THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'PERCEPTION'/《转变的紧迫性》之“觉知”
[b][size=3]THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'PERCEPTION'[/size][/b][b][size=3]
《转变的紧迫性》之“觉知”
[/size][/b] 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?
发问者：你使用各种不同的词语来表达觉知。有时候你用到“觉知”，也会用到“观察”、“看到”、“了解”和“觉察”。我想，你用所有这些词都是在表达同一件事情：清晰地，彻底地，完整地看到。一个人能完整地看到任何事情吗？我们说的不是物理上的或者技术上的事情，而是在心理层面，你能完整地觉察或者了解任何事情吗？难道不是总有些东西隐藏着，所以你只能看到局部？如果你能相当深入地探讨这个问题，我将不胜感激。我觉得这是一个很重要的问题，因为它可能是了解生命中很多事情的线索。如果我能够完全了解我自己，那么也许我就能解决我所有的问题，并成为一个快乐而非凡的人。在我谈到这点的时候，我感觉非常兴奋，因为我有可能超越自己充满问题和痛苦的狭隘世界。所以，你说的觉知、看到，究竟是什么意思？一个人能够完全看清自己吗？
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：我们总是偏颇地看事情。首先是因为我们漫不经心，其次是因为我们总是透过我们关于所见事物形成的偏见，透过语言和心理意象去观察事物。所以我们从未完整地看到任何事物。即使客观地去观察自然，也变得十分费力。不带有意象地观察一朵花，不带着任何植物学知识——只是单纯地观察它——变得非常困难，因为我们的心智总是在游荡，漠不关心。即使心智感兴趣，它还是会带着某种欣赏之情和语言描述去观察这朵花，这似乎给了观察者一种他确实在观察的感觉。刻意地去看，根本就不是观察。所以我们从未真正观察过花朵。我们透过意象观察它。或许去看某个并没有深深触动我们的东西，会相当容易，而当我们去看电影，会有那么一刻我们被某种东西深深打动，但是我们很快就忘记了。而不带有意象地观察我们自己——这个意象就是过去，是我们积累的经验和知识——这样的观察鲜有发生。我们对自己抱有意象。我们觉得我们自己应该这样，不应该那样。我们已经为自己建立了先入为主的观念，再透过这些观念去观察我们自己。我们认为自己是高尚的或者卑微的，而如实地看到我们自己，要么会让我们沮丧，要么会吓坏我们。所以我们不能完整地观察自己，而在那完整的观察中，是有可能从我们所观察到的情形中解脱的。我们的觉知，不仅仅是通过眼睛，通过感官进行的，而且要用到心智，而心智显然是严重受限的。所以智力上的理解，只是片面的觉知，而智力上的觉知似乎已经让我们大多数人都心满意足了，我们觉得自己明白了。支离破碎的了解是最危险和最具破坏性的东西。而这正是全世界都在发生着的事情。政客，牧师，商人，技术人员；还有艺术家——他们所有人都只是在片面地观察。所以他们是真正非常具有破坏性的人们。因为他们在世界上占有非常重要的地位，他们片面的觉知就变成了公认的规则，而人类也就深陷其中了。我们每个人都同时是牧师，政客，商人，艺术家，以及许多其他支离破碎的实体。我们每个人都是。
Questioner: I see this clearly. I'm using the word see intellectually, of course.
发问者：我清楚地看到了这点。当然，我用“看到”这个词，也是从智识上讲的。
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：如果你完全看到了这一点，不是从智识上、字面上或者情感上，那么你就会行动，并开始过一种完全不同的生活。当你看到一个危险的悬崖，或者面对一个危险的动物时，就没有片面的了解或者片面的行动；就会有全然的行动。
Questioner: But we are not faced with such dangerous crises every moment of our lives.
发问者：但是我们的生活中并不是每时每刻都面临这么凶险的危机。
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：我们确实始终一直面临着这样凶险的危机。你只是习惯了它们，或者对它们漠不关心了，或者你把它们留给别人去解决这些问题了；而这些别人一样的盲目和偏颇。
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?
发问者：但是我要怎样才能始终都觉察到这些危机，而你又为什么说一直是有危机的？
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：整个生命都在每个瞬间中。每个瞬间都是一项挑战。不恰当地应对这挑战就是生命中的危机。我们不想看到这些是危机，我们闭上眼睛逃避面对。所以我们变得更加盲目，危机就升级了。
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.
发问者：但是我要怎样才能完整地觉知呢？我开始了解到我只是在片面地观察，而且明白了以完全的觉知来观察自己和世界的重要性，但是，我的内在有那么多事情在进行着，很难决定该观察些什么。我的心智就像一个装满了烦躁不安的猴子的大笼子。
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：如果你完整地观察一项活动，在那完整中，所有其他的活动就都包括在其中了。如果你彻底明白了一个问题，那么你就了解了人类的所有问题，因为它们都是相互关联的。所以问题是：一个人能否如此彻底地了解、觉察或者看到一个问题，在那对问题的了解中，他就明白了所有其他的一切？这个问题必须在发生时被看清，而不是之前或之后，不是作为记忆或者一个例子。比如说，现在我们探讨愤怒或者恐惧，就没有意义；要做的事情是，在它们发生的时候观察它们。觉知是即刻发生的：你要么立即了解某件事情，要么什么都没明白：看到，听到，了解都是即刻发生的。而听和看是有持续性的。
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?
发问者：我的问题还在继续。它在一段时间内都存在着。你说看到是即刻发生的，因而摆脱了时间。而是什么给嫉妒或者别的什么习惯或者问题带来了持续性呢？
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：它们在继续，难道不是因为你没有敏锐地、以智慧和无选择的觉知去观察它们吗？你只是片面地观察，因而就让它们得以继续。此外，想要去除它们，是造成持续性的另一个症结。没能力解决某件事情，就让它成为了一个持续的问题，并赋予了它生命力。
Questioner: But how am I to see that whole thing instantly? How am I to understand so that it never comes back?
发问者：但是我要怎样即刻看到事情的全貌？我要如何去了解它，它才再不会反复出现？
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：你把重点放在再不出现上还是了解上？如果你把重点放在再不出现上，那就意味着你想要永远地从中逃脱，而这意味着制造出了另一个问题。所以我们只有一个问题，也就是要如何完全看清那个问题，从而从中解脱出来。觉知只能出自于寂静，一个喋喋不休的心智是无法觉知的。喋喋不休的心智也许想要除掉那问题，减轻它，逃避它，压抑它，或者寻找一个替代品，但是只有安静的心灵才能看清。
Questioner: How am I to have a quiet mind?
发问者：我要如何获得一颗安静的心灵？
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：只有安静的心灵才能看清，你看不到这个真相。如何获得安静的心灵，这个问题不会被提出来。真相是，心智必须安静，看到这个真相，就把心智从喋喋不休中解脱了出来。觉知，也就是智慧，就开始运作了，而不是推断你为了看到而必须安静。推断也能够运作，但是那是片面的，破碎的运作。片面和整体之间没有关系；片面不能融入整体。因此，看到是最重要的。看到就是全神贯注，而只有漫不经心才会导致问题。
Questioner: How can I be attentive all the time? It's impossible!
发问者：我要怎样才能一直全神贯注？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：非常对，那是不可能的。但是，觉察到你的漫不经心，这点是最重要的，而不是如何一直全神贯注。因为贪婪才会提出这个问题，“我要怎样才能一直全神贯注？”一个人会在练习全神贯注中迷失。练习全神贯注就是漫不经心。你不能练习变得美丽，或者练习去爱。当恨止息时，就有了另一个，爱。只有当你对恨付出全部的注意力，当你在学习但是不再累积关于它的认识时，恨才会止息。很简单地开始。
Questioner: What is the point of your talking if there is nothing we can practise after having heard you?
发问者：如果听你说了之后我们没什么可练习的，那你的演讲还有什么意义？
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：听到是最重要的，而不是你之后去练习些什么。倾听是即刻发生的行动。而练习会使问题持续下去。练习完全就是漫不经心。永远不要练习：你只能练习错误。学习永远都是新鲜的。 [i=s] 本帖最后由 无名 于 2010-1-24 09:15 编辑 [/i]
"我们认为我们是高尚的或者卑微的"，“我们觉得我们明白了。”把第二个我们翻译成“自己”，会不会更通顺些？
“而且要用到心智，而心智显然是严重受限的。所以智识上的觉知，只是片面的觉察，而智力上的觉知似乎已经让我们大多数人都心满意足了，”这里使用‘心智’‘智识’“智力”这三个词？是否可以译成““而且要用到头脑，而头脑显然是严重受限的。所以智力上的理解，只是片面的觉知，而智力上的觉知似乎已经让我们大多数人都心满意足了，”
”但是我们的生活中并不是每时每刻都面临这么危险的危机。”危险的危机，是否改成危险的状况或者凶险的危机。
“整个生命的每个时刻都处在危机中。”？？？
“比如说，现在我们探讨愤怒或者恐惧，就没有意义；要做的事情是，在它们升起的时候观察它们”，“发生”是不是比‘升起’恰当点，“升起”过于形象化而容易产生误导。 第一点、第三点、第四点、第五点直接改过。
第二点，心智、智识上、智力，是分别对照原文的mind, intellectual, intellect三个词，已把这里的智识改为智力，其他的几处也改过了。mind一般译作心智，brain译作头脑。不过在这里mind用头脑也可以的。
非常感谢！这么认真的读者，:victory: :handshake :hug: "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."
Sue 2010-2-4 20:35:44
整个生命都在当下一刻，还是不够准确，
Sue 2010-2-4 20:35:56
是整个生命都在当下的一瞬间
无名 22:28:27
each moment，为什么不翻译成每个瞬间呢？
Sue 22:30:46
对啊，整个生命都在当下的每个瞬间中。
无名 22:34:56
我觉得已经不需要当下了。“整个生命都存在于每个瞬间中。”
或者“整个生命在每个瞬间中。”，或者“整个生命是在每个瞬间中。”
Sue 22:36:25
整个生命都在当下的一瞬间，这样呢
无名 22:37:16
这里的当下想表达什么意思呢？
Sue 22:37:26
用现在时is，本身就有现在的意思
Sue 22:37:36
就是现在啊
无名 22:38:30
这个问题留给凡夫同学吧;P
Sue 22:41:20
整个生命都在每个瞬间中。每个瞬间都是一项挑战。
Sue 22:41:35
先改成这样吧
无名 22:41:55
好。 Sue 22:53:15
用现在时is，本身就有现在的意思
Sue 22:55:03
为什么用当下，是用现在的话就变成了：整个生命都在现在的每个瞬间中。有两个在字在一起，有点重复。
无名 22:55:16
当下已经变成一个专用名词，类似于本来面目。
Sue 22:56:07
是
无名 22:57:53
整个生命存在于每个瞬间中。没有“现在”，意思会有改变吗？
无名 22:58:28
“现在”和“每个”似乎也有点别扭
Sue 22:58:38
每个瞬间，是过去的每个瞬间呢，还是将来的每个瞬间？
无名 22:58:50
恩，有道理
Sue 22:59:52
重要的只有现在而已
无名 23:01:42
在英文里，‘现在’如果用更强烈、直接的语气，应该怎么说呢？不会仅仅是is吧。
Sue 23:02:09
是
Sue 23:02:24
只是那就话里隐含了现在的意思
无名 23:02:47
克在这里很强调‘现在’吗？
无名 23:03:10
虽然我们知道他一直强调‘现在’
Sue 23:03:46
就是因为他一直强调‘现在’
无名 23:05:14
恩，但我觉得这里之所以没有特别强调，是因为后面的句子“Each moment is a challenge.”，这段文字的重点在于这。所以这里强调的是‘每个瞬间’，而不是现在。我是这样理解的。
Sue 23:06:04
是
无名 23:07:37
时时刻刻都要面对挑战。
Sue 23:08:00
充分应对
Sue 23:08:46
我在想，我们全部拥有的，确实只有现在这一瞬间
Sue 23:09:38
思想赋予的持续性，是令人迷惑误入歧途的幻觉
无名 23:12:19
真实拥有的。或者说真正的应对，在于每个瞬间。思想的问题在于把人从现在的状况中游离出来。造成了漫不经心。
Sue 23:14:56
把人从现在的状况中拉出来的，是形象
无名 23:15:25
意象、观念。。。
Sue 23:15:36
记忆形成的一幅幅图景
无名 23:16:07
也有纯粹的观念性的东西。
Sue 23:16:15
看到这些形象的破坏作用
Sue 23:16:26
观念也是一种景象
Sue 23:17:04
为什么不给这些观念打个问号呢
无名 23:17:12
伦理、道德、知识。。。。也不一定以形象的方式存在。只是一种判断、分别。
Sue 23:17:36
质疑喽
无名 23:17:47
质疑了呀。
Sue 23:19:35
质疑了就烟消云散了啊
无名 23:20:27
是吗？
Sue 23:20:34
啊
Sue 23:21:14
那些观念还是依附在形象上，比如自我形象
Sue 23:21:46
是不是？
无名 23:23:01
恩
无名 23:23:11
我应该。。。
Sue 23:24:13
是的啊
无名 23:24:25
:(
页:
[1]