文章列表
 
您正在查看 "《重新认识你自己》" 分类下的文章

2008/04/10 22:10

  你不能依赖任何人,事实上并没有向导,没有老师,也没有权威,只有靠你自己——你和他人,以及你和世界的关系——除此以外一无所恃。

  1·

  多少世纪以来,人类就不断设法超越自己,超越物质世界的幸福,向往所谓的真理、上帝或实相那种无限的境界,或不受外境、思想及人类的堕落所影响的存在。
  人时常会问:这究竟是怎么一回事?生命到底有没有任何意义?触目所及尽是残杀、暴乱、战争,连宗教、意识形态和国家都在不断分裂中。面对一片混乱的生命景象,人类不能不沮丧地扪心自问:我该怎么办?所谓的人生究竟是怎么一回事?人类到底有没有出路?
  遍寻不着那冠以千名的无名本体,只得令谋出路,培养自己对救世主或某种理想的信念,而这份信念迟早也会酝酿成暴力。
  我们在所谓的“人生”这个永无安宁的战场上,根据自己成长的社会背景,不论是专制社会或所谓的自由社会,定下行为的规范。这些规范也许是印度教的,也许是基督教的,我们一概接受它们作为我们的传统。我们期待某些人告诉我们是非善恶的标准,然后恪守力遵,我们的言行思想因而变得机械呆板,时常不加思索便自动反应。这些现象在我们身上都是显而易见的。
  多少世纪以来,我们被我们的老师、尊长、书本和圣人用汤匙喂大。我们总是说:“请告诉我,那高原、深山及大地的背后是什么?”我们总是满足于他人的描绘,这表示我们其实是活在别人的言论中,活得即肤浅又空虚,因此我们充其量只是“二手货”人类。我们活在别人口中的世界,不是受制于自己的个性和倾向,便是受制于外在的情况和环境,因此我们只是环境的产物,我们不再新鲜,我们从没有为自己发现过什么东西,我们的心中没有什么东西是原创的、清新的和明澈的。
  在宗教发展史上,我们不断听到宗教家的保证——只要举行某些仪式、诵念某些祷词或咒语、认同某些形式、压制欲念、控制思想、升华我们的热情、限制口腹之欲、疏导性欲等,身心饱受这些磨练以后,就能在这渺小的生命之后,觅得某项至宝。这正是上百万宗教人士世世代代所行之道。有些人退隐于沙漠或山洞之中隐修,有些人托着钵一村一镇地乞食流浪,另外一些人则群居一处组成修道院,强迫自己的心智臣服于某种既定的模式。但是一颗受尽折磨而四分五裂的心,一个只想逃离一切干扰的心,它既舍弃了外在世界的一切,又被规范及服从磨得迟钝不堪,这颗心就算花再长的时间寻找,找到的也只是一个被自己扭曲之后的东西。

  2·
  
  在这焦虑不安、充满罪恶、恐惧及竞争的生存领域背后,如果我们还想探索究竟有没有其他的境界,就必须彻底改变方式。传统的方式是由外围向内包抄,通过时间、修炼和压离,逐渐才能开花结果,才能培育出内在的美及爱。然而事实上,这种方式反而使人变得更加狭隘、琐碎而低劣,就像剥春笋般一片一片往内剥;日复一日,年复一年,也许明天,也许下辈子才能看到结果。等到这个人终于捣入核心,才发现那里空无一物,只因那颗心早已被磨得无能、迟钝而又麻痹了。
  既然如此,有没有其他的方法能够直接从核心爆发出来?
  这个世界一向习惯遵守传统的途径,我们不加思索地追随别人所担保的无忧无虑的精神生活。我们大多数人都反对暴君式的专制政体,内心却接受了别人的权威或专断,允许他们来扭曲我们的心智和生活,这真是不可思议的事。因此,如果我们开始全盘拒绝,不是在思想上,而是在实际行动上拒绝所有的宗教权威,所有的礼法、仪轨和信条,我们立刻发现自己陷入了孤立状态,与整个社会为敌,而不再是受人尊重的高尚人士了。人们只要一涉及面子问题,就不可能接近那无限的、不可臆测的实相了。
  你一旦开始主动否决那绝对错误的传统途径,你就上路了。如果你的否决只是被动的反应,你就陷入了另一种模式的陷阱中。如果你只是在思想上告诉自己:这种否决的说法不错,却不付诸行动,你也不会有任何进展。但是如果你否决它,是因为你智慧清明,身心自由而无惧,并且认清了它的愚蠢和不成熟,虽然如此,你仍然会面临内在的和外在的困扰与不安,不过你毕竟跳出了“面子”的陷阱。人生的第一课就是不再追寻。只要一有追寻的念头,你就沦入了橱窗浏览的行列了。


  3·

  究竟有没有上帝、真理或某种超越的存在(不论你如何称呼它)?这问题是无法从书本、神职人员、哲学家或救世主那儿寻得答案的。没有任何人或任何东西可以为你解答这个问题,因此你必须先认识自己。由于完全不认识自己,人格才不成熟,所以认识自己便是智慧的开端。
  那么,你自己,这个身为人的你究竟是什么?我认为,人及个人两者是有差别的。“个人”只是局部的存在,他存在于某个国家,属于某种文化、社会及宗教。“人”却不是局部的,而是普世性的存在。一个人在广大的生命领域中,如果只把自己局限在某个小角落,他就和整体脱节了。因此,我们应该谨记在心,我们是在讨论整体而非局部,因为只有在整体之内,局部才能找到归属。相反,在局部之内,个人是找不到归属的。所谓的“个人”只不过是个受限、不幸而又饱经挫折的渺小生命,他对自己所信奉的神祗及传统已经心满意足;但是身为一个“人”,他关怀的却是整体人类的福祗、不幸和困惑。
  我们人类在百万年的历史里,一直都在贪婪、嫉妒、仇恨、焦虑和绝望中打转,虽然偶尔迸发出了一点欢乐和深情。我们是仇恨、恐惧及温柔的奇异混种,我们同时兼具了残暴及和平的特质。外表上,我们已经从牛车进步到喷气式飞机;在心理上,个人并未改变多少,而就是这群“个人”创造出了今日的社会结构。外在的社会结构,就是人际关系心理结构的成果,而个人则是整体人类的经验、知识和行为的总结。每一个人都是过去历史的库存,因此个人就是整体人类。人类的历史就写在我们身上。
  生活在这充满竞争的文化背景下,你总是活在权势、地位、名望、成就及其他种种的欲念之中,好好观察你的内心及周遭的一切,观察你引以为傲的成就以及你称之为人生的整个范畴,在每一种形式的关系中都充满着斗争,不断滋长着仇恨、敌意、残暴和永无止境的战争。
  这种人生都是我们很熟悉的,因为不了解这巨大的生存竞争,我们自然会恐惧不安,于是就想尽办法逃避它。我们也害怕不可知的事物,害怕死亡,害怕吉凶难卜的未来。我们既害怕已知的,也害怕未知的,这就是我们的例行生活,里面没有出路。于是各种形式的哲学和神学应运而生,然而这一切充其量只不过是逃避现实的方法。
  战争、革命、改造、法律、意识形态都只能带来外在的改变,却丝毫不能改变人类和社会的本质。活在这恐怖丑陋的世界中,我们不能不问:这种建立在竞争、暴力及恐惧之上的社会,到底有没有转机?如果我们撇开理论,不谈理想而只是实事求是地活着,让我们的心变得清新无邪,那么是否能创造出一个崭新的世界?我想,作为人类的一员,不论生活在世上哪一个角落或属于哪一种文化,都必须为当前的世界情势负起完全的责任。如果我们每一个人都有此共识,新世界才有诞生的可能。
  我们每一个人对于每一场战争都有责任,因为我们生活中的侵略性、我们的自私自利、我们的宗教信仰、偏见和理想,都促成了分裂。而且我们每天都在不断地助长社会的斗争、分歧、丑恶、残暴和贪婪,因此我们对于这个世界的混乱和不幸都有一份责任。除非我们能够明白这一点,就像明白自己正在挨饿和受苦一样,我们才会开始采取行动。
  要创造一个截然不同的社会,个人到底能做些什么?或者,你和我到底能做些什么?这是一个相当严肃的问题。我们究竟有没有可以效力的地方?我们能做什么?有人能为我们指出方向吗?确实有些人已经告诉过我们了,就是那些所谓的宗教领袖们,大家都认定他们更了解这些问题,因此情愿被他们捏拿塑造成一个新的模子,结果却没有多大的改变,于是饱学之士又教给我们另一套方法,其效果也不彰。
  我们常听人说,所有的道路都通向真理,你走印度教的路,他走基督教的路,最后他们都会相遇于同一座门前。仔细观察一下,你就会发现这种说法显然是不合理的。其实真理根本是无路可寻的,而它的美也在于此,因为它是活生生的。一个死的东西才是有路可寻的,因为它是静止不动的。但是如果你知道真理是活的,互动的,不驻留的,既不在佛寺、教堂里,也没有任何宗教、上师或哲人能领你到那儿去,那时你才会明白,这活生生的东西就是你的本来面目——你的愤怒、你的残忍、你的凶暴、绝望、痛苦和悲伤。能认清这些就是真理。只有学会如何去观察生活中的这些真相,你才可能了解真理。你是无法透过空想、文字障、期望或恐惧而得到它的。
  因此,你不能依赖任何人,事实上并没有向导,没有老师,也没有权威,只有靠你自己——你和他人,以及你和世界的关系——除此之外,一无所恃。你一旦了解了这个真相,很可能产生两种后果,一是因绝望而生出玩世不恭的犬儒心态,二是从面对现实中认清:没有任何人,而只有你才能为这个世界、为自己、为自己的想法、感觉、行为负起全责,然后所有的自怜才会消失。通常我们总是怪罪别人,这其实只是另一种自怜的形式罢了。
  那么,在没有任何外界的影响、没有信念,也没有被惩罚的恐惧之下,我们能不能从自己的本质和内心里产生突变?我们可能改变我们的残暴、好强、焦躁、恐惧、贪婪、嫉妒以及构成今日社会的所有劣根性吗?
  我应该在此声明清楚,我并不是在陈述哲学或神学的观念所有的观念对我而言,都是极其愚蠢的。人生哲学并不重要,重要的是如何观察日常生活中确实在发生的事,不论是内在的或外在的。如果你仔细观察和检查眼前所发生的种种,你就会发现一切都是建立在理念上的,而理念并不能涵盖整个存在的领域,眼前只是其中的一个局部罢了,不论我们如何灵巧地把它们凑合在一块儿,不论多么古老、多么传统,它们仍然是存在的一小部分,而我们必须面对的却是生活的整个领域。如果我们再仔细观察,我们就会开始明白,其实过程并没有内外之分,只有一个过程,那就是整体性的发展过程。内心的活动表现于外,而外在的反应又源自内心。对我而言,能有这种观察力,就以经绰绰有余了。如果我们懂得如何观察,所有的事都能一目了然,而观察并不需要哲学或上师的指导,你只要看就对了。
  你能看得出这整个情况吗?不是嘴上说说罢了,而是真正地看到。你能顺其自然地改变自己吗?这才是问题的所在。

  4·

  人能否彻底从精神上改变自己?
  我不知道你对这种说法会作何反应?也许你会说:“我并不想要改变!”许多人确无此意,尤其是那些在社会地位及经济上相当安稳的人,或是坚持某些教条,已经接受自己的现状,只准备做些小小修正的人,因此上述这番话并非针对他们而说的。也许你会委婉地推辞说:“那太难了,对我可能不适用。”那么你已经画地自限了,你不再追根究底,我们这番谈话便可到此结束。也许你们中间有另一群人会说:“我已经知道我的内心需要一番彻底的改变,但是我该怎么办?请你为我指出一条路。”如果你这么说,这表示你所关心的并非“改变”这件事,你并不想彻底革新,你只想寻找一种能带来改变的方法或制度罢了。
  如果我真的愚蠢到给你一套制度,而你也愚蠢到全盘接受的地步,那么你就仍然在模仿、顺从与接受,在自己的内心树立另一个权威。这个权威和你之间又会再发生冲突,因为你觉得必须按照权威所说的去做种种事情,却又感到力不从心,你自己独特的个性、气质及内在的压力,不断与你认为应该服从的那套理论互相冲突,因而产生了矛盾。于是你陷入了两面的生活,一面是制度告诉你该做的事,另一面则是你每日的实际生活。其实,你之为你才是真实的,而不是那意识形态,但是你如果向它臣服了,你就不得不压抑自己。如果你老是按照他人的标准来认识自己,你就永远停留在做“二手货”的人类。
  “我愿意改变,告诉我该怎么做?”这话听起来非常热忱认真,其实不然。事实上,他正在期待一个可靠的权威为自己带来内在的秩序。但是外在的权威真能带给人内在的秩序吗?实际上,从外在强制下得到的秩序,反而助长了内在的不安。这个事实并不难理解,但是你能否把它应用在生活上,使你的心不再投射任何权威,不论这个权威是书籍、老师、丈夫、妻子、父母、朋友或社团。我们一直都在某种假定的模式下运作,而这个模式就变成了意识形态和权威。如果你能识破“我该怎么做”这个问题背后想建立的一个新的权威,你就彻底结束了你与权威之间的瓜葛。
  让我再讲得明白一点。假设我已经从生命的深处看到了改变的必要,而且也不能再依赖任何传统的途径,因为传统使人懒散、被动和臣服,我又不可能找人来帮我改变,即使是老师、上帝、信仰、理念等外来的压力或影响都无能为力,那么,接下来呢?
  首先,你能不能拒绝所有的权威?如果你能办得到,就表示你已经不再恐惧。然后又会如何呢?如果你拒绝那些已经在你心中存在好几个世代的传统谬误,如果你抛弃所有的包袱,然后会怎么样?你自然会感到有更多的能量释放出来,你会发现自己有更多的能力、动力和更大的热情及活力。如果你没有这些感觉,那表示你还没有扔掉那些包袱,还没有丢掉那死气沉沉的权威。
  你一旦将其抛诸脑后而重获生命力,就不会再有任何恐惧了。你既不怕犯错,也无惧于是是非非,这份活力的本身,岂不是最大的突变?我们如果想见到真相就必须具有无穷的生命力,但是内心的恐惧却把这股活力消耗了。如果我们能将各种形式的恐惧抛诸脑后而重获生命力,那么这股力量的本身就能带来内在的突变,你甚至根本不必再费任何力气了。
  因此你只有靠自己了,真正有意革新的人必定会面临此种情境。当你不再向任何人、物求助时,你就有了主动发现的自由。何处有自由,何处就有活力。在真正的自由中,是不可能产生错误的。自由和反叛是完全不同的两回事。在自由之中,没有所谓的对或错。如果你真的自由了,你的行动就是由存在的核心出发的,因此无忧无惧;只有无惧,才能勇敢地爱;有爱就能随心所欲了。
  我们现在要做的,就是先认识自己,但不是根据我或其他分析家、哲学家的观点。如果我们还是根据别人的标准来认识自己,那么所认识的就只是“他们”,而不是“我们”,因此我们应该认识的就是自己的真相。
  认清了我们无法依赖外在权威来改造自己的心理结构之后,我们还得面临更大的考验,那就是我们必须摒弃自己内心的权威,那些由自己的经验所累积的意见、知识、观念及理想。昨天的经验教你一些事情,所教的就成了新的权威;昨天才建立的权威和流传千年的传统是同样具有破坏性的。要了解我们自己,不需要任何昨日的成千年以前的权威,因为我们是活生生的生命,是永远在变动、流动而永不止息的。如果我们透过昨天已死的经验来看自己,我们就看不见那活生生的进展,以及那些活动的美和本质了。
  只有死于昨日种种,才能使你从内在及外在的所有权威中解脱,你的心才能时时年轻、新鲜、天真无邪、充满热情活力。只有处在这种心境中,人才能观察和学习。要达到这种境界,你需要极大的觉察力,需要对自己内心活动的觉察力。你只是觉察不去纠正,也不指示它什么该做、什么不该做,因为你一纠正它,便树立了另一个权威及督察。
  现在让我们一块来检视自己,这并不意味当你在阅读时有一个人在旁边解说,也不是要你同意或不同意他的解说,而是要一起进入心灵最隐秘的一角去探索。要进行这项旅程,最好轻装上路,千万别携带我们搜集了两千多年的家当——那些观点、偏见、结论等的包袱。请忘却你对自己的认识,也放下你对自己的看法,我们要好似一无所知地开始。
  昨夜还是暴雨倾盆,此刻已经雨过天晴了。今天又是崭新的一天,让我们迎接它,把它视为仅有的一天。让我们摆脱昨日的记忆,步上新的旅程,开始真的去认识自己。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 1

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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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 dis- cipline and conformity - such a mind, however long it seeks, will find only according to its own distortion.
     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.
     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?
     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 fl 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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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 theo- logical concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is.
     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 or whatever culture we happen to belong to, are totally responsible for the whole state of the world.
     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 realize, 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.
     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 his 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 has 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.
     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 realize 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.
     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?
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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. 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.
     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.
     Having realized 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 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.
     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.
     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. Forget all you know about yourself; forget all you have ever thought about yourself; we are going to start as if we knew nothing.
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:09

  如果我们能时时刻刻都在学习,从观察、聆听、注视和行动中学习,那么你会发现,学习是不断进展,永无过去。

  1·

  如果你认为认识自己是很重要的事,理由是因为我或某人如此告诉你,那么我们之间的沟通就到此结束了。如果我们彼此都同意——彻底认识自己是生死攸关的事,那么我们之间的关系就截然不同了。然后我们就能喜悦地、谨慎而明智地一块儿从事生命的探索。
  我不要求你对我有信心,也不会自命权威,更无意传授给你任何通往实相的新哲学、新理念或新途径。除了面对真相之外,没有任何通往实相的路。所有的权威,尤其是思想及领悟方面的权威,可能是最具毁灭性的、最邪恶的。领导者会糟蹋了追随者,追随者也会毁了领导者。你必须成为自己的导师和自己的徒弟。凡是人们视为必然而重要的事,你都该提出质疑。
  如果你不打算跟随任何导师,你会感到孤单,那么就让自己孤单吧!你为什么害怕孤单呢?只因为你必须面对自己的真相,而你会发现自己竟是如此空虚、迟钝、愚蠢、丑陋、内疚和焦虑不安,一个微不足道的“二手货”。就面对这个真相吧!注视它,不要逃避!你一想逃避,恐惧就趁虚而入了。
  自我探索并不是将自我从世界中孤立出来的病态表现,世上所有的人都和我们一样陷在类似的日常问题中,因此探索自我丝毫不会使我们变得神经质,因为个人与人类本来就是同一回事,我按照自我的模式创造了这个世界,这是个不争的事实。因此,不要让自己迷失在这局部及整体的争论中。
  我必须觉察自己的整个领域,它就是个人及社会的意识,只有当这颗心凌驾于个人及社会的集体意识之上,我才能成为自我的不灭明光。
  然而,我们要从何处开始认识自己?譬如我现在坐在这里,我该如何认识自己、观察自己,看看自己的内心究竟是怎么一回事?事实上,生活完全是由关系构成的,我只能在关系的网络中观察自己,坐在一个角落里冥想是无济于事的。我无法独自生存,我只能活在与外在人、事及概念的关系之中,因此观察我与外在人、事及内心种种活动的关系,我才开始认识自己。除此之外,任何形式的了解,都只是抽象思考罢了。“我”并不是一个抽象的存在,“我”无法透过抽象思考来认识自己,“我”必须在我的具体存在中,认出我之为我,而非理想的我。

  2·

  认识不是智性活动。汲取认识自己的知识和认识自己是两回事,因为你所累积的有关自己的知识,都是基于过去的往事,而沉溺于往事的心时常是失意与哀伤的。认识自己和学习语言或科技完全不同,后者必须累积知识,记住一切,因为你不可能凡事从头证明起;然而,从心理层面来认识自己,所面对的却是目前的你,知识则属于过去。但是我们大多数人都活在过去,而且对于活在过去已经感到满足了,知识对我们才变得那么重要,我们也因此而崇拜那些博学、聪慧、精明的人。如果我们能时时刻刻都在学习,从观察、聆听、注视和行动中学习,那么你会发现,学习是不断进展,永无过去。
  如果你说你要慢慢地学习认识自己,一点一滴地累积,这表示你并不在认识目前的你,你只是在累积有关自己的知识罢了。学习的本身需要一颗极其敏锐的心,如果你任凭过去的观念驾驭现在,你就根本敏锐不起来,你的心智也不可能迅捷、柔软、机警。我们大多数人连身体都不够敏感,我们饮食过量,我们不注意营养的均衡,我们烟酒无忌,因此身体变得粗糙而迟钝,我们这个有机体的注意力也减弱了。如果这个有机体的本身都如此迟钝沉重,心智怎能保持敏感清澈?也许我们对那些和自己有关的事很敏感,但是要对生命涉及的一切都完全敏感,就不能把这个有机体和它的精神层面分开,因为那是整体性的活动。
  要了解一样东西,你就必须活在其中,你必须观察它,认识它的的所有内涵、本质、结构以及它的活动。你曾经试过与自己相处吗?如果已经试过,你就会发现你并不是静止的,而是活生生的存在,要想跟这么鲜活的生命相处,你的心智也必须鲜活起来。禁锢于自己的看法、判断及价值观念的心,是无法鲜活起来的。
  你必须具备自由的心智,才能观察自己的心和整个生命的活动,你的心必须中立于所有的赞成与不赞成以及所有的论点之外,只是纯然想要了解真相。这实在是很难做到的事,因为我们大多数人都不懂得如何去看、去听自己的生命,就如同我们不懂得欣赏小河的美,也不懂得聆听树间习习的薰风一样。
  我们一开始怪罪或批判他人,就表示我们无法看清真相了。如果我们的心老是唠叨不休,我们也看不见真相了,所见到的只是内心投射出来的影响罢了。我们每一个人都有一个想像的或理想的自我,就是那个自我形象彻底蒙蔽了我们的真面目。
  世上最难的事之一,就是单纯地去看一件事。我们的心智太过于复杂,早已失去了单纯的特质。我所指的并不是圣人所教化的那种节衣缩食,譬如腰间只围一块布,或为了打破记录而断食的那一类不成熟的无聊举动。我所指的是那种毫无恐惧、直截了当地看一件事的单纯。我们要毫不扭曲地看自己的真相,我们说谎时,就承认自己在说谎,既不掩饰,也不逃避。
  同时,我们还需要相当程度的谦卑才能认识自己。如果你一开始就说“我已经了解我自己了”,你的自我学习便到此为止;或者你说“我不过是一堆记忆、观念、经验及传统的组合,还有什么好学的”,这表明你仍然是在停止认识自己。只要你一有完成的心,便失去了那份纯朴及谦卑的气质。你一旦下了结论或用知识来评断,你就已经盖棺定论了,因为你正在以老旧的历史来诠释每件活生生的事物。如果你没有立足点,不坚持某种定论,也没有想要完成什么的心,你才能拥有去看、去完成的自由。以自由的心去看,一切都是新的。一个过于自信的人,已经和死人无异。

  3·

  我们的心智由出生到死亡,一直在不断地接受某种文化的定型,然后形成一个狭隘的自我。多少世纪以来,我们一直受到国籍、阶级、类型、传统、宗教、语言、教育、文化、艺术、风俗习惯及各种政治宣传、经济压力、所吃的食物、所处的气候、家庭、朋友、经验等种种事物的影响,因此我们对每一种困境的反应都已经受到限制了,那么我们到底要如何才能自由地观察和学习呢?
  你注意到自己的局限了吗?这是你该问自己的第一个问题,而不是急着问要如何从局限中解脱出来。如果你怀着“我必须解脱”之心,你也许永远都无法解脱,因为你可能又陷入另一种形式的限制。因此,你注意到自己的局限了吗?你知不知道,即使你望着一棵树说:“这是橡树”、“那是菩提树”,这些植物学的常识已经夹在你和大树之间,而限制你真正地看到它。你想接近一棵树,必须用手去触摸它,因为文字并不能帮你触摸到它。
  你如何才能知道自己正在受限制?什么东西能告诉你?什么东西能告诉你“你饿了”?(不是推测,而是真的饿了。)同理,你如何才能发现自己真的被限制住了?难道不是从你对问题及挑战的反应看出来的吗?你是在自己的局限下,对每一个外来的挑战产生反应的,如果你的限制不当,你所做的反应也会不当。
  当你逐渐觉察到它的存在时,这些种族、宗教及文化的限制,是否会带给你一种禁锢之感?让我们试取一种限制为例,譬如国家,严肃地,彻底地审视它,看看你的反应是喜乐还是一种反感?如果是一种反感,你想不想突破这所有的限制?如果你对这些限制十分满意,你自然不会有所行动;但如果你对它并不满意,你就会发现你的每一个行为都受到它的影响,因此你就永远和死人一起活在过去的阴影中。
  只有当你生活中的快乐中断了,或是想要逃避痛苦时,你才会亲眼看到自己的局限。如果你们夫妻恩爱,你们有一个很漂亮的家,有乖巧的孩子和充裕的财产,身边的一切尽是快乐圆满,你就丝毫不会觉察到自己的限制。然而一旦起了波澜,你的妻子开始注意别的男人,你损失了财产或受到了战争、痛苦、焦虑的威胁,那时你就会发现你的有限,你一旦开始和外在的干扰抗争或护卫自己免于内忧外患,你才知道自己是受限制的。我们大部分人不论在外表上或在内心深处,几乎随时随地都处在被干扰的状态,这种波动不安就暗示着自己的局限。如同家里的宠物一样,你爱抚它,它的反应就十分友善;一旦遭到敌对,它凶残的本性就暴露出来了。
  我们随时都被外在的生活、政治、经济所干扰,也随时都处在内心的恐惧、残暴和哀伤中,看到这些情况,我们才明白自己的局限有多么严重。那么我们到底该怎么办?是否像大部分人一样接受它,然后得过且过?这就好比对于自己长期的背痛,是否只有习以为常一种办法了?
  我们大家都有逆来顺受,然后怪罪于外境的倾向。“如果外在情况不是那么糟糕,我也不会变成这副模样!”或许我们会说:“只要给我机会,我就能完成自己的意愿。”或说:“我是被不公平的环境压垮的。”我们总认为是别人、外在环境或是经济情况造成了我们内在的波动不安。
  如果一个人已经习惯于波动不安,那就表示这个人的心已经迟钝了,就好比一个人对身旁的美景视若无睹般。如果我们变得冷漠、顽强和无情,我们的心也会愈来愈迟钝。但如果无法习以为常,就会想尽办法逃避,例如服用迷幻药、参加政治团体去怒吼示威、看一场球赛、拜访寺庙或教堂,或者找些其他的娱乐。
  为什么我们总想逃避现实?譬如我们怕死,于是发明各种学说、希望、信仰来遮掩死亡的事实,然而死亡的事实并未因此而消失。要想认清事实,我们就必须正视它,而不能逃避。我们大多数的人既怕活也怕死,我们担心家庭,担心流言,害怕失去工作保障等数不清的事实。我们不只怕这怕那,我们根本就活在恐惧中,这是不容否认的事实。然而,为什么我们就是不能面对这个事实?
  你必须正视当下,才能面对事实,如果你不断逃避当下,不容许它出现在眼前,你怎么能面对它?就是因为我们早已栽培了各种逃避的网路,因此我们就永远陷在逃避中了。

  4·

  如果你能稍微认真、敏感一点,你将不只觉察到自我受限制的情况,还能体会到它所带来的危机、暴力及仇恨。假如你看到了自我受限制的危机,为什么不采取行动?是否因为你太懒了,提不起劲来?可是,如果你的前方有一条蛇,或是你走到了悬崖边,或者你将被火烧到了,你难道不会马上采取行动吗?假如你看到自己受限制时所带来的危机,为何不采取行动?你眼见民族主义将危害到你个人的安全,你会不作出任何反应吗?
  答案是你根本没有看出来。也许通过理性分析,你知道民族主义迟早会导向自我灭亡,但其中毫无情感上的了悟。惟有把情感投入,你才会有活力。
  假如你是在智性的层次理解到受限所带来的危机,你绝不会采取任何行动。因为理念及行动两者是相互冲突的,因而削弱了你的能量。只有当你视自己的受限制像是如临深渊的切身危机时,你才会付诸行动。因此,了悟就是行动。
  我们大多数人就这么漫不经心地走完了一生,只照着成长的环境教给我们的那一套,不假思索地反应着,而这些反应只会制造更多的束缚和限制。你必须全神贯注于自己受限制的情况,才能从过去的历史中完全解脱,而那些束缚和限制才会自然从你身上消失。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 2

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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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 listening, learning by seeing and doing, then you will find that learning is a constant movement without the past.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:08

  只有先具备了关怀之心才能全神贯注。换句话说,你必须由衷地想去了解一件事物,才会付出全部的心力去觉察它。

  1·

  只有当你觉察到自己的限制时,你才会明白自己所有层面的意识。意念的活动和各种的互动关系,都包含在意识的完整领域里,其中包括所有的动机、意图、欲望、享乐、恐惧、灵感、渴望、期待、哀伤和快乐,但是我们却把它划分为活跃的和潜伏的上、下两种层面;也就是说,白天的思想、感觉和活动是属于表层的,而所谓的潜意识,那个我们不熟悉的部分,则通过某些暗示、只觉和梦境来表述自己。
  我们大部分的人生只占据了意识的一个小角落,而其余的被我们称为潜意识的领域,里面充满了各种动机、恐惧和种族遗留下来的特质,这些我们连如何进入都还不知道。现在我要问你一个问题:到底有没有所谓的潜意识这个领域?这个字眼被我们用得太随便了,这类的精神分析和心理学的特殊用语,充斥着我们日常使用的语言,而我们毫不质疑就接受了。但是到底有没有这种东西的存在?我们为什么要把它看得那么重要?对我来说,它和显意识的心智一样的琐碎、愚蠢、狭窄、顽固、受限、焦虑和俗气。
  因此,我们有没有可能彻底地觉察意识的完整领域,而不只是一部分、一个片断而已。如果你能觉察整体,就能随时随地全神贯注地行动,这才是关键所在。如果你能完全清醒地专注于整个意识层面,那么内心就不再有摩擦了。但是如果你把所有的思想、感觉及行动的整体意识分为两种不同的层面,内心就开始产生摩擦。
  我们时常活得支离破碎,在办公室是一种面貌,回到家则是另一副嘴脸。口中时常谈着民主,心中却十分独裁。平常高唱爱人如己,一旦有了利害竞争,就一心想把对方置于绝境。你某一部分的看法和作风跟另一部分好似各自为政,你可曾注意过这种自我的分裂?如果大脑本身都将思想及行为分别处理,它怎么能体悟出完整的意识领域?因此我们不能不问:人究竟能否看到完整的意识领域,然后成为一个完整的人?
  如果你想自我的整体结构及其不可思议的复杂性,你可能会试着一步步、一层层地去挖掘检视每个思想、感觉及动机。可能好几个星期、好几个月,甚至好几年的时间,你都会陷入自我分析的过程而难以自拔。你如果接受时间为认识自己的一种因素,就无法避免各种曲解及偏见,只因自我是一个极其复杂的存有,它永远在变动、生活、挣扎、欲求及否定之中,再加上压力和紧张以及各种不同的影响力,于是你不难发现,这绝不是观察自己的好方法。想要认识自己,只有在每一个当下整体地审视,而不受时间的限制。只要你的心不再支离破碎,你就能看见整个“自我”。你所见到的这个整体就是真相。
  然而,你做得到吗?我们大多数人都做不到,因为我们从未如此认真地想过这个问题,也从未好好地正视过自己,从来没有!我们怪罪他人,我们强辩,我们不敢面对自己。如果你想对自己一目了然,就得全神贯注,你的眼睛、你的耳朵、你的每一根神经,都专注到忘我的地步,那么恐惧和矛盾就根本没有机会存在,因此冲突也就没有了。
  全观(attention)和专注(concentration)是不一样的。后者是排他的,而前者是整体性的觉察,它能包容一切。我们大多数人好像都没什么觉察力,不但对自我缺少觉察力,就是对环境、色彩、人、树、云朵、河流,都变得麻木不仁。也许是因为我们太关心自己了,关心自己一些琐碎的小问题、自己的想法、自己的快乐、欲求和野心,以至于完全无法客观地觉察了。偏偏我们却又喜欢高谈阔论这种觉察力。
  有一回,我乘车在印度旅行,由一位司机驾车,我坐在他旁边,三位先生则在后座热切地讨论“觉察”的问题,还不断问我的意见。不幸的是,那司机分了一下神,车子辗过一头山羊,三位先生仍在讨论觉察力,丝毫没有觉察我们辗死了一只羊。我问这三位致力于“觉察”的先生有没有注意到刚才所发生的事,他们居然感到惊讶万分。
  我们大多数人都差不多,对于外在或内心的事物时常浑然不知。我们必须付出全部的注意力,才能看到鸟儿、苍蝇或树叶的美,也才能认识一个极其复杂的人。然而,只有先具备了关怀之心才能全神贯注。换句话说,你必须由衷地想去了解一件事物,才会付出全部的心力去觉察它。
  如此的觉察,好比与一条蛇同居,你自然会注意它的每个动作,它所发出的每个轻微的声响,都会令你心生警觉。这种全观的状态就能激发所有的能量,在这份觉察之下,你的自我整体就会在刹那间显露出来。

  2·

  不论你已经多么深入地观察自己,你还能不断地深入其中。此地所用的“深”字,并没有高下之分。我们的思想常爱比较,深与浅、快乐与不快乐,我们老是在衡量比较。到底我们的内心有没有所谓的深刻及肤浅的不同境界?如果我们说“我的心很肤浅、卑微、狭隘、有限”,我是从何得知的?只因为我把我的心和你那聪明、能干、理解力强而又机警的心作了一番比较。如果不比较,我会认出我的渺小吗?如果我饿了,我不会把今天的饥饿和昨天的饥饿相比,昨天的饥饿早已经变成了一个观念和记忆了。
  如果我一天到晚拿自己和你相比,努力模仿你的长处,那么我就否定了我之为我,因此我就是在制造一个假相。任何形式的比较,都会导致幻觉及痛苦,而且愈陷愈深、难以自拔。我们或者分析自己,想一点一滴地增加对自己的认识;或不断强迫自己向某种境界,某个救世主或观念等外在的存在认同……这种种努力,不外是强迫自己顺从外在的权威罢了,因而带来更大的挣扎。
  如果我能亲眼识破其中的原委,我就已经从这种束缚中解脱了。我的心不再向外寻求,这就是关键所在。然而我的心不再摸索,寻找和质疑,这并不表示我的心已经满足现状了,只是不再制造任何假相罢了。这样的心才能朝向不同的次元迈进。我们的日常生活充满了痛苦、快感及恐惧,它们限制了我们的心智及其本质。只要这些痛苦、快感及恐惧消失了(这并不表示你再也不感到喜悦,喜悦与快感是两回事),心智就能在截然不同的次元中运作,那儿既无冲突,也没有相对性。
  在语言上,我们只能说到此为止,以后的境界是无法用文字来表达的,因为文字并不是那东西本身。到目前为止,我们只是在描述解释,可是没有任何语言文字可以为我们开启那扇门。
  若想开启那扇门,我们必须每天都保持全观而且充满觉察力,觉察自己的每一个思想和言行。如果以清理房间为例,使房间整洁有序,从某个角度来看是很重要的,但是从另一个角度来看,可能一点也不重要。房间的整洁有序确实有必要,但并不能为你打开门窗。为你打开门窗的,绝不是你的意志力和欲望,“那个东西”是邀请不来的。你所能做的,只是保持整洁而已,换句话说,就是没有任何目的地为了整洁的自身保持整洁。如果你能一直保持健康、理性和井然有序,运气好的话,也许有一天窗子会自动打开,吹进习习的凉风,也许不会,这全凭你的心智状态而定,也只有你才能了解自己的心智状态。尽量观察它,不要为它定型设限,也不要设定立场,既不反对,也不同意,更不批评谴责。总之,就是观察而不带任何拣择之心。在没有拣择的心智状态下,也许大门会在刹那间开启,让你一睹那既无挣扎又超越时间的境界。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 3

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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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'.
     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.

 
2008/04/07 20:07

  喜悦不是想出来的,而是当下直接的感受,你一去想它,他立刻转为快感。所谓“活在当下”,就是在刹那间领会其中的美及喜悦,而不眷恋它所带来的快感。

  1·

  在上一章中,我们提到了喜悦和快感的不同。现在让我们看看快感究竟是什么,人类是否能不追求快感,而仍旧活在无上的喜悦及至乐之中?
  我们多多少少都在追逐各式各样的快感,包括理性上的、感性的或文化上的快感,如改革现状、指导别人、为社会除恶行善的快感,知识的扩展、生理及经验上的满足、对于生命更深的理解以及足智多谋的快感等,其中之最,当然是拥有上帝的快感。
  快感是形成社会的基本结构。我们从生到死,都在秘密地或处心积虑地,甚至明目张胆地追求快感。不论我们的快感是何种形式,我们心中都应该有数,因为就是它引导并设定了我们的生活方式。因此,我们每个人都应该专心地、慢慢地、细致地研究这个问题,这是十分重要的,因为寻求快感,不断滋养、维系它,乃是生活的基本需求,缺少了它,生活就变得极其枯燥、愚蠢、孤独,而且毫无意义。
  你也许会问,那为什么不让快感来引导生活?原因极其简单:快感必定带来痛苦、沮丧、忧伤及恐惧,或是因恐惧而滋生暴力。如果你要过这种生活,就去过吧!反正世界上大多数人都是如此。但是如果你想从这份痛苦中解脱,就必须了解快感是如何形成的。
  认识快感,并不是要否定它。我们既不谴责它,也无意为它论断是非,不过如果要探索它,你就必须张开眼睛,认清以下的事实:凡是不断追逐快感的心,无可避免终将面对它的阴影及痛苦。即使我们只追逐快乐而躲避痛苦,这两者仍然是无法分开的。
  为什么人心总是渴望快感?不论我们做高尚或不高尚的事,老是挟着快感的暗流?为什么我们会悬在快感的危绳上受苦牺牲?快感到底是什么?它是如何进入我们的生命的?我不知道你们之中有没有任何人问过自己这些问题,而且能追踪它的答案一直到尽头。
  快感是经由四个阶段产生的,也就是知觉、感觉、接触及欲望。例如,我看到一辆漂亮的汽车,于是得到一种感觉,由看见生出某种反应,然后我触摸它,或在想像中触摸它,接着,便生出想要拥有它,而且想借它来炫耀自己的欲望。
  或者,我看到一朵可爱的云彩、衬着蓝天的高山、春天里的一片嫩叶、壮丽的山谷、灿烂夺目的夕阳,或是一张动人的脸庞,聪慧、活泼、丝毫不忸怩害羞。我以极其愉悦的心情望着这些景物观赏到忘我的地步,只留下了纯粹的美——也就是爱。在这一刹那,所有的问题、焦虑及痛苦都置之脑后,只剩下那令人赞叹的景物。我如果能以如此愉悦的心情观赏它,事后立刻把它忘掉,就不会有任何后遗症;反之,我的心念一进入,问题就来了。我的心智回想所见到的景物,怀念它的美好,于是告诉自己,我想再多看它几回,这时我的念头就开始比较、评估,然后做了决定:“明天我还要再来看它。”那原本只带来刹那喜悦的经验,便借着意念延续下去了。
  性欲和其他欲望也类似于此。欲望本身没有错。这种反应十分正常,如果你用针刺我一下,除非我全身瘫痪,否则我一定会有反应。但是当念头一闯进来,这份愉悦的滋味就转化成快感了。念头不断想重复这种经验,重复愈多次,就演变为一种机械化的惯性反应;想得愈多,快感就愈加重。意念通过欲望创造并维系快感,使它延续不断。因此我们可以说,对美好事物的欲求反应本来极其自然,但是念头扭曲了它,念头将它变成记忆,而记忆又借着不断地想念而得到滋长。
  当然,记忆在某一种层次上也有它存在的必要。缺少了它,日常生活几乎无法进行,它在自己的领域内,必须发挥功效,但是在某一种心智状态中,它是没有什么容身之地的。一个不被记忆麻痹的心,才能享受真正的自由。

  2·

  你是否注意过,如果你以全副心神与某物相应,事后你不会有太多的记忆?但如果你没有付出全部的心力应对某些挑战,就会产生矛盾挣扎,由此又衍生出困惑及苦乐的感受。这份挣扎强化了记忆,其他的记忆又来助长此记忆,于是这个记忆群便成了生活中各种反应的主使者。凡是来自记忆的东西都是陈旧的,因此其中没有自由。意念之中根本没有所谓自由这样东西,那全都是一些毫无意义的妄想。
  意念只是记忆、经验及知识的反应,毫无创意可言。正因为它是陈旧的,所以你在刹那间看到及感受到的愉悦和震撼,也变得陈旧不堪。你只能从陈旧的而非崭新的经验中引发快感。在崭新的当下,根本没有时间的存在。
  因此,如果你能观看到所有的事物——一张脸庞、一件印度纱丽彩衣、在阳光下闪烁的水面或任何使你愉悦的事物,而能不让快感渗入,也就是说,如果你能观赏它们,而不期望重复这个经验,那么痛苦及恐惧便无从生起,而只剩下了无可言喻的喜乐。
  好好观察你自己,你会发现,就是这种想重复快感的需求,才不断带给人挣扎及痛苦,因为它决不可能和昨天的感受一样。不只是你的美感需求,甚至在心灵本质上,你都拼命想重复同样的愉悦经验,结果却因为没有得到满足而伤心失望。
  如果你的小小快感没有得到满足,你会怎么反应?如果你得不到自己想要的东西,你通常会变得焦躁、嫉妒和怨恨。你想喝酒、抽烟、满足性欲或任何需求却不能满足时,你可曾注意过当时内心的挣扎?那种种现象其实都可以归结为“恐惧”两个字,不是吗?你害怕得不到自己所要的,也害怕失去自己所拥有的。譬如某个跟随你多年的信仰或理念被不可抗拒的力量或生活动摇了,你难道不害怕完全失去支柱吗?那份多年来带给你满足和快感的信念一旦被撤除,你会落得进退失据,因而感到空虚害怕,直到你找到另一份信念、另一种快感为止。
  对于我来说,一切就是那么简单。正因为它如此简单,我们才不愿意重视它的单纯,我们常把每件事都搞得太复杂了。如果你的妻子移情别恋,你会不会因嫉妒而愤怒?你难道不憎恨那名勾引她的人吗?其实这些反应不外是一种恐惧,你只是害怕失去那位终身伴侣所带给你的快感,以及某种因占有而产生的安全感和保障。
  你既然已经明白只要一开始追逐快感,就有痛苦相随,而你还是甘心如此,那倒也无妨,只要你不是迷迷糊糊地陷在里面就好。如果你想要停止对快感的追逐(其实也就是停止痛苦),你就必须全神贯注于快感的形成,但是不必效法出家人或苦行僧的禁欲,你应该正视快感的整体意识及其价值,然后才能享有生活的喜悦。喜悦不是想出来的,而是当下直接的感受,你一去想它,它立刻转为快感。所谓“活在当下”,就是在刹那间领会其中的美及喜悦,而不眷恋它所带来的快感。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 4

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.
     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.
     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.
     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
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:07

  我们现在必须要问自己:人心可不可能完全地彻底地存活于当下?只有在这种心智状态下,恐惧才无从生起。若想深入了解这种状态,就必须先了解念头。记忆及时间的结构才行。

  1·

  在继续这番话之前,让我先问你:你生活中最基本而始终关切的事是什么?如果撇开那些拐弯抹角的答案,直截了当面对这个问题时,你会怎么回答?
  难道答案不是“我自己”吗?如果我们够诚实的话,大部分人都会如此回答。我关心我的发展、我的事业、我的家庭、我所住的那一小块天地,我想要争取较好的职位、享有更好的特权等。我们大部分人主要的兴趣都在自己身上,这个假设应该是非常合乎逻辑的。
  也许有些人会认为我们不该对自己有那么大的兴趣,我却看不出这有什么不对,只是我们很少有人敢诚实地承认罢了。即使我们敢承认,仍然难免带有几分愧疚之情。总而言之,一个人基本上是关心自己的,因为各种传统或理念,却又认为不该如此。但是一个人怎么“想”并不是关键所在,那只不过是一些概念和想法而已,事实的真相是:人基本上永远是对自己最感兴趣的。
  你也许会说,帮助别人比为自己着想更能带来满足。那又有什么差别?你所关心的仍然是自己。如果帮助别人能带来更大的满足,你关心的仍然是那件事能否给你更大的满足。为什么要把意识形态扯进来?为什么要制造矛盾的想法?为什么不说:“不论在性行为、帮助他人、成为伟大的圣人、科学家和政治家的追寻之中,我真正想要的就是一种满足。”它们都是相同的过程,不是吗?我们所要的就是一种满足感,不论它展示的方式是明显的,还是细微的。我们声称自己是在追求自由,主要是因为我们认为自由能使我们得到各种美好的满足感,而最终的满足当然是“自我实现”这种怪异的想法了。我们如何能在本来就没什么不圆满中去寻找圆满?
  我们大多数人都怕成为无名小卒,总想在社会地位上寻求满足,因为我们的社会就是如此现实,有地位的权贵就备受尊崇,没有地位的人就被踢来踢去。世界上每个人都想在社会、家庭中争一席之地。甚至还想坐在上帝的右边,这个地位还必须是众人共同向往的,否则就算不上什么地位了。我们似乎必须永远站在舞台上。由于我们的内心经常陷入痛苦和不幸的漩涡中,因此外在如果能受人重视,就算是最大的安慰了。这种对地位、权势的追求,希望在某方面被社会视为卓越的心理,都不过是一种驾驭他人的欲望。这种欲望本身就是某种形式的侵略性。圣人想要以他的德高望重来获取社会地位,那种侵略性和院子里到处啄食的小鸡有什么两样?造成这种侵略性的原因何在?不就是内心的恐惧吗?

  2·

  恐惧是生活中最大的问题之一。陷入恐惧的心,通常是困惑而矛盾的,因此必定会变得凶暴、扭曲而充满攻击性,但是它又没有勇气挣脱旧有的思维模式,于是就变得极其虚伪。除非我们从恐惧中彻底解脱,否则我们只有继续追逐最高的目标,制造出各种神祗来解救我们脱离黑暗。
  我们活在如此腐败而愚蠢的社会,从小接受的全是鼓励竞争与制造恐惧的教育,因此,我们全都背负着莫名的恐惧,就是这可怕的东西使我们的日子变得乖僻、扭曲而阴沉。
  身体的恐惧是由动物性遗传而来的自然反应,我们此处所谈的乃是心理上的恐惧。惟有先了解那根深蒂固的心理上的恐惧,我们才能对付动物性的恐惧;反之,如果我们先探讨动物性的恐惧,就无法帮助我们了解心理上的恐惧了。
  恐惧绝不是抽象的,我们的恐惧通常都和某个事物相关。你是否认识自己的恐惧?怕失去工作,怕衣食金钱匮乏,怕邻居或大众对你的评语,怕成就不够大,怕失去社会地位、被人讥讽歧视,或是害怕痛苦和疾病,怕受人控制,怕没有爱与被爱的因缘,怕失去妻儿,怕死亡,怕活得像行尸走肉,怕寂寞无聊、不能活出别人对你的期待、失去信仰等。那么,你知道自己的恐惧是什么吗?通常你会如何处理它?你只想逃避,不是吗?或发明一种理念及影像来掩饰它们。然而,愈想逃避,愈助长了恐惧的威势。
  形成恐惧的主因之一,就是我们不愿意面对真相。因此,除了认识恐惧的心理过程以外,我们还应该检讨一下自己发展出来的逃避自我的网络。如果包括大脑的心智只是一味企图克服恐惧,而用压抑、锻炼、控制、曲解种种方法,必将引发摩擦和挣扎,而耗散我们生命力的,就是这些挣扎的活动。
  首先我们该问自己,到底什么是恐惧?它是从何而生的?我们所用的恐惧这个字眼究竟是什么意思?我要问的是恐惧究竟是什么?而不是我们到底在怕什么?
  我过着某种生活,我有某种思考模式,我相信某种信念和教条,我已经扎根其间,所以不想让这种存在的模式受到任何干扰,因为任何的变动都会使人进入一种未知的状况,我不喜欢那种滋味。如果你要我忍痛远离我所熟知的事物和信仰,至少我应该对将去之处有几分把握。由此可见,我们的脑细胞早已建立起一种模式,它们拒绝再造另一个不太确定的模式,从有把握变成没有把握时,就产生了所谓的恐惧。
  在我安坐于此的当下,我并不害怕,现在,一切都很平静,没有什么好怕的,既没有人威胁我,也没有人想抢劫我。但是在这一刻的背后,我的内心深处正在挂虑着未来可能发生的事,或者担心过去发生的某件事会卷土重来。因此,我所害怕的就是过去和未来。正因为我把时间分为过去和未来,思想念头便乘机提醒我:“小心,不要让它再度发生。”或者“你应该防患于未然,前途可能有危机,虽然你现在拥有一些东西,将来却很可能失去它。也许你明天就死了,也许你的妻子会抛弃你,也许你会失业,也许你永远也无法成名,也许你会变得很孤单,因此,你最好为明天多做一些准备。”
  现在,就找出你个人特有的恐惧模式,然后面对它。注意自己的反应,看你能不能毫不逃避、辩解、谴责,或压抑地正视它?你能不能正视恐惧而不加上任何引起恐惧的字眼?譬如,你能不能注视着死亡,而不加上任何使你害怕死亡的字眼?字眼本身就会带来恐惧,即使是“爱”这个字,也会引发特别的恐惧意象。现在请你注意你心中的死亡意象和你所见过的各种对死亡的记忆,以及你与那些事件的关系,是否就是那些意象制造了恐惧?还是你真的害怕结束生命,而不是怕想像中的结局?究竟是死亡这个字眼,还是真正的结局让你害怕?如果只是字眼或意象使你害怕,那并不是真的害怕。
  譬如你两年前生过一场大病,病中的痛苦到现在都还记得,这个记忆就会对你说:“小心,别再生病了!”于是记忆和它的联想就开始制造恐惧,其实那并非真正的恐惧,因为此刻的你健康得很。思想永远是陈旧的,它是来自记忆的反应,而记忆永远是过去的旧事。思想随时制造一种不合实情的恐惧感,而实际上你好得很,可是存在脑海里的经验,就会形成记忆,然后不断激起“小心!别再生病了”的念头。
  由此可知,恐惧是由念头引发的,那么,除了这类恐惧以外,还有没有其他形式的恐惧存在?我们也许害怕死亡——那个在明天、后天或时候到了自然会发生的事情。具体的事实和未来可能发生的事,两者是有差距的。然而思想一观察到死亡,就会根据这个经验说:“我也会死。”这种念头就带来了对死亡的恐惧。如果不是它,还有没有其他的恐惧?
  恐惧真的是由念头造成的吗?如果是的话,念头既然是陈旧的,那么恐惧也应该是陈旧的。如同我们已经讨论过的,在我们认出它的那一刻,它已经是旧的了。因此根本没有“新的念头”这回事,过去的恐惧虽然会反射到未来,其实我们只是怕旧事重演而已。因此,该为恐惧负责的就是念头,道理就是这么简单,你不妨亲自观察一下。当你正在专心应付某种危机时,你并没有恐惧,等到念头一起,恐惧才由心生。
  因此,我们现在必须要问自己,人心可不可能完全地、彻底地存活于当下?只有在这种心智状态下,恐惧才无从生起。若想深入了解这种状态,就必须先了解念头、记忆及时间的结构才行。这种了解不是出自理性或口头上的,而是发自内心和肺腑的了悟,然后你才能从恐惧中解脱出来,那时我们的心才能自由无惧地思想。
  思想和记忆一样,确实是日常生活中不可或缺的能力,它是我们用来沟通和工作的惟一工具。思想是记忆的反应,记忆则由经验、知识、传统、时间累积而成,我们就是在这些记忆的背景下,不断产生反应,而这个反应就是思想。思想在生活的某些层面确实是必要的。然而它一旦变成一种瞻前思后的心理反射以后,就会造成恐惧及快感,心智便因此迟钝下来,于是怠惰就难免了。
  我不得不自问:“为什么?为什么我明知道念头会造成恐惧,我还是怀着快感及恐惧的心情瞻前思后?我们可能停止这种心理的投射吗?否则恐惧就永远无法停止。”

  3·

  思想的运作之一,就是随时都装满了东西。大多数人都希望自己的心能装满东西,然后就可以不必去面对真相了。我们不敢让脑子空下来,因为我们害怕看到自己的恐惧。
  表面的恐惧你可能注意到了,但是你有没有注意过那些在内心深处的恐惧?你如何能发现那些极其细微而隐秘的恐惧?恐惧究竟有没有显意识与潜意识之分?这是一个非常重要的问题。心理分析的专家们总把恐惧分为深浅不同的层次,如果你随着心理学家或我所说的人云亦云,就算你懂得我们的理论、教条与学说,你仍然不懂得自己。你无法按照弗洛伊德、荣格或我的学说来认识你自己。他人的学说根本不重要,你必须问“你自己”,恐惧到底有没有显意识和潜意识之分?还是,恐惧只有一种,我们只是以不同的形式来表达它罢了,就好像欲望只有一种,那就是“你想要”的欲望。欲望的对象虽然时常变化,但欲望本身却是同一个。因此恐惧也只有一种,你虽然害怕各种事情,但恐惧却是同一个。
  你一旦认识恐惧乃是不可分割的整体,那么蒙蔽了心理分析家的潜意识问题,便立刻可以抛诸脑后。恐惧只是一种心理活动,却以各种不同的方式展现自己。如果你看到这些活动的本身,而不是活动所投射的对象,那么,紧接而来的更深一层的问题就是:你如何才能盯住它而不被支离破碎的心念所牵制?
  既然只有一个整体的恐惧,支离破碎的心如何能观照出它的完整面貌?它能吗?我们生活的本身就是支离破碎的,我们也只能靠这支离破碎的思考过程来观察那整体的恐惧。我们所有的思考过程就是机械化地将每一件事分解支离——我爱你,我也恨你。你是我的朋友,也是我的仇敌。我的特质和性格。我的工作、我的地位、我的权势、我的妻子、我的孩子。我的国家和你的国家。我的上帝和你的上帝——通过这些支离破碎的思想来看恐惧的整体面貌,所得到的也只是破碎的片断而已。因此,我们会发现只有思想停止活动,我们的心智才能看见恐惧的完整面貌。

  4·

  你能不能注视着恐惧,既不加以判断,也不以你所累积的知识来干预它?如果你不能,那么你所看到的便只是陈旧的往事,而不是恐惧。如果你能,那么这是你首次不受往事的干预而真正看到了自己的恐惧。
  只有在内心平静时,你才能看见恐惧。如果你的的心不再和自己对话,不再为自己的困扰和焦虑喋喋不休,你就能听见别人所说的话。你能不能用同样的态度正视你的恐惧,而不去设法解决它,或提起勇气克服它?或者只是面对它而不逃避它?假如你说“我要控制它、除掉它、了解它”,你其实是想逃避它。
  你通常能平静地观赏一片云、一棵树或河水的流动,只因为它们对你无关紧要。然而观察自己就不是那么容易了,因为自我的要求过于具体,反应又太过于迅速,因此,当你赤裸裸地面对恐惧、绝望、孤独、嫉妒或其他丑陋的心态时,你能不能心平气和地透视它?
  你的心能不能直接觉察到恐惧的全貌,而不是你所害怕的种种事物?如果你只观察到恐惧的细节,或是一件一件地解除恐惧,你就永远也进不到核心问题,即如何学习与恐惧共存。

  5·

  如果想和恐惧这样活生生的东西共存,需要一颗极其微细的心,它不下任何定论,因此才能随时盯住恐惧的行踪。你只要观察它,和它共处。要想了解恐惧的本质,连一天的时间都不需要,在分秒之间你就能看清楚了。你一旦能够完全和它共处,不可避免地你就会自问:这个与恐惧共处的本体是谁?是谁在观察恐惧?是谁一边在观察恐惧的各种形式,一边还能觉察恐惧的真相?这观察者是不是一个死的本体、静态的生命,累积了一大堆有关自己的知识?那个一边观察、一边与恐惧共存的东西,它到底是陈旧的,还是活生生的东西?你的答案是什么?不要答复我,只要答复你自己。你这个观察者是不是一个死的东西正在观察一个活的东西?从观察者的角度来讲,这两种情形都有可能。
  观察者本来是想去除恐惧的检查者,观察者又是那些恐惧经验的整体,于是观察者和它的恐惧就形成两个分别的个体,两者之间因此有了距离。观察者一直不停地设法克制或逃避恐惧,因而形成自我与恐惧之间的无止境的斗争,一生的精力就这样耗尽了。
  其实,你如果彻底观察就不难发现,那观察者不过是一堆概念或记忆,没有任何实质和效力,恐惧反而实在得很。如果你不断想以抽象的方式理解事实,当然不可能办到。那个在说“我害怕”的观察者和被观察的恐惧本身到底有没有任何区别?你会发现原来观察者本身就是恐惧,你一旦了悟这个事实以后,就不会再枉费精力去斩除恐惧了,于是观察者与被观察者之间的时空距离,顿时消失于无形。你一旦认清自己就是恐惧,和恐惧无二无别,自然会停止所有的斗争,然后恐惧就会完全止息下来。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 5

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?
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.'
     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.
     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'.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?'
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:07

  我们要了解的是暴力这个实际的东西,而不仅仅是一种概念罢了,因为它确实存在于人性中。我既然身为人类,就必须彻底坦诚,不怕面对自己的弱点,必须对自己开诚布公,准备追究到底,绝不中途停止。

  1·

  恐惧、快感、悲伤、思想及暴力,全都是密切相关的,我们似乎常以嫌恶某人、仇视某个种族的暴戾心态为快。当这些暴戾心态完全消失以后所生出的喜悦,和充满着冲突、仇恨及恐惧的暴力快感是非常不同的。
  我们能不能深入暴力的根源,然后从中解脱出来?否则,我们将永远活在彼此的斗争之中。如果这是你要的生活方式(大部分人似乎都甘心如此),你就继续下去吧!如果你说:“嗯!抱歉得很,我觉得暴力是永远中止不了的。”那我们之间也就无法沟通下去了,因为你已经封闭了自己。如果你说:“也许真有不同的生活方式。”那么,我们才能继续下去。
  让我们一起来思考一下,究竟我们可不可能根除内心的各种形态的暴力,同时还能继续生存于这个凶残的世界中。我认为是可能的,我不愿意内心存在一丝仇恨、嫉妒、焦虑或恐惧,我要生活在完全的平静中。这并不表示我在等死,我想活在这个丰富、美好而又圆满的地球上,一边欣赏花草树木、江河平畴、男女老少,同时又能平安地和自己及世界共处。那么,我该怎么办?
  如果我们学会如何正视暴力问题,不只是面对社会上的战争、暴动、阶级斗争、国际的对立,同时还要面对我们内心的暴力,如此就有可能超越它。
  这个问题十分复杂。世世代代以来,人类都是相当凶残暴戾的,各式各样的宗教一直都在设法降服它,却都失败了。因此,如果我们想要深入这个问题,必须怀着极为严肃的心情,因为它将引导我们进入一个相当不同的领域。如果我们只想在这个问题上玩玩脑力激荡的游戏,那是不会有什么进展的。
  也许你会觉得,世界上其他的人都不在意此事,也不准备付诸任何行动,如果只是自己严肃地反省这个问题,于事又有何补?然而我并不在乎他们重视与否,只要我在乎就已经足够了。例如,我无意为我兄弟的行径负责,但既然生成为人,如果真心关切暴力的问题,我首先就应该使自己不再暴戾,但是我无法要求你或任何其他人停止暴力,除非你真的愿意如此,否则一切都是废话。因此,你若真想要认识暴力的问题,不妨继续我们的心灵探索。
  究竟这暴力的问题是外在的还是内在的?你想解决的是外在世界的暴力,还是内心的暴力?如果你已去除了内心的暴力,随即又有另外一个问题会产生:我要如何生存在这个充满暴戾、贪婪、嫉妒与凶残的世界里?我会被它们毁灭吗?这是一连串不断被提出的问题。如果你提出这个问题,我会认为你其实活得并不平静。如果你真的活得很平静,就不会再有类似这样的问题了。也许你会因为拒绝从军而受监禁,也许因为拒绝打仗而被枪毙,然而求仁得仁,被枪毙这件事对你而言,也就不成问题了。认清这点是非常重要的。
  我们要了解的是暴力这个实际的东西,而不仅仅是一种概念罢了,因为它确实存在于人性中。我既然身为人类,就必须彻底坦诚,不怕面对自己的弱点,必须对自己开诚布公(大可不必向别人袒露一切,因为别人可能对你的问题毫无兴趣),准备追究到底,绝不中途停止。
  此刻,我必须很清楚地承认,我确实是一个暴戾的人,我在所有的愤怒、性欲、仇恨、不和、嫉妒中看出自己的暴戾,然后我要对自己说:“我想了解这个问题的全貌,而不只是战争所表现的局部,这个深藏于人心之内的侵略性,同时也存在于动物身上,而我就是动物的一分子。”
  不只是杀人才算暴力,刻薄的言词、排斥他人的姿态,或因为恐惧而不得不低声下气,这些都属于暴力。暴力不只是借上帝、国家或社会之名而展开的有计划的屠杀,它是个相当细微而深藏的东西,我们现在就要探索它的根源。
  如果你自称为印度人或基督徒、欧洲人或任何其他名称,你就是在展现一种暴力。你知不知道原因何在?因为你正在将自己从其他人类中分裂出来,如果你因为信仰、国籍、传统而将自己与他人分开,就已经在滋长暴力了。凡是愿意深入了解暴力根源的人,他所关心的是如何彻底了解人类。
  目前,研究暴力的人形成两种不同的派别,一派说:“暴力是人类与生俱来的。”另一派则说:“暴力是从人类文化及社会遗产中承继而来的。”我们没有兴趣附和任何一派,学说根本不重要,重要的是认清我们的确是暴力的这项事实,而不是追究它如何产生的。

  2·

  暴力最通常的表达就是愤怒。如果我的妻子或姊妹受到侵犯,我便认为我有十足的理由愤怒。如果我的国家、生活方式或我的意见受到侵犯,我也有十足的理由愤怒,即使我的小小习惯或小小意见受到侵犯,我也会愤怒。你踩到我的脚趾,或侮辱我,我也会愤怒。如果你拐跑了我的妻子,令我妒火丛生,这嫉妒通常是被视为合理的,因为她本来就是属于我的财产。一般的道德判断都会包容以上这些愤怒,连为了国家而杀人也是正当的。因此,当我们讨论愤怒时,我们是按照自己的性格或周围的影响而检定这个愤怒正当或不正当,还是我们真的在观察愤怒本身?到底有没有正当的愤怒这一回事?影响的本身通常没有好坏之分,只有当我们受到对自己不利的影响时,才称它为“坏影响”
  当你护卫你的家庭、国家、信仰、观念、教条、或任何需求时,那种护卫的心理就暗藏了愤怒。那么你能正视愤怒而不加上任何辩解吗?你能够不说“我必须守护我的财产”,或“我有愤怒的权利”,或“我生气了,我真是愚蠢”这类的话?你能不能只是看着那个愤怒,就好像它是一个独立的生命?你能不能客观而整体地观察它,既不辩解,也不谴责?你能吗?
  如果我把你当成我的仇敌,或者我认定你是个大好人,在这种情况下,我还能看到真正的你吗?只有当我对你真心关怀而毫无成见时,我才能看到你的真相。然而,我能以同样的方式来观察愤怒吗?也就是说,我能不能对自己开诚布公而且毫不抗拒,没有任何反应地正视这个现象?
  我们很难面对愤怒而不带有任何强烈的情绪,因为它就是我的一部分,然而这正是我们应该学习的。此刻,我这个暴戾的人,不论是黑、是黄、是白或紫,我们所关切的应不是究竟我的愤怒是承继而来的,还是社会造成的,而是究竟我可不可能从其中解脱出来?对我而言,没有比从暴力中解脱出来更重要的事了,它远比性欲、食物、地位重要得多,因为这个东西不断在里面腐蚀我,它不只毁灭我,也毁灭这个世界。我觉得我有责任去了解它、超越它。这不是空话,我应该告诉自己:“只有在超越愤怒、暴力之后,我才能做出一些事情来。”这份强烈想要了解自己内在暴力的意愿,就能激发找寻到真相的活力和热情。
  但是要想超越暴力,既不能压抑它,也不该拒绝它,我不能说:“它既是我的一部分,只有认了。”或说:“我不要它。”我必须正视它、研究它、跟它亲近。如果我一味谴责或为其辩护,那么如何能真正亲近它?可是我们时常会忍不住谴责辩护,因此,我要强调的就是,暂且停止一切谴责与辩护。

  3·

  试想一想,如果你要制止暴力或一场战争,你需要投注多少精力于其中?你的子女被杀,你的儿子被军队征召,受尽恫吓,然后被屠杀,这对你难道不严重吗?你难道不在乎吗?如果连这件事都引不起你的兴趣,老天,什么才能?紧守钱财?饮酒作乐?服用迷幻药?你难道还没有认清你内心的暴力正在毁灭你的孩子?还是你仍然将它视为一个抽象的问题而已?
  如果你真有兴趣,就请你全心全意来探索这个问题,别靠在椅背上说:“好吧!告诉我究竟是怎么一回事吧!”我一再强调,怀着谴责或辩护的成见,永远也看不见愤怒及暴力的真相。如果暴力对你而言,还不到火烧眉睫的程度,你是不会放下谴责或辩护这种二分法的。因此,你必须学习如何中观愤怒,如何中观你的丈夫、妻子及孩子;你也必须学习如何聆听政客的说辞;你必须明白自己为什么无法客观中立,一味谴责或辩护的原因何在。你必须认出你的谴责和辩护,原来就是构成社会的要素;你还应该认清所谓的德国人、印度人、黑人、美国人或任何这类的观念,这些都构成了你的种种限制,逐渐钝化你的心智。想要学习和发现真相,就必须先培养深入觉察的能力,粗钝的工具是无法胜任的。我们目前所做的事,就是在磨砺你的工具,那个早就被各种谴责及辩解所钝化的心智。你的心应该细如针尖,坚如利钻,如此才能深入透视。

  4·

  只是坐在那里随口一问“我要怎样才能得到这种心智”,是根本无济于事的。你必须想要它,就像想要下一顿饭那样刻不容缓的程度。要想得到它就必须先看清楚,使你的心智钝化的,就是你四周筑起的刀枪不入的围墙,而它就是辩护和谴责的一部分。心智一旦能摆脱它,就能观察、学习和透视,也许就能进入彻底觉察整个问题的境界。
  让我们回到主题:我们到底能不能根除内心的暴力?我并不是在说“你怎么还没有改变自己,为什么”,因为这也算是暴力的一种形式。说服你去做任何事,对我一点意义也没有。这是你的生命,不是我的生命,你想过什么样的生活,是你自己的事。我的问题是:一个身处社会的人,是否可能清除内心的暴力?如果可能的话,我相信这个清除的过程就能将世界导向迥然不同的生活方式。
  我们大多数人都已经接受暴力为必然的生活方式,我们从两次世界大战所学的教训,就是在人与人之间,在你和我之间,堆砌起更多的围墙藩篱。那么,有心根除暴力的我们,又能做什么呢?我不认为通过我们的或专家的分析就能有任何成效。我们也许会稍微修正一些自我的毛病,生活得比较平静,多一点温情,不过这仍不足以使你透视一切。我们必须懂得如何去分析,分析的过程会使我们的心智变得极为敏锐,这份敏锐、专注与认真,将有助于我们透视真相。人尚无一目了然的能力,要想看清真相,必须先认清细节,然后才能跃进。
  有些人想用“非暴力”的概念及理想来消除我们内在的暴力,以为只要怀着与暴力相对的非暴力理念,便能除去我们内心根深蒂固的问题,那是行不通的。人间已有数不清的理想和原则,充斥于圣书和经典之中,我们却仍然暴戾如故。因此,为什么不忘掉那些说辞,直接与暴力对质呢?
  你必须付出全部的精力和专注力,才可能认出内在的实情,一旦你编造出一个理想的世界,就消散了那股精力及专注力。因此,你能完全摒弃理想吗?凡是真正渴望找出什么是真理、什么是爱的人,就不会把持着先入为主的观念,他会愿意活在现实真相中。
  你必须停止谴责,才能觉察出你愤怒的真相,因为你一旦怀着相反的理想,立刻就会苛责自己,于是你就看不到愤怒的真相了。如果你声称自己讨厌某人或憎恨某人,这虽然不是好话,却是实话。但如果你正视它、深入它,它就会消失。不过如果你说“我不该恨别人,我应该有爱心”,你就无可避免地落入双重标准的虚伪世界中。想要时时刻刻活得圆满自在,就应该活在事实真相中,不加谴责或辩护,然后你才能彻底认清问题所在,然后问题才能得以解决。只要能够看得明白透彻,问题便迎刃而解。
  但是你真能清楚看见暴力的真相吗?不只是外在的,同时也看得到内心的暴力。如果你能,那表示你已经完全从暴力中解脱,因为你不再通过任何观念设法去除它了。可见仅仅在口头上赞同或不赞同,是无济于事的,要做到这点,需要极深的观照。
  到目前为止,你已经读了一连串的陈述,但是你真的懂了吗?你那受到局限的心智、你的生活方式、社会的整个结构,都想阻止你面对真相,使你无法立刻彻底解脱。于是你说:“让我想想看,究竟可不可能从暴力中解脱,我会试着去做的。”“我会试着去做”可以算是最糟糕的一种反应了,因为根本没有试一试或尽力而为这件事,只有做与不做的选择而已。就如同你的房子已经着火了,你还在拖延时间。而且这把火是由你的内心以及世上的暴力所引发的,你却说:“让我想想看,哪一种观念或说法最适合灭火。”当房子着起火时,你还会在意那提水相救之人的发色吗?


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 6

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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.'
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
 
2008/04/07 20:06

  总想和某人或与理想中的自己一样,是形成矛盾、困惑与冲突的原因之一。一个困惑的心,不论做任何事、在任何一种层次上,都是一团混乱的。

  1·

  上文所讨论的停止暴力的问题,并不一定会使你达到平安的心境,也未必能使你与外在人事建立起和平的关系。
  人际关系时常是建立在塑造的假象与防卫机制上。我们每个人都在为他人塑造形象,然后在这个形象上,而不是在真人身上建立所有的人际关系,妻子对自己的丈夫有某种特定的印象,也许她自己并没有意识到,不过这个印象却相当实在;同样的,丈夫也会对妻子形成某种印象。一个人对自己的国家或对自己都有某些印象,我们还不断东涂西抹地维护心中的印象,同时把关系建立于其上。其实人们一开始塑造形象,人与人之间的真实关系就结束了。
  建立在这类形象上的人际关系是绝对不会带来和平的,因为形象是虚构的,而人根本无法生活在抽象的理念之中。可是我们偏偏乐此不疲,不断为自己或他人制造出一堆概念、理论、象征及形象,然后生活在这种根本不存在的假象中。我们与财产、理念以及人类的各种关系,都是建立在这塑造的形象上。冲突也因此迭起。
  那么,怎样才可能在我们的内心以及和他人的关系上享有真正的平静?毕竟,生活就是各种关系的互动,否则生活就不成立了。如果把生活建立在一堆抽象的理念或是推理的假设之上,这种抽离的生活必然使得人际关系如同战场一般。因此,人类究竟可不可能活得心安理得,且没有任何形式的勉强、模仿、压抑或升华?他能不能在内心展现真正的平静,而不只是一套抽象的理想?也就是说,在家庭或办公室的日常生活里,而不是在神秘的想像世界中,你都能够随时随地享有内心的平静。
  我认为我们在讨论这个问题时,应该格外谨慎,因为在我们的意识里,可以说没有一处是不矛盾的,我们所有的人际关系,不论是密友、邻居或社会上的人,都是冲突迭起。这种冲突就是一种矛盾、分裂和对立的状态。只要稍微观察一下我们自己以及与社会的关系,我们就会发现,生命的每一个层面都充满着冲突,它们使我们变得极为肤浅,同时也毁了生活的秩序与情调。

  2·

  人们既然已经接受竞争、嫉妒、贪婪、需求以及侵略性为最自然的生活方式,必然也会视冲突为日常生活的一部分。一旦接受这种生活方式,自然也会接受社会的结构,而活在“面子及地位”的模式中。这就是我们大部分人所陷入的生活方式,因为我们都极度需要别人的尊重。如果为我们好好检视自己日常的念头、思想、感受及行为,我们就会发现,只要我们顺从社会的模式,生活必然变成战场。如果我们不接受它(真正具有宗教情怀的人,没有一个能接受这样的社会),我们才能彻底从社会的心理结构中解脱出来。
  我们大多数人都必须靠社会致富,它在我们心中以及我们在自己的心中大量制造的,不外是贪婪、嫉妒、愤怒、憎恨、焦虑,我们在这方面是极其富裕的。当今世界各种教都在宣扬简朴的美德,出家人披上僧袍、改名换姓、剃掉头发、深局斗室,发誓奉行清贫及简朴的生活,在东方更是严格,一块腰布、一件袍子以及一日一餐。我们都很佩服这种简朴的生活。但是披上清贫外衣的人,在心理上仍然充满了世俗的产物,因为他们仍然渴望地位及名望。他们隶属这个修会或那个修会,这个宗派或那个宗派,他们仍然活在某种文化或传统的区分中,根本够不上神贫。真正的神贫乃是要彻底从社会的知见中解脱出来,纵使你多穿几件衣服、多吃几餐饭,老天啊!谁会在乎这些微不足道的事。不幸得很,大多数的人都热衷这种自我展示的生活。
  当人心真的从社会的心理结构中解脱出来时,清贫才能变成一件美好的事。一个人应该先致力于内在的简朴,不再追寻,不再要求,也不再渴望,也就是一无所求了。拥有这种内心的简朴才能看见生命的真相,因为所有的冲突都已经烟消云散。这种生活能受到祝福,它是在教堂或寺庙中找不到的。

  3·

  那么,我们如何才能从社会的心理结构中解脱出来?这才是根除冲突的治本之道。如果想稍微减轻一些冲突,也许并非难事,但是我们所问的问题是:我们有没有可能得到内在的和外在的安宁?这并不意味我们必须活得单调停滞,相反,我们应该变得更有动力、更活泼才对。
  要想认清和解决任何一个问题,我们都需要极大的热情及毅力,不只是身体或智识的能量,而是一种不依赖任何动机、心理的刺激或药物的能量。如果我们依赖任何刺激品,心智都会因而麻木和钝化。也许有些迷幻药能帮助我们暂时看清楚一些事情,但是很快我们就会回复原状,于是就更加依赖药物而不可自拔。因此,任何外在的刺激,不论是来自教会、酒精、迷幻药或是书籍言论,都会使人产生依赖心,阻碍我们看清真相,也剥夺了我们的生命力。
  不幸的是,我们在心理上多多少少都有所依赖。我们为什么会依赖?
  我们为什么想要依赖外物?我们既然共同踏上了这个心灵之旅,就不要期望我来告诉你依赖的原因。如果我们能共同探索,我们双方都能弄清楚真相,那成果就是你自己的,正因为它是你的,所以必然会给你无限活力。
  我发现自己正在依赖某些东西,譬如说听众,是他们鼓舞了我。我常从听众或一大群人身上获得能量,因此,我变得依赖那群听众,不论他们赞同或反对我的意见。他们愈反对就愈给我生命力;如果他们一味附和,反而空虚肤浅。于是我发现我需要听众,公开演说是非常刺激的事。那么,回到老问题上,为什么我会依赖?只因为我内在肤浅而空虚,还没有在内心里找到那圆满、丰富、变化无穷而又活生生的源头,因此,我向外寻求,形成依赖,这是我为自己找出的原因。
  原因找到以后,就能使我从依赖中解脱吗?找到原因只是知性上的理解,显然它无法使我解脱。知性上接受某种观念,或情绪上默认某种意识形态,是无法使我们从那富于刺激力的东西中解脱出来的,只有识破刺激与依赖二者之间的关系,而且真实体验到这种依赖只会使心智变得愚蠢而迟钝,心智才可能由依赖中解脱。也只有看到整个真相,才有自由可言。
  因此,我们必须探究“整个真相”是什么意思。如果我从某一种观念,或某种使我念念不忘的经验,或是某种我所累积的知识,也就是我的背景或所谓的“我”这些角度来看生命,我是无法看到它的全貌的。纵使我已经从智性、言语和分析中发掘了依赖的原因,思想所调查出来的结果仍然是局部性的破碎资料而已,因此,只有当思想不插手干预时,我才可能看到它的全貌。
  于是,我终于看见了我依赖的真相,我不加好恶地正视它,既不想去除它,也无意从中解脱,只是观察而已。唯有这种观察才能看到真相,当心智看到全貌时,自由就来到了。我同时也发现,这种支离破碎的思想过程,耗费了我大量生命力。我已经找到消耗的来源了。

  4·

  你也许认为假如你能模仿他人,接受权威的指导,信赖神职人员、仪式、信条或某种意识形态,就不至于耗费精力了。事实不然,追随或接受一种意识形态,不论它是好是坏,是凡是俗,本身都是一种片面的活动,因此必定导致冲突。只要在“应该是怎样的”和“实际是怎样的”之间做分割,冲突便在所难免。不论是哪种冲突,都会使人的生命力耗损。
  如果你自问“如何才能从冲突中解脱出来”,你实际上又制造了另一个问题,同时加深了已有的矛盾。但如果你只是把它当作具体的东西一般清楚而直接地看着它,你就会了悟生命的真相里原来根本没有矛盾与冲突。
  让我们从另一个角度来看,我们永远喜欢拿“真正的我”和“应该的我”互相比较,这个“应该”是我自己投射出来的标准。一有比较之心,就有了矛盾,不只是与某人某事相比,还要与昨日的自己比较高下,形成过去与当下之间的矛盾。只有停止比较,才能使自性呈现,能够活在自性中,才能有真正的平安。不论你内心深藏的是悲伤、丑陋、残忍、恐惧、焦虑、孤独……只要你能彻底观照它,毫不分心,与它安然共处,矛盾与冲突就会停止。
  然而,我们却永远喜欢拿自己与那些比较富有、比较聪明、比较博学、比较热情、比较有名的此君彼君相比。“更多”、“更好”这些字眼在我们的生活中占了很重要的地位。这种不断与某人或某事较量的习惯,实在是冲突的主要原因。
  那么,为什么会比较?为什么老是拿自己和别人相比?这其实是我们从小学来的本领。每个学校里都是张三李四比来比去,张三为了媲美李四,不惜毁灭自己的本质。如果你根本不和别人比较,如果你完全没有理想、没有反对物、没有二元对立的因素,也不再拼命改变自己的本来面目,你的心会怎么样?你的心会停止制造矛盾分裂,你会变成高智慧、高敏感度的人,你会有无限的热情,因为“过于努力”常常冷却了人的热情。热情就是生命力,缺少了它,任何事都做不成。
  如果你不再和别人比较,你就会接纳自己。一经过比较,你就开始希望自己更加进步、成长,变得更聪明、更漂亮。但是你能做到吗?你本来的自我才是事实,一经比较,你就把这个整体肢解了,于是造成了能量的耗损。能够看到自己的本来面目而不与别人相比,就能产生巨大的能量去观察一切。如果你能够观察自己而不带比较,你就已经超越了比较,这并不意味你的心因为自满而停滞不进。因此,认出自心是如何在耗费能量,就是了解整体真相不可或缺的要素。
  我并不想去发现我和谁有冲突,我也不想知道我和周遭的环境之间有什么冲突,而只想知道为什么会有冲突的产生。当我提出这个疑问时,我看到了一个根本的问题,它与周遭的冲突及其解决方法无关。我关心的是中心问题,并看到——或许你也看到?——欲望的本质,如果没有确切地被了解,必然导致冲突。
  欲望本身就是一种矛盾,我们时常想要的,总是与事实相反的东西。这并不意味我们必须毁掉欲望,或者压抑、控制、升华它,我们只需要单纯地正视欲望的本质,而不是它的对象。我们必须先认识欲望的本质,才能认清冲突与矛盾。我们的内心就是因为这些追逐快感和逃避痛苦的欲望,才不断陷入矛盾之中。

  5·

  我们已经认清欲望就是一切矛盾的根源,那种想要它又不想要它的二元对立的心态。当我们在做一件开心的事时,丝毫不会觉得费力,不是吗?可是跟着快感而来的却是痛苦,于是我们只好逃避痛苦,能量就不可避免地耗损了。为什么我们会有这种二元对立的心态?虽然自然界永远处在二元对立的状态,男人、女人;光明、黑暗;白天、夜晚;然而我们的心为何也会二元对立呢?请你们和我一起来思考这个问题,别等着我的答案,你必须练习用心追究下去。
  我的话只是一面镜子,供你观察自己所用。为什么我们会有这种二元对立的心态?是不是因为我们在成长过程中一直被训练如何去分别“本来面目”和“应该面目”?我们早已在什么是对的,什么是错的;什么是好的,什么是坏的;什么是道德,什么是不道德的框框中受到了制约。我们一向认为,只要思考暴力的反面,思考嫉妒、凶恶的反面,就会有助于去除那个东西本身,却不知这种心态助长了内心的对立。我们是用与真相对立的东西作为标准,来驱除本有的东西?还是把它当作一种逃避事实的途径?
  如果你对一件事不知所措,你是否会借用与它相对的东西来逃避或克制它?还是你已经接受了数千年的洗脑,认为自己必须有一个与事实正好相反的理想标准,才能够应付当前的现实?你认为只要有了理想,就能去除当前的困境,但事实上却从来没有成功过。你也许一辈子宣扬“非暴力”的理念,却随时在为暴力播种而不自觉。
  尽管你早已有应该成为怎样的人以及应该如何待人处事的概念,事实上,你却活得完全不是那么一回事。因此,我们不难看出,那些原则、信仰、理想必然将你带入一种虚而不实的生活。就是这个理想制造了与事实相反的情境,如果你知道如何与真实的自我相处,相对的理想就不需要了。
  总想与某人或理想中的自己一样,是形成矛盾、困惑与冲突的主因之一。一个困惑的心,不论做任何事、在任何一种层次上,都是一团混乱的。产生于困惑的行为时常导致更大的困惑。如果我们深深了解了这个事实,看到它就好像看到切身的危机那么清楚,那么,我会怎么样?我就不会在困惑的心境下做任何反应了。于是这种不反应,便成了最完美的反应。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 7

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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:02

  如果你不再隶属于任何家族、国家、文化或特定的一州,你就会有一种局外人的超脱感。如果一个人能如此彻底独处,就能产生赤子之心,也只有赤子之心才能使人从悲伤中解脱。

  1·

  因为压抑自我而造成的苦闷,或为了顺应某种生活模式的苦心励志,都无法引导我们接近真理。心智需要彻底的自由,不受丝毫扭曲,才有会晤真理实相的可能。
  但是我们应该先问自己:我们是否真的想要自由?是那种彻底的自由,还是那种只想从不顺心或某种障碍中挣脱出来的自由?我们一边想从痛苦、丑陋的记忆以及不愉快的经验中解脱出来,一边却仍想保留快感以及令人满足的观念、公式和人际关系。然而,我们早已看出快感是无法与痛苦分开的,我们不可能踢掉一个而保留另一个。
  因此,每个人都必须作出选择:我们到底要不要彻底的自由?如果我们说要,我们就必须认识自由的本质和结构。
  假设你从某种处境,譬如痛苦或焦虑中解脱出来,就算真的自由了吗?还是,自由根本是完全不同的一种东西。例如,你从嫉妒中解脱出来,那种自由只是一种反应,它根本不是真正的自由。如果你用分析或剔除的方法,也许很容易就从某种教条中解脱了,但是想从教条中解脱的动机本身就是一种反应,因为那个教条可能不再流行或使你觉得碍事了。也许,你能够从民族主义的狂热中解脱来,只因为你开始相信世界主义了,或是在经济条件上,你已经无须再扛着民族主义的旗帜和那一大堆的废话,所以你轻而易举地将它抛开了。也许你反对某些宗教人士或政治领袖,以及他们所承诺的那种必须经过修行或加入叛变之后才能得到的自由。但是这种根据某些理论或逻辑所作出的反应,和真正的自由有任何的关系吗?
  如果你说,你已经从某个东西中解脱了,那也只是一种反应而已,它必然会带来另一种反应,然后又造成另一种臣服或控制。于是你就身不由己地连环反应下去,却误把每一个反应视为自由,其实它根本与自由无关,它只是经过修正的、内心所执着的往事罢了。

  2·

  今日的青年和所有的年轻人一样,都在反抗社会的既有制度。这本身是件好事,但反抗并不是自由,而只是一种反应,它必然又会形成自己的模式,于是你又陷入了那个模式之中。你以为那是创新之举,其实只是新瓶装旧酒罢了。任何社会或政治上的反动,迟早都会落回旧有中产阶级的样板。
  只有当你能真正看清真相而付诸行动时,才有自由而言,反叛是无法带来自由的。看清真相的本身就是行动,这种行动就好比你在危机时的当下反应,不必经过思考、探讨或迟疑,因为危急本身就激发了行动。所以,看清真相就是行动,也就是自由。

  3·


  自由乃是一种心智状态,它不是从某种东西挣脱的自由,而是一种自由的意识,一种可以怀疑和追问一切的自由,它强烈、活跃而富有生气,因此能清除各式各样的依赖、奴役、臣服以及逆来顺受的阴影。这种自由意味着彻底的孤独,但是一向依赖着环境以及自己性格长大的人,真能找到完全孤独的自由吗?何况其中并没有向导,没有传统,也没有权威。
  这种孤独是内心的一种情境,它不依赖任何外在的刺激或知识,也不依据任何经验或结论。说实话,我们大部分人的内心从来没有真正孤独过——与外界断绝往来的孤立,和我们这里所谈的孤独是两回事。我们都知道,孤立乃是在身边筑起围墙,以免受到伤害或暴露弱点,或是培养另一种痛苦的厌离心,或是藏身于某种意识形态的象牙塔中。孤独则与上述情形完全不同。
  你从来不曾真正孤独过,因为你充满了记忆、限制、昨日的怨言和牢骚,你的心从未好好清理过这些垃圾,也惟有先死于昨日的种种,才可能独处。如果你不再隶属于任何家族、国家、文化或特定的一州,你就会有一种局外人的超脱感。如果一个人能如此彻底独处,就能产生赤子之心,也只有赤子之心才能使人从悲伤中解脱。
  我们每天都扛着千万人的看法以及我们自己的不幸遭遇。如果要彻底丢开他们,就必须孤独。孤独不只使人恢复天真,还能青春永驻,我不是指年龄,而是那种不受年龄限制的青春、无邪和活波,只有这种心智才能见到那不可形容的真理或实相。
  根据孤独的经验,你开始了解你必须与真实的自我和平共存,而不是和那个你认为应该的或过去的你。你能否正视自己,而没有恐惧,没有假造的谦虚、辩解或谴责,只是单纯地与真实的你共处,你可曾尝试过?
  想要真正了解一样东西,你必须和它密切相处。但是如果你对内心的焦虑、嫉妒等习以为常的话,你就不再与它同在了。好比你住在河边,只需要几天的时间,你就听不见水声了;又好比你在房中悬挂一幅画,每天进出都会看到它,一周以后,你就熟视无睹了。你对高山、河谷、树林也是一样;你对家庭、丈夫、妻子也是一样。当你与嫉妒、焦虑共处时,千万不可以习以为常,也不可以认命,你该像照料一棵新栽的树苗一般地照顾它,使它避开烈阳或是暴风的蹂躏。你必须照顾它,既不谴责也不辩护,渐渐地你会喜爱上它。我并不是要你喜欢嫉妒或焦虑,而是要你细心照料它。
  如果你认清自己是如此乏味,充满嫉妒、恐惧,自以为情感丰富,实则相当无情,又这么容易受到伤害,容易得意也容易感到无聊……我们能够与这样的自我相处吗?我们能不能既不接受它,也不排斥它;既不消沉,也不得意,而只是如实地关照。
  现在让我们问自己一个更进一步的问题:这种自由、孤独、与真实的自我和平共处的境界,是否需要很长时间才能逐渐达到?很显然不是的,你一加入时间的因素,你就愈来愈成为它的奴隶,你无法慢慢地变得自由,因为它根本与时间无关。
  其次的问题是:你能意识到那种自由吗?如果你说:“我自由了!”那么,你就还没有自由。就好比人们常说:“我很快乐”,他指的其实是过去对快乐的记忆。自由只能自然来到,它不可能来自你的期待、要求和渴望,你也无法制造自以为是的假象。要达到这种境界,你的心智必须学会观照生命,那是一种不受时间限制的巨大活动,因为自由是超越意识领域的。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 8

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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:02

  我们总认为自己将来会有所改变,我们内心所向往的和谐境界也会一点一点、一天一天地实现。事实上,时间并不会带来任何的和谐或平安,我们必须停止这种渐进的想法。这意味着使我们平安的明天是根本不存在的,我们必须在当下这一刻找到和谐。

  1·

  我实在忍不住再重复一遍那个故事:有个优秀的门徒到上帝那请求他传授真理,可怜的上帝说:“我的朋友,今天这么热的天气,先给我一杯水吧!”门徒就去敲附近第一家的门乞水,一位妙龄少女前来应门,于是他们一见钟情,不久就结婚了,还生了好几个孩子。有一天,老天开始下雨,这阵雨不停地下着,造成了洪水泛滥,淹没了街道,冲走了房舍,门徒紧抓着他的妻子,肩上扛着他的孩子,眼看自己也快站不住脚了,他大叫:“主啊!救救我吧!”上帝说:“我要得那杯水呢?”
  这是个很好的故事,因为我们大多数人都在时间的范围内思考,人是依据时间而活的,他最喜欢玩的逃亡游戏,就是发明了“未来”。
  我们总认为自己将来会有所改变,我们内心所向往的和谐境界也会一点一点、一天一天地实现。事实上,时间并不会带来任何的和谐或平安,我们必须停止这种渐进的想法。这意味着使我们平安的明天是根本不存在的,我们必须在当下这一刻找到和谐。
  在真正的危难当前,时间感就不存在了,不是吗?我们会立刻直觉地反应。因为我们尚未看出许多问题的危急性,所以我们才发明“时间”来克服它。时间实在是个大骗子,它丝毫不能帮我们改善自己,我们喜欢把时间的运行划分为过去、现在和未来,这个界线一经划定,我们就永远在冲突中了。

  2·

  学习必须依赖时间吗?数千年来,我们除了相互仇杀以外,还没有学会更好的生活方式。我们一手促成了这种恐怖而毫无意义的生活,如果要改善它,我们就必须了解时间这个重要的问题。
  首先我们应该了解,惟有上一章所描述的那种天真无邪、永远清新的心智,才能看出时间是怎么一回事。我们每天面对一大堆令人困扰的问题,时常迷失于其中。那么当一个人在森林中发现自己迷路时,第一个反应是什么?他会停下来,不是吗?他会停下来,看看四周的状况再做打算。可是现实生活里,我们愈觉得困惑迷失,我们就愈把自己忙得团团转,不停地寻找、探问、强求、乞讨,如果我能给你一些建议的话,第一件事就是先停止内在的一切活动。心理活动一停止,你的心就宁静清澈下来,那时你才能真的观察时间这个问题。
  如果我们不能全神贯注于一件事的始末,时间的问题就产生了。心不在焉的态度与外在发生的事件一结合,便形成了“问题”。如果我们的心不能全神贯注,而是支离破碎,甚至存心逃避,问题便产生了。只要我们继续地心不在焉,继续把问题拖到将来,问题永远都会存在。
  你知不知道时间是什么?我不是指钟表或日历上的时间,而是心理上的时间,它就是观念及行动之间的空隙。显然,观念的产生是为了自我保护,行动则是当下直接的表现,既没有过去,也没有未来,他必定属于现在。但是由于行动常带来吉凶难卜的后果,于是我们便求助于观念,期待它能带给我们一些安全感。
  好好观察一下自己的内心,你会发现,你早已拥有是非对错的观念,对自己及社会也行成了某种意识形态,你就是根据那些观念而非针对事实真相行动,因此,行动便迁就观念,尽量符合观念,所以才冲突不断。观念与行动之间形成的空隙即是时间,它自成一种领域,根深蒂固地存在于你的思想中。你一想到明天就很快乐,你的自我形象好像在时间中已经有了改善。通过观察和欲望所形成的念头不断增强,于是你告诉自己:“明天我会快乐,明天我会成功,明天世界会更好。”思想就这样创造出时间这个空隙。
  现在我们要问自己了,我们有可能停止时间感吗?我们能不能彻底活在现在,不让思想产生“明天”的念头?因为时间就是悲伤,它象征着昨天或几千个昨天以前所失去的爱人或朋友,那记忆存在于脑海,时时勾起快感及伤痛。你不断地回顾、期盼、希望、懊悔,思想再这重复再三的过程里,不但延续了时间,也引发了痛苦。
  思想一旦引发时间这个空隙,痛苦便随之而来,恐惧也在所难免。因此我们必须自问:这种空隙感能够消除吗?可是如果你一说“它可能消除吗?”,它就变成观念了。当你有心去完成一件事时,你已经制造了这个空隙,而且受困其中。

  3·

  现在让我们以死亡为例,这是令很多人困扰的问题。你知道吗?死亡每天都和你并肩而行,可是你能彻底面对它而不把它变成一个问题吗?要做到这点,你必须停止所有的信仰、希望和恐惧,否则你会怀着某种论断、影像或预设的渴望来面对这个不可思议的东西,于是你又落在时间的假象中了。
  时间乃是观察者与被观察者之间的空隙,换而言之,你这个观察者害怕面对死亡,虽然你并不知道死亡的真相,却早已对它抱持各式各样的希望和理论;你相信轮回、复活,或所谓的灵魂、超我、精神体那类超越时间的东西,然而你是否亲自探索过究竟有没有灵魂这回事?还是那只是你从传统所继承而来的观念?到底有没有任何东西是永恒的、持续不断的,而且是超越思想的?凡是思想所能想出来的东西,都逃不出思想的范畴,因此不可能是永恒的,因为思想的领域里没有永恒不变的东西。认清世上没有永恒不变的东西是极其重要的,只有如此,心智才可能自由,然后你才能真的观察,其中才有乐趣。
  未知之事应该不至于令你恐惧才对,你既然不知道那是怎么一回事,又有什么好怕的?也许死亡对你只是一个名词,是那个名词造成令你恐惧的意象,那么你能不能不怀着任何死亡意象来观察死亡?只要一有意象,念头就跟着生起,恐惧便尾随而来。于是你要不就将你对死亡的恐惧理性化,然后对这无法避免的结局筑起防御设施,或者你会发明一大堆信仰来解除你对死亡的恐惧,于是你和你所拥有的东西之间便有了距离。在这时空的距离之中,必定存在着恐惧、焦虑、自怜种种的冲突。那制造对死亡恐惧的念头就会说:“让我们拖延,让我们逃避,离它愈远愈好,根本别去想它。”但你偏偏就是要想它。当你说“我不要去想它”时,你其实正在想着你如何躲避它。就是这种拖延逃避的心理,造成了对死亡的恐惧。

  4·

  我们把生命与死亡分开,生死之间的距离就是恐惧,而恐惧制造了间隔生死的那一段时间。我们所谓的生命不过是日复一日的折磨、受辱、悲伤及困惑,偶尔也许会瞥见窗外那一片令人心醉的海洋,可是我们却害怕那结束这悲惨命运的死亡。我们宁愿执着于自己所熟悉的房子、家具、家庭、个性、工作、知识、名誉、我们的孤苦以及我们的神明,而这些微不足道的东西也不断在自己受制的模式中痛苦地存在着。
  我们总认为生活属于现在,死亡则是在遥远的未来等候着我们,但是我们从不质问这种有如战场的生活究竟算不算是生活。我们只想知道心理学的研究报告,可是我们从不探究如何生活,如何生活得愉快而美好。我们似乎已经接纳现实中的痛苦与绝望,将其视为生活中不可缺少的一环,却反而把死亡当作应该极力避免的东西。如果我们知道如何生活,死亡就和生活一样具有非凡的意义;没有死亡,就没有生活而言。如果你不能时时刻刻经验心理活动的死亡,就不可能真实地生活,这绝不是智性上的诡辩,因为如果你真的想要彻底活出崭新美好的一天,就必须死于昨日的种种,否则你只能像机器一般运转度日。这种像机器一般的心智,是永远无法了解“爱”和“自由”的。

  5·

  我们大多数人都害怕死亡,只因为我们不知道什么是生活。我们不知道如何去活,所以也不知道如何去死。只要我们害怕生活,我们自然也会害怕死亡。不害怕面对生活的人,也不会害怕完全失去安全感,因为他深深了解根本没有所谓的安全感这回事。只要对于安全感的需求一解除,无始无终的活动就会产生,那么生活和死亡就没有什么差别了。一个人如果能活得平安和谐,充满了美与爱,必然不会恐惧死亡,因为爱本身即是死亡。
  如果你肯死于一切已知之事,包括你的家庭、记忆和所有的感受,那么死亡实在是一种净化,然后死亡就能带给人赤子之心。只有赤子之心才可能热情奔放,那绝对不是那群相信或追问死后是怎么一回事的人所能达到的。
  你必须真的死了,才能发现死后究竟是怎么一回事。我不是说笑,你必须大死一番,我不是指生理上的死亡,而是从内心深处死于你一向珍惜以及深恶痛绝的事物。如果你能毫不勉强,也不讨价还价地死于任何令你快慰的事物,然后你才能了解死亡的意义。死亡就是彻底让心智空掉,把每天的渴望、快感以及痛苦完全空掉。死亡就是更新,一种突变,在其中,思想是完全不活动的。因为思想是过去的产物。有了死亡,就有完全崭新的东西。从已知中解脱便是死亡,然后你才能真正地生活。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 9

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?'
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
 
2008/04/07 20:01

  如果有了爱与美,不论你做什么都是对的,都会带来秩序与和谐。只要你知道如何去爱,一切问题都将迎刃而解,你就能随心所欲而不逾矩了。

  1·

  一心追求安全而稳固的人际关系,必然会引发哀伤和恐惧;愈追求安全感,愈会招致不安全的感觉。有没有任何人际关系使你感到安全过?我们大家都渴望爱与被爱的保障,但如果我们一心只想追求自己的安全感和自己特定的途径,那算是爱吗?我们不被人所爱,只因为我们不知道如何去爱。
  爱是什么?这个字眼早已被世人所败坏了,所以我一直不怎么爱用它。每个人都在谈论爱,每一份杂志、报纸以及传教士都不停地谈着爱。我爱我的国家,我爱我的君主,我爱这些书,我爱那座山,我爱那种快感,我爱我的妻子,我爱上帝……爱是否只是一种概念?如果是的话,你当然可以培养它、滋长它、珍惜它、玩弄它、随心所欲地扭曲它。你说你爱上帝,那究竟是什么意思?你不过是爱那个你自己的臆想所投射出的影像罢了,你按照心目中神圣崇高的模样,为自己披上了可敬的外衣,而形成了那个影像。所谓“我爱上帝”根本毫无意义,你在崇拜上帝时,不过是在崇拜自己而已,这绝不是真正的爱。

  2·

  我们不知道如何处理人间的爱,于是我们躲到抽象的理念世界中。也许,爱真的是人间苦难和困境的最终解答,那么我们要如何才能找出爱的真谛?只下定义就算了吗?宗教给它一种定义,社会又有自己的定义,各种的偏差和曲解比比皆是。难道崇拜某人、与某人同床共枕、交换感受、作伴解悉,就是所谓的爱了吗?这种极其狭隘、纯属个人取向以及完全诉诸感觉的爱,已经成为社会上公认的模式。于是宗教挺身而出,宣称爱是超越这一切的。他们在人间的爱情中看到的只是快感、竞争、嫉妒、占有、总想控制和干预对方的思想,了解了这种错综复杂的现象以后,他们声称必定还有一种神圣、美好而又纯洁无染的爱存在。
  不论在世界上哪一个角落,所谓的圣人都会告诉你:注视女人是件非常不好的事。他们会说:“如果你让自己沉溺于性爱中,你就不可能接近上帝。”于是他们不顾自己的逐渐枯竭而将性爱推向一旁。禁欲好比闭上自己的双眼、割去自己的舌头,因为他们等于否定了大地之美。他们让自己的心与意处在饥饿状况,他们是脱了水的人类,他们摒弃了美,因为美与女人是分不开的。
  爱有没有神圣与世俗之分?或人性与神性之分?还是根本只有爱而已?爱是否只能献给一个人而无法普施众人?如果我说“我爱你”,是否表示我不能爱其他人?爱是纯粹个人的,还是与个人无关的?道德的,还是不道德的?家庭的或非家庭的?如果你博爱所有人类,你还能爱上某个单独的个体吗?爱是不是感性的?爱是不是一种情绪?爱是不是快感及欲望?上述种种问题,不正显示我们对于爱的认识时常限于应该或不应该的观念,并且受制于我们的文化所发展出来的模式吗?
  如果要深入“什么是爱”这个问题,我们应该先去除几个世纪以来加诸其上的粉饰,抛开一切理想或是它该如何及不该如何这类观念。常把事情划分为该与不该,实在是最为自欺欺人的生活态度了。

  3·

  那么,我该如何才能发现我们称之为爱的火焰呢?我是指它的本身涵义,而不是它的表达方式。首先我会拒绝教会、社会、父母、朋友、任何人或任何书本给我的答案。我要自己去挖掘它的真相。人类最大的难题就是我们早已具有千百种不同的定义,我自己也因为目前的性格偏好而陷于某种模式,因此,要想了解它,我是不是应该把自己从性格及偏见中解脱出来?我既然已经发觉自己也在迷惘分裂中,仍然受欲望的操纵,我就应该对自己说:“先清除你自己的迷惑,然后你也许能从什么不是爱之中看出它是什么来。”
  政府说:“为了爱国,所以你要杀敌人!”那是爱吗?宗教则说:“为了爱上帝,所以你要禁欲!”那是爱吗?爱是种欲望吗?别否认!对我们大多数而言,它确实是交杂着快感和欲望的,那种快感是由感官、性需求及性满足滋生的。我并不反对性爱,我只是想正视它的内涵。性交能使你在高潮的那一刻完全忘却自我,可是不久你又落回到原来的混乱中,所以你才会渴望不断重复那种没有忧虑、没有问题、没有自我的境界。
  你说你爱你的妻子,那份爱其实包含了性的快感以及有人为你烧饭带小孩的快感。你依赖她,她献给你她的身体、情绪和鼓励之类的安全感及幸福感。结果好景不常,她厌倦了,她跟他人跑了,她遗弃了你,毁掉了你整个情绪的平衡,你受不了这种变动,于是生出所谓的嫉妒,还掺杂着焦虑、仇恨及暴力。由此可见,你的爱不过是“只要你属于我,我就爱你。不然,我就恨你。我能靠你来满足我的性欲或其他需求,我就爱你。一旦你不能满足我的需求,我就不喜欢你了。”由此可见,你们之间有一种对立性,只要你感到自己和她是两个对立的生命,爱就消失了。如果你们能够不制造这些矛盾的状况,停止内心那些永无休止的争执,那么也许(只是也许而已),你会开始了解什么是爱。到那时,她和你才能拥有完全的自由,但如果你想依赖她带给你任何快乐,你就成了她的奴隶。因此,一个人如果能真正地爱,必然享有自由,它不是从对方那里掠夺来的,而是自然由内心生起的。
  这种隶属他人、心理上依赖他人滋养的状态,时常会带来焦虑、恐惧、嫉妒和罪恶感,只要有恐惧,就不可能有爱。被忧伤折磨的心,永远无法体会爱。多愁善感和爱根本没有任何关系,同样的,爱和快感、欲望也扯不上边。
  爱不是思想的产物,因为思想是属于过去的,它根本不可能滋生出爱来,爱是不受束缚的,也不可能陷入嫉妒之中,因为嫉妒属于过去,而爱却永远属于活生生的现在。它绝不是“我要去爱”,或“我已经爱过了”。如果你了解爱,你就不会再追随任何人。爱不是臣服,当你爱的时候,根本没有可敬或不可敬的分别。
  你知不知道爱一个人究竟是什么意思?你能了解这种没有仇恨,没有嫉妒,没有愤怒,不干涉对方的思想和行为,既不谴责也不比较的境界吗?如果你以全心、全意、全身及整个生命去爱一个人,你会有比较吗?当你已经为爱而彻底舍弃自己时,就不再有比较的对象了。
  爱是否包含了义务和责任?它需要使用这些字眼吗?如果你因为责任而去做一件事,那还有爱吗?责任之下绝没有爱。人类所陷入的责任结构其实已经毁了自己,如果你因为责任的缘故,不得不做某件事,你就无法爱你所做的事了。爱所到之处,既无责任,也无义务可言。
  不幸的是,大部分的父母都认为他们对自己的孩子有责任,于是他们就告诉孩子什么该做、什么不该做,应该变成什么样的人、不该变成什么样的人等。父母总希望自己的孩子将来在社会上能有安稳的职位,因此,他们所谓的责任,只不过是要传给孩子上一代所崇拜的地位和面子罢了。人一旦追逐地位和面子,就破坏了自然的平衡和秩序。父母所关切的,往往是如何造就另一个地地道道的凡夫俗子。表面上看来他们是在帮着孩子适应社会,其实是在助长世上的冲突、暴力及战争。你能称之为爱和关怀吗?
  真正的关怀就好比关心一棵植物那样,为它浇水,认清它的需要,给它肥沃的土壤,温柔亲切地照料它。可是如果你只培养你的孩子适应社会,你就是在训练他们如何斗争,那么他们就会被社会宰割。如果你真的爱你的孩子,怎么还会鼓励他们加入这场人间的苦战?
  如果你失去所爱的人,你会流泪不已,然而你的泪水到底是为自己,还是为那逝去的人而流?你究竟是为了自己,还是为别人而哭?你曾经为别人哭过吗?你曾经为那捐躯战场的儿子哭过吗?如果你哭过,那些眼泪是出于自怜,还是为了亡者?如果你是为了自己而伤心,那么眼泪就是白流了,因为你只不过是自怜罢了。但是如果你落泪,是因为你丧失疼爱了半辈子的人,那也不是真的疼爱。假设你的兄弟过世,你很容易为自己落泪,因为他已经离你而去。你落泪显然是因为内心有很深的感触,但不是因为骂过他而感伤,其实是因为自怜而感伤。这种自怜的心态会使你变成铁石心肠,你会封闭自己,逐渐变得麻木而愚昧。
  如果你是为了自己而哭,这能算是爱吗?你哭是因为你落单了,你感到孤单无助,你对自己的处境满腹牢骚,总之是那个“你”在哭泣。如果你真能看透这些事的内情,就像你摸一棵树、一根柱子或握一只手那么直接,你就不难看出悲伤是自创的,是念头引发了时间感而造成的。三年前,我弟弟还健在,转眼他就故去了。因为我变得更孤单、更伤心,再也没有人能给我慰藉或陪伴我了,每念及此,难免热泪盈眶。
  只要仔细观察,不难看出内心的起伏过程,如果能一眼就看清它的来龙去脉,而不是一点一点地分析出来,你会在刹那间识破那个虚伪的小家伙——我——的整个本质及结构。我的眼泪、我的家庭、我的信仰、我的宗教、一切丑恶均藏在内心深处,如果你打从心底看透它,而不是用脑子去分析,你就获得了终止哀伤的秘诀了。
  悲伤与爱是不可能共存的,但是基督教却把痛苦理想化,甚至将它供在十字架上朝拜,这暗示着除非你通过那扇特殊的门,否则你是永远脱离不了痛苦的,这完全显示了宗教组织剥削人心的伎俩。

  4·

  因此,在你问爱是什么的时候,你也许会害怕看到真正的答案,因为它可能意味着一种彻底的剧变——它可能会毁了你的家庭。你也许会发现你根本不爱你的妻子、丈夫或孩子。你真的爱他们吗?你可能会决定毁掉辛苦筑起的家园,从此再也不去教堂或寺庙了。
  如果你仍然想追问真相,你就会认清恐惧不是爱,依赖不是爱,嫉妒不是爱,占有控制不是爱,责任义务不是爱,自叹自怜不是爱,不被人爱的痛苦不是爱。爱不是恨的另外一面,正如谦卑不是虚荣的反面一样。如果你能毫不强制地,就像雨水洗去绿叶上的积尘一般除净那些假象,也许你会突然见到那朵人们所渴求的奇葩。
  如果你尚未获得那丰富的爱,还没有满怀着爱,这世界就难逃厄运了。你的理智告诉你,人类的团结才是一切的根本,爱是惟一的途径,可是谁来教导我们去爱?有没有任何权威、方法、制度能告诉我们如何去爱?如果要别人告诉我们,那已经不是爱了。如果我们说“我要练习去爱,我要每天静坐沉思,练习慈悲、温柔,尽量努力关心他人的需求”,这是不是意味着爱是可以锻炼,可以用意志力达成的?每当你有意训练自己的心去爱时,爱就从窗口溜走了。练习某种爱的技巧,也许能使你变得聪明伶俐、更加仁厚,或造就“非暴力”的人格,不过那跟爱仍然是两回事。

  5·

  因为快感和欲望主宰着这个荒凉破碎的世界,因此,爱几乎没有立足之地了。没有爱,每天的生活就失去了意义。而且,缺少了美,也就缺少了爱。美并不只是一棵美丽的树、一幅美丽的图画、一幢雄伟的建筑或一个漂亮的女人那种肉眼可见的东西。只有当你的心中有爱时,才会看到真正的美。没有任何德行可以缺少爱及美这两种因素。你很清楚,如果你只是凭着意志力去改善社会、济贫救世,结果往往会造成更多的不幸,因为缺少了爱,人心就剩下了丑恶及贫穷。反之,如果有了爱与美,不论你做什么都是对的,都会带来秩序与和谐。只要你知道如何去爱,一切问题都将迎刃而解,你就能随心所欲而不逾矩了。
  现在我们就必须面对核心问题了。如果不经过修炼,不通过思想、强求、书本、老师或指导者的引领,一个人能不能像突然见到可爱的落日一般与爱相会?
  我觉得有件东西是不可或缺的,那就是没有任何动机的热情。那股热情不是来自某些誓约、执着或色欲。不认识热情为何物的人永远无法了解爱,因为只有在彻底舍弃自我中,爱才能出现。
  始终在寻觅的心是无法热情奔放的。你停止寻找它,反而可以邂逅它,这不能靠努力或经验而达到的,只能在毫无心机的情况下,才能巧遇到它。你会发现这种爱超越了时间的范畴,属于个人,也超乎个人,可以专一,也可以遍布,就像一朵花的芬芳,你能闻到它,也可能毫无知觉地擦身而过,那花朵为每一个人绽放,包括那个在它面前深吸一口气而且愉快地注视着它的人。不论人们站在花园内或花园外,对那朵花都毫无影响,它只是自然地让所有的人都能分享它的芬芳。
  爱是新鲜、活泼而充满着生命力的,它没有昨日,也没有明天,更不受杂念的干扰。只有赤子之心才能认出它来,而具有赤子之心的人是可以在这个已经失真的世界中生存的。人们总想通过牺牲、崇拜、人际关系、性生活以及种种快乐和痛苦的途径,去寻找那不可思议的爱,然而,意念必须认清自己的真相而自然终止,才可能找得到爱。如此而得到的爱,才没有对立、没有冲突。
  也许你会问:“如果我找到了这份爱,那么我的妻子、孩子,以及我的家该怎么办,他们的生活必须有保障啊!”你会提出这个问题,就表示你还没有跳出过思想及意识的领域。如果你曾经跳出过一回,你就根本不会有此一问了,因为你已经知道在爱中是没有时间和意念的。谈到这里,你也许会觉得自己受到催眠而入迷了,如果你真的想超越思想和时间,也就是超越悲伤,你就必须先觉察:所谓的爱是属于完全不同次元的东西。
  可是你不知道如何进入那美妙的源头,那么你该怎么办?如果你不知道该做什么,你就什么也不做。不是吗?就是这样,什么都不做,然后你的心就完全寂静了。你知道是什么意思吗?这表示你已经不再寻找、不再渴望、不再追求了,中心点一消失,爱就出现了。


FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN CHAPTER 10

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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.'
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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?
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
 
   
 
 
文章存档
 
     
 
最新文章评论
  
   
帮助中心 | 空间客服 | 投诉中心 | 空间协议
©2012 Baidu