The common ground
共同的立足点
This is the common ground on which all humanity stands. And whatever happens in the field of this consciousness we are responsible. That is: If I am violent, I am adding violence to that consciousness which is common to all of us. If I am not violent, I am not adding to it, I am bringing a totally new factor to that consciousness. So I am profoundly responsible either to contribute to that violence, to that confusion, to the terrible division; or as I recognize deeply in my heart, in my blood, in the depths of my being, that I am the rest of the world, I am mankind, I am the world, the world is not separate from me, then I become totally responsible.
这是所有人类共同的立足点。在这个意识的领域中，无论发生什么，我们都负有责任。也就是说：如果我暴力，我就是在往我们所有人共有的那个意识中添加暴力。如果我不暴力，我就没有添加，我在为那意识带来一种全新的因素。所以，我负有巨大的责任，要么为那暴力、那混乱和可怕的分裂贡献力量；要么由于我从自己的内心、在自己的血液里、从我存在的深处强烈地意识到，我就是世界的其余部分，我就是人类，我就是世界，世界与我并不是分离的，于是我变得充分负责。
Social Responsibility, pp 19-20
《社会责任》，第19-20页
The depths of violence
暴力的深度
Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn’t merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence.
暴力不仅仅是互相残杀。当我们使用尖刻的词语，当我们做出一个漠视别人的手势，当我们因为恐惧而服从，那就是暴力。所以暴力并不仅仅是以上帝之名、以社团或者国家之名，进行的有组织的屠杀。暴力要微妙得多、深刻得多，而我们正在探询暴力的深度所在。
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you know why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.
当你自称印度人、穆斯林、基督徒或者欧洲人，或者别的什么人，你就是暴力的。你知道为什么那是暴力吗？因为你在把自己与其他人类分离开来。当你用信仰、国籍和传统将自己分离开来时，就滋生了暴力。所以，一个试图理解暴力的人，不会属于任何国家、任何宗教、任何政治派别或者体系；他关心的是对人类的全然了解。
Freedom from the Known, pp 51-52
《从已知中解脱》，第51-52页
The whole spectrum of violence
暴力的整个范围
There are so many different kinds of violence. Shall we go into each kind of violence or shall we take the whole structure of violence? Can we look at the whole spectrum of violence, not just at one part of it?…The source of violence is the “me”, the ego, the self, which expresses itself in so many ways—in division, in trying to become or be somebody—which divides itself as the “me” and the “not me”, as the unconscious and the conscious; the “me” that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community and so on. It is like a stone dropped in a lake; the waves spread and spread, at the centre is the “me”. As long as the “me” survives in any form, very subtly or grossly, there must be violence.
暴力的种类是如此之多。我们应该探讨每一种形式的暴力呢，还是我们来看一看暴力的整个结构？我们能否看一下暴力的整个范围，而不仅仅是其中的一部分？……暴力的源头是“我”，自我，自己，其表现形式是如此多样——表现在划分中，表现在想要变成或者成为某人的努力中——它把自己划分成了“我”和“非我”，划分成了无意识和有意识；“我”与家庭或者不与“家庭”相认同，与社团或者不与社团相认同，等等。就像投入湖中的一块石头，水波蔓延开来，而中心就是那个“我”。只要“我”以任何形式存活下来，无论是非常细微还是昭然若揭，就必然会存在暴力。
Beyond Violence, p 74
《超越暴力》，第74页
Non-violence is not a fact
非暴力并非事实
Non-violence has been preached over and over again, politically, religiously, by various leaders that you have had. Non-violence is not a fact; it is just an idea, a theory, a set of words; the actual fact is that you are violent. That is the fact. That is “what is”. But we are not capable of understanding “what is”, and that is why we create this nonsense called non-violence. And that gives rise to the conflict between “what is” and “what should be”. All the while you are pursuing non-violence you are sowing the seeds of violence. This is so obvious. So, can we together look at “what is” without any escape, without any ideals, without suppressing or escaping from “what is”?
无论从政治上还是宗教上，非暴力已经被你们有过的各个领袖宣讲了一遍又一遍。非暴力并不是事实；它只是一个概念、一个理论、一套词语而已；事实上你是暴力的。这是事实。这是“现在如何”。但是我们不能理解“现在如何”，那就是为什么我们会建立起所谓的非暴力这种无稽之谈。而那导致了“现在如何”与“应当如何”之间的冲突。你在追求非暴力的同时，正是在播种暴力。这很明显。所以，我们能否一起来看看“现在如何”，而毫不逃避，不带有任何理想，不压抑也不逃避“现在如何”？
The Flame of Attention, p 74
《注意力的火焰》，第74页
Why should I have the opposite as non-violence?
我为什么要有非暴力这个对立面？
Man is all the time trying to become non-violent. So there is conflict between “what is”, which is violence, and “what should be”, which is non-violence. There is conflict between the two. That is the very essence of wastage of energy. As long there is duality between “what is” and “what should be”—man trying to become something else, making an effort to achieve “what should be”—that conflict is waste of energy. As long as there is conflict between the opposite, man has not enough energy to change. Why should I have the opposite at all, as non-violence, as the ideal?
人类始终试图变得非暴力。所以，“现在如何”，即暴力，与“应当如何”，即非暴力之间存在冲突。两者之间有冲突。那就是能量浪费最核心的本质所在。只要存在“现在如何”与“应该如何”之间的二元性——人类试图成为另外的东西，努力去实现“应该如何”——那冲突就是能量的浪费。只要存在对立面之间的冲突，人类就没有足够的能量去改变。那么我们为什么还要拥有非暴力、拥有理想这样的对立面？
The Flight of the Eagle, p56
《鹰的翱翔》，第56页
Not escaping from the fact of violence
不逃避暴力的事实
If there was no ideal at all, you would be left with “what is”. Would that make one complacent? Or would you then have the energy, the interest, the vitality to solve ‘what is’? Is not the ideal of non-violence an escape from the fact of violence? When the mind is not escaping, but is confronted with the fact of violence—that it is violent, not condemning it, not judging it—then surely such a mind has an entirely different quality and there is no longer violence.
如果理想根本不存在，你就只剩下“现在如何”。那能让你满意吗？或者你于是就拥有了能量、兴趣和活力来解决“现在如何”？非暴力的理想难道不是对暴力事实的逃避吗？当头脑不再逃避，而是面对暴力的事实——暴力就是暴力，不是谴责它，也不是评判它——那么这样的头脑就必然会拥有一种截然不同的品质，而暴力将不复存在。
The Flight of the Eagle, p 32
《鹰的翱翔》，第32页
Is there righteous anger ever?
究竟存在正当的愤怒吗？
Is there righteous anger ever? Or is there only anger? There is no good influence or bad influence, only influence, but when you are influenced by something which doesn’t suit me I call it an evil influence.
究竟存在正当的愤怒吗？抑或只有愤怒而已？并不存在好的影响或者坏的影响，只有影响而已，但是当你被我认为不适合的东西所影响，我就称之为邪恶的影响。
The moment you protect your family, your country, a bit of coloured rag called a flag, a belief, an idea, a dogma, the thing that you demand or that you hold, that very protection indicates anger. So can you look at anger without any explanation or justification, without saying, “I must protect my goods,” or “I was right to be angry,” or “How stupid of me to be angry”? Can you look at anger as if it were something by itself? Can you look at completely objectively, which means neither defending it nor condemning it?
当你保护你的家庭、你的国家，保护被称为旗帜的一小块染了色的布片，保护某个信仰、观念或者教条，保护你想要或者你抱持的东西时，就在那一刻，那保护本身就表明了愤怒的存在。所以，你能否不带任何解释或者辩护地来看一看愤怒，不说“我必须保护我的财产”，或者“我生气是正当的”，或者“我生气是多么愚蠢啊”？你能否把愤怒当做好像是独立存在的东西来看一看？你能否完全客观地看，也就是说既不维护它也不谴责它？
Freedom from the Known, p 52
《从已知中解脱》，第52页
In the presence of anger
愤怒之时
The brain when faced with violence undergoes a rapid chemical change; it reacts much quicker than the blow. One’s whole body reacts and there is immediate response; one may not hit back, but the very presence of anger or hatred causes this response and there is action.
面临暴力的头脑会经历一种快速的化学变化；它的反应比打击还要快。人的整个身体都在回应，并立即做出反应；他也许不会反击，但是愤怒或者仇恨的出现，本身就带来了反应，行动已经发生了。
In the presence of a person who is angry, see what takes place if one is aware of it and does not respond. The moment one is aware of the other person’s anger and one does not react oneself, there is quite a different response. One’s instinct is to respond to hate by hate, to anger by anger; there is the welling up chemically which creates in the system the nervous reactions. But quieten all this in the presence of anger, and a different action takes place.
在一个愤怒的人面前，如果你觉察到愤怒并且不作出反应，看看会发生什么。一旦你觉察到另一个人的愤怒，自己却不作出反应，就有了一种截然不同的回应。人的本能是以恨还恨、以怒制怒；神经系统里的化学物质涌现起来，制造出一系列神经反应。但是，在愤怒之时，将这一切平息下来，不同的行动就会出现。
Questions and Answers, p 23
《问与答》，第23页
Meeting violence in another
面对别人的暴力
Questioner: How do we meet violence in other people?
提问者：我们如何面对别人身上的暴力？
Krishnamurti: My neighbour is violent: how shall I deal with it? Turn the other cheek? He is delighted. What shall I do? Would you ask that question if you were really non-violent, if there were no violence in you? Do listen to this question. If in your heart, in your mind, there is no violence at all, no hate, no bitterness, no sense of fulfilment, no wanting to be free, no violence at all, would you ask that question about how you meet the neighbour who is violent? Or would you know then what to do with your neighbour? Others may call what you do violent, but you may not be violent; at that moment your neighbour acts violently you will know how to deal with the situation. But a third person, watching, might say, “You are also violent.” But you know that you are not violent. So what is important is to be for yourself completely without violence—and it does not matter what another calls you.
克：我的邻居是暴力的：我该如何应对？逆来顺受？他会很高兴的。我该怎么办？如果你真的是非暴力的，如果你身上毫无暴力，你还会问这个问题吗？请好好听一下这个问题。如果你的内心，你的头脑中，根本没有暴力、没有仇恨、没有痛苦、没有满足感、没有自由的渴望，没有丝毫暴力，你还会问如何面对暴力的邻居这个问题吗？抑或此时你就会知道该如何对待你的邻居？别人也许称你的所作所为是暴力的，但你也许并非如此；一旦你的邻居行为暴力，你就会知道该如何应对那种情境。但是，旁观的第三者也许会说：“你也是暴力的。”但是你知道你并不暴力。所以，重要的是你自己毫无暴力——而别人怎么看你并不重要。
Beyond Violence, pp 83-84
《超越暴力》，第83-84页
Physical and psychological security
身体和心理安全
One cannot live without security, that is the very first, primary animal demand, that there be physical security. One must have a house, food and clothing. But the psychological way in which we use this necessity for security brings about chaos within and without. The psyche, which is the very structure of thought, also wants to be secure inwardly, in all its relationships. Then the trouble begins. There must be physical security for everybody, not only for the few; but that physical security for everybody is denied when psychological security is sought through nations, through religions, through the family.
人如果没有安全，就无法生存，这是首要的也是最原始的动物需求，即要有身体上的安全。人必须要有吃、穿、住。但是，这种对安全的迫切需要，我们从心理上运用它的方式，从内到外都带来了混乱。心智，即思想的结构本身，在所有关系中，也想要内在的安全。于是麻烦开始了。每个人都必须有身体安全，而不只是少数人；但是，当通过民族、宗教和家庭寻求心理安全时，大家的身体安全就被否定了。
The Flight of the Eagle, p57
《鹰的翱翔》，第57页 |
发表于 2011-4-21 14:24
| 
发表于 2012-8-24 08:37
|