值觀、渴望和標準嗎？這真的可能嗎？這難道不需要巨大的能力，而這正是我缺乏的，需要巨大的領悟，一下子看清這一切，把這一切曝露在陽光下，曝露在你所說的智慧之下？我想知道，先生，你是否知道這都需要些什麼。讓我，讓一個受過普通教育的普通人，縱身跳入某種看起來不可思議的空無之中....我能做到嗎？我甚至不知道那縱身一跳意味著什麼！就好像你要求我突然變成一個最美，最純真，最可愛的人一樣。你看，我現在真的很害怕，不是像以前那樣的害怕，我現在面對著某種我知道是真實的東西，但是我卻完全沒有能力做到這一點，這種無能為力牢牢捆縛著我。我看到了這件事情的美，成為真正的完全的一無所是者，但是....

Krishnamurti: You know, it is only when there is emptiness in oneself, not the emptiness of a shallow mind but the emptiness that comes with the total negation of everything one has been and should be and will be - it is only in this emptiness that there is creation; it is only in this emptiness that something new can take place. Fear is the thought of the unknown, so you are really frightened of leaving the known, the attachments, the satisfactions, the pleasurable memories, the continuity and security which give comfort. Thought is comparing this with what it thinks is emptiness. This imagination of emptiness is fear, so fear is thought. To come back to your question - can the mind negate everything it has known, the total content of its own conscious and unconscious self, which is the very essence of yourself? Can you negate yourself completely? If not, there is no freedom. Freedom is not freedom from something - that is only a reaction; freedom comes in total denial.

克：你知道，只有當一個人內在有這種空寂，不是一個膚淺的頭腦的那種空虛，而是來自于對他曾是、應是和將是的一切進行全然否定的空寂——只有在這種空寂中，才有創造；只有在這種空寂中才能有嶄新的東西出現。恐懼是對未知的想法，所以你非常害怕離開已知、依賴、滿足、快樂的記憶以及帶來舒適的連續性和安全感。思想總是拿這些與它認為的空寂進行比較。這種對空寂的想像就是恐懼，所以恐懼是思想。回到你的問題上來——頭腦能不能否定它所知的一切，否定它自身意識和潛意識的全部內容，而這個內容正是你自己的核心？你能徹底否定自己嗎？如果不能，就沒有自由。自由不是從某事中解脫出來——那只是一種反應；自由來自全然的否定。

Questioner: But what is the good of having such freedom? You are asking me to die, aren't you?

Krishnamurti: Of course! I wonder how you are using the word "good" when you say what is the good of this freedom? Good in terms of what? The known? Freedom is the absolute good and its action is the beauty of everyday life. In this freedom alone there is living, and without it how can there be love? Everything exists and has its being in this freedom. It is everywhere and nowhere. It has no frontiers. Can you die now to everything you know and not wait for tomorrow to die? This freedom is eternity and ecstasy and love.

發問者：但是有這樣的自由有什麼好處？你是在讓我死去，不是嗎？

克：當然！你說這種自由有什麼好處，我不知道你怎麼會用“好處”這個詞？就什麼而言的好處？已知嗎？自由是絕對的善，它的行動就是每日生活的美。在這種自由中才有生活，沒有自由怎麼可能有愛？一切都存在于這自由中，一切在這自由中都有其存身之處。它無處不在又一無所蹤。它沒有邊界。你現在能對你知道的一切死去嗎，而不是等到明天再死去？這種自由就是永恆，至樂和愛。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'HAPPINESS'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“幸福”

Questioner: What is happiness? I have always tried to find it but somehow it hasn't come my way. I see people enjoying themselves in so many different ways and many of the things they do seem so immature and childish. I suppose they are happy in their own way, but I want a different kind of happiness. I have had rare intimations that it might be possible to get it, but somehow it has always eluded me. I wonder what I can do to feel really completely happy?

發問者：幸福是什麼？我一直想找到它，但是不知怎的它就是不到我身邊來。我看到人們用多種不同的方式取悅自己，而他們做的很多事情看起來是那麼幼稚和不成熟。我想他們是用自己的方式快樂著，但是我想要的是一種不同的幸福。我曾得到過罕見的暗示說過幸福是可能得到的，但是不知怎的它總是躲避我。我想知道我要怎麼做才能真正地感到完全的幸福？

Krishnamurti: Do you think happiness is an end in itself? Or does it come as a secondary thing in living intelligently?

Questioner: I think it is an end in itself because if there is happiness then whatever you do will be harmonious; then you will do things effortlessly, easily, without any friction. I am sure that whatever you do out of this happiness will be right.

克：你覺得幸福是個最終目標嗎？還是在智慧的生活中，它只是隨後才發生的事情？

發問者：我覺得它是個最終目標，因為如果有幸福，那麼無論你做什麼都是和諧的；那麼你就會毫不費力地，輕鬆地做事情，沒有任何衝突摩擦。我相信從這種幸福出發，你做的任何事情都是正確的。

Krishnamurti: But is this so? Is happiness an end in itself? Virtue is not an end in itself. If it is, then it becomes a very small affair. Can you seek happiness? If you do then probably you will find an imitation of it in all sorts of distractions and indulgences. This is pleasure. What is the relationship between pleasure and happiness?

克：然而是這樣的嗎？幸福是個最終目標嗎？美德不是個最終目標。如果是，那麼它就變成了很渺小的一件事。你能追求幸福嗎？如果你追求它，那麼你可能會發現它的一個贗品，表現為各種各樣的消遣和享受。這是快感。快感和幸福之間的關係是什麼？

Questioner. I have never asked myself.

Krishnamurti: Pleasure which we pursue is mistakenly called happiness, but can you pursue happiness, as you pursue pleasure? Surely we must be very clear as to whether pleasure is happiness. Pleasure is gratification, satisfaction, indulgence, entertainment, stimulation. Most of us think pleasure is happiness, and the greatest pleasure we consider to be the greatest happiness. And is happiness the opposite of unhappiness? Are you trying to be happy because you are unhappy and dissatisfied? Has happiness got an opposite at all? Has love got an opposite? Is your question about happiness the result of being unhappy?

發問者：我從未問過自己這個問題。

克：我們追求的快感被誤認為是幸福，但是你能像追求快感那樣追求幸福嗎？顯然我們必須非常清楚一點，即快感是不是幸福。快感是滿足，滿意，享受，娛樂，刺激。我們大部分人都認為快感就是幸福，最大的快感我們認為就是最大的幸福。而幸福是不幸的反面嗎？你是不是因為不幸福不滿足所以才追求幸福？幸福到底有沒有對立面？愛有對立面嗎？你關於幸福的問題是不是不幸的結果？

Questioner: I am unhappy like the rest of the world and naturally I don't want to be, and that is what is driving me to seek happiness.

Krishnamurti: So happiness to you is the opposite of unhappiness. If you were happy you wouldn't seek it. So what is important is not happiness but whether unhappiness can end. That is the real problem, isn't it? You are asking about happiness because you are unhappy and you ask this question without finding out whether happiness is the opposite of unhappiness.

發問者：我像世界上其他的人一樣不快樂，當然我不想這樣，正是這點驅使我去追求幸福。

克：所以對你來說幸福就是不幸的反面。如果你幸福，你就不會再追求幸福。所以重要的不是幸福，而是不幸能否終結。這才是真正的問題，不是嗎？因為你不幸福，你就來問幸福的問題，而你問了這個問題卻沒發現幸福是不是不幸的反面。

Questioner: If you put it that way, I accept it. So my concern is how to be free from the misery I am in.

Krishnamurti: Which is more important - to understand unhappiness or to pursue happiness? If you pursue happiness it becomes an escape from unhappiness and therefore it will always remain, covered over perhaps, hidden, but always there, festering inside. So what is your question now?

Questioner: My question now is why am I miserable? You have very neatly pointed out to me my real state, rather than given me the answer I want, so now I am faced with this question, how am I to get rid of the misery I am in?

發問者：如果你這麼說，我也接受。所以我關心的是，我要怎樣擺脫我身處其中的痛苦。

克：哪個更重要——是瞭解不幸還是追求幸福？如果你追求幸福，那就變成了對不幸的逃避，所以不幸會繼續，或許被掩蓋，隱藏起來，但是它始終在那兒，在內心潰爛著。那麼你現在的問題是什麼？

發問者：我現在的問題是我為什麼痛苦？你非常確切地指出了我的真實狀態，而不是給我一個我想要的答案，所以現在我面對著這個問題，我要如何擺脫我身處的不幸？

Krishnamurti: Can an outside agency help you to get rid of your own misery, whether that outside agency be God, a master, a drug or a saviour? Or can one have the intelligence to understand the nature of unhappiness and deal with it immediately?

Questioner: I have come to you because I thought you might help me, so you could call yourself an outside agency. I want help and I don't care who gives it to me.

克：一個外部的媒介能夠幫你去除你自己的不幸嗎，不管這個外部媒介是上帝，上師，藥物還是救主？還是一個人得自己擁有瞭解不幸本質的智慧，並立即將其處理掉？

發問者：我來找你，是因為我想你也許能幫我，所以你把自己稱為一個外部媒介。我需要幫助，我不管能幫到我的是誰。

Krishnamurti: In accepting or giving help several things are involved. If you accept it blindly you will be caught in the trap of one authority or another, which brings with it various other problems, such as obedience and fear. So if you start off wanting help, not only do you not get help - because nobody can help you anyway - but in addition you get a whole series of new problems; you are deeper in the mire than ever before.

克：接受或給予幫助，這涉及到幾件事情。如果你盲目地接受，你就會困在這種或那種權威的陷阱中，而這會帶來各種各樣其他的問題，比如服從和恐懼。所以如果你從尋求幫助開始，那麼你不僅不能得到幫助——因為根本沒人能幫你——而且你還會增加整整一系列的新問題；你就比以前陷入了更深的泥沼中。

Questioner: I think I understand and accept that. I have never thought it out clearly before. How then can I develop the intelligence to deal with unhappiness on my own, and immediately? If I had this intelligence surely I wouldn't be here now, I wouldn't be asking you to help me. So my question now is, can I get this intelligence in order to solve the problem of unhappiness and thereby attain happiness?

發問者：我想我明白也接受這點。我以前從沒想清楚過這點。那麼我要怎樣才能獲得這樣的智慧，自己即刻就能處理這不幸？如果我有這種智慧，顯然我現在就不會在這裡了，我就不會來請你幫我了。所以現在我的問題是，我能獲得這種智慧來解決不幸的問題進而獲得幸福嗎？

Krishnamurti: You are saying that this intelligence is separate from its action. The action of this intelligence is the seeing and the understanding of the problem,itself. The two are not separate and successive; you don't first get intelligence and then use it on the problem like a tool. it is one of the sicknesses of thinking to say that one should have the capacity first and then use it, the idea or the principle first and then apply it. This itself is the very absence of intelligence and the origin of problems. This is fragmentation. We live this way and so we speak of happiness and unhappiness, hate and love, and so on.

克：你是說這智慧與它的行動是分開的。這智慧的行動就是看到並理解問題本身。這兩者不是分開的，也不是有先後關係的；你無法先獲得智慧然後像使用工具一樣用它來解決問題。認為一個人必須先擁有能力，然後再使用它，先有想法或者原則然後再應用，這正是思考的弊病之一。這本身正是缺乏智慧，正是問題的根源。這是分裂。我們正是這樣生活的，所以我們談論幸福和不幸，恨和愛，等等等等。

Questioner: Perhaps this is inherent in the structure of language.

Krishnamurti: Perhaps it is but let's not make too much fuss about it here and wander away from the issue. We are saying that intelligence, and the action of that intelligence - which is seeing the problem of unhappiness - are one indivisibly. Also that this is not separate from ending unhappiness or getting happiness.

發問者：或許語言的內在結構本身就是如此。

克：也許是這樣，但是我們在這裡不要對此大驚小怪，離開主題。我們說那智慧，以及那智慧的行動——也就是看清不幸的問題——是不可分割的一體。同時這與終結不幸或者得到幸福也不是分開的。

Questioner: How am I to get that intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Have you understood what we have been saying?

Questioner: Yes.

發問者：我要如何獲得那智慧？

克：你理解我們剛才說的話了嗎？

發問者：是的。

Krishnamurti: But if you have understood you have seen that this seeing is intelligence. The only thing you can do is to see; you cannot cultivate intelligence in order to see. Seeing is not the cultivation of intelligence. Seeing is more important than intelligence, or happiness, or unhappiness. There is only seeing or not seeing. All the rest - happiness, unhappiness and intelligence - are just words.

Questioner: What is it, then, to see?

發問者：可是如果你理解了，你就會明白這看到就是智慧。你唯一能做的一件事就是去看到；你無法為了看到去培育智慧。看到不是培養智慧。看到比智慧，比幸福或者不幸都重要。只有看到還是沒看到。其他的一切——幸福，不幸和智慧——只是詞語而已。

發問者：那麼，看到是什麼呢？

Krishnamurti: To see means to understand how thought creates the opposites. What thought creates is not real. To see means to understand the nature of thought, memory, conflict, ideas; to see all this as a total process is to understand. This is intelligence; seeing totally is intelligence; seeing fragmentarily is the lack of intelligence.

克：看到意味著瞭解思想是如何製造對立面的。思想製造的一切都不是真實的。看到意味著瞭解思想，記憶，衝突，觀念的本質；作為一整個過程看到這一切就是了解。這就是智慧；整體地看到就是智慧；片面地看到就是缺乏智慧。

Questioner: I am a bit bewildered. I think I understand, but it is rather tenuous; I must go slowly. What you are saying is, see and listen completely. You say this attention is intelligence and you say that it must be immediate. One can only see now. I wonder if I really see now, or am I going home to think over what you have said, hoping to see later?

發問者：我有點迷惑了。我想我理解了，但是相當牽強；我必須得慢慢來。你說的是，全然地看到和聆聽。你說這全神貫注是智慧，你說這必須是即刻發生的。一個人只能現在看到。我不知道我現在是否真的看到了，還是我得回家好好想想你說的話，希望以後能看到？

Krishnamurti: Then you will never see; in thinking about it you will never see it because thinking prevents seeing. Both of us have understood what it means to see. This seeing is not an essence or an abstraction or an idea. You cannot see if there is nothing to see. Now you have a problem of unhappiness. See it completely, including your wanting to be happy and how thought creates the opposite. See the search for happiness and the seeking help in order to get happiness. See disappointment, hope, fear. All of this must be seen comple- tely, as a whole, not separately. See all this now, give your whole attention to it.

克：那麼你就永遠也看不到；如果去思考，你就永遠看不到這點，因為思考妨礙了看到。我們都理解了看到意味著什麼。這看到不是一種概括，也不是一種抽象、一個觀念。如果沒什麼東西可看，你就無法看到。現在你有個不幸的問題。完全地看到它，包括你想要幸福，以及思想如何製造出了對立面。看到對幸福的追求，看到為了得到幸福去尋求幫助。看到失望，希望和恐懼。這一切必須被作為一個整體完全看到，而不是分開看到。現在來看這一切，用你全部的注意力去看。

Questioner: I am still bewildered. I don't know whether I have got the essence of it, the whole point. I want to close my eyes and go into myself to see if I have really understood this thing. If I have then I have solved my problem.

發問者：我還是迷惑。我不知道我是否明白了其中的核心，這整個重點。我想閉上眼睛，深入到自己內心來看一看我是不是真的理解了這件事。如果我理解了，那麼我就解決了我的問題。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'LEARNING'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“學習”

Questioner: You have often talked about learning. I don't quite know what you mean by it. We are taught to learn at school and at the University, and life also teaches us many things - to adjust ourselves to environment and to our neighbours, to our wife or husband, to our children. We seem to learn from almost everything, but I am sure that when you speak about learning this isn't quite what you mean because you also seem to deny experience as a teacher. But when you deny experience aren't you denying all learning? After all, through experience, both in technology and in human everyday living, we learn everything we know. So could we go into this question?

發問者：你常常談到學習。我不太知道你說的學習是什麼意思。我們在學校裡、大學裡接受教育、學習，生活也教會我們很多東西——根據環境和我們的鄰居、妻子或者丈夫、我們的孩子來調整自己。我們似乎在從所有事情中學習，但是我相信你說學習的時候，並不是這個意思，因為你似乎也否定了作為老師的經驗。但是當你否定經驗時，你不就是在否定一切學習嗎？畢竟，通過技術上和人們每日生活中的經驗，我們學到了我們所知的一切。所以我們能深入探討一下這個問題嗎？

Krishnamurti: Learning through experience is one thing - it is the accumulation of conditioning - and learning all the time, not only about objective things but also about oneself, is something quite different. There is the accumulation which brings about conditioning - this we know - and there is the learning which we speak about. This learning is observation - to observe without accumulation, to observe in freedom. This observation is not directed from the past. Let us keep those two things clear.

克：從經驗中學習是一回事——這是局限的積累——而始終在學習，不僅學習客觀事物而且也對一個人自己進行瞭解，這完全是另一回事。存在著導致局限的積累——這點我們都知道——也存在著我們說的那種學習。這種學習是觀察——不積累地觀察，在自由中觀察。這種觀察不受過去控制。讓我們把這兩件事弄清楚。

What do we learn from experience? We learn things like languages, agriculture, manners, going to the moon, medicine, mathematics. But have we learnt about war through making war? We have learnt to make war more deadly, more efficient, but we haven't learnt not to make war. Our experience in warfare endangers the survival of the human race. Is this learning? You may build a better house, but has experience taught you how to live more nobly inside it? We have learnt through experience that fire burns and that has become our conditioning but we have also learnt through our conditioning that nationalism is good. Yet experience should also teach us that nationalism is deadly. All the evidence is there. The religious experience, as based on our conditioning, has separated man from man. Experience has taught us to have better food, clothes and shelter, but it has not taught us that social injustice prevents the right relationship between man and man. So experience conditions and strengthens our prejudices, our peculiar tendencies and our particular dogmas and beliefs. We do not learn what stupid nonsense all this is; we do not learn to live in the right relationship with other men. This right relationship is love. Experience teaches me to strengthen the family as a unit opposed to society and to other families. This brings about strife and division, which makes it ever more important to strengthen the family protectively, and so the vicious circle continues. We accumulate, and call this "learning through experience", but more and more this learning brings about fragmentation, narrowness and specialization.

我們從經驗裡學到了什麼？我們學習諸如語言、農業、禮儀、登月、醫藥、數學之類的東西。但是我們是不是通過發動戰爭也學會了戰爭？我們學會了使戰爭變得更致命、更有效率，但是我們沒有學會不去發動戰爭。我們的戰爭經驗使人類的生存瀕臨危險。這是學習嗎？你能造一座更好的房子，但是這經驗教會了你如何更高尚地住在這房子裡嗎？我們從經驗中學到了火會燃燒，這變成了我們的局限，但是我們也從我們的局限裡學到了國家主義很好。而經驗也應該告訴我們國家主義是致命的。所有的證據都在那兒。以我們的局限為基礎的宗教經驗，把人與人分割開來。經驗教會我們獲取更好的食物、衣服和住所，但是它沒有教我們認識到社會不公妨礙了人與人之間正確的關係。所以經驗決定了加強了我們的偏見，我們特定的傾向和我們特定的教條和信仰。我們沒有學到這一切是多麼愚蠢的無稽之談；我們沒有學會與他人一起生活在正確的關係中。這正確的關係就是愛。經驗告訴我把家庭作為對立於社會和其他家庭的一個單元來鞏固。這造成了衝突和分裂，使得保護性地鞏固家庭變得更為重要，於是繼續惡性循環下去。我們積累，稱之為“從經驗中學習”，但是這種學習帶來了越來越多的分裂、狹隘和限制。

Questioner: Are you making out a case against technological learning and experience, against science and all accumulated knowledge? If we turn our backs on that we shall go back to savagery.

發問者：你是在提出論據反對技術上的學習和經驗，反對科學和積累的所有知識嗎？如果我們反對這些，那麼我們就會回到蠻夷狀態。

Krishnamurti: No, I am not making out such a case at all. I think we are misunderstanding each other. We said that there are two kinds of learning: accumulation through experience, and acting from that accumulation, which is the past, and which is absolutely necessary wherever the action of knowledge is necessary. We are not against this; that would be too absurd!

克：不，我根本不是在反對這些。我想我們誤會對方了。我們說有兩種學習：一種是通過經驗來積累並根據這積累，也就是根據過去進行反應，而需要知識來行動的時候，這些是絕對必要的。我們並不反對這些；那就太荒唐了！

Questioner: Gandhi tried to keep the machine out of life and started all that business which they call "Home industries" or "Cottage industries" in India. Yet he used modern mechanized transport. This shows the inconsistency and hypocrisy of his position.

發問者：甘地試圖把機器趕出生活，並在印度發起了那場他們稱為“居家產業”或者“家庭手工業”的運動。然而他卻使用現代機械化的交通工具。這表明了他的主張的矛盾和虛偽。

Krishnamurti: Let's leave other people out of this. We are saying that there are two kinds of learning - one, acting through the accumulation of knowledge and experience, and the other, learning without accumulation, but learning all the time in the very act of living. The former is absolutely necessary in all technical matters, but relationship, behaviour, are not technical matters, they are living things and you have to learn about them all the time. If you act from what you have learnt about behaviour, then it becomes mechanical and therefore relationship becomes routine.

克：讓我們把其他的人排除討論之外。我們說有兩種學習——一種是，通過積累的知識和經驗來行動，另一種是，不積累地學習，始終在生活這個行為本身中學習。前者在所有的技術事務中都是絕對必要的，而關係和行為，不是技術性事務，它們是活生生的事情，你必須始終從中學習。如果你根據之前學到的關於行為的知識來行動，那麼就會變得機械化，進而關係就變成了例行公事。

Then there is another very important point: in all the learning which is accumulation and experience, profit is the criterion that determines the efficiency of the learning. And when the motive of profit operates in human relationships then it destroys those relationships because it brings about isolation and division. When the learning of experience and accumulation enters the domain of human behaviour, the psychological domain, then it must inevitably destroy. Enlightened self-interest on the one hand is advancement, but on the other hand it is the very seat of mischief, misery and confusion. Relationship cannot flower where there is self-interest of any kind, and that is why relationship cannot flower where it is guided by experience or memory.

接下來還有非常重要的一點：在所有積累和經驗的學習中，利益是決定學習效率的標準。當獲益的動機在人際關係中運作時，就破壞了這些關係，因為這帶來了孤立和分離。當經驗和積累的學習進入到人類行為的領域，心理領域中時，就必然會產生破壞。公開的利己主義一方面是進步，但是另一方面正是不幸、痛苦和混亂的根源。如果有任何形式的利己主義，關係就無法綻放，這就是為什麼有經驗或者記憶指導的地方關係就不能綻放。

Questioner: I see this, but isn't religious experience something different? I am talking about the experience gathered and passed on in religious matters - the experiences of the saints and gurus, the experience of the philosophers. Isn't this kind of experience beneficial to us in our ignorance?

發問者：我看到了這點，但是難道宗教體驗不是不同的嗎？我說的是在宗教事務方面積累和傳承下來的經驗——聖人和古魯的經驗，哲人的經驗。難道這種經驗對於對治我們的無知不是有益的嗎？

Krishnamurti: Not at all! The saint must be recognised by society and always conforms to society's notions of sainthood - otherwise he wouldn't be called a saint. Equally the guru must be recognised as such by his followers who are conditioned by tradition. So both the guru and the disciple are part of the cultural and religious conditioning of the particular society in which they live. When they assert that they have come into contact with reality, that they know, then you may be quite sure that what they know is not reality. What they know is their own projection from the past. So the man who says he knows, does not know. in all these so-called religious experiences a cognitive process of recognition is inherent. You can only recognise something you have known before, therefore it is of the past, therefore it is time-binding and not timeless. So-called religious experience does not bring benefit but merely conditions you according to your particular tradition, inclination, tendency and desire, and therefore encourages every form of illusion and isolation.

克：根本毫無益處！聖人必須為社會所認可，並始終遵守社會對聖徒抱持的信條——否則他就不能被稱為聖人。同樣古魯也必須被他的追隨者所認可，而這些追隨者被傳統所局限。所以古魯和弟子都是他們所處的特定社會的文化和宗教局限的一部分。當他們聲稱他們接上了真相，聲稱他們知道，那麼你就可以肯定他們知道的不是真相。他們知道的是他們自己來自過去的投射。所以說自己知道的人，並不知道。在所有這些所謂的宗教體驗中，必然會有一個認知的過程。你只能認出你以前知道的東西，所以那是來自過去的，因而是受限於時間的，不是永恆的。所謂的宗教體驗不會帶來任何益處，而是只會把你局限於你特定的傳統、傾向、好惡和欲望中，因而助長了各種形式的幻覺和孤立。

Questioner: Do you mean to say that you cannot experience reality?

Krishnamurti: To experience implies that there must be an experiencer and the experiencer is the essence of all conditioning. What he experiences is the already-known.

Questioner: What do you mean when you talk about the experiencer? If there is no experiencer do you mean you disappear?

發問者：你的意思是說你無法體驗真相？

克：去體驗意味著必須有個體驗者，而體驗者正是所有局限的核心。他體驗到的是已知。

發問者：你說的體驗者是什麼意思？如果沒有體驗者，你的意思是不是你消失了？

Krishnamurti: Of course. The "you" is the past and as long as the "you" remains or the "me" remains, that which is immense cannot be. The "me" with his shallow little mind, experience and knowledge, with his heart burdened with jealousies and anxieties - how can such an entity understand that which has no beginning and no ending, that which is ecstasy? So the beginning of wisdom is to understand yourself. Begin understanding yourself.

Questioner: Is the experiencer different from that which he experiences, is the challenge different from the reaction to the challenge?

克：當然是的。“你”就是過去，只要“你”還在，那無限就不可能在。“我”帶著他狹隘的頭腦、經驗和知識，帶著他被嫉妒和焦慮所負累的心——這樣一個實體怎麼可能瞭解那無始無終之物，也就是至樂？所以智慧的開端就是了解你自己。開始瞭解你自己吧。

發問者：體驗者與他的體驗是不同的嗎，挑戰與應對挑戰的反應是不同的嗎？

Krishnamurti: The experiencer is the experienced, otherwise he could not recognise the experience and would not call it an experience; the experience is already in him before he recognises it. So the past is always operating and recognising itself; the new becomes swallowed up by the old. Similarly it is the reaction which determines the challenge; the challenge is the reaction, the two are not separate; without a reaction there would be no challenge. So the experience of an experiencer, or the reaction to a challenge which comes from the experiencer, are old, for they are determined by the experiencer. If you come to think of it, the word "experience" means to go through something and finish with it and not store it up, but when we talk about experience we actually mean the opposite. Every time you speak of experience you speak of something stored from which action takes place, you speak of something which you have enjoyed and demand to have again, or have disliked and fear to have repeated.

So really to live is to learn without the cumulative process.

克：體驗者即體驗到的，否則他就不可能認出這體驗，不會把它稱為一次體驗；在認出來之前，這體驗他已經有過了。所以過去總是在運作並認出它自己；新的東西被舊的吞噬了。同樣，是反應決定了挑戰；挑戰就是反應，這兩者不是分開的；沒有反應就沒有挑戰。所以一個體驗者的體驗，或者體驗者對挑戰的反應，是陳舊的，因為他們取決於體驗者。如果你來想一想，“體驗”這個詞意味著經歷某事，結束它而不存儲，但是我們談起體驗的時候，我們實際上說的是相反的意思。每次你說到經驗，你說的都是以前存儲的東西，而行動從中產生，你說的是你曾經享受過並希望再來一次的事情，或者不喜歡、害怕會再重複的事情。

所以真正地活著就是學習而沒有積累的過程。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SELF-EXPRESSION'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“自我表達”

Questioner: Expression seems to me so important. I must express myself as an artist otherwise I feel stifled and deeply frustrated. Expression is part of one's existence. As an artist it is as natural that I should give myself to it as that a man should express his love for a woman in words and gestures. But through all this expression there is a sort of pain which I don't quite understand. I think most artists would agree with me that there is deep conflict in expressing one's deepest feelings on canvas, or in any other medium. I wonder if one can ever be free of this pain, or does expression always bring pain?

發問者：表達對我來說顯得特別重要。我必須像一個藝術家那樣表達自己，否則我就感覺窒息並且非常沮喪。表達是我存在的一部分。作為一個藝術家，充分表現自己，就像一個男人用語言和動作表達他對一個女人的愛一樣自然。但是在這所有的表達過程中，有一種痛苦我不是很理解。我想大多數藝術家都會在這一點上贊同我，即在畫布上或者其他介質上表達自己最深刻的感受時，有一種深深的衝突。我想知道一個人能否擺脫這種痛苦，或者是不是表達總是會帶來痛苦？

Krishnamurti: What is the need of expression, and where does the suffering come into all this? Isn't one always trying to express more and more deeply, extravagantly, fully, and is one ever satisfied with what one has expressed? The deep feeling and the expression of it are not the same thing; there is a vast difference between the two, and there is always frustration when the expression doesn't correspond to the strong feeling. Probably this is one of the causes of pain, this discontent with the inadequacy of the utterance which the artist gives to his feeling. In this there is conflict and the conflict is a waste of energy. An artist has a strong feeling which is fairly authentic; he expresses it on canvas. This expression pleases some people and they buy his work; he gets money and reputation. His expression has been noticed and becomes fashionable. He refines it, pursues it, develops it, and is all the time imitating himself. This expression becomes habitual and stylized; the expression becomes more and more important and finally more important than the feeling; the feeling eventually evaporates. The artist is not left with the social consequences of being a successful painter: the market place of the salon and the gallery, the connoisseur, the critics; he is enslaved by the society for which he paints. The feeling has long since disappeared, the expression is an empty shell remaining. Consequently even this expression eventually loses its attraction because it had nothing to express; it is a gesture, a word without a meaning. This is part of the destructive process of society. This is the destruction of the good.

克：為什麼需要表達，所有這一切中的痛苦又是從哪裡來的？難道一個人不是總想越來越深刻、恣意、充分地表達自己嗎？而對所表達的，他可曾滿意過？深刻的感受與對它的表達不是一回事；這兩者之間有著巨大的差別，當表達不足以響應這強烈的感受時，就始終會有挫折感。也許這就是痛苦的原因之一，即藝術家對無法充分表達自身感受的這種不滿。這其中就有衝突，而衝突是能量的浪費。藝術家擁有某種相當真實的強烈感受；他把這感受用畫布表達出來。這種表達取悅了某些人，他們買走他的作品；他得到了金錢和名聲。他的表達得到了廣泛關注，成為了一種時尚。於是他完善這表達，追逐它，發展它，他始終在模仿自己。這種表達變得習慣和程式化；這表達變得越來越重要，最後變得比感受本身更加重要；最後感受就消失不見了。藝術家所擁有的不只是成為一個成功畫家的社會影響：市場上的沙龍和畫廊，鑒賞家，批評家；他被他為之作畫的社會所奴役。這種感受消失良久，表達就變成了一個殘存的空殼。進而最終連這表達也失去了吸引力，因為已經沒什麼可表達的了；那只是一種沒有意義的空洞姿態和語言。這就是這個社會破壞過程的一部分。這就是美好被破壞的過程。

Questioner: Can't the feeling remain, without getting lost in expression?

發問者：難道感受就不能保留下來而不迷失在表達中嗎？

Krishnamurti: When expression becomes all-important because it is pleasurable, satisfying or profitable, then there is a cleavage between expression and feeling. When the feeling is the expression then the conflict doesn't arise, and in this there is no contradiction and hence no conflict. But when profit and thought intervene, then this feeling is lost through greed. The passion of feeling is entirely different from the passion of expression, and most people are caught in the passion of expression. So there is always this division between the good and the pleasurable.

克：當表達因為令人愉悅、滿足或者有利可圖而變得無比重要時，在表達和感受之間就有了裂隙。當感受就是表達本身時，衝突就不會出現，其中沒有矛盾進而沒有衝突。但是當利益和思想干涉進來時，就因為貪婪而失去了這種感受。感受裡的熱情與表達出來的熱情完全不同，人們大多數被困在了表達出來的熱情裡。所以美好與愉悅之間總是有這種分別。

Questioner: Can I live without being caught in this current of greed?

Krishnamurti: If it is the feeling which is important you will never ask about expression. Either you have got the feeling or you haven't. If you ask about the expression, you are not asking about artistry but about profit. Artistry is that which is never taken into account: it is the living.

發問者：我能不困在這貪婪的洪流裡生活嗎？

克：如果對你來說重要的是感受，你就永遠不會去問表達。你要麼有感受，要麼沒有。如果你來問表達，你問的就不是藝術而是利益。藝術是從來不用思考的事情：它就是生活。

Questioner: So what is it, to live? What is it to be, and to have that feeling which is complete in itself? I have now understood that expression is beside the point.

Krishnamurti: It is living without conflict.

發問者：那麼，生活是什麼呢？成為並擁有自身就完滿的那感受，是怎樣的？我現在明白了表達的問題離題了。

克：那就是沒有衝突地生活。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'PASSION'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“熱情”

Questioner: What is passion? You've talked about it and apparently you give it a special meaning. I don't think I know that meaning. Like every man I have sexual passion and passions for superficial things like fast driving or cultivating a beautiful garden. Most of us indulge in some form of passionate activity. Talk about his special passion and you see a man's eyes sparkle. We know the word passion comes from the Greek word for suffering, but the feeling I get when you use this word is not one of suffering but rather of some driving quality like that of the wind which comes roaring out of the west, chasing the clouds and the rubbish before it. I'd like to possess that passion. How does one come by it? What is it passionate about? What is the passion you mean?

發問者：熱情是什麼？這點你曾談到過，顯然你賦予了它一個特別的含義。我想我不知道那含義是什麼。就像所有人一樣，我有對性的熱情，也有對開快車或者打理漂亮的花園之類膚淺事情的熱情。我們多數人都沉溺於某種形式的激情行為中。一個人在談論他特定的愛好時，你能看到他的眼睛在發光。我們知道熱情這個詞來自希臘語裡的痛苦這個詞，但是你用這個詞的時候，我感覺到的不是痛苦，而是某種像風一樣的驅動力，這風從西方呼嘯而來，追趕著它前面的層雲和垃圾。我想擁有這熱情。一個人要怎樣擁有它？它對什麼熱情洋溢？你說的熱情是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: I think we should be clear that lust and passion are two different things. Lust is sustained by thought, driven by thought, it grows and gathers substance in thought until it explodes - sexually, or, if it is the lust for power, in its own violent forms of fulfilment. Passion is something entirely different; it is not the product of thought nor the remembrance of a past event; it is not driven by any motive of fulfilment; it is not sorrow either.

克：我想我們應該清楚貪欲和熱情是不同的兩件事情。貪欲由思想維繫，被思想驅使，它在思想中滋長和積聚，直到爆發——從性方面爆發，或者如果那是對權力的貪欲，就會有它自己去實現的暴力方式。熱情是截然不同的東西；它不是思想的產物，也不是對過去事件的回憶；它不受任何成功動機的驅使；它也不是悲傷。

Questioner: Is all sexual passion lust? Sexual response is not always the result of thought; it may be contact as when you suddenly meet somebody whose loveliness overpowers you.

發問者：所有的性激情都是貪欲嗎？性反應不總是思想的產物；當你突然遇到一個可愛得征服了你的人，就可能會發生這樣的關係。

Krishnamurti: Wherever thought builds up the image of pleasure it must inevitably be lust and not the freedom of passion. If pleasure is the main drive then it is lust. When sexual feeling is born out of pleasure it is lust. If it is born out of love it is not lust, even though great delight may then be present. Here we must be clear and find out for ourselves whether love excludes pleasure and enjoyment. When you see a cloud and delight in its vastness and the light on it, there is of course pleasure, but there is a great deal more than pleasure. We are not condemning this at all. If you keep returning to the cloud in thought, or in fact, for a stimulation, then you are indulging in an imaginative flight of fancy, and obviously here pleasure and thought are the incentives operating. When you first looked at that cloud and saw its beauty there was no such incentive of pleasure operating. The beauty in sex is the absence of the "me", the ego, but the thought of sex is the affirmation of this ego, and that is pleasure. This ego is all the time either seeking pleasure or avoiding pain, wanting fulfilment and thereby inviting frustration. In all this the feeling of passion is sustained and pursued by thought, and therefore it is no longer passion but pleasure. The hope, the pursuit, of remembered passion is pleasure.

克：無論思想在哪裡建立起快感的形象，那都必然是貪欲，而不是自由的熱情。如果快感是主要驅動力，那麼它就是貪欲。如果性感覺誕生於快感，那它就是貪欲。如果是誕生於愛，那就不是貪欲，即使當中可能有巨大的快樂。這點我們必須清楚，必須自己去發現愛是否排除了快感和享受。當你看到一片雲，欣賞它的廣闊和其上的光芒時，其中確實有一種快樂，但是還有比快樂多得多的東西。我們根本不是在貶低快感。如果你不斷地為了得到某種刺激從思想裡回想那片雲，或者回去看那片雲，那麼你就是沉溺在異想天開的幻想中，很顯然，快感和思想是在這裡運作著的誘因。當你初次看到那片雲，看到它的美，那時候是沒有快感的動機運作的。性中的美是“我”、自我的缺席，但是關於性的想法卻在加強這個自我，而這就是快感。這個自我始終在尋求快樂或者避免痛苦，想要成就，因而招致挫敗。在這一切中，熱情的感覺是被思想維繫和追逐的，所以就不再是熱情了，而是快感。對記憶中的熱情的企望、追求是快感。

Questioner: What is passion itself, then?

發問者：那麼熱情本身是什麼呢？

Krishnamurti: It has to do with joy and ecstasy, which is not pleasure. In pleasure there is always a subtle form of effort - a seeing, striving, demanding, struggling to keep it, to get it, In passion there is no demand and therefore no struggle. In passion there is not the slightest shadow of fulfilment, therefore there can be neither frustration nor pain, Passion is the freedom from the "me", which is the centre of all fulfilment and pain. Passion does not demand because it is, and I am not speaking of something static. Passion is the austerity of self-abnegation in which the "you" and the "me" is not; therefore passion is the essence of life. It is this that moves and lives. But when thought brings in all the problems of having and holding, then passion ceases. Without passion creation is not possible.

克：它必然與喜悅和至樂同在，而這些不是快感。在快感中總是有一種形式微妙的努力——一個看到、想要、追求、努力保持它、獲得它的過程。在熱情中，沒有欲望，因而沒有努力。在熱情中，沒有一絲的成就感，所以既不會有挫折也不會有痛苦。熱情是從“我”中解脫出來，而“我”正是所有滿足和痛苦的中心。熱情沒有欲望，因為它是...我不是在說某種靜態的東西。熱情是自我否定的簡樸，其中沒有了“你”和“我”；所以熱情是生命的精髓。是這些在運動在生活。但是當思想帶來了獲得和佔有的所有問題時，熱情就停止了。沒有熱情，就不可能有創造。

Questioner: What do you mean by creation?

Krishnamurti: Freedom.

Questioner: What freedom?

發問者：你說的創造是什麼意思？

克：自由。

發問者：什麼自由？

Krishnamurti: Freedom from the "me" which depends on environment and is the product of environment - the me which is put together by society and thought. This freedom is clarity, the light that is not lit from the past. Passion is only the present.

克：從“我”中解脫的自由，“我”依賴於環境，是環境的產物——這個我是由社會和思想造就的。這自由就是清晰，是不從過去點亮的光。熱情只有現在。

Questioner: This has fired me with a strange new feeling.

Krishnamurti: That is the passion of learning.

發問者：這用一種奇異的新感覺點燃了我。

克：這就是學習的熱情。

Questioner: What particular action in my daily living will ensure that this passion is burning and operating?

Krishnamurti: Nothing will ensure it except the attention of learning, which is action, which is now. In this there is the beauty of passion, which is the total abandonment of the "me" and its time.

發問者：在我的日常生活中，需要怎樣的特定行動來確保這種熱情持續燃燒和運作？

克：沒什麼能保證這點，除了全神貫注的學習，也就是行動，也就是現在。其中就有熱情的美，也就是對“我”及其時間的徹底拋棄。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'ORDER'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“秩序”

Questioner: In your teaching there are a thousand details. in my living I must be able to resolve them all into one action, now, which permeates all I do, because in my living I have only the one moment right before me in which to act. What is that one action in daily living which will bring all the details of your teaching to one point, like a pyramid inverted on its point?

Krishnamurti: ...dangerously!

發問者：你的教誨中有千萬個細節。我必須在我的生活中現在就能將它們全部融合為一個行動，滲透到我做的所有事情中，因為在我的生活中，我只有就在我眼前的這一刻，在這一刻中去行動。就像金字塔倒置在塔尖上一樣，在日常生活中把你教誨的所有細節凝聚成一個點的這個行動是什麼？

克：...這太危險了！

Questioner: Or, to put it differently, what is the one action which will bring the total intelligence of living into focus in one instant in the present?

發問者：或者換句話說，把生活的全部智慧凝聚到現在這一刻的那個行動是什麼？

Krishnamurti: I think the question to ask is how to live a really intelligent, balanced, active life, in harmonious relationship with other human beings, without confusion, adjustment and misery. What is the one act that will summon this intelligence to operate in whatever you are doing? There is so much misery, poverty and sorrow in the world. What are you, as a human being, to do facing all these human problems? If you use the opportunity to help others for your own fulfilment, then it is exploitation and mischief. So we can put that aside from the beginning. The question really is, how are we to live a highly intelligent, orderly life without any kind of effort? It seems that we always approach this problem from the outside, asking ourselves, "What am I to do, confronted with all the many problems of mankind - economic, social, human?" We want to work this out in terms of the outer.

克：我想該問的問題是，如何過一種真正智慧、平衡和有活力的生活，與他人處於和諧的關係中，沒有困惑、順從和痛苦。讓這種智慧在你所有的行為中都運作的那個行動是什麼？世界上有這麼多不幸、貧窮和悲傷。作為一個人，面對所有這些人類的問題，你該怎麼辦？如果你利用幫助別人的機會來實現自己的成就感，那麼這就是剝削和傷害。所以我們從一開始就要把這些放在一邊。真正的問題是，我們要怎樣過一種高度智慧和有序的生活，而沒有任何形式的努力？我們似乎總是從外部來著手這個問題，我們問自己，“面對人類這麼多的問題，我該怎麼辦——經濟的，社會的，人性的問題？”我們想從外部解決這些問題。

Questioner: No, I am not asking you how I can tackle or solve the problems of the world, economic, social or political. That would be too absurd! All I want to know is how to live righteously in this world exactly as it is, because it is as it is now, right here before me, and I can't will it into any other shape. I must live now in this world as it is, and in these circumstances solve all the problems of living. I am asking how to make this living a life of Dharma, which is that virtue that is not imposed from without, that does not conform to any precept, is not cultivated by any thought.

發問者：不，我不是問你我要如何解決或者處理世界上的經濟、社會或政治問題。那就太荒唐了！我只是想知道如何在這個世界上按照世界本身的樣子正確地生活，因為現在的世界就是這個樣子，就在我面前，我不能靠意志力把它變成別的樣子。我現在必須如實地生活在這個世界上，就在這樣的環境下，解決生活中的所有問題。我問的是怎樣把生活變得有德性，這美德不是從無德處強加的，不需遵從任何戒律，也不是由任何思想培養出來的。

Krishnamurti: Do you mean you want to find yourself immediately, suddenly, in a state of grace which is great intelligence, innocency, love - to find yourself in this state without having a past or a future, and to act from this state?

Questioner: Yes! That is it exactly.

Krishnamurti: This has nothing to do with achievement, success or failure. There must surely be only one way to live: what is it?

Questioner: That is my question.

克：你的意思是不是，你希望立刻、突然發現自己處於一種善美的狀態中，也就是巨大的智慧、赤誠和愛中——發現自己處於這種狀態中，沒有過去和未來，並從這狀態中行動？

發問者：是的！正是這樣。

克：這與成就、成功或者失敗無關。必然只能有一種生活方式：那是什麼方式？

發問者：這就是我的問題。

Krishnamurti: To have inside you that light that has no beginning and no ending, that is not lit by your desire, that is not yours or someone else's. When there is this inward light, whatever you do will always be right and true.

Questioner: How do you get that light, now, without all the struggle, the search, the longing, the questioning?

克：在你的內心擁有這無始無終的光，那光不是被你的欲望點亮的，不是你的也不是別人的。有了這內在的光，無論你做什麼都始終是正確的。

發問者：你要如何得到那光，現在就得到，而不需要任何掙扎、追尋、渴望和質疑？

Krishnamurti: It is only possible when you really die to the past completely, and this can be done only when there is complete order in the brain. The brain cannot stand disorder. If there is disorder all its activities will be contradictory, confused, miserable and it will bring about mischief in itself and around itself. This order is not the design of thought, the design of obedience to a principle, to authority, or to some form of imagined goodness. It is disorder in the brain that brings about conflict; then all the various resistances cultivated by thought to escape from this disorder arise - religious and otherwise.

克：只有當你真的對過去徹底死去時，這才可能，只有頭腦中有完全的秩序時，才能做到這點。大腦不能容忍任何失序。如果有失序，那麼它的所有行為都會是矛盾的，困惑的，痛苦的，會帶來自身及其周圍的不幸。這秩序不是思想的產物，不是來自對某個原則、權威或者想像出來的某種形式的良善的服從。是頭腦中的失序帶來了衝突；隨後就產生了由思想滋養的所有各式各樣的抗拒，以逃避這失序——以宗教的或者非宗教的方式。

Questioner: How can this order be brought about to a brain that is disorderly, contradictory, in itself?

發問者：對於一個本身就失序、矛盾的大腦，要怎樣帶來這種秩序？

Krishnamurti: It can be done by watchfulness throughout the day, and then, before sleeping, by putting everything that has been done during the day in order. In that way the brain does not go to sleep in disorder. This does not mean that the brain hypnotizes itself into a state of order when there is really disorder in and about it. There must be order during the day, and the summing up of this order before sleeping is the harmonious ending of the day. It is like a man who keeps accounts and balances them properly every evening so that he starts afresh the next day, so that when he goes to sleep his mind is quiet, empty, not worried, confused, anxious or fearful. When he wakes up there is this light which is not the product of thought or of pleasure. This light is intelligence and love. It is the negation of the disorder of the morality in which we have been brought up.

克：要做到這點，需要整個白天都警覺，然後在睡前，把白天做的所有事情整理有序。這樣大腦就不會在失序中睡去。這並不意味著大腦把自己催眠到一個有序的狀態裡，而實際上在大腦中及其周圍都是失序的。白天必須有秩序，到睡前把這秩序歸結到一起，一天就和諧地結束了。就像一個人每天晚上合理地保持帳戶收支平衡，這樣第二天他就可以重新開始，所以在入睡的時候，他的頭腦是安靜的，空無的，而不是著急的，困惑的，焦慮或者恐懼的。當他醒來時，就有一種並非思想或快感產物的光。這光就是智慧和愛。這就否定了我們在其中成長起來的道德上的失序。

Questioner: Can I have this light immediately? That is the question I asked right at the beginning, only I put it differently.

Krishnamurti: You can have it immediately when the "me" is not. The "me" comes to an end when it sees for itself that it must end; the seeing is the light of understanding.

發問者：我能即刻擁有這光嗎？這就是我一開始就問的問題，只是提法不同而已。

克：沒有了“我”，你就立刻能擁有它。“我”看到自己必須結束，“我”就結束了；這看到就是領悟的光。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMMUNITY'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“個人與團體”

Questioner: I don't quite know how to ask this question but I have a strong feeling that relationship between the individual and the community, these two opposing entities, has been a long history of mischief. The history of the world, of thought, of civilization, is, after all, the history of the relationship between these two opposing entities. In all societies the individual is more or less suppressed; he must conform and fit into the pattern which the theorists have determined. The individual is always trying to break out of these patterns, and continuous battle between the two is the result. Religions talk about the individual soul as something separate from the collective soul. They emphasize the individual. In modern society - which has become so mechanical, standardized and collectively active - the individual is trying to identify himself, enquiring what he is, asserting himself. All struggle leads nowhere. My question is, what is wrong with all this?

發問者：我不太知道該怎麼問你這個問題，但是我有種強烈的感覺，個人和團體這兩個對立實體之間的關係，是一部漫長的苦難史。畢竟，世界的、思想的、文化的歷史，都是這兩個對立實體之間的關係史。在所有社會中，個人都或多或少地被壓制；他必須服從並符合理論家們定好的模式。個人總想打破這些模式，結果就是這兩者之間的不停鬥爭。宗教說個人的靈魂是與集體靈魂分開的東西。他們強調個人。在現代社會中——這個社會已經變得如此機械化、標準化，行動劃一——個人想要確認和探索他自己是什麼，維護自己。所有的鬥爭都毫無意義。我的問題是，這一切到底出了什麼問題？

Krishnamurti: The only thing that really matters is that there be an action of goodness, love and intelligence in living. Is goodness individual or collective, is love personal or impersonal, is intelligence yours, mine or somebody else's? If it is yours or mine then it is not intelligence, or love, or goodness. If goodness is an affair of the individual or of the collective, according to one's particular preference or decision, then it is no longer goodness. Goodness is not in the backyard of the individual nor in the open field of the collective; goodness flowers only in freedom from both. When there is this goodness, love and intelligence, then action is not in terms of the individual or the collective. Lacking goodness, we divide the world into the individual and the collective, and further divide the collective into innumerable groups according to religion, nationality and class. Having created these divisions we try to bridge them by forming new groups which are again divided from other groups. We see that every great religion supposedly exists to bring about the brotherhood of man and, in actual fact, prevents it. We always try to reform that which is already corrupt. We don't eradicate corruption fundamentally but simply rearrange it.

克：唯一真正重要的事情是生活中有良善、愛和智慧的行動。善是個人的或者集體的嗎，愛是個人的或者非個人的嗎，智慧是你的，我的或者別人的嗎？如果它是你的或者我的，那麼它就不是智慧，愛或者善。如果善是個人的或者集體的事情，基於一個人特定的偏好或者決定，那麼它就不再是善。善不在個人的後院裡，也不在集體的開闊土地上；善只有在從兩者解脫出來的自由中才能綻放。有這種良善、愛和智慧的地方，行動就不再是個人的或者集體的。因為缺乏善，我們把世界劃分成了個人的和集體的，並根據宗教、國家和階級進一步把集體劃分為不計其數的組織。製造了這些分別，我們又想通過成立新的組織在其間架起橋樑，而這些組織又是與其他組織相分離的。我們看到所有大型宗教的存在本應帶來人類大同，但是事實上，卻成為了世界大同的障礙。我們總是試圖改革已經腐敗的東西。我們不去根除腐敗，而只是草草進行一下重組。

Questioner: Are you saying that we need not waste time in these endless bargainings between the individual and the collective, or try to prove that they are different or that they are similar? Are you saying that only goodness, love and intelligence are the issue, and that these lie beyond the individual or the collective?

Krishnamurti: Yes.

發問者：你是說我們不需要在個人和集體之間這些無止境的討價還價中浪費時間了，也不要試圖去證明他們是不同或者相似的了？你是說只有良善，愛和智慧才是問題所在，而這些問題超越了個人或者集體？

克：是的。

Questioner: So the real question seems to be how love, goodness and intelligence can act in daily living.

Krishnamurti: If these act, then the question of the individual and the collective is academic.

Questioner: How are they to act?

發問者：所以真正的問題似乎是愛、良善和智慧要如何在日常生活中運作。

克：如果它們運作，那麼個人和集體的問題就是不切實際的了。

發問者：它們要如何運作？

Krishnamurti: They can act only in relationship: all existence is in relationship. So the first thing is to become aware of one's relationship to everything and everybody, and to see how in this relationship the "me" is born and acts. This "me" that is both the collective and the individual; it is the "me" that separates; it is the "me" that acts collectively or individually, the "me" that creates heaven and hell. To be aware of this is to understand it. And the understanding of it is the ending of it. The ending of it is goodness, love and intelligence.

克：它們只能在關係中運作：所有存在都在關係中。所以首要的事情就是要覺察到一個人與所有人和事的關係，看到這關係中“我”是如何產生和運作的。這個“我”既是集體的也是個人的；是“我”在分裂；是“我”在集體地或者個體地行動著，這個“我”製造了天堂和地獄。覺察這些就是去瞭解“我”。而瞭解了“我”就終結了它。“我”的終結就是良善，愛和智慧。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'MEDITATION AND ENERGY'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“冥想與能量”

Questioner: This morning I should like to go into the deeper meaning, or deeper sense, of meditation. I have practised many forms of it, including a little Zen. There are various schools which teach awareness but they all seem rather superficial, so can we leave all that aside and go into it more deeply?

發問者：今天早上我想探討一下冥想更為深層的含義，或者說更深刻的意義。我練習過很多形式的冥想，包括一點點禪坐。有很多學校教覺察，但是它們看起來都相當膚淺，所以我們能不能把那些都放在一邊，更為深入地探討一下這點？

Krishnamurti: We must also set aside the whole meaning of authority, because in meditation any form of authority, either one's own or the authority of another, becomes an impediment and prevents freedom - prevents a freshness, a newness. So authority, conformity and imitation must be set aside completely. Otherwise you merely imitate, follow what has been said, and that makes the mind very dull and stupid. In that there is no freedom. Your past experience may guide, direct or establish a new path, and so even that must go. Then only can one go into this very deep and extraordinarily important thing called meditation. Meditation is the essence of energy.

克：我們必須把權威的整個含義都放在一旁，因為在冥想中，任何形式的權威，無論是一個人自己的還是別人的權威，都會變成一種障礙，妨礙了自由——妨礙新鮮和嶄新的東西出現。所以權威、遵從和仿效必須被徹底擱置一旁。否則你就只是在模仿、遵從別人所說的，而那會讓頭腦變得非常遲鈍和愚蠢。那裡沒有自由。你過去的經驗或許能夠引導、指出或者建立一種新途徑，所以即使是這些東西也必須放下。只有此時你才能深入到被稱為冥想的這件非常深刻和極其重要的事情當中去。冥想是能量的核心。

Questioner: For many years I have tried to see that I do not become a slave to the authority of someone else or to a pattern. Of course there is a danger of deceiving myself but as we go along I shall probably find out. But when you say that meditation is the essence of energy, what do you mean by the words energy and meditation?

發問者：多年來，我一直努力確保自己不成為別人的權威或者某種模式的奴隸。當然這其中會有一種自欺的危險，但是當我們探討下去時，我可能就會有所發現。然而當你說冥想是能量的核心時，其中的能量和冥想這些詞是什麼意思呢？

Krishnamurti: Every movement of thought every action demands energy. Whatever you do or think needs energy, and this energy can be dissipated through conflict, through various forms of unnecessary thought, emotional pursuits and sentimental activities. Energy is wasted in conflict which arises in duality, in the "me" and the "not-me", in the division between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought. When this wastage is no longer taking place there is a quality of energy which can be called an awareness - an awareness in which there is no evaluation, judgement, condemnation or comparison but merely an attentive observation, a seeing of things exactly as they are, both inwardly and outwardly, without the interference of thought, which is the past.

克：思想的每個運動，每個活動都需要能量。無論你做什麼或者想什麼，都需要能量，而這種能量可能會因為衝突，因為各種形式的不必要的思想、感情追求和感情用事的行為，而消耗。能量浪費在來自二元性、“我”和“非我”的衝突中，浪費在觀察者和被觀察者、思想者和思想之間的分裂中。只有這種浪費不再發生時，才能有一種可以被稱為覺察的能量品質——在這覺察中沒有評估、判斷、譴責和比較，只有一種全神貫注的觀察，從內在和外在如實地看到事情的樣子，沒有思想也就是過去的干擾。

Questioner: This I find very difficult to understand. If there were no thought at all, would it be possible to recognise a tree, or my wife or neighbour? Recognition is necessary, isn't it, when you look at a tree or the woman next door?

發問者：我發現這點非常難以理解。如果根本沒有思想，又怎麼可能認出一棵樹，或者我的妻子和鄰居？當你看著一棵樹或者隔壁的女人時，認知是必要的，不是嗎？

Krishnamurti: When you observe a tree is recognition necessary? When you look at that tree, do you say it is a tree or do you just look? If you begin to recognise it as an elm, an oak or a mango tree then the past interferes with direct observation. In the same way, when you look at your wife, if you look with memories of annoyances or pleasures you are not really looking at her but at the image which you have in your mind about her. That prevents direct perception: direct perception does not need recognition. Outward recognition of your wife, your children, your house or your neighbour is, of course necessary, but why should there be an interference of the past in the eyes, the mind and the heart? Doesn't it prevent you from seeing clearly? When you condemn or have an opinion about something, that opinion or prejudice distorts observation.

克：當你觀察一棵樹時，認知是必要的嗎？當你看著那棵樹時，你會說那是棵樹，還是只是看著它呢？如果你開始認出那是一顆榆樹、橡樹或者芒果樹，那麼過去就是在干擾直接的觀察。同樣，當你看著你的妻子，如果你是帶著苦惱或者快樂的記憶在看，那麼你就沒有真的在看她，而是在看你頭腦裡關於她的一個意象。而這妨礙了直接的觀察：直接的覺察不需要認知。從外部對你的妻子、孩子、房子或者你的鄰居的認知，當然是必要的，但是為什麼在你的眼睛裡、頭腦裡和心裡要有過去的干涉？難道那沒有妨礙你清晰地看到嗎？當你對某事譴責或者有某個觀點時，那觀點或者偏見就扭曲了觀察。

Questioner: Yes, I see that. That subtle form of recognition does distort, I see that. You say all these interferences of thought are a waste of energy. You say observe without any form of recognition, condemnation, judgement; observe without naming, for that naming, recognition, condemnation are a waste of energy. That can be logically and actually understood. Then there is the next point which is the division, the separateness, or, rather, as you have often put it in your talks, the space that exists between the observer and the observed which creates duality; you say that this also is a waste of energy and brings about conflict. I find everything you say logical but I find it extraordinarily difficult to remove that space, to bring about harmony between the observer and the observed. How is this to be done?

發問者：是的，這點我明白。這種微妙的認知形式確實有扭曲作用，我看到了這點。你說所有這些思想的干擾是能量的浪費。你說觀察而沒有任何形式的認知、譴責和評判；不命名地觀察，因為命名、認知和譴責是能量的浪費。這點可以從道理上被真正地理解。接下來的一個要點是分裂、分離，或者如你在講話中所說的，存在於觀察者和被觀察者之間的距離，這產生了二元性；你說這也是一種能量的浪費，帶來了衝突。我發現你說的每一件事都很有道理，但是我發現要去除那個距離，帶來觀察者與被觀察者之間的和諧，是極其困難的。要怎樣才能做到這點？

Krishnamurti: There is no how. The how means a system, a method, a practice which becomes mechanical. Again we have to be rid of the significance of the word "how".

Questioner: Is it possible? I know the word possible implies a future, an effort, a striving to bring about harmony, but one must use certain words. I hope we can go beyond those words, so is it possible to bring about a union between the observer and the observed?

克：沒有怎樣。怎樣意味著變得機械的一個體系，一個方法，一種練習。我們還得摒棄“怎樣”這個詞的含義。

發問者：這可能嗎？我知道可能這個詞暗示了一個未來，一種想帶來和諧的努力和追求，但是你必須得使用某些詞語。我希望我們能超越這些詞語，那麼，是否可能帶來觀察者和被觀察者之間的一種統一？

Krishnamurti: The observer is always casting its shadow on the thing it observes. So one must understand the structure and the nature of the observer, not how to bring about a union between the two. One must understand the movement of the observer and in that understanding perhaps the observer comes to an end. We must examine what the observer is: it is the past with all its memories, conscious and unconscious, its racial inheritance, its accumulated experience which is called knowledge, its reactions. The observer is really the conditioned entity. He is the one who asserts that he is, and I am. In protecting himself, he resists, dominates, seeking comfort and security. The observer then sets himself apart as something different from that which he observes, inwardly or outwardly. This brings about a duality and from this duality there is conflict, which is the wastage of energy. To be aware of the observer, his movement, his self-centred activity, his assertions, his prejudices, one must be aware of all these unconscious movements which build the separatist feeling that he is different. It must be observed without any form of evaluation, without like and dislike; just observe it in daily life, in its relationships. When this observation is clear, isn't there then a freedom from the observer?

克：觀察者總是在它觀察的事物上投射自己的陰影。所以一個人必須瞭解觀察者的結構和性質，而不是去實現這兩者之間的統一。一個人必須瞭解觀察者的活動，在這種瞭解中，也許觀察者就終止了。我們必須審視觀察者是什麼：它是帶著所有記憶的過去，有意識的和無意識的，帶著過去的種族遺傳，被稱為知識的積累起來的經驗，以及過去的種種反應。觀察者實在是一個局限的存在體。他是那個堅稱他是誰和我是誰的人。在自我保護中，他抗拒，控制，尋求舒適和安全。繼而觀察者把自己作為不同於他所觀察之物的某種東西分離開來，從內在或外在都是如此。這帶來了一種二元性，從這種二元性中就產生了衝突，那正是能量的浪費。要覺察到觀察者，他的活動，他的自我中心行為，他的主張，他的偏見，一個人就必須覺察到所有這些潛意識的活動，這些活動製造了一種分離感，感覺自己是不同的。必須沒有任何形式的評估，沒有好惡地觀察到這一點；只是在日常生活中，在關係中觀察這些。當這種觀察清晰之時，不就有了一種從觀察者中解脫出來的自由嗎？

Questioner: You are saying, sir, that the observer is really the ego; you are saying that as long as the ego exists, he must resist, divide, separate, for in this separation, this division, he feels alive. It gives him vitality to resist, to fight, and he has become accustomed to that battle; it is his way of living. Are you not saying that this ego, this "I", must dissolve through an observation in which there is no sense of like or dislike, no opinion or judgement, but only the observing of this "I" in action? But can such a thing really take place? Can I look at myself so completely, so truly, without distortion? You say that when I do look at myself so clearly then the "I" has no movement at all. And you say this is part of meditation? Krishnamurti: Of course. This is meditation.

發問者：先生，你是說，觀察者實際上就是自我；你是說只要自我還存在，他就必然會抗拒，分裂，分離，因為在這種分離和分裂中，他感覺到自己的存在。這給了他抗拒和奮爭的力量，他於是變得習慣於這種鬥爭；那是他的生存方式。你難道不是說這個自我，這個“我”必須要通過沒有好惡感的觀察來消除嗎，沒有觀點或評判，而只有對這個“我”的行為的觀察？但是這種事情真的能發生嗎？我能夠如此完全地，如此真實地，沒有扭曲地看著我自己嗎？你說當我如此清晰地看著自己時，“我”就沒有任何運動了。你說這是冥想的一部分嗎？

克：當然。這就是冥想。

Questioner: This observation surely demands extraordinary self-discipline.

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by self-discipline? Do you mean disciplining the self by putting him in a strait-jacket, or do you mean learning about the self, the self that asserts, that dominates, that is ambitious, violent and so on - learning about it? The learning is, in itself, discipline. The word discipline means to learn and when there is learning, not accumulating, when there is actual learning, which needs attention, that learning brings about its own responsibility, its own activity, its own dimensions: so there is no discipline as something imposed upon it. Where there is learning there is no imitation, no conformity, no authority. If this is what you mean by the word discipline, then surely there is freedom to learn?

發問者：這種觀察肯定需要巨大的自律。

克：你說的自律是什麼意思？你的意思是不是把自我裝進一件束身衣裡來約束他，還是說瞭解自己，瞭解那個堅信著，控制著，並且充滿了野心和暴力等等的自我——去瞭解它？瞭解就是它自己的紀律。紀律這個詞意味著學習，當有學習而不是積累，有這種真正的學習時，這需要一種關注，這種學習就帶來了它自身的責任，自身的行動，自身的空間：於是就沒有那種強加於上的紀律。有學習就沒有模仿，沒有遵從，沒有權威。如果這就是你說的紀律這個詞的意思，那麼是不是顯然就有了學習的自由？

Questioner: You are taking me too far and perhaps too deeply, and I can't quite go with you where this learning is concerned. I see very clearly that the self as the observer must come to an end. It is logically so, and there must be no conflict: that is very clear. But you are saying that this very observation is learning and in learning there is always accumulation; this accumulation becomes the past. Learning is an additive process, but you are apparently giving it a different meaning altogether. From what I have understood you are saying that learning is a constant movement without accumulation. Is that so? Can learning be without accumulation?

發問者：你把我帶得太遠或許也太深了，關於這種學習的那部分，我不太跟得上你。我很清楚地看到，作為觀察者的自我必須停止。道理上是這樣的，必須沒有衝突：這點很清楚。但是你說這種觀察本身就是學習，而在學習中總是有積累的；這種積累變成了過去。學習是一個累加的過程，但是顯然你賦予了這個詞完全不同的含義。按我理解的，你說的學習是一個不停的沒有積累的過程。是這樣嗎？學習能沒有積累嗎？

Krishnamurti: Learning is its own action. What generally happens is that having learnt - we act upon what we have learnt. So there is division between the past and action, and hence there is a conflict between what should be and what is, or what has been and what is. We are saying that there can be action in the very movement of learning: that is, learning is doing; it is not a question of having learnt and then acting. This is very important to understand because having learnt, and acting from that accumulation, is the very nature of the "me", the "I", the ego or whatever name one likes to give it. The "I" is the very essence of the past and the past impinges on the present and so on into the future. In this there is constant division. Where there is learning there is a constant movement; there is no accumulation which can become the "I".

克：學習就是它自身的行動。在學習中通常發生的是——我們根據我們所學到的來行動。所以總是有過去和行動之間的分裂，因而總是有應該如何和現在如何，或者曾經如何和現在如何之間的衝突。我們說在學習的每一刻中都會有行動：也就是說，學習就是行動；不是先學到然後行動的問題。理解這一點，非常重要，因為先學到，然後根據那些積累來行動，正是“我”，“自我”的本質所在，或者不管你喜歡管它叫什麼名字。“我”正是過去的核心所在，而過去嚴重妨礙著現在，進而影響未來。其中不斷地有分裂。而有學習的時候，就有一種不停的運動；其中沒有會變成“我”的積累過程。

Questioner: But in the technological field there must be accumulated knowledge. One can't fly the Atlantic or run a car, or even do most of the ordinary daily things without knowledge.

發問者：但是在技術領域必須有知識的積累。如果沒有知識，一個人就不可能飛躍大西洋或者開車，甚至連大部分的日常事務也做不了。

Krishnamurti: Of course not, sir; such knowledge is absolutely necessary. But we are talking about the psychological field in which the "I" operates. The "I" can use technological knowledge in order to achieve something, a position or prestige; the "I" can use that knowledge to function, but if in functioning the "I" interferes, things begin to go wrong, for the "I", through technical means, seeks status. So the "I" is not concerned merely with knowledge in scientific fields; it is using it to achieve something else. It is like a musician who uses the piano to become famous. What he is concerned with is fame and not the beauty of the music in itself or for itself. We are not saying that we must get rid of technological knowledge; on the contrary, the more technological knowledge there is the better living conditions will be. But the moment the "I" uses it, things begin to go wrong.

克：當然做不了，先生；這種知識是絕對需要的。但是我們談的是“我”所活動的心理領域。“我”可以利用技術知識來實現某事，一個職位或者威望；“我”可以使用知識來操作，但是如果在操作中“我”進行干涉，事情的發展就開始誤入歧途，因為“我”在通過技術手段，來尋求地位。所以“我”不僅僅關注科學領域的知識；它是在用這些知識來實現別的事情。就像一個音樂家利用鋼琴來出名一樣。他關心的是名聲，而不是音樂本身的美。我們不是說我們必須擺脫技術知識；相反，技術知識越多，生活條件就越好。但是一旦“我”利用了知識，事情就開始誤入歧途了。

Questioner: I think I begin to understand what you are saying. You are giving quite a different meaning and dimension to the word learning, which is marvellous. I am beginning to grasp it. You are saying that meditation is a movement of learning and in that there is freedom to learn about everything, not only about meditation, but about the way one lives, drives, eats, talks, everything.

發問者：我想我開始理解你所說的了。你賦予了學習這個詞完全不同的含義和特性，這很奇妙。我開始領會這一點了。你說冥想是學習的運動，其中就有對所有事情進行學習的自由，不只是學習冥想，而是瞭解一個人的生活方式，他如何駕駛，進食，說話，所有的事情。

Krishnamurti: As we said, the essence of energy is meditation. To put it differently - so long as there is a meditator there is no meditation. If he attempts to achieve a state described by others, or some flash of experience....

克：正如我們所說，能量的核心是冥想。換句話說——只要有冥想者就沒有冥想。如果他試圖實現別人描述的某個狀態，或者得到某種靈光閃現的體驗...

Questioner: If I may interrupt you, sir, are you saying that learning must be constant, a flow, a line without any break, so that learning and action are one, or a constant movement? I don't know what word to use, but I am sure you understand what I mean. The moment there is a break between learning, action and meditation, that break is a disharmony, that break is conflict. In that break there is the observer and the observed and hence the whole wastage of energy; is that what you are saying?

發問者：如果我可以打斷你一下，先生，你是不是說學習必須是一種不停的流動，沒有任何中斷的一條線，這樣學習和行動就是一體的，或者是同一個不停的運動？我不知道該用什麼詞，但是我相信你明白我的意思。一旦學習、行動和冥想之間有裂隙，那裂隙就是不和諧，那裂隙就是衝突。那裂隙中有觀察者和被觀察者，因而就有整個能量的浪費；這是你所說的意思嗎？

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a state; it is a movement, as action is a movement. And as we said just now, when we separate action from learning, then the observer comes between the learning and the action; then he becomes important; then he uses action and learning for ulterior motives. When this is very clearly understood as one harmonious movement of acting, of learning, of meditation, there is no wastage of energy and this is the beauty of meditation. There is only one movement. Learning is far more important than meditation or action. To learn there must be complete freedom, not only consciously but deeply, inwardly - a total freedom. And in freedom there is this movement of learning, acting, meditating as a harmonious whole. The word whole not only means health but holy. So learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation is holy. This is really a sacred thing and the beauty is in itself and not beyond it.

克：是的，這就是我們說的意思。冥想不是一個狀態；那是一種運動，就像行動是一種運動。正如我們剛才所說，當我們把行動和學習分開，從學習和行動之間就產生了觀察者；然後他就變得很重要；然後他就利用行動和學習來達成別有用心的目的。當非常清晰地理解了作為同一個和諧運動的行動、學習和冥想時，就沒有了能量的浪費，而這就是冥想的美。只存在著一種運動。學習比冥想或者行動重要多了。要學習，就必須有完全的自由，不僅僅是意識層面的自由，而且是深深的內在的自由——全然的自由。在自由中就有這種學習、行動和冥想作為一個和諧整體的運動。完整這個詞不僅僅意味著健康，而且意味著神聖。所以學習是神聖的，行動是神聖的，冥想是神聖的。這是真正神聖的事情，美就在其中，而不在什麼遙遠的地方。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'ENDING THOUGHT'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“終結思想”

Questioner: I wonder what you really mean by ending thought. I talked to a friend about it and he said it is some kind of oriental nonsense. To him thought is the highest form of intelligence and action, the very salt of life, indispensable. It has created civilization, and all relationship is based on it. All of us accept this, from the greatest thinker to the humblest labourer. When we don't think we sleep, vegetate or daydream; we are vacant, dull and unproductive, whereas when we are awake we are thinking, doing, living, quarrelling: these are the only two states we know. You say, be beyond both - beyond thought and vacant inactivity. What do you mean by this?

發問者：我想知道你說的終結思想究竟是什麼意思。我跟一個朋友談過這點，他說這是東方的某種無稽之談。對他來說，思想是最高形式的智慧和行為，是生命的精華所在，是不可或缺的。思想創造了文明，所有的關係也基於思想。我們所有人，從最偉大的思想家到最卑微的勞動者，都接受這點。我們不思考的時候會睡去，如同行屍走肉或者做白日夢；我們會茫然，遲鈍和沒有建設性，而我們醒著的時候，我們思考，做事，生活，爭吵：這是我們唯一知道的兩個狀態。你說，這兩者都要超越——超越思想和空洞的不活躍狀態。你這麼說是什麼意思？

Krishnamurti: Very simply put, thought is the response of memory, the past. The past is an infinity or a second ago. When thought acts it is this past which is acting as memory, as experience, as knowledge, as opportunity. All will is desire based on this past and directed towards pleasure or the avoidance of pain. When thought is functioning it is the past, therefore there is no new living at all; it is the past living in the present, modifying itself and the present. So there is nothing new in life that way, and when something new is to be found there must be the absence of the past, the mind must not be cluttered up with thought, fear, pleasure, and everything else. Only when the mind is uncluttered can the new come into being, and for this reason we say that thought must be still, operating only when it has to - objectively, efficiently. All continuity is thought; when there is continuity there is nothing new. Do you see how important this is? It's really a question of life itself. Either you live in the past, or you live totally differently: that is the whole point.

克：簡單地說，思想是記憶和過去的反應。過去是無限久遠或者一秒鐘以前。當思想運作時，是這過去在作為記憶，作為經驗，作為知識，作為機會在運作。所有的意願都是基於這過去的欲望，導向快樂或者避免痛苦。當思想在運作，那就是過去，因而根本沒有新生活；是過去活在了現在，調整著自己和現在。所以那樣生活中就沒有新鮮的東西，若要找到新鮮的東西，過去必須缺席，頭腦必須不被思想、恐懼、快感及其他東西所充塞。只有當頭腦不被充塞的時候，嶄新的東西才能出現，因此，我們說思想必須安靜，只在必要的時候才運作——客觀地，有效地運作。所有的延續性都是思想；有延續性就沒有嶄新的東西。你看到這點多麼重要了嗎？這實在是關乎生命本身的一個問題。要麼你活在過去裡，要麼你截然不同地生活：這就是整個重點。

Questioner: I think I do see what you mean, but how in the world is one to end this thought? When I listen to the blackbird there is thought telling me instantly it is the blackbird; when I walk down the street thought tells me I am walking down the street and tells me all I recognise and see; when I play with the notion of not thinking it is again thought that plays this game. All meaning and understanding and communication are thought. Even when I am not communicating with someone else I am doing so with myself. When I am awake, I think, when I am asleep I think. The whole structure of my being is thought. Its roots lie far deeper than I know. All I think and do and all I am is thought, thought creating pleasure and pain, appetites, longings, resolutions, conclusions, hopes, fears and questions. Thought commits murder and thought forgives. So how can one go beyond it? Isn't it thought again which seeks to go beyond it?

發問者：我想我確實明白了你的意思，但是在這個世界上一個人要怎樣結束這思想？當我聽到黑鸝的叫聲時，思想馬上告訴我這是黑鸝；當我走過街道時，思想告訴我我在走過街道，並且告訴我我認出和看到的一切；當我把玩著不要思考這個想法時，還是思想在玩這個遊戲。所有的含義、瞭解和交流都是思想。即使在我不和別人交流的時候，我也在跟自己交流。醒著的時候我思考，睡著的時候也思考。我整個存在的結構就是思想。它的根源深藏在我所不知道的地方。我所想所做所是的一切都是思想，思想製造了快樂和痛苦、欲望、追求、決定、希望、恐懼和問題。思想謀殺，思想寬恕。那麼一個人要怎樣才能超越思想？難道不又是思想在尋求超越？

Krishnamurti: We both said, when thought is still, something new can be. We both saw that point clearly and to understand it clearly is the ending of thought.

Questioner: But that understanding is also thought.

Krishnamurti: Is it? You assume that it is thought, but is it, actually?

Questioner: It is a mental movement with meaning, a communication to oneself.

克：我們都說了，當思想安靜時，新鮮的東西會出現。我們都清楚地看到了這點，而清晰地瞭解到這點就終結了思想。

發問者：但是這瞭解也是思想。

克：是嗎？你認為那是思想，但它真的是嗎？

發問者：那是帶有某種含義的一個心理活動，一種跟自己的交流。

Krishnamurti: If it is a communication to oneself it is thought. But is understanding a mental movement with meaning?

Questioner: Yes it is.

克：如果是跟自己的交流，那就是思想。但是瞭解是帶有某種含義的一個心理活動嗎？

發問者：是的。

Krishnamurti: The meaning of the word and the understanding of that meaning is thought. That is necessary in life. There thought must function efficiently. It is a technological matter. But you are not asking that. You are asking how thought, which is the very movement of life as you know it, can come to an end. Can it only end when you die? That is really your question, isn't it?

Questioner: Yes.

克：詞的含義和對那含義的理解是思想。這在生活中是必要的。思想必須在此時有效地運作。這是個技術上的問題。但是你問的不是這個。你問的是思想，也就是你所知的生命中的這種活動本身，能否結束。它只能在你死的時候結束嗎？這才是你真正的問題，是不是？

發問者：是的。

Krishnamurti: That is the right question. Die! Die to the past, to tradition.

Questioner: But how?

克：這才是正確的問題。死去！對過去，對傳統死去。

發問者：但是要怎麼做到呢？

Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought. The brain is matter and thought is matter. Can the brain - with all its reactions and its immediate responses to every challenge and demand - can that brain be very still? It is not a question of ending thought, but of whether the brain can be completely still. Can it act with full capacity when necessary and otherwise be still? This stillness is not physical death. See what happens when the brain is completely still. See what happens.

克：大腦是思想的來源。大腦是物質，思想也是物質。大腦能不能——連同它對所有挑戰和欲望的反應和即刻的回應——這大腦能不能非常安靜？這不是個終結思想的問題，而是大腦能否徹底安靜的問題。它能不能在必要的時候才全力以赴地行動，其他時候就保持安靜？這寂靜不是生理上的死亡。看看大腦完全安靜的時候會發生什麼。看看會發生什麼。

Questioner: In that space there was a blackbird, the green tree, the blue sky, the man hammering next door, the sound of the wind in the trees and my own heartbeat, the total quietness of the body. That is all.

發問者：在那空間裡，有一隻黑鸝，有綠樹，有藍天，有在隔壁敲打著的男人，樹間的風聲和我自己的心跳聲，身體完全的安靜。就這些。

Krishnamurti: If there was recognition of the blackbird singing, then the brain was active, was interpreting. It was not still. This really demands tremendous alertness and discipline, the watching that brings its own discipline, not imposed or brought about by your unconscious desire to achieve a result or a pleasurable new experience. Therefore during the day thought must operate effectively, sanely, and also watch itself.

克：如果有對歌唱著的黑鸝的認知，那麼大腦就在活動著，在詮釋。它不是安靜的。這真的需要巨大的警覺和紀律，觀察帶來它自身的紀律，不是思想強加的，也不是你無意中想要實現某個結果或者某個愉悅的新體驗的欲望帶來的。所以白天思想必須有效地、理性地運作，同時觀察自己。

Questioner: That is easy, but what about going beyond it?

發問者：這很容易，但是要超越它呢？

Krishnamurti: Who is asking this question? Is it the desire to experience something new or is it the enquiry? If it is the enquiry, then you must enquire and investigate the whole business of thinking and be completely familiar with it, know all its tricks and subtleties. If you have done this you will know that the question of going beyond thought is an empty one. Going beyond thought is knowing what thought is.

克：誰在問這個問題？是想要體驗新東西的欲望，還是探詢本身？如果是探詢，那麼你必須探索和審視思想這整件事情，完全熟悉它，知道它所有的詭計和微妙之處。如果你做到了這點，你就會知道超越思想的問題是沒有意義的。超越思想就是知道思想是什麼。

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'THE NEW HUMAN BEING'

《轉變的緊迫性》之“新人類”

Questioner: I am a reformer, a social worker. Seeing the extraordinary injustice there is in the world my whole life has been dedicated to reform. I used to be a Communist but I can't go along with Communism any more, it has ended in tyranny. Nevertheless, I am still dedicated to reforming society so that man can live in dignity, beauty and freedom, and realize the potential which nature seems to have given him, and which he himself seems always to have stolen from his fellow man. In America there is a certain kind of freedom, and yet standardization and propaganda are very strong there - all the mass media exert a tremendous pressure on the mind. It seems that the power of television, this mechanical thing that man has invented, has developed its own personality, its own will, its own momentum; and though probably nobody - perhaps not even any one group - is deliberately using it to influence society, its trend shapes the very souls of our children. And this is the same in varying degrees in all democracies. In China there seems to be no hope at all for the dignity or freedom of man, while in India the government is weak, corrupt and inefficient. It seems to me that all the social injustice in the world absolutely must be changed. I want passionately to do something about it, yet I don't know where to begin to tackle it.

發問者：我是一個改革者，一個社會工作者。看到世界上有極端的不公，我的整個生命都致力於改革。我曾是一個共產主義者，但是我不再追隨共產主義了，它以暴政為終結。然而，我依然投身於社會改革，以期人類能夠生活在尊嚴，美和自由中，實現那自然似乎已經賦予人類的潛能，而人類似乎總是從別人那裡竊取這種能力。在美國有某種自由，然而標準化和宣傳攻勢還是很強大——所有的大眾媒體都對頭腦產生了巨大的壓力。似乎電視的能力，這種人類發明的機械事物已經有了它自己的個性，它自己的意志和動量；儘管也許沒什麼人，甚至或許沒有任何一個組織——有意地利用電視來影響社會，但正是它的傾向塑造了我們孩子的靈魂。而所有民主國家裡的情況在不同程度上都是如此。在中國，人的尊嚴或自由似乎完全無望，而印度的政府非常軟弱，腐敗和低效。在我看來，世界上所有的社會不公絕對必須得到改變。我滿懷熱情地想為此做點什麼，但是我不知道從哪裡開始著手解決。

Krishnamurti: Reform needs further reform, and this is an endless process. So let us look at it differently. Let us put aside the whole thought of reform; let us wipe it out of our blood. Let us completely forget this idea of wanting to reform the world. Then let us see actually what is happening, right throughout the world. Political parties always have a limited programme which, even if fulfilled, invariably brings about mischief, which then has to be corrected once again. We are always talking about political action as being a most important action, but political action is not the way. Let us put it out of our minds. All social and economic reforms come under this category. Then there is the religious formula of action based on belief, idealism, dogmatism, conformity to some so-called divine recipe. In this is involved authority and acceptance, obedience and the utter denial of freedom. Though religions talk of peace on earth they contribute to the disorder because they are a factor of division. Also the churches have always taken some political stand in times of crisis, so they are really political bodies, and we have seen that all political action is divisive. The churches have never really denied war: on the contrary they have waged war. So when one puts aside the religious recipes, as one puts aside the political formulas - what is left, and what is one to do? Naturally civic order must be maintained: you have to have water in the taps. If you destroy civic order you have to start again from the beginning. So, what is one to do?

克：改革需要更進一步的改革，而這是一個永無止境的過程。所以讓我們換個角度來看這個問題。讓我們把整個改革的想法放在一邊；讓我們把它從我們的血液中清除。讓我們徹底忘掉想要改革這個世界的想法。然後讓我們來看看整個世界上到底發生著什麼。各派政黨總是有某個局限的方案，即使得以實施，也不可避免地會帶來傷害，而這些又不得不再一次進行糾正。我們總是把政治活動作為最重要的行動來探討，但是政治活動不是辦法。讓我們把它拋在腦後。所有社會和經濟改革都屬於這個範疇。還有基於信仰、理想主義、教條主義以及遵從某些所謂神聖法則的宗教行為模式。這其中包含了權威和接受，服從和對自由的徹底否定。儘管各個宗教都在談論世界和平，但是它們卻助長了失序，因為它們是分裂的因素之一。教會也總在危機來臨的時刻採取某種政治立場，所以它們實際上是政治實體，而我們也看到了所有的政治活動都會導致分裂。各個教派從未真正地否定過戰爭：相反，它們發動戰爭。所以當一個人把所有的宗教法則扔在一邊時，就像他把政治信條扔在一邊一樣——那麼還剩下什麼，他又該怎麼辦？當然市政秩序必須要維持：你的水龍頭裡得有水。如果你破壞了市政秩序，你就得從頭再來一次。那麼，他該怎麼辦？

Questioner: That is what I am actually asking you.

Krishnamurti: Be concerned with radical change, with total revolution. The only revolution is the revolution between man and man, between human beings. That is our only concern. In this revolution there are no blueprints, no ideologies, no conceptual utopias. We must take the fact of the actual relationship between men and change that radically. That is the real thing. And this revolution must be immediate, it must not take time. It is not achieved through evolution, which is time.

發問者：這正是我在問你的。

克：去關注根本的轉變，關注徹底的革命。唯一的革命是人與人之間的，人類之間的革命。這是我們唯一關注的。在這革命中，沒有藍圖，沒有意識形態，沒有概念上的烏托邦。我們必須將人們之間的實際關係這個事實，徹底地加以改變。這才是真正有意義的事情。而這革命必須馬上進行，決不能假以時日。這革命不能通過進化，也就是時間來完成。

Questioner: What do you mean? All historical changes have taken place in time; none of them has been immediate. You are proposing something quite inconceivable.

發問者：你是什麼意思？歷史上的所有改變都是花時間發生的；沒有什麼是立刻發生的。你在倡議某種實在無法想像的事情。

Krishnamurti: If you take time to change, do you suppose that life is in suspension during the time it takes to change? It isn't in suspension. Everything you are trying to change is being modified and perpetuated by the environment, by life itself. So there is no end to it. It is like trying to clean the water in a tank which is constantly being refilled with dirty water. So time is out.

克：如果你花時間去改變，那麼你認為在改變期間，生活可以暫停嗎？生活並沒有暫停。你試圖改變的一切都在被環境，被生活本身調整著、延續著。所以生活沒有停止。這就像試圖清潔一個不斷裝入髒水的罐子裡的水一樣。所以沒有時間了。

Now, what is to bring about this change? It cannot be will, or determination, or choice, or desire, because all these are part of the entity that has to be changed. So we must ask what actually is possible, without the action of will and assertiveness which is always the action of conflict.

那麼，什麼才能帶來這改變？意志、決心、選擇和欲望都不能帶來這改變，因為這一切都是必須被改變的實體的一部分。所以我們必須問一問，不通過意志和決斷的行為，這些行為始終是衝突的行為，那麼到底什麼才是可能的。

Questioner: Is there any action which is not the action of will and assertiveness?

發問者：存在著不屬於意志和決斷的行為嗎？

Krishnamurti: Instead of asking this question let us go much deeper. Let us see that actually it is only the action of will and assertiveness that needs to be changed at all, because the only mischief in relationship is conflict, between individuals or within individuals, and conflict is will and assertiveness. Living without such action does not mean that we live like vegetables. Conflict is our main concern. All the social maladies you mentioned are the projection of this conflict in the heart of each human being. The only possible change is a radical transformation of yourself in all your relationships, not in some vague future, but now.

克：讓我們更深入地探索下去，而不是問出這個問題。讓我們看清實際上唯一需要被改變的正是意志和決斷的行為，因為關係中唯一的傷害就是個體之間或者個體內在的衝突，而衝突就是意志和決斷。生活中沒有這樣的行為並不意味著我們活得像行屍走肉。衝突是我們主要關注的事情。你提到的所有社會弊病正是每個人內心中這種衝突的投射。唯一可能的改變是在你自己所有的關係中徹底轉變自己，不是等到某個模糊的將來，而是現在。

Questioner: But how can I completely eradicate this conflict in myself, this contradiction, this resistance, this conditioning? I understand what you mean intellectually, but I can only change when I feel it passionately, and I don't feel it passionately. It is merely an idea to me; I don't see it with my heart. If I try to act on this intellectual understanding I am in conflict with another, deeper, part of myself.

發問者：但是我要怎樣徹底根除自己身上的這種衝突、這種矛盾、這種抗拒、這種局限？我從道理上明白你的意思，但是只有在我強烈地感受到這點的時候我才能改變，而我並沒有強烈地感受到。對我來說這只是個概念而已；我沒有用我的心看到這點。如果我試圖根據這智識上的理解來行動，那麼我就會與我自己更深層的另一面發生衝突。

Krishnamurti: If you really see this contradiction passionately, then that very perception is the revolution. If you see in yourself this division between the mind and the heart, actually see it, not conceive of it theoretically, but see it, then the problem comes to an end. A man who is passionate about the world and the necessity for change, must be free from political activity, religious conformity and tradition - which means, free from the weight of time, free from the burden of the past, free from all the action of will: this is the new human being. This only is the social, psychological, and even the political revolution.

克：如果你真的強烈地看到了這衝突，那麼這覺察本身就是革命。如果你看到了自己內在頭腦和心靈之間的這種分裂，真切地看到這點，不是理論上的設想，而是的確看到了這點，那麼這個問題就結束了。一個對世界及改變的迫切性滿懷熱情的人，必須從政治活動，宗教遵從和傳統中解脫出來——這就意味著，從時間的重負下解脫出來，從過去的重負、從意志力的所有行為中解脫出來：這就是新人類。這是唯一的社會、心理乃至政治革命。

制作者：lai1021