齐乐娱乐 - 【对话录】“觉察”究竟是什么意思?

${website.getHeaderOriginal(${article.taxonomyName})}

【冥思坊2017年下半年会员招募】2017年已过半··|,目前已有来自全国各地的60多位朋友加入成为会员··|,一起进行每周两次的语音讨论及日常交流··|--。由于时间过半··|,会员收费也进行了相应调整··|,欢迎大家申请加入:


Questioner: I should like to know what you mean by awareness because you have often said that awareness is really what your teaching is about. I've tried to understand it by listening to your talks and reading your books, but I don't seem to get very far. I know it is not a practice, and I understand why you so emphatically repudiate any kind of practice, drill, system, discipline or routine. I see the importance of that, for otherwise it becomes mechanical, and at the end of it the mind has become dull and stupid. 

发问者:我想知道你说的“觉察”是什么意思··|,因为你经常说··|,“觉察”是你的教诲真正的核心··|--。我曾尝试通过聆听你的演讲和阅读你的著作··|,来理解这点··|,但是我似乎并没有走多远··|--。我知道这不是一种练习··|,而且我也理解你为什么特别强调否定任何形式的练习、训练、体系、戒律以及例行程序··|--。我看到了这一点的重要性··|,因为否则事情就会变得机械··|,最后心智就变得迟钝和愚蠢··|--。


I should like, if I may, to explore with you to the very end this question of what it means to be aware. You seem to give some extra, deeper meaning to this word, and yet it seems to me that we are aware of what's going on all the time. When I'm angry I know it, when I'm sad I know it and when I'm happy I know it. 

如果可以的话··|,我想和你探讨一下··|,“觉察”到底意味着什么··|,并把这个问题深究到底··|--。你似乎赋予了这个词某种特别深刻的含义··|,而对我来说··|,我们似乎一直都能觉察到发生着什么事情··|--。我生气的时候我知道··|,伤心的时候我知道··|,开心的时候我也知道··|--。


Krishnamurti: I wonder if we really are aware of anger, sadness, happiness? Or are we aware of these things only when they are all over? Let us begin as though we know nothing about it at all and start from scratch. Let us not make any assertions, dogmatic or subtle, but let us explore this question which, if one really went into it very deeply, would reveal an extraordinary state that the mind had probably never touched, a dimension not touched by superficial awareness. Let us start from the superficial and work through. We see with our eyes, we perceive with our senses the things about us - the colour of the flower, the humming bird over the flower the light of this Californian sun, the thousand sounds of different qualities and subtleties, the depth and the height, the shadow of the tree and the tree itself. We feel in the same way our own bodies, which are the instruments of these different kinds of superficial, sensory perceptions. 

克里希那穆提:我想知道··|,我们是否真的觉察到了愤怒、悲伤和快乐|-··?还是我们在它们都结束了的时候才觉察到这些事情|-··?让我们这样开始··|,就好像我们对觉察一无所知··|,从头开始··|--。我们不要做任何武断或者巧妙的断言··|,而是一起来探讨这个问题··|,如果你真的愿意进一步深入探究的话··|,那这个问题将揭示一种也许心智从未触及的非凡状态··|,一种肤浅觉知从未触及的境界··|--。我们先从浅层的觉知出发··|,一路走下去··|--。我们用眼睛看··|,我们用感官来感知我们周围的东西——花朵的颜色··|,花上飞舞的蜂鸟··|,加州的阳光··|,有着不同质地和细微之处以及不同深度和高度的千万种天籁之音··|,树影以及树的本身··|--。从我们自己的身体我们也能有相同的感觉··|,身体是这些不同的各种浅层感官觉知的工具··|--。


If these perceptions remained at the superficial level there would be no confusion at all. That flower, that pansy, that rose, are there, and that's all there is to it. There is no preference, no comparison, no like and dislike, only the thing before us without any psychological involvement. Is all this superficial sensory perception or awareness quite clear? It can be expanded to the stars, to the depth of the seas, and to the ultimate frontiers of scientific observation, using all the instruments of modern technology.

如果这些觉知保持在浅层··|,那么就完全不会产生困扰··|--。那朵花··|,那朵紫罗兰··|,那朵玫瑰··|,就在那儿··|,对它们来说··|,仅此而已··|--。没有偏好··|,没有比较··|,没有喜欢或不喜欢··|,只有我们面前的那样东西··|,而不涉及任何心理活动··|--。所有这些浅层的感官觉知或者说觉察都清楚了吗|-··?通过所有的现代科技仪器··|,这种觉知可以扩展到繁星··|,扩展到深海··|,扩展到科学观测的最前沿··|--。


Questioner: Yes, I think I understand that. 

发问者:是的··|,我想我明白这一点··|--。


Krishnamurti: So you see that the rose and all the universe and the people in it, your own wife if you have one, the stars, the seas, the mountains, the microbes, the atoms, the neutrons, this room, the door, really are there. Now, the next step; what you think about these things, or what you feel about them, is your psychological response to them. And this we call thought or emotion. So the superficial awareness is a very simple matter: the door is there. But the description of the door is not the door, and when you get emotionally involved in the description you don't see the door. This description might be a word or a scientific treatise or a strong emotional response; none of these is the door itself. This is very important to understand right from the beginning. If we don't understand this we shall get more and more confused. 

克:于是我们看到了那朵玫瑰··|,以及整个宇宙和其中的人们··|,你自己的妻子··|,如果你有的话··|,星星··|,大海··|,山脉··|,微生物··|,原子··|,中子··|,这间屋子··|,门··|,它们都真实地存在着··|--。现在··|,开始下一步;你对这些东西有什么想法··|,或者对它们有什么感觉··|,这是你对它们的心理反应··|--。而我们把这叫做思想或者感情··|--。所以说··|,浅层的觉知是非常简单的事情:门在那儿··|--。但是··|,对门的描述不是那门本身··|,当你将情感注入那个描述时··|,你就看不到那门了··|--。这个描述可以是一句话··|,或者一篇科学论文··|,或者是一种强烈的情感反应;这些都不是那门本身··|--。从一开始就要清楚这点··|,这非常重要··|--。如果我们不清楚这点··|,就会越来越困惑··|--。


The description is never the described. Though we are describing something even now, and we have to, the thing we are describing is not our description of it, so please bear this in mind right through our talk. Never confuse the word with the thing it describes. The word is never the real, and we are easily carried away when we come to the next stage of awareness where it becomes personal and we get emotional through the word.

描述从来都不是所描述之物··|--。尽管我们现在也是在进行描述··|,我们不得不这么做··|,但是我们所描述的事情··|,并不是对它的描述··|,所以在我们的谈话中请务必把这一点牢记心中··|--。永远不要把语言和语言所描述之物混为一谈··|--。语言从来都不是那真实的东西本身··|,而当我们来到觉察的下一个层次··|,即涉及到个人因素时··|,我们很容易被语言牵着走··|,并因为词句而变得情绪化··|--。


So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there is the response to that, which is thought, feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, we might call it a second depth of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to the rose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. In reality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speak of the outer and inner awareness.

那么有了对树、鸟和门的浅层觉知··|,然后对它们产生反应··|,也就是思想、感觉和情感··|--。现在··|,当我们觉察到这些反应··|,我们可以把它称为第二深度的觉察··|--。有对玫瑰的觉察··|,还觉察到对玫瑰的反应··|--。我们经常觉察不到对玫瑰的反应··|--。实际上看到反应的觉察和看到玫瑰的觉察是同一个觉察··|--。这是同一个运动··|,觉察有内外之别的说法是错误的··|--。


When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the "me" in relationship and the "non-me". This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the "me" of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. Are you very clear that you perceive this? 

当对树产生视觉感知而没有涉及心理活动时··|,这里的关系就没有分裂··|--。但是当对树产生心理反应时··|,那反应就是局限的反应··|,那反应来源于过去的记忆、过去的经验··|,这反应就变成关系中的分裂··|--。在这反应中··|,就产生了我们关系中所谓的“我”和“非我”··|--。你就是这样把自己置入与世界的关系中的··|--。这就是你如何制造出了个体和团体··|--。世界再也不是如实地被看到··|,而是与记忆组成的“我”形成了各种关系··|,从这关系中去看这个世界··|--。这种分裂··|,就变成了生活··|,滋养壮大了我们称为心理存在的各种事情··|,从这里就产生了所有的矛盾和分别··|--。你很清楚你已经明白这点了吗|-··?


When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the "me" and the "non-me", the "me" who is different from the thing observed. This "me" is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of "me" and "non-me", both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

当对那棵树有觉察的时候··|,是没有评判的··|--。但是如果对那棵树有了心理反应··|,当那棵树被判定为喜欢还是不喜欢··|,那么在这觉察中就发生了分裂··|,分成了“我”和“非我”··|,“我”不同于所观之物··|--。这个“我”就是关系中来自过去的记忆和经验的反应··|--。现在··|,能不能觉察、观察那棵树··|,而不带有任何评判|-··?能不能不带有任何评判地观察那反应和回应|-··?这样我们就消除了分裂的根源··|,“我”和“非我”的根源——就在观察那棵树同时也观察我们自己的过程中··|--。


Questioner: I'm trying to follow you. Let's see if I have got it right. There is an awareness of the tree, that I understand. There is a psychological response to the tree, that I understand also. The psychological response is made up of past memories and past experiences, it is like and dislike, it is the division into the tree and the "me". Yes, I think I understand all that. 

发问者:我正努力跟上你··|--。我们来看看我是不是理解对了··|--。有对树的觉察··|,这点我理解··|--。然后产生了对树的心理反应··|,这点我也理解··|--。心理反应来源于过去的记忆和过去的经验··|,是喜欢和不喜欢··|,这就产生了树和“我”之间的分裂··|--。是的··|,我想我都懂了··|--。


Krishnamurti: Is this as clear as the tree itself, or is it simply the clarity of description? Remember, as we have already said, the described is not the description. What have you got, the thing or its description?

克:这点就像那树本身一样清楚呢··|,还是只是描述得很清楚|-··?请记得··|,正如我们已经说过的··|,被描述之物并非描述··|--。你明白的是什么··|,是事情本身还是对它的描述|-··?


Questioner: I think it is the thing. 

发问者:我想是事情本身··|--。


Krishnamurti: Therefore there is no "me" who is the description in the seeing of this fact. In the seeing of any fact there is no "me". There is either the "me" or the seeing, there can't be both. "Me" is non-seeing. The "me" cannot see, cannot be aware. 

克:那么就没有了那个看到这个事实并对它进行描述的“我”··|--。看到任何事实时··|,都没有“我”··|--。要么有“我”··|,要么有觉察··|,不可能两者同时都在··|--。“我”就是无觉察··|--。“我”无法看清··|,也无法觉察··|--。


Questioner: May I stop here? I think I've got the feeling of it, but I must let it sink in. May I come again tomorrow? 

发问者:到这里我能停一下吗|-··?我想我对此有所感觉··|,但是我必须得完全领会这一点··|--。我可以明天再来吗|-··?


***

Questioner: I think I have really understood, non-verbally, what you said yesterday. There is the awareness of the tree, there is the conditioned response to the tree, and this conditioned response is conflict, it is the action of memory and past experiences, it is like and dislike, it is prejudice. I also understand that this response of prejudice is the birth of what we call the "me" or the censor. I see clearly that the "me", the "I", exists in all relationships. Now is there an "I" outside of relationships?

发问者:我想我真的已经理解了··|,从非语言层面上理解了你昨天说的话··|--。有对树的觉知··|,有对树的局限的反应··|,这局限的反应就是冲突··|,是出自过去的记忆和经验的行为··|,比如喜欢和不喜欢··|,这是偏见··|--。我也明白了··|,这偏见的反应催生了我们所谓的“我”或者审查官··|--。我清楚地看到··|,“我”、“自我”··|,存在于所有的关系中··|--。那么··|,有没有一个“我”存在于关系之外|-··?


Krishnamurti: We have seen how heavily conditioned our responses are. When you ask if there is a "me" outside of relationship, it becomes a speculative question as long as there is no freedom from these conditioned responses. Do you see that? So our first question is not whether there is a "me" or not outside of conditioned responses, but rather, can the mind, in which is included all our feelings, be free of this conditioning, which is the past? The past is the "me". There is no "me" in the present. As long as the mind is operating in the past there is the "me", and the mind is this past, the mind is this "me". 

克:我们已经看清我们反应的局限有多么严重了··|--。当你问有没有一个“我”存在于关系之外··|,只要没办法从这些局限的反应中解脱··|,那么它就变成了一个思想性的问题··|--。你明白这点了吗|-··?所以我们的首要问题··|,不是有没有那样一个“我”在局限的反应之外··|,而应该是··|,包含了我们所有感情的心智能否从这过去的局限中解脱出来|-··?过去就是“我”··|--。活在现在这一刻就不会有“我”的存在··|--。只要心智还在过去中运作··|,就会有“我”··|,而心智就是这过去··|,心智就是这个“我”··|--。


You can't say there is the mind and there is the past, whether it is the past of a few days ago or of ten thousand years ago. So we are asking: can the mind free itself from yesterday? Now there are several things involved, aren't there? First of all there is a superficial awareness. Then there is the awareness of the conditioned response. Then there is the realization that the mind is the past, the mind is this conditioned response. 

你不能说··|,心智是存在着的··|,过去也是存在着的··|,不管是几天前的过去··|,还是一万年前的过去··|--。所以我们要问:心智能把自己从昨天解脱出来吗|-··?那么这里涉及到几件事情··|,是不是|-··?首先··|,有浅层的觉知··|,然后是对局限的反应的觉察··|,然后是意识到心智就是过去··|,心智就是这种局限的反应··|--。


Then there is the question whether this mind can free itself of the past. And all this is one unitary action of awareness because in this there are no conclusions. When we say the mind is the past, this realization is not a verbal conclusion but an actual perception of fact. The French have a word for such a perception of a fact, they call it "constatation". When we ask whether the mind can be free of the past is this question being asked by the censor, the "me", who is that very past? 

接下来的问题是··|,心智能否把自己从过去中解脱出来··|--。这一切都是一个整体的觉察行动··|,因为其中没有结论··|--。当我们说心智就是过去··|,这种认识不是一个文字结论··|,而是对事实真实的觉知··|--。法语里有个词表达这样一种对事实的觉知··|,他们把它叫做“证实”··|--。当我们问··|,心智能否从过去中解脱··|,那么这个问题是不是那个审查官、那个正是过去的“我”提出来的|-··?


Questioner: Can the mind be free of the past? 

发问者:心智能否从过去中解脱出来|-··?


Krishnamurti: Who is putting that question? Is it the entity who is the result of a great many conflicts, memories and experiences - is it he who is asking - or does this question arise of itself, out of the perception of the fact? If it is the observer who is putting the question, then he is trying to escape from the fact of himself, because, he says, I have lived so long in pain, in trouble, in sorrow, I should like to go beyond this constant struggle. 

克:是谁在问这个问题|-··?是作为许多冲突、记忆和经验的结果的那个存在体——是他在问吗|-··?还是这个问题是它自己从对事实的觉察中产生的|-··?如果是那个观察者在提出这个问题··|,那么他只是在试图从自己的事实中逃脱··|,因为他说··|,我已经在痛苦中、在困境中、在悲伤中生活了这么久··|,我想要超越这不断的挣扎··|--。


If he asks the question from that motive his answer will be a taking refuge in some escape. One either turns away from a fact or one faces it. And the word and the symbol are a turning away from it. In fact, just to ask this question at all is already an act of escape, is it not? Let us be aware whether this question is or is not an act of escape. If it is, it is noise. If there is no observer, then there is silence, a complete negation of the whole past. 

如果他是从这个动机问的这个问题··|,那么他的答案就会是在某种逃避中寻求庇护··|--。他要么转身逃开事实··|,要么面对它··|--。而语言和符号就是一种转身逃避··|--。事实上··|,仅仅提出这个问题本身就已经是一种逃避行为了··|,不是吗|-··?让我们来弄清楚这个问题是不是一种逃避行为··|--。如果是逃避··|,那它就是一种噪音··|--。如果没有观察者··|,那么就会有寂静··|,就会有对整个过去的全然否定··|--。


Questioner: Here I am lost. How can I wipe away the past in a few seconds?

发问者:在这里我迷失了··|--。我要怎样在几秒钟内抹掉过去|-··?


Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussing awareness. We are talking over together this question of awareness. 

克:我们讨论的是觉察··|,让我们把这点记在心中··|--。我们在一起讨论觉察这个问题··|--。


There is the tree, and the conditioned response to the tree, which is the "me" in relationship, the "me" who is the very centre of conflict. Now is it this "me" who is asking the question? - this "me" who, as we have said, is the very structure of the past? If the question is not asked from the structure of the past, if the question is not asked by the "me", then there is no structure of the past. When the structure is asking the question it is operating in relationship to the fact of itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape from itself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is not acting in relationship to itself. 

有树··|,以及对树局限的反应··|,也就是关系中的“我”··|,而“我”正是冲突的核心··|--。那么··|,是这个“我”在问这个问题吗|-··?——我们说过··|,这个“我”就是过去构造出来的··|--。如果这个问题不是从过去的构造中问出的··|,如果问题不是“我”问出的··|,那么就没有了过去的构造··|--。当那构造在问出这个问题时··|,它就是在和它本身这个事实的关系中运作··|,它把自己吓坏了··|,想要采取行动逃开自己··|--。当那构造不再问出这个问题时··|,它就没有在和自己的关系中运作了··|--。


To recapitulate: there is the tree, there is the word, the response to the tree, which is the censor, or the "me", which comes from the past; and then there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the "me" is asking this question it is perpetuating itself.

再重申一下:有树··|,有语言··|,有对树的反应··|,也就是来自于过去的审查官··|,或者“我”;然后就有了这个问题:我能从这一切混乱和痛苦中逃脱吗|-··?如果是这个“我”在问这个问题··|,那它就是在无休止地延续自己··|--。


Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. It does not ask the question at all because it sees the trap. Now do you see that all this awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree. 

现在··|,觉察到这点··|,它就不会再问那个问题了!觉察··|,看到其中的所有涵义··|,就不会再问这个问题了··|--。它根本不会问这个问题··|,因为它看到了其中的陷阱··|--。现在你是不是看到了所有这些觉察都是浅层的|-··?它就和看到树的觉察是一样的··|--。


Questioner: Is there any other kind of awareness? Is there any other dimension to awareness? 

发问者:有没有其他类型的觉察|-··?觉察有没有其他的境界|-··?


Krishnamurti: Again let's be careful, let's be very clear that we are not asking this question with any motive. If there is a motive we are back in the trap of conditioned response. When the observer is wholly silent, not made silent, there is surely a different quality of awareness coming into being. 

克:我们又得留意了··|,我们得非常清楚我们并不是出于任何动机来问这个问题的··|--。如果有动机··|,我们就又落入局限的反应这个陷阱里去了··|--。当观察者完全安静的时候··|,但不是制造出来的安静··|,那就必然会有一种不同品质的觉察产生··|--。


Questioner: What action could there possibly be in any circumstances without the observer - what question or what action? 

发问者:没有观察者的情况下··|,会有怎样的行动产生——怎样的问题或者行动|-··?


Krishnamurti: Again, are you asking this question from this side of the river, or is it from the other bank? If you are on the other bank, you will not ask this question; if you are on that bank, your action will be from that bank. So there is an awareness of this bank, with all its structure, its nature and all its traps, and to try to escape from the trap is to fall into another trap. And what deadly monotony there is in all that! Awareness has shown us the nature of the trap, and therefore there is the negation of all traps; so the mind is now empty. It is empty of the "me" and of the trap. This mind has a different quality, a different dimension of awareness. This awareness is not aware that it is aware.

克:再问你一次··|,你是站在河的此岸问这个问题··|,还是站在彼岸问的|-··?如果你在彼岸··|,你不会问这个问题;如果你在彼岸··|,你就会从彼岸行动··|--。所以对此岸有一种觉察··|,连同此岸的一切结构··|,它的本质··|,它所有的陷阱··|,而试图逃离陷阱就会落入另一个陷阱··|--。这一切都是多么致命地无聊乏味啊!觉察已经展示给我们那陷阱的本质··|,进而把所有陷阱都否定掉了;所以心智现在是空的··|,清空了“我”和那陷阱··|--。这个心智就具有了一种不同的品质··|,一种不同维度的觉察··|--。这种觉察并不知道它在觉察··|--。


Questioner: My God, this is too difficult. You are saying things that seem true, that sound true, but I'm not there yet. Can you put it differently? Can you push me out of my trap? 

发问者:我的天··|,这太难了··|--。你说的话似乎是真的··|,听起来是真的··|,但是我还没完全理解··|--。你能换个说法吗|-··?你能把我从我的陷阱里拉出来吗|-··?


Krishnamurti: Nobody can push you out of your trap - no guru, no drug, no mantra, nobody, including myself - nobody, especially myself. All that you have to do is to be aware from the beginning to the end, not become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is attention, and in this attention there is no frontier made by the "me". This attention is the highest form of virtue, therefore it is love. It is supreme intelligence, and there cannot be attention if you are not sensitive to the structure and the nature of these man-made traps.

克:没人能把你从你的陷阱里拉出来——没有上师··|,没有药物··|,没有曼陀罗··|,没人··|,包括我本人——没人··|,特别是我本人··|--。所有你能做的就是从始至终都在觉察··|,不在中途变得漫不经心··|--。这种崭新品质的觉察就是全神贯注··|,在这全神贯注中··|,没有“我”制造的疆域··|--。这种全神贯注是最高形式的美德··|,所以就是爱··|--。它是至高无上的智慧··|,如果你对这些人造陷阱的结构和本质不敏感的话··|,全神贯注就不可能出现··|--。


The Urgency of Change··|,‘Awareness’

《转变的紧迫性》之“觉察”



${website.getFooterOriginal(${article.taxonomyName})}

发布者 :齐乐娱乐_齐乐娱乐官网_齐乐娱乐qile110 - 分类 齐乐娱乐官方网站

(必填)