Separation leads to conflict
分隔导致冲突
To avoid the world is to be worldly. We avoid it in so many ways. Avoidance is resistance to what is. The idealist and the intellectual, the emotional man, the religious man and the man of the world, all resist what is in their own specialized ways. So there is never any radical change or revolution. This resistance or avoidance is cultivated from childhood until we die. This has been the tradition not only in the East but also in the West; it does not belong to the East or the West, for man is not European, Asian or American. The fundamental question is whether it is possible to live a daily life without any resistance, that is, without any defence. Is it possible to be vulnerable, therefore highly sensitive, and yet carry on with our daily occupations?
逃避这个世界就是世俗性。我们以各种方式来逃避这个世界。逃避就是对“事实”的抗拒。理想主义者与知识分子，感性化的人，宗教人士和世俗的人们，他们都在以各自特殊的方式来抵抗“事实”。所以从未有过任何本质上的改变或革命。这种抵抗或逃避从我们孩提时便开始被培养，一直到我们死去。无论在东方还是西方，这都已成为传统；它并不是属于东方或是西方，因为人不是按欧洲人，亚洲人或是美国人划分来的。根本的问题是我们是否有可能在每天的生活中没有任何的抗拒，也就是说，没有任何的防卫。我们是否有可能是打开的，也因此是高度敏感的，却仍然从事着我们日常的工作？
As this is not done, the inevitable consequence is the separative process which one cultivates through the defence mechanism, and this separative process must inevitably lead to conflict in all relationships. This inner conflict becomes outer conflict leading to national divisions, religious divisions, moral divisions, and so on. Is it possible in society to live a life without conflict, without resistance, without any form of avoidance of what is? The what is is always in the active present. Resistance to this living activity comes through past memories of what has been and the hope of what might be. The remembrance of the past and the hope of the future is the avoidance of what is. We resist the actual. The actual is anger, or sorrow, or despair, or a moment of joy. Can one look at sorrow without any form of resistance or avoidance, look at it not only with the senses but also without the self-pitying process, and not escape from it, neither condemning it nor accepting it, which are both forms of avoiding what is? What is is sorrow or pain.
由于做不到这点，其不可避免的结果就是我们通过防卫机制所培养起来的分隔过程，而这个分隔的过程也必然导致在所有关系里的冲突。这种内在的冲突转变成外在的冲突，导致了国家，宗教，和道德等等的划分。是否有可能在这个社会里过上这样一种生活，它没有冲突，没有抗拒，也没有对“事实”任何形式的逃避？“事实”一直就是这个活生生的现在。对这个生动的活力的抗拒来自于对于过往“已然”的记忆和对于“或然”的希望。这种对于过去的回忆和对于未来的希望就是对于“事实”的逃避。我们抗拒真实的东西。而真实的东西是危险，或悲伤，或绝望，或片刻的欢愉。我们能否看着悲伤，不带任何形式的抗拒或逃避，看着它，不只是用感官，还要去除自怜的过程，也不从那里逃开，既不对它谴责，也不试图接受，因为这两者都是对于“事实”的逃避？“事实”就是悲伤或是痛苦。
Looking is always in the present. If you say,' I have looked', and you look at the present with what you have learnt from that look and with the memory of that look, then you are really looking with eyes that are clouded by past memories, and so you do not look at all. Really to look at this sorrow, with which humanity has lived since we began, is to look without time. When there is no resistance, then this sorrow loses it sting. But to accept sorrow, or to worship it, or to explain it away, is never to come into direct contact with it.
看永远是此刻的事。如果你说，“我已经看过了”，然后带着你从“看过”里所学到的东西以及关于那个“看过”的记忆去看现在的话，那么实际上，你的眼睛就会被过去的记忆所遮蔽，因此你也就根本不是在看。真正地去看这个悲伤，它从人类诞生以来便伴随着我们，就是不带时间地去看。当没有抗拒的时候，悲伤也便失去了刺痛。而对悲伤的接受，崇拜或是把它解释掉，永远都不会使我们直接接触到它。
The network of escapes which we have cultivated through alcohol, through sex, through the organized beliefs we call religion, through obedience to the State or to some ideology, is in effect resistance to, avoidance of what is, both inwardly and outwardly. All cultivation of the tradition of resistance denies freedom. The remembrance of past action is inaction, for action is a movement in the present, the action which springs from what is, not from the remembrance of what was.
我们通过酒精，通过性，通过有组织的信仰，我们称它为宗教，通过对于国家或是某些意识形态的服从，来编制我们逃避的网，这个网实际上就是对于“事实”，内在的和外在的抗拒和逃避。所有对抗拒这一传统的培育都是对于自由的否定。对于过去行动的记忆其实是没有行动，因为行动是在现在的活动，行动源自“事实”，而非源自对“已然”的回忆。
绿草园翻译工作室 |
发表于 2010-8-15 21:22
|