So I am asking, we are asking: is the 'me', the ego actual? Or is it an illusion? A delusion that has been brought about by thought, thought being limited? You understand? In its limitation it has created the thing which is limited. Do you see this? Or you are rejecting this? Because we are thinking together. And we are saying: where there is division there must be conflict, there must be strife, there must be this constant battle going on outwardly and inwardly - right? Take a very simple example: man and woman. In all relationships, as it exists now, there is conflict - right?
所以，我问，我们在问：这个“我”，自我，是真实的存在吗？还是一种幻觉？一个由思想带来的错觉，而思想本身是局限的？你明白吗？思想从自己的局限里制造出了一个局限的东西。你看到这点了吗？还是你拒绝接受？因为我们是在一起思考。我们说：有分别就必然有冲突，必然有争斗，这种内在和外在的斗争就会持续不断地发生-对不对？举一个很简单的例子：男人和女人。在所有的关系中，分别是存在着的，就有了冲突-对不对？
......
Is it our culture, our education, which has so emphasized the 'me', so strongly, and the 'you' equally strongly? You follow? That is, my ego and your ego - right? The ego being created by thought, thought which is limited.
是不是我们的文化，我们的教育，如此强烈地强调“我”，同样地也强调“你”？你跟上了吗？也就是说，我的自我和你的自我-对不对？思想建立了自我，而思想是局限的。
Now when you look at yourself as an ego, the self, the self-centred entity, what is it? Actually, what is it? Is it the name, the form, the shape, the idea, the concept, the image - right? That is the 'me', with all the tendencies and all the rest of it. Essentially it is the product of thought. Do you see that? Or do you say, "No, no, that is not it. It is god in me, and god in you"? That is too silly. To maintain this division man has invented so many concepts - the Hindus have extraordinary concepts, the Atman and so on - I won't go into all that. You follow? To maintain this division and to continue in the strife and no way out of it, man has invented gods and all the rest of it, the saviours, all that nonsense to me.
那么，当你把自己看作一个自我，我自己，以自我为中心的存在，而它到底是什么？实际上，它是什么？是它的名字，外形，形体，理念，概念，形象-对不对？这就是“我”，所有的倾向和所有其他的一切。本质上，它是思想的产物。你看到了这点吗？或者你说，“不，不，这不是它。它是我内在的神，你内在的神”？这太愚蠢了。为了维持这种分别，人类发明了如此多的概念-印度教徒有非凡的概念，Atman生命本源等等-我不会深入所有这些了。你跟上了吗？为了保持这种分裂，继续着冲突，完全没有出路，人类发明了神和所有其他的一切，救世主，对我来说所有这些都是无稽之谈。
So can you observe this 'me', which is created by thought, observe it without introducing the movement of thought in that observation? Have you got it? Please see first of all the logic of it. The logic. Thought is the response of knowledge and memory, which is the past. So thought is the past, modifying itself all the time, but it is rooted in the past. And therefore it must always be limited, narrow, can never be whole - right? And thought has created the division in its action, the 'me' and the 'not me', the 'you' and I, we and they. And has also created various kinds of divisions: the technological action, the personal action, the ideological action, the supreme action and so on and so on. Right? That is a fact. Now can you observe that fact - please listen carefully - can you observe that fact without thought entering into that observation?
所以，你能不能观察这个“我”，思想创造的“我”，观察它，在观察中不引入思想的运动呢？你明白吗？请首先看到它的逻辑。合理性。思想是知识和记忆的反应，这是过去。所以思想是过去，总是不停地在修改自己，但它根植于过去。因此，它必然始终是局限的，狭隘的，永远不可能完整-对不对？而思想在自己的行动中制造了分别，“我”和“非我”，“你”和我，我们和他们。思想也建立了各种其他的分别：技术行为，个人行为，思想体系的行动，最高行动，等等，等等。对不对？这是事实。现在，你可以观察到这个事实-请仔细听清楚-你能不能观察到这个事实，而不让思想进入到观察中？
Q: It is the only instrument I have.
问：思想是我拥有的唯一工具。
K: One moment sir. I am coming to that. First go slowly. The gentleman says it is the only instrument that I have and therefore how can I look without employing that instrument? You have understood? Right? That is a wrong question you have put. Because we have not clearly understood the limitation of thought. If you see clearly the limitation of thought, you recognize the instrument is itself limited - right? And is it possible not to employ that instrument? If you find a particular drill cannot dig a hole, you find other means to dig a hole. But if you say, "I have only this instrument" - then you cannot dig a hole. You understand? So do we realize the instrument itself is useless to investigate into this question of conflict? That is the whole point. You understand? I wonder if you understand this?
克：等一下，先生。我正要讲到这点。首先得慢慢来。那位先生说，这是我有的唯一工具，因此，我怎么能不用这个工具去看呢？你明白吗？对不对？你提出的这个问题是错误的。因为我们并没有清楚地了解思想的局限。如果你清楚地看到思想的局限，你认识到那工具本身就是局限的-对不对？有没有可能不使用这工具？如果您发现某个钻不能打洞，你会去找别的工具去打洞。但如果你说，“我只有这个工具” -那么你就没法打洞。你明白吗？所以，我们是否认识到思想这工具本身在探索冲突这个问题中是没有用的？这就是整个问题。你明白吗？我不知道你是否明白了这点？
Sir, you see we are so used to a particular form of action, which has not produced results but we hold on to it. We don't say as it has not produced results I will put it away, throw it out, let me find out another. You follow? That is our struggle. You want to employ the instrument of thought, and through thought you hope to resolve the problem, but thought itself is limited and therefore it is not the instrument. Right? Do we see that? Do we see in our relationship that there is conflict, each one having his own image and therefore division, and these images have been created by thought and thought is limited and cannot solve the problem.
先生，你看我们都习惯于某种特定的行为方式，它没有产生任何效果，但我们还是抱持着不放。我们不说，既然它没有产生结果，我就把它放在一边，扔掉它，让我找找别的办法。你跟上了吗？这就是我们的挣扎。你想使用思想这个工具，通过思想你希望解决问题，但思想本身是局限的，因此它不是该用的那个工具。对不对？我们看到这点了吗？我们看到在我们的关系中有冲突，每个人都有自己的形象，因此就有分裂，是思想建立了这些意象，而思想是局限的，解决不了问题。
So we are acquiring a new instrument, which is to observe without the old instrument interfering. You have got this? You see you won't let go of the old instrument. You think that old instrument will help you, but you don't see that old instrument has created such tremendous problems in life and you keep on employing that instrument. Once you see that then you are looking in other directions - right? It is like a good carpenter, the chisel doesn't work so he either throws it away or buys a new one, or sharpens it, but he is rejecting it. But you won't, because we are not clear, we don't think clearly. Or we are afraid if the new instrument comes things might break up: frightened. Which means you have already projected, thought has already projected an idea that it might not. You are following all this?
所以，我们正在探索一种新的工具，就是去观察而没有旧的工具的干扰。你明白了吗？你看你不愿放弃旧的工具。你认为旧工具能帮助你，但你看不到旧工具在生活中制造了如此巨大的问题，你继续使用这个工具。一旦你看到了它的无用，那么你就开始转变方向-对不对？就像一个很好的木匠，凿子不管用，要么他把它扔掉要么去买个新的，或者磨快点，但是他把它扔掉了。但你没有，因为我们不清晰，我们不能清晰地思考。或者，我们担心，如果新的工具来了，事情可能会不可收拾：害怕。这意味着你已经投射出，思想已经投射出一个想法，新工具可能不好使。你跟上了吗？
So can you, after this, can you observe without the old instrument of thought the actual relationship of two images, between two people and the division that exists? Look at it, observe it, see it. Then what takes place? You can only do that when you have put aside the old instrument. Look sirs, if I want to understand what you are saying I must listen to you, I must listen to you with affection, with care, with attention, because I want to find out what you are saying. But if I say, "Yes, I agree with you. I have heard this before." Or, "You are saying something new which is impossible." - you are not listening. So listening implies sir, a great sense of attention, love, care. But if you haven't got that your old instrument is in operation. And then you say, "How am I to pay attention? Tell me the method, the system". Then thought invents the system, then you become a prisoner to the system and you go on with that. Whereas if you see the importance, the danger of separation in relationship, the real danger, we are destroying each other - right? The terrorists, the Capitalists, all the rest of it - we are destroying each other because each one of us feels he is separate. And if you see the danger then you will listen, you are already in a state of acute listening to find out if there is a way out of this. Right?
所以，在看到这些之后，你是否能够不带着思想这个旧工具去观察两个意象之间的实际关系，两个人之间的关系以及存在的分别？看看它，观察它，看到它。然后什么发生了？你只有在放下旧工具之后才能做到这点。先生们请看，如果我想明白你在说什么，我必须得听你说，我必须带着爱，带着关怀，带着注意力去听你说，因为我想知道你在说什么。但是，如果我说，“是的，我同意你的看法。我以前听说过这一点。”或者，“你说的这种新东西是不可能有的。” -你没有听。所以，倾听意味着，先生，巨大的关注，爱，关怀之感。但是，如果你没有这些品质，你的旧工具又开始运作了。然后你说，“我要怎么注意？告诉我方法，体系”。然后思想就发明了体系，然后你就变成了那个体系的囚徒，继续下去。但是如果你看到了其中的重要性，关系中分离的危险，真的危险，我们在互相摧毁对方-对不对？恐怖分子，资本家，所有一切-我们在互相摧毁对方，因为我们每个人都觉得自己是分离的。而如果你看到了其中的危险，那么你会倾听，你就已经在一种敏锐的聆听状态中去发现从中是否有出路。对不对？
Are you listening that way? That means to observe silently. Silence means not just going off to sleep or this or that. Silence is tremendous attention. That attention is complete energy. All the energy that you have, with all your mind and heart. That is attention. Then you listen, and that very listening, that very observation dissolves the limitation of the instrument.
你是在这么听吗？那意味着安静地观察。寂静不是意味着只是睡着了，或者这个那个。寂静是一种巨大的注意力。那种关注是完整的能量。你拥有的所有能量，全身心的。这就是全神贯注。然后你倾听，那倾听本身，那观察本身就消除了那工具的局限。
But we have not touched upon this question of discipline because if one understands the nature of discipline, the 'me' and the thing to be achieved - you understand? To achieve that I must discipline myself. If I am to reach god, whatever god may be, which again is the invention of thought - do you accept all this? (Laughter). You see, we discipline ourselves to be good. You tell the child, "Be good. Don't do this, do that". Is goodness born out of discipline? Have you ever asked that? Is love born out of discipline? Is charity, humility, generosity born out of discipline? And is truth to be found by discipline? Enlightenment through discipline? - which means conformity to a pattern, which is conforming, the ego, the 'me', to another pattern, that pattern invented by another ego. Are you following all this?
但是我们还没有触及到纪律的问题，因为如果你了解纪律的本质，“我”和想要达成的事情-你明白吗？想要达成，我必须约束我自己。如果我想要够到上帝，不管什么上帝，还是思想的发明-你们接受所有这些？（大笑）。你看，我们约束自己要做好人。你告诉孩子，“要做好孩子。别做这个，做那个”。良善诞生于纪律吗？你是否问过这个问题？爱诞生于纪律吗？仁慈，谦卑，慷慨诞生于纪律吗？真理要通过纪律去发现吗？通过纪律去觉悟？-那意味着遵从一个模式，自我，“我”，服从另一种模式，另一个自我发明的模式。你跟上所有这些了吗？
So when you see all this, the basic question is: can one live in this world without the 'me', without the ego, without all the things thought has created, the gods, you know, psychologically? Thought has created the postman - right? The engineer - you need the postman, you need the engineer, but you don't need the things that thought has created in its desire to be secure psychologically. And in that there is no security. Security exists only when there is no division - right?
所以如果你看到了这些，那么根本的问题是：一个人是否能够生活在这个世界上而没有“我”，没有自我，没有思想制造的所有东西，例如神们，你知道，能从心理上做到这点吗？思想创造了邮差-对不对？工程师-你需要邮差，你需要工程师，但是你不需要思想制造出来的那些东西，那些东西是想要心理安全的欲望制造出来的。那里边没有安全。安全只有在没有分别没有分裂的时候才存在-对不对？
摘自：SAANEN 4TH PUBLIC TALK 15TH JULY 1979 |
发表于 2009-12-26 08:55
| 
发表于 2010-2-19 21:44
| 