THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'IS THERE A GOD?'/《转变的紧迫性》之“有神吗？”

Sue

THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'IS THERE A GOD?'

《转变的紧迫性》之“有神吗？”

Questioner: I really would like to know if there is a god. If there isn't life has no meaning. Not knowing god, man has invented him in a thousand beliefs and images. The division and the fear bred by all these beliefs have divided him from his fellow men. To escape the pain and the mischief of this division he creates yet more beliefs, and the mounting misery and confusion have engulfed him. Not knowing, we believe. Can I know god? I've asked this question of many saints both in India and here and they've all emphasized belief. "Believe and then you will know; without belief you can never know." What do you think?

发问者：我真的想知道是不是有神。如果没有，那生命就没有意义。因为不知道神，人类就发明了关于神的千万种信仰和形象。所有这些信仰滋生的分别和恐惧，把他和他的伙伴们分离了。为逃避这种分离的痛苦和不幸，他就制造了更多的信仰，而不断增加的苦难和困惑把他吞没了。因为不了解，所以我们才会相信。我们能知道神吗？这个问题我曾经问过很多圣人，印度的和这儿的，他们都强调信仰。“相信，然后你就会知道；没有信仰，你永远不会知道。”你怎么看？

Krishnamurti: Is belief necessary to find out? To learn is far more important than to know. Learning about belief is the end of belief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same. When this actually takes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite a different meaning. The word god with all its tradition, its memory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all this is not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free of the word?

克：是不是需要去发现信仰是什么？了解要远比知道重要。对信仰的了解就是信仰的终结。当心智从信仰中解脱出来，它就能观察了。互相纠结的，是信仰，或者不信仰；因为不信仰和信仰是一回事：它们都是同一个硬币的正反两面。所以我们可以把肯定或否定的信仰完全放在一边；信仰者与不信仰者都是一样的。如果真的做到了这点，那么“有神吗？”这个问题就有了完全不同的意义。神这个词，连同这个词所包含的所有传统，记忆，以及智识上的和感情上的内涵——这一切都不是神。词语并非真实之物。那么心智能摆脱这个词吗？

Questioner: I don't know what that means.

发问者：我不知道那句话是什么意思。

Krishnamurti: The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire to find the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movement which gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomes the ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. The mind is the word, and the word is thought.

克：那个词是想要找到那绝对真理的传统、希冀和渴望，是对那终极之物的追求，是赋予其自身存在以生命力的一种活动。所以那个词本身变成了那终极之物，但是你能看出那个词并非所指之物。心智就是那个词，而那个词就是思想。

Questioner: And you're asking me to strip myself of the word? How can I do that? The word is the past; it is memory. The wife is the word, and the house is the word. In the beginning was the word. Also the word is the means of communication, identification. Your name is not you, and yet without your name I can't ask about you. And you're asking me if the mind can be free of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its own activity?

发问者：而你是在让我自己把那个词摆脱掉？我怎么才能做到这点？词语是过去；是记忆。妻子是个词，房子是个词。开始的时候只是个词而已。而且词语也是沟通、确认的方式。你的名字不是你，但是如果没有你的名字，我就不能问起你。你在问我，心智能否摆脱词语——也就是，心智能否摆脱它自身的行为？

Krishnamurti: In the case of the tree the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement. Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference. The theologian does it in one way, the intellectual in another, and the believer and the non-believer in their own different ways. Hope generates this belief, and then seeking. This hope is the outcome of despair - the despair of all we see around us in the world. From despair hope is born, they also are two sides of the same coin. When there is no hope there is hell, and this fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. Then illusion begins. So the word has led us to illusion and not to god at all. God is the illusion which we worship; and the non-believer creates the illusion of another god which he worships - the State, or some utopia, or some book which he thinks contains all truth. So we are asking you whether you can be free of the word with its illusion.

克：拿我们眼前的树这个物体来举个例子，全世界公认“树”这个词指的就是树。而用神这个词，它所指的东西空无一物，所以每个人就对这个无所依据的东西创造出他自己的形象来。神学家用一种方式创造出形象，知识分子用另一种方式，信仰者和不信仰者用他们各自不同的方式。希望催生了这些信仰，然后就开始追寻。这希望是绝望的结果——这种绝望我们在世界上在我们周围都能看见。从绝望中诞生了希望，它们也是同一个硬币的两面。如果没有希望就是地狱，这种对地狱的恐惧就给我们的希望赋予了生命力。然后幻想就开始了。所以语言将我们导向幻象，而根本不是引向神。神是我们崇拜的幻象；而不信仰者创造出别的神的幻象来崇拜——国家，或者某种乌托邦，或者他们认为包含着所有真理的某本书。所以我们在问，你能否从词语及其幻象中解脱出来。

Questioner: I must meditate on this.

发问者：我必须得好好想想这点。

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

克：如果没有幻象，那剩下的是什么？

Questioner: Only what is.

发问者：只有实际状况。

Krishnamurti: The "what is" is the most holy.

克：“实际状况”才是最神圣的。

Questioner: If the "what is" is the most holy then war is most holy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then we must not speak of any change at all. If "what is" is sacred, then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, "Don't touch me, what I'm doing is sacred".

发问者：如果“实际状况”是最神圣的，那么战争就是最神圣的，还有仇恨，失序，痛苦，贪婪和掠夺。那么我们就根本不能谈论任何改变了。如果“实际状况”是神圣的，那么每个杀人犯和掠夺者以及剥削者都会说，“别碰我，我做的事情是神圣的。”

Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

克：正是简简单单的那句话，“‘实际状况’是最神圣的”，导致了巨大的误解，因为我们没有看到它揭示的真相。如果你明白实际状况是神圣的，那么你就不会谋杀，你就不会发动战争，你就不会希望，你就不会剥削。要是做了这些事情，你就不能声称对你所违背的真理享有豁免权。如果白人对黑人暴动者说，“实际状况是神圣的，不要干涉，不要焚烧”，那他就没有看到这一点，因为如果他明白这点，那么对他来说，黑人就是神圣不可侵犯的，那么就没必要去焚烧了。所以，如果我们每个人都看到了这个真相，就必然会有改变。看到这个真相本身，就是改变。

Questioner: I came here to find out if there is god, and you have completely confused me.

发问者：我来这是为了弄清是不是有神，而你把我完全弄糊涂了。

Krishnamurti: You came to ask if there is god. We said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the observer who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.

克：你来这问是否有神。我们说：词语导致我们崇拜幻象，为了这个幻象我们愿意摧毁彼此。如果没有幻象，“实际状况”就是最神圣的。现在让我们来看看实际状况究竟如何。在某个特定的时刻，“实际状况”也许是恐惧，或者完全的绝望，或者飞逝的快乐。这些东西在不停地变化。同时又有个观察者说，“我周围的这些东西都在变，而我保持恒定”。这是事实吗，这是实际的状况吗？在他自己之上加加减减，修修补补，调整自己，想变成或者不变成，他不是也在变吗？所以观察者和被观察者都在不停地变化。实际状况就是变化。这是个事实。这就是实际状况。

Questioner: Then is love changeable? If everything is a movement of change, isn't love also part of that movement? And if love is changeable, then I can love one woman today and sleep with another tomorrow.

发问者：那么爱是可变的吗？如果所有东西都是变化的运动，难道爱不也是那变动的一部分吗？如果爱是可变的，那么我就能今天爱上一个女人，明天又和另一个女人上床。

Krishnamurti: Is that love? Or are you saying that love is different from its expression? Or are you giving to expression greater importance than to love, and therefore making a contradiction and a conflict. Can love ever be caught in the wheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love is hate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.

克：那是爱吗？还是你是说，爱与它的表现是不同的？还是你在赋予表现形式比赋予爱更大的重要性？因而就制造了矛盾和冲突。爱能被困在改变的车轮里吗？如果是如此，那么它就也能变成恨；那么爱就是恨了。只有没有幻象了，“实际状况”才是最神圣的。如果没有幻象，“实际状况”就是神或者你能使用的任何其他名字。所以，神，或者不管你管它叫什么名字，只有当你不在的时候，才存在。如果有你，它就不在。没有了你，就有了爱。有你，就没有爱。