Man has throughout the ages been seeking something beyond himself, beyond material welfare - something we call truth or God or reality, a timeless state - something that cannot be disturbed by circumstances, by thought or by human corruption.
人长久以来就在不断寻求某种超越自己、超越物质幸福的东西 －－ 某种我们叫做上帝、真理或实相的东西，一种永恒的境界 －－ 某种不受环境、思想及人类堕落所影响的东西。
Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the enormous confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolt, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing we call living, is there anything beyond it?
人总是在问：这一切是怎么一回事？生命到底有没有意义？他看到了生命的大量困惑，看到了残忍、暴乱、战争，无尽的宗教、意识形态和国家分化，心怀深深持久的沮丧，他问，人能做什么？我们所谓的生活是什么？有没有任何东西可以超越它？
And not finding this nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith - faith in a saviour or an ideal - and faith invariably breeds violence.
由于找不到他一直在寻求的、那不可名状却被冠以千万种名字的东西，他培养了信念 －－ 对救世主或某种理想的信念 －－ 而信念总是会滋生暴力。
In this constant battle which we call living, we try to set a code of conduct according to the society in which we are brought up, whether it be a Communist society or a so-called free society; we accept a standard of behaviour as part of our tradition as Hindus or Muslims or Christians or whatever we happen to be. We look to someone to tell us what is right or wrong behaviour, what is right or wrong thought, and in following this pattern our conduct and our thinking become mechanical, our responses automatic. We can observe this very easily in ourselves.
在我们称之为“生活”的这个永恒的战争中，我们试图根据我们成长于其中的社会，不论这社会是共产主义社会或所谓的自由社会，定下行为的规范；我们不小心成为了印度教徒、穆斯林、基督徒，或不管是什么，即接受了其行为标准，因其是我们的传统的一部分。我们指望别人告诉我们行为的对错、我们思想的对错，在这一过程中，我们的言行思想变得机械化，我们的反应变得自动化。我们很容易在自己身上观察到这一点。
For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, 'Tell me all about it - what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?' and we are satisfied with their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and empty. We are secondhand people. We have lived on what we have been told, either guided by our inclinations, our tendencies, or compelled to accept by circumstances and environment. We are the result of all kinds of influences and there is nothing new in us, nothing that we have discovered for ourselves; nothing original, pristine, clear.
多少世纪以来，我们被我们的老师、我们的权威、我们的书本、我们的圣人宠坏了。我们说：“告诉我一切 －－ 那山峰、丘陵和土地之外有什么？”我们满足于他人的描述，这意味着，我们在文字之上生活，我们的生活肤浅而又空洞。因此我们是“二手”的人。我们依靠别人告诉我们的东西生活，要么被自己的个性和倾向所左右，要么受制于外在的环境。我们是所有这一切影响的结果，我们的内心没有任何新的东西，我们从没有为自己发现过什么；我们的内心没有原始的、独创的和纯净的东西。
Throughout theological history we have been assured by religious leaders that if we perform certain rituals, repeat certain prayers or mantras, conform to certain patterns, suppress our desires, control our thoughts, sublimate our passions, limit our appetites and refrain from sexual indulgence, we shall, after sufficient torture of the mind and body, find something beyond this little life. And that is what millions of so-called religious people have done through the ages, either in isolation, going off into the desert or into the mountains or a cave or wandering from village to village with a begging bowl, or, in a group, joining a monastery, forcing their minds to conform to an established pattern. But a tortured mind, a broken mind, a mind which wants to escape from all turmoil, which has denied the outer world and been made dull through discipline and conformity - such a mind, however long it seeks, will find only according to its own distortion.
纵观神学的历史，曾不断有宗教领袖向我们保证，如果我们执行某些宗教仪式，重复某些祷词或颂语，服从特定的模式，压制我们的欲念，控制我们的思想，升华我们的热情，限制我们的食物，克制我们的性欲，我们就能够，在思想和身体备受折磨之后，找到超越这渺小的生命的东西。而这，就是千百万所谓的宗教人士长期以来的做法。有些人独处，走进沙漠或深山或洞穴之中，或流浪于乡野村间托钵化缘；有些人群居，加入寺院，强迫自己的心智臣服于某种已设定的模式。但是一颗备受折磨的心，一颗破碎的心，一颗想要逃离所有混乱、否定了外部世界、因而被规矩和教条折磨得迟钝的心 －－ 这样的一颗心，就算花再长时间来寻找，找到的也只是被这颗心扭曲之后的东西。
So to discover whether there actually is or is not something beyond this anxious, guilty, fearful, competitive existence, it seems to me that one must have a completely different approach altogether. The traditional approach is from the periphery inwards, and through time, practice and renunciation, gradually to come upon that inner flower, that inner beauty and love - in fact to do everything to make oneself narrow, petty and shoddy; peel off little by little; take time; tomorrow will do, next life will do - and when at last one comes to the centre one finds there is nothing there, because one's mind has been made incapable, dull and insensitive.
所以，要发现实际上到底有没有东西可以超越这焦躁、罪恶、恐惧及竞争的存在，窃以为，人必须采取完全不同的方式。传统的方式是由外而内的，通过时间、练习和克制，逐渐接近那内在的花朵，那内在的美和爱 －－ 事实上只会让人偏执、狭隘和低劣；一点一点剥去；需要时间；明天也可，来生也可 －－ 而最终到达核心时，他发现那里什么也没有，因为他的心智早已被折磨得无能、迟钝而又麻木了。
Having observed this process, one asks oneself, is there not a different approach altogether - that is, is it not possible to explode from the centre?
在观察到了这个过程之后，人问自己，有没有一种完全不同的方法 －－ 也就是说，有没有可能直接从核心爆发出来？
The world accepts and follows the traditional approach. The primary cause of disorder in ourselves is the seeking of reality promised by another; we mechanically follow somebody who will assure us a comfortable spiritual life. It is a most extraordinary thing that although most of us are opposed to political tyranny and dictatorship, we inwardly accept the authority, the tyranny, of another to twist our minds and our way of life. So if we completely reject, not intellectually but actually, all so-called spiritual authority, all ceremonies, rituals and dogmas, it means that we stand alone and are already in conflict with society; we cease to be respectable human beings. A respectable human being cannot possibly come near to that infinite, immeasurable, reality.
这个世界接受并遵循传统的方式。我们内心困扰的首要导因就是我们追寻他人承诺的实相；某人向我们保证了舒适的精神生活，我们就机械地追随他。一个最奇怪的事情是，尽管我们大多数人在政治上反对专制和独裁，我们的内心却接受别人的权威，专制，来扭曲我们的心智和生活方式。故，如果我们完全拒绝 －－ 不是从理智上拒绝而是实际地去拒绝 －－ 所有所谓的精神权威，所有的礼节、仪式和教条，就意味着我们孤立了，且与社会已经冲突了；我们就不再是体面的人了。一个体面的人不可能接近那辽阔无垠的实相。
You have now started by denying something absolutely false - the traditional approach - but if you deny it as a reaction you will have created another pattern in which you will be trapped; if you tell yourself intellectually that this denial is a very good idea but do nothing about it, you cannot go any further. If you deny it however, because you understand the stupidity and immaturity of it, if you reject it with tremendous intelligence, because you are free and not frightened, you will create a great disturbance in yourself and around you but you will step out of the trap of respectability. Then you will find that you are no longer seeking. That is the first thing to learn - not to seek. When you seek you are really only window-shopping.
通过否定某些绝对错误的东西 －－ 传统的方式 －－ 你现在已经上路了，但如果你否定它只是一种反应，你可能已经创建了另一种模式，并陷入其中；如果你只是在理智上告诉自己这种否定是种很好的想法，却什么也没做，你就无法继续前行。但是，如果你否定传统，是因为你明白它的愚蠢和不成熟，如果你拒绝传统是因为你自由不恐惧因而拥有的非凡理智，你就会在自身和周围创造巨大的困扰，但你会走出“体面”的陷阱。这时，你将发现你已不再追寻了。这就是第一件要学习的事 －－ 不再追逐。你追逐的时候，你实际上是只看不买（window-shopping，意思是玩玩概念罢了，只是理智上否定传统却不实践）。
The question of whether or not there is a God or truth or reality, or whatever you like to call it, can never be answered by books, by priests, philosophers or saviours. Nobody and nothing can answer the question but you yourself and that is why you must know yourself. Immaturity lies only in total ignorance of self. To understand yourself is the beginning of wisdom.
关于有没有上帝、真理、实相（或不管你如何称呼它）的问题，永远不能被书本、牧师、哲学家或救世主回答。除了你，你自己，没有任何人或任何东西能够回答这个问题，这就是为什么你必须了解你自己。不成熟只是缘于对自己的一无所知。了解你自己就是智慧的开始。
And what is yourself, the individual you? I think there is a difference between the human being and the individual. The individual is a local entity, living in a particular country, belonging to a particular culture, particular society, particular religion. The human being is not a local entity. he is everywhere. If the individual merely acts in a particular corner of the vast field of life, then his action is totally unrelated to the whole. So one has to bear in mind that we are talking of the whole not the part, because in the greater the lesser is, but in the lesser the greater is not. The individual is the little conditioned, miserable, frustrated entity, satisfied with his little gods and his little traditions, whereas a human being is concerned with the total welfare, the total misery and total confusion of the world.
那么，你自己是什么 －－ 身为个体的你？我认为，人类与个体有一处差别。“个体”只是一个局部的实体，生活在某个特定的国家，属于某种特定的文化、特定的社会和特定的宗教。“人类”却不是一个局部的实体，人类到处都是。如果个体仅仅在这辽阔的生命领域的一隅行动，那么他的行为就与人类这个整体毫无关联。故，我们要谨记，我们讨论的是整体而非局部，因为整体涵盖局部，而局部不是整体。探讨个体是探讨小的受限的可悲的沮丧的实体，满足于他的小上帝和他的小传统，而论及人类，探讨的则是整个世界的福祉、苦难和困惑。
We human beings are what we have been for millions of years －－ colossally greedy, envious, aggressive, jealous, anxious and despairing, with occasional flashes of joy and affection. We are a strange mixture of hate, fear and gentleness; we are both violence and peace. There has been outward progress from the bullock cart to the jet plane but psychologically the individual has not changed at all, and the structure of society throughout the world has been created by individuals. The outward social structure is the result of the inward psychological structure of our human relationships, for the individual is the result of the total experience, knowledge and conduct of man. Each one of us is the storehouse of all the past. The individual is the human who is all mankind. The whole history of man is written in ourselves.
我们人类千百万年来一直在极度贪婪、羡慕、好斗、嫉妒、焦躁和绝望中度过，偶尔闪现出一丝欢乐和柔情。我们是仇恨、恐惧和温柔的奇怪混合体；我们既暴力又和平。外在世界已经从牛车进步到喷气式飞机但在心理上个体却毫无改变，而整个世界的社会结构就是由个体所创建的。外在的社会结构是我们的人类关系的内在精神结构的结果，因为，个体是全体经验、知识和行为的结果。我们每一个人都储存了所有的过去。个体就是人就是所有人类。人类的整个历史就写在我们的内心。
Do observe what is actually taking place within yourself and outside yourself in the competitive culture in which you live with its desire for power, position, prestige, name, success and all the rest of it - observe the achievements of which you are so proud, this whole field you call living in which there is conflict in every form of relationship, breeding hatred, antagonism, brutality and endless wars. This field, this life, is all we know, and being unable to understand the enormous battle of existence we are naturally afraid of it and find escape from it in all sorts of subtle ways. And we are frightened also of the unknown - frightened of death, frightened of what lies beyond tomorrow. So we are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is.
切实地观察一下，在这个充斥着对权势、地位、名望、成就及其他种种的欲望的竞争文化中，你自己的内心和你自己之外实际上都在发生什么 －－ 观察一下你如此引以为豪的成就，观察一下充斥着各类关系之间的冲突、滋生着仇恨、敌对、残忍和永无止境的战争的这个被你叫做生活的整个领域。这个领域，这生活，就是我们所知的全部，我们不能理解这巨大的生存斗争，因而自然而然地感到害怕，以各种各样微妙的方式来寻求逃避。还令我们感到害怕的是未知 －－ 害怕死亡，害怕明天会发生什么。故我们害怕已知也害怕未知。这就是我们每天的生活，在这样的生活里没有希望，因而，每一种形式的哲学，每一种形式的神学概念，仅仅是对现实的一种逃避。
All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. As human beings living in this monstrously ugly world, let us ask ourselves, can this society, based on competition, brutality and fear, come to an end? Not as an intellectual conception, not as a hope, but as an actual fact, so that the mind is made fresh, new and innocent and can bring about a different world altogether? It can only happen, I think, if each one of us recognises the central fact that we, as individuals, as human beings, in whatever part of the world we happen to live and whatever culture we happen to belong to, are totally responsible for the whole state of the world.
通过战争、革命、改革、法律和意识形态带来的所有外在形式的改变，都未能改变人类的本质，因而也未能改变社会的本质。作为活在这野兽般丑陋的世界中的人类，让我们扪心自问，这个基于竞争、残忍和恐惧的社会能否终结？不是作为理智概念的终结，不是作为希望的终结，而是实实在在的事实终结，使得心智变得新鲜无邪，从而带来一个完全不同的世界？我认为，想要如此，唯有我们每一个人，认识到一个核心的事实，即作为个体，作为人类，不管我们偶然生活在这个世界的哪个地方，不管我们偶然属于哪种文化，都对世界的整个状态负有完全的责任。
We are each one of us responsible for every war because of the aggressiveness of our own lives, because of our nationalism, our selfishness, our gods, our prejudices, our ideals, all of which divide us. And only when we realise, not intellectually but actually, as actually as we would recognise that we are hungry or in pain, that you and I are responsible for all this existing chaos, for all the misery throughout the entire world because we have contributed to it in our daily lives and are part of this monstrous society with its wars, divisions, its ugliness, brutality and greed - only then will we act.
我们每一个人对每一场战争都有责任，因为我们生活中的侵略性、我们的民族主义，我们的自私、我们的宗教信仰、我们的偏见，我们的理想，这所有的一切都促成了我们的分裂。只有当我们意识到，不是从理智上而是实实在在地意识到，就像我们意识到自己饥饿或疼痛一样切实地意识到，你和我都对现存的所有混乱、对整个世界的所有苦难负有责任，因为我们每一天的生活都为这些混乱和苦难作出了贡献，都是这充满战争、分化、丑陋、残忍和贪婪的野兽般的世界的一部分时 －－ 只有这时，我们才会行动。
But what can a human being do - what can you and I do - to create a completely different society? We are asking ourselves a very serious question. Is there anything to be done at all? What can we do? Will somebody tell us? People have told us. The so-called spiritual leaders, who are supposed to understand these things better than we do, have told us by trying to twist and mould us into a new pattern, and that hasn't led us very far; sophisticated and learned men have told us and that has led us no further. We have been told that all paths lead to truth - you have your path as a Hindu and someone else has its path as a Christian and another as a Muslim, and they all meet at the same door - which is, when you look at it, so obviously absurd. Truth has no path, and that is the beauty of truth, it is living. A dead thing has a path to it because it is static, but when you see that truth is something living, moving, which as no resting place, which is in no temple, mosque or church, which no religion, no teacher, no philosopher, nobody can lead you to - then you will also see that this living thing is what you actually are - your anger, your brutality, your violence, your despair, the agony and sorrow you live in. In the understanding of all this is the truth, and you can understand it only if you know how to look at those things in your life. And you cannot look through an ideology, through a screen of words, through hopes and fears.
但是，要创造一个完全不同的社会，个人能做什么呢 －－ 你和我能做什么呢？我们正在问自己一个非常严肃的问题。到底有没有能做的？我们能做什么？有人会告诉我们吗？有人已经告诉过我们。那些被认为比我们更理解这些事情的所谓的精神领袖，曾经通过扭曲我们、将我们塑造成一个新的模式来告诉过我们，但他们并没有带领我们走出多远；久经历练的饱学之士也告诉过我们，也没有带领我们走出多远。我们曾经被告知，所有道路都通向真理 －－ 你是印度教徒，你有你的道路，某人是基督徒也有他的道路，另一个人是穆斯林，也有他的道路，而他们都会在同一座门前相遇 －－ 你看一下这个说法，显然很荒谬。真理无路可寻，而这就是真理之美，真理是活生生的。死的东西有路可寻因为它是静止的，但是当你看到真理是活的、运动的，不停留，不在寺庙、清真寺、教堂，没有宗教、导师、哲学家、没有任何人可以带领你去那里的时候，这时你也会发现，这个活生生的东西（真理）就是你实际上是什么 －－ 你的愤怒、你的残忍，你的暴力、你的绝望、你生活于其中的挣扎和悲伤。对所有这些的理解就是真理。只有你知道如何在你的生活中去看这些，你才能理解。而且你无法透过意识形态，透过文字的屏障，透过希望和恐惧来看。
So you see that you cannot depend upon anybody. There is no guide, no teacher, no authority. There is only you - your relationship with others and with the world - there is nothing else. When you realise this, it either brings great despair, from which comes cynicism and bitterness, or, in facing the fact that you and nobody else is responsible for the world and for yourself, for what you think, what you feel, how you act, all self-pity goes. Normally we thrive on blaming others, which is a form of self-pity.
因此，你发现了，你不能依赖于任何人。没有向导，没有老师，没有权威。只有你 －－ 你与他人的关系，你与世界的关系 －－ 别的什么也没有。当你意识到这一点，要么会带来巨大的绝望，因而悲痛和愤世嫉俗，要么，你面对了现实 －－ 只有你，没有任何他人，应该为这个世界、为你自己、为你的想法、你的感觉、你的行为负责 －－ 在面对这个事实的过程中，所有的自怜都会消失。通常我们喜欢的一种自怜的形式就是责怪他人。
Can you and I, then bring about in ourselves without any outside influence, without any persuasion, without any fear of punishment - can we bring about in the very essence of our being a total revolution, a psychological mutation, so that we are no longer brutal, violent, competitive, anxious, fearful, greedy, envious and all the rest of the manifestations of our nature which have built up the rotten society in which we live our daily lives?
那么，你我能否在没有任何外在影响、没有说服，也没有对惩罚的恐惧的情况下，给我们的存在的最根本的本质以完全的变革，一种精神层面的转变，以使得我们不再残忍、暴力、好强、焦躁、恐惧、贪婪、嫉妒，不再具有所有其他那些构成我们今日腐朽社会的本性？
It is important to understand from the very beginning that I am not formulating any philosophy or any theological structure of ideas or theological concepts. It seems to me that all ideologies are utterly idiotic. What is important is not a philosophy of life but to observe what is actually taking place in our daily life, inwardly and outwardly. If you observe very closely what is taking place and examine it, you will see that it is based on an intellectual conception, and the intellect is not the whole field of existence; it is a fragment, and a fragment, however cleverly put together, however ancient and traditional, is still a small part of existence whereas we have to deal with the totality of life. And when we look at what is taking place in the world we begin to understand that there is no outer and inner process; there is only one unitary process, it is a whole, total movement, the inner movement expressing itself as the outer and the outer reacting again on the inner. To be able to look at this seems to me all that is needed, because if we know how to look, then the whole thing becomes very clear, and to look needs no philosophy, no teacher. Nobody need tell you how to look. You just look.
我应该在此先声明清楚，我并不是在阐述任何哲学或神学的思想结构或概念。对我而言，所有的意识形态，都是极其愚蠢的。重要的不是某种人生哲学，而是去观察我们每天生活中实际在发生的事，内在的以及外在的。如果你非常仔细地观察正在发生的事，并审视它，你就会发现它是建立在理智观念之上的，而理智并不是存在的全部领域；理智（或者说眼前的事）只是其中的一个片段，不论我们如何聪明地把它们放到一起，理智不管多么古老、多么传统，仍然只是存在的一小部分，而我们必须处理的是生活的整体。而当我们看到我们开始理解的这个世界中正在发生的事情的时候，看不到外部和内部的过程之分，只有单一的过程，是一个整体的运动。内部的运动将其自身表现于外，而外在的运动又向内反应。对我而言，所需要的就只是能够看到这些。因为如果我们知道如何看，那么整体就变得非常清晰了。而看，不需要哲学，不需要老师。不需要任何人告诉你如何去看。你就只看。
Can you then, seeing this whole picture, seeing it not verbally but actually, can you easily, spontaneously, transform yourself? That is the real issue. Is it possible to bring about a complete revolution in the psyche?
那么，你能看到这幅完整的图像吗，不是通过语言看，而是实际看到，你能轻易地自发地改变自己吗？这是真正的问题。是否可能从精神上进行完全的变革？
I wonder what your reaction is to such a question? You may say, ‘I don't want to change', and most people don't, especially those who are fairly secure socially and economically or who hold dogmatic beliefs and are content to accept themselves and things as they are or in a slightly modified form. With those people we are not concerned. Or you may say more subtly, 'Well, it's too difficult, it's not for me', in which case you will have already blocked yourself, you will have ceased to enquire and it will be no use going any further. Or else you may say, 'I see the necessity for a fundamental inward change in myself but how am I to bring it about? Please show me the way, help me towards it.' If you say that, then what you are concerned with is not change itself; you are not really interested in a fundamental revolution: you are merely searching for a method, a system, to bring about change.
我想知道，对这样一个问题，你的反应是什么？你可能会说：“我不想改变。”许多人不想改变，尤其是那些社会和经济方面相当安全的人，还有坚持某些教条、接受了自己、接受了现状，或者只准备做些轻微修正的人。我们不讨论这样的人。或者你可能委婉地说：“改变太难了，我做不到。”那么你已经画地自限了，你不再质询（enquiry）了，我们再深入下去也没什么用了。或者你可能说：“我已经看到了自己内心根本改变的必要性，但是我该怎么改变呢？请你为我领路，指点我方向。”如果你这么说，则表示你关心的并非“改变”，你实际上对从根本上的改变没有兴趣，你只是在寻求一种方法或系统，以改变你。
If I were foolish enough to give you a system and if you were foolish enough to follow it, you would merely be copying, imitating, conforming, accepting, and when you do that you have set up in yourself the authority of another and hence there is conflict between you and that authority. You feel you must do such and such a thing because you have been told to do it and yet you are incapable of doing it. You have your own particular inclinations, tendencies and pressures which conflict with the system you think you ought to follow and therefore there is a contradiction. So you will lead a double life between the ideology of the system and the actuality of your daily existence. In trying to conform to the ideology, you suppress yourself - whereas what is actually true is not the ideology but what you are. If you try to study yourself according to another you will always remain a secondhand human being.
如果我真的愚蠢到给你一套系统，而你也愚蠢到全盘接受的地步，那么你就仍然在复制、模仿、顺从与接受。你这样做的时候，你的内心其实设立了一个权威，这个权威就是别人。这样，你和权威之间就有冲突了。这是因为，你觉得你必须这样那样做，因为权威是这样说的，但你却没有能力做到。你有你自己独特的意愿、秉性及压力，这些与你认为应该服从的那套系统是冲突的，因而产生了矛盾。于是，你过着双重生活，一边是系统的理念，一边是你日常的实际生活。为了能够跟理念相符合，你压抑着你自己 －－ 然而，真正正确的不是理念，而是“你是什么”（what you are）。如果你试图根据别人来研究你自己，你就永远只是个“二手”的人。
A man who says, 'I want to change, tell me how to', seems very earnest, very serious, but he is not. He wants an authority whom he hopes will bring about order in himself. But can authority ever bring about inward order? Order imposed from without must always breed disorder. You may see the truth of this intellectually but can you actually apply it so that your mind no longer projects any authority, the authority of a book, a teacher, a wife or husband, a parent, a friend or of society? Because we have always functioned within the pattern of a formula, the formula becomes the ideology and the authority; but the moment you really see that the question, 'How can I change?' sets up a new authority, you have finished with authority for ever.
说“我想改变，告诉我方法”的人看起来很热忱、很认真，但其实不然。他其实想要一个权威，他希望这个权威会让他内心有秩序（order）。但是权威真的能让人内心有秩序吗？从外部强加的秩序，一定会滋生无秩序（disorder）。这个结论的真相你从理智上可能能看到，但是你能真的应用这一结论吗，使你的思想不再投射（project）任何权威，包括书籍、老师、妻子、丈夫、父母、朋友和社会的权威？因为我们一直都运转于某种规则的模式之内，这规则变成了理念和权威；但是，在你真正看清楚，“我如何能改变？”这个问题建立了一个新的权威，的那一瞬间，你就永远地摆脱了权威。
Let us state it again clearly: I see that I must change completely from the roots of my being; I can no longer depend on any tradition because tradition has brought about this colossal laziness, acceptance and obedience; I cannot possibly look to another to help me to change, not to any teacher, any God, any belief, any system, any outside pressure or influence. What then takes place?
让我再清晰地陈述一次：我看到了，“我必须从我的存在的根本处进行完全的改变；我不再能够依赖任何传统，因为传统导致严重的惰性、接受和服从；我也不可能寻求他人 －－ 这里的他人包括老师、上帝、信仰、系统、外在压力或影响 －－ 帮助我改变”。然后会发生什么？
First of all, can you reject all authority? If you can it means that you are no longer afraid. Then what happens? When you reject something false which you have been carrying about with you for generations, when you throw off a burden of any kind, what takes place? You have more energy, haven't you? You have more capacity, more drive, greater intensity and vitality. If you do not feel this, then you have not thrown off the burden, you have not discarded the dead weight of authority.
首先，你能拒绝一切权威吗？如果你能，就意味着你不再害怕了。然后会发生什么呢？当你拒绝了那些代代相传到你身上的错误，当你卸下了种种负担，会发生什么呢？你有更多的能量了，不是吗？你有更多空间、更多动力、更大的强度和活力了。如果你没有感觉到，那你还没有卸下这些负担，还没有抛掉权威的重压。
But when you have thrown it off and have this energy in which there is no fear at all - no fear of making a mistake, no fear of doing right or wrong - then is not that energy itself the mutation? We need a tremendous amount of energy and we dissipate it through fear but when there is this energy which comes from throwing off every form of fear, that energy itself produces the radical inward revolution. You do not have to do a thing about it.
但是当你卸下了这些负担，并且有了这种能量 －－ 在这种能量中完全没有恐惧，不怕犯错误，不怕做对或做错 －－ 的时候，这种能量本身难道不就是我们所要的转变吗？我们需要巨大的能量，而我们将其挥霍在了恐惧中，但是，一旦我们通过抛却每一种形式的恐惧从而得到了这种能量，这能量本身，就造成了内在的巨变。你不必特地做什么来得到这能量。
So you are left with yourself, and that is the actual state for a man to be who is very serious about all this; and as you are no longer looking to anybody or anything for help, you are already free to discover. And when there is freedom, there is energy; and when there is freedom it can never do anything wrong.
因此就只有你自己了（谁也不能靠了），而上面所述就是真正认真对待（所有我说这些）的人的实际状态。由于你不再向任何人或物寻求帮助，你已经能够自由地发现了。有自由的时候，就有能量；有自由的时候，就永不可能做任何错事。
Freedom is entirely different from revolt. There is no such thing as doing right or wrong when there is freedom. You are free and from that centre you act. And hence there is no fear, and a mind that has no fear is capable of great love. And when there is love it can do what it will.
自由完全不同于反抗。有自由的时候，事情没有对错之分。你自由，从自由这一核心生出行动。因而不会有恐惧，没有恐惧的心智有大爱的能力。有爱的时候，就能遵从自身的意愿。
What we are now going to do, therefore, is to learn about ourselves, not according to me or to some analyst or philosopher - because if we learn about ourselves according to someone else, we learn about them, not ourselves - we are going to learn what we actually are.
因而，我们现在要做的，是要了解我们自己，不是根据我或某些分析家、哲学家来了解 －－ 因为如果我们根据别人了解自己，我们了解的是他们，不是自己 －－ 我们要了解的是我们自己是什么。
Having realised that we can depend on no outside authority in bringing about a total revolution within the structure of our own psyche, there is the immensely greater difficulty of rejecting our own inward authority, the authority of our own particular little experiences and accumulated opinions, knowledge, ideas and ideals. You had an experience yesterday which taught you something and what it taught you becomes a new authority - and that authority of yesterday is as destructive as the authority of a thousand years. To understand ourselves needs no authority either of yesterday or of a thousand years. To understand ourselves needs no authority either of yesterday or of a thousand years because we are living things, always moving, flowing, never resting. When we look at ourselves with the dead authority of yesterday, we will fail to understand the living movement and the beauty and quality of that movement.
在意识到我们要对我们的心理结构进行完整的变革就不能依赖于任何外在的权威之后，要拒绝我们自己内在的权威 －－ 我们自身的特定的小小经验，我们常年累积的观点、知识、观念和理想，这些权威 －－ 相比较而言是极为困难的。昨天你经历了某事，这件事教给你某些东西，这些东西又变成了新的权威 －－ 而昨天的这种权威与上千年来的权威一样具有毁灭性。要理解我们自己，需要没有权威，不管是昨天的还是上千年来的，因为我们是活的，永远在运动、流动，从不停留。当我们用昨天的死的权威来看自己，我们是无法理解活的运动的，无法理解这运动的美和品质。
To be free of all authority, of your own and that of another, is to die to everything of yesterday, so that your mind is always fresh, always young, innocent, full of vigour and passion. It is only in that state that one learns and observes. And for this a great deal of awareness is required, actual awareness of what is going on inside yourself, without correcting it or telling it what it should or should not be, because the moment you correct it you have established another authority, a censor.
要想自由，拒绝所有权威，你自己的和别人的权威，就是要让昨天的种种死去，使得你的心智总是新鲜、年轻、无邪、充满活力和激情。只有在这种状态中，人才能学习和观察。要做到这一点，需要大量的觉察（awareness），真正觉察到你自己的内心正在发生什么，不修正它，也不告诉内心应该和不应该做什么，因为你修正的时候，你其实已经树立了权威、督查。
So now we are going to investigate ourselves together - not one person explaining while you read, agreeing or disagreeing with him as you follow the words on the page, but taking a journey together, a journey of discovery into the most secret corners of our minds. And to take such a journey we must travel light; we cannot be burdened with opinions, prejudices and conclusions - all that old furniture we have collected for the last two thousand years and more.
所以，现在我们将要一起检视我们自己 －－ 不是我解释、你阅读，不是在你阅读本书文字的时候同意或不同意，而是一起开始一段旅程，来深入心灵的最隐秘角落去发现。要进行这样的旅程，我们必须轻装上阵；我们不能肩负着观点、偏见和结论 －－ 那些我们收集了两千年的家当。
Forget all you know about yourself; forget all you have ever thought about yourself; we are going to start as if we knew nothing.
请忘却你对自己的一切认识；忘掉你曾对自己的一切看法；我们将要好似一无所知地开始。
It rained last night heavily, and now the skies are beginning to clear; it is a new fresh day. Let us meet that fresh day as if it were the only day. Let us start on our journey together with all the remembrance of yesterday left behind - and begin to understand ourselves for the first time.
昨天还是暴雨倾盆，此刻已经雨过天晴了；今天又是崭新的一天。让我们迎接它，把它当做唯一的一天。让我们一起开始这段旅程，丢下昨日的记忆，第一次开始了解自己。
If you think it is important to know about yourself only because I or someone else has told you it is important, then I am afraid all communication between us comes to an end. But if we agree that it is vital that we understand ourselves completely, then you and I have quite a different relationship, then we can explore together with a happy, careful and intelligent enquiry.
如果你只是因为我或别人曾经告诉过你，认识自己很重要，你就认为重要，那么，我恐怕我们之间的所有沟通都就此结束了。但是，如果我们一致认为，完全了解自己至关重要，那么你我就会有一段（相比前者）截然不同的相互关系，那么我们就可以通过开心、仔细、明智的质询（enquiry）一起探索。
I do not demand your faith; I am not setting myself up as an authority. I have nothing to teach you - no new philosophy, no new system, no new path to reality; there is no path to reality any more than to truth. All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary.
我不要求你信仰我，也不会将自己当做是权威。我没有任何东西要教给你 －－ 新哲学、新系统、新的通往实相的道路；除了面对事实，没有任何通往实相的道路。任何种类的权威都是毁灭性的、邪恶的，尤其是那些在思想和悟性方面的权威，最具毁灭性。带领者毁灭追随者，追随者也毁灭带领者。你得做自己的老师，做自己的门徒。你得去质疑人们已接受为有价值、必要的任何东西。
If you do not follow somebody you feel very lonely. Be lonely then. Why are you frightened of being alone? Because you are faced with yourself as you are and you find that you are empty, dull, stupid, ugly, guilty and anxious - a petty, shoddy, secondhand entity. Face the fact; look at it, do not run away from it. The moment you run away fear begins.
如果你不跟随任何人，你会感到很孤独。那就孤独吧。为什么你会被孤独吓怕呢？因为你面对自己的本来面目时，会发现你空洞、迟钝、愚蠢、丑陋、罪恶和焦躁 －－ 一个狭隘的、劣质的、二手的东西。面对这个事实，看着它，不要逃避。你逃避的那一刻，恐惧就开始了。
In enquiring into ourselves we are not isolating ourselves from the rest of the world. It is not an unhealthy process. Man throughout the world is caught up in the same daily problems as ourselves, so in enquiring into ourselves we are not being in the least neurotic because there is no difference between the individual and the collective. That is an actual fact. I have created the world as I am. So don't let us get lost in this battle between the part and the whole.
在质询我们自己的时候，我们不是在将自己从外部世界中隔离出来。质询自己并不是一个不健康的过程。整个世界的人都和我们一样被同样的日常问题所困扰，因此质询自己丝毫不会让我们变成神经病，因为个体与整个人类并不存在差别。这是事实。我是什么样的，我就创造了什么样的世界。故而我们不要迷失在这个部分和整体的战斗中。
I must become aware of the total field of my own self, which is the consciousness of the individual and of society. It is only then, when the mind goes beyond this individual and social consciousness, that I can become a light to myself that never goes out.
我必须了解关于我自己的的整个领域，即个体和社会意识的整个领域。唯有此时，在心智超越了个体和社会意识的时候，我才能够成为照亮自己的永不熄灭的光。
Now where do we begin to understand ourselves? Here am I, and how am I to study myself, observe myself, see what is actually taking place inside myself? I can observe myself only in relationship because all life is relationship. It is no use sitting in a corner meditating about myself. I cannot exist by myself. I exist only in relationship to people, things and ideas, and in studying my relationship to outward things and people, as well as to inward things, I begin to understand myself. Every other form of understanding is merely an abstraction and I cannot study myself in abstraction; I am not an abstract entity; therefore I have to study myself in actuality - as I am, not as I wish to be.
现在，我们从哪里开始了解自己？我就在这里，那么我该怎样研究自己、观察自己，看到自己内在实际在发生什么？我只能在关系中观察我自己，因为所有的生活都是关系。坐在角落里冥想自己是没有用的。我不能独自生存。我只能在人、物、观念的关系中生存。在研究我与外在的物与人的关系、我与内心活动的关系的过程中，我开始了解了我自己。任何其他形式的了解，都只是抽象的，而我不能抽象地研究自己；我不是一个抽象的实体；因而，我必须在现实存在中了解我自己 －－ 研究我的真实样子，不是我想成为的样子。
Understanding is not an intellectual process. Accumulating knowledge about yourself and learning about yourself are two different things, for the knowledge you accumulate about yourself is always of the past and a mind that is burdened with the past is a sorrowful mind. Learning about yourself is not like learning a language or a technology or in the present and knowledge is always in the past, and as most of us live in the past and are satisfied with the past, knowledge becomes extraordinarily important to us. That is why we worship the erudite, the clever, the cunning. But if you are learning all the time, learning every minute, learning by watching and istening, learning by seeing and doing, then you will find that learning is a constant movement without the past.
了解，不是一种理性活动的过程。积累关于你自己的知识，与了解你自己，是两件不同的事情，因为你积累的关于你自己的知识总是关于过去的，而一个担负着过去的心智，是伤心难过的。了解你自己是了解你的现在，这不像学习语言或技术，因为知识总是在过去；而由于我们大多数人活在过去，并且满足于过去，知识对我们来说就变得特别重要。这就是我们崇拜博学、聪明、狡猾的原因所在。但是，如果我们时时刻刻都在了解，了解每一分钟，通过注视（watch）和倾听来了解，通过看（see）和做来了解，那么，你就会发现，了解是永恒的运动，了解中是没有过去的。
If you say you will learn gradually about yourself, adding more and more, little by little, you are not studying yourself now as you are but through acquired knowledge. Learning implies a great sensitivity. There is no sensitivity if there is an idea, which is of the past, dominating the present. Then the mind is no longer quick, pliable, alert. Most of us are not sensitive even physically. We overeat, we do not bother about the right diet, we oversmoke and drink so that our bodies become gross and insensitive; the quality of attention in the organism itself is made dull. How can there be a very alert, sensitive, clear mind if the organism itself is dull and heavy? We may be sensitive about certain things that touch us personally but to be completely sensitive to all the implications of life demand that there be no separation between the organism and the psyche. It is a total movement.
如果你说你会逐渐地了解你自己，一点一点地累积，越积越多，你就不是在当下研究你自己的真实样子，而是通过已获得的知识来研究自己。学习意味着非常敏感。如果当下被观念 －－ 观念总是来自于过去 －－ 所主宰，就没有敏感性可言。那么心智就不再迅速、柔软、警觉。我们大多数人即使在身体上也都不敏感了。我们饮食过量，我们嫌正确饮食太麻烦，我们烟酒过量，以至于我们的身体变得沉重和不敏感；就连机体自身的注意力（attention）都已毫无质量、变得麻木。机体自身都麻木、沉重，我们又如何能拥有警觉、敏感、清晰的心智？我们可能会对某些触动我们个人的特定的东西敏感，但要对生命需求的所有暗示敏感，就没有身体和精神之分。生命是一个整体在运动。
To understand anything you must live with it, you must observe it, you must know all its content, its nature, its structure, its movement. Have you ever tried living with yourself? If so, you will begin to see that yourself is not a static state, it is a fresh living thing. And to live with a living thing your mind must also be alive. And it cannot be alive if it is caught in opinions, judgements and values.
要了解任何东西，你都必须与之共处，你必须观察它，了解它的内容、本质、结构和运动。你曾经试过与你自己共处吗？如果试过，你会开始发现，你不是一个静止状态，而是一个新鲜的、活着的东西。要与活着的东西共处，你的心智也必须是活着的。陷于观点、判断、价值的心智，不可能是活着的。
In order to observe the movement of your own mind and heart, of your whole being, you must have a free mind, not a mind that agrees and disagrees, taking sides in an argument, disputing over mere words, but rather following with an intention to understand - a very difficult thing to do because most of us don't know how to look at, or listen to, our own being any more than we know how to look at the beauty of a river or listen to the breeze among the trees.
为了观察你自己思想和心灵的运动，你的全部，你必须有自由的心智，你的心不能评判同意或不同意、在争论中选取立场、或仅仅通过语言来争论，而是要以一种去了解的意图来跟随 －－ 这非常难以做到，因为我们大多数人不知道如何去看、去听我们自己的状态，就像我们不知道如何去看小河的美，如何去听树间的微风一样。
When we condemn or justify we cannot see clearly, nor can we when our minds are endlessly chattering; then we do not observe what is we look only at the projections we have made of ourselves. Each of us has an image of what we think we are or what we should be, and that image, that picture, entirely prevents us from seeing ourselves as we actually are.
当我们谴责或评判的时候，我们就不能清晰地看，我们的内心喋喋不休的时候，我们也不能清晰地看；这些时候我们没有在观察我们真实的样子，而只是在看我们把自己投射在自己内心的意象（image）。我们每个人，对我们认为的我们是什么样子或我们应该成为什么样子都有一个想象，而这个意象、图像，让我们完全无法看到自己真实的样子。
It is one of the most difficult things in the world to look at anything simply. Because our minds are very complex we have lost the quality of simplicity. I don't mean simplicity in clothes or food, wearing only a loin cloth or breaking a record fasting or any of that immature nonsense the saints cultivate, but the simplicity that can look directly at things without fear - that can look at ourselves as we actually are without any distortion - to say when we lie we lie, not cover it up or run away from it.
世界上最难的事之一，就是简单地去看每件事。我们的心智非常复杂，我们已经失去了简单的品质。我说的简单不是指吃穿上的简单，只系一块腰布或打破禁食记录等等这些救世主所教我们的不成熟无意义的东西，而是单纯地没有恐惧地直接地去看事物 －－ 这样就能没有扭曲地看到自己真实的样子 －－ 我们在说谎就说我们在说谎，不掩盖也不逃避。
Also in order to understand ourselves we need a great deal of humility. If you start by saying, `I know myself', you have already stopped learning about yourself; or if you say, 'There is nothing much to learn about myself because I am just a bundle of memories, ideas, experiences and traditions', then you have also stopped learning about yourself. The moment you have achieved anything you cease to have that quality of innocence and humility; the moment you have a conclusion or start examining from knowledge, you are finished, for then you are translating every living thing in terms of the old. Whereas if you have no foothold, if there is no certainty, no achievement, there is freedom to look, to achieve. And when you look with freedom it is always new. A confident man is a dead human being.
为了了解我们自己，我们还需要极大的谦逊。如果你一开始就说，“我了解我自己”，你就已经停止了解你自己了；或者如果你说，“关于我自己，没什么好了解的，因为我只是一堆记忆、观念、经验、传统”，那么你也已经停止了解你自己了。你只要一“达成”，你就不再具有天真和谦逊的品质了；你只要一得出结论，或一开始根据知识来检视，你就结束了（了解），因为此时你就把活的东西都变成老旧的死的了。然而，若没有定论、没有确定性、没有达成，就有去看、去达成的自由。而当你带着自由去看，就会发现所看的东西总是新的。有把握的人是死的。
But how can we be free to look and learn when our minds from the moment we are born to the moment we die are shaped by a particular culture in the narrow pattern of the `me'? For centuries we have been conditioned by nationality, caste, class, tradition, religion, language, education, literature, art, custom, convention, propaganda of all kinds, economic pressure, the food we eat, the climate we live in, our family, our friends, our experiences - every influence you can think of - and therefore our responses to every problem are conditioned.
但是我们整个一生已经被特定的文化将我们的心智塑造成狭隘的“我”的模式，我们如何才能够自由地去看呢？多少世纪以来，我们已经被国籍、等级制度、阶级、传统、宗教、语言、教育、文学、艺术、风俗、习惯、各种宣传、经济压力、食物、气候、家庭、朋友、经验 －－ 任何你能想到的影响因素 －－ 所限制住了，因而我们对任何问题的反应都被限制住了。
Are you aware that you are conditioned? That is the first thing to ask yourself, not how to be free of your conditioning. You may never be free of it, and if you say, `I must be free of it', you may fall into another trap of another form of conditioning. So are you aware that you are conditioned? Do you know that even when you look at a tree and say, `That is an oak tree', or `that is a banyan tree', the naming of the tree, which is botanical knowledge, has so conditioned your mind that the word comes between you and actually seeing the tree? To come in contact with the tree you have to put your hand on it and the word will not help you to touch it.
你意识到你是受限制的了吗？这是你要问自己的第一个问题，不是去问如何摆脱这种限制。你可能永远不会摆脱这种限制，而如果你说，“我必须摆脱限制”，你就可能陷入另一种形式的限制中。故你意识到你受限制了吗？你知不知道，即便你看到一棵树说“这是棵橡树”或“那是棵菩提树”，树的名字、植物学的知识，都已经限制住了你的心智，使得你隔着文字，无法真正看到这棵树？要与树接触你得将你的手放在树上，文字不会帮助你去触碰它。
How do you know you are conditioned? What tells you? What tells you you are hungry? - not as a theory but the actual fact of hunger? In the same way, how do you discover the actual fact that you are conditioned? Isn't it by your reaction to a problem, a challenge? You respond to every challenge according to your conditioning and your conditioning being inadequate will always react inadequately.
你是怎样知道自己受限制的？什么告诉你的？什么能告诉你你饿了？ －－ 不是理论上的饿，而是饿了这个事实？同样的道理，你如何发现自己受限制的这个事实？难道不是从你对问题和挑战的反应中看出来的吗？你在受限的情况下，回应每个挑战，而你不当的受限，总是会有不当的反应。
When you become aware of it, does this conditioning of race, religion and culture bring a sense of imprisonment? Take only one form of conditioning, nationality, become seriously, completely aware of it and see whether you enjoy it or rebel against it, and if you rebel against it, whether you want to break through all conditioning. If you are satisfied with your conditioning you will obviously do nothing about it, but if you are not satisfied when you become aware of it, you will realize that you never do anything without it. Never! And therefore you are always living in the past with the dead.
当你逐渐意识到了这一点，这些种族、宗教、文化的限制，是否会带给你一种禁锢之感？仅以国籍的限制为例，当你逐渐严肃地、完全地意识到了它的限制，看看你是享受这种限制还是反感它？如果反感，你是否想打破所有限制？如果你满意你的限制，你显然不会做什么；但如果你意识到限制之后不满意，你会发现你做任何事永远都受到它限制。永远！因而你永远活在过去，毫无生机。
You will be able to see for yourself how you are conditioned only when there is a conflict in the continuity of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. If everything is perfectly happy around you, your wife loves you, you love her, you have a nice house, nice children and plenty of money, then you are not aware of your conditioning at all. But when there is a disturbance - when your wife looks at someone else or you lose your money or are threatened with war or any other pain or anxiety - then you know you are conditioned. When you struggle against any kind of disturbance or defend yourself against any outer or inner threat, then you know you are conditioned. And as most of us are disturbed most of the time, either superficially or deeply, that very disturbance indicates that we are conditioned. So long as the animal is petted he reacts nicely, but the moment he is antagonized the whole violence of his nature comes out.
只有在遇到想要延续快乐或避免痛苦的情况，你才会有能力自己去看。如果你周围的一切都完美而幸福，你的妻子爱你、你爱她、你的房子很漂亮、你的孩子很可爱、有很多钱，那么你就完全不会知道你是受限制的。但是，一旦有了困扰 －－ 当你妻子出轨或你的财产受损或被战争威胁或者任何其它焦虑或痛苦 －－ 那么你就会知道你是受限的。当你努力挣脱困扰或防御你自己免受内外威胁的时候，你就会知道你是受限的。而由于我们大多数人、大多数时间，都会有浅表的或内心深处的困扰，正是这种困扰表明了我们的受限。我们跟宠物一样，只要被宠就反应很好，但是一旦遭到敌对，本性中的全部暴力就显示出来。
We are disturbed about life, politics, the economic situation, the horror, the brutality, the sorrow in the world as well as in ourselves, and from that we realize how terribly narrowly conditioned we are. And what shall we do? Accept that disturbance and live with it as most of us do? Get used to it as one gets used to living with a backache? Put up with it?
我们被生活、政治、经济形势、外部世界和我们内心中的恐怖、暴行、悲伤所困扰，从中我们意识到我们的受限有多么恐怖多么狭隘。我们应该做什么呢？像我们大多数人那样接受这种困扰然后生活于其中？像人们习惯于背痛那样习惯于这些？容忍这些？
There is a tendency in all of us to put up with things, to get used to them, to blame them on circumstances. `Ah, if things were right I would be different', we say, or, `Give me the opportunity and I will fulfil myself', or, 'I am crushed by the injustice of it all', always blaming our disturbances on others or on our environment or on the economic situation.
我们每个人的内心都有一种倾向，忍受、习惯、或者有时抱怨。“啊，要是情况没那么糟，我也不至于这样”，我们说，或者，“给我个机会我就会实现自己”，或者，“我是被这一切不公平所击败的”，总是把我们的困扰怪罪于他人或者环境或者经济形势。
If one gets used to disturbance it means that one's mind has become dull, just as one can get so used to beauty around one that one no longer notices it. One gets indifferent, hard and callous, and one's mind becomes duller and duller. If we do not get used to it we try to escape from it by taking some kind of drug, joining a political group, shouting, writing, going to a football match or to a temple or church or finding some other form of amusement.
如果人已经习惯了困扰，意味着这个人的心变迟钝了，就好比一个人对身旁的美景视若无睹一样。人逐渐变得冷漠、顽强和无情，我们的心也越来越迟钝。但如果我们不对困扰习以为常，就会想尽办法逃避，服用迷幻药、参加政治团体、怒吼、写作、看足球赛、参拜寺庙或去教堂，或者寻找其他的娱乐方式。
Why is it that we escape from actual facts? We are afraid of death - I am just taking that as an example - and we invent all kinds of theories, hopes, beliefs, to disguise the fact of death, but the fact is still there. To understand a fact we must look at it, not run away from it. Most of us are afraid of living as well as of dying. We are afraid for our family, afraid of public opinion, of losing our job, our security, and hundreds of other things. The simple fact is that we are afraid, not that we are afraid of this or that. Now why cannot we face that fact?
为什么我们逃避现实？我们害怕死亡 －－ 我只是举个例子 －－ 于是我们发明各种学说、希望、信仰，来遮掩死亡的事实，然而事实仍旧在那里。要想理解事实，我们就必须看它，不是逃避。我们大多数人害怕生活也害怕死亡。我们害怕家庭，害怕政治观念，害怕失业，害怕失去安全感，害怕成百上千样东西。事实无非就是我们害怕，而不是害怕某种特定的东西。那么，我们为什么不能面对事实？
You can face a fact only in the present and if you never allow it to be present because you are always escaping from it, you can never face it, and because we have cultivated a hole network of escapes we are caught in the habit of escape.
只有在当下，你才能面对事实，如果你不允许事实出现在当下 －－ 因为你总是逃避 －－ 你就永远面对不了事实。由于形成了各种逃避的渠道，我们陷入了逃避的习惯中。
Now, if you are at all sensitive, at all serious, you will not only be aware of your conditioning but you will also be aware of the dangers it results in, what brutality and hatred it leads to. Why, then, if you see the danger of your conditioning, don't you act? Is it because you are lazy, laziness being lack of energy? Yet you will not lack energy if you see an immediate physical danger like a snake in your path, or a precipice, or a fire. Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? If you saw the danger of nationalism to your own security, wouldn't you act?
那么，如果你完全地敏感，完全地认真，你将不仅意识到你的受限，还会意识到它造成的危险，它导致的残暴和仇恨。那么，如果你看到了你受限造成的危险，为什么不行动呢？是因为你懒惰吗，由于缺乏能量造成的懒惰？但是，如果遇到了会直接给你带来身体上的危险的东西，如蛇，断崖，或火，你却不会缺乏能量。那么，你看到了你受限造成的危险时为什么没有行动呢？如果你看到了民族主义威胁到你自己的安全时，你会不会行动呢？
The answer is you don't see. Through an intellectual process of analysis you may see that nationalism leads to self-destruction but there is no emotional content in that. Only when there is an emotional content do you become vital.
答案是你没看到。通过理性的分析过程，你可能知道民族主义导致自我毁灭，但你这种知道中没有任何情感的内容。只有存在情感的内容了，你才有生命力。
If you see the danger of your conditioning merely as an intellectual concept, you will never do anything about it. In seeing a danger as a mere idea there is conflict between the idea and action and that conflict takes away your energy. It is only when you see the conditioning and the danger of it immediately, and as you would see a precipice, that you act. So seeing is acting.
如果你仅仅是在理性概念上看到你的受限，你永远不会对它做任何事情。仅仅在想法上看到危险，在想法和行动之间就存在冲突，这种冲突会消磨掉你的能量。唯有当你直接（immediately）看到了受限及其危险，就像你看到悬崖的时候一样，你才会行动。故，看到就是行动。
Most of us walk through life inattentively, reacting unthinkingly according to the environment in which we have been brought up, and such reactions create only further bondage, further conditioning, but the moment you give your total attention to your conditioning you will see that you are free from the past completely, that it falls away from you naturally.
我们大多数人就这么漫不经心地走完了一生，不假思索地根据我们生长于其中的环境加以反应，这样的反应，只会让我们被奴役，被限制得更深，但是你一旦将你的全部注意力（attention）放到了你的受限上，你会发现你不受过去的影响（free from the past）了，而受限就自然地离你而去了。
When you become aware of your conditioning you will understand the whole of your consciousness. Consciousness is the total field in which thought functions and relationships exist. All motives, intentions, desires, pleasures, fear, inspiration, longings, hopes, sorrows, joys are in that field. But we have come to divide the consciousness into the active and the dormant, the upper and lower level - that is, all the daily thoughts, feelings and activities on the surface and below them the so-called subconscious, the things with which we are not familiar, which express themselves occasionally through certain intimations, intuitions and dreams.
当你意识到你受限制的时候，你就会理解你的全部意识。意识是一个总体的领域，思想活动和关系都存在于其中。所有的动机、意图、欲望、喜悦、恐惧、灵感、渴求、希望、悲伤、欢乐都包含在里面。但是，我们却把意识分成主动的和潜在的，上层的和下层的 －－ 也就是说，所有的日常思想、感觉、活动都在表层，而其下则是所谓的潜意识，潜意识里的内容我们不熟悉，潜意识只是偶尔通过特定的暗示、直觉和梦来表达自己。
We are occupied with one little corner of consciousness which is most of our life; the rest, which we call the subconscious, with all its motives, its fears, its racial and inherited qualities, we do not even know how to get into. Now I am asking you, is there such a thing as the subconscious at all? We use that word very freely. We have accepted that there is such a thing and all the phrases and jargon of the analysts and psychologists have seeped into the language; but is there such a thing? And why is it that we give such extraordinary importance to it? It seems to me that it is as trivial and stupid as the conscious mind - as narrow, bigoted, conditioned, anxious and tawdry.
我们被意识的一个小小角落所占据，成为我们生活的大部分；而其余部分，即所谓的潜意识，所有的动机、恐惧、种族和继承下来的品质都在里面，而我们甚至不知道如何进入其中。现在我问你，到底有没有潜意识这种东西？ 我们到处都在用潜意识这个词汇。我们已经接受了有这种东西，而且精神分析师和心理学家的所有那些措辞和行话，已经渗入了我们的语言中；但是，有没有这种东西？而我们又为何将其放到如此重要的位置？对我而言，潜意识和表层意识思想一样琐碎一样愚蠢 －－ 一样狭隘、固执、受限、焦躁、俗气。
So is it possible to be totally aware of the whole field of consciousness and not merely a part, a fragment, of it? If you are able to be aware of the totality, then you are functioning all the time with your total attention, not partial attention. This is important to understand because when you are being totally aware of the whole field of consciousness there no friction. it is only when you divide consciousness, which is all thought, feeling and action, into different levels that there is friction.
故，是否有可能对意识的完整领域，而不仅仅是意识的一部分、一个片段，有全然的觉察？如果你能觉察（意识的）整体，那么你就能时时刻刻具有完整的注意力，而不是部分的注意力。理解这一点很重要，因为，当你完全觉察意识的整个领域的时候，就不会有摩擦。只有当你将意识划分开来，将思想、感觉和行动放在不同的层级，才会有摩擦。
We live in fragments. You are one thing at the office, another at home; you talk about democracy and in your heart you are autocratic; you talk about loving your neighbours, yet kill him with competition; there is one part of you working, looking, independently of the other. Are you aware of this fragmentary existence in yourself? And is it possible for a brain that has broken up its own functioning, its own thinking, into fragments - is it possible for such a brain to be aware of the whole field? Is it possible to look at the whole of consciousness completely, totally, which means to be a total human being?
我们生活在片段中。你在办公室是一种东西，回家又是另外一种；你谈论民主，而你的内心却是独裁；你说爱你的邻居，而竞争时却会杀了他；你的一部分的工作和外表独立于另外一部分。你意识到你内心中这种片段化的存在了吗？大脑已经被它自己的功能，自己的想法打破成片段 －－ 这样的大脑，是否有可能意识到整个领域？能不能完全地、整体地来看意识的整个领域，即意味着成为一个完整的人？
If, in order to try to understand the whole structure of the `me', the self, with all its extraordinary complexity, you go step by step, uncovering layer by layer, examining every thought, feeling and motive, you will get caught up in the analytical process which may take you weeks, months, years - and when you admit time into the process of understanding yourself, you must allow for every form of distortion because the self is a complex entity, moving, living, struggling, wanting, denying, with pressures and stresses and influences of all sorts continually at work on it. So you will discover for yourself that this is not the way; you will understand that the only way to look at yourself is totally, immediately, without time; and you can see the totality of yourself only when the mind is not fragmented. What you see in totality is the truth.
如果，为了试图理解“我”，自己，的整个结构，及其极端的复杂性，你一步一步来，一层一层揭开，检视每个想法、感觉和动机，你会陷入到分析的过程中，你可能要花上几个星期、几个月、甚至几年 －－ 而当你允许时间进入理解自己的过程中时，你就必须允许各种形式的扭曲，因为自我是一个复杂的实体，运动着、生活着、挣扎着、需求着、否定着，以及被各种各样的压力、紧张、影响持续作用于其上。故你自会发现这不是办法；你会明白，唯一的方式就是当下（immediately）完整地（totally）看你自己，没有时间存在（without time）；而你只有在思想不是片段化的状态下，才能看到你自己的整体。在整体中你看到的就是真相。
Now can you do that? Most of us cannot because most of us have never approached the problem so seriously, because we have never really looked at ourselves. Never. We blame others, we explain things away or we are frightened to look. But when you look totally you will give your whole attention, your whole being, everything of yourself, your eyes, your ears, your nerves; you will attend with complete self-abandonment, and then there is no room for fear, no room for contradiction, and therefore no conflict.
好了，你能做到吗？我们大多数人做不到，因为大多数人从没有如此认真地对待这个问题，因为我们从没有真正地看我们自己。从没有！我们抱怨，我们辩解，我们不敢去看。但是，当你完整地看的时候，你会用上你的全部注意力（attention），你的全部存在，你的每样东西，眼睛、耳朵、神经；你会完全地无我（self-abandonment），此时恐惧没有可以存在的空间，矛盾也是，因而也就没有冲突。
Attention is not the same thing as concentration. Concentration is exclusion; attention, which is total awareness, excludes nothing. It seems to me that most of us are not aware, not only of what we are talking about but of our environment, the colours around us, the people, the shape of the trees, the clouds, the movement of water. Perhaps it is because we are so concerned with ourselves, with our own petty little problems, our own ideas, our own pleasures, pursuits and ambitions that we are not objectively aware. And yet we talk a great deal about awareness. Once in India I was travelling in a car. There was a chauffeur driving and I was sitting beside him. There were three gentlemen behind discussing awareness very intently and asking me questions about awareness, and unfortunately at that moment the driver was looking somewhere else and he ran over a goat, and the three gentlemen were still discussing awareness - totally unaware that they had run over a goat. When the lack of attention was pointed out to those gentlemen who were trying to be aware it was a great surprise to them.
注意（attention）和专心（concentration）不是一回事。专心是排外的；注意是全然的觉察（awareness），不排除任何东西。我们大多数人貌似都既不觉察（aware）我们在说什么，也不觉察我们的环境，我们周围的颜色、人群、树的形状、云朵、水的流动。也许是因为我们如此关注我们自己，关注我们自己琐碎细小的问题、我们自己的想法、我们自己的快乐、追求、雄心，以至于我们没有客观地在觉察。然而我们却经常谈论“觉察”（awareness）。有一次我乘车在印度旅行。由一位司机驾车，我坐在副驾，后面三位先生专心地讨论“觉察”，并问我问题。不幸的是，那会儿司机分了一下神，车子辗过一只山羊，三位先生仍在讨论觉察 －－ 完全没有意识到我们辗到了一只山羊。我向三位致力于“觉察”的先生指出他们缺乏注意时（the lack of attention），他们感到很惊讶。
And with most of us it is the same. We are not aware of outward things or of inward things. If you want to understand the beauty of a bird, a fly, or a leaf, or a person with all his complexities, you have to give your whole attention which is awareness. And you can give your whole attention only when you care, which means that you really love to understand - then you give your whole heart and mind to find out.
我们大多数人也都一样。我们没有觉察到外面的事情，也没有觉察到我们的内心。如果你想理解鸟、苍蝇、树叶或复杂的人类的美丽，你得付出你的全部注意力（whole attention），而这就是觉察（awareness）。而只有当你在意（care）的时候，你才会付出你的全部注意力，那意味着你真的喜欢去理解 －－ 你才会付出你的全部心力和思想来发现。
Such awareness is like living with a snake in the room; you watch its every movement, you are very, very sensitive to the slightest sound it makes. Such a state of attention is total energy; in such awareness the totality of yourself is revealed in an instant.
这样的觉察，就像与一条蛇共处一室；你留心它的每次移动，你对它发出的最细微的声响都非常非常敏感。这样一个注意的状态，就是全部的能量；在这样的觉察中，你自己的整体就瞬间被揭示出来。
When you have looked at yourself so deeply you can go much deeper. When we use the word `deeper' we are not being comparative. We think in comparisons - deep and shallow, happy and unhappy. We are always measuring, comparing. Now is there such a state as the shallow and the deep in oneself? When I say, `My mind is shallow, petty, narrow, limited', how do I know all these things? Because I have compared my mind with your mind which is brighter, has more capacity, is more intelligent and alert. Do I know my pettiness without comparison? When I am hungry, I do not compare that hunger with yesterday's hunger. Yesterday's hunger is an idea, a memory.
当你能够如此深刻地看你自己的时候，你就能走得更深。当我们用“更深”这个单词的时候，我们没有在进行比较。我们以比较的方式思考 －－ 深和浅、幸福和不幸福。我们总是在衡量、比较。那么在人自身中有没有诸如深或者浅这样的状态呢？当我说“我的思维浅薄、琐碎、狭隘、受限”的时候，我是怎么知道所有这些的呢？因为我将我的思想和你的思想进行了比较，哪个更聪明，更有能力，更理性和警觉。不进行比较的话我能知道我的琐碎吗？当我饿的时候，我不会拿饥饿与昨天的饥饿进行比较。昨天的饥饿是一种想法、记忆。
If I am all the time measuring myself against you, struggling to be like you, then I am denying what I am myself. Therefore I am creating an illusion. When I have understood that comparison in any form leads only to greater illusion and greater misery, just as when I analyse myself, add to my knowledge of myself bit by bit, or identify myself with something outside myself, whether it be the State, a saviour or an ideology - when I understand that all such processes lead only to greater conformity and therefore greater conflict - when I see all this I put it completely away. Then my mind is no longer seeking. It is very important to understand this. Then my mind is no longer groping, searching, questioning. This does not mean that my mind is satisfied with things as they are, but such a mind has no illusion. Such a mind can then move in a totally different dimension. The dimension in which we usually live, the life of every day which is pain, pleasure and fear, has conditioned the mind, limited the nature of the mind, and when that pain, pleasure and fear have gone (which does not mean that you no longer have joy: joy is something entirely different from pleasure) - then the mind functions in a different dimension in which there is no conflict, no sense of `otherness'.
如果我每时每刻拿自己与你进行比较，努力挣扎着去像你一样，那么，我就是在否认我自己本来的样子。因而，我就是在制造幻觉。当我理解了任何形式的比较只会导致更大的幻觉和更深的痛苦的时候，就像我分析我自己，一点一滴地将对自己的了解加以积累，或者用我自身以外的东西鉴定自己的时候，不管这种外在的东西是国家（the State）、救世主还是理念 －－ 当我理解到所有这些过程只会导致更多的服从因而造成更大的冲突 －－ 当我看到所有这些的时候，我就将其完全放下了。此时，我的思想就不再追逐了。理解这一点非常重要。此时，我的思想不再摸索、搜寻、询问。这不意味着我的思想满足于事情本身，但是这样的思想是没有幻觉的。这样的思想才能朝着一个完全不同的维度迈进。我们通常生活于其中的这个维度，即痛苦、快乐、恐惧的每日生活，已经限制了思想，限制了思想的本能（nature），而当痛苦、快乐（pleasure）和恐惧消失的时候（这不意味着你不再有喜悦（joy）：喜悦是与快乐完全不同的一种东西） －－ 此时思想运作于另一个维度中，其内是没有冲突的，感觉不到“他性”（otherness）。
Verbally we can go only so far: what lies beyond cannot be put into words because the word is not the thing. Up to now we can describe, explain, but no words or explanations can open the door. What will open the door is daily awareness and attention - awareness of how we speak, what we say, how we walk, what we think. It is like cleaning a room and keeping it in order. Keeping the room in order is important in one sense but totally unimportant in another. There must be order in the room but order will not open the door or the window. What will open the door is not your volition or desire. You cannot possibly invite the other. All that you can do is to keep the room in order, which is to be virtuous for itself, not for what it will bring. To be sane, rational, orderly. Then perhaps, if you are lucky, the window will open and the breeze will come in. Or it may not. It depends on the state of your mind. And that state of mind can be understood only by yourself, by watching it and never trying to shape it, never taking sides, never opposing, never agreeing, never justifying, never condemning, never judging - which means watching it without any choice. And out of this choiceless awareness perhaps the door will open and you will know what that dimension is in which there is no conflict and no time.
语言上我们只能到此为止：在这之外无法用语言表达，因为语言并非那（无法表达的）东西。到目前为止我们只是在描述、解释，但是没有任何语言和解释能够打开那扇门。能够打开那扇门的是每天的觉察（awareness）和注意（attention） －－ 觉察我们如何说话，说什么，我们如何走路，我们如何思考。就像打扫房间让其有序一样。让房间有序从某种意义来说很重要，但是从另一种意义来说又完全不重要。房间必须有序，但是有序不会为你打开门窗。打开那扇门的不是你的意志也不是欲望。你不可能将这第二种意义主动请进来，你能做的就是保持房间有序，就是为了这种品德本身，不是为了它会带来的东西。明智、理性、有序。然后，可能如果你幸运，窗户就会打开，微风会进来。也可能不会。取决于你心智的状态。而心智的这种状态只有你自己能够理解，通过看着它（心智的状态），决不试图塑造它、绝不选择、绝不反对、绝不认可、绝不辩护、绝不谴责、绝不评判 －－ 这意味着毫无选择地看着它。而在这种无选择的觉察之外，也许门就会打开，那时，你就会知道我所说的那种维度是什么，其内没有冲突也没有时间。
We said in the last chapter that joy was something entirely different from pleasure, so let us find out what is involved in pleasure and whether it is at all possible to live in a world that does not contain pleasure but a tremendous sense of joy, of bliss.
上一章中我们说过喜悦（joy）完全不同于快乐（pleasure），所以，让我们一起弄明白，快乐中包含什么，以及到底可不可能生活在一个没有快乐、但是有大量的喜悦、极乐感觉的世界中.
We are all engaged in the pursuit of pleasure in some form or other - intellectual, sensuous or cultural pleasure, the pleasure of reforming, telling others what to do, of modifying the evils of society, of doing good - the pleasure of greater knowledge, greater physical satisfaction, greater experience, greater understanding of life, all the clever, cunning things of the mind - and the ultimate pleasure is, of course, to have God.
我们都忙于追求这种或那种形式的快乐 －－ 理智的、感觉的或文化的快乐、改革的快乐、告诉别人做什么、改变社会的邪恶、行善 －－ 更多知识、更大的身体满足、更多经验、对生活的更多理解、以及所有那些思想的聪明或狡猾的快乐 －－ 而终极快乐当然是拥有上帝了。
Pleasure is the structure of society. From childhood until death we are secretly, cunningly or obviously pursuing pleasure. So whatever our form of pleasure is, I think we should be very clear about it because it is going to guide and shape our lives. It is therefore important for each one of us to investigate closely, hesitantly and delicately this question of pleasure, for to find pleasure, and then nourish and sustain it, is a basic demand of life and without it existence becomes dull, stupid, lonely and meaningless.
快乐是社会的结构。从儿时直到死亡，我们都在偷偷地、狡猾地、或明目张胆地追求快乐。故我认为不管我们快乐的形式是什么，我们都应该非常清楚地了解它，因为，快乐的形式将引导和塑造我们的生活。因而，对我们每个人来说，密切地、犹豫地、谨慎地研究快乐的问题，就很重要了。因为要发现快乐、然后滋养和维持它，是生活的基本需求，而没有快乐，存在就变得无趣、愚蠢、寂寞和无意义。
You may ask why then should life not be guided by pleasure? For the very simple reason that pleasure must bring pain, frustration, sorrow and fear, and, out of fear, violence. If you want to live that way, live that way. Most of the world does, anyway, but if you want to be free from sorrow you must understand the whole structure of pleasure.
你可能会问，那为什么不应该让快乐引导生活呢？原因非常简单，快乐必然带来痛苦、沮丧、悲伤和恐惧，而恐惧会生出暴力。如果你想要过那种方式的生活，就让快乐引导生活吧。不管怎么说，这个世界的大部分都是这样的，但是，如果你想要免于悲伤影响，你必须理解快乐的整个结构。
To understand pleasure is not to deny it. We are not condemning it or saying it is right or wrong, but if we pursue it, let us do so with our eyes open, knowing that a mind that is all the time seeking pleasure must inevitably find its shadow, pain. They cannot be separated, although we run after pleasure and try to avoid pain.
理解快乐，不是要否定快乐。我们不是在谴责它或者说它好或不好，但是如果我们追求快乐，让我们睁大眼睛来追求，知道，无时无刻不在追求快乐的心智不可避免地会发现快乐的阴影，即痛苦。快乐与痛苦不可分割，尽管我们追逐快乐，并企图避免痛苦。
Now, why is the mind always demanding pleasure? Why is it that we do noble and ignoble things with the undercurrent of pleasure? Why is it we sacrifice and suffer on the thin thread of pleasure? What is pleasure and how does it come into being? I wonder if any of you have asked yourself these questions and followed the answers to the very end?
那么，心智为何总是需求快乐呢？为什么我们不论做高贵的事情还是卑贱的事情都要携带快乐的暗流呢？为什么我们在快乐的细线上牺牲和受苦呢？快乐是什么，又是怎么来的呢？我想知道你们是否有人问过自己这些问题，并且追寻到底了？
Pleasure comes into being through four stages - perception, sensation, contact and desire. I see a beautiful motor car, say; then I get a sensation, a reaction, from looking at it; then I touch it or imagine touching it, and then there is the desire to own and show myself off in it. Or I see a lovely cloud, or a mountain clear against the sky, or a leaf that has just come in springtime, or a deep valley full of loveliness and splendour, or a glorious sunset, or a beautiful face, intelligent, alive, not self-conscious and therefore no longer beautiful. I look at these things with intense delight and as I observe them there is no observer but only sheer beauty like love. For a moment I am absent with all my problems, anxieties and miseries - there is only that marvellous thing. I can look at it with joy and the next moment forget it, or else the mind steps in, and then the problem begins; my mind thinks over what it has seen and thinks how beautiful it was; I tell myself I should like to see it again many times. Thought begins to compare, judge, and say `l must have it again tomorrow'. The continuity of an experience that has given delight for a second is sustained by thought.
快乐的形成经历了四个阶段 －－ 观察、感受、接触、欲望（perception, sensation, contact and desire）。比如，我看到一辆漂亮的小汽车；然后经由看到，我产生了一种感受、一种反应；然后我触摸它，或者想象触摸着它，然后就有了拥有和坐进去炫耀的欲望。或者，我在空中清晰地看到一片可爱的云朵或大山，或者我看到春天的新叶、或美丽壮观的深谷、或光辉灿烂的落日、或美丽的脸庞、聪慧、有活力，我没有自我意识，因而（这些）不再美丽。我怀着强烈的愉悦（delight）看这些东西，而在我观察的时候，没有观察者，只有全然的美，就如同爱一般全然的美。这时，我所有的问题，焦虑、痛苦，都不存在了 －－ 只有眼前那非凡的事物。我能够心怀喜悦来看并且而下一刻忘掉它，否则思想就会进入，而问题就开始了；我的思想仔细思忖它所看到的，并且去想它有多么美丽；我告诉我自己我应该反复再看它好多次。思想开始了比较、判断，并且说“我必须明天再看到它”。那给了我们片刻愉悦的经历，被思维维持了其延续性。
It is the same with sexual desire or any other form of desire. There is nothing wrong with desire. To react is perfectly normal. If you stick a pin in me I shall react unless I am paralysed. But then thought steps in and chews over the delight and turns it into pleasure. Thought wants to repeat the experience, and the more you repeat, the more mechanical it becomes; the more you think about it, the more strength thought gives to pleasure. So thought creates and sustains pleasure through desire, and gives it continuity, and therefore the natural reaction of desire to any beautiful thing is perverted by thought. Thought turns it into a memory and memory is then nourished by thinking about it over and over again.
性欲以及其他形式的欲望同样如此。欲望本没有错。产生反应也是完全正常的。如果你用大头针刺我，我会立刻有反应，除非我瘫痪了。但当时思维进入了，并且深思这种愉悦，并将其转换成快乐。思维想要重复这种经验，而你重复得越多，它就变得越机械；你思考得越多，想快乐要求思考付出的努力就越多。故思考通过欲望创造和维持了快乐，并给予其延续性，因而，对任何美丽事物的欲望的自然反应被思维歪曲了。思考将其（欲望）转变成为记忆，而记忆（反过来）又被一次又一次的思考所培养。
Of course, memory has a place at a certain level. In everyday life we could not function at all without it. In its own field it must be efficient but there is a state of mind where it has very little place. A mind which is not crippled by memory has real freedom.
当然，记忆在特定的层面有其自身的地位。我们没有记忆就完全无法正常生活。在记忆应该存在的领域它必须是有效的，但是，存在一种心智状态，这种心智状态下记忆的地位有限。没有被记忆致残的心智有真正的自由。
Have you ever noticed that when you respond to something totally, with all your heart, there is very little memory? It is only when you do not respond to a challenge with your whole being that there is a conflict, a struggle, and this brings confusion and pleasure or pain. And the struggle breeds memory. That memory is added to all the time by other memories and it is those memories which respond. Anything that is the result of memory is old and therefore never free. There is no such thing as freedom of thought. It is sheer nonsense.
你曾经注意到过，当你完全、全身心地回应某物时，很少会产生记忆吗？唯有你没有完全、全身心地、用你的全部存在回应挑战的时候，就存在冲突、挣扎、它带来了疑惑、快乐或痛苦。而挣扎滋生了记忆。这种记忆被累积到一生其他的记忆上，正是这些记忆在进行回应。记忆产生的任何结果都是过时的，因而从不自由。没有“思想的自由”这种东西（思维之中没有自由）。所谓“思想的自由”是一派胡言。
Thought is never new, for thought is the response of memory, experience, knowledge. Thought, because it is old, makes this thing which you have looked at with delight and felt tremendously for the moment, old. From the old you derive pleasure, never from the new. There is no time in the new.
思想从来不是新的，因为思想是记忆、经验、知识的反应。思想，由于其陈旧性，使得你在眼前心怀愉悦（delight）地来看和感觉震撼的东西，也变得陈旧。从陈旧之中你获得了快乐，快乐从来不是从新的东西中获得的。在新的东西中，没有时间的存在。
So if you can look at all things without allowing pleasure to creep in - at a face, a bird, the colour of a sari, the beauty of a sheet of water shimmering in the sun, or anything that gives delight - if you can look at it without wanting the experience to be repeated, then there will be no pain, no fear, and therefore tremendous joy.
故若你能在看所有事物的同时不让快乐悄悄进来 －－ 不论是看脸庞，看鸟儿，看印度纱丽的颜色，看阳光下闪烁的水面，还是看任何让人愉悦的东西 －－ 如果你在看的同时能不想重复这种体验，那么，就不会有痛苦、恐惧，因而会有巨大的喜悦（joy）。
It is the struggle to repeat and perpetuate pleasure which turns it into pain. Watch it in yourself. The very demand for the repetition of pleasure brings about pain, because it is not the same, as it was yesterday. You struggle to achieve the same delight, not only to your aesthetic sense but the same inward quality of the mind, and you are hurt and disappointed because it is denied to you.
正是要使快乐再现和使快乐长存的努力，让快乐转变成了痛苦。在你自己身上看看这种情况。正是这种让快乐再现的需求，带来了痛苦，因为快乐是昨天的，已与今天不同。你努力来达到同样的愉悦，不仅仅要达到同样的审美感觉，还要达到同样的内在心智状态，所以你伤心失望了，因为它（同样的事物）拒绝给你（同样的感受和心智状态）。
Have you observed what happens to you when you are denied a little pleasure? When you don't get what you want you become anxious, envious, hateful. Have you noticed when you have been denied the pleasure of drinking or smoking or sex or whatever it is - have you noticed what battles you go through? And all that is a form of fear, isn't it? You are afraid of not getting what you want or of losing what you have. When some particular faith or ideology which you have held for years is shaken or torn away from you by logic or life, aren't you afraid of standing alone? That belief has for years given you satisfaction and pleasure, and when it is taken away you are left stranded, empty, and the fear remains until you find another form of pleasure, another belief.
你是否观察过，当你被拒绝给予一点点小快乐的时候，你身上发生了什么？当你没有得到你想要的东西的时候，你变得焦虑、嫉妒、憎恨。你注意到过，当你被拒绝给予抽烟、喝酒、性或任何什么东西的快乐的时候 －－ 你注意到过你（的内心）经历的是什么样的斗争吗？而所有这些，都是一种形式的恐惧，是不是？你害怕得不到你想要的，或是失去你拥有的。当你长年以来持有的某种特定的信念或理念，被逻辑或是生活所动摇或者撕碎，你难道不会害怕孤立无援吗？那种信念长年以来给了你满足和快乐，而当它被拿走的时候，你就会被陷于困境，空虚，而在你找到另一种形式的快乐、另一种信念之前，恐惧会一直存在。
It seems to me so simple and because it is so simple we refuse to see its simplicity. We like to complicate everything. When your wife turns away from you, aren't you jealous? Aren't you angry? Don't you hate the man who has attracted her? And what is all that but fear of losing something which has given you a great deal of pleasure, a companionship, a certain quality of assurance and the satisfaction of possession?
这对我而言如此简单，正因为如此简单，我们拒绝看到它的简单。我们喜欢使每一件事变得复杂。当你的妻子移情别恋，你难道不会妒忌吗？你难道不会愤怒吗？你难道不会恨那个勾引了她的男人吗？这一切（反应）不就是对失去那，曾给过你巨大快乐、陪伴、某种程度的保证和拥有某人的满足感的东西，的恐惧吗？
So if you understand that where there is a search for pleasure there must be pain, live that way if you want to, but don't just slip into it. If you want to end pleasure, though, which is to end pain, you must be totally attentive to the whole structure of pleasure - not cut it out as monks and sannyasis do, never looking at a woman because they think it is a sin and thereby destroying the vitality of their understanding - but seeing the whole meaning and significance of pleasure. Then you will have tremendous joy in life. You cannot think about joy. Joy is an immediate thing and by thinking about it, you turn it into pleasure. Living in the present is the instant perception of beauty and the great delight in it without seeking pleasure from it.
故若你理解了只要有对快乐的寻求，就必然会有痛苦，若你还想那样生活就那样生活吧，但不要只是陷入其中。可是，若你想结束快乐 －－ 这样就能结束痛苦 －－ 你必须完全地留意快乐的整个结构，不是像僧侣那样终止快乐，永远不再看一眼女人，因为他们认为那是罪过因而毁掉了他们理解的活力，而是看到快乐的全部内涵和意义。然后你就会在生活中拥有巨大的喜悦（joy）。你不能思考喜悦。喜悦是种当下的东西，而思考它，就会将它转变成快乐。活在当下，就是对当下的美和巨大愉悦的刹那间的感知（instant perception），而不从中寻找快乐。
Before we go any further I would like to ask you what is your fundamental, lasting interest in life? Putting all oblique answers aside and dealing with this question directly and honestly, what would you answer? Do you know?
在我们继续前进之前，我想问你，你的生活中最基本的、持久的兴趣是什么？将所有那些拐弯抹角（oblique）的答案放到一边，我们来直接地诚实地对待这个问题，你的答案会是什么？你知道吗？
Isn't it yourself? Anyway, that is what most of us would say if we answered truthfully. I am interested in my progress, my job, my family, the little corner in which I live, in getting a better position for myself, more prestige, more power, more domination over others and so on. I think it would be logical, wouldn't it, to admit to ourselves that that is what most of us are primarily interested in - 'me' first?
难道不是你自己吗？不管怎样，这会是我们大多数人的答案，如果我们如实回答的话。我对我的进步、我的工作、我的家庭、我生活于其中的小角落、为自己谋得更好的职位、更高的声望、更多的权力、对他人更多的支配等等感兴趣。“我”字当先，就是我们大多数人的首要兴趣所在，我认为对我们自己承认这一点会是合乎逻辑的，会不会？
Some of us would say that it is wrong to be primarily interested in ourselves. But what is wrong about it except that we seldom decently, honestly, admit it? If we do, we are rather ashamed of it. So there it is - one is fundamentally interested in oneself, and for various ideological or traditional reasons one thinks it is wrong. But what one thinks is irrelevant. Why introduce the factor of its being wrong? That is an idea, a concept. What is a fact is that one is fundamentally and lastingly interested in oneself.
我们当中的一些人可能会说，首先对自己感兴趣这样做是不对的。但是除了我们很少体面地、诚实地承认它之外，首先对自己感兴趣还有什么是不对的呢？如果我们是这样，我们非常羞于承认。故结论就是这样 －－ 人的基本兴趣是自己，而由于种种观念或传统的原因，他认为这样是不对的。但是，人怎么认为是无关紧要的。为什么要引入“这不对”这样的因素呢？这是一种观念、概念。事实则是，人最基本的、持久的兴趣就是自己。
You may say that it is more satisfactory to help another than to think about yourself. What is the difference? It is still self-concern. If it gives you greater satisfaction to help others, you are concerned about what will give you greater satisfaction. Why bring any ideological concept into it? Why this double thinking? Why not say, `What I really want is satisfaction, whether in sex, or in helping others, or in becoming a great saint, scientist or politician'? It is the same process, isn't it? Satisfaction in all sorts of ways, subtle and obvious, is what we want. When we say we want freedom we want it because we think it may be wonderfully satisfying, and the ultimate satisfaction, of course, is this peculiar idea of self-realization. What we are really seeking is a satisfaction in which there is no dissatisfaction at all.
你可能会说，帮助别人比考虑自己会带来更多的满足感。有什么不同吗？这仍然是自私自利（self-concern）。若是帮助别人给了你更大的满足感，你关心的是什么会给你更大的满足感。为什么要将观念性的概念掺入其中呢？为什么要这样双重思考呢？为什么不说，“我真正想要的是满足感，不管是性、还是帮助他人方面，亦或是变成更伟大的圣徒、科学家或政治家”呢？都是同样的过程，不是吗？经由所有途径的满足感，不管这途径微妙还是明显，都是我们想要的。当我们说，我们想要自由，我们想要是因为我们认为会极为满足，而终极满足当然就是自我实现这种古怪的想法。我们真正在寻找的，是一种满足感，其中完全没有任何的不满。
Most of us crave the satisfaction of having a position in society because we are afraid of being nobody. Society is so constructed that a citizen who has a position of respect is treated with great courtesy, whereas a man who has no position is kicked around. Everyone in the world wants a position, whether in society, in the family or to sit on the right hand of God, and this position must be recognized by others, otherwise it is no position at all. We must always sit on the platform. Inwardly we are whirlpools of misery and mischief and therefore to be regarded outwardly as a great figure is very gratifying. This craving for position, for prestige, for power, to be recognized by society as being outstanding in some way, is a wish to dominate others, and this wish to dominate is a form of aggression. The saint who seeks a position in regard to his saintliness is as aggressive as the chicken pecking in the farmyard. And what is the cause of this aggressiveness? It is fear, isn't it?
我们大多数人渴望在社会中有一席之地，因为我们害怕籍籍无名（being nobody）。社会就是这样构造的，处于受人尊敬地位的公民被以礼相待，而没有地位的人则被粗暴对待。世界上的每个人都想要地位，不管是社会地位、家庭地位还是坐在上帝的右手边，而这个地位必须被别人所认可，否则就不是地位。我们必须总是坐在台上。在内心里我们是苦难和伤害的漩涡，因而在外表上我们被当做大人物对待会令我们非常满足。这种对地位、对声望、对权力、以某种方式的杰出被社会认可的渴望，是一种控制别人的愿望，这种控制的愿望是一种侵略的形式。寻求圣洁性的地位的圣徒，跟农家院里啄食的小鸡一样富于攻击性。而这种攻击性的导因是什么？就是恐惧，是不是？
Fear is one of the greatest problems in life. A mind that is caught in fear lives in confusion, in conflict, and therefore must be violent, distorted and aggressive. It dare not move away from its own patterns of thinking, and this breeds hypocrisy. Until we are free from fear, climb the highest mountain, invent every kind of God, we will always remain in darkness.
恐惧是生活中最大的问题之一。陷于恐惧的心智，生活在困惑、冲突中，因而必然是暴力、扭曲和富于攻击性的。这种心智不敢摆脱它自己的思考模式，这就滋生了伪善（hypocrisy）。在我们不再受恐惧影响、爬上最高的山峰、发明各种形式的上帝之前，我们会一直处于黑暗之中。
Living in such a corrupt, stupid society as we do, with the competitive education we receive which engenders fear, we are all burdened with fears of some kind, and fear is a dreadful thing which warps, twists and dulls our days.
在我们这样一个腐败、愚蠢的社会中生活，接受着引起恐惧的竞争性的教育，我们都身负着某些种类的恐惧，而恐惧是一种可怕的东西，使我们的日子乖戾、扭曲和无趣。
There is physical fear but that is a response we have inherited from the animals. It is psychological fears we are concerned with here, for when we understand the deep-rooted psychological fears we will be able to meet the animal fears, whereas to be concerned with the animal fears first will never help us to understand the psychological fears.
有身体的恐惧，但是身体的恐惧是我们从动物身上遗传而来的。我们这里关心的是心理（精神）上的恐惧，因为当我们理解了根深蒂固的心理上的恐惧之后，我们就能够与动物性的恐惧不期而遇，而考虑动物性的恐惧永远不会帮助我们理解心理上的恐惧。
We are all afraid about something; there is no fear in abstraction, it is always in relation to something. Do you know your own fears - fear of losing your job, of not having enough food or money, or what your neighbours or the public think about you, or not being a success, of losing your position in society, of being despised or ridiculed - fear of pain and disease, of domination, of never knowing what love is or of not being loved, of losing your wife or children, of death, of living in a world that is like death, of utter boredom, of not living up to the image others have built about you, of losing your faith - all these and innumerable other fears - do you know your own particular fears? And what do you usually do about them? You run away from them, don't you, or invent ideas and images to cover them? But to run away from fear is only to increase it.
我们都害怕某些东西；没有恐惧是抽象的，恐惧总是与事物相关联。你知道你自己的恐惧吗 －－ 害怕失业，害怕没有足够的食物或金钱，或是你的邻居或公众怎么看待你，或者在社会上不成功、失去你的地位，或是被轻视或嘲笑 －－ 害怕疼痛或疾病，害怕被控制，害怕永远不知道爱是什么或不被爱，害怕失去妻子或孩子，害怕死亡，害怕活在如死亡般的世界中，害怕彻底厌倦，害怕达不到他人对你的想象（image），害怕失去信念 －－ 所有这些，以及不计其数的其他恐惧 －－ 你知道你自己的恐惧吗？你通常怎么对待这些恐惧？你躲开它们，是不是，或者发明一些理念和意象（image）来掩盖它们？但是躲开恐惧只会助长它。
One of the major causes of fear is that we do not want to face ourselves as we are. So, as well as the fears themselves, we have to examine the network of escapes we have developed to rid ourselves of them. If the mind, in which is included the brain, tries to overcome fear, to suppress it, discipline it, control it, translate it into terms of something else, there is friction, there is conflict, and that conflict is a waste of energy.
恐惧的一个主要导因，是我们不想面对我们自己的本来面目。故，不仅要检视恐惧，还要检视我们发展出来的这个将自己从恐惧中摆脱出来的逃避网络。如果心智，包括大脑，企图克服恐惧、压制它、约束它、控制它、将其翻译成某种其他术语，那么就会有摩擦，就会有冲突，这种冲突就会浪费能量。
The first thing to ask ourselves then is what is fear and how does it arise? What do we mean by the word fear itself? I am asking myself what is fear not what I am afraid of.
那么我们首先要问自己的就是，恐惧是什么以及恐惧是如何升起的？我们所说的“恐惧”这个词本身是什么意思？我在问我自己“恐惧”是什么，而不是在问我害怕什么东西。
I lead a certain kind of life; I think in a certain pattern; I have certain beliefs and dogmas and I don't want those patterns of existence to be disturbed because I have my roots in them. I don't want them to be disturbed because the disturbance produces a state of unknowing and I dislike that. If I am torn away from everything I know and believe, I want to be reasonably certain of the state of things to which I am going. So the brain cells have created a pattern and those brain cells refuse to create another pattern which may be uncertain. The movement from certainty to uncertainty is what I call fear.
我过着某种类型的生活；以某种模式来思考；有某种信仰和教条，而且我不想我生存的那些模式被干扰，因为在其中有我的根基。我不想它们被干扰因为干扰产生了一种无知（unknowing）的状态而我不喜欢这种状态。如果我的每件所知和所信的东西都被拿走，那么我理所当然就想要确定我将要达到的状态是什么样的。故脑细胞已经建立了一种模式，那些脑细胞拒绝创造另一种不确定的模式。从确定性到不确定性的这种运动，就是被我叫做“恐惧”的东西。
At the actual moment as I am sitting here I am not afraid; I am not afraid in the present, nothing is happening to me, nobody is threatening me or taking anything away from me. But beyond the actual moment there is a deeper layer in the mind which is consciously or unconsciously thinking of what might happen in the future or worrying that something from the past may overtake me. So I am afraid of the past and of the future. I have divided time into the past and the future. Thought steps in, says, `Be careful it does not happen again', or `Be prepared for the future. The future may be dangerous for you. You have got something now but you may lose it. You may die tomorrow, your wife may run away, you may lose your job. You may never become famous. You may be lonely. You want to be quite sure of tomorrow.'
在真实的这一刻，我坐在这里，我没有害怕；眼下我没有害怕，没有任何事情发生在我身上，没有人在威胁我，或者从我这里拿走任何东西。但是超越了眼前真实的这一刻，我的头脑中有一个更深的层次，有意识地或无意识地认为未来可能会发生什么或者担心过去的某件事情会压倒我。思想进入了，说，“要小心不要让它再次发生”，或“为未来做好准备。未来对你来说可能很危险，你已经拥有了一些东西，但是你可能失去它。你可能明天死去，你的妻子可能会出轨，你可能会失业。你可能永远不会出名。你可能会孤独。你想要对明天相当确定”。
Now take your own particular form of fear. Look at it. Watch your reactions to it. Can you look at it without any movement of escape, justification, condemnation or suppression? Can you look at that fear without the word which causes the fear? Can you look at death, for instance, without the word which arouses the fear of death? The word itself brings a tremor, doesn't it, as the word love has its own tremor, its own image? Now is the image you have in your mind about death, the memory of so many deaths you have seen and the associating of yourself with those incidents - is it that image which is creating fear? Or are you actually afraid of coming to an end, not of the image creating the end? Is the word death causing you fear or the actual ending? If it is the word or the memory which is causing you fear then it is not fear at all.
现在，找到你自己特有的恐惧的模式。看着它。观察你对它的反应。你能看着它而不逃避、不判断、不谴责、不压制吗？你能看着恐惧而不加上那些导致恐惧的字眼吗？例如，你能看着死亡，而心里不升起对死亡的恐惧吗？“死亡”这个字眼本身都能带来战栗，是不是？就像“爱”这个字眼也有其自己的战栗、自己的意象？那么，是你的这个意象中关于死亡、关于你看到的那么多的死亡以及那些事故与你自己的关联的这种意象 －－ 是不是这种意象在创造恐惧？还是你真的害怕终结，而不是害怕这个创造了终结的意象？是“死亡”这个字眼导致你恐惧还是真正的终结导致你恐惧？如果是字眼或者记忆导致你恐惧的话，那么那完全不是恐惧。
You were ill two years ago, let us say, and the memory of that pain, that illness, remains, and the memory now functioning says, `Be careful, don't get ill, again'. So the memory with its associations is creating fear, and that is not fear at all because actually at the moment you have very good health. Thought, which is always old, because thought is the response of memory and memories are always old - thought creates, in time, the feeling that you are afraid which is not an actual fact. The actual fact is that you are well. But the experience, which has remained in the mind as a memory, rouses the thought, `Be careful, don't fall ill again'.
我们打个比方，两年前你病了，那病痛的记忆保存下来，现在这个记忆说，“小心，不要再病了”。所以记忆和与记忆相关联的东西在创造恐惧，而这完全不是恐惧，因为事实上在眼前你非常健康。想法（thought）总是旧的，因为想法是记忆的反应（response），而记忆总是旧的 －－ 想法在时间中创造了“你害怕”这种感觉，而这种感觉不是真正的事实。真正的事实是，你很健康。但是经验留在脑海中形成了记忆，激起了想法，“小心，不要再生病了。”
So we see that thought engenders one kind of fear. But is there fear at all apart from that? Is fear always the result of thought and, if it is, is there any other form of fear? We are afraid of death - that is, something that is going to happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, in time. There is a distance between actuality and what will be. Now thought has experienced this state; by observing death it says, `I am going to die.' Thought creates the fear of death, and if it doesn't is there any fear at all? Is fear the result of thought? If it is, thought being always old, fear is always old. As we have said, there is no new thought. If we recognise it, it is already old. So what we are afraid of is the repetition of the old - the thought of what has been projecting into the future. Therefore thought is responsible for fear. This is so, you can see it for yourself. When you are confronted with something immediately there is no fear. It is only when thought comes in that there is fear.
于是我们看到了，想法造成了一种类型的恐惧。但是除这种类型的恐惧之外，还有没有恐惧了？如果恐惧总是想法的结果，如果是这样的话，有没有其他形式的恐惧？我们害怕死亡 －－ 也就是害怕某种明天或后天将会发生的事情，在时间中的事情。在“现实”（actuality）和“将要”之间存在距离。现在想法经历了这个状态；通过观察死亡，它说，“我将会死去”。想法创造了对死亡的恐惧，而如果没有创造的话，还有任何的恐惧吗？恐惧是想法造成的吗？如果是的话，由于想法总是旧的，那么恐惧也总是旧的。就像我们已经说过的，不存在“新”的想法。如果我们认出这一点，它（“认出”这个想法）就已经是旧的了。所以，我们害怕的就是重复旧的东西 －－ 关于“什么一直在向未来投射”的想法。因而想法应对恐惧负责。就是这样，你能自己看到这一点。当你直接（immediately）面对某件事物的时候，是没有恐惧的。只有当想法进来时才有恐惧。
Therefore our question now is, is it possible for the mind to live completely, totally, in the present? It is only such a mind that has no fear. But to understand this, you have to understand the structure of thought, memory and time. And in understanding it, understanding not intellectually, not verbally, but actually with your heart, your mind, your guts, you will be free from fear; then the mind can use thought without creating fear.
因而我们的问题现在就成了，心智是否可能完全地、完整地活在当下？只有这样的心智，才没有恐惧。但是要理解这一点，你必须理解思想的结构、记忆和时间。而这个过程中，不是理性的、在语言上的理解，而是用你的内心、你的思维、你的肺腑，实际地去理解，你就不会再受恐惧的影响；那时你的心智（mind）就能“使用”思想（thought）而不同时创造恐惧了。
Thought, like memory, is, of course, necessary for daily living. It is the only instrument we have for communication, working at our jobs and so forth. Thought is the response to memory, memory which has been accumulated through experience, knowledge, tradition, time. And from this background of memory we react and this reaction is thinking. So thought is essential at certain levels but when thought projects itself psychologically as the future and the past, creating fear as well as pleasure, the mind is made dull and therefore inaction is inevitable.
当然，想法跟记忆一样，是日常生活需要的。想法是我们沟通、工作等等的唯一的工具。想法是记忆的反应，记忆是经由经验、知识、传统、时间积累而成的。而从记忆的这个背景下，我们反应，这种反应就是思考。故想法在特定的层次是必要的，但是当想法在心理上将其自身投射为过去和未来的时候，就会创造恐惧也创造快乐，心智就变得迟钝，因而怠惰（inaction）就不可避免了。
So I ask myself, `Why, why, why, do I think about the future and the past in terms of pleasure and pain, knowing that such thought creates fear? Isn't it possible for thought psychologically to stop, for otherwise fear will never end?'
于是我问自己，“为什么，为什么，我知道了这样的想法会创造恐惧，我为什么还在思考过去和未来，还在快乐和痛苦？”
One of the functions of thought is to be occupied all the time with something. Most of us want to have our minds continually occupied so that we are prevented from seeing ourselves as we actually are. We are afraid to be empty. We are afraid to look at our fears.
思想的一个功能就是随时被某物占据。我们大多数人想要让我们的思想持续地被占据，从而就能防止我们看到自己本来的样子了。我们害怕空虚。我们害怕直视恐惧。
Consciously you can be aware of your fears but at the deeper levels of your mind are you aware of them? And how are you going to find out the fears that are hidden, secret? Is fear to be divided into the conscious and the subconscious? This is a very important question. The specialist, the psychologist, the analyst, have divided fear into deep superficial layers, but if you follow what the psychologist says or what I say, you are understanding our theories, our dogmas, our knowledge, you are not understanding yourself. You cannot understand yourself according to Freud or Jung, or according to me. Other people's theories have no importance whatever. It is of yourself that you must ask the question, is fear to be divided into the conscious and subconscious? Or is there only fear which you translate into different forms? There is only one desire; there is only desire. You desire. The objects of desire change, but desire is always the same. So perhaps in the same way there is only fear. You are afraid of all sorts of things but there is only one fear.
在意识层面你能够知道你的恐惧，但是在你的心智的更深层面，你知道你的恐惧吗？你将如何弄清那些隐藏的秘密的恐惧？恐惧可以分成意识的和潜意识的吗？这是个非常重要的问题。专家、心理学家、（精神）分析师们，将恐惧分成深层和表层，但如果你也跟随他们所说，或者跟随我所说，那么你就是在理解我们的理论、我们的教条，我们的知识，你没有理解你自己。你不能根据弗洛伊德或者荣格或者我，来理解你自己。其他人的理论不管是什么都不重要。你自己必须要问自己这个问题，恐惧是分成意识和潜意识的吗？还是只有一种恐惧，你把它转换了成不同的形式？只有一种欲望；只是有欲望。你有欲望。欲望的对象改变，但是欲望总是相同的。所以，或许同理，只是有恐惧。你害怕各种各样的东西，但只有一种恐惧。
When you realize that fear cannot be divided you will see that you have put away altogether this problem of the subconscious and so have cheated the psychologists and the analysts. When you understand that fear is a single movement which expresses itself in different ways and when you see the movement and not the object to which the movement goes, then you are facing an immense question: how can you look at it without the fragmentation which the mind has cultivated?
当你意识到恐惧不能被分割，你会发现，你已经完全将“潜意识”这个问题放到一边了，这个问题欺骗了心理学家和分析师。当你理解了恐惧是一个（而非多个不同形式的）活动（movement），它（只是）以不同方式表达自己；当你看到了这个活动，而不是看到了这个活动的目标对象；那么，你就面临着一个重大的问题：你如何完整地看它，而不是用你的心智培养起来的那种片段化的方式看？
There is only total fear, but how can the mind which thinks in fragments observe this total picture? Can it? We have lived a life of fragmentation, and can look at that total fear only through the fragmentary process of thought. The whole process of the machinery of thinking is to break up everything into fragments: I love you and I hate you; you are my enemy, you are my friend; my peculiar idiosyncrasies and inclinations, my job, my position, my prestige, my wife, my child, my country and your country, my God and your God - all that is the fragmentation of thought. And this thought looks at the total state of fear, or tries to look at it, and reduces it to fragments. Therefore we see that the mind can look at this total fear only when there is no movement of thought.
只有整体的恐惧，但是心智如何才能用它那片段化的方式，观察到这完整的图像？能吗？我们过着片段化的生活，只有通过碎片化的思维过程来看整体的恐惧。思考的整个机械化的过程已经将所有东西都打破成片段：我爱你，我恨你；你是我的敌人，你是我的朋友；我的独特个性和倾向，我的工作，我的地位，我的声望，我的生活，我的孩子，我的国家你的国家，我的上帝你的上帝 －－ 所有这些都是片段化的想法。而这个想法看着恐惧的整个状态，或者试图去看，并将其退化成片段。因而我们看到心智只有在没有思维在活动的时候，才能够看这完整的恐惧。
Can you watch fear without any conclusion, without any interference of the knowledge you have accumulated about it? If you cannot, then what you are watching is the past, not fear; if you can, then you are watching fear for the first time without the interference of the past.
你能看着恐惧吗，不下结论、也没有你累积的关于恐惧的知识的干预？如果你不能，那么你在看的东西实际上是过去，而不是恐惧；如果你能，那么你就第一次在没有过去干预的情况下看着恐惧了。
You can watch only when the mind is very quiet, just as you can listen to what someone is saying only when your mind is not chattering with itself, carrying on a dialogue with itself about its own problems and anxieties. Can you in the same way look at your fear without trying to resolve it, without bringing in its opposite, courage - actually look at it and not try to escape from it? When you say, `I must control it, I must get rid of it, I must understand it', you are trying to escape from it.
只有在你的心智非常安静的时候，你才能看着（恐惧），正好像你只有在你的心智没有喋喋不休、唠叨它自己的问题和焦虑的时候，你才能听人说话一样。你能以同样的方式看恐惧吗，不试图解决它，不引入它的相反面，勇气 －－ 实实在在地看它，不试图逃避它？当你说，“我必须控制它，我必须摆脱它，我必须理解它”的时候，你是在试图逃避它。
You can observe a cloud or a tree or the movement of a river with a fairly quiet mind because they are not very important to you, but to watch yourself is far more difficult because there the demands are so practical, the reactions so quick. So when you are directly in contact with fear or despair, loneliness or jealousy, or any other ugly state of mind, can you look at it so completely that your mind is quiet enough to see it? Can the mind perceive fear and not the different forms of fear - perceive total fear, not what you are afraid of? If you look merely at the details of fear or try to deal with your fears one by one, you will never come to the central issue which is to learn to live with fear.
你能怀着非常平静的心境观察一朵云或一棵树或河水的流动，是因为它们对你不重要，但是要看着你自己就困难得多，因为你的需求如此实际，你的反应如此迅速。故当你与恐惧或绝望、孤独或嫉妒、或心智的任何其它丑陋状态直接地接触的时候，你能完全地看以至于你的心智足够安静，真正地看到这些状态吗？心智能够观察到（perceive）恐惧而不是那些不同形式的恐惧吗 －－ 即观察到完整的恐惧，而不是你所害怕的东西吗？如果你仅仅是看着恐惧的细节或者试图一个接一个地处理恐惧，你永远不能到达问题的中心，即学习与恐惧共处。
To live with a living thing such as fear requires a mind and heart that are extraordinarily subtle, that have no conclusion and can therefore follow every movement of fear. Then if you observe and live with it - and this doesn't take a whole day, it can take a minute or a second to know the whole nature of fear - if you live with it so completely you inevitably ask, 'Who is the entity who is living with fear? Who is it who is observing fear, watching all the movements of the various forms of fear as well as being aware of the central fact of fear? Is the observer a dead entity, a static being, who has accumulated a lot of knowledge and information about himself, and is it that dead thing who is observing and living with the movement of fear? Is the observer the past or is he a living thing?' What is your answer? Do not answer me, answer yourself. Are you, the observer, a dead entity watching a living thing or are you a living thing watching a living thing? Because in the observer the two states exist.
要与活的东西，如恐惧，共处，需要一颗极端细腻的心，这颗心里没有结论，因而能跟上恐惧的所有运动。那么如果你观察恐惧并与之共处 －－ 而了解恐惧的全部本质不会花费一整天的时间，而是一分钟或一秒钟 －－ 如果你完整地与之共处你不可避免地会问，“与恐惧共处的这个实体是谁？观察恐惧、注视着各种形式的恐惧并且了解恐惧的中心事实的这个人是谁？这个观察者是一个累积了大量的关于自己的知识和信息的死的实体、静态的存在吗？是不是这个死的东西在观察并与恐惧的运动共处？观察者是过去呢，还是活生生的东西？”你的答案是什么？不要回答我，回答你自己。你，观察者，是一个死的实体来看着活的东西，还是一个活的东西看着活的东西？因为在观察者这边，两种状态都存在。
The observer is the censor who does not want fear; the observer is the totality of all his experiences about fear. So the observer is separate from that thing he calls fear; there is space between them; he is forever trying to overcome it or escape from it and hence this constant battle between himself and fear - this battle which is such a waste of energy.
观察者就是这个不想恐惧的督查（censor）；观察者是他关于恐惧的全部经验的汇总。故观察者被与他称之为恐惧的东西分离开来；在他们之间有了空间；他永远在试图克服它或逃避它，因而有了他和恐惧之间这个持续的战斗 －－ 就是这个战斗如此地浪费能量。
As you watch, you learn that the observer is merely a bundle of ideas and memories without any validity or substance, but that fear is an actuality and that you are trying to understand a fact with an abstraction which, of course, you cannot do. But,in fact, is the observer who says, `I am afraid', any different from the thing observed which is fear? The observer is fear and when that is realized there is no longer any dissipation of energy in the effort to get rid of fear, and the time-space interval between the observer and the observed disappears. When you see that you are a part of fear, not separate from it - that you are fear - then you cannot do anything about it; then fear comes totally to an end.
随着你观察，你了解了观察者仅仅是一些观点和记忆的组合，没有任何的效用和实质，但是那恐惧却是实际存在的而你在试图用抽象的概念理解事实，你当然无法做到。但是，说“我害怕”的观察者与他观察的恐惧事实上有差别吗？观察者就是恐惧，当意识到这一点的时候，就不再会在摆脱恐惧的努力中耗费能量了，而观察者和被观察者之间的时空间隔也消失了。当你看到你是恐惧的一部分，而不是与它分离的 －－ 即你就是恐惧 －－ 你不能做任何事情的时候；这时恐惧就完全终结了。
Fear, pleasure, sorrow, thought and violence are all interrelated. Most of us take pleasure in violence, in disliking somebody, hating a particular race or group of people, having antagonistic feelings towards others. But in a state of mind in which all violence has come to an end there is a joy which is very different from the pleasure of violence with its conflicts, hatreds and fears.
恐惧、快乐、悲伤、想法、暴力全都是相关联的。我们大多数人在暴力、讨厌某人、恨某个特定的种族或者团体、对他人的敌对感受中寻求快乐。但是在一个所有暴力都已终结的心智状态中，存在一种愉悦（joy），这种愉悦与暴力中的快乐是非常不一样的，后者充斥着冲突、仇恨、恐惧。
Can we go to the very root of violence and be free from it? Otherwise we shall live everlastingly in battle with each other. If that is the way you want to live - and apparently most people do - then carry on; if you say, `Well, I'm sorry, violence can never end', then you and I have no means of communication, you have blocked yourself; but if you say there might be a different way of living, then we shall be able to communicate with each other.
我们能够深入暴力的最终根源并不受暴力影响吗？否则，我们将永远生活在与他人的战斗中。如果你想要暴力的生活方式 －－ 很显然大多数人想要 －－ 那么就继续吧；如果你说，“啊，很遗憾，暴力永远不能终止”，那么你和我就没有办法交流了，你已经限制了你自己；但是如果你说，可能有一种不同的生活方式，那么我们就能够继续彼此交流。
So let us consider together, those of us who can communicate, whether it is at all possible totally to end every form of violence in ourselves and still live in this monstrously brutal world. I think it is possible. I don't want to have a breath of hate, jealousy, anxiety or fear in me. I want to live completely at peace. Which doesn't mean that I want to die. I want to live on this marvellous earth, so full, so rich, so beautiful. I want to look at the trees, flowers, rivers, meadows, women, boys and girls, and at the same time live completely at peace with myself and with the world. What can I do?
故那些可以交流的人，让我们一起考虑，我们是否完全可能终结我们内心中的每一种形式的暴力，仍然活在这个野兽般凶残的世界中。我认为是可能的。我不愿意我内心中存有一丝仇恨、嫉妒、焦虑或恐惧。我想要完全生活在平静中。这不意味着我想去死。我想要活在这个非凡的地球上，如此美满、如此富饶、如此美丽的地球。我想要看树、花、河流、草地、女人、男孩和女孩，而同时完全活在平静中，跟我自己一起，跟世界一起。我能做什么？
If we know how to look at violence, not only outwardly in society - the wars, the riots, the national antagonisms and class conflicts - but also in ourselves, then perhaps we shall be able to go beyond it.
如果我们知道怎样看暴力，不仅仅是看外在的社会上的暴力 －－ 战争、暴乱、国家对立和阶级冲突 －－ 而且看我们自身的暴力，然后，也许我们就能够超越它。
Here is a very complex problem. For centuries upon centuries man has been violent; religions have tried to tame him throughout the world and none of them have succeeded. So if we are going into the question we must, it seems to me, be at least very serious about it because it will lead us into quite a different domain, but if we want merely to play with the problem for intellectual entertainment we shall not get very far.
这是个非常复杂的问题。多少个世纪以来，人们一直暴力；纵观世界，宗教都曾经尝试驯服人，而没有一个成功的。故如果我们想要深入这个问题，我们必须，窃以为，至少要非常认真地对待它，因为这个问题会引导我们进入一个非常不同的领域，但是如果我们仅仅想将这个问题作为智力的娱乐，我们可能不会走出很远。
You may feel that you yourself are very serious about the problem but that as long as so many other people in the world are not serious and are not prepared to do anything about it, what is the good of your doing anything? I don't care whether they take it seriously or not. I take it seriously, that is enough. I am not my brother's keeper. I myself, as a human being, feel very strongly about this question of violence and I will see to it that in myself I am not violent - but I cannot tell you or anybody else, `Don't be violent.' It has no meaning - unless you yourself want it. So if you yourself really want to understand this problem of violence let us continue on our journey of exploration together.
你可能觉得，你自己非常认真地对待这个问题，但是只要世界上那么多其他人都不认真对待这个问题，也不准备做任何事，那么你做的又有什么用？我不关心他们是否认真对待。我自己认真对待，就够了。我不是我兄弟的监护人。我自己，作为一个人类，非常强烈地感觉到这个暴力的问题，我要看到我自己的内心不是暴力的 －－ 但是我不能对你或者任何其他人说，“不要暴力”。那没有意义 －－ 除非你自己想要不暴力。故若你自己真的想要理解这个暴力的问题，让我们一起继续我们的探索旅程。
Is this problem of violence out there or here? Do you want to solve the problem in the outside world or are you questioning violence itself as it is in you? If you are free of violence in yourself the question is, `How am I to live in a world full of violence, acquisitiveness, greed, envy, brutality? Will I not be destroyed?' That is the inevitable question which is invariably asked. When you ask such a question it seems to me you are not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight - but that is not a problem; you will be shot. it is extraordinarily important to understand this.
暴力的问题是外在的还是内在的？你想要解决外部世界的问题，还是在质疑你自身的暴力现状？如果你从内在的暴力问题中解脱出来，问题就变成了，“我如何生活在一个充满暴力、占有、贪婪、嫉妒、凶残的世界中？我不会被毁灭吗？”这是个不可避免的问题，也一直有人在问。当你问这样的问题的时候，我认为你实际上没有在和平地生活着。如果你和平地生活的话就不会有问题了。你可能会因为拒绝参军而被监禁或拒绝打仗而被枪毙 －－ 但是那不是问题；然后你被枪毙了。理解这一点很重要。
We are trying to understand violence as a fact, not as an idea, as a fact which exists in the human being, and the human being is myself. And to go into the problem I must be completely vulnerable, open, to it. I must expose myself to myself - not necessarily expose myself to you because you may not be interested - but I must be in a state of mind that demands to see this thing right to the end and at no point stops and says I will go no further.
我们在尝试理解暴力这个事实，而不是暴力这个想法，理解的是存在于人类身上的暴力这个事实，而人类就是我自己。而要深入这个问题，我必须对其完全地敏感、开放。我必须将自己暴露给自己 －－ 不必将自己暴露给别人，因为别人可能不感兴趣 －－ 而是必须在一种这样的心智状态中：需要看到这件事真真正正地结束，而不中途停止说我不再继续了。
Now it must be obvious to me that I am a violent human being. I have experienced violence in anger, violence in my sexual demands, violence in hatred, creating enmity, violence in jealousy and so on - I have experienced it, I have known it, and I say to myself, `I want to understand this whole problem not just one fragment of it expressed in war, but this aggression in man which also exists in the animals and of which I am a part.'
现在这件事对我来说一定很显然了：我是个暴力的人类。我在愤怒中暴力，在性需求中暴力，在仇恨、制造敌意时暴力，在妒忌中暴力，等等 －－ 我经历了暴力，我了解了暴力，而且我对自己说，“我想要理解这整个的问题而不仅仅是它表现在战争上的那一个片段，而是人身上的这种攻击性，这种攻击型也存在于动物身上，我也是其中的一部分。”
Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence.
暴力不仅仅是杀人。我们使用尖刻的言辞，我们用手势扫开他人，我们由于恐惧而顺从的时候，都是暴力。所以暴力不仅仅是以上帝的名义、以社会或国家的名义进行有组织的屠杀。暴力比那些要微妙得多、深刻得多，而我们正是在研究暴力的最深处。
When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.
当你把自己称作印度人或穆斯林或基督徒或欧洲人，或不管是什么，你都是（在实施）暴力。你看到了为什么这是暴力的了吗？因为你在将你自己从其他人类中分离出来。当你通过信仰、国籍、传统将你自己分离出来的时候，这就滋生了暴力。故在寻求理解暴力的人不属于任何国家、任何宗教信仰、任何政治团体或（类似的）划分系统；他关心的是对全体人类的理解。
Now there are two primary schools of thought with regard to violence, one which says, `Violence is innate in man' and the other which says, `Violence is the result of the social and cultural heritage in which man lives.' We are not concerned with which school we belong to - it is of no importance. What is important is the fact that we are violent, not the reason for it.
那么关于暴力，有两个基本的思想派别，一派说，“暴力是人类与生俱来的”，而另一派说，“暴力是人类生存的社会和文化传承的结果”。我们不关心我们属于哪个派别 －－ 这不重要。重要的是我们暴力的事实，而不是暴力的原因。
One of the most common expressions of violence is anger. When my wife or sister is attacked I say I am righteously angry; when my country is attacked, my ideas, my principles, my way of life, I am righteously angry. I am also angry when my habits are attacked or my petty little opinions. When you tread on my toes or insult me I get angry, or if you run away with my wife and I get jealous, that jealousy is called righteous because she is my property. And all this anger is morally justified. But to kill for my country is also justified. So when we are talking about anger, which is a part of violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous and unrighteous anger according to our own inclinations and environmental drive, or do we see only anger? Is there righteous anger ever? Or is there only anger? There is no good influence or bad influence, only influence, but when you are influenced by something which doesn't suit me I call it an evil influence.
暴力的一个最常见的表现就是愤怒。当我的妻子或姐妹被攻击了，我就说我的愤怒很正义（righteously angry）；当我的国家、我的想法、我的原则、我的生活方式被攻击了，我也可以很理所当然地愤怒（righteously angry）。当我的习惯被攻击了或者我的琐碎的小的观念被攻击了，我也很愤怒。当你踩了我的脚趾或者侮辱了我，我就愤怒了，或者如果你和我的妻子私奔了，我妒忌，这种妒忌被称为正义（righteous）因为她是我的财产。所有这些愤怒都是合乎道德的（morally justified）。但是为了我的国家杀人也一样是正义的。故当我们讨论愤怒的时候 －－ 愤怒是暴力的一部分 －－ 我们是看到了根据我们的倾向和环境动机（而产生）的正义或非正义的形式的愤怒，还是只是看到了愤怒？真的有正义的愤怒吗？还是只有愤怒？“影响”没有好的和坏的之分，只有影响，但是当你被某种东西影响了，但是这不适合我，我就称其为“坏”的影响。
The moment you protect your family, your country, a bit of coloured rag called a flag, a belief, an idea, a dogma, the thing that you demand or that you hold, that very protection indicates anger. So can you look at anger without any explanation or justification, without saying, `I must protect my goods', or `I was right to be angry', or `How stupid of me to be angry'? Can you look at anger as if it were something by itself? Can you look at it completely objectively, which means neither defending it nor condemning it? Can you?
在你保护你的家庭、你的国家、一块被称为国旗的染了颜色的破布、一种信仰、一个想法、一个教条、你需要的或拥有的东西的那一瞬间，正是这种保护意味着愤怒。故你能看着愤怒而不加诠释和辩解吗，不说“我必须要保护我的东西”，或者“我愤怒是对的”，或者“我这样愤怒多愚蠢”吗？你能看着愤怒，就好像它是单独存在的吗？你能完全客观地看着它，意味着既不防卫（defending）它也不谴责它吗？你能吗？
Can I look at you if I am antagonistic to you or if I am thinking what a marvellous person you are? I can see you only when I look at you with a certain care in which neither of these things is involved. Now, can I look at anger in the same way, which means that I am vulnerable to the problem, I do not resist it, I am watching this extraordinary phenomenon without any reaction to it?
如果我在跟你敌对，或者，如果我认为你是个非凡的人，那我还能看到你吗？只有当我小心不要让这两种想法产生的时候，我才能够看到你。现在，我能用同样的方式看愤怒吗，这意味着我容许这个问题，不抗拒它，我在对它不做任何反应（reaction）地看着这个非凡的现象？
It is very difficult to look at anger dispassionately because it is a part of me, but that is what I am trying to do. Here I am, a violent human being, whether I am black, brown, white or purple. I am not concerned with whether I have inherited this violence or whether society has produced it in me; all I am concerned with is whether it is at all possible to be free from it. To be free from violence means everything to me. It is more important to me than sex, food, position, for this thing is corrupting me. It is destroying me and destroying the world, and I want to understand it, I want to be beyond it. I feel responsible for all this anger and violence in the world. I feel responsible - it isn't just a lot of words - and I say to myself, `I can do something only if I am beyond anger myself, beyond violence, beyond nationality'. And this feeling I have that I must understand the violence in myself brings tremendous vitality and passion to find out.
冷静地看愤怒非常难，因为愤怒是我的一部分，但那就是我在尝试做的。我就在这里，一个暴力的人类，不管我的肤色是黑的、棕的、白的或紫的。我不关心这暴力是否是我继承来的，或者是否是社会造成在我身上的；我关心的只是到底是否有可能不受暴力影响。对我来说，不受暴力影响就意味着一切。对我来说这比性、食物、地位重要多了，因为这些东西在腐化我。这些东西在毁灭我也在毁灭世界，而我想要理解并超越它们。我对世界上的所有愤怒和暴力感觉到责任。我感觉到责任 －－ 这不仅仅是一套说法 －－ 我还对自己说，“我只有在我自己超越了愤怒、超越了暴力、超越了国籍之后，我才能做事情”。而我具有的这种我必须理解自身暴力的感觉，给了我巨大的活力和热情来探求。
But to be beyond violence I cannot suppress it, I cannot deny it, I cannot say, `Well, it is a part of me and that's that', or `I don't want it'. I have to look at it, I have to study it, I must become very intimate with it and I cannot become intimate with it if I condemn it or justify it. We do condemn it, though; we do justify it. Therefore I am saying, stop for the time being condemning it or justifying it.
但是要超越暴力，我不能压抑它，不能否定它，我不能说，“好吧，这是我的一部分，就是这样”，或者，“我不想要它”。我得看着它，我得研究它，我得与之亲近，若是我谴责它或者为之辩解，那么我就不能与之亲近了。尽管如此，我们确实在谴责，我们确实在为之辩解。因而，我说，暂时停止对它的谴责和辩解吧。
Now, if you want to stop violence, if you want to stop wars, how much vitality, how much of yourself, do you give to it? Isn't it important to you that your children are killed, that your sons go into the army where they are bullied and butchered? Don't you care? My God, if that doesn't interest you, what does? Guarding your money? Having a good time? Taking drugs? Don't you see that this violence in yourself is destroying your children? Or do you see it only as some abstraction?
现在，如果你想要体制暴力，如果你想要停止战争，你会为之付出多少活力，奉献多少自己？难道你的孩子被（战争）杀害，你的儿子参了军在那里受恐吓遭屠杀对你来说还不重要吗？难道你还不关心吗？上帝啊，如果这都不能引起你兴趣，那什么能啊？守护你的钱财？寻欢作乐？吸毒？你难道看不到你自身的这种暴力正在毁灭你的孩子吗？还是，你只是把这些只当做某种抽象（的概念）？
All right then, if you are interested, attend with all your heart and mind to find out. Don't just sit back and say, `Well, tell us all about it'. I point out to you that you cannot look at anger nor at violence with eyes that condemn or justify and that if this violence is not a burning problem to you, you cannot put those two things away. So first you have to learn; you have to learn how to look at anger, how to look at your husband, your wife, your children; you have to listen to the politician, you have to learn why you are not objective, why you condemn or justify. You have to learn that you condemn and justify because it is part of the social structure you live in, your conditioning as a German or an Indian or a Negro or an American or whatever you happen to have been born, with all the dulling of the mind that this conditioning results in. To learn, to discover, something fundamental you must have the capacity to go deeply. If you have a blunt instrument, a dull instrument, you cannot go deeply. So what we are doing is sharpening the instrument, which is the mind - the mind which has been made dull by all this justifying and condemning. You can penetrate deeply only if your mind is as sharp as a needle and as strong as a diamond. It is no good just sitting back and asking, `How am I to get such a mind?' You have to want it as you want your next meal, and to have it you must see that what makes your mind dull and stupid is this sense of invulnerability which has built walls round itself and which is part of this condemnation and justification. If the mind can be rid of that, then you can look, study, penetrate, and perhaps come to a state that is totally aware of the whole problem.
如果你感兴趣，那么好，将你的全心全意都放在探究上。不要坐在一边，然后说，“好吧，把相关的都告诉我们吧。”我告诉（过）你，带着谴责或辩解你无法用眼睛看到恐惧或暴力，还有，要是暴力对你来说不是个迫在眉睫的问题，你就丢不掉谴责和辩解。故首先你得了解；你得了解怎样看愤怒，怎样看你丈夫、你妻子、你孩子；你得听听政客（的说辞），你得了解你为什么不客观，为什么谴责或辩解。你得了解你谴责和辩解是因为，谴责、辩解是你所生存于其中的社会结构的一部分，不管你偶然成为了德国人或印度人或黑人或美国人，不管是什么人，你受了限制，这种受限造成了心智的迟钝。要从根本上了解、发现某些东西，你必须有能力深入下去。如果你的工具钝了、迟钝了，你就不能深入了。故我们在做的就是，磨快我们的工具，即心智 －－ 那个被那些谴责和辩解弄迟钝了的心智。只有当你的心智像针一样尖锐，像钻石一样坚硬（strong，强大），你才能看得透彻。仅仅坐在一边问，“我怎么才能有这样的心智呢？”是没有用的。你得想要它，就像你想要下一顿饭一样，而要拥有这样的心智，你必须看到，让你的心智迟钝和愚蠢的东西，就是这种坚不可摧（invulnerability）的感觉，这种感觉在它自身周围树立了围墙，这围墙就是这种谴责和辩解的一部分。如果心智能够摆脱这感觉，那么，你就能看、研究、看透，也许就会到达一种完整地觉察整体问题的状态。
So let us come back to the central issue - is it possible to eradicate violence in ourselves? It is a form of violence to say, `You haven't changed, why haven't you?' I am not doing that. It doesn't mean a thing to me to convince you of anything. It is your life, not my life. The way you live is your affair. I am asking whether it is possible for a human being living psychologically in any society to clear violence from himself inwardly? If it is, the very process will produce a different way of living in this world.
故让我们回到核心问题 －－ 是否可能根除我们自身的暴力？说“你还没有改变，你为什么还不改变？”也是一种暴力，我不是在这样做。使你相信任何事情对我来说都没有意义。这是你的生活，不是我的生活。你生活的方式是你个人的事情。我在问，心理层面生活在任何社会中的人类，是否有可能清除自身内在的暴力？如果有可能，这个清除的过程，就会为世界制造一种不同的生活方式。
Most of us have accepted violence as a way of life. Two dreadful wars have taught us nothing except to build more and more barriers between human beings that is, between you and me. But for those of us who want to be rid of violence, how is it to be done? I do not think anything is going to be achieved through analysis, either by ourselves or by a professional. We might be able to modify ourselves slightly, live a little more quietly with a little more affection, but in itself it will not give total perception. But I must know how to analyse which means that in the process of analysis my mind becomes extraordinarily sharp, and it is that quality of sharpness, of attention, of seriousness, which will give total perception. One hasn't the eyes to see the whole thing at a glance; this clarity of the eye is possible only if one can see the details, then jump. Some of us, in order to rid ourselves of violence, have used a concept, an ideal, called non-violence, and we think by having an ideal of the opposite to violence, non-violence, we can get rid of the fact, the actual - but we cannot. We have had ideals without number, all the sacred books are full of them, yet we are still violent - so why not deal with violence itself and forget the word altogether?
我们大多数人接受了暴力成为我们的生活方式。两次可怕的战争，没有给我们任何教训，相反却在人与人、你与我之间构建了更多的壁垒。但是我们中那些想要摆脱暴力的人，要怎样做呢？我不认为通过分析能够完成任何东西，不管是我们自己的分析，还是专家的分析。我们可能能轻微地修正我们自己，多一点点感情，过稍微安静点的生活，但是这本身不会带来完整的洞察（perception）。但我必须知道如何分析，意味着在分析的过程中，我的心智变得格外敏锐，正是这种敏锐的品质，注意的品质、认真的品质，带来完整的洞察。人没法一眼洞悉全部；只有当人能看到细节的时候，才有清晰的眼睛，然后才有飞跃（才能洞悉全部）。我们中的一些人，为了让自己摆脱暴力，使用所谓的非暴力的观念、理想，我们认为，通过抱有与暴力相反的理想，一种非暴力的理想，我们就能摆脱事实、现实 －－ 但是我们摆脱不掉。我们有过无数的理想，所有的圣贤书都充斥着理想，而我们仍然暴力 －－ 故为什么不忘掉所有这些语言，直接对付暴力本身呢？
If you want to understand the actual you must give your whole attention, all your energy, to it. That attention and energy are distracted when you create a fictitious, ideal world. So can you completely banish the ideal? The man who is really serious, with the urge to find out what truth is, what love is, has no concept at all. He lives only in what is.
如果你想要理解现实，你必须在其上付出你的全部注意力，你的所有能量。这种注意力，这种能量，在你制造假象、理想世界的时候被分散了。故你能完全消除理想吗？真正认真的人，迫切想要弄明白真相是什么、爱是什么的人，完全不会有观念，他只是活在现实中。
To investigate the fact of your own anger you must pass no judgement on it, for the moment you conceive of its opposite you condemn it and therefore you cannot see it as it is. When you say you dislike or hate someone that is a fact, although it sounds terrible. If you look at it, go into it completely, it ceases, but if you say, `I must not hate; I must have love in my heart', then you are living in a hypocritical world with double standards. To live completely, fully, in the moment is to live with what is, the actual, without any sense of condemnation or justification - then you understand it so totally that you are finished with it. When you see clearly the problem is solved.
要研究你自己愤怒的真相，你必须不能对它加以评判，因为你一旦想到了它的对立面，你就开始谴责它，因而你就不能如实地看到它。当你说你讨厌或憎恨某人，那是个事实，尽管听起来糟糕。如果你看这个事实，完全地深入它，它就终止了，但是如果你说，“我必须不能憎恨；我必须在内心有爱”，那么你就生活在一个双重标准的伪善的世界中。完全地、完整地活在当下之是中，活在现实中，不带任何的谴责和辩解 －－ 那么你就能完整地理解当下，如此完整以至于终结了它。当你看得清晰的时候，问题就解决了。
But can you see the face of violence clearly - the face of violence not only outside you but inside you, which means that you are totally free from violence because you have not admitted ideology through which to get rid of it? This requires very deep meditation not just a verbal agreement or disagreement.
但是，你能清晰地看到暴力的样子吗 －－ 不仅仅是你外在的暴力还有你内心的暴力，这意味着你完全不受暴力的影响了，因为你没有让理念进入，没有借助理念来摆脱暴力？这需要非常深的冥想，而不仅仅是语言上同意或不同意。
You have now read a series of statements but have you really understood? Your conditioned mind, your way of life, the whole structure of the society in which you live, prevent you from looking at a fact and being entirely free from it immediately. You say, `I will think about it; I will consider whether it is possible to be free from violence or not. I will try to be free.' That is one of the most dreadful statements you can make, `I will try'. There is no trying, no doing your best. Either you do it or you don't do it. You are admitting time while the house is burning. The house is burning as a result of the violence throughout the world and in yourself and you say, `Let me think about it. Which ideology is best to put out the fire?' When the house is on fire, do you argue about the colour of the hair of the man who brings the water?
到目前为止你已经阅读了一系列的陈述，但是你真的已经理解了吗？你的受限的心智、你的生活方式、你生活于其中的社会的整个结构，使你无法去看现实，也无法完全地立即从中解脱（不受其影响）。你说，“我会再想想；我会考虑下是否能不受暴力影响。我会试着解脱。”这是你能说的最可怕的句子，“我会试试”。没有“试试”，没有“尽力”。你或者做或者不做。房子着火了你还在拖延时间。暴力让整个世界和你内心的房子都着火了，而你还在说，“让我想想。哪个观念最适合灭火？”要是你的房子着火了，你会讨论提水灭火那人的发色吗？
The cessation of violence, which we have just been considering, does not necessarily mean a state of mind which is at peace with itself and therefore at peace in all its relationships.
暴力的终止 －－ 我们刚才一直在讨论的问题 －－ 并不一定意味着心灵处于一种自身平和、并因而在其所有的关系中都平和的状态。
Relationship between human beings is based on the image-forming, defensive mechanism. In all our relationships each one of us builds an image about the other and these two images have relationship, not the human beings themselves. The wife has an image about the husband - perhaps not consciously but nevertheless it is there - and the husband has an image about the wife. One has an image about one's country and about oneself, and we are always strengthening these images by adding more and more to them. And it is these images which have relationship. The actual relationship between two human beings or between many human beings completely end when there is the formation of images.
人与人的关系是基于意象形成、防御机制的。在我们所有的关系中，我们每个人都构建了关系另一方的意象，而这些意象之间形成了关系，而不是人本身之间形成了关系。妻子对丈夫形成了意象 －－ 也许不是有意识形成的，但确实存在 －－ 丈夫对妻子也形成了意象。人们对自己的国家形成了意象，对自己也是，我们总是通过累积，不断地巩固这些意象。正是这些意象之间有了关系。而当意象形成时，人与人之间真正的关系就完全结束了。
Relationship based on these images can obviously never bring about peace in the relationship because the images are fictitious and one cannot live in an abstraction. And yet that is what we are all doing: living in ideas, in theories, in symbols, in images which we have created about ourselves and others and which are not realities at all. All our relationships, whether they be with property, ideas or people, are based essentially on this image-forming, and hence there is always conflict.
基于这些意象的关系显然不能带来关系中的和平，因为意象是虚假的，人不能活在抽象中。但这却是我们都在做的：活在观念中，理论中，符号中，以及我们对自己和他人构建的、完全不是事实的意象中。我们所有的关系，不管是跟财产、观念、还是人的关系，都在根本上基于这个意象的形成，因而总是存在冲突。
How is it possible then to be completely at peace within ourselves and in all our relationships with others? After all, life is a movement in relationship, otherwise there is no life at all, and if that life is based on an abstraction, an idea, or a speculative assumption, then such abstract living must inevitably bring about a relationship which becomes a battlefield. So is it at all possible for man to live a completely orderly inward life without any form of compulsion, imitation, suppression or sublimation? Can he bring about such order within himself that it is a living quality not held within the framework of ideas - an inward tranquillity which knows no disturbance at any moment - not in some fantastic mythical abstract world but in the daily life of the home and the office?
那么，怎样才有可能在我们跟自己和跟他人的所有关系中完全处于和平呢？毕竟，生活是在关系中的活动，否则就完全没有生活，而如果生活是基于抽象、观念、或推测出来的假设的话，那么这样的抽象生活必然不可避免地要造成冲突不断的关系。故人到底有无可能使内在生活完全有秩序，而没有任何形式的强迫、模仿、压抑或升华？他能否让内心有秩序，不是一种由观念的框架构成的生活品质，而是一种任何时刻都没有困扰的内在平静，不在幻想的神秘抽象世界中，而是在家庭、办公室的日常生活中（有秩序）？
I think we should go into this question very carefully because there is not one spot in our consciousness untouched by conflict. In all our relationships, whether with the most intimate person or with a neighbour or with society, this conflict exists - conflict being contradiction, a state of division, separation, a duality. Observing ourselves and our relationships to society we see that at all levels of our being there is conflict - minor or major conflict which brings about very superficial responses or devastating results.
我认为我们应该非常仔细地深入这个问题，因为我们的意识中没有哪个点是不被冲突影响的。在我们所有的关系中，不管是跟最亲近人的关系还是跟邻居或社会的关系，这种冲突都存在 －－ 冲突就是矛盾，就是分化（division）、分开（seperation）的状态，就是二元性。通过观察我们自己，观察我们跟社会的关系，我们看到，在我们存在的所有层面上都有冲突 －－ 大大小小的冲突，这些冲突造成了非常肤浅的反应，或毁灭性的结果。
Man has accepted conflict as an innate part of daily existence because he has accepted competition, jealousy, greed, acquisitiveness and aggression as a natural way of life. When we accept such a way of life we accept the structure of society as it is and live within the pattern of respectability. And that is what most of us are caught in because most of us want to be terribly respectable. When we examine our own minds and hearts, the way we think, the way we feel and how we act in our daily lives, we observe that as long as we conform to the pattern of society, life must be a battlefield. If we do not accept it - and no religious person can possibly accept such a society - then we will be completely free from the psychological structure of society.
人们已经接受了冲突，作为每日存在固有的一部分，因为，他们已经接受了竞争、妒忌、贪婪、占有和侵略，作为生活的自然方式。当我们接受了这样的生活方式的时候，我们就接受了现在这种社会结构，并生活在这种“体面”的模式中。而这就是我们大多数人陷入其中的地方，因为我们大多数人都想要非常体面。当我们检视我们的思想和内心，我们思考的方式，我们感觉的方式和我们在日常生活中如何行动，我们就会观察到，只要我们遵从社会的模式，生活必然成为战场。如果我们不接受它 －－ 没有哪个“宗教人士”（religious people）能接受这样的社会 －－ 那么我们就会完全不受社会心理结构的影响了。
Most of us are rich with the things of society. What society has created in us and what we have created in ourselves, are greed, envy, anger, hate, jealousy, anxiety - and with all these we are very rich. The various religions throughout the world have preached poverty. The monk assumes a robe, changes his name, shaves his head, enters a cell and takes a vow of poverty and chastity; in the East he has one loin cloth, one robe, one meal a day - and we all respect such poverty. But those men who have assumed the robe of poverty are still inwardly, psychologically, rich with the things of society because they are still seeking position and prestige; they belong to this order or that order, this religion or that religion; they still live in the divisions of a culture, a tradition. That is not poverty. poverty is to be completely free of society, though one may have a few more clothes, a few more meals - good God, who cares? But unfortunately in most people there is this urge for exhibitionism.
我们大多数人都富于社会的东西。社会在我们身上、我们也在自己身上创造了贪婪、羡慕、愤怒、憎恨、妒忌、焦虑 －－ 我们正是“富于”所有这些东西。纵观世界各种宗教都宣扬清贫。僧侣穿上长袍、改名换姓、削发剃度、斗室简居、立誓清贫和纯洁；在东方，一根腰布、一袭长袍、一日一餐 －－ 我们都尊敬这样的清贫。但那些穿上清贫外衣的人，内心里、心理上，仍然“富于”社会的东西，因为他们仍然在追逐地位和名望；他们属于这个阶层或那个阶层，这个宗派或那个宗派；他们仍然生活在文化及传统的分化中。那不是清贫。清贫是完全不受社会的影响，就算一个人可能多穿点衣服、多吃点饭 －－ 上帝啊，谁在乎呢？但不幸的是，大多数人都急于（通过这些）来表现自己。
Poverty becomes a marvellously beautiful thing when the mind is free of society. One must become poor inwardly for then there is no seeking, no asking, no desire, no - nothing! It is only this inward poverty that can see the truth of a life in which there is no conflict at all. Such a life is a benediction not to be found in any church or any temple.
当心智不受社会的影响时，清贫才成为极为美丽的东西。人必须内在变得清贫，因为那时就会没有追逐，没有寻求、没有欲望 －－ 什么也没有！唯有这种内在的清贫能够看到生活的真相，这种真相里完全没有冲突。这种生活，是在任何教堂或寺庙中都找不到的一种恩赐。
How is it possible then to free ourselves from the psychological structure of society, which is to free ourselves from the essence of conflict? It is not difficult to trim and lop off certain branches of conflict, but we are asking ourselves whether it is possible to live in complete inward and therefore outward tranquillity? Which does not mean that we shall vegetate or stagnate. On the contrary, we shall become dynamic, vital, full of energy.
那么怎样能让我们不受社会心理结构的影响，也就是说，不受冲突的本质的影响呢？修剪或砍掉一些冲突的分支不是很难，但我们在问自己的是，可不可能生活在完全的内在的从而外在的平静（tranquility）中呢？那不意味着我们应该无所事事和停滞不前。相反，我们应该变得活泼、有生机、充满能量。
To understand and to be free of any problem we need a great deal of passionate and sustained energy, not only physical and intellectual energy but an energy that is not dependent on any motive, any psychological stimulus or drug. If we are dependent on any stimulus that very stimulus makes the mind dull and insensitive. By taking some form of drug we may find enough energy temporarily to see things very clearly but we revert to our former state and therefore become dependent on that drug more and more. So all stimulation, whether of the church or of alcohol or of drugs or of the written or spoken word, will inevitably bring about dependence, and that dependence prevents us from seeing clearly for ourselves and therefore from having vital energy.
要理解任何的问题并不受其影响，我们需要大量的激情和持久的能量，不仅仅是身体上的和智性上的能量，还要有一种不依赖于任何动机、任何心理刺激或药品的能量。如果我们依赖于任何刺激，那么这种刺激就会让大脑迟钝和不敏感。通过服用任何形式的药品，我们也许能够短暂地获得足以看清事物的能量，但是我们会回退到之前的状态，因而变得越来越依赖于药品。所以，任何的刺激，不管是教堂、酒精、药品还是书面或口头的语言，都不可避免地造成依赖，而这种依赖妨碍了我们看清我们自己，因而妨碍了我们拥有生命的能量。
We all unfortunately depend psychologically on something. Why do we depend? Why is there this urge to depend? We are taking this journey together; you are not waiting for me to tell you the causes of your dependence. If we enquire together we will both discover and therefore that discovery will be your own, and hence, being yours, it will give you vitality.
不幸的是我们在心理上都有依赖。我们为什么依赖呢？这种要依赖的紧迫感为什么会存在呢？我们在一起继续这个旅程（研究这个问题）；你不是在等待我告诉你你依赖的导因。如果我们一起探求，我们彼此都会发现，这个发现因而就成为你自己的，因为它是你的，就会给你活力。
I discover for myself that I depend on something - an audience, say, which will stimulate me. I derive from that audience, from addressing a large group of people, a kind of energy. And therefore I depend on that audience, on those people, whether they agree or disagree. The more they disagree the more vitality they give me. If they agree it becomes a very shallow, empty thing. So I discover that I need an audience because it is a very stimulating thing to address people. Now why? Why do I depend? Because in myself I am shallow, in myself I have nothing, in myself I have no source which is always full and rich, vital, moving, living. So I depend. I have discovered the cause.
我发现自己依赖于某种东西 －－ 比如，听众，听众能刺激我。我通过听众，通过向一大群人演说，获得一种能量。因而我依赖于听众，依赖于这些人，不管他们同意还是不同意。他们越不同意，就给予我越多的活力。如果他们同意，就变成了一件肤浅、空虚的事情。故我发现我需要听众，因为向人群演说是一件刺激的事情。那么，为什么？我为什么依赖？因为我内在肤浅、内在一无所有、内在没有一个总是充盈富足、有活力、运动着的、活着的源泉。故我依赖。我发现了其导因。
But will the discovery of the cause free me from being dependent? The discovery of the cause is merely intellectual, so obviously it does not free the mind from its dependency. The mere intellectual acceptance of an idea, or the emotional acquiescence in an ideology, cannot free the mind from being dependent on something which will give it stimulation. What frees the mind from dependence is seeing the whole structure and nature of stimulation and dependence and how that dependence makes the mind stupid, dull and inactive. Seeing the totality of it alone frees the mind.
但是发现导因会让我摆脱依赖吗？发现导因只是理性上的，显然不会让心智摆脱依赖。仅仅在理性上接受一个观念，或者在情感上默许一种意识形态，不能让心智摆脱那给其刺激的依赖物。让心智摆脱依赖的是，看到刺激和依赖整个结构和本质，以及依赖如何让心智变得愚蠢、迟钝和懈怠。只有看到整体才能让心智解脱。
So I must enquire into what it means to see totally. As long as I am looking at life from a particular point of view or from a particular experience I have cherished, or from some particular knowledge I have gathered, which is my background, which is the 'me', I cannot totally. I have discovered intellectually, verbally, through analysis, the cause of my dependence, but whatever thought investigates must inevitably be fragmentary, so I can see the totality of something only when thought does not interfere.
故我必须追问下去，看到整体是什么意思。只要我在从一种我持有的特定的视角或经验，或者从我收集的某些特定的知识 －－ 即我的背景，即“我”（the 'me'） －－ 来看生活，我就不能看到整体（全然地看）。我已经发现了依赖的导因，从理智上、从语言上、通过分析，但是不管思想在探究什么，不可避免地一定是片段化的，故只有在思想不干预的时候，我才能看到事物的整体。
Then I see the fact of my dependence; I see actually what is. I see it without any like or dislike; I do not want to get rid of that dependence or to be free from the cause of it. I observe it, and when there is observation of this kind I see the whole picture, not a fragment of the picture, and when the mind sees the whole picture there is freedom. Now I have discovered that there is a dissipation of energy when there is fragmentation. I have found the very source of the dissipation of energy.
此时我看到了我依赖的事实；我真切地看到了。我看它，不喜欢也不厌恶；我不想摆脱依赖，也不想摆脱依赖的导因。我观察它，当有这种观察的时候，我看到了整幅画面，不是其中的一个片段。当心智看到整幅画面的时候，就有自由。现在我发现，当片段化的时候就有能量的损耗。我发现了真正损耗能量的所在。
You may think there is no waste of energy if you imitate, if you accept authority, if you depend on the priest, the ritual, the dogma, the party or on some ideology, but the following and acceptance of an ideology, whether it is good or bad, whether it is holy or unholy, is a fragmentary activity and therefore a cause of conflict, and conflict will inevitably arise so long as there is a division between `what should be' and `what is', and any conflict is a dissipation of energy.
你可能认为如果你模仿、如果你接受权威、如果你依赖于牧师、仪式、教条、团体或某些意识形态，就不会有能量的浪费。但是跟随和接受一种意识形态，不管它是好的还是坏的，不管它是神圣的还是邪恶的，都是一种片段化的活动，因而是冲突的一个导因，而只要在“应然”（what should be）和“实然”（what is）之间有分化，冲突就不可避免地会发生。任何冲突都是一种能量的损耗。
If you put the question to yourself, `How am I to be free from conflict?', you are creating another problem and hence you are increasing conflict, whereas if you just see it as a fact - see it as you would see some concrete object - clearly, directly - then you will understand essentially the truth of a life in which there is no conflict at all.
如果你拿“我如何才能从冲突中解脱”这个问题问自己，你就在创造另一个问题，因而你又增加了冲突，然而如果你只是把它当做事实来看 －－ 就好像对某个具体的物体那样来看 －－ 清晰地，直接地 －－ 你就会从本质上理解生命的真相，在这真相中完全没有冲突。
Let us put it another way. We are always comparing what we are with what we should be. The should-be is a projection of what we think we ought to be. Contradiction exists when there is comparison, not only with something or somebody, but with what you were yesterday, and hence there is conflict between what has been and what is. There is what is only when there is no comparison at all, and to live with what is, is to be peaceful. Then you can give your whole attention without any distraction to what is within yourself - whether it be despair, ugliness, brutality, fear, anxiety, loneliness - and live with it completely; then there is no contradiction and hence no conflict.
让我们换种方式来说。我们总是在比较实然和应然。应然是一种我们认为我们应该是什么样子的投射（projection）。当有比较的时候，矛盾就存在，不仅仅是与某物或某人的矛盾，还有与你昨天是什么样子的矛盾，因而在已然（what has been）和实然之间就有冲突。仅当完全没有比较的时候，才有实然，而要与实然共处，就是要处于平和。那么你就可以毫不分心地将你的全部注意力放在你的内在的实然上 －－ 不管这实然是绝望、丑陋、残忍、恐惧、焦虑还是孤独 －－ 完全地与之共处；此时，就没有了矛盾，因而也没有了冲突。
But all the time we are comparing ourselves - with those who are richer or more brilliant, more intellectual, more affectionate, more famous, more this and more that. The `more' plays an extraordinarily important part in our lives; this measuring ourselves all the time against something or someone is one of the primary causes of conflict.
但是我们随时都在比较我们自己 －－ 与更富有的人、更聪明的人、更理性的人、更感性的人、更出名的人，更这样或更那样的人比较。“更”在我们的生活中扮演着极为重要的角色；这种随时将我们与某物或某人进行的度量，就是冲突的一个主要导因。
Now why is there any comparison at all? Why do you compare yourself with another? This comparison has been taught from childhood. In every school A is compared with B, and A destroys himself in order to be like B. When you do not compare at all, when there is no ideal, no opposite, no factor of duality, when you no longer struggle to be different from what you are - what has happened to your mind? Your mind has ceased to create the opposite and has become highly intelligent, highly sensitive, capable of immense passion, because effort is a dissipation of passion - passion which is vital energy - and you cannot do anything without passion.
那么到底为什么会有比较呢？你为什么会拿自己与别人比较？这种比较是从儿时被教育的。在每个学校中，A都会被与B相比，而A为了跟B一样，他毁灭了自己。当你完全不比较的时候，当没有理想、没有对立面、没有二元要素，当你不再挣扎着要与你的本来样子不同 －－ 你的心智会发生什么？你的心智不再创造对立面了，变得高度理性、高度敏感、拥有巨大的激情，因为努力是对激情的一种消耗 －－ 激情就是生命力 －－ 而没有激情你什么也做不了。
If you do not compare yourself with another you will be what you are. Through comparison you hope to evolve, to grow, to become more intelligent, more beautiful. But will you? The fact is what you are, and by comparing you are fragmenting the fact which is a waste of energy. To see what you actually are without any comparison gives you tremendous energy to look. When you can look at yourself without comparison you are beyond comparison, which does not mean that the mind is stagnant with contentment. So we see in essence how the mind wastes energy which is so necessary to understand the totality of life.
如果你不与别人比较，你就成为了你的本来样子。通过比较，你希望进化、成长，变得更理性、更美丽。但是会吗？事实是你的本来样子，而通过比较你片段化了事实，这就是能量的浪费。通过没有比较地看到你真正的样子，给了你巨大的能量去看。当你没有比较地看你自己的时候，你超越了比较，但这并不意味着心智因满足而停滞了。故你从根本上看到了心智是如何浪费能量的，这一点对于理解生活的整体十分必要。
I don't want to know with whom I am in conflict; I don't want to know the peripheral conflicts of my being. What I want to know is why conflict should exist at all. When I put that question to myself I see a fundamental issue which has nothing to do with peripheral conflicts and their solutions. I am concerned with the central issue and I see - perhaps you see also? - that the very nature of desire, if not properly understood, must inevitably lead to conflict. Desire is always in contradiction. I desire contradictory things - which doesn't mean that I must destroy desire, suppress, control or sublimate it - I simply see that desire itself is contradictory. It is not the objects of desire but the very nature of desire which is contradictory. And I have to understand the nature of desire before I can understand conflict. In ourselves we are in a state of contradiction, and that state of contradiction is brought about by desire - desire being the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, which we have already been into.
我不想知道我与谁有冲突；我不想知道我存在的外围冲突。我想知道的是冲突为什么会存在。当我拿这个问题问我自己的时候，我看到一个基本问题，这个问题与外围的冲突及其解决毫无关系。我关心的是核心的问题，而我看到 －－ 可能你也看到了？ －－ 我看到欲望的真正本质，如果没有正确地理解，必然不可避免地导致冲突。欲望总是矛盾的。我对矛盾的事物有欲望 －－ 这我并不意味着我必须摧毁、压抑、控制或升华欲望 －－ 我只是看到欲望本身是矛盾的。矛盾的不是欲望的对象，而是欲望的本质。而在我能够理解冲突之前，我得理解欲望的本质。我们的内在是矛盾的状态，而这个矛盾的状态是欲望造成的 －－ 欲望是对快乐的追求和对痛苦的逃避，这一点我们已经研究过了。
So we see desire as the root of all contradiction - wanting something and not wanting it - a dual activity. When we do something pleasurable there is no effort involved at all, is there? But pleasure brings pain and then there is a struggle to avoid the pain, and that again is a dissipation of energy. Why do we have duality at all? There is, of course, duality in nature - man and woman, light and shade, night and day - but inwardly, psychologically, why do we have duality? Please think this out with me, don't wait for me to tell you. You have to exercise your own mind to find out. My words are merely a mirror in which to observe yourself. Why do we have this psychological duality? Is it that we have been brought up always to compare `what is' with `what should be'? We have been conditioned in what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is moral and what is immoral. Has this duality come into being because we believe that thinking about the opposite of violence, the opposite of envy, of jealousy, of meanness, will help us to get rid of those things? Do we use the opposite as a lever to get rid of what is? Or is it an escape from the actual?
故我们看到了欲望是所有矛盾的根源 －－ 想要某物和（同时）不想要它 －－ 一个两面的活动。当我们做某种令我们快乐的事情的时候，其中完全没有努力，是不是？但是快乐带来了痛苦，然后就有了避免痛苦的挣扎，而这又一次变成了能量的消耗。我们到底为什么有二元性呢？当然，在自然中存在二元性 －－ 男人和女人、光明和阴暗、黑夜和白天 －－ 但是内在的、心理上，我们为什么会有二元性呢？请跟我一起想清楚这个问题，不要等待我告诉你。你必须练习你的心智来弄清楚。我的话只是一面镜子，你从中可以观察你自己。我们为什么有这种心理的二元性呢？是不是我们从小就总是被教育把实然和应然相比较？我们被限制在什么是对的和什么是错的、什么是好的什么是坏的、什么是道德的什么是不道德的之中了。这种二元性是否因为我们相信，只要考虑暴力的对立面、羡慕的对立面、妒忌的对立面、自私的对立面，就能帮助我们摆脱这些东西？我们是否在使用对立面作为杠杆（手段）来摆脱实然？或者是否是对现实的逃避？
Do you use the opposite as a means of avoiding the actual which you don't know how to deal with? Or is it because you have been told by thousands of years of propaganda that you must have an ideal - the opposite of `what is' - in order to cope with the present? When you have an ideal you think it helps you to get rid of `what is', but it never does. You may preach non-violence for the rest of your life and all the time be sowing the seeds of violence.
你是否使用对立面作为一种手段来避免那些你不知如何处理的现实？或者是否因为你曾被几千年来的宣传告知，为了应对眼下，你必须有一种理想 －－ 实然的对立面？当你有了理想，你就认为它会帮助你摆脱实然，但事实上它办不到。你或许下半辈子都在宣扬非暴力，而实际上只是在播种暴力的种子。
You have a concept of what you should be and how you should act, and all the time you are in fact acting quite differently; so you see that principles, beliefs and ideals must inevitably lead to hypocrisy and a dishonest life. It is the ideal that creates the opposite to what is, so if you know how to be with `what is', then the opposite is not necessary.
你拥有对于应然和应为（how you should act）的概念，而事实上你做的却相当不同；故你看到，原则、信仰、理想都不可避免地必然导致伪善和不诚实的生活。正是理想，创造了实然的对立面，故如果你知道如何与实然共处，实然的对立面就不是必要的了。
Trying to become like somebody else, or like your ideal, is one of the main causes of contradiction, confusion conflict. A mind that is confused, whatever it does, at any level, will remain confused; any action born of confusion leads to further confusion. I see this very clearly; I see it as clearly as I see an immediate physical danger. So what happens? I cease to act in terms of confusion any more. Therefore inaction is complete action.
试图变得像其他人，或者像你的理想，是矛盾和困惑冲突的一个主要导因。困惑的心智，不管做什么、在任何层次，都仍然困惑；由困惑而生的任何行动都导致了进一步的困惑。这一点我看得非常清楚；就像看到直接的身体危险一样清楚。那么发生了什么？我不再出于困惑而行动了。因而不行动（inaction）就是完整的行动。
None of the agonies of suppression, nor the brutal discipline of conforming to a pattern has led to truth. To come upon truth the mind must be completely free, without a spot of distortion.
那些痛苦地压抑自己的方式，都不能导向真理；那些服从某一模式的残暴纪律，也无法导向真理。要偶遇真理，心灵必须完全自由，没有任何的扭曲。
But first let us ask ourselves if we really want to be free? When we talk of freedom are we talking of complete freedom or of freedom from some inconvenient or unpleasant or undesirable thing? We would like to be free from painful and ugly memories and unhappy experiences but keep our pleasurable, satisfying ideologies, formulas and relationships. But to keep the one without the other is impossible, for, as we have seen, pleasure is inseparable from pain.
但首先让我们自问，我们是否真的想要自由？当我们谈及自由的时候，我们讨论的是完全的自由，还是从某种不便、不悦或不合期望的事情中解脱的自由？我们想要摆脱痛苦丑陋的回忆、不快的体验但仍然保持我们令人愉悦、令人满足的意识形态、准则和关系。但是要保持一者而不要另一者是不可能的，因为，就如我们已经看到的，快乐与痛苦是不可分割的。
So it is for each one of us to decide whether or not we want to be completely free. If we say we do, then we must understand the nature and structure of freedom.
故，我们每个人都要做出抉择，是否想要完全地自由。如果我们说我们要，那么我们必须理解自由的本质和结构。
Is it freedom when you are free from something - free from pain, free from some kind of anxiety? Or is freedom itself something entirely different? You can be free from jealousy, say, but isn't that freedom a reaction and therefore not freedom at all? You can be free from dogma very easily, by analysing it, by kicking it out, but the motive for that freedom from dogma has its own reaction because the desire to be free from a dogma may be that it is no longer fashionable or convenient. Or you can be free from nationalism because you believe in internationalism or because you feel it is no longer economically necessary to cling to this silly nationalistic dogma with its flag and all that rubbish. You can easily put that away. Or you may react against some spiritual or political leader who has promised you freedom as a result of discipline or revolt. But has such rationalism, such logical conclusion, anything to do with freedom?
当你摆脱某种东西 －－ 摆脱痛苦、摆脱某种焦虑 －－ 的时候，那是自由吗？还是说，自由本身是一种完全不同的东西？你能摆脱妒忌（例如），但这种自由难道不是一种反应，因而完全不是自由吗？你能够非常轻易地摆脱教条，通过分析它、将它踢开，但是这种摆脱教条的动机有其自己的反应，因为摆脱教条的欲望可能使这教条不再时髦或方便了。或者，你摆脱了民族主义，是因为你信仰了国际主义，或者是因为你感觉到墨守着民族主义愚蠢的教条、墨守着国旗和所有那些（类似的）垃圾，在经济上不再具有必要性了。你很容易就会这样想。或者你可能反对某些精神或政治领袖，因为他们曾承诺你，纪律或反抗会带来自由。但是这种理性主义（rationalism，跟国家主义一样也是一种主义‘-ism’，译者注），这种逻辑上的结论，跟自由又有什么关系呢？
If you say you are free from something, it is a reaction which will then become another reaction which will bring about another conformity, another form of domination. In this way you can have a chain of reactions and accept each reaction as freedom. But it is not freedom; it is merely a continuity of a modified past which the mind clings to.
如果你说你摆脱了某物，这是种反应，这种反应会继而变为另一种反应，后者会带来另一种服从，另一种形式的控制。以这种方式继续下去的话，你就会形成一个反应的链条，并且接受链条上每一种反应，把它们都当做是自由。但是，这不是自由；这仅仅是心智所墨守的、对于修正后的过去的一种延续。
The youth of today, like all youth, are in revolt against society, and that is a good thing in itself, but revolt is not freedom because when you revolt it is a reaction and that reaction sets up its own pattern and you get caught in that pattern. You think it is something new. it is not; it is the old in a different mould. Any social or political revolt will inevitably revert to the good old bourgeois mentality.
今日的年轻人，就像（以往任何时候）所有的年轻人一样，都反抗社会，而这本身是一件好事。但是反抗不是自由，因为当你反抗的时候，这其实是一种反应，而反应设立了其自身的模式，而你陷入了这种模式中。你认为（反抗）是新的东西。但它不是；它是新瓶装旧水。任何社会或政治的反抗都不可避免地会回退到旧有的中产阶级心态中。
Freedom comes only when you see and act, never through revolt. The seeing is the acting and such action is as instantaneous as when you see danger. Then there is no cerebration, no discussion or hesitation; the danger itself compels the act, and therefore to see is to act and to be free.
自由从来不是通过反抗得来，而只有当你看到和行动的时候才有。看到即是行动，而这种行动是即时（instantaneous）的，就像当你看到危险时一样。这样就没有思维活动，没有讨论和迟疑；危险自身迫使了行动发生，因而看到就是行动就是自由。
Freedom is a state of mind - not freedom from something but a sense of freedom, a freedom to doubt and question everything and therefore so intense, active and vigorous that it throws away every form of dependence, slavery, conformity and acceptance. Such freedom implies being completely alone. But can the mind brought up in a culture so dependent on environment and its own tendencies ever find that freedom which is complete solitude and in which there is no leadership, no tradition and no authority?
自由是一种心智的状态 －－ 不是从某物中解脱的自由，也不是一种自由的感觉 －－ 而是怀疑和询问每件东西的自由，因而这种自由强烈、活跃、有活力，使得这种自由扔掉了依赖、奴役、服从和接受的每种形式。这种自由意味着完全的孤独。但是从一种文化中长大的心智，如此依赖于环境和它自身的倾向，到底能否找到这种自由、这种完全的孤独、没有任何关系、传统和权威的孤独呢？
This solitude is an inward state of mind which is not dependent on any stimulus or any knowledge and is not the result of any experience or conclusion. Most of us, inwardly, are never alone. There is a difference between isolation, cutting oneself off, and aloneness, solitude. We all know what it is to be isolated - building a wall around oneself in order never to be hurt, never to be vulnerable, or cultivating detachment which is another form of agony, or living in some dreamy ivory tower of ideology. Aloneness is something quite different.
这种孤独是一种内在的心智状态，它不依赖于任何刺激或者任何知识，也不是任何经验或结论的结果。我们大多数人的内在从没有孤独过。这里说的孤独和孤独感，跟孤立和与世隔绝不同。我们都知道孤立是什么 －－ 在自身周围树立围墙以防自己被伤害、被攻击，或培养另一种痛苦的形式 －－ 冷漠，或者生活在幻想出来的意识形态的象牙塔中。孤独感是（与孤立）大不相同的一种东西。
You are never alone because you are full of all the memories, all the conditioning, all the mutterings of yesterday; your mind is never clear of all the rubbish it has accumulated. To be alone you must die to the past. When you are alone, totally alone, not belonging to any family, any nation, any culture, any particular continent, there is that sense of being an outsider. The man who is completely alone in this way is innocent and it is this innocency that frees the mind from sorrow.
你从没有孤独过，因为你满是记忆、满是限制、满是昨日的呢喃；你的心智从未清除它所积累的所有这些垃圾。要孤独，你必须与过去诀别（die to the past）。当你孤独、完全孤独的时候，不属于任何家庭、任何国家、任何文化、任何特定的大陆，就有一种是一个局外人（being an outsider）的感觉。像这样的完全孤独的人是无知的，正是他的无知，让他的心智摆脱了悲伤。
We carry about with us the burden of what thousands of people have said and the memories of all our misfortunes. To abandon all that totally is to be alone, and the mind that is alone is not only innocent but young - not in time or age, but young, innocent, alive at whatever age - and only such a mind can see that which is truth and that which is not measurable by words.
我们随身背负着千万人的言论及我们所有不幸回忆的重担。要完整地抛弃所有这些东西，就是要孤独，而孤独的心智不仅是无知的也是年轻的 －－ 不是在时间和年龄意义上的年轻，而是不管什么年龄都一样年轻、无知、活泼 －－ 而唯有这样的心智才能看到真相，才能看到语言无法度量的东西。
In this solitude you will begin to understand the necessity of living with yourself as you are, not as you think you should be or as you have been. See if you can look at yourself without any tremor, any false modesty, any fear, any justification or condemnation - just live with yourself as you actually are. It is only when you live with something intimately that you begin to understand it. But the moment you get used to it - get used to your own anxiety or envy or whatever it is - you are no longer living with it. If you live by a river, after a few days you do not hear the sound of the water any more, or if you have a picture in the room which you see every day you lose it after a week. It is the same with the mountains, the valleys, the trees - the same with your family, your husband, your wife. But to live with something like jealousy, envy or anxiety you must never get used to it, never accept it. You must care for it as you would care for a newly planted tree, protect it against the sun, against the storm. You must care for it, not condemn it or justify it. Therefore you begin to love it. When you care for it, you are beginning to love it. It is not that you love being envious or anxious, as so many people do, but rather that you care for watching.
在这种孤独中，你会开始理解以本来样子与自己相处的必要性，而不是以你认为自己应是的样子或你曾经的样子。看看你是否能够在看自己的时候，毫无战栗、毫无虚假的谦虚、毫无恐惧、毫无辩解或谴责 －－ 只是与自己真实的样子相处。唯有当你亲密地与某物相处的时候，你才能开始理解它。但是一旦你习惯了它 －－ 习惯了你自己的焦虑或羡慕或不管是什么 －－ 你就不再能与之相处了。如果你生活在河边，一些日子之后你就再也听不到水声了。或者你在房间里有一幅画，每天都能看到它，一个星期以后你就不再注意到它了。对高山、河谷、树木也一样 －－ 对你的家庭、你的丈夫、你的妻子也一样。但是要与某些东西如妒忌、羡慕或焦虑相处，你必须永远不习惯于它们，永远不接受它们。你必须照顾它们，就像你照顾一棵新栽的树，保护它不要被日光曝晒，不要被风暴吹垮。你必须照顾它们，不要谴责也不要为其辩解。因而你开始喜欢它们。当你照顾它们的时候，你就开始喜欢它们。这不是说要你喜欢上嫉妒和焦虑，就像许多人做的那样，而是要照顾你对它们的观察（watching）。
So can you - can you and I - live with what we actually are, knowing ourselves to be dull, envious, fearful, believing we have tremendous affection when we have not, getting easily hurt, easily flattered and bored - can we live with all that, neither accepting it nor denying it, but just observing it without becoming morbid, depressed or elated?
故你们 －－ 你和我 －－ 我们能否与我们实际的样子相处，了解我们自己是这样的人，迟钝、嫉妒、恐惧、相信我们有丰富的情感而实际上没有，容易受伤害、容易被奉承、容易厌倦 －－ 我们能否与所有这些共处，既不接受它也不否定它，而只是观察它，不变得病态、压抑，也不得意洋洋？
Now let us ask ourselves a further question. Is this freedom, this solitude, this coming into contact with the whole structure of what we are in ourselves - is it to be come upon through time? That is, is freedom to be achieved through a gradual process? Obviously not, because as soon as you introduce time you are enslaving yourself more and more. You cannot become free gradually. It is not a matter of time.
现在让我们问自己一个更深入的问题。这种自由，这种孤独，这种与我们整个内在结构的接触 －－ 是否要经由时间才能偶遇？也就是说，这种自由是否要经由一个逐渐的过程才能达成？显然不是，因为只要你引入了时间，你就越来越在奴役你自己。你不能逐渐地变自由。这不是一个时间的问题。
The next question is, can you become conscious of that freedom? If you say, 'I am free', then you are not free. It is like a man saying,`I am happy'. The moment he says, `I am happy' he is living in a memory of something that has gone. Freedom can only come about naturally, not through wishing, wanting, longing. Nor will you find it by creating an image of what you think it is. To come upon it the mind has to learn to look at life, which is a vast movement, without the bondage of time, for freedom lies beyond the field of consciousness.
下一个问题是，你能否逐渐意识到那种自由？如果你说，“我自由了”，那么你还没有自由。这就像一个人说，“我很开心”。当他说“我很开心”的那一刻，他就生活在对某个已经逝去的事物的一种记忆中。自由只能自然地发生，不是通过愿望、想要和渴求。通过创造一种你认为自由是什么样子的意象，你也不能发现自由。要偶遇自由，你的心智得要学习看生活，这是一个广泛的活动，没有时间的束缚，因为自由的所在超越了意识的领域。
I am tempted to repeat a story about a great disciple going to God and demanding to be taught truth. This poor God says, `My friend, it is such a hot day, please get me a glass of water.' So the disciple goes out and knocks on the door of the first house he comes to and a beautiful young lady opens the door. The disciple falls in love with her and they marry and have several children. Then one day it begins to rain, and keeps on raining, raining, raining - the torrents are swollen, the streets are full, the houses are being washed away. The disciple holds on to his wife and carries his children on his shoulders and as he is being swept away he calls out, 'Lord, please save me', and the Lord says, `Where is that glass of water I asked for?'
我忍不住要重复一个故事，是关于一个伟大的信徒去上帝那里要求上帝教他真理。可怜的上帝说，“我的朋友，今天好热，请给我一杯水。”信徒出去找水，敲开第一家的门，开门的是一个年轻漂亮的女士。信徒与她坠入了爱河，结了婚，生了好几个娃。后来又一天开始下雨了，持续地下、下、下 －－ 洪流淹没了街道，房子被冲走了。信徒抓住他的妻子，怀抱着他的孩子，眼看就要被大水冲走的时候他大喊，“主啊，救救我”，主回答说，“我要的那杯水呢？”
It is rather a good story because most of us think in terms of time. Man lives by time. Inventing the future has been a favourite game of escape.
这真是一个好故事，因为我们大多数人以时间的方式思考。人靠时间生活。发明未来成了人最喜爱的逃避方式。
We think that changes in ourselves can come about in time, that order in ourselves can be built up little by little, added to day by day. But time doesn't bring order or peace, so we must stop thinking in terms of gradualness. This means that there is no tomorrow for us to be peaceful in. We have to be orderly on the instant.
我们认为，未来我们自己会有所改变，我们自身的那种秩序会一点一滴地增长，一天一天地积累。但是时间不会带来秩序，也不会带来和平，故我们必须停止用这种“逐渐”的方式思考。这意味着对我们来说，没有一种我们能够和平地生活于其中的“明天”。我们必须立即变得有秩序。
When there is real danger time disappears, doesn't it? There is immediate action. But we do not see the danger of many of our problems and therefore we invent time as a means of overcoming them. Time is a deceiver as it doesn't do a thing to help us bring about a change in ourselves. Time is a movement which man has divided into past, present and future, and as long as he divides it he will always be in conflict.
当遇到真正的危险时，时间就消失了，不是吗？这就是立即的（immediate）行动。但是，我们没有看到我们许多问题的危险性，因而我们发明了时间，把它当做一种“克服”这些问题的手段。时间是个骗子，因为它不会做任何事情来帮助我们改变自己。人们把时间这个运动分割成过去、现在和未来，而只要他有这种分割，他就总是处于冲突中。
Is learning a matter of time? We have not learnt after all these thousands of years that there is a better way to live than by hating and killing each other. The problem of time is a very important one to understand if we are to resolve this life which we have helped to make as monstrous and meaningless as it is.
学习是个关于时间的东西吗？千万年以来，我们仍然没有学到一种比彼此仇恨和杀戮更好的生活方式。如果我们要解决我们参与其中的这种畸形的无意义的生活的话，这个时间的问题就是个非常重要的问题，需要我们去理解。
The first thing to understand is that we can look at time only with that freshness and innocency of mind which we have already been into. We are confused about our many problems and lost in that confusion. Now if one is lost in a wood, what is the first thing one does? One stops, doesn't one? One stops and looks round. But the more we are confused and lost in life the more we chase around, searching, asking, demanding, begging. So the first thing, if I may suggest it, is that you completely stop inwardly. And when you do stop inwardly, psychologically, your mind becomes very peaceful, very clear. Then you can really look at this question of time.
我们第一个要理解的东西就是我们只能以心智的那种我们曾讨论过的新鲜和纯洁来看时间。我们困惑于我们的许多问题，迷失在这困惑中。现在，如果人迷失在树林中，他首先要做的是什么？他会停下来，对不对？它会停下来四处看。但是在生活中，我们越困惑、月迷失，我们就越到处跑、搜寻、询问、要求、乞求。故第一件事，如果我可以建议的话，就是你在内心中完全停下来。当你的内心、心理上停下来的时候，你的心智就变得非常平静、非常清晰。那么你就可以真正地看这个时间的问题了。
Problems exist only in time, that is when we meet an issue incompletely. This incomplete coming together with the issue creates the problem. When we meet a challenge partially, fragmentarily, or try to escape from it - that is, when we meet it without complete attention - we bring about a problem. And the problem continues so long as we continue to give it incomplete attention, so long as we hope to solve it one of these days.
只有在时间中，问题（problem）才存在，此时，我们没有完全地面对一件事（issue）。这种不完全，跟这件事（issue）一起，制造了这个问题（problem）。当我们部分地（partially）、片段化地（fragmentarily）面对一个挑战，或者试图逃避它的时候 －－ 也即，当我们未以全部注意力（attention）面对它的时候 －－ 问题就来了。而只要我们继续这样给予它不完全的注意力，只要我们希望有一天能解决它，这个问题就会继续（存在）下去。
Do you know what time is? Not by the watch, not chronological time, but psychological time? It is the interval between idea and action. An idea is for self-protection obviously; it is the idea of being secure. Action is always immediate; it is not of the past or of the future; to act must always be in the present, but action is so dangerous, so uncertain, that we conform to an idea which we hope will give us a certain safety.
你知道时间是什么吗？不是表上的时间，不是年代表上的时间，而是心理上的时间？时间是观念（idea）和行动之间的间隔。这里的观念（idea）显然是说自我保护的观念；是要安全的观念。行动则总是立即的（immediate），既不属于过去也不属于未来；行动必然是当下的，但是（由于）行动非常危险、不确定，以至于我们服从于一种想法，我们寄希望于这种想法能带给我们一定程度的安全。
Do look at this in yourself. You have an idea of what is right or wrong, or an ideological concept about yourself and society, and according to that idea you are going to act. Therefore the action is in conformity with that idea, approximating to the idea, and hence there is always conflict. There is the idea, the interval and action. And in that interval is the whole field of time. That interval is essentially thought. When you think you will be happy tomorrow, then you have an image of yourself achieving a certain result in time. Thought, through observation, through desire, and the continuity of that desire sustained by further thought, says, `Tomorrow I shall be happy. Tomorrow I shall have success. Tomorrow the world will be a beautiful place.' So thought creates that interval which is time.
切实地在你内心中观察一下这一点。你对于你和社会中什么是对的、什么是错的怀有一种观念，或者说是一种意识形态的概念，而你准备根据这种观念来行动。因而，行动就与观念一致了，与观念接近了，因而总是存在冲突。（于是就）有了观念、间隔和行动（三者）。而这个间隔就是时间的完整领域。这个间隔的本质上是思想（thought）。当你认为你明天会幸福，那么你就对你自己最终达成某个特定的结果有了想象（image）。思想，经由观察、经由欲望、以及（经由）进一步的思想所维持的欲望的延续性，说，“明天我会开心。明天我会成功。明天世界会是个美丽的地方。”故思想创造了（观念和行动之间的）间隔，即时间。
Now we are asking, can we put a stop to time? Can we live so completely that there is no tomorrow for thought to think about? Because time is sorrow. That is, yesterday or a thousand yesterday's ago, you loved, or you had a companion who has gone, and that memory remains and you are thinking about that pleasure and that pain - you are looking back, wishing, hoping, regretting, so thought, going over it again and again, breeds this thing we call sorrow and gives continuity to time.
我们现在要问，我们能否让时间停止？我们能否完整地生活，使得（生活中）没有一个“明天”以供思维（thought）来回想？因为，时间就是悲伤。也就是说，昨天或者一千个昨天之前，你爱过，或者你有过一个伴侣，他/她已故去，而记忆还延续着，你仍在回想那快乐或痛苦 －－ 你回顾着、希求着、企盼着、后悔着，故思维，将其一遍一遍地回顾，滋生了我们叫做悲伤的这个东西，让时间得以延续。
So long as there is this interval of time which has been bred by thought, there must be sorrow, there must be continuity of fear. So one asks oneself can this interval come to an end? If you say, `Will it ever end?', then it is already an idea, something you want to achieve, and therefore you have an interval and you are caught again.
只要还有这个思想滋生出来的时间的间隔，就一定会有悲伤、一定会有恐惧的延续。故人要问自己，这个间隔能否终结？如果你说，“它会终结吗”，那么这就已经是个想法，一种你想去达成的东西，因而你就有了间隔，而你又一次被困住了。
Now take the question of death which is an immense problem to most people. You know death, there it is walking every day by your side. Is it possible to meet it so completely that you do not make a problem of it at all? In order to meet it in such a way all belief, all hope, all fear about it must come to an end, otherwise you are meeting this extraordinary thing with a conclusion, an image, with a premeditated anxiety, and therefore you are meeting it with time.
以死亡的问题为例，对大多数人来说这是个大问题。你了解死亡，它每天就在你身边晃来晃去。是否可能完整地遇见死亡，使得死亡对你根本不算一个问题？为了以这样的方式遇见它，你得终结关于死亡的所有信仰、所有希望、所有恐惧，否则，你就是怀着结论、意象和有预谋的焦虑来遇见（死亡）这个非同寻常的东西，也就是与时间一起遇见死亡。
Time is the interval between the observer and the observed. That is, the observer, you, is afraid to meet this thing called death. You don't know what it means; you have all kinds of hopes and theories about it; you believe in reincarnation or resurrection, or in something called the soul, the atman, a spiritual entity which is timeless and which you call by different names. Now have you found out for yourself whether there is a soul? Or is it an idea that has been handed down to you? Is there something permanent, continuous, which is beyond thought? If thought can think about it, it is within the field of thought and therefore it cannot be permanent because there is nothing permanent within the field of thought. To discover that nothing is permanent is of tremendous importance for only then is the mind free, then you can look, and in that there is great joy.
时间就是在观者与所观之物的间隔。也就是说，观察者，你，害怕遇到这个叫做死亡的东西。你不知道这意味着什么；你有各种关于死亡的希望和理论；你相信转世或复活，或者相信某种叫做灵魂（soul）的东西，印度教里所说的灵魂（the atman），一个精神的实体，永恒的，你把它叫成不同的名字。现在你是否自己已经发觉是否有灵魂呢？或者是否这只是一个观念，口口相传到你这里？是否有某种永恒的、持续的、超越思想的东西呢？如果思想能够思考它，它就是在思想的范畴里，因而就不能永恒，因为在思想的范畴中没有永恒的东西。发现没有什么可以永恒这件事，具有极端的重要性，因为只有发现了这件事之后，心智才能自由，然后你才能看、在这种看中才有巨大的愉悦（joy）。
You cannot be frightened of the unknown because you do not know what the unknown is and so there is nothing to be frightened of. Death is a word, and it is the word, the image, that creates fear. So can you look at death without the image of death? As long as the image exists from which springs thought, thought must always create fear. Then you either rationalize your fear of death and build a resistance against the inevitable or you invent innumerable beliefs to protect you from the fear of death. Hence there is a gap between you and the thing of which you are afraid. In this time-space interval there must be conflict which is fear, anxiety and self-pity. Thought, which breeds the fear of death, says, `Let's postpone it, let's avoid it, keep it as far away as possible, let's not think about it' - but you are thinking about it. When you say, `I won't think about it', you have already thought out how to avoid it. You are frightened of death because you have postponed it.
你不能被未知吓到，因为你不知道未知是什么，故没有什么可以吓到你。死亡是一个单词，而正是这个单词、这个意象，创造了恐惧。故你能否（只是）看着死亡而不怀着对死亡的意象？只要这种意象存在，从想象中涌出思想（thought），思想就一定总是创造恐惧。继而，在你和你所害怕的东西之间就有了间隔（gap），在这个时空间隔中，一定有冲突，这就是恐惧、焦虑和自怜。思想，滋生了对死亡的恐惧，说，“推迟它吧，避免它吧，让它尽可能远离吧，不要思考它” －－ 但是你（正是）在思考它。当你说，“我不会思考它”，你已经思考出来如何避免它了。你被死亡吓到了因为你已经推迟了它。
We have separated living from dying, and the interval between the living and the dying is fear. That interval, that time, is created by fear. Living is our daily torture, daily insult, sorrow and confusion, with occasional opening of a window over enchanted seas. That is what we call living, and we are afraid to die, which is to end this misery. We would rather cling to the known than face the unknown - the known being our house, our furniture, our family, our character, our work, our knowledge, our fame, our loneliness, our gods - that little thing that moves around incessantly within itself with its own limited pattern of embittered existence.
我们已经将死（dying）从生（living）中分离出来了，而生和死之间的间隔就是恐惧。这个间隔，这个时间，是恐惧创造的。生是我们的每日的折磨、每日的凌辱、悲伤和困惑，偶而开启一扇窗户来面对汪洋。这就是我们叫做生的东西，而我们害怕死，害怕终结这痛苦。我们宁愿固守已知也不愿面对未知 －－ 已知是我们的房子、我们的家具、我们的家庭、我们的性格、我们的工作、我们的知识、我们的名望、我们的孤独、我们的上帝 －－ （已知就是）这些渺小的事物，虽其自身在不断地变化，却（总是）受限于那苦难存在的模式中。
We think that living is always in the present and that dying is something that awaits us at a distant time. But we have never questioned whether this battle of everyday life is living at all. We want to know the truth about reincarnation, we want proof of the survival of the soul, we listen to the assertion of clairvoyants and to the conclusions of psychical research, but we never ask, never, how to live - to live with delight, with enchantment, with beauty every day. We have accepted life as it is with all its agony and despair and have got used to it, and think of death as some- thing to be carefully avoided. But death is extraordinarily like life when we know how to live. You cannot live without dying. You cannot live if you do not die psychologically every minute. This is not an intellectual paradox. To live completely, wholly, every day as if it were a new loveliness, there must be dying to everything of yesterday, otherwise you live mechanically, and a mechanical mind can never know what love is or what freedom is.
我们以为，生总是在当下，而死是在遥远未来等待我们的某种东西。但是我们从来没有问过，这个每日生活的战斗，是否就是生。我们想要了解关于转世的真相，我们想要灵魂存在的证据，我们听从“天眼通”的断言，听从心理学研究的结论，但我们从来、从来都没有问过，如何活着 －－ 每天都怀着欣喜、陶醉和美丽来生活。我们已经接受了生活的样子，接受了它所有的痛苦、绝望，已经习惯了，并把死亡当成一种要小心避免的东西。但是当你知道如何活着的时候，死亡就特别像活着。你不能活着而不（同时）死。你若不能每分钟都在心理上死去，你就不能活着。这不是理性的悖论，要完全地生活，完整地，每天就好似一个崭新的、可爱的日子，就一定要死于昨天的一切，否则，你就是在机械地活着，而一个机械的心智永远都不知道爱或自由是什么。
Most of us are frightened of dying because we don't know what it means to live. We don't know how to live, therefore we don't know how to die. As long as we are frightened of life we shall be frightened of death. The man who is not frightened of life is not frightened of being completely insecure for he understands that inwardly, psychologically, there is no security. When there is no security there is an endless movement and then life and death are the same. The man who lives without conflict, who lives with beauty and love, is not frightened of death because to love is to die.
我们大多数人被死吓着了，因为我们不知道活着意味着什么。我们不知道如何活着，因而我们不知道如何死去。只要我们还害怕生活，我们就会害怕死亡。不害怕生活的人也不会害怕完全的不安全，因为他理解，内在和心理上是不存在安全的。当不存在安全的时候，就存在无尽的运动，因而生和死是一样的。没有冲突地生活着的人，怀着美丽和爱生活着的人，不会被死亡吓着，因为去爱就是去死。
If you die to everything you know, including your family, your memory, everything you have felt, then death is a purification, a rejuvenating process; then death brings innocence and it is only the innocent who are passionate, not the people who believe or who want to find out what happens after death.
如果你死于你所知的任何事情，包括你的家庭、你的记忆、你感受到过的任何事情，那么死亡就是一种净化、回生的过程；然后死亡就带来了无知，而只有无知的人才有激情，而不是那些相信或想要弄明白死亡之后会发生什么的人。
To find out actually what takes place when you die you must die. This isn't a joke. You must die - not physically but psychologically, inwardly, die to the things you have cherished and to the things you are bitter about. If you have died to one of your pleasures, the smallest or the greatest, naturally, without any enforcement or argument, then you will know what it means to die. To die is to have a mind that is completely empty of itself, empty of its daily longing, pleasure; and agonies. Death is a renewal, a mutation, in which thought does not function at all because thought is old. When there is death there is something totally new. Freedom from the known is death, and then you are living.
要切实地弄明白你死的时候发生什么事情你就必须死。这不是笑话。你必须死 －－ 不是身体上的，而是精神上的、内在的，死于你珍爱的事物，死于你感到痛心的事物。如果你曾死于你的某种或小或大的快乐，自然地，不带任何的强制或争辩地，那么你就会知道死意味着什么。（这里说的）死，就是要有一个完全没有自身、没有每日的渴望、快乐和痛苦的心智。死亡是一种更新、一种突变，思想在其中完全不起作用，因为思想是旧的。当有死亡的时候就有完全新的东西。从已知中解脱的自由就是死亡，这之后你才活着。
The demand to be safe in relationship inevitably breeds sorrow and fear. This seeking for security is inviting insecurity. Have you ever found security in any of your relationships? Have you? Most of us want the security of loving and being loved, but is there love when each one of us is seeking his own security, his own particular path? We are not loved because we don't know how to love.
关系中，对于安全感的需求不可避免地会滋生悲伤和恐惧。这种对于安全感的寻求把不安全感请进来了。你曾在你的任何关系中找到过安全感吗？有吗？我们大多数人想要爱和被爱的安全感，但是当我们双方都在寻求自己的安全感、自己特有的路的时候，会有爱存在吗？我们没有被爱，是因为我们不懂得怎样去爱。
What is love? The word is so loaded and corrupted that I hardly like to use it. Everybody talks of love - every magazine and newspaper and every missionary talks everlastingly of love. I love my country, I love my king, I love some book, I love that mountain, I love pleasure, I love my wife, I love God. Is love an idea? If it is, it can be cultivated, nourished, cherished, pushed around, twisted in any way you like. When you say you love God what does it mean? It means that you love a projection of your own imagination, a projection of yourself clothed in certain forms of respectability according to what you think is noble and holy; so to say, `I love God', is absolute nonsense. When you worship God you are worshipping yourself - and that is not love.
爱是什么？这个字眼承载得太多、被腐蚀得太多了，以至于我几乎不想去用它了。每个人都在讨论爱 －－ 每种杂志和报纸、每个传教士都在不断地讨论爱。我爱我的国家，我爱我的国王，我爱某本书，我爱山，我爱快乐，我爱我妻子，我爱上帝。爱是一种观念吗？如果是，爱就可以被培养、滋润、珍视、摆布、扭曲，用任何你喜欢的方式。当你说你爱上帝的时候，这个爱是什么意思呢？它意味着你爱对你自己的想象的一种保护，根据你认为的高贵和神圣的方式、对穿上某种形式的体面的外衣的“自己”的一种保护；故，说“我爱上帝”是绝对的荒谬。当你崇拜上帝的时候，你就是在崇拜你自己， －－ 那不是爱。
Because we cannot solve this human thing called love we run away into abstractions. Love may be the ultimate solution to all man's difficulties, problems and travails, so how are we going to find out what love is? By merely defining it? The church has defined it one way, society another and there are all sorts of deviations and perversions. Adoring someone, sleeping with someone, the emotional exchange, the companionship - is that what we mean by love? That has been the norm, the pattern, and it has become so tremendously personal, sensuous, and limited that religions have declared that love is something much more than this. In what they call human love they see there is pleasure, competition, jealousy, the desire to possess, to hold, to control and to interfere with another's thinking, and knowing the complexity of all this they say there must be another kind of love, divine beautiful untouched, uncorrupted.
因为我们不能解决人类的这个叫做“爱”的问题，我们逃进了抽象中。爱，对于人的所有困难、问题和痛苦，可能是终极的解决方式，故我们如何能弄明白爱是什么？只是通过定义它？教会已经用一种方式定义了它，社会用另一种方式，还有五花八门的背离和曲解。喜爱某人、和某人睡觉、交换情绪、陪伴 －－ 这就是我们所谓爱的意义吗？那些（所谓的爱）已经成为了标准、范式，它们已经变得极度私人化、感官化、受限制，以至于宗教宣称，爱是一种远远超出上述意义的东西。宗教所称的人类的爱，有快乐、竞争、妒忌、占有欲，以及支配、控制、干涉他人的思考，知道了所有这些的复杂性，他们说，一定有某种爱是神圣、美丽、未被触及的，未被腐蚀的。
Throughout the world, so-called holy men have maintained that to look at a woman is something totally wrong: they say you cannot come near to God if you indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because beauty is associated with woman.
纵观整个世界，所谓的神圣的人一直主张，直视女人是完全错误的：他们说你如果沉迷于性就不能接近上帝，因而他们将性撇到一边，尽管他们（也）对性很感兴趣。但是否定性欲对他们来说就是剜目割舌，因为他们否定了地球的全部的美。他们的心智忍受着饥饿；他们是脱了水的人类；他们驱逐美，因为美跟女人相关联。
Can love be divided into the sacred and the profane, the human and the divine, or is there only love? Is love of the one and not of the many? If I say, `I love you', does that exclude the love of the other? Is love personal or impersonal? Moral or immoral? Family or non-family? If you love mankind can you love the particular? Is love sentiment? Is love emotion? Is love pleasure and desire? All these questions indicate, don't they, that we have ideas about love, ideas about what it should or should not be, a pattern or a code developed by the culture in which we live.
爱能区分神圣的和世俗的、世人的和圣人的吗？还是说那只是爱？爱是对一个人而非对许多人的吗？如果我说，“我爱你”，那就排除了我对其他人的爱吗？爱是个人的还是非个人的？道德的还是不道德的？家庭的还是非家庭的？如果你爱人类，你能爱个别的人吗？爱是感情吗？爱是情绪吗？爱是快乐和欲望吗？所有这些问题表明，我们对爱持有观念，对爱应该或不应该是什么有观念，这种观念就是我们生活于其中的文化所发展出来的一个模式或准则。难道不是吗？
So to go into the question of what love is we must first free it from the encrustation of centuries, put away all ideals and ideologies of what it should or should not be. To divide anything into what should be and what is, is the most deceptive way of dealing with life.
所以，深入爱是什么这个问题，我们必须首先将爱从千百年来形成的厚壳中解放出来，将所有那些爱应该是什么、不应该是什么的理想和意识形态放到一边。把任何东西的应然和实然分开，是处理生活问题的最具欺骗性的方式。
Now how am I going to find out what this flame is which we call love - not how to express it to another but what it means in itself? I will first reject what the church, what society, what my parents and friends, what every person and every book has said about it because I want to find out for myself what it is. Here is an enormous problem that involves the whole of mankind, there have been a thousand ways of defining it and I myself am caught in some pattern or other according to what I like or enjoy at the moment - so shouldn't I, in order to understand it, first free myself from my own inclinations and prejudices? I am confused, torn by my own desires, so I say to myself, 'First clear up your own confusion. perhaps you may be able to discover what love is through what it is not.'
现在，我要如何弄明白这个我成为“爱”的火焰是什么呢 －－ 不是如何将其表达给另一个人，而是它本身意味着什么呢？我首先会拒绝教会、社会、父母和朋友、每个人、每本书所说的关于爱的内容，因为我想自己弄明白。这是个囊括所有人类的巨大的问题，曾经有过上千种方式来定义爱，而我自己，由于当时的喜好或感受，被困在了一种或另一种模式中 －－ 那么，为了理解爱，难道我不能首先将我从我自己的倾向和偏见中解脱出来吗？我困惑，被自己的欲望所折磨，故我对自己说，“首先扫除你的困惑，也许你就能通过什么不是爱，来发现爱是什么了。”
The government says, `Go and kill for the love of your country'. Is that love? Religion says, `Give up sex for the love of God'. Is that love? Is love desire? Don't say no. For most of us it is - desire with pleasure, the pleasure that is derived through the senses, through sexual attachment and fulfilment. I am not against sex, but see what is involved in it. What sex gives you momentarily is the total abandonment of yourself, then you are back again with your turmoil, so you want a repetition over and over again of that state in which there is no worry, no problem, no self. You say you love your wife. In that love is involved sexual pleasure, the pleasure of having someone in the house to look after your children, to cook. You depend on her; she has given you her body, her emotions, her encouragement, a certain feeling of security and well-being. Then she turns away from you; she gets bored or goes off with someone else, and your whole emotional balance is destroyed, and this disturbance, which you don't like, is called jealousy. There is pain in it, anxiety, hate and violence. So what you are really saying is, `As long as you belong to me I love you but the moment you don't I begin to hate you. As long as I can rely on you to satisfy my demands, sexual and otherwise, I love you, but the moment you cease to supply what I want I don't like you.' So there is antagonism between you, there is separation, and when you feel separate from another there is no love. But if you can live with your wife without thought creating all these contradictory states, these endless quarrels in yourself, then perhaps - perhaps - you will know what love is. Then you are completely free and so is she, whereas if you depend on her for all your pleasure you are a slave to her. So when one loves there must be freedom, not only from the other person but from oneself.
政府说，“爱你的国家就去杀人吧。”这是爱吗？宗教说，“爱上帝就放弃性吧。”这是爱吗？爱是欲望吗？不要说不是。对于我们大多数人来说是的 －－ 是对快乐的欲望，即通过感官，通过性依恋和满足，衍生出来的快乐。我不是反对性，而是要看到它里面包含了什么。性短暂地给你的东西，是对自己的完全放纵，这之后你又回到原来的混乱状态了，故你想要重复、再重复那种状态，那种没有焦虑、没有问题、没有自我的状态。你说你爱你的妻子。在那种爱中包含着性的快乐，和有人在家里照看你的孩子、为你做饭的快乐。你依赖于她；她给了你她的身体、她的情绪、她的鼓励、一种特定的安全感和幸福感。然后她转身离开你；她厌倦了、跟别人离去了，而你的整个情绪平衡被打破了，而这种你不喜欢的困扰叫做嫉妒。其中有痛苦、焦虑、憎恨和暴力。故你真正在说的是，“只要你属于我我就爱你而不属于我的时候我就恨你。只要我可以依赖你来满足我的需求，性需求或其他需求，我就爱你，但是一旦你停止给我我想要的，我就不喜欢你了。”故你们之间存在敌意，有分隔，而（事实是）当你感觉你与他人有分隔的时候，就不（会）存在爱。但是如果你能够与你的妻子一起生活，而（同时）你（们）的心中不带有创造了所有这些矛盾状态、无尽的争吵的思想，那么也许 －－ （只是）也许 －－ 你就会知道爱是什么。那时你就完全的自由了，而她也是一样，反之如果你依赖她给予你所有的快乐，你就是她的奴隶。故当一个人爱的时候，一定（要）有自由，不仅仅是（不依赖）于另一方，而且（不依赖）于你自己。
This belonging to another, being psychologically nourished by another, depending on another - in all this there must always be anxiety, fear, jealousy, guilt, and so long as there is fear there is no love; a mind ridden with sorrow will never know what love is; sentimentality and emotionalism have nothing whatsoever to do with love. And so love is not to do with pleasure and desire.
这种属于别人、精神上被别人滋养、依赖于别人 －－ 所有这些中，一定总是存在焦虑、恐惧、嫉妒、内疚、而只要存在恐惧就没有爱；一个与悲伤同行的心智，永远不会知道爱是什么；多愁善感（sentimentality and emotionalism）与爱没有一丝半点的关系。故爱与快乐和欲望无关。
Love is not the product of thought which is the past. Thought cannot possibly cultivate love. Love is not hedged about and caught in jealousy, for jealousy is of the past. Love is always active present. It is not `I will love' or `I have loved'. If you know love you will not follow anybody. Love does not obey. When you love there is neither respect nor disrespect.
爱不是思想的产物，思想是过去。思想不可能培养爱。爱不是（将自己）困在嫉妒中，因为嫉妒是过去的。爱总是活跃在当下。没有“我将爱”或“我爱过”。如果你知道爱，你就不会追随任何人。爱不是服从。当你爱的时候，既没有尊敬也没有不敬。
Don't you know what it means really to love somebody to love without hate, without jealousy, without anger, without wanting to interfere with what he is doing or thinking, without condemning, without comparing - don't you know what it means? Where there is love is there comparison? When you love someone with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your body, with your entire being, is there comparison? When you totally abandon yourself to that love there is not the other.
你难道不知道，爱某人，没有恨地爱、没有嫉妒、愤怒、想要干涉他的所为和所想地爱，没有谴责、没有比较地爱，真正意味着什么吗？当有爱的时候会有比较吗？当你以你的全部心意、全部心智、全部身体、全部存在爱某人的时候，会有比较吗？当你完全放弃你自己而投入爱中的时候，是没有（上述）对立面的。
Does love have responsibility and duty, and will it use those words? When you do something out of duty is there any love in it? In duty there is no love. The structure of duty in which the human being is caught is destroying him. So long as you are compelled to do something because it is your duty you don't love what you are doing. When there is love there is no duty and no responsibility.
爱有责任心（responsibility）和责任（duty，义务）吗，它会使用这些词吗？当你出于责任做某事的时候，其中有爱吗？在责任中没有爱。人类被困在了责任的结构中，这种东西正在毁灭他。只要你被迫做某事，因为这是你的责任，你就不会爱你正在做的事情。当有爱的时候是没有责任和责任心的。
Most parents unfortunately think they are responsible for their children and their sense of responsibility takes the form of telling them what they should do and what they should not do, what they should become and what they should not become. The parents want their children to have a secure position in society. What they call responsibility is part of that respectability they worship; and it seems to me that where there is respectability there is no order; they are concerned only with becoming a perfect bourgeois. When they prepare their children to fit into society they are perpetuating war, conflict and brutality. Do you call that care and love?
大多数家长不幸地认为他们对他们的孩子负有责任，他们的责任感表现为告诉孩子他们应该做什么、不应该做什么、应该成为什么样子、不应该成为什么样子。父母想要他们的孩子在社会上有个安全的地位。他们叫做责任心的东西，是他们所崇拜的“体面”；而窃以为，只要有责任心，就没有秩序；他们只关心如何成为一个完美的中产阶级（bourgeois）。当他们让它们的孩子为适应社会做好准备的时候，他们就是在延续战争、冲突和暴行。你把这叫做关心和爱吗？
Really to care is to care as you would for a tree or a plant, watering it, studying its needs, the best soil for it, looking after it with gentleness and tenderness - but when you prepare your children to fit into society you are preparing them to be killed. If you loved your children you would have no war.
真正的关心，就像你关心一棵树或一株植物一样，为它浇水，研究它的需要，为它培最好的土壤，怀着亲切和柔情照顾它 －－ 而当你让你的孩子为适应社会做好准备的时候，你就是在让他们被杀做好准备。如果你爱你的孩子，你们就不会有战争。
When you lose someone you love you shed tears - are your tears for yourself or for the one who is dead? Are you crying for yourself or for another? Have you ever cried for another? Have you ever cried for your son who was killed on the battlefield? You have cried, but do those tears come out of self-pity or have you cried because a human being has been killed? If you cry out of self-pity your tears have no meaning because you are concerned about yourself. If you are crying because you are bereft of one in whom you have invested a great deal of affection, it was not really affection. When you cry for your brother who dies cry for him. It is very easy to cry for yourself because he is gone. Apparently you are crying because your heart is touched, but it is not touched for him, it is only touched by self-pity and self-pity makes you hard, encloses you, makes you dull and stupid.
当你失去某个你爱的人的时候，你会流泪 －－ 你的泪水是为你自己而流还是为那个死去的人而流？你为自己而哭泣还是为别人而哭泣？你曾经为别人哭泣过吗？你曾经为你在战场上死去的孩子哭泣过吗？你曾哭过，但那些泪水是出于自怜，还是因为那是一个人类被杀死了？如果你因为自怜而哭泣，你的泪水就没有意义，因为你关心的是你自己。如果你是因为你被剥夺了一个你曾投资了大量的情感于其上的人而哭泣，那就不是真的感情。当你为你死去的兄弟哭泣的时候，你就哭吧。为自己而哭泣很容易，因为他走了。显然，你是因为你的心被触动了而哭泣，但不是被他所触动，只是被自怜而触动，而自怜让你无情、封闭了你、让你麻木和愚蠢。
When you cry for yourself, is it love - crying because you are lonely, because you have been left, because you are no longer powerful - complaining of your lot, your environment - always you in tears? If you understand this, which means to come in contact with it as directly as you would touch a tree or a pillar or a hand, then you will see that sorrow is self-created, sorrow is created by thought, sorrow is the outcome of time. I had my brother three years ago, now he is dead, now I am lonely, aching, there is no one to whom I can look for comfort or companionship, and it brings tears to my eyes.
当你为自己而哭泣的时候 －－ 由于你孤独、因为你被留了下来，因为你不再有力量 －－ 抱怨你的命运、你的环境 －－ 眼泪中总是你，那是爱吗？如果你理解这一点，也就是说你直接地接触它，就像触摸树或柱子或手一样直接地接触它，那么你会发现，悲伤是自己创造的，悲伤被思想所创造，悲伤是时间的结果。三年前我的兄弟还在我身边，现在他死了，现在我孤独了、痛了，没有我能寻求舒适或陪伴的人了，这使我的眼睛流出了泪水。
You can see all this happening inside yourself if you watch it. You can see it fully, completely, in one glance, not take analytical time over it. You can see in a moment the whole structure and nature of this shoddy little thing called `me', my tears, my family, my nation, my belief, my religion - all that ugliness, it is all inside you. When you see it with your heart, not with your mind, when you see it from the very bottom of your heart, then you have the key that will end sorrow. Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealized suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.
如果你观察，你会发现所有这一切都正发生在你自己的内心。你可以在一瞥之间完全、完整地看到它，不需花费时间分析它。你可以在瞬间看到这个所谓的“我”的这个劣质渺小的东西的整个结构和本质，我的泪水、我的家庭、我的国家、我的信仰、我的宗教 －－ 所有这些丑陋的东西，这就是你内心的一切。当你用你的心（heart）、而不是你的头脑（mind）看到它，当你从你的内心最深处看到它，那时你就拥有了能够终结这悲伤的钥匙。悲伤和爱不能共存，但是在基督徒的世界里，他们理想化了受苦，将其放在十字架上崇拜它，暗示着除非通过那个特定的门否则永远不能逃脱受苦，这就是一个剥削性的宗教组织的整个结构。
So when you ask what love is, you may be too frightened to see the answer. It may mean complete upheaval; it may break up the family; you may discover that you do not love your wife or husband or children - do you? - you may have to shatter the house you have built, you may never go back to the temple.
因此当你问爱是什么的时候，你可能因为害怕而无法看到答案。它可能意味着完全的剧变；它可能让你的家庭破裂；你可能会发现你不爱你的妻子或丈夫或孩子 －－ 是不是？ －－ 你可能不得不将你建立起来的家庭打破，你可能再也回不到寺庙中去了。
But if you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. So if you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.
但是，如果你仍然想要弄明白，你就会发现恐惧不是爱，依赖不是爱，嫉妒不是爱，占有和控制不是爱，责任心和义务不是爱，自怜不是爱，不被爱的挣扎不是爱，爱不是恨的对立面，就像谦虚不是虚荣的对立面一样。故如果你能消除所有这些，不是通过强迫，而是通过将它们洗去，就像雨水洗去叶面上多日攒下的灰尘一样，那么也许，你就会遇到人一直在渴求追寻的奇异花朵。
If you have not got love - not just in little drops but in abundance - if you are not filled with it - the world will go to disaster. You know intellectually that the unity of mankind is essential and that love is the only way, but who is going to teach you how to love? Will any authority, any method, any system, tell you how to love? If anyone tells you, it is not love. Can you say, `I will practise love. I will sit down day after day and think about it. I will practise being kind and gentle and force myself to pay attention to others'? Do you mean to say that you can discipline yourself to love, exercise the will to love? When you exercise discipline and will to love, love goes out of the window. By practising some method or system of loving you may become extraordinarily clever or more kindly or get into a state of non-violence, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with love.
如果你没有爱 －－ 不是指点滴的爱而是丰富的爱 －－ 如果你不是充满爱 －－ 世界就会陷入灾难。你在理性上知道，人类的一体是必要的，而爱是唯一的方式，但是谁来教你如何去爱？会有任何权威、任何方法、任何系统告诉你如何爱吗？如果有任何人告诉你，那就不是爱。你能说，“我会练习爱。我会日复一日地坐下思考爱。我会练习变得友善、温和，并强迫自己关注他人”吗？你的意思是你能自律去爱，练习你的意志去爱吗？当你练习纪律和意志的时候，爱就从窗口溜走了。通过执行某种（练习）爱的方法或系统，你可能变得聪明非凡、或者更友善或者到达一种非暴力的状态，但是那与爱没有半点关系。
In this torn desert world there is no love because pleasure and desire play the greatest roles, yet without love your daily life has no meaning. And you cannot have love if there is no beauty. Beauty is not something you see - not a beautiful tree, a beautiful picture, a beautiful building or a beautiful woman. There is beauty only when your heart and mind know what love is. Without love and that sense of beauty there is no virtue, and you know very well that, do what you will, improve society, feed the poor, you will only be creating more mischief, for without love there is only ugliness and poverty in your own heart and mind. But when there is love and beauty, whatever you do is right, whatever you do is in order. If you know how to love, then you can do what you like because it will solve all other problems.
在这个破碎荒凉的世界里没有爱，因为快乐和欲望扮演者最重要的角色，然而没有爱，你每天的生活就没有意义。而如果没有美，你就不能有爱。美不是某种你看到的东西 －－ 不是一棵美丽的树，一幅美丽的话，一幢美丽的建筑或一个美丽的女人。唯有当你的心和头脑（mind）知道爱是什么的时候，才有美。没有爱和那种审美的感觉，就没有美德，而你非常清楚的是，通过做你想做的，改善社会、救济穷人，你只会创造更多的伤害，因为，若没有爱，你的内心和头脑中就只有丑陋和贫困。但是，当有爱与美的时候，不管你做什么都是对的，你做的任何事情都是井然有序的。如果你知道如何去爱，那么你就能做你喜欢的事情，因为那能（一并）解决所有其他问题。
So we reach the point: can the mind come upon love without discipline, without thought, without enforcement, without any book, any teacher or leader - come upon it as one comes upon a lovely sunset?
故我们说到要点了：心智能否在没有约束、没有思想、没有强制、没有任何书籍、老师和向导的情况下遇见爱 －－ 就像人遇见可爱的日落一样？
It seems to me that one thing is absolutely necessary and that is passion without motive - passion that is not the result of some commitment or attachment, passion that is not lust. A man who does not know what passion is will never know love because love can come into being only when there is total self-abandonment.
窃以为，有一种东西是绝对必要的，那就是激情（passion，热情），没有动机的激情 －－ 没有承诺和依恋的激情，没有贪欲的激情。不知道激情是什么的人永远不会知道爱是什么，因为唯有当完全无我（self-abandonment）的时候，爱才会出现。
A mind that is seeking is not a passionate mind and to come upon love without seeking it is the only way to find it - to come upon it unknowingly and not as the result of any effort or experience. Such a love, you will find, is not of time; such a love is both personal and impersonal, is both the one and the many. Like a flower that has perfume you can smell it or pass it by. That flower is for everybody and for the one who takes trouble to breathe it deeply and look at it with delight. Whether one is very near in the garden, or very far away, it is the same to the flower because it is full of that perfume and therefore it is sharing with everybody.
一个不寻求的心智不是有激情的心智，不通过寻求而遇见爱是发现爱的唯一方式 －－ 在不知的情况下遇见爱，而不是任何努力或经验的结果。这样的爱，你会发现，跟时间无关；这样的爱既是个人的也是非个人的，既是一个人的又是许多人的。就像花儿的芬芳，你能闻到它或者忽略它。那花儿是每一个人的，也是那个怀着欣喜尽力深呼吸和看它的人的。不管这个人是离花园非常近，还是非常远，对这朵花来说是一样的，因为它满是芬芳，因而与每个人分享。
Love is something that is new, fresh, alive. It has no yesterday and no tomorrow. It is beyond the turmoil of thought. It is only the innocent mind which knows what love is, and the innocent mind can live in the world which is not innocent. To find this extraordinary thing which man has sought endlessly through sacrifice, through worship, through relationship, through sex, through every form of pleasure and pain, is only possible when thought comes to understand itself and comes naturally to an end. Then love has no opposite, then love has no conflict.
爱是新的、新鲜的、活的东西。爱没有昨天和明天。爱超越了思想的混乱。唯有无知的（innocent，单纯的）头脑才知道爱是什么。而无知的头脑能够活在并不单纯的世界上。人类不断通过牺牲、崇拜、关系、性、通过任何快乐或痛苦的形式寻求的这非凡的东西，唯有当思想逐渐理解了自身、并且自然地结束的时候，才有可能被找到。那时爱就没有对立面了，那时爱就没有冲突了。
You may ask, `If I find such a love, what happens to my wife, my children, my family? They must have security.' When you put such a question you have never been outside the field of thought, the field of consciousness. When once you have been outside that field you will never ask such a question because then you will know what love is in which there is no thought and therefore no time. You may read this mesmerized and enchanted, but actually to go beyond thought and time - which means going beyond sorrow - is to be aware that there is a different dimension called love.
你可能会问，“如果我找到了这种爱，我的妻子、孩子、家庭会发生什么？他们也得安全（才行）。”当你提出这样的问题的时候，你还未到达思想的领域、意识的领域之外。一旦你到达那领域之外，你就永远不会问这样的问题了，因为你会知道爱是什么，在爱中没有思想因而也没有时间。你可能读到这里会入迷或陶醉，但是要实际地超越思想和时间 －－ 意味着超越悲伤 －－ 就是要知道，有一个不同的维度，那叫做爱。
But you don't know how to come to this extraordinary fount - so what do you do? If you don't know what to do, you do nothing, don't you? Absolutely nothing. Then inwardly you are completely silent. Do you understand what that means? It means that you are not seeking, not wanting, not pursuing; there is no centre at all. Then there is love.
但是你不知道如何到达这个非凡的（爱）泉 －－ 故你要做什么呢？如果你不知道做什么，你就什么也不做，是不是？绝对不做任何事。那么内心里你就完全的静默了。你理解那意味着什么吗？那意味着你没有在寻求、没有想要、没有追逐；完全没有中心。那时就有爱了。
We have been enquiring into the nature of love and have come to a point, I think, which needs much greater penetration, a much greater awareness of the issue. We have discovered that for most people love means comfort, security, a guarantee for the rest of their lives of continuous emotional satisfaction. Then someone like me comes along and says, 'Is that really love?' and questions you and asks you to look inside yourself. And you try not to look because it is very disturbing - you would rather discuss the soul or the political or economic situation - but when you are driven into a corner to look, you realize that what you have always thought of as love is not love at all; it is a mutual gratification, a mutual exploitation.
我们一直在探寻爱的本质，我认为现在到达了一个关键点，现在对这个问题需要有比以往多很多的深入和觉察。我们已然发现，对于大多数人来说，爱意味着舒服、安全、对余生持续情感满足的保证。这时某个像我一样的人来了，说，“那是真的爱吗？”并且质疑你，要求你看自己的内心。而你企图不看，因为那太令人不安了 －－ 你宁愿谈论灵魂或者政治经济形势 －－ 但是当你走投无路必须要看的时候，你意识到你一直都认为是爱的东西完全不是爱；是相互的满足和利用。
When I say, `Love has no tomorrow and no yesterday', or, `When there is no centre then there is love', it has reality for me but not for you. You may quote it and make it into a formula but that has no validity. You have to see it for yourself, but to do so there must be freedom to look, freedom from all condemnation, all judgement all agreeing or disagreeing.
当我说，“爱没有明天和昨天”或“当没有中心的时候就有爱”，的时候，对我来说是有现实（基础）的，但对你来说没有。你可能引述它，让它成为教条，但是这样做一点用也没有。你得自己看到它，但是要看到就一定要有看的自由，即从所有的谴责、所有的判断、所有的同意和不同意中解脱出来的自由。
Now, to look is one of the most difficult things in life - or to listen - to look and listen are the same. If your eyes are blinded with your worries, you cannot see the beauty of the sunset. Most of us have lost touch with nature. Civiliza- tion is tending more and more towards large cities; we are becoming more and more an urban people, living in crowded apartments and having very little space even to look at the sky of an evening and morning, and therefore we are losing touch with a great deal of beauty. I don't know if you have noticed how few of us look at a sunrise or a sunset or the moonlight or the reflection of light on water.
现在，看 －－ 或者说听 －－是生活中最难的一件事情，看和听是一样的。如果你的眼睛被焦虑所蒙蔽，你就看不到日落之美。我们大多数人失去了与自然的接触。文明，越来越朝向大城市；我们越来越变成了城市人，住在拥挤的公寓，空间很小，甚至看不到夜晚和早晨的天空，因而，我们正失去与许多美的联系。我不知道你是否注意到了我们看日出日落、月光或水面倒影的频率有多么少。
Having lost touch with nature we naturally tend to develop intellectual capacities. We read a great many books, go to a great many museums and concerts, watch television and have many other entertainments. We quote endlessly from other people's ideas and think and talk a great deal about art. Why is it that we depend so much upon art? Is it a form of escape, of stimulation? If you are directly in contact with nature; if you watch the movement of a bird on the wing, see the beauty of every movement of the sky, watch the shadows on the hills or the beauty on the face of another, do you think you will want to go to any museum to look at any picture? Perhaps it is because you do not know how to look at all the things about you that you resort to some form of drug to stimulate you to see better.
失去了与大自然的接触，我们自然地就会倾向于发展理性的能力。我们读许许多多的书籍，去许许多多的展览馆和音乐会，看电视、以及有许多别的娱乐形式。我们不断地引述他人的观点，大量思考和讨论艺术。我们为什么如此依赖于艺术？是一种逃避的形式、刺激的形式吗？如果你直接与自然接触；如果你看着鸟儿飞行，看到天空的每种移动的美，看山上的影子或他人脸上的美丽，你认为你还会想去展览馆看画吗？也许这是因为你不知道如何看你周围的所有东西，所以你诉诸某种形式，就像毒品，刺激你去看得更清楚。
There is a story of a religious teacher who used to talk every morning to his disciples. One morning he got on to the platform and was just about to begin when a little bird came and sat on the window sill and began to sing, and sang away with full heart. Then it stopped and flew away and the teacher said, `The sermon for this morning is over'.
有一个宗教导师的故事，他过去每天早晨都教授他的门徒。一个早晨他走上讲台正要开讲，一只小鸟来了站在窗台上开始唱歌，全心全意地唱。然后它停下来飞走了。导师说，“今早的布道结束了。”
It seems to me that one of our greatest difficulties is to see for ourselves really clearly, not only outward things but inward life. When we say we see a tree or a flower or a person, do we actually see them? Or do we merely see the image that the word has created? That is, when you look at a tree or at a cloud of an evening full of light and delight, do you actually see it, not only with your eyes and intellectually, but totally, completely?
窃以为我们最大的困难之一就是自己去真正清楚地看，不仅是外在的东西还有内在的生活。当我们说我们看到一棵树或一朵花或一个人，我们真的看到他们了吗？还是我们只是看到了那个词语创造出来的意象？那就是说，当你在一个满是光和欣喜的傍晚看一棵树或一朵云的时候，你真的看到它了吗，不仅是用你的眼睛和理性，而且用你的全部、完整地看到？
Have you ever experimented with looking at an objective thing like a tree without any of the associations, any of the knowledge you have acquired about it, without any prejudice, any judgement, any words forming a screen between you and the tree and preventing you from seeing it as it actually is? Try it and see what actually takes place when you observe the tree with all your being, with the totality of your energy. In that intensity you will find that there is no observer at all; there is only attention. It is when there is inattention that there is the observer and the observed. When you are looking at something with complete attention there is no space for a conception, a formula or a memory. This is important to understand because we are going into something which requires very careful investigation.
你曾经是否经历过，看一个客观的东西如一棵树，没有任何的联想，没有任何你曾获得的关于它的知识，没有任何偏见、任何判断、任何言语在你和树之间形成的屏障去阻碍你看到树真实的样子？当你用你的全部存在、全部精力观察树的时候，尝试一下，看看实际会发生什么。在这种紧张中，你会发现，完全没有观察者；只有注意力。只有在注意力分散的时候才有观察者和被观之物。当你以全部注意力看某样东西的时候，没有概念、准则和记忆的空间。理解这一点很重要，因为我们正在深入一种需要非常仔细地去研究的东西。
It is only a mind that looks at a tree or the stars or the sparkling waters of a river with complete self-abandonment that knows what beauty is, and when we are actually seeing we are in a state of love. We generally know beauty through comparison or through what man has put together, which means that we attribute beauty to some object. I see what I consider to be a beautiful building and that beauty I appreciate because of my knowledge of architecture and by comparing it with other buildings I have seen. But now I am asking myself, `Is there a beauty without object?' When there is an observer who is the censor, the experiencer, the thinker, there is no beauty because beauty is something external, something the observer looks at and judges, but when there is no observer - and this demands a great deal of meditation, of enquiry then there is beauty without the object.
唯有心智处于完全的无我（self-abandonment）状态来看树木或星星或闪耀的河水，才知道美是什么，而当我们真正看到的时候，我们就处于一种爱的状态中。通常，我们说美是通过比较，或通过人的共识，这意味着我们将美赋予了某个（客观）对象。我看到一幢我认为是美丽的建筑，我欣赏它的美，是因为我的建筑学知识以及通过与我见过的其他建筑进行了比较。但是，现在我在问自己，“是否有一种美是没有对象的？”当有观察者的时候，这个观察者就是检查者、经验者、思考者，就没有美，因为美是一种外部的东西，一种观察者看和评价的东西，但是当没有观察者 －－ 这需要大量的冥想、探询 －－ 就有了无对象的美。
Beauty lies in the total abandonment of the observer and the observed and there can be self-abandonment only when there is total austerity - not the austerity of the priest with its harshness, its sanctions, rules and obedience - not austerity in clothes, ideas, food and behaviour - but the austerity of being totally simple which is complete humility. Then there is no achieving, no ladder to climb; there is only the first step and the first step is the everlasting step.
美，在于对观者和所观之物的彻底放弃，而唯有完全的苦行，才能无我 －－ 不是神职人员的那种冷酷的、惩罚的、教条的、顺从的苦行 －－ 不是在衣、食、思、行上的苦行 －－ 而是完全地简单、完全地谦虚的苦行。这种苦行中没有“达成”，没有需要攀爬的阶梯；其中只有第一步，而这第一步即是永恒的一步。
Say you are walking by yourself or with somebody and you have stopped talking. You are surrounded by nature and there is no dog barking, no noise of a car passing or even the flutter of a bird. You are completely silent and nature around you is also wholly silent. In that state of silence both in the observer and the observed - when the observer is not translating what he observes into thought - in that silence there is a different quality of beauty. There is neither nature nor the observer. There is a state of mind wholly, completely, alone; it is alone - not in isolation - alone in stillness and that stillness is beauty. When you love, is there an observer? There is an observer only when love is desire and pleasure. When desire and pleasure are not associated with love, then love is intense. It is, like beauty, something totally new every day. As I have said, it has no today and no tomorrow.
比如你正独自或与人一起散步，你停止了交谈。你被大自然所包围，没有狗吠、没有车辆穿行的噪音甚至也没有鸟儿振翅。你完全地安静，周围的大自然也完全地安静。在这种观者与所观之物均安静的状态 －－ 观者不将所观之物转换成思想 －－ 中，在那种安静中，存在关于美的一种不同的品质。既没有大自然，也没有观察者。这是一种完整地、完全地孤独的状态 －－ 不是与世隔绝 －－ 而是在完全静止中孤独，而这种静止就是美。当你爱的时候，有观察者吗？只有在爱是欲望和快乐的时候才有观察者。当欲望和快乐与爱无关的时候，爱就是强烈的。就像美一样，爱每天都是完全崭新的。就像我说过的，爱没有今天也没有明天。
It is only when we see without any preconception, any image, that we are able to be in direct contact with anything in life. All our relationships are really imaginary - that is, based on an image formed by thought. If I have an image about you and you have an image about me, naturally we don't see each other at all as we actually are. What we see is the images we have formed about each other which prevent us from being in contact, and that is why our relationships go wrong.
唯有当我们不带先入之见、不带意象地去看的时候，我们才能与生活中的事物直接地接触。我们的所有关系实际都是想象（出来）的 －－ 即，基于由思想形成的意象。如果我对你有意象，你对我有意象，自然地我们就完全看不到彼此的真正样子。我们看到的，是我们对对方形成的意象，这意象妨碍了我们接触，这就是我们的关系出问题的原因。
When I say I know you, I mean I knew you yesterday. I do not know you actually now. All I know is my image of you. That image is put together by what you have said in praise of me or to insult me, what you have done to me - it is put together by all the memories I have of you - and your image of me is put together in the same way, and it is those images which have relationship and which prevent us from really communing with each other.
当我说我了解你，我的意思是我昨天了解你。我不知道你现在实际的样子。我所知道的只是我（思想中）关于你的意象。这个意象由你曾经对我的称赞和侮辱、对我的所言和所为组成 －－ 由我对你的所有记忆组成 －－ 而你（思想中）关于我的意象也是由同样的方式组成，正是这些意象之间产生了关系，从而妨碍了我们真正地与彼此交流。
Two people who have lived together for a long time have an image of each other which prevents them from really being in relationship. If we understand relationship we can co-operate but co-operation cannot possibly exist through images, through symbols, through ideological conceptions. Only when we understand the true relationship between each other is there a possibility of love, and love is denied when we have images. Therefore it is important to understand, not intellectually but actually in your daily life, how you have built images about your wife, your husband, your neighbour, your child, your country, your leaders, your politicians, your gods - you have nothing but images.
两个长期住在一起的人，对彼此有意象，这妨碍了他们真正的关系。如果你理解了关系，我们就能够合作，但合作不可能通过意象、通过符号、通过意识形态的概念而存在。唯有当我们理解了彼此间真正的关系，才有爱的可能，而当我们有意象的时候，爱就没有了。因而，理解 －－ 在日常生活中真正地理解而非在理性上理解 －－ 你是如何构建了对于你妻子、丈夫、邻居、孩子、国家、领袖、政治家和上帝的意象，就很重要 －－ 除了意象，你什么也没有。
These images create the space between you and what you observe and in that space there is conflict, so what we are going to find out now together is whether it is possible to be free of the space we create, not only outside ourselves but in ourselves, the space which divides people in all their relationships.
这些意象在你和你所观之物之间创造了间隔，而这间隔之中就有冲突，故我们现在想要一起弄明白的就是，是否可能摆脱我们所创造的这种间隔的影响，不仅仅是外部的间隔，还包括我们自身中的间隔，这种在人们的所有关系中将他们分隔开来的间隔。
Now the very attention you give to a problem is the energy that solves that problem. When you give your complete attention - I mean with everything in you - there is no observer at all. There is only the state of attention which is total energy, and that total energy is the highest form of intelligence. Naturally that state of mind must be completely silent and that silence, that stillness, comes when there is total attention, not disciplined stillness. That total silence in which there is neither the observer nor the thing observed is the highest form of a religious mind. But what takes place in that state cannot be put into words because what is said in words is not the fact. To find out for yourself you have to go through it.
此时你给予一个问题的注意力，正是解决该问题的能量。当你付出完全的注意力时 －－ 我的意思是你的全心全意 －－ 就完全没有了观察者。（其中）只有这种注意的状态，这种状态就是全部的能量，而这全部的能量就是理性的最高形式。自然地，这种心智状态一定是完全寂静的，而这种寂静、这种静止，来自完全的注意力，而非约束出的静止。这种完全的寂静中，既没有观者也没有被观之物，这种寂静就是一个宗教心智的最高形式。但是在这种状态中发生的东西，不能诉诸语言，因为语言所描述的并非事实。要弄明白你得亲自去经历。
Every problem is related to every other problem so that if you can solve one problem completely - it does not matter what it is - you will see that you are able to meet all other problems easily and resolve them. We are talking, of course, of psychological problems. We have already seen that a problem exists only in time, that is when we meet the issue incompletely. So not only must we be aware of the nature and structure of the problem and see it completely, but meet it as it arises and resolve it immediately so that it does not take root in the mind. If one allows a problem to endure for a month or a day, or even for a few minutes, it distorts the mind. So is it possible to meet a problem immediately without any distortion and be immediately, completely, free of it and not allow a memory, a scratch on the mind, to remain? These memories are the images we carry about with us and it is these images which meet this extraordinary thing called life and therefore there is a contradiction and hence conflict. Life is very real - life is not an abstraction - and when you meet it with images there are problems.
每个问题都与所有其他问题相关联，以至于如果你能完全地解决一个问题 －－ 不管是什么问题 －－ 你就会发现你有能力轻易面对（meet）其他所有问题并解决它们。当然，我们说的是心理上的问题。我们已然看到，问题只在时间中存在，这时间就是我们没有完全面对问题的时间。如果一个人允许问题持续一个月或一天，或甚至几分钟，问题就会扭曲心智。故是否可能没有任何扭曲，立即面对问题，并立即、完全地摆脱问题（的困扰），不允许头脑中留下记忆和痕迹？这些记忆就是我们所持有的意象，正是这些意象遇见（meet）了“生活”这个非凡的东西，因而就有矛盾，继而有冲突。生活是非常真实的 －－ 生活不是抽象 －－ 当你持有意象面对它的时候，就有了问题。
Is it possible to meet every issue without this space-time interval, without the gap between oneself and the thing of which one is afraid? It is possible only when the observer has no continuity, the observer who is the builder of the image, the observer who is a collection of memories and ideas, who is a bundle of abstractions.
是否可能来面对每个问题时没有这种时空间隔，没有人和人所害怕的问题之间的间隔？只有当观察者没有连续性的时候才有可能，这观察者就是意象的制造者、就是记忆和想法的集合、就是抽象的集合。
When you look at the stars there is you who are looking at the stars in the sky; the sky is flooded with brilliant stars, there is cool air, and there is you, the observer, the experiencer, the thinker, you with your aching heart, you, the centre, creating space. You will never understand about the space between yourself and the stars, yourself and your wife or husband, or friend, because you have never looked without the image, and that is why you do not know what beauty is or what love is. You talk about it, you write about it, but you have never known it except perhaps at rare intervals of total self-abandonment. So long as there is a centre creating space around itself there is neither love nor beauty. When there is no centre and no circumference then there is love. And when you love you are beauty.
当你看星星的时候，有一个“你”在看着天空中的星星；天空中布满了闪耀的星星，有凉爽的空气，有你，观察者，经验者，思考者，你带着你伤痛的心，你这个中心在制造空间。你永远不会理解你自己和星星之间，你自己和你的妻子或丈夫、或朋友之间，的这空间，因为你从没有不带意象地看，而这就是为什么，你不知道美是什么，不知道爱是什么。你谈论它，你写作它，但你从未了解它，除非，也许，在偶然的瞬间你完全地无我（self-abandonment)了。只要有中心在其周围制造空间，就既不会有爱也不会有美。当没有中心、没有环境的时候，就有了美。而当你爱的时候你就是美。
When you look at a face opposite, you are looking from a centre and the centre creates the space between person and person, and that is why our lives are so empty and callous. You cannot cultivate love or beauty, nor can you invent truth, but if you are all the time aware of what you are doing, you can cultivate awareness and out of that awareness you will begin to see the nature of pleasure, desire and sorrow and the utter loneliness and boredom of man, and then you will begin to come upon that thing called `the space'.
当你看对面的一张脸的时候，你是从一个中心在看，而这个中心在人与人之间制造了空间，而这就是为什么我们的生活如此空虚和无情。你不能培养爱或美，也不能发明真相，但是如果你随时都知道你在做什么，你就能培养觉察，而在这种觉察中你就开始看到了快乐的本质，看到了人的欲望、悲伤、彻底的孤独和厌倦，然后你就会开始邂逅那种叫做“空间”的东西。
When there is space between you and the object you are observing you will know there is no love, and without love, however hard you try to reform the world or bring about a new social order or however much you talk about improvements, you will only create agony. So it is up to you. There is no leader, there is no teacher, there is nobody to tell you what to do. You are alone in this mad brutal world.
当在你和你所观察的对象之间有空间，你会知道，没有爱，而没有爱，不管你如何努力去改变世界或引入一种新的社会秩序或无论你怎么谈论改进，你只会创造痛苦。故（如何做）取决于你了。没有领袖，没有导师，没有任何人告诉你做什么。你在这个疯狂残忍的世界上是孤独的。
Please go on with me a little further. It may be rather complex, rather subtle, but please go on with it.
请继续跟我一起深入下去。这可能相当复杂，相当微妙，但是请继续深入下去。
Now, when I build an image about you or about anything, I am able to watch that image, so there is the image and the observer of the image. I see someone, say, with a red shirt on and my immediate reaction is that I like it or that I don't like it. The like or dislike is the result of my culture, my training, my associations, my inclinations, my acquired and inherited characteristics. It is from that centre that I observe and make my judgement, and thus the observer is separate from the thing he observes.
现在，当我建立了关于我或者关于任何东西的意象，我就能够看着那个意象，那么就有意象和意象的观察者。我看到某人，比如，穿着红裙，我的直接(immediate)反应是，我喜欢或者我不喜欢。喜欢和不喜欢，是我的文化、我受到的训练、我的社会团体、我的倾向、我获得的和遗传的特性的结果。正是从这个中心，我观察，我做出我的判断，因而，观察者就与他的观察物分离开来了。
But the observer is aware of more than one image; he creates thousands of images. But is the observer different from these images? Isn't he just another image? He is always adding to and subtracting from what he is; he is a living thing all the time weighing, comparing, judging, modifying and changing as a result of pressures from outside and within - living in the field of consciousness which is his own knowledge, influence and innumerable calculations. At the same time when you look at the observer, who is yourself, you see that he is made up of memories, experiences, accidents, influences, traditions and infinite varieties of suffering, all of which are the past. So the observer is both the past and the present, and tomorrow is waiting and that is also a part of him. He is half alive and half dead and with this death and life he is looking, with the dead and living leaf. And in that state of mind which is within the field of time, you (the observer) look at fear, at jealousy, at war, at the family (that ugly enclosed entity called the family) and try to solve the problem of the thing observed which is the challenge, the new; you are always translating the new in terms of the old and therefore you are everlastingly in conflict.
但是观察者觉察到不止一种意象；他创建了千千万万的意象。但是观察者是否与这些意象不同呢？他难道不是另一种意象吗？他总是向他的实然(what he is)中添加、减少意象；他是一个活物，总是由于外在的和内在的压力而权衡、比较、判断、修改和改变 －－ 生活在意识，即他自己的知识、自己的影响、自己无数的计算，的领域之中，与此同时，当你看观察者，即你自己，的时候，你看到了他是由记忆、经验、事故、影响、传统和无限多种痛苦组成的，所有这些都是过去。故观察者既是过去也是现在，而明天即将到来，那也是他的一部分。他是半活半死的，他也是在这种半活半死的状态下来“看”这半死半活的状态的。而在这种心智状态下，即在时间的领域之内，你（观察者）看恐惧、看嫉妒、看战争、看家庭（那被叫做家庭的丑陋封闭的实体），试图解决观察到的事物的问题，也就是“挑战”，新的；你总是将新的东西以旧东西来诠释，因而你就处于永无止境的冲突中。
One image, as the observer, observes dozens of other images around himself and inside himself, and he says, `I like this image, I'm going to keep it' or `I don't like that image so I'll get rid of it', but the observer himself has been put together by the various images which have come into being through reaction to various other images. So we come to a point where we can say, `The observer is also the image, only he has separated himself and observes. This observer who has come into being through various other images thinks himself permanent and between himself and the images he has created there is a division, a time interval. This creates conflict between himself and the images he believes to be the cause of his troubles. So then he says, "I must get rid of this conflict", but the very desire to get rid of the conflict creates another image.
作为观察者的这一个意象，观察着他周围和他内心许许多多其他的意象，他说，“我喜欢这个意象，我要保留它”或者“我不喜欢那个意象，我要摆脱它”，但是观察者他自身已经被多种意象整合了，这些意象又是通过多种其他意象才得以存在的。故我们可以总结说“观察者也是意象，正是观察者将他自己分离出来从而观察着。这个通过多种其他意象得以存在的观察者，认为他自己是永恒的，而在他自己和他创建的意象之间存在区分，即时间间隔。这就在他自己和他认为是他的烦恼的导因的意象之间创造了冲突。所以他会说，”我必须摆脱这种冲突“，但是这种摆脱冲突的欲望恰恰又创造了另一个意象。
Awareness of all this, which is real meditation, has revealed that there is a central image put together by all the other images, and the central image, the observer, is the censor, the experiencer, the evaluator, the judge who wants to conquer or subjugate the other images or destroy them altogether. The other images are the result of judgements, opinions and conclusions by the observer, and the observer is the result of all the other images - therefore the observer is the observed.
觉察(awareness)到所有这些，即真正的冥想，揭示了，存在一个中心意象，将所有其他的意象汇集起来，而这个中心意象，即观察者，是检查者、经验者、评估者，是想要征服或克制其他意象将其全部毁灭的评判者。其他意象是观察者的判断、看法和结论的结果，而观察者（反过来）又是所有其他意象的结果 －－ 因而，观者即所观之物。
So awareness has revealed the different states of one's mind, has revealed the various images and the contradiction between the images, has revealed the resulting conflict and the despair at not being able to do anything about it and the various attempts to escape from it. All this has been revealed through cautious hesitant awareness, and then comes the awareness that the observer is the observed. It is not a superior entity who becomes aware of this, it is not a higher self (the superior entity, the higher self, are merely inventions, further images; it is the awareness itself which had revealed that the observer is the observed.
故，觉察已经解释了心智的不同状态，揭示了各种意象和意象之间的矛盾，揭示了冲突以及对冲突无可奈何的绝望以及逃避冲突的各种企图。通过谨慎迟疑的觉察，所有这些都已经被揭示了，接下来就来觉察“观者即所观之物”。不是一个更高级的实体(superior entity)在觉察，也不是一个更高的自己(higher self)，那都是虚构的，更进一步的意象而已；正是觉察本身揭示了观者即所观之物。
If you ask yourself a question, who is the entity who is going to receive the answer? And who is the entity who is going to enquire? If the entity is part of consciousness, part of thought, then it is incapable of finding out. What it can find out is only a state of awareness. But if in that state of awareness there is still an entity who says, `I must be aware, I must practise awareness', that again is another image.
如果你问自己一个问题，谁是这个将要接受此答案的实体？这个去探寻的实体（动作的执行者）又是谁？如果这个实体是意识的一部分，是思想的一部分，那么他就不能够探寻明白。这个实体能够弄明白的，只有这个觉察的状态。但是如果在这个觉察的状态中，仍然有一个实体在说，“我必须觉察，我必须练习觉察”，那么，跟刚才一样，这又是另一个意象了。
This awareness that the observer is the observed is not a process of identification with the observed. To identify ourselves with something is fairly easy. Most of us identify ourselves with something - with our family, our husband or wife, our nation - and that leads to great misery and great wars. We are considering something entirely different and we must understand it not verbally but in our core, right at the root of our being. In ancient China before an artist began to paint anything - a tree, for instance - he would sit down in front of it for days, months, years, it didn't matter how long, until he was the tree. He did not identify himself with the tree but he was the tree. This means that there was no space between him and the tree, no space between the observer and the observed, no experiencer experiencing the beauty, the movement, the shadow, the depth of a leaf, the quality of colour. He was totally the tree, and in that state only could he paint.
对观者即所观之物的觉察，不是将观者与所观之物视为一体的过程。要将某物与我们自己视为一体是相当容易的。我们大多数人都将某物与我们自己视同一体 －－ 将我们的家庭，我们的丈夫或妻子，我们的国家 －－ 而这导致了巨大的灾难和战争。我们在讨论的东西是完全不同的，我们必须真正理解，从我们的核心、从我们存在的根本上来理解，而不是从字面上。在中国古代，有一位画家，在画任何东西之前，例如画一棵树，他会坐在树的前面几天、几月、几年，不管多久，直到他就是那棵树了。他不把自己跟那棵树视作一体，而是她就是那棵树。这意味着，在他和那棵树之间没有空间，没有经验者在经验美、运动、阴影、叶子的厚度和色质。他完全成为了这棵树，只有在这种状态下，他才动笔画。
Any movement on the part of the observer, if he has not realized that the observer is the observed, creates only another series of images and again he is caught in them. But what takes place when the observer is aware that the observer is the observed? Go slowly, go very slowly, because it is a very complex thing we are going into now. What takes place? The observer does not act at all. The observer has always said, `I must do something about these images, I must suppress them or give them a different shape; he is always active in regard to the observed, acting and reacting passionately or casually, and this action of like and dislike on the part of the observer is called positive action - `I like, therefore I must hold. I dislike therefore I must get rid of.' But when the observer realizes that the thing about which he is acting is himself, then there is no conflict between himself and the image. He is that. He is not separate from that. When he was separate, he did, or tried to do, something about it, but when the observer realizes that he is that, then there is no like or dislike and conflict ceases.
如果观察者没有意识到观者即所观之物，他这一方的任何运动，只会又创造出一系列的意象，从而陷于其中。但是，当观察者意识到观者即所观之物的时候会发生什么呢？我们慢一点、非常慢地继续，因为我们即将探究的，是非常复杂的东西。会发生什么呢？观察者完全不作为(act)了。观察者总是说“我必须对这些意象做点什么，我必须压抑它们、或者改变它们的形状；他总是主动对待所观之物，热情地或随意地进行动作、反应，而处于观察者的喜欢或不喜欢的动作被称为积极的行动 －－ “我喜欢因而我必须拥有。我讨厌因而我必须摆脱。”但是当观察者意识到他的行动所针对的东西正是他自己的时候，那么在他自己和意象之间就没有了冲突。他就是这一切(He is that)。他没有从这一切分离出来。当他与这一切处于分离的时候，他就对其做或者试图去做一些事情，但是当观察者意识到他就是这一切的时候，那么就没有喜欢和不喜欢了，冲突也停止了。
For what is he to do? If something is you, what can you do? You cannot rebel against it or run away from it or even accept it. It is there. So all action that is the outcome of reaction to like-and dislike has come to an end.
他的行动是为了什么呢？如果某种东西是你，你能做什么呢？你不能反抗它或者远离它或者甚至接受它。它就在那里。故所有对喜欢和不喜欢的反应生出的结果，即行动，都结束了。
Then you will find that there is an awareness that has become tremendously alive. It is not bound to any central issue or to any image - and from that intensity of awareness there is a different quality of attention and therefore the mind - because the mind is this awareness - has become extraordinarily sensitive and highly intelligent.
这时你会发现，有一种觉察，变得极为生动。它没有束缚于任何中心问题或任何意象 －－ 从这种强烈的觉察中，生出一种不同的注意力的品质，因而心智 －－ 因为心智就是这觉察 －－ 变得极为敏感、高度智能。
Let us now go into the question of what is thinking, the significance of that thought which must be exercised with care, logic and sanity (for our daily work) and that which has no significance at all. Unless we know the two kinds, we cannot possibly understand something much deeper which thought cannot touch. So let us try to understand this whole complex structure of what is thinking, what is memory, how thought originates, how thought conditions all our actions; and in understanding all this we shall perhaps come across something which thought has never discovered, which thought cannot open the door to.
现在我们看一下“什么是思考”这一问题，（思考有两个意义，分别是我们日常工作中）必须谨慎、合乎逻辑、头脑清晰地进行的“思考”，和那个完全没有意义的“思考”。除非我们知道这两种“思考”，我们不可能懂得那思想不可触及的极为深入的层面。故让我们试着理解这整个复杂的结构：什么是思考，什么是记忆，思想如何起源，思想如何限制我们的行动；而在理解了所有这些之后，我们就可能发现思想从未发现的东西，穿过思想无法开启的大门。
Why has thought become so important in all our lives - thought being ideas, being the response to the accumulated memories in the brain cells? Perhaps many of you have not even asked such a question before, or if you have you may have said, `It's of very little importance - what is important is emotion.' But I don't see how you can separate the two. If thought doesn't give continuity to feeling, feeling dies very quickly. So why in our daily lives, in our grinding, boring, frightened lives, has thought taken on such inordinate importance? Ask yourself as I am asking myself - why is one a slave to thought - cunning, clever, thought which can organize, which can start things, which has invented so much, bred so many wars, created so much fear, so much anxiety, which is forever making images and chasing its own tail - thought which has enjoyed the pleasure of yesterday and given that pleasure continuity in the present and also in the future - thought which is always active, chattering, moving, constructing, taking away, adding, supposing?
思想在我们所有人的生活中为什么如此重要 －－ 作为想法(idea)的思想，作为在我们的脑细胞中累积的记忆的反应的思想？也许你们许多人以前从未问过这样的问题，或者如果你们问过，你们可能说过，“这一点也不重要 －－ 重要的是情绪。”但是我没有看到你如何能将这两者（思想和情绪）区分开来。如果思想不赋予感觉以延续性，感觉就会很快死掉。故我们的日常生活，沉重的、无聊的、充满恐惧的日常生活中，为什么思想占据了如此过分重要的地位？问问你自己，就像我问我自己一样 －－ 人为什么成为了思想 －－ 这能够组织、能够创造事物的，巧妙的、聪明的思想；这滋生了这么多战争，创造了这么多恐惧、这么多的焦虑，还永不停息地制造意象、追逐自己的尾巴的思想 －－ 这享受着昨日的快乐并将快乐延续到当下、也延续到未来的思想 －－ 这总是活跃着、喋喋不休着、运动着、构建着、取走着什么、添加着什么、猜测着什么的思想 －－ 人为什么成为了这样的思想的奴隶？
Ideas have become far more important to us than action - ideas so cleverly expressed in books by the intellectuals in every field. The more cunning, the more subtle, those ideas are the more we worship them and the books that contain them. We are those books, we are those ideas, so heavily conditioned are we by them. We are forever discussing ideas and ideals and dialectically offering opinions. Every religion has its dogma, its formula, its own scaffold to reach the gods, and when inquiring into the beginning of thought we are questioning the importance of this whole edifice of ideas. We have separated ideas from action because ideas are always of the past and action is always the present - that is, living is always the present. We are afraid of living and therefore the past, as ideas, has become so important to us.
对我们来说，想法(ideas) －－ 那些被每个领域的智者在书中以如此聪明的方式表达过的想法 －－ 已经变得比行动重要得多。越是巧妙、越是微妙的想法，我们越崇拜它们、越崇拜那些记载着它们的书籍。我们就是那些书，我们就是那些想法，我们已经被他们如此严重地限制了。我们永远不停地讨论想法和理想，辩证地给出观点。每个宗教都有它的教条、它的准则，它自己的去够到上帝的脚手架，而当探询到思想的开端的时候，我们就问，这整个的想法的大厦的重要性在哪里？我们已经将想法与行动分离开来，因为想法总是过去而行动总是当下 －－ 就是说，生活总是当下。我们害怕生活，因而过去 －－ 作为想法 －－ 对我们来说就变得如此重要。
It is really extraordinarily interesting to watch the operation of one's own thinking, just to observe how one thinks, where that reaction we call thinking, springs from. Obviously from memory. Is there a beginning to thought at all? If there is, can we find out its beginning - that is, the beginning of memory, because if we had no memory we would have no thought?
观察自己的思想如何运作真是一件非常有趣的事情，就只是观察自己如何思考，观察我们叫做思考的那种反应从哪里涌出。显然是从记忆中。思考到底有没有开端？如果有，我们能否发现它的开端？ －－ 也即记忆的开端，因为若我们没有记忆，我们就有可能没有思想。
We have seen how thought sustains and gives continuity to a pleasure that we had yesterday and how thought also sustains the reverse of pleasure which is fear and pain, so the experiencer, who is the thinker, is the pleasure and the pain and also the entity who gives nourishment to the pleasure and pain. The thinker separates pleasure from pain. He doesn't see that in the very demand for pleasure he is inviting pain and fear. Thought in human relationships is always demanding pleasure which it covers by different words like loyalty, helping, giving, sustaining, serving. I wonder why we want to serve? The petrol station offers good service. What do those words mean, to help, to give, to serve? What is it all about? Does a flower full of beauty, light and loveliness say,`I am giving, helping, serving'? It is! And because it is not trying to do anything it covers the earth.
我们已经看到思想如何延续，思想如何赋予我们昨天的快乐以延续性，以及思想如果也维持着快乐的储备，这储备就是恐惧和痛苦，故经验者，即思考者，就是快乐、就是痛苦、也是这给予快乐和痛苦以滋养的实体。思考者将快乐和痛苦分隔开来。他看不到，正是从对快乐的需求中他引入了痛苦和恐惧。思想在人类关系中总是要求快乐，用不同的词语如“忠诚、帮助、给予、支持、服务”等（将要求快乐的实质）掩盖起来。这些词，帮助、给予、服务，意味着什么呢？它们都是关于什么的呢？一朵洋溢着美丽、光芒和可爱的花会不会说“我在给予、在帮助、在服务”呢？它就是在这么做！而因为它没有努力去做任何事情，所以它覆盖了大地。
Thought is so cunning, so clever, that it distorts everything for its own convenience. Thought in its demand for pleasure brings its own bondage. Thought is the breeder of duality in all our relationships: there is violence in us which gives us pleasure but there is also the desire for peace, the desire to be kind and gentle. This is what is going on all the time in all our lives. Thought not only breeds this duality in us, this contradiction, but it also accumulates the innumerable memories we have had of pleasure and pain, and from these memories it is reborn. So thought is the past, thought is always old, as I have already said.
思想是如此的巧妙、如此的聪明，以至于它为己之便而扭曲了每样东西。思想对快乐的需求的本身产生了对自身的束缚。思想是我们的所有关系中的二元性的起因：我们自身是暴力的，暴力给我们快感，但是我们又有对和平的欲望，做和善、温柔的人的欲望。这就是我们所有人的生活中每时每刻都在发生的。思想不仅滋生了我们内心的二元性、这种矛盾，也累积了我们曾有过的对于快乐和痛苦的不计其数的记忆，从这些记忆中，思想得到了重生。故思想是过去，思想总是旧的，我之前也已经这样说过。
As every challenge is met in terms of the past - a challenge being always new - our meeting of the challenge will always be totally inadequate, hence contradiction, conflict and all the misery and sorrow we are heir to. Our little brain is in conflict whatever it does. Whether it aspires, imitates, conforms, suppresses, sublimates, takes drugs to expand itself - whatever it does - it is in a state of conflict and will produce conflict.
随着每个挑战都以“过去” －－ 一个（永远变化）永远崭新的挑战 －－ 的方式被满足，我们就总是完全不能充分满足挑战，因而（产生了）矛盾、冲突，以及继承下来的所有不幸和悲伤。我们可怜的大脑不管在做什么的时候都处于冲突之中。不论它（大脑）是渴望，是效法，是服从，是压制，是升华，还是服用药品来增强它自己 －－ 不管它做什么 －－ 它总是处于一种冲突的状态，并且会产生冲突。
Those who think a great deal are very materialistic because thought is matter. Thought is matter as much as the floor, the wall, the telephone, are matter. Energy functioning in a pattern becomes matter. There is energy and there is matter. That is all life is. We may think thought is not matter but it is. Thought is matter as an ideology. Where there is energy it becomes matter. Matter and energy are interrelated. The one cannot exist without the other, and the more harmony there is between the two, the more balance, the more active the brain cells are. Thought has set up this pattern of pleasure, pain, fear, and has been functioning inside it for thousands of years and cannot break the pattern because it has created it.
那些思考很多的人，都是非常唯物主义的，因为思考是物质。思考像地板、墙和电话一样，它们都是物质。能量以一种模式运作，变成了物质。（其中）有能量也有物质。这就是生活的一切。我们可能认为思想不是物质，但它是的。思想跟意识形态一样都是物质。当有能量的时候它就变成了物质。物质和能量是相互关联的。一者离不开另一者而存在，而这二者之间存在越多的和谐、越多的平衡，脑细胞就越活跃。思想建立了这个快乐、痛苦、恐惧的模式，在这个模式中运作了千万年，（也）打不破这个模式，因为这模式是思想（自己）创建的。
A new fact cannot be seen by thought. It can be understood later by thought, verbally, but the understanding of a new fact is not reality to thought. Thought can never solve any psychological problem. However clever, however cunning, however erudite, whatever the structure thought creates through science, through an electronic brain, through compulsion or necessity, thought is never new and therefore it can never answer any tremendous question. The old brain cannot solve the enormous problem of living.
一个新的事实不能被思想所看到。（事实发生）之后能够从语言上被思想所理解，但是这种对于新的事实的理解，对于思想而言不是现实。思想永远无法解决任何心理上的问题。不论如何聪明、如何巧妙、如何博学，不论思想通过科学、通过电子大脑（计算机）、通过冲动或需求创造出什么样的结构来，思想永远都不会是新的，也因而永远无法回答任何庞大的问题。旧的大脑不能解决生活的庞大问题。
Thought is crooked because it can invent anything and see things that are not there. It can perform the most extraordinary tricks, and therefore it cannot be depended upon. But if you understand the whole structure of how you think, why you think, the words you use, the way you behave in your daily life, the way you talk to people, the way you treat people, the way you walk, the way you eat - if you are aware of all these things then your mind will not deceive you, then there is nothing to be deceived. The mind then is not something that demands, that subjugates; it becomes extraordinarily quiet, pliable, sensitive, alone, and in that state there is no deception whatsoever.
思想是歪曲的，因为它能发明任何东西，能看到不存在的东西。它能够玩弄最非凡的把戏，因而是靠不住的。但是如果你理解你如何思考、为什么思考、你使用的词语、你日常生活的行为方式、你与人交谈的方式、你对待人的方式、你行走的方式、你吃东西的方式的这整个结构，如果你知道所有这些东西，那么你的心智就不能欺骗你，那么就没有任何可以欺骗的东西了。此时心智就不会（主动）需求、（主动）克制；它就变得异常安静、柔软、敏感、孤独，而在那种状态中，无论如何也不会有欺骗了。
Have you ever noticed that when you are in a state of complete attention the observer, the thinker, the centre, the 'me', comes to an end? In that state of attention thought begins to wither away. If one wants to see a thing very clearly, one's mind must be very quiet, without all the prejudices, the chattering, the dialogue, the images, the pictures - all that must be put aside to look. And it is only in silence that you can observe the beginning of thought - not when you are searching, asking questions, waiting for a reply. So it is only when you are completely quiet, right through your being, having put that question, `What is the beginning of thought?', that you will begin to see, out of that silence, how thought takes shape.
你曾注意过，当你处于完全注意(complete attention)的状态时，这个观察者、思考者、中心、“我”会终结吗？在这样一个注意的状态中，思想开始凋谢了。如果一个人想要非常清晰地看到一个东西，他的心智必须非常安静，没有任何的偏见、唠叨、对话、意象、图画 －－ 看的时候所有这些都必须放在一边。而唯有在安静中，你才能观察到思想的开始 －－ 不是当你搜寻、提问、等待回答的时候。故在你提问了“思想的开端是什么”这个问题之后，唯有透过你的全部存在、你处于了彻底的安静的时候，在这寂静之中你才开始看到，思想是如何形成的。
If there is an awareness of how thought begins then there is no need to control thought. We spend a great deal of time and waste a great deal of energy all through our lives, not only at school, trying to control our thoughts - `This is a good thought, I must think about it a lot. This is an ugly thought, I must suppress it.' There is a battle going on all the time between one thought and another, one desire and another, one pleasure dominating all other pleasures. But if there is an awareness of the beginning of thought, then there is no contradiction in thought.
如果能够觉察对思想如何开始，就没有必要控制思想了。不仅仅在学校中，还有在生活中，我们都花费了大量时间、浪费了大量的精力，试图去控制我们的思想 －－ “这个思想是好的，我必须多这么去想。这个思想是丑陋的，我必须压抑它。”这是我们生活中每时每刻都在进行的战争：用思想去战胜其他思想，用欲望去代替其他欲望，用快乐去主宰其他快乐。但是如果觉察到思想的开端，那么思想中就没有矛盾了。
Now when you hear a statement like 'Thought is always old' or `Time is sorrow', thought begins to translate it and interpret it. But the translation and interpretation are based on yesterday's knowledge and experience, so you will invariably translate according to your conditioning. But if you look at the statements and do not interpret them all but just give them your complete attention (not concentration) you will find there is neither the observer nor the observed, neither the thinker nor the thought. Don't say, `Which began first?' That is a clever argument which leads nowhere. You can observe in yourself that as long as there is no thought - which doesn't mean a state of amnesia, of blankness - as long as there is no thought derived from memory, experience or knowledge, which are all of the past, there is no thinker at all. This is not a philosophical or mystical affair. We are dealing with actual facts, and you will see, if you have gone this far in the journey, that you will respond to a challenge, not with the old brain, but totally anew.
当你听到如“思想总是旧的”或者“时间即悲伤”这样的句子时，思想就开始翻译它并诠释它。但是翻译和诠释是基于昨天的知识和经验，故仍然是在你的受限范围内翻译它。但是如果你看这些句子的时候完全不诠释它们，而只是将你的全部注意力(complete attention)放在上面（不是集中精力(concentration)），你会发现既没有观者也没有所观之物，既没有思考者也没有思想。不要说，“（鸡和蛋）先有的哪一个的？”这样争论很聪明但是不会让你前行。只要没有思想，你就可以在你的内心观察 －－ （没有思想）不意味着失忆、空白的状态 －－ 只要记忆、经验或知识（这些都是过去）中没有思想生出，就完全没有思考者。这不是哲学或神秘学。我们在处理实际的事实，而你将会发现，如果你已经（跟随我）在这个（探询的）旅途中深入到这里了的话，你会发现，你会全新地、不使用旧的大脑，对挑战做出反应。
In the life we generally lead there is very little solitude. Even when we are alone our lives are crowded by so many influences, so much knowledge, so many memories of so many experiences, so much anxiety, misery and conflict that our mind become duller and duller, more and more insensitive, functioning in a monotonous routine. Are we ever alone? Or are we carrying with us all the burdens of yesterday?
生活中，我们通常很少有机会独处。即使当我们是一个人的时候，我们的生活也都挤满了太多的影响、知识、经验的记忆、焦虑、痛苦和冲突，以至于我们的头脑变得越来越迟钝，越来越不敏感，以毫无变化的、例行公事的方式运转。我们独处过吗？我们是不是一直背负着昨日的重担？
There is a rather nice story of two monks walking from one village to another and they come upon a young girl sitting on the bank of a river, crying. And one of the monks goes up to her and says, `Sister, what are you crying about?' She says, `You see that house over there across the river? I came over this morning early and had no trouble wading across but now the river has swollen and I can't get back. There is no boat.' `Oh,' says the monk, `that is no problem at all', and he picks her up and carries her across the river and leaves her on the other side. And the two monks go on together. After a couple of hours, the other monk says, `Brother, we have taken a vow never to touch a woman. What you have done is a terrible sin. Didn't you have pleasure, a great sensation, in touching a woman?' and the other monk replies, `I left her behind two hours ago. You are still carrying her, aren't you?' That is what we do. We carry our burdens all the time; we never die to them, we never leave them behind. it is only when we give complete attention to a problem and solve it immediately - never carrying it over to the next day, the next minute - that there is solitude. Then, even, if we live in a crowded house or are in a bus, we have solitude. And that solitude indicates a fresh mind, an innocent mind.
有一个很好的故事。两个和尚在村间走路时遇到一个年轻的女孩坐在河岸上哭。一个和尚上前说：“姐姐，你哭什么？”女孩说，“你能看到河对面那栋房子吗？我今早从那边淌过来的，现在河水涨了我回不去了，又没有船。”“哦，”和尚说，“这不是问题。”他背起她过了河把她放在对岸。两个和尚继续前行。几个小时以后，另一个和尚说，“师兄，我们发过誓永远不碰女人。你刚才的所为犯了重罪。你碰女人的时候，觉得快乐、刺激吗？”而另一个和尚答道，“我两个小时前就把她放下了。你直到现在还没有放下，是不是？”这就是我们在做的事情。我们无时无刻背负着我们的重担；我们从未死于它们，从未将它们抛下。唯有当我们给予一个问题全部的注意力并立即解决它 －－ 不背负它到下一分钟、下一天 －－ 才能有独处。那时，就算我们住在一个拥挤吵闹的房子中、在公共汽车上，我们都是独处的。而这种独处意味着新鲜的头脑、单纯的心。
To have inward solitude and space is very important because it implies freedom to be, to go, to function, to fly. After all, goodness can only flower in space just as virtue can flower only when there is freedom. We may have political freedom but inwardly we are not free and therefore there is no space. No virtue, no quality that is worth while, can function or grow without this vast space within oneself. And space and silence are necessary because it is only when the mind is alone, uninfluenced, untrained, not held by infinite varieties of experience, that it can come upon something totally new.
拥有内在的独处和空间非常重要，因为那意味着拥有自由去成为、去行动、去发挥作用、去飞翔。毕竟，善良只有在有空间的地方才能绽放，正如美德只有在有自由的时候才能绽放一样。我们可能有政治上的自由，但是内在的，我们不自由，因而就没有空间。当一个人的内在没有广阔的空间时，美德和有价值的特质就不能作用和生长。而空间和寂静是必要的，因为唯有当心是独处的、不受影响的、未经训练的、不被无尽的经验所控制的时候，全新的东西才能突然出现。
One can see directly that it is only when the mind is silent that there is a possibility of clarity. The whole purpose of meditation in the East is to bring about such a state of mind - that is, to control thought, which is the same as constantly repeating a prayer to quieten the mind and in that state hoping to understand one's problems. But unless one lays the foundation, which is to be free from fear, free from sorrow, anxiety and all the traps one lays for oneself, I do not see how it is possible for a mind to be actually quiet. This is one of the most difficult things to communicate. Communication between us implies, doesn't it, that not only must you understand the words I am using but that we must both, you and I, be intense at the same time, not a moment later or a moment sooner and capable of meeting each other on the same level? And such communication is not possible when you are interpreting what you are reading according to your own knowledge, pleasure or opinions, or when you are making a tremendous effort to comprehend.
人们可以直接看到，唯有当头脑安静的时候，才有可能清晰。在东方，冥想的目的只是实现这样一个心灵状态 －－ 即，控制思想，就跟持续重复某个祷词企图让头脑安静下来希望能够获得对问题的理解一样。但是，除非人们奠定了基础，也就是说，从恐惧、悲伤、焦虑以及所有自设的陷阱中解脱了出来，否则，我看不到有任何可能心灵能够真正的安静。这是最难交流的事情之一。我们之间的交流是否意味着，不仅你必须要能够理解我所使用的单词，而且你和我两个人必须在此刻同时集中精力，早了或晚了都不行，并且，还要能够在同一层面遇见彼此？而当你还在用你的知识、快乐或意见来解释你正读到的内容，或者当你还在费力来理解的时候，这样的交流就不可能实现。
It seems to me that one of the greatest stumbling blocks in life is this constant struggle to reach, to achieve, to acquire. We are trained from childhood to acquire and to achieve - the very brain cells themselves create and demand this pattern of achievement in order to have physical security, but psychological security is not within the field of achievement. We demand security in all our relationships, attitudes and activities but, as we have seen, there is actually no such thing as security. To find out for yourself that there is no form of security in any relationship - to realize that psychologically there is nothing permanent - gives a totally different approach to life. It is essential, of course, to have outward security - shelter, clothing, food - but that outward security is destroyed by the demand for psychological security.
对我而言，生活中最大的绊脚石之一就是持续的想要去实现、达成、获取的挣扎。我们从儿时起就被训练要获取和达成 －－ 正是同样的脑细胞，创造和需求着这个达成的模式，为了拥有身体上的安全，但是心理上的安全不在达成的领域之内。我们在我们的所有关系、态度和活动中都要求安全，但是，就像我们已经看到的，实际上没有这种所谓的安全。你自己去弄明白，在任何关系中都没有任何形式的安全 －－ 去意识到心理上没有任何永恒的东西 －－ 会给你的生活一条完全不同的路径。当然，拥有外在的安全非常关键 －－ 住所、衣物、食品 －－ 但是外在的安全被内心安全的需要所破坏了。
Space and silence are necessary to go beyond the limitations of consciousness, but how can a mind which is so endlessly active in its self-interest be quiet? One can discipline it, control it, shape it, but such torture does not make the mind quiet; it merely makes it dull. Obviously the mere pursuit of the ideal of having a quiet mind is valueless because the more you force it the more narrow and stagnant it becomes. Control in any form, like suppression, produces only conflict. So control and outward discipline are not the way, nor has an undisciplined life any value.
空间和寂静对于超越意识的限制是必要的，但是，一个无止境地在自身兴趣中活动的头脑，如何能够安静呢？人可以约束、控制、塑造它，但是，这样的折磨不会让头脑安静下来；而仅仅只会让它迟钝。显然，仅去追求拥有一个安静的头脑的这种理想，是没有价值的，因为你越强迫它，它越狭隘、越停滞不前。任何形式的控制，例如压抑，都只会产生冲突。故，控制和外在的约束不是办法，过不受约束的生活也没有价值。
Most of our lives are outwardly disciplined by the demands of society, by the family, by our own suffering, by our own experience, by conforming to certain ideological or factual patterns - and that form of discipline is the most deadening thing. Discipline must be without control, without suppression, without any form of fear. How is this discipline to come about? It is not discipline first and then freedom; freedom is at the very beginning, not at the end. To understand this freedom, which is the freedom from the conformity of discipline, is discipline itself. The very act of learning is discipline (after all the root meaning of the word discipline is to learn), the very act of learning becomes clarity. To understand the whole nature and structure of control, suppression and indulgence demands attention. You don't have to impose discipline in order to study it, but the very act of studying brings about its own discipline in which there is no suppression.
我们大部分人的生活，外在地，受到社会的要求、家庭、我们自身的苦难、经验，受到服从某个特定的意识形态或事实模式的纪律约束 －－ 而这种纪律约束的形式就是最一成不变的东西。纪律必须没有控制、没有压抑、没有任何形式的恐惧。这种纪律约束如何发生？并不是说先有纪律后有自由；自由是在最初的，不是在最后。要理解这种自由，即从服从纪律中解脱出来，这种自由本身就是纪律。学习的行动本身就是纪律（毕竟“纪律”这个词的根义就是学习），学习这种行为本身就使人清晰。要理解控制、压抑和放纵的整个本质和结构，需要注意力。你不必为了研究它而强加纪律，但是学习的行为本身就会引起其自身的纪律，那里没有压抑。
In order to deny authority (we are talking of psychological authority, not the law) - to deny the authority of all religious organizations, traditions and experience, one has to see why one normally obeys - actually study it. And to study it there must be freedom from condemnation, justification, opinion or acceptance. Now we cannot accept authority and yet study it - that is impossible. To study the whole psychological structure of authority within ourselves there must be freedom. And when we are studying we are denying the whole structure, and when we do deny, that very denial is the light of the mind that is free from authority. Negation of everything that has been considered worthwhile, such as outward discipline, leadership, idealism, is to study it; then that very act of studying is not only discipline but the negative of it, and the very denial is a positive act. So we are negating all those things that are considered important to bring about the quietness of the mind.
为了否定权威（我们讨论的是心理上的权威，不是法律） －－ 要否定所有宗教组织、传统和经验的权威，需要看到为什么人一般情况下会遵循 －－ 实际地研究它。而要研究它，就必须有从谴责、判断、意见和接受中解脱出来的自由。接受权威同时又去研究它 －－ 是不可能的。要研究我们自身中的权威的整个心理结构，就必须要有自由。而当我们研究的时候，我们就是在否定整个结构，而当我们否定的时候，否定本身就是头脑的光，就是从权威中的解脱。否定任何一直被认为有价值东西，例如外在的纪律、领导、理想主义，就是去研究它；然后，这种研究的行动，不仅仅是纪律，还是对那种东西的否定，而正是这种否定，才是积极的行动。故我们否定了所有这些被认为是重要的事情，为了得到头脑的安静。
Thus we see it is not control that leads to quietness. Nor is the mind quiet when it has an object which is so absorb- ing that it gets lost in that object. This is like giving a child an interesting toy; he becomes very quiet, but remove the toy and he returns to his mischief-making. We all have our toys which absorb us and we think we are very quiet but if a man is dedicated to a certain form of activity, scientific, literary or whatever it is, the toy merely absorbs him and he is not really quiet at all.
故我们看到，不是控制导致了安静，也不是由于头脑中有一个目标，目标吸引人导致头脑迷失了所以安静。这就像给孩子一个有趣的玩具；孩子就变得非常安静，但是把玩具拿走她就会回归恶作剧。我们都有吸引我们的玩具，而我们认为我们非常安静，但若是因为他致力于某种特定形式的活动，科学、文学或不管是什么，仅仅是这个玩具吸引了他，实际上他完全没有安静。
The only silence we know is the silence when noise stops, the silence when thought stops - but that is not silence. Silence is something entirely different, like beauty, like love. And this silence is not the product of a quiet mind, it is not the product of the brain cells which have understood the whole structure and say, `For God's sake be quiet; then the brain cells themselves produce the silence and that is not silence. Nor is silence the outcome of attention in which the observer is the observed; then there is no friction, but that is not silence.
我们所知的唯一的安静，是噪音停止的安静，思维停止的时候的安静 －－ 但那不是安静。安静是一种完全不同的东西，就像美丽，像爱。而这种安静不是安静头脑的产物，它不是在脑细胞理解了整个结构并说，“看在上帝的份上，安静下来吧”的产物；脑细胞自身产生的安静不是安静。安静也不是注意力的产物，在注意力中观者即所观之物；在其中没有摩擦，但那也不是安静。
You are waiting for me to describe what this silence is so that you can compare it, interpret it, carry it away and bury it. It cannot be described. What can be described is the known, and the freedom from the known can come into being only when there is a dying every day to the known, to the hurts, the flatteries, to all the images you have made, to all your experiences - dying every day so that the brain cells themselves become fresh, young, innocent. But that innocency, that freshness, that quality of tenderness and gentleness, does not produce love; it is not the quality of beauty or silence.
你在等我为你描述安静是什么，你就可以比较它、解释它、带走并埋葬它。它不能被描述。可以描述的东西是已知的，而从已知中解脱出来的自由唯有当每天都死于已知、死于伤害、死于奉承，死于所有你制造的意象，死于所有的经验 －－ 每天都死，这样脑细胞本身就是鲜活的、年轻的、单纯无知的。但是这种单纯无知、这种鲜活、这种柔情和温柔的品质，不会产生爱；不是美或安静的品质。
That silence which is not the silence of the ending of noise is only a small beginning. It is like going through a small hole to an enormous, wide, expansive ocean, to an immeasurable, timeless state. But this you cannot understand verbally unless you have understood the whole struc- ture of consciousness and the meaning of pleasure, sorrow and despair, and the brain cells themselves have become quiet. Then perhaps you may come upon that mystery which nobody can reveal to you and nothing can destroy. A living mind is a still mind, a living mind is a mind that has no centre and therefore no space and time. Such a mind is limitless and that is the only truth, that is the only reality.
这种寂静不是噪音终止的寂静，而只是一个小小的开始。就像穿过一个小洞到达广阔无垠的海洋、到达一种不可计量、没有时间的状态。但是这你不能通过语言来了解它，除非你理解了意识的整个结构和快乐、悲伤、绝望的意义，并且脑细胞自身变得安静下来。那时，可能你就会遇到这种神秘，这种神秘没有人能够揭示给你，没有东西可以毁灭它。活着的头脑是静止的头脑，活着的头脑是没有中心、因而也没有空间和时间的头脑。这样的头脑是没有限制的，这就是唯一的真理（truth），这就是唯一的真相（reality）。
We all want experiences of some kind - the mystical experience, the religious experience, the sexual experience, the experience of having a great deal of money, power, position, domination. As we grow older we may have finished with the demands of our physical appetites but then we demand wider, deeper and more significant experiences, and we try various means to obtain them - expanding our consciousness, for instance, which is quite an art, or taking various kinds of drugs. This is an old trick which has existed from time immemorial - chewing a piece of leaf or experimenting with the latest chemical to bring about a temporary alteration in the structure of the brain cells, a greater sensitivity and heightened perception which give a semblance of reality. This demand for more and more experiences shows the inward poverty of man. We think that through experiences we can escape from ourselves but these experiences are conditioned by what we are. If the mind is petty, jealous, anxious, it may take the very latest form of drug but it will still see only its own little creation, its own little projections from its own conditioned background.
我们都想要某种经验 －－ 神秘经验、宗教经验、性经验、拥有大量金钱、权力、地位、支配力的经验。随着我们变老，我们可能已经满足了我们身体的各种需求，但是我们随之要求更为广泛、更为深入、更有意义的经验，而我们尝试各种各样的方式去获得这些经验 －－ 一个相当有艺术性的例子是扩展我们的意识，或者，服用各种各样的迷幻剂。这是一种古老的把戏，年代久远却仍未失传 －－ 咀嚼一片叶子，或者尝试最新发明的化学药剂，以获取一种对脑细胞结构的临时改变。这种对越来越多的经验的需求显示出人内在的贫穷。我们认为通过经验，我们可以逃离自我，但是这些经验受限于我们自身。如果心智小气、嫉妒、焦虑，即便使用了最新的迷幻剂品种，心智仍然只能从它自己受限的背景出发，只能看到它自身可怜的那一点创造、投射。
Most of us demand completely satisfying, lasting experiences which cannot be destroyed by thought. So behind this demand for experience is the desire for satisfaction, and the demand for satisfaction dictates the experience, and therefore we have not only to understand this whole business of satisfaction but also the thing that is experienced. To have some great satisfaction is a great pleasure; the more lasting, deep and wide the experience the more pleasurable it is, so pleasure dictates the form of experience we demand, and pleasure is the measure by which we measure the experience. Anything measurable is within the limits of thought and is apt to create illusion. You can have marvellous experiences and yet be completely deluded. You will inevitably see visions according to your conditioning; you will see Christ or Buddha or whoever you happen to believe in, and the greater a believer you are the stronger will be your visions, the projections of your own demands and urges.
我们大多数人都要求不能被思想毁灭的完全的满足和持续的经验(experience)。这种对于经验的要求的背后，是对满足的渴望，而对满足的需求则要求体验(experience)，因而，我们不仅必须完整地理解“满足”是怎么一回事，还要理解被体验的事物。要拥有大的满足必须要有大的快乐；更持续、深入和广泛的满足就要求这种快乐更令人愉快，故快乐对我们需要的体验的形式有要求，而快乐则是度量体验的手段。任何可以度量的东西都受限于思想，因而易于创造幻想。你可以有奇迹般的体验，而却完全地被欺骗。你的所见不可避免的受限于你自身；你可能看到耶稣、佛祖，或者不论是你相信的什么，而你越是相信，你的所见和你的需求和渴望的投射就越强烈。
So if in seeking something fundamental, such as what is truth, pleasure is the measure, you have already projected what that experience will be and therefore it is no longer valid.
故你在探求某种基本的东西，例如真实，的时候，若把快乐当做度量，你就已经预设了会得到什么样的经验，因而，你的探求就无效了。
What do we mean by experience? Is there anything new or original in experience? Experience is a bundle of memories responding to a challenge and it can respond only according to its background, and the cleverer you are at interpreting the experience the more it responds. So you have to question not only the experience of another but your own experience. If you don't recognize an experience it isn't an experience at all. Every experience has already been experienced or you wouldn't recognize it. You recognize an experience as being good, bad, beautiful, holy and so on according to your conditioning, and therefore the recognition of an experience must inevitably be old.
我们所说的经验是什么呢？经验中有新的或原始的东西吗？经验是一堆记忆，这些记忆是对挑战的反应，它们只能对其背景进行反应，而在你诠释经验的时候，你越聪明，反应就越多。故你不仅必须质疑别人的经验，还得质疑自己的经验。如果你没有辨识出一个经验，它就完全不是经验。每一个经验都是被经验过的，否则你就不会辨识出它。你是根据你的受限才辨识出一个经验是好的、坏的、美的、神圣的等等，因而，对经验的辨识必然是陈旧的。
When we demand an experience of reality - as we all do, don't we? - to experience it we must know it and the moment we recognise it we have already projected it and therefore it is not real because it is still within the field of thought and time. If thought can think about reality it cannot be reality. We cannot recognize a new experience. It is impossible. We recognize only something we have already known and therefore when we say we have had a new experience it is not new at all. To seek further experience through expansion of consciousness, as is being done through various psychedelic drugs, is still within the field of consciousness and therefore very limited.
当我们一种对现实的经验时 －－ 我们每个人都要求，是不是？ －－ 要经验现实，我们必须知道现实，而我们辨识出现实的那一刹那，我们就已经（在头脑中）投射了现实，因而它（我们辨识出的现实）就不是真实的，因为它仍然是在思想和时间的领域之内。我们不能辨识出一个新的经验。这是不可能的。我们只能辨识出我们已知的事物，因而当我们说我们已经有了一个新的经验的时候，这个经验就肯定不是新的了。要通过我们意识的扩张对更深入的经验的寻求，就像经由各种迷幻药而体验到的一样，这种寻求仍然是在意识的领域之内，因而是非常受限的。
So we have discovered a fundamental truth, which is that a mind that is seeking, craving, for wider and deeper experience is a very shallow and dull mind because it lives always with its memories.
故我们已经发现了一个基本的事实，即，一个寻求、渴望更广更深的体验的心智，是非常浅薄和愚钝的，因为它永远都活在它的记忆中。
Now if we didn't have any experience at all, what would happen to us? We depend on experiences, on challenges, to keep us awake. If there were no conflicts within ourselves, no changes, no disturbances, we would all be fast asleep. So challenges are necessary for most of us; we think that without them our minds will become stupid and heavy, and therefore we depend on a challenge, an experience, to give us more excitement, more intensity, to make our minds sharper. But in fact this dependence on challenges and experiences to keep us awake, only makes our minds duller - It doesn't really keep us awake at all. So I ask myself, is it possible to keep awake totally, not peripherally at a few points of my being, but totally awake without any challenge or any experience? This implies a great sensitivity, both physical and psychological; it means I have to be free of all demands, for the moment I demand I will experience. And to be free of demand and satisfaction necessitates investigation into myself and an understanding of the whole nature of demand.
那么若我们从未有过任何经验，会如何呢？我们依赖于经验、挑战来使我们保持清醒。如果我们的内在没有冲突、没有改变、没有干扰，我们所有人就会立即睡着。故挑战对于我们大多数人而言是必要的；我们认为，没有挑战我们的心智就会变得愚蠢和沉重，因而我们依赖于挑战、经验，来让我们更兴奋、感情更强烈，来让我们的心智更敏锐。但事实上，依赖于挑战和经验让我们保持清醒，只会是我们更迟钝 －－ 那完全不是真的让我们保持清醒。故我问我自己，有没有可能完全地保持清醒，不是指我的存在的几个点上的外围的清醒，而是没有任何挑战或经验的完全的清醒？这意味着非常地敏感，因为一旦我要求(demand)我就会经验。而要摆脱要求和满足，就要探究我自己，就要理解要求(demand)的全部本质。
Demand is born out of duality: `I am unhappy and I must be happy'. In that very demand that I must be happy is unhappiness. When one makes an effort to be good, in that very goodness is its opposite, evil. Everything affirmed contains its own opposite, and effort to overcome strengthens that against which it strives. When you demand an experience of truth or reality, that very demand is born out of your discontent with what is, and therefore the demand creates the opposite. And in the opposite there is what has been. So one must be free of this incessant demand, otherwise there will be no end to the corridor of duality. This means knowing yourself so completely that the mind is no longer seeking.
要求，来源于二元性(duality)：“我不开心(happy)，我必须要开心”。而不开心，正是从这种对于“我必须开心”的要求中而生。人若要努力变善良，恶就从中而生。任何被认为正确的事物都包含其相反面，努力克服相反面反而会助长它。当你要求对真实或实相的经验，这种要求其实是从你对现状的不满而生，因而这种要求创造了相反面（远离了实相）。而相反面是过去的投射。故人必须要从无尽的要求中解脱出来，否则二元性的长廊就永无尽头。这意味着完整地了解你自己，以至于心灵不再寻求。
Such a mind does not demand experience; it cannot ask for a challenge or know a challenge; it does not say, `I am asleep' or `I am awake'. It is completely what it is. Only the frustrated, narrow, shallow mind, the conditioned mind, is always seeking the more. Is it possible then to live in this world without the more - without this everlasting comparison? Surely it is? But one has to find out for oneself.
这样的思想不要求经验；它不要求挑战，也不了解挑战；它不说，“我睡着了”或者“我醒着”。它完全是它本来的样子。唯有沮丧的、狭隘的、浅薄的心智，受限的心智才总是寻求更多。那么，要生活在这个世界上而不要求更多 －－ 没有那永无止境的比较 －－ 是可能的吗？一定是可能的吗？但是人必须要自己来探究（这个问题的答案）。
Investigation into this whole question is meditation. That word had been used both in the East and the West in a most unfortunate way. There are different schools of meditation, different methods and systems. There are systems which say, `Watch the movement of your big toe, watch it, watch it, watch it; there are other systems which advocate sitting in a certain posture, breathing regularly or practising awareness. All this is utterly mechanical. The other method gives you a certain word and tells you that if you go on repeating it you will have some extraordinary transcendental experience. This is sheer nonsense. It is a form of self-hypnosis. By repeating Amen or Om or Coca-Cola indefinitely you will obviously have-a certain experience because by repeti- tion the mind becomes quiet. It is a well known phenomenon which has been practised for thousands of years in India - Mantra Yoga it is called. By repetition you can induce the mind to be gentle and soft but it is still a petty, shoddy, little mind. You might as well put a piece of stick you have picked up in the garden on the mantelpiece and give it a flower every day. In a month you will be worshipping it and not to put a flower in front of it will become a sin.
对这整个问题的探求就是冥想。冥想这个词过去曾被东西方用一种非常不幸的方式使用。有各种冥想的学校，不同的方法、体系。有的体系说，“观察你的大拇脚趾的运动，观察它，观察它，观察它”；还有的体系主张以一种特定的姿势坐着，规律地呼吸或练习觉知。所有这些都是完全机械化的。还有的方法给你一些特定的词语，并告诉你如果你持续重复它们，你就会有非凡的体验。这都是一派胡言。这都是自我催眠的形式。通过重复阿门(西方宗教)、唵(印度教)或可口可乐，无疑会让你有一种特定的经验，显然是因为心智在重复的过程中变得安静。这叫做真言瑜伽，是在印度(被人们)练习了几千年的著名现象。通过重复，你可以诱导心智变得温和柔软，但心智仍然是渺小、卑劣、琐碎的。也许你从花园中拾起一根木条放到壁炉上，并且每天为它献花。一个月之后你就会崇拜上它，不去献花就感觉是犯了罪一样。
Meditation is not following any system; it is not constant repetition and imitation. Meditation is not concentration. It is one of the favourite gambits of some teachers of meditation to insist on their pupils learning concentration - that is, fixing the mind on one thought and driving out all other thoughts. This is a most stupid, ugly thing, which any schoolboy can do because he is forced to. It means that all the time you are having a battle between the insistence that you must concentrate on the one hand and your mind on the other which wanders away to all sorts of other things, whereas you should be attentive to every movement of the mind wherever it wanders. When your mind wanders off it means you are interested in something else.
冥想不是追随任何的体系；它不是持续的重复和模仿。冥想也不是集中精力。一些导师最喜欢的策略之一就是坚持让他们的学生学习集中精力 －－ 即，将心智集中在一种思想上，并驱逐所有其他想法。这是一种最愚蠢、最丑陋的事情，任何学生都能做到，因为他被强迫。这意味着你每时每刻都处在斗争中，一方面要坚持是自己的心智维持在一件事情上，另一方面心智其实在各种各样的事情中游荡。事实上，你应该留意心智的每次游动，看看它到哪里去了。当你的心智游离时，意味着你的兴趣不在原先的事物上了。
Meditation demands an astonishingly alert mind; meditation is the understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation has ceased. Meditation is not control of thought, for when thought is controlled it breeds conflict in the mind, but when you understand the structure and origin of thought, which we have already been into, then thought will not interfere. That very understanding of the structure of thinking is its own discipline which is meditation.
冥想要求高度警觉的头脑；冥想是对于生命完整的理解，在这种理解中，任何形式的分割都停止了。冥想不是控制思想，因为当思想被控制时就会在头脑中滋生冲突，但是当你理解了思想的结构和起源，像我们已经探究过的那样，那么思想就不会干涉了。这种对于思想结构的理解，正是它本身的纪律所在，这也正是冥想。
Meditation is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling. And out of this awareness comes silence. Silence put together by thought is stagnation, is dead, but the silence that comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itself, understood how all thought is never free but always old - this silence is meditation in which the meditator is entirely absent, for the mind has emptied itself of the past.
冥想就是要明晰每个想法、每个感觉，永远不判断对错，而仅仅是观察和随之移动。在这种观察中，你开始理解了思想和感觉的整个运动。而这种觉知会生出寂静。思想制造的寂静是停滞的、死的，而在理解了思想的开端、思想的本质，理解了为什么思想永远陈旧、不自由之后，生出的寂静 －－ 这种寂静是冥想，在这种冥想中没有冥想者，因为头脑中已清空了过去。
If you have read this book for a whole hour attentively, that is meditation. If you have merely taken away a few words and gathered a few ideas to think about later, then it is no longer meditation. Meditation is a state of mind which looks at everything with complete attention, totally, not just parts of it. And no one can teach you how to be attentive. If any system teaches you how to be attentive, then you are attentive to the system and that is not attention. Meditation is one of the greatest arts in life - perhaps the greatest, and one cannot possibly learn it from anybody, that is the beauty of it. It has no technique and therefore no authority. When you learn about yourself, watch yourself, watch the way you walk, how you eat, what you say, the gossip, the hate, the jealousy - if you are aware of all that in yourself, without any choice, that is part of meditation.
如果你在读此书的过程中留意(自己的思想和感觉)，那就是冥想。如果你只是学习了一些单词、收集了一些想法，留待以后思考，那么就不再是冥想了。冥想是一种心智状态，即完全地留意一切，完整地，不是部分地。而没有人能够教你如何留意。如果任何体系教你如何留意，那么你就是在留意体系，那不是冥想。冥想是生命中最伟大的艺术之一 －－ 可能是最伟大的，而人不可能从任何人那里学到它，这就是它的美。没有任何的技术，因而也没有任何权威。当你了解你自己、观察你自己、观察你走路的方式、吃饭的样子、你说什么、流言、憎恶、嫉妒 －－ 如果你明晰你内在的所有这些，不加拣择，那么就是冥想的一部分。
So meditation can take place when you are sitting in a bus or walking in the woods full of light and shadows, or listening to the singing of birds or looking at the face of your wife or child.
故冥想唯有当你坐公交车时，或在弥漫着光影的树林里行走时，或听鸟儿歌唱时，或看妻儿的脸时发生。
In the understanding of meditation there is love, and love is not the product of systems, of habits, of following a method. Love cannot be cultivated by thought. Love can perhaps come into being when there is complete silence, a silence in which the mediator is entirely absent; and the mind can be silent only when it understands its own movement as thought and feeling. To understand this movement of thought and feeling there can be no condemnation in observing it. To observe in such a way is the discipline, and that kind of discipline is fluid, free, not the discipline of conformity.
在对冥想的理解中就有爱，而爱不是那些体系、习惯或遵循方法的产物。爱不能被思想培养。爱可能会在完全寂静时出现，在这种寂静中，没有冥想者；而心智只有在它理解了自身的运动形式，即思想和感觉，时才会寂静。要理解思想和感觉的运动就不能在对它们的观察中有谴责。要以这种方式观察就是纪律，而这种纪律是流动的、自由的，不是那种讲求服从的纪律。
What we have been concerned with all through this book is the bringing about in ourselves, and therefore in our lives, of a total revolution that has nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of society as it is. Society as it is, is a horrifying thing with its endless wars of aggression, whether that aggression be defensive or offensive. What we need is something totally new - a revolution, a mutation, in the psyche itself. The old brain cannot possibly solve the human problem of relationship. The old brain is Asiatic, European, American or African, so what we are asking ourselves is whether it is possible to bring about a mutation in the brain cells themselves?
我们全书一直在关注的问题是，给我们的内在，因而也给我们的生活，带来完全的变革，这种变革与当今的社会机构完全没有半点关系。当今的社会，是可怕的，充斥着无尽的战争、侵略，不管这种侵略是防守性的还是进攻性的。我们需要的是一些全新的东西 －－ 一种灵魂本身的，变革、转变。旧的大脑不可能解决人类关系的问题。旧的大脑是亚洲人的、欧洲人的、美洲人的或非洲人的大脑，故我们在问自己的是，是否可能带来脑细胞本身的转变？
Let us ask ourselves again, now that we have come to understand ourselves better, is it possible for a human being living an ordinary everyday life in this brutal, violent, ruthless world - a world which is becoming more and more efficient and therefore more and more ruthless - is it possible for him to bring about a revolution not only in his outward relationships but in the whole field of his thinking, feeling, acting and reacting.
让我们再次问自己，既然我们已经对我们自己有了更好的理解，对人类来说，对我们这些每天在野蛮、暴力、残忍的世界中过着平凡生活的人来说，是否可能不仅仅在他的外在关系中，还在他的思考、感受、行动和反应的全部领域带来变革？
Every day we see or read of appalling things happening in the world as the result of violence in man. You may say, `I can't do anything about it', or, `How can I influence the world?' I think you can tremendously influence the world if in yourself you are not violent, if you lead actually every day a peaceful life - a life which is not competitive, ambitious, envious - a life which does not create enmity. Small fires can become a blaze. We have reduced the world to its present state of chaos by our self-centred activity, by our prejudices, our hatreds, our nationalism, and when we say we cannot do anything about it, we are accepting disorder in ourselves as inevitable. We have splintered the world into fragments and if we ourselves are broken, fragmented, our relationship with the world will also be broken. But if, when we act, we act totally, then our relationship with the world undergoes a tremendous revolution.
每天我们看到也读到世界上由于人内在的暴力导致的可怕事件。你可能说，“我什么也做不了”，或者，“我怎样才能影响世界？”我认为，如果你的内在不是暴力的话，如果你每天实际上过着和平的生活 －－ 一种没有竞争、野心、羡慕的生活 －－ 不创造敌意的生活的话，你能够对世界有惊人的影响。星星之火可以燎原。我们自我中心的活动、我们的偏见、我们的民族主义，以及当我们说出我们什么也做不了的时候我们事实上已经接受了我们内在的无序是不可避免的，我们通过这些使得世界落魄成现在的混乱状态。我们已经将世界分裂成碎片，而若我们自身是破碎的、碎片化的，我们同世界的关系也同样会是破碎的。但是如果，当我们行动起来，我们完整地行动，那么我们同世界的关系就会经历巨大的变革。
After all, any movement which is worth while, any action which has any deep significance, must begin with each one of us. I must change first; I must see what is the nature and structure of my relationship with the world - and in the very seeing is the doing; therefore I, as a human being living in the world, bring about a different quality, and that quality, it seems to me, is the quality of the religious mind.
毕竟，任何有价值的活动，任何具有些深刻意义的行动，都必须从我们每个人开始。我必须首先改变；我必须看到我同世界的关系的本质和结构 －－ 而正是在这种看到中，就有行动；因而，我，作为一个生活在世界上的人类，带来一种不同的品质，而这种品质，对我而言，似乎就是宗教心智。
The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that believes in religion. You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A religious mind does not seek at all, it cannot experiment with truth. Truth is not something dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or whatever religion you belong to. The religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is - what actually is.
宗教心智是一种完全不同于相信宗教的心智的东西。你不能是宗教的，而同时又是印度教徒、穆斯林、基督徒或佛教徒。宗教心智完全不去寻求，它不能去试验真理。真理不是被你的快乐或痛苦，或者通过你作为印度教徒，或任何你所属的宗教，的受限，所决定的东西。宗教心智是一种心灵状态，在这种状态中，没有恐惧因而没有任何信仰，只有当下(what is) －－ 事实本身。
In the religious mind there is that state of silence we have already examined which is not produced by thought but is the outcome of awareness, which is meditation when the meditator is entirely absent. In that silence there is a state of energy in which there is no conflict. Energy is action and movement. All action is movement and all action is energy. All desire is energy. All feeling is energy. All thought is energy. All living is energy. All life is energy. If that energy is allowed to flow without any contradiction, without any friction, without any conflict, then that energy is boundless, endless. When there is no friction there are no frontiers to energy. It is friction which gives energy limitations. So, having once seen this, why is it that the human being always brings friction into energy? Why does he create friction in this movement which we call life? Is pure energy, energy without limitation, just an idea to him? Does it have no reality?
在宗教心智中，有寂静的状态，我们已经审视过，这种状态不是由思想产生，而是觉知的产物，是没有冥想者的冥想。能量是行动(action)和活动(movement)。所有的行动都是活动，所有的行动都是能量。所有的欲望都是能量。所有的感受都是能量。所有的思想都是能量。所有的生活都是能量。全部人生都是能量。如果那种能量被允许没有任何矛盾地、没有任何摩擦第、没有任何冲突地流动，那么那种能量就是没有边界、没有尽头的。当没有摩擦的时候，就没有能量的边界。正是摩擦给了能量以限制。故，你是否曾经看到，人类为什么总是将摩擦带入能量中？为什么他在我们叫做人生的这个运动中创造了摩擦？纯粹的能量、没有限制的能量，对他而言只是一种想法吗？这种能量没有任何的真实性吗？
We need energy not only to bring about a total revolution in ourselves but also in order to investigate, to look, to act. And as long as there is friction of any kind in any of our relationships, whether between husband and wife, between man and man, between one community and another or one country and another or one ideology and another - if there is any inward friction or any outward conflict in any form, however subtle it may be - there is a waste of energy.
我们不仅需要能量来带来我们内在的完全的变革，还需要能量来探究、看、行动。而只要在我们的任何的关系中，有任何一种摩擦，不管是夫妻间的摩擦，人与人之间的摩擦，社群和社群之间的摩擦，国家与国家之间的摩擦，还是意识形态与意识形态之间的摩擦， －－ 如果没有任何形式的内在和外在的摩擦，不管这种摩擦有多细微 －－ 就是在浪费能量。
As long as there is a time interval between the observer and the observed it creates friction and therefore there is a waste of energy. That energy is gathered to its highest point when the observer is the observed, in which there is no time interval at all. Then there will be energy without motive and it will find its own channel of action because then the `I' does not exist.
只要在观者和被观之物之间存在时间间隔，就会创造摩擦，因而就存在能量的浪费。而当观者即被观之物时，这种能量被聚集到了它的最高点，在这种情况下完全没有时间间隔。那么会存在没有动机的能量，而这种能量会发现它自己的行动渠道，因为“我”不存在。
We need a tremendous amount of energy to understand the confusion in which we live, and the feeling, `I must understand', brings about the vitality to find out. But finding out, searching, implies time, and, as we have seen, gradually to uncondition the mind is not the way. Time is not the way. Whether we are old or young it is now that the whole process of life can be brought into a different dimension. Seeking the opposite of what we are is not the way either, nor is the artificial discipline imposed by a system, a teacher, a philosopher or priest - all that is so very childish. When we realize this, we ask ourselves is it possible to break through this heavy conditioning of centuries immediately and not enter into another conditioning - to be free, so that the mind can be altogether new, sensitive, alive, aware, intense, capable? That is our problem. There is no other problem because when the mind is made new it can tackle any problem. That is the only question we have to ask ourselves.
我们需要巨大的能量来理解我们生活和感受中困惑，“我必须理解”(这种想法)，带来了要去发现、弄明白的生命力。但是发现、搜寻，意味着时间，而，就像我们已经看到的，逐渐地对心智卸下限制不是办法。时间也不是。不管我们年老还是年轻，整个的生命进程只有在当下才能被带入一个不同的维度。寻求我们真实所是的对立面也不是办法，人为地通过体系、教室、哲学家或牧师，来强加纪律，也不是办法 －－ 所有这些都非常地有值。当我们意识到这一点，我们问自己，是否可能立即突破这多少世纪以来的沉重的限制，并且不会进入另一种限制中 －－ 得以解脱，使得心智崭新、敏感、鲜活、觉知、能动？这就是我们的问题。没有其他的问题了，因为全新的心智能够处理任何问题。这就是我们要问我们自己的唯一一个问题。
But we do not ask. We want to be told. One of the most curious things in the structure of our psyche is that we all want to be told because we are the result of the propaganda of ten thousand years. We want to have our thinking confirmed and corroborated by another, whereas to ask a question is to ask it of yourself. What I say has very little value. You will forget it the moment you shut this book, or you will remember and repeat certain phrases, or you will compare what you have read here with some other book - but you will not face your own life. And that is all that matters - your life, yourself, your pettiness, your shallowness, your brutality, your violence, your greed, your ambition, your daily agony and endless sorrow - that is what you have to understand and nobody on earth or in heaven is going to save you from it but yourself.
但是我们没有问。我们想要被告知。我们心理结构中的最奇怪的事情之一就是，我们都想要被告知，因为我们是数万年以来的宣传的产物。我们想要让我们的思想被认为正确，被别人证实，相对比，问问题则是问你自己。我说什么几乎没有价值。在你合上这本书的时候你就会忘掉它，或者你会记住和重复某些语句，或者你会拿你在这里所读过的和另外一本书进行比较 －－ 但是你不会面对你自己的生活。而那才是真正重要的 －－ 你的生活、你自己、你的琐碎、你的肤浅、你的野蛮、你的暴力、你的贪婪、你的野心、你的每日痛苦和无尽的悲伤 －－ 那才是你不得不去理解的，而地球上和天堂里的任何人都不可能拯救你，除了你自己。
Seeing everything that goes on in your daily life, your daily activities - when you pick up a pen, when you talk, when you go out for a drive or when you are walking alone in the woods - can you with one breath, with one look, know yourself very simply as you are? When you know yourself as you are, then you understand the whole structure of man's endeavour, his deceptions, his hypocrisies, his search. To do this you must be tremendously honest with yourself throughout your being. When you act according to your principles you are being dishonest because when you act according to what you think you ought to be you are not what you are. it is a brutal thing to have ideals. If you have any ideals, beliefs or principles you cannot possibly look at yourself directly. So can you be completely negative, completely quiet, neither thinking nor afraid, and yet be extraordinarily, passionately alive?
看到你的日常生活中进行的每件事情，你的每日活动 －－ 当你拿起一支笔，当你说话，当你开车或者当你在树林中行走 －－ 你能否吸一口气、看一眼自己，了解自己当下真实所是的样子？当你了解自己的当下所是，那么你就理解了人的努力的整个结构，他的欺骗、伪善和寻求。要这么做你必须对自己的整个存在完全诚实。当你根据你的原则去做的时候，你就不是诚实的，因为当你根据你认为的你应该成为什么样子而去做的时候，你就不是你的当下所是。心怀理想是一件野蛮的事情。如果你有理想、新年或原则，你就不可能直接地看你自己。故你能否完全地否定，完全地安静既不思考也不害怕，而是非常地、充满热情地活泼？
That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love. This thing cannot be invited. please understand that very simple fact. It cannot be invited, it cannot be sought after, because the mind is too silly, too small, your emotions are too shoddy, your way of life too confused for that enormity, that immense something, to be invited into your little house, your little corner of living which has been trampled and spat upon. You cannot invite it. To invite it you must know it and you cannot know it. It doesn't matter who says it, the moment he says, `I know', he does not know. The moment you say you have found it you have not found it. If you say you have experienced it, you have never experienced it. They are all ways of exploiting another man - your friend or your enemy.
这种不再抗争的心智状态，就是真正的宗教心智，在这种心智状态中，你可能会偶遇这种被叫做真理、实相、极乐、上帝、美或者爱的东西。这种东西不能被主动请来。请理解这个非常简单的事实。它不能被请来，不能被寻求，因为对于这种巨大无边的东西，你的心智过于愚蠢、过于渺小、你的情绪过于伪劣，你的生活方式过于困惑，以至于你不能将它邀请到你的狭小的屋内，你的渺小的、被践踏和侮辱的生活角落内。你不能邀请它。要邀请它你必须了解它而你不能了解它。不管是谁，只要他一旦说出，“我了解”，他就没有了解。一旦你说你发现了它，你就没有发现它。如果你说你已然经历了它，你就从未经历它。这些都是剥削他人 －－ 你的朋友或敌人 －－ 的方式。
One asks oneself then whether it is possible to come upon this thing without inviting, without waiting, without seeking or exploring - just for it to happen like a cool breeze that comes in when you leave the window open? You cannot invite the wind but you must leave the window open, which doesn't mean that you are in a state of waiting; that is another form of deception. It doesn't mean you must open yourself to receive; that is another kind of thought.
然后，人问自己，是否可能不邀请、不等待、不寻求、不探求就偶遇这种东西呢？就像你开着窗户突有一阵凉风袭来一样发生？你不能邀请风进来，但是你必须开着窗户，这不意味着你处于等待的状态；那是另一种形式的欺骗。这不意味着你必须打开自己去接收；那是另一种思想。
Haven't you ever asked yourself why it is that human beings lack this thing? They beget children, they have sex, tenderness, a quality of sharing something together in companionship, in friendship, in fellowship, but this thing - why is it they haven't got it? Haven't you ever wondered lazily on occasion when you are walking by yourself in a filthy street or sitting in a bus or are on holiday by the seaside or walking in a wood with a lot of birds, trees, streams and wild animals - hasn't it ever come upon you to ask why it is that man, who has lived for millions and millions of years, has not got this thing, this extraordinary unfading flower? Why is it that you, as a human being, who are so capable, so clever, so cunning, so competitive, who have such marvellous technology, who go to the skies and under the earth and beneath the sea, and invent extraordinary electronic brains - why is it that you haven't got this one thing which matters? I don't know whether you have ever seriously faced this issue of why your heart is empty.
难道你从未问过自己，为什么人类缺少这种东西？他们生儿育女，他们拥有性爱、柔情，他们有有在伴侣关系、友谊关系、团体关系中分享的品质，但是这种东西 －－ 他们为什么至今没有获得？难道你从未偶然懒洋洋地独自游荡在肮脏的街道上或者坐在公交车上或者在海边度假或者在树林中、鸟儿间、溪流间、野生动物间散步 －－ 它从未偶然找到你，问你为什么那个人，那个生活了百万百万年的人，仍然没有获得这种东西，这种非同寻常的永不凋零的花朵？为什么，你，作为人类的一员，如此能干、如此聪明、如此狡黠、如此有竞争力，有如此多非凡的科技，上天入地下海无所不能，也发明了非凡的电子大脑 －－ 为什么，你还没有获得这种，仅此一件，真正重要的东西？我不知道，你是否曾经真正严肃地面对，你的心灵为什么是空虚的，这个问题。
What would your answer be if you put the question to yourself - your direct answer without any equivocation or cunningness? Your answer would be in accordance with your intensity in asking the question and the urgency of it. But you are neither intense nor urgent, and that is because you haven't got energy, energy being passion - and you cannot find any truth without passion - passion with a fury behind it, passion in which there is no hidden want. Passion is a rather frightening thing because if you have passion you don't know where it will take you.
如果你面对这个问题，你的答案会是什么呢？ －－ 你的直接答案，没有任何的含糊其辞或狡辩？你的答案会与你问这个问题时的紧张和急迫程度相一致。但是你既不紧张也不急迫，那是因为你还没有能量，变得充满热情的能量 －－ 而没有热情 －－ 蕴含暴怒的热情、不隐藏需求于其中的热情 －－ 你不可能发现任何真理。热情是一种相当令人恐惧的东西，因为如果你有热情，你将不知道它会带你到哪里去。
So is fear perhaps the reason why you have not got the energy of that passion to find out for yourself why this quality of love is missing in you, why there is not this flame in your heart? If you have examined your own mind and heart very closely, you will know why you haven't got it. If you are passionate in your discovery to find why you haven't got it, you will know it is there. Through complete negation alone, which is the highest form of passion, that thing which is love, comes into being. Like humility you cannot cultivate love. Humility comes into being when there is a total ending of conceit - then you will never know what it is to be humble. A man who knows what it is to have humility is a vain man. In the same way when you give your mind and your heart, your nerves, your eyes, your whole being to find out the way of life, to see what actually is and go beyond it, and deny completely, totally, the life you live now - in that very denial of the ugly, the brutal, the other comes into being. And you will never know it either. A man who knows that he is silent, who knows that he loves, does not know what love is or what silence is.
故，是否可能恐惧就是其中的原因呢，因为恐惧所以你还没有获得这种热情的能量，使你自己去发现你的内在没有爱的品质，因为恐惧所以你的心中没有这种火焰？如果你非常地靠近去检视你自己的头脑和内心，你会知道你还没有获得那种东西。如果你在探究你为什么还没有获得它的时候，满怀激情，你就会知道它在那里。唯有通过完全的否定，即最高形式的热情，那种叫做爱的东西，才会出现。就像谦虚一样，你不能培养爱。谦虚只有在欺骗完全结束的时候才出现 －－ 那么你永不会知道要变得谦虚是什么样子。一个知道如何变得谦虚的人，是自负的人。同样的，当你付出你的全副头脑、你的神经、你的眼、你的全部存在来发现（自己）生活的方式，去看清事实上是什么样子，并且超越它，并且完全地否定，彻底地，否定你现在的生活方式 －－ 正是在这种对于丑陋、野蛮的否定中，另一种生活方式就出现了。而你永远也永远不会了解它。一个知道自己处于寂静的人，知道自己爱的人，不会知道爱是什么、寂静是什么。