THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'HOW TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD'/“怎样活在这个世界上”

Sue

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'HOW TO LIVE IN THIS WORLD'
《转变的紧迫性》之“怎样活在这个世界上”

     Questioner: Please, sir, could you tell me how I am to live in this world? I don't want to be part of it yet I have to live in it, I have to have a house and earn my own living. And my neighbours are of this world; my children play with theirs, and so one becomes a part of this ugly mess, whether one wants to or not. I want to find out how to live in this world without escaping from it, without going into a monastery or around the world in a sailing boat. I want to educate my children differently, but first I want to know how to live surrounded by so much violence, greed, hypocrisy, competition and brutality.

发问者：请问，先生，你能否告诉我该怎样活在这个世界上？我不想成为它的一部分，但是我还得生活在其中，我得有栋房子，养活我自己。而我的邻居是这个世界的一部分；我的孩子和他们的孩子一起玩，这样一个人就变成了这个乱糟糟丑陋世界的一部分，不管他想不想如此。我想发现如何生活在这个世界上，不从中逃避，不躲到寺院里去，也不坐一艘帆船去环游世界。我想以不同的方式来教育孩子，但是首先我想知道，在如此之多的暴力、贪婪、虚伪、竞争和残酷的包围之中，要如何生活。

     Krishnamurti: Don't let's make a problem of it. When anything becomes a problem we are caught in the solution of it, and then the problem becomes a cage, a barrier to further exploration and understanding. So don't let us reduce all life to a vast and complex problem. If the question is put in order to overcome the society in which we live, or to find a substitute for that society, or to try to escape from it though living in it, it must inevitably lead to a contradictory and hypocritical life. This question also implies, doesn't it, the complete denial of ideology? If you are really enquiring you cannot start with a conclusion, and all ideologies are a conclusion. So we must begin by finding out what you mean by living.

克：让我们不要把它变成一个问题。如果任何事情变成了问题，我们就困在对它的解决之道中了，那个问题就会变成一个牢笼，变成了对更深入的探索和了解的一个障碍。所以让我们不要把所有生活降减为一个复杂庞大的问题。如果提出问题是为了战胜我们生活于其中的社会，或者为了找到这个社会的某种替代品，或者尽管生活于其中却试图从中逃避，那它就不可避免地会导致一种矛盾的虚伪的生活。这个问题也意味着，对思想观念的完全否定，难道不是吗？如果你真的在探询，那么你就不能从一个结论开始，所有的思想观念都是一种结论。所以我们必须从发现你所说的活着意味着什么开始。

     Questioner: Please, sir, let's go step by step.

发问者：先生，请让我们一步步来。

     Krishnamurti: I am very glad that we can go into this step by step, patiently, with an enquiring mind and heart. Now what do you mean by living?

克：我很高兴我们能一步步耐心地深入这个问题，用一颗探询的头脑和心灵。那么你说的活着是什么意思？

     Questioner: I've never tried to put it into words. I'm bewildered, I don't know what to do, how to live. I've lost faith in everything - religions, philosophies and political utopias. There is war between individuals and between nations. In this permissive society everything is allowed - killing, riots, the cynical oppression of one country by another, and nobody does anything about it because interference might mean world war. I am faced with all this and I don't know what to do; I don't know how to live at all. I don't want to live in the midst of such confusion.

发问者：我从未试过要把它付诸语言。我很迷惑，我不知道该怎么办，怎么生活。我对所有事情都失去了信心——宗教，哲学和政治乌托邦。个人之间和国家之间都有战争。在这个悲观的社会里，所有事情都是允许的——杀戮，暴乱，一个国家被另一个国家毫不留情地压迫着，没有人对此做点什么，因为干涉也许就意味着世界大战。我不想生活在如此的困惑当中。

     Krishnamurti: What is it you are asking for - a different life, or for a new life which comes about with the understanding of the old life? If you want to live a different life without understanding what has brought about this confusion, you will always be in contradiction, in conflict, in confusion. And that of course is not a new life at all. So are you asking for a new life or for a modified continuity of the old one, or to understand the old one?

克：你想要的是什么——一种不同以往的生活，还是伴随着对以往生活的了解而来的一种全新生活？如果你想未经了解以往就过上一种不同的生活，它已经带来了这些困惑，那么你将始终处于矛盾中，冲突中，困惑中。当然那根本不是一种新生活。所以，你是想要一种新生活呢，还是想要以往生活经过改良后的某种延续，还是去了解以前的生活方式？

     Questioner: I'm not at all sure what I want but I am beginning to see what I don't want.

发问者：我不确定我想要什么，但是我开始看到我不想要什么。

     Krishnamurti: Is what you don't want based on your free understanding or on your pleasure and pain? Are you judging out of your revolt, or do you see the causation of this conflict and misery, and, because you see it, reject it?

克：你不想要的东西，是基于你自由的了解，还是基于你的欢愉和痛苦？你的评判是出于你的反抗，还是你看清了这冲突和苦难的根源，因为你看清了它，就抛弃了它？

     Questioner: You're asking me too many things. All I know is that I want to live a different kind of life. I don't know what it means; I don't know why I'm seeking it; and, as I said, I'm utterly bewildered by it all.

发问者：你问我太多事情了。我所有知道的只是我想过一种不同的生活。我不知道那是什么意思；我不知道我为什么追求它；而且，正如我所说，为此我极其困惑。

     Krishnamurti: Your basic question is, isn't it, how are you to live in this world? Before you find out let us first see what this world is. The world is not only all that surrounds us, it is also our relationship to all these things and people, to ourselves, to ideas. That is, our relationship to property, to people, to concepts - in fact our relationship to the stream of events which we call life. This is the world. We see division into nationalities, into religious, economic, political, social and ethnical groups; the whole world is broken up and is as fragmented outwardly as its human beings are inwardly. In fact, this outer fragmentation is the manifestation of the human being's inner division.

克：你基本的问题是，你该怎样活在这个世界上，不是吗？在你找出答案之前，让我们先看看这个世界是什么。世界不只是我们周围的一切，它也是我们与所有这些事情和人们的关系，与我们自己、与想法的关系。也就是，我们与财产，与人们，与概念的关系——实际上是我们与我们称为生活的一连串事件的关系。这就是世界。我们看到世界划分成了民族，划分成了宗教的、经济的、政治的、社会的和种族的团体；整个世界破碎不堪，人类的内在和外在一样支离破碎。事实上，这种外在的支离破碎正是人类内在分裂的表现。

     Questioner: Yes, I see this fragmentation very clearly, and I am also beginning to see that the human being is responsible.

发问者：是的，我非常清楚地看到这种破碎，我也正开始看到人类是有责任的。

     Krishnamurti:You are the human being!

克：你就是人类！

     Questioner: Then can I live differently from what I am myself? I'm suddenly realizing that if I am to live in a totally different way there must be a new birth in me, a new mind and heart, new eyes. And I realize also that this hasn't happened. I live the way I am, and the way I am has made life as it is. But where does one go from there?

发问者：那么我能以不同于我自己现在的方式生活吗？我突然意识到，如果我要过一种完全不同的生活方式，我就必须新生，重生一颗新的头脑和心灵，一双新的眼睛。我也意识到这还没有发生。我以现有的方式生活着，我现有的生活方式把生活变成了现在这个样子。但是一个人要从这里走向哪里？

     Krishnamurti: You don't go anywhere from there! There is no going anywhere. The going, or the searching for the ideal, for what we think is better, gives us a feeling that we are progressing, that we are moving towards a better world. But this movement is no movement at all because the end has been projected out of our misery, confusion, greed and envy. So this end, which is supposed to be the opposite of what is, is really the same as what is, it is engendered by what is. Therefore it creates the conflict between what is and what should be. This is where our basic confusion and conflict arises. The end is not over there, not on the other side of the wall; the beginning and the end are here.

克：从这儿你哪也不去！没有什么地方可去。去向，或者追寻理想，追求我们认为更好的，给我们一种感觉，好像我们正在进步，我们正在朝着一个更好的世界前进。但是这种运动根本不是运动，因为那终点是由我们的苦难、困惑、贪婪和嫉妒投射出来的。所以这个终点，本以为是与现实状况相反的，实际上和现实状况是一样的，它正是由现实状况产生的。因此，就在实际状况和应当如何之间制造了冲突。这就是我们的困惑和冲突根本的发源地。终点并不在那边，并不在墙的另一边；起点和终点都在这儿。

     Questioner: Wait a minute, sir, please; I don't understand this at all. Are you telling me that the ideal of what should be is the result of not understanding what is? Are you telling me that what should be is what is, and that this movement from what is to what should be isn't really a movement at all?

发问者：请等一下，先生；我根本不明白这点。你是不是在告诉我，理想中的应当如何就是不了解现实状况的结果？你是不是在告诉我，应当如何就是现实状况，从现实状况向应当如何行进的这种运动，根本就不是真的运动？

     Krishnamurti: It is an idea; it is fiction. If you understand what is, what need is there for what should be?

克：那是个想法；是虚构的。如果你了解了现实状况，还有什么必要有应当如何？

     Questioner: Is that so? I understand what is. I understand the bestiality of war, the horror of killing, and because I understand it I have this ideal of not killing. The ideal is born out of my understanding of what is, therefore it is not an escape.

发问者：是这样吗？我了解实际状况。我了解战争的残忍，杀戮的恐怖，因为我了解这些，所以我有了不杀生的理想。这个理想诞生于我对现实状况的了解，所以这不是一种逃避。

     Krishnamurti: If you understand that killing is terrible do you have to have an ideal in order not to kill? Perhaps we are not clear about the word understanding. When we say we understand something, in that is implied, isn't it, that we have learnt all it has to say? We have explored it and discovered the truth or the falseness of it. This implies also, doesn't it, that this understanding is not an intellectual affair, but that one has felt it deeply in one's heart? There is understanding only when the mind and the heart are in perfect harmony. Then one says "I have understood this, and finished with it", and it no longer has the vitality to breed further conflict. Do we both give the same meaning to that word understand?

克：如果你了解了杀戮是可怕的，你还要有个不去杀生的理想吗？也许我们还没弄清了解这个词的意思。当我们说我们了解了某事，这难道不就意味着，我们已经学到了它要说的一切？我们已经探索过了，发现了它的真实或者它的谬误。这也意味着，这种了解不是一件智识上的事情，而是一个人在他的内心深处深切地体会到了，不是吗？只有当头脑和心灵处于完美的和谐中时，才有这种了解。然后一个人说“我了解了这点，结束了它”，它再也不会有进一步滋生冲突的能力了。我们是不是都给了解这个词赋予了相同的含义？

     Questioner: I hadn't before, but now I see that what you are saying is true. Yet I honestly don't understand, in that way, the total disorder of the world, which, as you so rightly pointed out, is my own disorder. How can I understand it? How can I completely learn about the disorder, the entire disorder and confusion of the world, and of myself?

发问者：我以前没有看到，但是现在我看到你所说的是真实的。然而诚实地说，我并没有以那种方式了解到整个世界的失序，正如你确切指出的那样，那失序就是我自己的失序。我怎样才能了解这点？我要怎样才能完全了解失序，世界的和我自己的彻底失序和困惑？

     Krishnamurti: Do not use the word how, please.

克：请不要用怎样这个词。

     Questioner: Why not?

发问者：为什么不能用？

     Krishnamurti: The how implies that somebody is going to give you a method, a recipe, which, if you practise it, will bring about understanding. Can understanding ever come about through a method? Understanding means love and the sanity of the mind. And love cannot be practised or taught. The sanity of the mind can only come about when there is clear perception, seeing things as they are unemotionally, not sentimentally. Neither of these two things can be taught by another, nor by a system invented by yourself or by another.

克：怎样这个词意味着某人要给你一个方法，一个诀窍，如果你练习它，会带来了解。了解难道能够通过方法得来吗？了解意味着爱和心智的清明健全。而爱无法被练习或者教授。只有清晰地觉知，不感情用事不多愁善感地如实看清事情本身，心智的清明健全才能发生。这两件事都无法被别人教授，也不能经由你自己或者别人发明的体系传授。

     Questioner: You are too persuasive, sir, or is it perhaps that you are too logical? Are you trying to influence me to see things as you see them?

发问者：你太有说服力了，先生，还是也许你太擅长逻辑了？你是在试图影响我让我像你那样看待事情吗？

     Krishnamurti: God forbid! Influence in any form is destructive of love. Propaganda to make the mind sensitive, alert, will only make it dull and insensitive. So we are in no way trying to influence you or persuade you, or make you depend. We are only pointing out, exploring together. And to explore together you must be free, both of me and of your own prejudices and fears. Otherwise you go round and round in circles. So we must go back to our original question: how am I to live in this world? To live in this world we must deny the world. By that we mean: deny the ideal, the war, the fragmentation, the competition, the envy and so on. We don't mean deny the world as a schoolboy revolts against his parents. We mean deny it because we understand it. This understanding is negation.

克：但愿不是如此！任何形式的影响都破坏了爱。想让心智变得敏感、警觉的宣传活动，只会将其变得迟钝和不敏感。所以我们根本不是在试图影响你或者说服你，或者让你依赖。我们只是指出来，一起探索。而要一起探索，你必须从我和你自己的偏见和恐惧中解脱出来。否则你只是在来回兜圈子。所以我们必须回到我们最初的问题：我要怎样活在这个世界上？要活在这个世界上我们必须否定这个世界。这意味着：否定理想、战争、支离破碎、竞争、嫉妒，等等。我们说否定这个世界的意思，不是像男学生那样叛逆他的父母。我们的意思是因为我们了解了它所以否定它。这种了解就是否定。

     Questioner: I am out of my depth.

发问者：这超出了我能理解的深度。

     Krishnamurti: You said you do not want to live in the confusion, the dishonesty and ugliness of this world. So you deny it. But from what background do you deny it, why do you deny it? Do you deny it because you want to live a peaceful life, a life of complete security and enclosure, or do you deny it because you see what it actually is?

克：你说你不想生活在这个困惑、不诚实和丑陋的世界中。所以你否定它。但你是从什么背景来否定它的，你为什么要否定它？你否定它，是不是因为你想过和平的生活，一种彻底安全和封闭的生活，还是因为你如实看清了它所以你才否定它的？

     Questioner: I think I deny it because I see around me what is taking place. Of course my prejudices and fear are all involved. So it is a mixture of what is actually taking place and my own anxiety.

发问者：我想我否定它是因为我看到了周围发生着的事情。当然，其中都涉及到了我的偏见和恐惧。所以这是掺杂了实际发生的事情和我自己的焦虑的一种混合物。

     Krishnamurti: Which predominates, your own anxiety or the actual seeing of what is around you? If fear predominates, then you can't see what is actually going on around you, because fear is darkness, and in darkness you can see absolutely nothing. If you realize that, then you can see the world actually as it is, then you can see yourself actually as you are. Because you are the world, and the world is you; they are not two separate entities.

克：哪个占主导地位，是你自己的焦虑，还是真实地看到了你周围的一切？如果恐惧占主导，那么你就不能看清你周围实际上发生着什么，因为恐惧是黑暗，在黑暗中你根本什么都看不见。如果你意识到了这一点，那么你就能如实地看清这个世界了，那么你就能如实地看清你自己了。因为你就是世界，世界就是你；他们不是两个分开的实体。

     Questioner: Would you please explain more fully what you mean by the world is me and I am the world?

发问者：你能不能更充分地解释一下，你说的世界就是我和我就是世界是什么意思？

     Krishnamurti: Does this really need explaining? Do you want me to describe in detail what you are and show you that it is the same as what the world is? Will this description convince you that you are the world? Will you be convinced by a logical, sequential explanation showing you the cause and the effect? If you are convinced by careful description, will that give you understanding? Will it make you feel that you are the world, make you feel responsible for the world? It seems so clear that our human greed, envy, aggression and violence have brought about the society in which we live, a legalized acceptance of what we are. I think this is really sufficiently clear and let's not spend any more time on this issue. You see, we don't feel this, we don't love, therefore there is this division between me and the world.

克：这真的需要解释吗？你是想让我详细描述你是什么，并且指给你看这和世界的样子是一样的吗？这解释能让你确信你就是世界吗？给你一个符合逻辑顺序的解释，指给你看原因和结果，你会因此确信吗？如果你因详细的描述而确信，那能让你有了解吗？它会让你感觉到你就是世界，让你感觉到要对这个世界负责吗？非常明显，是我们人类的贪婪，嫉妒，侵略，暴力造就了我们身处其中的这个社会，我们的样子被合法化地接受了。我想这点真的十分清楚了，让我们不要在这个问题上再花时间了。你看，我们没感觉到这点，我们不爱，所以就有了我和世界之间的这种分裂。

     Questioner: May I come back again tomorrow?

发问者：我可以明天再来吗？

     * * *
     He came back the next day eagerly, and there was the bright light of enquiry in his eyes.

第二天他很热切地回来了，他的眼中有着探询的亮光。

     Questioner: I want, if you are willing, to go further into this question of how I am to live in this world. I do now understand, with my heart and my mind, as you explained yesterday, the utter importance of ideals. I had quite a long struggle with it and have come to see the triviality of ideals. You are saying, aren't you, that when there are no ideals or escapes there is only the past, the thousand yesterdays which make up the "me"? So when I ask: "How am I to live in this world?" I have not only put a wrong question, but I have also made a contradictory statement, for I have placed the world and the "me" in opposition to each other. And this contradiction is what I call living. So when I ask the question, "How am I to live in this world?" I am really trying to improve this contradiction, to justify it, to modify it, because that's all I know; I don't know anything else.

发问者：我想，如果你愿意的话，进一步深入我要怎样活在这个世界上这个问题。现在我确实以我的心灵和我的头脑了解到了，正如你昨天解释的，理想绝对的重要性。我曾与它做过漫长的斗争，已经看到了理想的琐碎。你说，如果没有理想或者逃避，就只有过去，一千个昨天构成的“我”，不是吗？所以当我问：“我要怎样活在这个世界上？”我不仅仅是提出了一个错误的问题，而且我也做了一个自相矛盾的表述，因为我把世界和“我”放在彼此对立的位置上。而这种矛盾，就是我们所谓的生活。所以当我问这个问题，“我要怎样活在这个世界上？”，我实际上是在努力强化这种矛盾，合理化它，调整它，因为这是我知道的所有事情；别的我什么也不知道。

     Krishnamurti: This then is the question we have now: must living always be in the past, must all activity spring from the past, is all relationship the outcome of the past, is living the complex memory of the past? That is all we know - the past modifying the present. And the future is the outcome of this past acting through the present. So the past, the present and the future are all the past. And this past is what we call living. The mind is the past, the brain is the past, the feelings are the past, and action coming from these is the positive activity of the known. This whole process is your life and all the relationship and activity that you know. So when you ask how you are to live in this world you are asking for a change of prisons.

克：那么这就是我们现在有的问题了：是不是必须总是生活在过去，是不是所有的行为都必须源于过去，是不是所有的关系都是过去的结果，生活是不是过去的复杂记忆？这是我们知道的所有东西——过去调整现在。而未来是这个过去通过现在运作的结果。所以过去，现在和未来都是过去。而这过去我们称之为生活。心智是过去，头脑是过去，感情是过去，从这些而来的行动是来自已知的正向活动。这整个过程就是你所知道的你的生活，所有的关系和活动。所以当你问你要怎样活在这个世界上，你只是想要换换监狱。

     Questioner: I don't mean that. What I mean is: I see very clearly that my process of thinking and doing is the past working through the present to the future. This is all I know, and that's a fact. And I realize that unless there is a change in this structure I am caught in it, I am of it. From this the question inevitably arises: how am I to change?

发问者：我不是这个意思。我的意思是：我非常清晰地看到，我思考和行为的过程是过去通过现在运作到未来。这是我知道的所有东西，这是个事实。我意识到除非我受困于其中的这个结构有种转变，否则我就是它的一部分。从这个问题必然产生另一个问题：我要怎样转变？

     Krishnamurti: To live in this world sanely there must be a radical change of the mind and of the heart.

克：要清明健全地活在这个世界上，头脑和心灵必须要有彻底的转变。

     Questioner: Yes, but what do you mean by change? How am I to change if whatever I do is the movement of the past? I can only change myself, nobody else can change me. And I don't see what it means - to change.

发问者：是的，但是你说的转变是什么意思？如果我无论做什么都是过去的运动，那我要如何转变？我只能改变我自己，别人无法改变我。我不知道这意味着什么——去转变。

     Krishnamurti: So the question "How am I to live in this world?" has now become "How am I to change?" - bearing in mind that the how doesn't mean a method, but is an enquiry to understand. What is change? Is there any change at all? Or can you ask whether there is any change at all only after there has been a total change and revolution? Let's begin again to find out what this word means. Change implies a movement from what is to something different. Is this something different merely an opposite, or does it belong to a different order altogether? If it is merely an opposite then it is not different at all, because all opposites are mutually dependent, like hot and cold, high and low. The opposite is contained within, and determined by, its opposite; it exists only in comparison, and things that are comparative have different measures of the same quality, and therefore they are similar. So change to an opposite is no change at all. Even if this going towards what seems different gives you the feeling that you are really doing something, it is an illusion.

克：所以“我要怎样活在这个世界上？”这个问题现在变成了“我要如何转变？”——请铭记在心，如何并不意味着一个方法，而是为了了解的一种探询。什么是转变？究竟有任何转变这回事吗？或者你能不能问，是否只有在一场彻底的转变和革命之后，才可能有所改变？让我们还是先来弄清这个词的意思。转变意味着从现实状况向不同的某物的运动。这某物只是个对立面呢，还是它属于一种全然不同的秩序？如果它只是对立面，那么它根本没有任何不同，因为所有的对立面都是相互依存的，像热和冷，高和低。对立面包含在它的对立面中，并且由其决定；它只存在于比较中，比较级的事物具有的是相同品质的不同尺度，因而它们是相似的。所以变成对立面根本不是转变。即使这种似乎在朝着不同方向的行进给你一种你确实在做什么的感觉，那还是个幻觉。

     Questioner: Let me absorb this for a moment.

发问者：让我先消化一下这些。

     Krishnamurti: So what are we concerned with now? Is it possible to bring about in ourselves the birth of a new order altogether that is not related to the past? The past is irrelevant to this enquiry, and trivial, because it is irrelevant to the new order.

克：那我们现在关注的是什么？是否有可能在我们自己身上诞生一种与过去无关的全然的新秩序？过去与这探询无关，过去是琐碎的，因为它与那新秩序无关。

     Questioner: How can you say it is trivial and irrelevant? We've been saying all along that the past is the issue, and now you say it is irrelevant.

发问者：你怎么能说它是琐碎的不相干的？我们一直在说过去就是问题所在，现在你说它是不相干的。

     Krishnamurti: The past seems to be the only issue because it is the only thing that holds our minds and hearts. It alone is important to us. But why do we give importance to it? Why is this little space all-important? If you are totally immersed in it, utterly committed to it, then you will never listen to change. The man who is not wholly committed is the only one capable of listening, enquiring and asking. Only then will he be able to see the triviality of this little space. So, are you completely immersed, or is your head above the water? If your head is above the water then you can see that this little thing is trivial. Then you have room to look around. How deeply are you immersed? Nobody can answer this for you except yourself. In the very asking of this question there is already freedom and, therefore, one is not afraid. Then your vision is extensive. When this pattern of the past holds you completely by the throat, then you acquiesce, accept, obey, follow, believe. It is only when you are aware that this is not freedom that you are starting to climb out of it. So we are again asking: what is change, what is revolution? Change is not a movement from the known to the known, and all political revolutions are that. This kind of change is not what we are talking about. To progress from being a sinner to being a saint is to progress from one illusion to another. So now we are free of change as a movement from this to that.

克：过去似乎是唯一的问题，因为它是唯一掌控我们头脑和心灵的东西。它本身对我们是重要的。但是，我们为什么要赋予它重要性？为什么这个狭小的空间那么重要？如果你完全沉浸其中，彻底禁锢其中，那么你就永远不会去聆听着改变。没有完全禁锢其中的人，是仅有的能够聆听，探究和质询的人。只有这时，他才能看到这个狭小空间的琐碎。所以，你是完全沉浸其中，还是你的头还在水面之上？如果你的头在水面之上，那么你就能看到这个小东西是琐碎的。那么你就有空间去看看周围了。你沉浸其中的程度有多深？没有人能回答这个问题，除了你自己。在提出这个问题本身时，就有了自由，所以你就不会害怕。接着你的视野就宽阔了。当这种过去的模式完全扼住你的喉咙，你就会默认，接受，服从，追随，相信。只有当你意识到这不是自由时，你才能开始爬出来。所以我们再问一次这个问题：什么是转变，什么是革命？转变不是从已知到已知的运动，所有的政治革命都是这样。这种改变不是我们正在讨论的东西。从一个罪人进步为一个圣人，只是从一个幻觉向另一个幻觉前进而已。所以现在我们摆脱了从这到那的运动这样的改变。

     Questioner: Have I really understood this? What am I to do with anger, violence and fear when they arise in me? Am I to give them free reign? How am I to deal with them? There must be change there, otherwise I am what I was before.

发问者：我真的明白了这点吗？当我内在产生了愤怒、暴力和恐惧，我该拿它们怎么办？我要让它们自由发挥吗？我该怎么处理它们？那里必须得有改变，否则我就会和以前一样。

     Krishnamurti: Is it clear to you that these things cannot be overcome by their opposites? If so, you have only the violence, the envy, the anger, the greed. The feeling arises as the result of a challenge, and then it is named. This naming of the feeling re-establishes it in the old pattern. If you do not name it, which means you do not identify yourself with it, then the feeling is new and it will go away by itself. The naming of it strengthens it and gives it a continuity which is the whole process of thought.

克：这些事情不能由它们的对立面来克服，这一点对你来说清楚了吗？如果是的话，你就只有暴力，嫉妒，愤怒和贪婪。这感觉作为一种挑战的结果出现，随后它就被命名了。对感觉的命名就把它在旧有的模式里重建了。如果你不给它命名，也就是说你不把自己与它认同在一起，那么这感觉就是新鲜的，它会自己消失掉。对它的命名加强了它，赋予了它延续性，这正是思想的整个过程。

     Questioner: I am being driven into a comer where I see myself actually as I am, and I see how trivial I am. From there what comes next?

发问者：我被赶到了一个角落里，我如实地看到了自己的样子，我也看到了自己有多么琐碎。从这里接下来会发生什么？

     Krishnamurti: Any movement from what I am strengthens what I am. So change is no movement at all. Change is the denial of change, and now only can I put this question: is there a change at all? This question can be put only when all movement of thought has come to an end, for thought must be denied for the beauty of non-change. In the total negation of all movement of thought away from what is, is the ending of what is.

克：任何离开我的现实状况的运动，都会增强我的这种状况。所以那改变根本不是运动。转变是对改变的否定，只有现在我才能提出这个问题：究竟有转变这回事吗？只有当所有思想运动都停止的时候，才能提出这个问题，因为思想必须因为不变的美而被否定。在对所有离开实际状况的思想运动的全然否定中，就有了现实状况的终结。

Sue

十分感谢！