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. 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.
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。我曾尝试通过听你的演讲和读你的书，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，而且我也明白你为什么如此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。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的深刻的含义，但是对我来说，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. 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.
克：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，就好像关于觉察我们一无所知，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，如果你真的愿意非常深入地探索的话，那这个问题将揭示一种心智也许从未触及的非凡状态，一种肤浅的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。我们用我们的眼睛看，我们用感官来感知我们周围的东西——花的颜色，花上飞着的蜂鸟，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。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. 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.
克：于是我们看到了那朵玫瑰，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，当你将情感注入那描述时，你就看不到那门了。这描述可以是一句话，或者一篇科学论文，或者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，我们就会越来越困惑。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，而我们却很容易被语言带走，尤其是当我们下一步要谈到觉察的时候，我们很容易把觉察变得个人化，透过这个词我们变得情绪化。
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. 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? 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.
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。有对那玫瑰的觉察，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。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，就诞生了我们关系中所谓的“我”和“非我”。你就是如此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。你很清楚你已经看到这点了吗？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，观察那棵树的同时也观察我们自己。
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。我曾尝试通过听你的演讲和读你的书，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，而且我也明白你为什么如此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。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的深刻的含义，但是对我来说，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. 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.
克：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，就好像关于觉察我们一无所知，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，如果你真的愿意非常深入地探索的话，那这个问题将揭示一种心智也许从未触及的非凡状态，一种肤浅的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。我们用我们的眼睛看，我们用感官来感知我们周围的东西——花的颜色，花上飞着的蜂鸟，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。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. 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.
克：于是我们看到了那朵玫瑰，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，当你将情感注入那描述时，你就看不到那门了。这描述可以是一句话，或者一篇科学论文，或者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，我们就会越来越困惑。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，而我们却很容易被语言带走，尤其是当我们下一步要谈到觉察的时候，我们很容易把觉察变得个人化，透过这个词我们变得情绪化。
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. 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? 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.
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。有对那玫瑰的觉察，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。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，就诞生了我们关系中所谓的“我”和“非我”。你就是如此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。你很清楚你已经看到这点了吗？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，观察那棵树的同时也观察我们自己。
下载地址：
点击下载TXT