标题: 关于伤害 [打印本页]
作者: Sue 时间: 2010-3-12 10:36 标题: 关于伤害
S: I wanted to ask you, sir - supposing you are not mistaken...
学：我刚才想问您，先生--假如你没错的话...
...and someone does something to you?
...某个人对你做了些不好的事情怎么办？
K: If someone does something harm to you...
克：如果有人做一些伤害你的事情...
...what will you do? Hit him back?
...你要怎么做？反戈一击吗？
S: It depends on the depth of what he has done.
学：那要看他伤害我的程度。
K: Yes, you have said it. By Jove, you are quite...
克：是，你已经说出来了。天哪，你是多么...
If he hurts you deeply what will you do?
如果他伤害你很深你会怎么做？
Have you asked what it means to be hurt?
你有没有问过被伤害是什么意思？
Go on. Think with me. Think with me!
请继续。和我一起思考。和我一起思考！
S: Sir, is it corruption again to be hurt?
学：先生，是否被伤害也是一种堕落呢？
K: Just listen.
克：请听我说。
Suppose I hurt you very deeply; suppose - I don't want to hurt you...
假设我把你伤得很深；假设--我并不想伤害你...
...suppose I want to hurt you very deeply.
...假设我想要深深地伤害你。
Now, you say, 'I am hurt'.
那么，你说，“我受到了伤害”。
Now, what do you mean by that?
那么，你所说的话是什么意思呢？
Use your brain. Don't repeat.
动动脑子。不要重复别人的话。
S: Physically? K: Yes, not only physically...
学：伤害我的身体吗？克：是的，不仅仅是身体上...
...but inside, he hurts you.
...而且也是内心，他伤害了你。
He calls you a fool. S: Sir, I think...
他叫你傻瓜。学：先生，我认为...
K: Just listen carefully. All of you listen carefully.
克：请用心地听我说。你们所有的人都用心地听。
He calls you a fool, and you get hurt.
他叫你傻瓜，然后你受伤了。
Right? Have you found out what gets hurt?
对吗？你找出是什么受伤了吗？
Careful, careful!
用心，用心！
S: If you think you aren't a fool and then someone comes along...
学：如果你认为你不是傻瓜，接着某个人过来...
K: Look, somebody calls you a fool and somebody calls you a great man...
克：听我说，某人叫你傻瓜，而另一个人则说你是伟大的人...
...they are both the same, aren't they?
...他们是一样的，难道不是吗？
Do you understand what I am saying?
你们明白我所说的吗？
Somebody calls me a fool, an idiot, and I get hurt - suppose.
有个人叫我傻瓜，白痴，我就感到受伤--假设。
What gets hurt?
是什么被伤害了？
Careful, think it out, don't reply quickly, think it out.
用心点，想想清楚，不要很快地回答，想想清楚。
K: Think it out. No, I won't listen.
克：想想清楚。不，我不听。
I said think it out, carefully think it out.
我说了想明白它，用心地想想清楚。
I am asking you, I call you an idiot - I am not saying that...
我正在问你，我叫你白痴--我不是真正说你是白痴...
...and you get hurt.
...然后你受到了伤害。
What do you mean, you getting hurt?
你究竟是什么意思，你受到了伤害？
What is you? S: Your ego.
你是什么？学：你的自我。
K: Think it out, old girl, think it out.
克：想想清楚，孩子，想想清楚。
S: It is me, my ego. K: What are you?
学：是我，我的自我受伤了。克：你是什么？
S: I am one...
学：我是一个...
K: Come over here, old boy.
克：到这里来，孩子。
Sit in here.
坐在这里。
Come on, don't waste time.
来吧，不要浪费时间。
I know you, so go on.
我认识你，所以请继续说。
S: Sir, what is hurt is me, what I have build of myself.
学：先生，受伤的是我，那些构成我自己的东西。
K: That's it. What you have built of yourself, which means what?
克：正是那样。那些构成你自己的东西，那又意味着什么？
S: Sir, what has been achieved, what I have achieved, what I have done.
学：先生，那些已经实现的东西，我已经取得的东西，我所做过的一切。
K: What you have done, what you have achieved.
克：你所做过的事情，你所成就的东西。
Why are you all so accustomed to achievement?
为什么你们所有的人都对成就如此的习以为常？
You all talk about achievement.
你们都谈论成就。
Like your father, your mother, your grandmothers, they have achieved.
就像你的父亲，母亲，祖母们，他们有所成就。
Right? They have become successful, you mean.
对吗？你是说，他们都是成功的人。
S: No, sir, what they have done to themselves.
学：不，先生，他们对自己所做的事情。
K: Yes.
克：是的。
Say, for instance, I have been all over some of the world. Right?
比如说，我去过世界上的一些地方。对吗？
I have talked to various thousands of people...
我已经对数以千计的各式各样的人们讲演过...
I have been to the United Nations, all kinds of things I have done.
我去过联合国，我做过各种各样的事情。
Right? Which means I have built an image, a picture about myself.
对吗？那意味着我建立了一个意象，关于我自己的一个形象。
Right? Picture about myself.
对吗？关于我自己的一个形象。
You come along and say, 'You are an idiot' - and I get hurt - suppose.
你过来对我说，“你是个白痴”--然后我觉得受伤了--假设是这样。
What gets hurt?
是什么受伤了？
S: My feelings. K: My feelings, my image.
学：我的感觉。克：我的感觉，我的形象。
S: The image of yourself. K: Yes, that's right.
学：你自己的形象。克：是的，正是那样。
The image of myself because I have travelled, I am a great man...
这个由于我周游世界，我是个了不起的人...
...I have written books, I have seen Mrs Gandhi.
...我著书立说，我见过甘地夫人而建立起来的形象。
You follow?
你们明白吗？
I have built an image about myself; that image gets hurt.
我建立了一个我自己的形象；那个形象受到了伤害。
Now, the next step, listen carefully.
那么，下一步，请用心地听。
Can I live without image, any image?
我可以生活而不带有形象吗，什么形象都没有？
S: Can you, sir? K: Can I? Yes.
学：你可以吗，先生？克：我可以做到吗？可以。
I wouldn't otherwise talk about it.
如果我没有做到，我就不会谈论它。
That is dishonesty to talk about something...
如果我自己没有那样去生活，却谈论这样的事情...
...that you yourself are not living. S: Sir, but you want to go...
...那就是不诚实。学：先生，但是你想要去...
K: Wait, wait, listen to what I am saying, old boy.
克：等一下，等一下，听我说，孩子。
So, have you an image at this age?
所以，你们这个年龄已经有一个形象了吗？
Of course, all of you have images.
当然，你们所有的人都有形象。
And those images get hurt.
并且那些形象会受伤。
And all through life you will get hurt...
而且你整个人生当中都会受伤...
...as long as you have those images.
...只要你有那些形象。
S: Should you forget them, sir? K: Leave them, don't have them.
学：你应该把它们忘掉吗，先生？克：离开那些形象，不要它们。
Somebody - many people have flattered me...
有人--很多人曾经恭维我...
...and many people have insulted me.
...还有很多人侮辱过我。
I have no image, I can't get hurt, it doesn't matter.
我没有那个形象，所以我不会受伤，那一点关系都没有。
You understand? S: Yes, sir.
你们明白吗？学：是的，先生。
K: Be like that. That is where corruption begins.
克：像那样做。腐败堕落就是从那里开始的。
S: Sir, but how do you get rid of your images?
学：先生，但是要如何去除那些形象呢？
K: How do you get rid of images?
克：你如何去除那些形象？
If you see they are dangerous you will get rid of them immediately.
如果你认识到它们是危险的，你就会立即去除它们。
S: Sir, if you get rid of images, what is left of you?
学：先生，如果你去除那些形象，还有什么留下来呢？
K: Nothing! S: Then what are you?
克：什么都不剩！学：那么你是什么呢？
K: Wait! Listen to what I said.
克：等一下！请听我所说的话。
Be nothing and then you live.
当你什么也不是那么你就真正开始生活了。
You will understand later.
你以后会明白的。
S: Sir, those might have images of you but we shouldn't have images.
学：先生，别人可能存有对你的印象，但是我们不应该有种种形象。
K: Yes. Let the others have images, don't you have them.
克：是的。让他们去拥有印象，但你不要有形象。
S: Sir, sometimes we don't have images...
学：先生，有时候我们没有形象...
K: Not 'sometimes'.
克：不是“有时候”。
作者: 李瑞 时间: 2010-3-13 17:23
说的很好！
作者: Sue 时间: 2010-3-13 17:30
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 25TH FEBRUARY 1974 11TH CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON 'THE NATURE OF HURT'
A: Mr Krishnamurti, during our conversations one thing has emerged for me with I'd say an arresting force. That is, on the one had we have been talking about thought and knowledge in terms of a dysfunctional relationship to it, but never once have you said that we should get rid of thought, and you have never said that knowledge, as such, in itself, has something profoundly the matter with it. Therefore the relationship between intelligence and thought arises, and the question of what seems to be that which maintains a creative relationship between intelligence and thought - perhaps some primordial activity which abides. And in thinking on this I wondered whether you would agree that perhaps in the history of human existence the concept of god has been generated out of a relationship to this abiding activity, which concept has been very badly abused. And it raises the whole question of the phenomenon of religion itself. I wondered if we might discuss that today?
K: Yes. You know, a word like religion, love, or god, has almost lost all its meaning. They have abused these words so enormously, and religion has become a vast superstition, a great propaganda, incredible beliefs and superstitions, worship of images made by the hand or by the mind. So when we talk about religion I would like, if I may, to be quite clear that we are both of us using the word religion in the real sense of that word, not either in the Christian, or the Hindu, or the Muslim, or the Buddhist, or all the stupid things that are going on in this country in the name of religion.
I think the word 'religion' means gathering together all energy, at all levels, physically, moral, spiritual, at all levels, gathering all this energy which will bring about a great attention. And in that attention there is no frontier, and then from there move. To me that is the meaning of that word: the gathering of total energy to understand what thought cannot possibly capture. Thought is never new, never free, and therefore it is always conditioned and fragmentary, and so on, which we discussed. So religion is not a thing put together by thought, or by fear, or by the pursuit of satisfaction and pleasure, but something totally beyond all this, which isn't romanticism, speculative belief, or sentimentality. And I think if we could keep to that, to the meaning of that word, putting aside all the superstitious nonsense that is going on in the world in the name of religion, which has become really quite a circus, however beautiful it is. Then I think we could from there start, if you will. If you agree to the meaning of that word.
A: Yes. I have been thinking as you have been speaking that in the biblical tradition there are actual statements from the prophets which seem to point to what you are saying. Such things come to mind as Isaiah, taking the part of the divine, when he says, my thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways are not your ways, as high as the heavens are above the earth so are my thoughts and your thoughts, so stop thinking about me in that sense. And don't try to find a means to me that you have contrived since my ways are higher than your ways. And then I was thinking while you were speaking concerning this act of attention, this gathering together of all energies of the whole man; the very simple, be still and know that I am God. Be still. It's amazing when one thinks of the history of religion, how little attention has been paid to that as compared with ritual.
K: But I think when we lost touch with nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes, birds, when we lost touch with all that, then the priests came in. Then all the superstition, fears, exploitation, all that began. The priests became the mediator between the human and the so-called divine. And I believe, if you have read the Rig Veda, I was told about it because I don't read all this, that there, in the first Veda there is no mention of God at all. There is only this worship of something immense, expressed in nature and in the earth, in the clouds, in the trees, in the beauty of vision. But that being, very, very simple, the priests said, that is too simple.
A: Let's mix it up.
K: Let's mix it up, let's confuse it a little bit. And that began. I believe this is traceable from the ancient Vedas to the present time, where the priests became the interpreter, the mediator, the explainer, the exploiter, the man who said, this is right, this is wrong, you must believe this or you will go to perdition, and so on and so on. He generated fear, not the adoration of beauty, not the adoration of life lived totally wholly without conflict, but something placed outside there beyond and above what he considered to be God and made propaganda for that.
So I feel if we could from the beginning use the word religion in the simplest way. That is, the gathering of all energy so that there is total attention, and in that quality of attention the immeasurable comes into being. Because as we said the other day, the measurable is the mechanical. Which the west has cultivated, made marvelous, technologically, physically, medicine, science, biology and so on and so on, which has made the world so superficial, mechanical, worldly, materialistic. And that is spreading all over the world. And in reaction to that, this materialistic attitude, there are all these superstitious, nonsensical unreasoned religions that are going on. I don't know if you saw the other day the absurdity of these gurus coming from India and teaching the west how to meditate, how to hold breath, they say, "I am god, worship me" - it has become so absurd, and childish, so utterly immature. All that indicates the degradation of the word religion, and the human mind that can accept this kind of circus and idiocy.
A: Yes. I was thinking of a remark of Sri Aurobindo's in a study that he made on the Veda, where he traced its decline in the sentence. He said it issues as language from sages, then it falls to the priests, then after the priests it falls to the scholars or the academicians. But in that study there was no statement that I found as to how it ever fell to the priests.
K: I think it is fairly simple, sir.
A: Yes, please.
K: I think it is fairly simple, sir, how the priests got hold of the whole business. Because man is so concerned with his own petty little affairs, petty little desires, and ambitions, superficiality, he wants something a little more: he wants a little more romantic, a little more sentimental, something other than the daily beastly routine of living. So he looks somewhere and the priests say, come over here, I've got the goods. I think it is very simple how the priests have come in. You see it in India, you see it in the west. You see it everywhere where man begins to be concerned with daily living, the daily operation of bread and butter, house and all the rest of it, he demands something more than that. He says, after all I'll die but there must be something more.
A: So fundamentally it's a matter of securing for himself some...
K: ...heavenly grace.
A: ...some heavenly grace that will preserve him against falling into this mournful round of coming to be and passing away. Thinking of the past, on the one had, anticipating the future on the other, you're saying he falls out of the present now.
K: Yes, that's right.
A: I understand.
K: So, if we could keep to that meaning of that word religion then from there the question arises, can the mind be so attentive in the total sense that the unnameable comes into being? You see, personally I have never read any of these things, Veda, Gita, Upanishads, the Bible, all the rest of it, or any philosophy. But I questioned everything.
A: Yes.
K: Not question only, but observe. And I - one sees the absolute necessity of a mind that is completely quiet. Because it's only out of quietness you perceive what is happening. If I am chattering I won't listen to you. If my mind is constantly rattling away, to what you are saying I won't pay attention. To pay attention means to be quiet.
A: There have been some priests, apparently, who usually ended up in a great deal of trouble for it, there have been some priests who had, it seems, a grasp of this. I was thinking of Meister Eckhardt's remark that whoever is able to read the book of nature doesn't need any scriptures at all.
K: That's just it.
A: Of course, he ended up in very great trouble. Yes, he had a bad time toward the ends of his life, and after he died the church denounced him.
K: Of course, of course. Organized belief as church, and all the rest of it, is too obvious. It isn't subtle, it hasn't got the quality of real depth and real spirituality. You know what it is.
A: Yes, I do.
K: So I'm asking, what is the quality of a mind, and therefore heart and brain, what is the quality of a mind that can perceive something beyond the measurement of thought? What is the quality of a mind? Because that quality is the religious mind. That quality of a mind that is capable, that has this feeling of being sacred in itself, and therefore is capable of seeing something immeasurably sacred.
A: The word devotion seems to imply this when it is grasped in its proper sense. To use your earlier phrase, gathering together toward a one pointed attentive...
K: Would you say attention is one pointed?
A: No, I didn't mean to imply focus when I said one pointed.
K: Yes, that's what I wondered.
A: I meant rather, integrated into itself as utterly quiet and unconcerned about taking thought for what is ahead, or what is behind. Simply being there. The word 'there' isn't good either because it suggests that there is a 'where' and all the rest of it. It is very difficult to find, it seems to me, language to do justice to what you are saying, precisely because when we speak utterance is in time and it is progressive, it has a quality, doesn't it, more like music than we see in graphic art. You can stand before a picture, whereas to hear music and grasp its theme you virtually have to wait until you get to the end and gather it all up. And with language you have the same difficulty.
K: No, I think, sir don't you, when we are enquiring into this problem, what is the nature, the structure of a mind, and therefore the quality of a mind, that is not only sacred and holy in itself, but is capable of seeing something immense? As we were talking the other day about suffering, personal and the sorrow of the world, it isn't that we must suffer, suffering is there. Every human being has a dreadful time with it. And there is the suffering of the world. And it isn't that one must go through it, but as it is there one must understand it and go beyond it. And that's one of the qualities of a religious mind, in the sense we are using that word, that is incapable of suffering. It has gone beyond it. Which doesn't mean that it becomes callous. On the contrary it is a passionate mind.
A: One of the things that I have thought much about during our conversations is language itself. On the one hand we say such a mind as you have been describing is one that is present to suffering. It does nothing to push it away, on the one hand; and yet it is somehow able to contain it, not put it in a vase, or barrel, contain it in that sense, and yet the very word itself, to suffer, means to under-carry. And it seems close to understand. Over and over again in our conversations I have been thinking about the customary way in which we use language as a use that deprives us of really seeing the glory of what the word points to itself, in itself. I was thinking about the word religion when we were speaking earlier. Scholars differ as to where that came from: on the one hand some say it means to bind, the church fathers spoke about that. And then others say, no, no, it means the numinous or the splendour that cannot be exhausted by thought. It seems to me that, wouldn't you say, that there is another sense to bind that is not a negative one, in the sense that if one is making this act of attention, one isn't bound as with cords of rope. But one is there, or here.
K: Sir, now again let's be clear. When we use the word attention there is a difference between concentration and attention. Concentration is exclusion. I concentrate. That is, bring all my thinking to a certain point, and therefore it is excluding, building a barrier so that it can focus its whole concentration on that. Whereas attention is something entirely different from concentration. In that there is no exclusion. In that there is no resistance. In that there is no effort. And therefore no frontier, no limits.
A: How would you feel about the word receptive, in this respect?
K: Again, who is it who is to receive?
A: Already we have made a division.
K: A division.
A: With that word.
K: Yes. I think the word attention is really a very good word. Because it not only understands concentration, not only sees duality of reception, the receiver and the received, and also it sees the nature of duality and the conflict of the opposites; and attention means not only the brain giving its energy, but also the mind, the heart, the nerves, the total entity, the total human mind giving all its energy to perceive. I think that is the meaning of that word for me at least, to be attentive, attend. Not concentrate, attend. That means listen, see, give your heart to it, give your mind to it, give your whole being to attend, otherwise you can't attend. If I am thinking about something else I can't attend. If I am hearing my own voice, I can't attend.
A: There is a metaphorical use of the word waiting in scripture. It's interesting that in English too we use the word attendant in terms of one who waits on. I'm trying to penetrate the notion of waiting, and patience in relation to this.
K: I think, sir, waiting again means one who is waiting for something. Again there is a duality. And when you wait you are expecting. Again a duality. One who is waiting about to receive. So if we could for the moment hold ourselves to that word, attention, then we should enquire what is the quality of a mind that is so attentive that it has understood, lives, acts, in relationship and responsibility as behaviour, and has no fear psychologically in that, we talked about, and therefore understands the movement of pleasure. Then we come to the point, what is such a mind? I think it would be worthwhile if we could discuss the nature of hurt.
A: Of hurt? Yes.
K: Why human beings are hurt. All people are hurt.
A: You mean both physically and psychologically?
K: Psychologically especially.
A: Especially the psychological one, yes.
K: Physically we can tolerate it. We can bear up with a pain and say I won't let it interfere with my thinking. I won't let it corrode my psychological quality of mind. The mind can watch over that. But the psychological hurts are much more important and difficult to grapple with and understand. I think it is necessary because a mind that is hurt is not an innocent mind. The very word innocent comes from innocere, not to hurt. A mind that is incapable of being hurt. There is a great beauty in that.
A: Yes, there is. It's a marvelous word. We have usually used it to indicate a lack of something.
K: I know.
A: Yes, and there it's turned upside down again.
K: And the Christians have made such an absurd thing of it.
A: Yes, I understand that.
K: So I think we ought in discussing religion we ought to enquire very, very deeply into the nature of hurt, because a mind that is not hurt is an innocent mind. And you need this quality of innocency to be so totally attentive.
A: If I have been following you correctly I think may be you would say, wouldn't you, that man becomes hurt when he starts thinking about thinking that he is hurt.
K: Look sir, it's much deeper than that, isn't' it? From childhood the parents compare the child with another child.
A: That's when that thought arises.
K: There it is. When you compare you are hurting.
A: Yes.
K: No, but we do it.
A: Oh yes, of course we do it.
K: Therefore is it possible to educate a child without comparison, without imitation? And therefore never get hurt in that way. And one is hurt because one has built an image about oneself. The image which one has built about oneself is a form of resistance, a wall between you and me. And when you touch that wall at its tender point I get hurt. So not to compare in education, not to have an image about oneself. That's one of the most important things in life, not to have an image about oneself. If you have you are inevitably going to be hurt. Suppose one has an image that one is very good, or that one should be a great success, or that one has great capacities, gifts, you know the images that one builds, inevitably you are going to come and prick it. Inevitably accidents and incidents happen that's going to break that, and one gets hurt.
A: Doesn't this raise the question of name.
K: Oh yes.
A: The use of name.
K: Name, form.
A: The child is given a name, the child identifies himself with the name.
K: Yes, the child can identify itself but without the image, just a name: Brown, Mr Brown. There is nothing to it. But the moment he builds an image that Mr Brown is socially, morally different, superior, or inferior, ancient or comes from a very old family, belongs to a certain higher class, aristocracy. The moment that begins, and when that is encouraged and sustained by thought, snobbism, you know the whole lot of it, then you are inevitably going to be hurt.
A: What you are saying, I take it, is that there is a radical confusion here involved in the imagining oneself to be his name.
K: Yes. Identification with the name, with the body, with the idea that you are socially different, that your parents, your grandparents were lords, or this or that. You know the whole snobbism of England, and all that, and the different kind of snobbism in this country.
A: We speak in language of preserving the name.
K: Yes. And in India it is the Brahmin, the non Brahmin, the whole business of that. So through education, through tradition, through propaganda we have built an image about ourselves.
A: Is there a relation here in terms of religion, would you say, for the refusal, for instance in the Hebraic tradition to pronounce the name of God.
K: The word is not the thing anyhow. So you can pronounce it or not pronounce it. If you know the word is never the thing, the description is never the described, then it doesn't matter.
A: No. One of the reasons I've always been over the years deeply drawn to the study of the roots of words is simply because for the most part they point to something very concrete.
K: Very.
A: It's either a thing or it's a gesture, more often than not it's some act.
K: Quite, quite.
A: Some act. When I use the phrase, thinking about thinking, before, I should have been more careful of my words and referred to mulling over the image, which would have been a much better way to put it, wouldn't it?
K: Yes, yes. So can a child be educated never to get hurt? And I have heard professors, scholars, say, a child must be hurt in order to live in the world. And when I asked him, do you want your child to be hurt, he kept absolutely quiet. He was just talking theoretically. Now unfortunately through education, through social structure and the nature of our society in which we live, we have been hurt, we have images about ourselves which are going to be hurt, and is it possible not to create images at all? I don't know if I am making myself clear.
A: You are.
K: That is, suppose I have an image about myself - which I haven't fortunately - if I have an image, is it possible to wipe it away, to understand it and therefore dissolve it, and never to create a new image about myself? You understand? Living in a society, being educated, I have built an image inevitably. Now can that image be wiped away?
A: Wouldn't it disappear with this complete act of attention?
K: That's what I'm coming to gradually. It would totally disappear. But I must understand how this image is born. I can't just say, well, I'll wipe it out.
A: Yes.
K: Use attention as a meant of wiping it out - it doesn't work that way. In understanding the image, in understanding the hurts, in understanding the education in which one has been brought up in the family, the society, all that, in the understanding of all that, out of the understanding comes attention; not the attention first and then wipe it out. You can't attend if you're hurt. If I am hurt how can I attend? Because that hurt is going to keep me, consciously, or unconsciously, from this total attention.
A: The amazing thing, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that even in the study of the dysfunctional history, provided I bring total attention to that, there's going to be a nontemporal relationship between the act of attention and the healing that takes place.
K: That's right.
A: While I am attending the thing is leaving.
K: The thing is leaving, yes, that's it.
A: We've got 'thinging' along here throughout. Yes, exactly.
K: So, there are two questions involved: can the hurts be healed so that not a mark is left; and can future hurts be prevented completely, without any resistance. You follow? Those are two problems. And they can be understood only and resolved when I give attention to the understanding of my hurts. When I look at it, not translate it, not wish to wipe them away, just to look at it - as we went into that question of perception. Just to see my hurts. The hurts I have received, the insults, the negligence, the casual words, the gesture, all those hurts. And the language one uses, specially in this country.
A: Oh yes, yes. There seems to be a relationship between what you are saying and one of the meanings of the word, salvation.
K: Salvare, to save.
A: To save.
K: To save.
A: To make whole.
K: To make whole. How can you be whole, sir, if you are hurt?
A: Impossible.
K: Therefore it is tremendously important to understand this question.
A: Yes, it is. But I am thinking of a child who comes to school who has already got a freight car filled with hurts.
K: Hurts.
A: We are not dealing with a little one in a crib now, we're already...
K: We are already hurt.
A: Already hurt. And hurt because it is hurt. It multiplies endlessly.
K: Of course. From that hurt he's violent. From that hurt he is frightened and therefore withdrawing. From that hurt he will do neurotic things. From that hurt he will accept anything that gives him safety - god, his idea of god is a god who will never hurt.
A: Sometimes a distinction is made between ourselves and animals with respect to this problem. An animal, for instance, that has been badly hurt will be disposed toward everyone in terms of emergency and attack. But over a period of time, it might take three or four years, if the animal is loved and...
K: So, sir, you see, you said, loved. We haven't got that thing.
A: No.
K: And parents haven't got love for their children. They may talk about love. Because the moment they compare the younger to the older they have hurt the child. Your father was so clever, you are such a stupid boy. There you have begun. In school where they give you marks it is a hurt, not marks, it is a deliberate hurt. And that is stored, and from that there is violence, there is every kind of aggression, you know all that takes place. So a mind cannot be made whole, or is whole, unless this is understood very, very deeply.
A: The question that I had in mind before regarding what we have been saying is that this animal, if loved, will, provided we are not dealing with brain damage or something, will in time love in return. But the thought is that with the human person love cannot be in that sense coerced. It isn't that one would coerce the animal to love, but that the animal, because innocent, does in time simply respond, accept.
K: Accept, of course.
A: But then a human person is doing something we don't think the animal is.
K: No. The human being is being hurt and is hurting all the time.
A: Exactly. Exactly. While he is mulling over his hurt then he is likely to misinterpret the very act of generosity of love that is made toward him. So we are involved in something very frightful here: by the time the child comes into school, seven years old...
K: He is already gone, finished, tortured. There is the tragedy of it, sir, that is what I mean.
A: Yes,I know. And when you ask the question, as you have, is there a way to educate the child so that the child...
K: ...is never hurt. That is part of education, that is part of culture. Civilization is hurting. Sir, look, you see this everywhere all over the world, this constant comparison, constant imitation, constant saying, you are that, I must be like you. I must be like Krishna, like Buddha, like Jesus, you follow. That's a hurt. Religions have hurt people.
A: A child is born to a hurt parent, sent to a school where it is taught by a hurt teacher. Now you are asking, is there a way to educate this child so the child recovers.
K: I say it is possible, sir.
A: Yes, please.
K: That is, when the teacher realizes, when the educator realizes he is hurt and the child is hurt, he is aware of his hurt and he is aware also of the child's hurt then the relationship changes. Then he will in the very act of teaching, mathematics, whatever it is, he is not only freeing himself from his hurt but also helping the child to be free of his hurt. After all that is education: to see that I, who am the teacher, I am hurt, I have gone through agonies of hurt, and I want to help that child not to be hurt, and he has come to the school being hurt. So I say, all right, we both are hurt my friend, let us see, let's help each other to wipe it out. That is the act of love.
A: Comparing the human organism with the animal, I return to the question whether it is the case that this relationship to another human being must bring about this healing.
K: Obviously, sir, if relationship exists, we said relationship can only exist when there is no image between you and me.
A: Let us say there is a teacher who has come to grips with this in himself, very, very deeply, has, as you put it, gone into the question deeper, deeper and deeper, has come to a place where he no longer is hurt-bound. The child that he meets or the young student that he meets, or even a student his own age, because we have adult education, is a person who is hurt-bound and will he not...
K: Transmit that hurt to another?
A: No, will he not, because he is hurt-bound, be prone to misinterpret the activity of the one who is not hurt-bound?
K: But there is no person who is not hurt-bound, except very, very few. Look, sir, lots of things have happened to me personally, I have never been hurt. I say this in all humility, in the real sense, I don't know what it means to be hurt. Things have happened to me, people have done every kind of thing, praised me, flattered me, kicked me around, everything. It is possible. And as a teacher, as an educator, to see the child, and it is my responsibility as an educator to see he is never hurt, not just teach some beastly subject. This is far more important.
A: I think I have some grasp of what you are talking about. I don't think I could ever in my wildest dreams say that I have never been hurt. Though I do have difficulty, and have since a child, I have even been taken to task for it, of dwelling on it. I remember a colleague of mine once saying to me with some testiness when we were discussing a situation in which there was conflict in the faculty: 'Well the trouble with you is you can't hate.' And it was looked upon as a disorder in terms of being unable to make a focus towards the enemy in such a way as to devote total attention to that.
K: Sanity is taken for insanity.
A: So my reply to him was simply, well that's right and we might as well face it and I don't intend to do anything about it. But it didn't help the situation in terms of the interrelationship.
K: So the question is then: in education can a teacher, educator, observe his hurts, become aware of them, and in his relationship with the student resolve his hurt and the student's? That's one problem. It is possible if the teacher is really, in the deep sense of the word, educated, that is, cultivated. And the next question, sir, from that arises, is the mind capable of not being hurt, knowing it has been hurt? Not add more hurts. Right?
A: Yes.
K: I have these two problems: one, being hurt, that is the past; and never to be hurt again. Which doesn't mean I build a wall of resistance, that I withdraw, that I go off into a monastery, or become a drug addict, or some silly thing like that, but no hurt. Is that possible? You see the two questions? Now, what is hurt? What is the thing that is hurt? You follow?
A: Yes.
K: We said the physical hurt is not the same as the psychological.
A: No.
K: So we are dealing with psychological hurt. What is the thing that is hurt? The psyche? The image which I have about myself?
A: It is an investment that I have in it.
K: Yes, it's my investment in myself.
A: Yes. I've divided myself off from myself.
K: Yes, in myself. That means, why should I invest in myself. What is myself? You follow?
A: Yes, I do.
K: In which I have to invest something. What is myself? All the words, the names, the qualities, the education, the bank account, the furniture, the house, the hurts, all that is me.
A: In an attempt to answer the question, what is myself, I immediately must resort to all this stuff.
K: Obviously.
A: There isn't any other way. And then I haven't got it. Then I praise myself because I must be so marvelous as somehow to slip out.
K: Quite, quite.
A: I see what you mean. I was thinking just a moment back when you were saying it is possible for the teacher to come into relationship with the student so that a work of healing, or an act of healing happens.
K: See sir, this is what happens if I were in a class that's the first thing I would begin with, not some subject. I would say, look, you are hurt and I am hurt, we are both of us hurt. And point out what hurt does, how it kills people, how it destroys people; out of that there is violence, out of that there is brutality, out of that I want to hurt people. You follow? All that comes in. I would spend ten minutes talking about that, every day, in different ways, till both of us see it. Then as an educator I would use the right world and the student will use the right word, there will be no gesture, we are both involved in it. But we don't do that. The moment we come into class we pick up a book and there it goes off. If I was an educator, whether with the older people, or the younger people, I would establish this relationship. That's my duty, that's my job, that's my function, not just to transmit some information.
A: Yes, that's really very profound. I think one of the reasons that what you have said is so difficult for an educator reared within the whole academic...
K: Yes, because we are so vain.
A: Exactly. We want not only to hear that it is possible for this transformation to take place, but we want it to be regarded as demonstrably proved and therefore not merely possible but predictably certain.
K: Certain, yes.
A: And then we are back into the whole thing.
K: Of course we are back into the old rotten stuff. Quite right.
A: Next time could we take up the relationship of love to this?
K: Yes.
A: I would very much enjoy that, and it would seem to me...
K: ...it would all come together.
A: Come together, in the gathering together.
作者: Sue 时间: 2010-3-13 17:32
其中提到身体伤害的只有这些：
K: Physically we can tolerate it. We can bear up with a pain and say I won't let it interfere with my thinking. I won't let it corrode my psychological quality of mind. The mind can watch over that. But the psychological hurts are much more important and difficult to grapple with and understand.
克：身体上的伤害我们能忍受。我们能忍受某种疼痛，说我不会让它干扰我的思考。我不会让它腐蚀我头脑的心理品质。心智能够照顾它。但是要抓住和理解心理伤害，要重要的多，也困难的多。
作者: Sue 时间: 2010-3-13 21:55
3楼的部分内容翻译如下：
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 25TH FEBRUARY 1974 11TH CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON 'THE NATURE OF HURT'
加州，圣地亚哥，1974年2月25日，与ALLAN W. ANDERSON博士的第11次对话，“伤害的本质”
K: Look sir, it's much deeper than that, isn't' it? From childhood the parents compare the child with another child.
克：先生你看，要比那深刻的多，不是吗？从孩童时代开始，父母就把孩子跟别的孩子比较。
A: That's when that thought arises.
安：那思想产生的时候就是这样。
K: There it is. When you compare you are hurting.
克：是的。你比较的时候，你就是在伤害。
A: Yes.
安：是的。
K: No, but we do it.
克：不，但是我们却这么做。
A: Oh yes, of course we do it.
安：哦是的，当然我们这么做了。
K: Therefore is it possible to educate a child without comparison, without imitation? And therefore never get hurt in that way. And one is hurt because one has built an image about oneself. The image which one has built about oneself is a form of resistance, a wall between you and me. And when you touch that wall at its tender point I get hurt. So not to compare in education, not to have an image about oneself. That's one of the most important things in life, not to have an image about oneself. If you have you are inevitably going to be hurt. Suppose one has an image that one is very good, or that one should be a great success, or that one has great capacities, gifts, you know the images that one builds, inevitably you are going to come and prick it. Inevitably accidents and incidents happen that's going to break that, and one gets hurt.
克：所以，有没有可能不比较地不仿效地教育一个孩子？那么就永远不会有那种伤害。一个人受伤害是因为他为自己建造了一个形象。一个人为自己建立的形象是一种阻抗，你我之间的一堵墙。如果你触到了那堵墙的脆弱点，我就受伤了。所以在教育中不要比较，不要抱有自我形象。这是生命中最重要的一件事，不要抱有自我形象。如果你有自我形象，那么你就不可避免地会受伤。假设一个人有个自我形象，我很好，或者我必须非常成功，或者我有巨大的能力，天分，你知道一个人建立的那些形象，不可避免地你会过来刺伤它们。不可避免地会发生很多意外事件打破这些形象，然后这个人就受伤了。
K: Yes, yes. So can a child be educated never to get hurt? And I have heard professors, scholars, say, a child must be hurt in order to live in the world. And when I asked him, do you want your child to be hurt, he kept absolutely quiet. He was just talking theoretically. Now unfortunately through education, through social structure and the nature of our society in which we live, we have been hurt, we have images about ourselves which are going to be hurt, and is it possible not to create images at all?
克：是的，是的。所以一个孩子能不能从不受伤地接受教育？我曾听教授们，学者们说，一个孩子必须要受伤害才能活在这个世界上。然后当我问他，你想让你的孩子受伤害吗，他就完全不说话了。他只是从理论上谈论。现在不幸的是，通过教育，通过我们生活其中的社会结构和我们社会的本质，我们受伤害，我们对自己抱有自我形象，这形象是要被伤害的，那么，有没有可能完全不建立这种形象？
K: And parents haven't got love for their children. They may talk about love. Because the moment they compare the younger to the older they have hurt the child. Your father was so clever, you are such a stupid boy. There you have begun. In school where they give you marks it is a hurt, not marks, it is a deliberate hurt. And that is stored, and from that there is violence, there is every kind of aggression, you know all that takes place. So a mind cannot be made whole, or is whole, unless this is understood very, very deeply.
克：而父母对他们的孩子没有爱。他们也许会谈论爱。因为他们把年幼的和年长的比较的那一刻，他们就伤害了那孩子。你的父亲那么聪明，而你是这么笨的一个男孩。你就这么开始了。在学校里，他们给你分数，那就是伤害，那不是分数，那是种故意的伤害。这些都被记忆了下来，从那里就有了暴力，有了各种各样的攻击性，你知道发生的这所有一切。所以，一颗心灵是不可能变完整的，或者是完整的，除非你非常，非常深切地理解了所有这些。
A: A child is born to a hurt parent, sent to a school where it is taught by a hurt teacher. Now you are asking, is there a way to educate this child so the child recovers.
安：一个受伤的父母生下一个孩子，把他送到学校，受教于一个受伤的老师。现在你问，是不是有一种教育这个孩子的方式，让孩子能够痊愈。
K: I say it is possible, sir.
克：我说这是可能的，先生。
A: Yes, please.
安：是的，请说说。
K: That is, when the teacher realizes, when the educator realizes he is hurt and the child is hurt, he is aware of his hurt and he is aware also of the child's hurt then the relationship changes. Then he will in the very act of teaching, mathematics, whatever it is, he is not only freeing himself from his hurt but also helping the child to be free of his hurt. After all that is education: to see that I, who am the teacher, I am hurt, I have gone through agonies of hurt, and I want to help that child not to be hurt, and he has come to the school being hurt. So I say, all right, we both are hurt my friend, let us see, let's help each other to wipe it out. That is the act of love.
克：那就是，当老师意识到，教育者意识到，他受过伤，孩子受过伤，他明白自己的伤害也懂得孩子的伤害，那么关系就改变了。然后他就会在那教学行为中，教数学或者别的什么，不仅把自己从伤害中解脱出来，也帮助孩子从伤害中解脱出来。这才是教育：看到，我，作为老师，我受伤了，我经历过伤害的痛苦，我想帮那孩子不再受伤，他来学校的时候已经受伤了。所以我说，好吧，我们都受过伤，我的朋友，让我们看看，让我们帮助彼此把伤害消除。这就是爱的行动。
K: See sir, this is what happens if I were in a class that's the first thing I would begin with, not some subject. I would say, look, you are hurt and I am hurt, we are both of us hurt. And point out what hurt does, how it kills people, how it destroys people; out of that there is violence, out of that there is brutality, out of that I want to hurt people. You follow? All that comes in. I would spend ten minutes talking about that, every day, in different ways, till both of us see it. Then as an educator I would use the right word and the student will use the right word, there will be no gesture, we are both involved in it. But we don't do that. The moment we come into class we pick up a book and there it goes off. If I was an educator, whether with the older people, or the younger people, I would establish this relationship. That's my duty, that's my job, that's my function, not just to transmit some information.
克：先生你看，会发生什么，如果我在课堂上，我开始做的第一件事，不是教某个科目。我会说，看，你受过伤，我受过伤，我们都受过伤。然后指出伤害都做了些什么，它怎样残杀人们，如何摧毁人类；伤害催生暴力，催生残忍，受伤后我想去伤害别人。你明白吗？这些都来了。每天我会花十分钟讲这个，以不同的方式，直到我们都看清了这一点。然后作为教育者我会使用正确的词语，学生们也使用正确的词语，不装腔作势，我们都沉浸其中。但是我们并没有这么做。进到教室的那一刻，我们就抓起一本书，然后事情就变质了。如果我是个教育者，不管面对的是成年人还是年轻人，我必须建立这种关系。这是我的责任，这是我的工作，这是我的职责，而不只是传递某些知识信息。
作者: 李瑞 时间: 2010-3-14 15:50
谢谢！辛苦你了！
| 欢迎光临 克里希那穆提教育论坛 (http://j-krishnamurti.org.cn/) |
Powered by Discuz! 7.2 |