HE WAS A well-known and well-established politician, somewhat arrogant, and hence his impatience. Highly educated, he was rather ponderous and tortuous in his expositions. He could not afford to be subtle, for he was too much involved with appeasement; he was the public, the State, the power. He was a fluent speaker, and the very fluency was its own misfortune; he was incorruptible, and therein lay his hold on the public. He was oddly uncomfortable sitting in that room; the politician was far away, but the man was there, nervous and aware of himself. The bluster, the cocksureness was gone, and there was anxious inquiry, consideration and self-exposure.
他是一位知名且声名显赫的政治家， 有些傲慢，所以，他不耐烦。 受过高等教育的他，在表述时，显得相当笨拙和扭曲。 他无法给予体贴，因为他深陷于调和政策； 他代表着公众、国家、政权。 他是一个流利的演讲者，这个‘流利’本身，就是不幸。 他廉洁，因此将他的手放在控制公众身上。 奇怪的是，坐在那个屋里，他不舒服。 政治家的身份已经远离，那个人却在屋里，紧张并意识到了他自己。 咆哮、傲慢消失了， 剩下了焦虑的询问、考虑和自我暴露。
The late afternoon sun was coming through the window, and so also the noise of the traffic. The parrots, bright green flashes of light, were returning from their day's outing to settle for the night in safety among the trees of the town, those very large trees that are found along roads and in private gardens. As they flew, the parrots uttered hideous screeches. They never flew in a straight line but dropped, rose, or moved sideways, always chattering and calling. Their flight and their cries were in contradiction to their own beauty. Far away on the sea there was a single white sail. A small group of people filled the room, a contrast of colour and thought. A little dog came in, looked around and went out, scarcely noticed; and a temple bell was ringing.
傍晚的阳光从窗户透过，来往的噪音也越来越大。 鹦鹉，如一道明亮的绿光，从它们一天的郊游回来了， 在镇上的树林里安全地过夜， 这些非常大的树，在道路和私人花园中被发现。 当它们飞翔时，发出了可怕的尖叫声。 它们从不直线飞行，而是下降、上升或侧向移动，总是喋喋不休和呼喊。 它们的飞行和吵嚷，与它们自身的美丽相矛盾。 在遥远的海上，只有一叶白帆。 一小群人挤满了房间，色彩与思想，形成了鲜明的对比。 一只小狗走了进来，环顾四周，又出去了，几乎没有一点兴趣； 寺庙的钟声响起。
"Why is there contradiction in our life?" he asked. "We talk of the ideals of peace, of non-violence, and yet lay the foundation stone of war. We must be realists and not dreamers. We want peace, and yet our daily activities ultimately lead to war; we want light, and yet we close the window. Our very thought process is a contradiction, want and not-want. This contradiction is probably inherent in our nature, and it is therefore rather hopeless to try to be integrated, to be whole. Love and hate always seem to go together. Why is there this contradiction? Is it inevitable? Can one avoid it? Can the modern State be wholly for peace? Can it afford to be entirely one thing? It must work for peace and yet prepare for war; the goal is peace through preparedness for war."
“为什么我们的生活中会有矛盾？”他问道。 “我们谈论和平、非暴力的理想，但却为战争铺筑基石。 我们必须是现实主义者，而不是梦想家。 我们想要和平，我们的日常活动却最终导向战争； 我们想要光明，我们却关上了窗户。 我们的思想活动是矛盾的，想要，又不想要。 这种矛盾可能是我们本性中固有的， 因此，试图整合它们以使其成为整体，是相当的无望。 爱与恨似乎总是在一起。 为什么会有这种矛盾？ 它是不可避免的吗？一个人可以避免它吗？ 现代的政府能够完全为了和平吗？ 它能够提供一个整体的东西吗？ 它必须为和平而努力，同时又要为战争作准备。 它的目标是：通过备战，来实现和平。”
Why do we have a fixed point, an ideal, since deviation from it creates contradiction? If there were no fixed point, no conclusion, there would be no contradiction. We establish a fixed point, and then wander away from it, which is considered a contradiction. We come to a conclusion through devious ways and at different levels, and then try to live in accordance with that conclusion or ideal. As we cannot, a contradiction is created; and then we try to build a bridge between the fixed, the ideal, the conclusion, and the thought or act which contradicts it. This bridging is called consistency. And how we admire a man who is consistent, who sticks to his conclusion, to his ideal! Such a man we consider a saint. But the insane are also consistent, they also stick to their conclusions. There is no contradiction in a man who feels himself to be Napoleon, he is the embodiment of his conclusion; and a man who is completely identified with his ideal is obviously unbalanced.
为什么我们有一个固定点，一个理想， 而有了这个点，就把与之偏离的事态称之为矛盾？ 如果没有固定点，没有结论，就没有矛盾。 我们建立了一个固定点，然后远离它，这被认为是一个矛盾。 在各个层面上，我们通过诡异的方式而得出一个结论， 然后试图按照这个结论或理想来生活。 由于我们做不到，就产生了矛盾。 然后，我们试图在这个固定的、理想的、结论性的东西 和与之相矛盾的思想或行为之间架起一座桥梁。 这种桥接被称之为‘一致性’。 我们多么钦佩一个始终如一、坚持自己结论、坚持自己理想的人！ 这样的人，我们认为是一个圣人。 但疯子也总是保持着一致性，他们也坚持自己的结论。 一个觉得自己是拿破仑的人，并没有矛盾， 他是他结论的化身； 一个完全认同自己理想的人，显然是不平衡的。
The conclusion which we call an ideal may be established at any level, and it may be conscious or unconscious; and having established it, we try to approximate our action to it, which creates contradiction. What is important is not how to be consistent with the pattern, with the ideal, but to discover why we have cultivated this fixed point, this conclusion; for if we had no pattern, then contradiction would disappear. So, why have we the ideal, the conclusion? Does not the ideal prevent action? Does not the ideal come into being to modify action, to control action? Is it not possible to act without the ideal? The ideal is the response of the background, of conditioning, and so it can never be the means of liberating man from conflict and confusion. On the contrary, the ideal, the conclusion, increases division between man and man and so hastens the process of disintegration.
我们称之为‘理想’的结论，可以建立在任何层面上， 它可能是有意的或无意的； 在建立了它之后， 我们试图将我们的行动近似于它，这就产生了矛盾。 重要的不是如何与准则，与理想保持一致， 而是要发现我们为什么要培养这个固定点，这个结论； 因为如果我们没有准则，那么矛盾就会消失。 那么，为什么我们要有理想、结论呢？ 难道理想没有阻碍行动吗？ 理想的产生，不就是为了修正行动，控制行动吗？ 没有理想就不可能行动吗？ 理想是背景、制约的回应， 因此它永远不可能成为将人从冲突与困惑中解放的手段。 相反，这些理想、这些结论，增加了人与人之间的分裂， 从而加速了崩裂的进程。
If there is no fixed point, no ideal from which to deviate, there is no contradiction with its urge to be consistent; then there is only action from moment to moment, and that action will always be complete and true. The true is not an ideal, a myth, but the actual. The actual can be understood and dealt with. The understanding of the actual cannot breed enmity, whereas ideas do. Ideals can never bring about a fundamental revolution, but only a modified continuity of the old. There is fundamental and constant revolution only in action from moment to moment which is not based on an ideal and so is free of conclusion.
如果没有固定的点，没有可偏离的理想， 就没有与它保持一致的冲动而产生的矛盾； 那么每时每刻只有行动， 而这种行动将永远是完整和真实的。 真理不是一个理想，一个想象，而是实在的。 真实是可以被理解和处理的。 对实际情况的理解不会滋生敌意，而思想却会。 理想永远不能带来根本性的革命，它只能不停地修理老古董。 只有每时每刻的行动，才能根本性地和不断地革命， 它不是基于理想，因此解散了结论。
"But a State cannot be run on this principle. There must be a goal, a planned action, a concentrated effort on a particular issue. What you say may be applicable to the individual, and I see in it great possibilities for myself; but it will not work in collective action."
“但是，一个政府不能根据这一原则运作。 必须有一个目标，一个有计划的行动，在一个特定问题上专注地奋进。 你说的话可能适用于个人，我在自身上看到了它的巨大的可能性； 但它在集体行动中是行不通的。”
Planned action needs constant modification, there must be adjustment to changing circumstances. Action according to a fixed blueprint will inevitably fail if you do not take into consideration the physical facts and psychological pressures. If you plan to build a bridge, you must not only make a blueprint of it, but you have to study the soil, the terrain where it is going to be built, otherwise your planning will not be adequate. There can be complete action only when all the physical facts and psychological stresses of man's total process are understood, and this understanding does not depend on any blueprint. It demands swift adjustment, which is intelligence; and it is only when there is no intelligence that we resort to conclusions, ideals, goals. The State is not static; its leaders may be, but the State, like the individual, is living, dynamic, and what is dynamic cannot be put in the strait-jacket of a blueprint, We generally build walls around the State, walls of conclusions, ideals, hoping to tie it down; but a living thing cannot be tied down without killing it, so we proceed to kill the State and then mould it according to our blueprint, according to the ideal. Only a dead thing can be forced to conform to a pattern; and as life is in constant movement, there is contradiction the moment we try to fit life into a fixed pattern or conclusion. Conformity to a pattern is the disintegration of the individual and so of the State. The ideal is not superior to life, and when we make it so there is confusion, antagonism and misery.
计划的行动需要不断的修改， 必须适应不断变化的环境。 如果你不考虑外在的事实与内在的心理压力， 按照固定的蓝图而采取行动，将不可避免地失败。 如果你打算建造一座桥，你不仅要为它制定蓝图， 而且你必须研究那里将要建造它的土地的土壤， 否则你的计划将不够充分。 要有完整的行动， 只有当人所有的物理因素和心理压力的整个运动都被理解时， 而这种理解，不依赖于任何蓝图。 它仅仅需要迅速的调整，也就是智慧； 只有当智慧不在时，我们才会诉诸于结论、理想和目标。 国家不是一成不变的；它的领导者们可能是， 但国家，像个人一样，是活生生的、动态的， 动态的东西不能放在蓝图的紧身衣中， 我们通常在国家的周围筑墙： 结论之墙、理想之墙，希望把它绑紧； 但是一个活的东西不能在不杀死它的情况下被捆绑， 所以我们继续在杀害国家， 然后按照我们的蓝图，按照理想来塑造它。 只有死去的东西才能被迫遵守一种准则； 由于生命在不断的运动， 当我们试图将生命去适应一个固定的准则或结论时，就会有矛盾。 顺从一种准则，是个人的分尸，也是国家的裂解。 理想并不比生命优秀， 当我们这么去做，就会有困惑、敌对与悲惨。