THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'MEDITATION AND ENERGY'/《转变的紧迫性》之“冥想与能量”

Sue

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'MEDITATION AND ENERGY'
《转变的紧迫性》之“冥想与能量”

     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?

发问者：今天早上我想探讨一下冥想更为深层的含义，或者说更深刻的意义。我练习过很多形式的冥想，包括一点点禅坐。有很多学校教觉察，但是它们看起来都相当肤浅，所以我们能不能把那些都放在一边，更为深入地探讨一下这点？

     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：我们必须把权威的整个含义都放在一旁，因为在冥想中，任何形式的权威，无论是一个人自己的还是别人的权威，都会变成一种障碍，妨碍了自由——妨碍新鲜和崭新的东西出现。所以权威、遵从和仿效必须被彻底搁置一旁。否则你就只是在模仿、遵从别人所说的，而那会让头脑变得非常迟钝和愚蠢。那里没有自由。你过去的经验或许能够引导、指出或者建立一种新途径，所以即使是这些东西也必须放下。只有此时你才能深入到被称为冥想的这件非常深刻和极其重要的事情当中去。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?

发问者：多年来，我一直努力确保自己不成为别人的权威或者某种模式的奴隶。当然这其中会有一种自欺的危险，但是当我们探讨下去时，我可能就会有所发现。然而当你说冥想是能量的核心时，其中的能量和冥想这些词是什么意思呢？

     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：思想的每个运动，每个活动都需要能量。无论你做什么或者想什么，都需要能量，而这种能量可能会因为冲突，因为各种形式的不必要的思想、感情追求和感情用事的行为，而消耗。能量浪费在来自二元性、“我”和“非我”的冲突中，浪费在观察者和被观察者、思想者和思想之间的分裂中。只有这种浪费不再发生时，才能有一种可以被称为觉察的能量品质——在这觉察中没有评估、判断、谴责和比较，只有一种全神贯注的观察，从内在和外在如实地看到事情的样子，没有思想也就是过去的干扰。

     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?

发问者：我发现这点非常难以理解。如果根本没有思想，又怎么可能认出一棵树，或者我的妻子和邻居？当你看着一棵树或者隔壁的女人时，认知是必要的，不是吗？

     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：当你观察一棵树时，认知是必要的吗？当你看着那棵树时，你会说那是棵树，还是只是看着它呢？如果你开始认出那是一颗榆树、橡树或者芒果树，那么过去就是在干扰直接的观察。同样，当你看着你的妻子，如果你是带着苦恼或者快乐的记忆在看，那么你就没有真的在看她，而是在看你头脑里关于她的一个意象。而这妨碍了直接的观察：直接的觉察不需要认知。从外部对你的妻子、孩子、房子或者你的邻居的认知，当然是必要的，但是为什么在你的眼睛里、头脑里和心里要有过去的干涉？难道那没有妨碍你清晰地看到吗？当你对某事谴责或者有某个观点时，那观点或者偏见就扭曲了观察。

     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?

发问者：是的，这点我明白。这种微妙的认知形式确实有扭曲作用，我看到了这点。你说所有这些思想的干扰是能量的浪费。你说观察而没有任何形式的认知、谴责和评判；不命名地观察，因为命名、认知和谴责是能量的浪费。这点可以从道理上被真正地理解。接下来的一个要点是分裂、分离，或者如你在讲话中所说的，存在于观察者和被观察者之间的距离，这产生了二元性；你说这也是一种能量的浪费，带来了冲突。我发现你说的每一件事都很有道理，但是我发现要去除那个距离，带来观察者与被观察者之间的和谐，是极其困难的。要怎样才能做到这点？

     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：没有怎样。怎样意味着变得机械的一个体系，一个方法，一种练习。我们还得摒弃“怎样”这个词的含义。
发问者：这可能吗？我知道可能这个词暗示了一个未来，一种想带来和谐的努力和追求，但是你必须得使用某些词语。我希望我们能超越这些词语，那么，是否可能带来观察者和被观察者之间的一种统一？

     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：观察者总是在它观察的事物上投射自己的阴影。所以一个人必须了解观察者的结构和性质，而不是去实现这两者之间的统一。一个人必须了解观察者的活动，在这种了解中，也许观察者就终止了。我们必须审视观察者是什么：它是带着所有记忆的过去，有意识的和无意识的，带着过去的种族遗传，被称为知识的积累起来的经验，以及过去的种种反应。观察者实在是一个局限的存在体。他是那个坚称他是谁和我是谁的人。在自我保护中，他抗拒，控制，寻求舒适和安全。继而观察者把自己作为不同于他所观察之物的某种东西分离开来，从内在或外在都是如此。这带来了一种二元性，从这种二元性中就产生了冲突，那正是能量的浪费。要觉察到观察者，他的活动，他的自我中心行为，他的主张，他的偏见，一个人就必须觉察到所有这些潜意识的活动，这些活动制造了一种分离感，感觉自己是不同的。必须没有任何形式的评估，没有好恶地观察到这一点；只是在日常生活中，在关系中观察这些。当这种观察清晰之时，不就有了一种从观察者中解脱出来的自由吗？

     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.

发问者：先生，你是说，观察者实际上就是自我；你是说只要自我还存在，他就必然会抗拒，分裂，分离，因为在这种分离和分裂中，他感觉到自己的存在。这给了他抗拒和奋争的力量，他于是变得习惯于这种斗争；那是他的生存方式。你难道不是说这个自我，这个“我”必须要通过没有好恶感的观察来消除吗，没有观点或评判，而只有对这个“我”的行为的观察？但是这种事情真的能发生吗？我能够如此完全地，如此真实地，没有扭曲地看着我自己吗？你说当我如此清晰地看着自己时，“我”就没有任何运动了。你说这是冥想的一部分吗？
克：当然。这就是冥想。

     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?

发问者：这种观察肯定需要巨大的自律。
克：你说的自律是什么意思？你的意思是不是把自我装进一件束身衣里来约束他，还是说了解自己，了解那个坚信着，控制着，并且充满了野心和暴力等等的自我——去了解它？了解就是它自己的纪律。纪律这个词意味着学习，当有学习而不是积累，有这种真正的学习时，这需要一种关注，这种学习就带来了它自身的责任，自身的行动，自身的空间：于是就没有那种强加于上的纪律。有学习就没有模仿，没有遵从，没有权威。如果这就是你说的纪律这个词的意思，那么是不是显然就有了学习的自由？

     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?

发问者：你把我带得太远或许也太深了，关于这种学习的那部分，我不太跟得上你。我很清楚地看到，作为观察者的自我必须停止。道理上是这样的，必须没有冲突：这点很清楚。但是你说这种观察本身就是学习，而在学习中总是有积累的；这种积累变成了过去。学习是一个累加的过程，但是显然你赋予了这个词完全不同的含义。按我理解的，你说的学习是一个不停的没有积累的过程。是这样吗？学习能没有积累吗？

     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：学习就是它自身的行动。在学习中通常发生的是——我们根据我们所学到的来行动。所以总是有过去和行动之间的分裂，因而总是有应该如何和现在如何，或者曾经如何和现在如何之间的冲突。我们说在学习的每一刻中都会有行动：也就是说，学习就是行动；不是先学到然后行动的问题。理解这一点，非常重要，因为先学到，然后根据那些积累来行动，正是“我”，“自我”的本质所在，或者不管你喜欢管它叫什么名字。“我”正是过去的核心所在，而过去严重妨碍着现在，进而影响未来。其中不断地有分裂。而有学习的时候，就有一种不停的运动；其中没有会变成“我”的积累过程。

     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.

发问者：但是在技术领域必须有知识的积累。如果没有知识，一个人就不可能飞跃大西洋或者开车，甚至连大部分的日常事务也做不了。

     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：当然做不了，先生；这种知识是绝对需要的。但是我们谈的是“我”所活动的心理领域。“我”可以利用技术知识来实现某事，一个职位或者威望；“我”可以使用知识来操作，但是如果在操作中“我”进行干涉，事情的发展就开始误入歧途，因为“我”在通过技术手段，来寻求地位。所以“我”不仅仅关注科学领域的知识；它是在用这些知识来实现别的事情。就像一个音乐家利用钢琴来出名一样。他关心的是名声，而不是音乐本身的美。我们不是说我们必须摆脱技术知识；相反，技术知识越多，生活条件就越好。但是一旦“我”利用了知识，事情就开始误入歧途了。

     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.

发问者：我想我开始理解你所说的了。你赋予了学习这个词完全不同的含义和特性，这很奇妙。我开始领会这一点了。你说冥想是学习的运动，其中就有对所有事情进行学习的自由，不只是学习冥想，而是了解一个人的生活方式，他如何驾驶，进食，说话，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：正如我们所说，能量的核心是冥想。换句话说——只要有冥想者就没有冥想。如果他试图实现别人描述的某个状态，或者得到某种灵光闪现的体验...

     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?

发问者：如果我可以打断你一下，先生，你是不是说学习必须是一种不停的流动，没有任何中断的一条线，这样学习和行动就是一体的，或者是同一个不停的运动？我不知道该用什么词，但是我相信你明白我的意思。一旦学习、行动和冥想之间有裂隙，那裂隙就是不和谐，那裂隙就是冲突。那裂隙中有观察者和被观察者，因而就有整个能量的浪费；这是你所说的意思吗？

     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，这就是我们说的意思。冥想不是一个状态；那是一种运动，就像行动是一种运动。正如我们刚才所说，当我们把行动和学习分开，从学习和行动之间就产生了观察者；然后他就变得很重要；然后他就利用行动和学习来达成别有用心的目的。当非常清晰地理解了作为同一个和谐运动的行动、学习和冥想时，就没有了能量的浪费，而这就是冥想的美。只存在着一种运动。学习比冥想或者行动重要多了。要学习，就必须有完全的自由，不仅仅是意识层面的自由，而且是深深的内在的自由——全然的自由。在自由中就有这种学习、行动和冥想作为一个和谐整体的运动。完整这个词不仅仅意味着健康，而且意味着神圣。所以学习是神圣的，行动是神圣的，冥想是神圣的。这是真正神圣的事情，美就在其中，而不在什么遥远的地方。