对生活的评注 2-5

THEY WERE CHANTING in the temple. It was a clean temple of carved stone, massive and indestructible. There were over thirty priests, naked to the waist; their pronunciation of the Sanskrit was precise and distinct, and they knew the meaning of the chant. The depth and sound of the words made those walls and pillars almost tremble, and instinctively the group that was there became silent. The creation, the beginning of the world was being chanted, and how man was brought forth. The people had closed their eyes, and the chant was producing a pleasant disturbance: nostalgic remembrances of their childhood, thoughts of the progress they had made since those youthful days, the strange effect of Sanskrit words, delight in hearing the chant again. Some were repeating the chant to themselves, and their lips were moving. The atmosphere was getting charged with strong emotions, but the priests went on with the chant and the gods remained silent.

他们在圣殿里唱诵。这是一座干净的雕刻石头寺庙，巨大而坚不可摧。有三十多名神父，上身赤裸，直到腰部。他们对梵语的发音是精确而独特的，他们知道圣歌的含义。这些话的深度和声音使那些墙壁和柱子几乎颤抖，本能地，在场的那群人变得沉默。创造，世界的开端被吟诵，以及人是如何被带出来的。人们闭上了眼睛，圣歌产生了一种令人愉快的紊乱：对童年的怀旧回忆，对他们从年轻时代以来所取得的思想上的进步，梵语的奇特效果，再一次的唱诵让人喜悦。有些人自己重复着这首吟唱，他们的嘴唇在动。气氛充满了强烈的情绪，但神父们继续吟唱，众神保持沉默。

How we hug to ourselves the idea of progress. We like to think we shall achieve a better state, become more merciful, peaceful and virtuous. We love to cling to this illusion, and few are deeply aware that this becoming is a pretence, a satisfying myth. We love to think that someday we shall be better, but in the meantime we carry on. Progress is such a comforting word, so reassuring, a word with which we hypnotize ourselves. The thing which is cannot become something different; greed can never become non-greed, any more than violence can become non-violence. You can make pig iron into a marvellous, complicated machine, but progress is illusion when applied to self-becoming. The idea of the ‘me’ becoming something glorious is the simple deception of the craving to be great. We worship the success of the State, of the ideology, of the self, and deceive ourselves with the comforting illusion of progress. Thought may progress, become something more, go towards a more perfect end, or make itself silent; but as long as thought is a movement of acquisitiveness or renunciation, it is always a mere reaction. Reaction ever produces conflict, and progress in conflict is further confusion, further antagonism.

我们是如何拥抱进步的理念。我们喜欢认为我们会达到一个更好的状态，变得更仁慈、和平和高尚。我们爱执着于这种幻觉，很少有人深刻地意识到，这种成为是一种伪装，一个令人满意的神话。我们耽于有一天我们会变得更好的想法，但与此同时，我们在继续。 ‘进步’，是一个如此令人欣慰的词，如此令人放心，一个我们催眠自己的词。现存的东西不能变成别的东西；贪婪永远不会变成非贪婪，就像暴力不能变成非暴力一样。你可以把生铁变成一个奇妙的、复杂的机器，但当应用于自我塑造时，进步就是幻觉。 ‘我’正在变得光耀的想法，是对渴望伟大的简陋的欺骗。我们崇拜国家、意识形态和自我的成功，并用令人欣慰的进步幻觉欺骗自己。思想可能会进步，变得更多更好更厉害，走向更完美的结局，或者让自己安宁；但只要思想是一种获取或放弃的运动，它总是一种纯粹的反应。反应总会产生冲突，而冲突的进程，即是进一步的混乱、进一步的对立。

He said he was a revolutionary, ready to kill or be killed for his cause, for his ideology. He was prepared to kill for the sake of a better world. To destroy the present social order would of course produce more chaos, but this confusion could be used to build a classless society. What did it matter if you destroyed some or many in the process of building a perfect social order? What mattered was not the present man, but the future man; the new world that they were going to build would have no inequality, there would be work for all, and there would be happiness.

他说他是一个革命者，准备为了他的事业，为了他的意识形态而杀戮或被杀。他准备为了一个更美好的世界而杀人。摧毁目前的社会秩序当然会产生更多的混乱，但这种混乱可以用来建立一个无阶级的社会。如果你在建立完美的社会秩序的过程中摧毁了一些或许多，那又有什么关系呢？重要的不是现在的人，而是未来的人。他们将要建立的新世界将没有不平等，所有人都会有工作，会有快乐。

How can you be so sure of the future? What makes you so certain of it? The religious people promise heaven, and you promise a better world in the future; you have your book and your priests, as they have theirs, so there is really not much difference between you. But what makes you so sure that you are clear-sighted about the future? “Logically, if we follow a certain course the end is certain. Moreover, there is a great deal of historical evidence to support our position.”

你怎么能对未来如此肯定？是什么让你如此确信？宗教人士应允天堂，你应允未来有一个更美好的世界；你有你的圣书和你的牧师，就像他们有他们的一样，所以你们之间真的没有太大的区别。但是，是什么让你如此确信自己对未来有清晰的远见呢？ “从逻辑上讲，如果我们遵循一定的路线，结局是肯定的。此外，有大量的历史证据支持我们的立场。”

We all translate the past according to our particular conditioning and interpret it to suit our prejudices. You are as uncertain of tomorrow as the rest of us, and thank heaven it is so! But to sacrifice the present for an illusory future is obviously most illogical.

我们都根据自己的特定局限来翻译过去，并根据我们的偏见来解释它。你们和其余的我们一样，不确定明天，这得感谢上天！但是，为了一个虚幻的未来而牺牲现在，显然是最不合逻辑的。

“Do you believe in change, or are you a tool of the capitalist bourgeoisie?”

“你是相信改变，还是一把资本主义的资产阶级的工具？”

Change is modified continuity, which you may call revolution; but fundamental revolution is quite a different process, it has nothing to do with logic or historical evidence. There is fundamental revolution only in understanding the total process of action, not at any particular level, whether economic or ideological, but action as an integrated whole. Such action is not reaction. You only know reaction, the reaction of antithesis, and the further reaction which you call synthesis. Integration is not an intellectual synthesis, a verbal conclusion based on historical study. Integration can come into being only with the understanding of reaction. The mind is a series of reactions; and revolution based on reactions, on ideas, is no revolution at all, but only a modified continuity of what has been. You may call it revolution, but actually it is not.

改变是修改后的连续，你可以称之为革命; 但根本性革命是一个完全不同的过程，它与逻辑或历史证据无关。根本的革命只有在理解整个行动过程，不是在某些任何特定层面上，无论是经济的还是意识形态的，而是作为一个整体的行动。这种行动不是反应。你只知道反应，源于对立面的反应，以及你称之为‘综合’的进一步反应。整合不是一种智力上的综合，一种基于历史研究的口头结论。只有通过对反应的理解，整合才能形成。头脑是一系列的反应；而基于反应、基于思想的革命，根本不是革命，而只是对过去延续下来的事物的修补。你可以称之为革命，但实际上它不是。

“What to you is revolution?”

“对你来说，革命是什么？”

Change based on an idea is not revolution; for idea is the response of memory, which is again a reaction. Fundamental revolution is possible only when ideas are not important and so have ceased. A revolution born of antagonism ceases to be what it says it is; it is only opposition, and opposition can never be creative. “The kind of revolution you are talking about is purely an abstraction, it has no reality in the modern world. You are a vague idealist, utterly impractical.”

基于想法的改变不是革命; 因为想法是记忆的反应，它也是一种反应。只有当思想不重要，因此已经消停了，彻底的革命才有可能发生。一场由对抗引发的革命，脱掉了它美丽的外套；它只是在反抗，而反抗永远不可能是创造性的。 “你所说的那种革命纯粹是一种抽象，它在现代世界中没有真实性。你是一个模糊的理想主义者，完全地不切实际。”

On the contrary, the idealist is the man with an idea, and it is he who is not revolutionary. Ideas divide, and separation is disintegration, it is not revolution at all. The man with an ideology is concerned with ideas, words, and not with direct action; he avoids direct action. An ideology is a hindrance to direct action. “Don’t you think there can be equality through revolution?”

相反，理想主义者是有想法的人，有想法的人不是革命者。想法是分裂的，而分离的事物是不完整的，它根本不是革命。有意识形态的人关心的是想法、言语，而非直接地行动；他避免直接地行动。意识形态是直接行动的障碍。 “你不认为通过革命可以实现平等吗？”

Revolution based on an idea, however logical and in accordance with historical evidence, cannot bring about equality. The very function of idea is to separate people. Belief, religious or political, sets man against man. So-called religions have divided people, and still do. Organized belief, which is called religion, is, like any other ideology, a thing of the mind and therefore separative. You with your ideology are doing the same, are you not? You also are forming a nucleus or group around an idea; you want to include everyone in your group, just as the believer does. You want to save the world in your way, as he in his. You murder and liquidate each other, all for a better world. Neither of you is interested in a better world, but in shaping the world according to your idea. How can idea make for equality.

基于某种观念的革命，无论多么合乎逻辑，无论多么符合历史证据，都不可能带来平等。观念的功能恰恰是把人分开。信仰，无论是宗教的还是政治的，都把人与人对立了起来。所谓的宗教已经分裂了人们，现在仍然在这么干。组织化的信仰，被称之为宗教，像任何其他意识形态一样，是头脑的东西，因此是具有分裂性的。你和你具有的意识形态也在做同样的事情，不是吗？你也正在围绕一个想法形成一个核心或群体；你想把每个人都包括在你的小组里，就像信徒一样。你想以你的方式拯救世界，就像他在以他的方式一样。你们互相谋杀和清算，都是为了一个更美好的世界。你们俩都对一个更美好的世界不感兴趣，而是对按照自己的想法塑造世界感兴趣。想法能实现平等吗？

“Within the fold of the idea we are all equal, though we may have different functions. We are first what the idea represents, and afterwards we are individual functionaries. In function we have gradations, but not as representatives of the ideology.”

“在这个想法的范围内，我们都是平等的，尽管我们可能有不同的功能。我们首先代表了这个想法，然后我们每个人有各种职业。在功能上，我们有阶层，但不代表意识形态上有阶级的分别。”

This is precisely what every other organized belief has proclaimed. In the eyes of God we are all equal, but in capacity there is variation; life is one, but social divisions are inevitable. By substituting one ideology for another you have not changed the fundamental fact that one group or individual treats another as inferior. Actually, there is inequality at all the levels of existence. One has capacity, and another has not; one leads, and an other follows; one is dull, and another is sensitive, alert, adaptable; one paints or writes, and another digs; one is a scientist, and another a sweeper. Inequality is a fact, and no revolution can do away with it. What so-called revolution does is to substitute one group for another, and the new group then assumes power, political and economic; it becomes the new upper class which proceeds to strengthen itself by privileges, and so on; it knows all the tricks of the other class, which has been thrown down. It has not abolished inequality, has it?

这正是所有其他组织化的信仰所宣称的。在上帝的眼中，我们都是平等的，但在能力上是有不同的。生命是一个整体，但社会上的划分是不可避免的。通过用一种意识形态代替另一种意识形态，你并没有改变一个基本事实，即一个群体或个人将另一个群体或个人视为劣等。实际上，在现存的各个层面上都不平等。一个有能力，另一个没有能力；一个领先，另一个在后面跟着；一个是沉闷的，另一个是敏感的，警觉的，适应性强的；一个画画或写作，另一个挖地；一个是科学家，另一个是清道夫。不平等是事实，任何革命都无法消除它。所谓的革命所做的是用一个政党取代另一个政党，然后新的政党掌握了政治和经济上的权力；它成为新的上层阶级，通过特权等方式加强自己；它知道其他阶级的所有技巧，这些阶级已被抛弃。它没有废除不平等，不是吗？

“Eventually it will. When the whole world is of our way of thinking, then there will be ideological equality.”

“最终它会的。当整个世界都采用我们的思维方式时，就会有意识形态上的平等。”

Which is not equality at all, but merely an idea, a theory, the dream of another world, like that of the religious believer. How very near you are to each other! Ideas divide, they are separative, opposing, breeding conflict. An idea can never bring about equality, even in its own world. If we all believed the same thing at the same time, at the same level, there would be equality of a sort; but that is an impossibility, a mere speculation which can only lead to illusion.

这根本不是平等，而只是一个想法，一个理论，另一个世界的梦，就像宗教信徒的梦想一样。你们彼此之间是多么的相似！观念在割裂，它们具有分裂性、对立性、正在滋生冲突。某种想法永远不可能带来平等，即使在它自己的世界里也是如此。如果我们都在同一时间、同一层次上相信同样的东西，可能会有某种平等。但这是不可能的，仅仅是一种猜测，只能导致幻觉。

“Are you scouting all equality? Are you being cynical and condemning all efforts to bring about equal opportunity for all?”

“你是否在追求所有的平等？你是不是在愤世嫉俗，谴责一切为所有人带来平等机会的努力？”

I am not being cynical, but am merely stating the obvious facts; nor am I against equal opportunity. Surely, it is possible to go beyond and perhaps discover an effective approach to this problem of inequality, only when we understand the actual, the what is. To approach what is with an idea, a conclusion, a dream, is not to understand what is. Prejudiced observation is no observation at all. The fact is, there is inequality at all the levels of consciousness, of life; and do what we may, we cannot alter that fact.

我不是在愤世嫉俗，而只是在陈述显而易见的事实; 我也不反对平等的机会。当然，只有当我们理解实际情况，理解现实的时候，才有可能超越并找到解决这种不平等问题的有效方法。用一个想法、一个结论、一个梦想来接近现实，是无法理解它的。带着有色眼镜去看，根本就不是在看。事实是，在意识和生命的各个层面上都存在不平等；并尽我们所能，我们仍无法改变这一事实。

Now, is it possible to approach the fact of inequality without creating further antagonism, further division? Revolution has used man as a means to an end. The end was important, but not man. Religions have maintained, at least verbally, that man is important; but they too have used man for the building up of belief, of dogma. The utilizing of man for a purpose must of necessity breed the sense of the superior and the inferior, the one who is near and the one who is far, the one who knows and the one who does not know. This separation is psychological inequality, and it is the factor of disintegration in society. At present we know relationship only as utility; society uses the individual, just as individuals use each other, in order to benefit in various ways. This using of another is the fundamental cause of the psychological division of man against man.

现在，有没有可能在不造成进一步对抗和分裂的情况下来处理不平等的事实？革命利用人作为达到目的的手段。目的很重要，人却不重要。宗教至少在口头上坚持认为，人是重要的。但他们也利用人来建立信仰和教条。为了一个目的而利用人，必然会滋生出上等人与下等人，离得近的人和离得远的人，知道的人和不知道的人。这种分裂即是心理上的不平等，是社会破裂的因素。目前，我们只知道关系是基于实用性；社会利用个人，就像个人互相利用一样，以便于从各种方式中受益。这种对他人的利用是人与人之间产生心理对抗的根本原因。

We cease to use one another only when idea is not the motivating factor in relationship. With idea comes exploitation, and exploitation breeds antagonism. “Then what is the factor that comes into being when idea ceases?”

只有当观念不再是关系中的激励因子时，我们才会停止相互利用。有了观念，伴生出剥削，而剥削滋养着敌意。 “那么，当想法停止时，产生的因素是什么？”

It is love, the only factor that can bring about a fundamental revolution. Love is the only true revolution. But love is not an idea; it is when thought is not. Love is not a tool of propaganda; it is not something to be cultivated and shouted about from the house tops. Only when the flag, the belief, the leader, the idea as planned action, drop away, can there be love; and love is the only creative and constant revolution.

是爱，正是爱，这唯一的因子，能够带来彻底的革命。爱是唯一真正的革命。但爱不是一个想法；当思想不在，爱即在。爱不是一个宣传工具；它不是培养出来的，在房子顶部大声宣扬的东西。只有当旗帜、信仰、领导者、作为行动的蓝图的观念消退时，才会有爱；而爱是唯一的创造性和持续的革命。