IT WAS A beautiful evening. The sun was setting behind huge, black clouds, and against them stood a clump of tall, slender palms. The river had become golden, and the distant hills were aglow with the setting sun. There was thunder, but towards the mountains the sky was clear and blue. The cattle were coming back from pasture, and a little boy was driving them home. He couldn’t have been more than ten or twelve, and though he had spent the whole day by himself, he was singing away and occasionally flicking the cattle that wandered off or were too slow. He smiled, and his dark face lit up. Stopping out of curiosity, and distantly eager, he began to ask questions. He was a village boy and would have no education; he would never be able to read and write, but he already knew what it was to be alone with himself. He did not know that he was alone; it probably never even occurred to him, nor was he depressed by it. He was just alone and contented. He was not contented with something, he was just contented. To be contented with something is to be discontented. To seek contentment through relationship is to be in fear. Contentment that depends on relationship is only gratification. Contentment is a state of non-dependency. Dependency always brings conflict and opposition. There must be freedom to be content. Freedom is and must always be at the beginning; it is not an end, a goal to be achieved. One can never be free in the future. Future freedom has no reality, it is only an idea. Reality is what is; and passive awareness of what is is contentment.
这是一个美丽的夜晚。 太阳落在巨大的黑云后面，在他们的映衬下，耸立着一棵棵高大纤细的棕榈树。 河水已经变得金色，远处的山丘被夕阳染红。 有雷声，但朝向山上，天空是清澈和蓝色的。 牛群从牧场归来，一个小男孩正在赶他们回家。 他不可能超过十岁或十二岁，虽然他一个人度过了一整天， 但他正在唱歌，偶尔会拍打那些游荡或太慢的牛。 他笑了笑，漆黑的脸露出了光彩。 他出于好奇而停了下来，带着遥远的热情，开始问问题。 他是一个乡村男孩，没有受过教育。 他可能永远无法读书和写字， 但他已经知道和自己独处是什么。 他不知道自己是独立的。 他可能从未有过，他也没有因此而感到沮丧。 他只是独立而满足。 他不满足于某些东西，他仅仅是满足而已。 对某个东西感到满足就是不满。 通过关系寻求满足就陷入了恐惧中。 依赖于关系的满足感只是满意。 满足是一种不依赖的状态。 依赖总是带来冲突和对立。 要满足，得有自由。 自由存在而且必须永远在一开始就存在。 它不是目的，不是要获取的目标。 一个人永远不可能在未来获取自由。 未来的自由没有真实性，它只是一个想法。 真实是现在；被动地意识到现状，即是满足。
The professor said he had been teaching for many years, ever since he graduated from college, and had a large number of boys under him in one of the governmental institutions. He turned out students who could pass examinations, which was what the government and the parents wanted. Of course, there were exceptional boys who were given special opportunities, granted scholarships, and so on, but the vast majority were indifferent, dull, lazy, and somewhat mischievous. There were those who made something of themselves in whatever field they entered, but only very few had the creative flame. During all the years he had taught, the exceptional boys had been very rare; now and then there would be one who perhaps had the quality of genius, but it generally happened that he too was soon smothered by his environment. As a teacher he had visited many parts of the world to study this question of the exceptional boy, and everywhere it was the same. He was now withdrawing from the teaching profession, for after all these years he was rather saddened by the whole thing. However well boys were educated, on the whole they turned out to be a stupid lot. Some were clever or assertive and attained high positions, but behind the screen of their prestige and domination they were as petty and anxiety-ridden as the rest.
这位教授说，自从他大学毕业以来，他已经教了很多年， 在他手下有一大批男孩在政府机构。 他培养了能够通过考试的学生，这是政府和家长想要的。 当然，也有一些优秀的男孩得到了特殊的机会，获得了奖学金等等， 但绝大多数人冷漠、迟钝、懒惰，有些淘气。 有些人在他们进入的任何领域都做了一些自己的东西， 但只有极少数人拥有创造性的火焰。 在他教书的这些年里，那些优秀的男孩非常罕见。 时不时会有一个人也许具有天才的品质， 但通常情况下，他也很快被他的环境所扼杀。 作为一名教师，他去过世界许多地方， 以研究这类特殊男孩的问题，到处都是一样的。 他现在退出了教师职业， 而这么多年过去了，他对整件事感到相当难过。 无论男孩受教育程度如何，总的来说，他们都是愚蠢的。 有些人聪明或自信，并获得了很高的地位， 但在他们声望和统治的屏幕背后， 他们和其他人一样渺小和焦虑。
“The modern educational system is a failure, as it has produced two devastating wars and appalling misery. Learning to read and write and acquiring various techniques, which is the cultivation of memory, is obviously not enough, for it has produced unspeakable sorrow. What do you consider to be the end purpose of education?”
“现代教育体系是失败的， 因为它产生了两场毁灭性的战争和骇人听闻的痛苦。 学习读写和获得各种技巧， 也就是记忆力的培养，显然是不够的， 因为它产生了难以形容的悲伤。 你认为教育的最终目的是什么？”
Is it not to bring about an integrated individual? If that is the ’purpose’ of education, then we must be clear as to whether the individual exists for society or whether society exists for the individual. If society needs and uses the individual for its own purposes, then it is not concerned with the cultivation of an integrated human being; what it wants is an efficient machine, a conforming and respectable citizen, and this requires only a very superficial integration. As long as the individual obeys and is willing to be thoroughly conditioned, society will find him useful and will spend time and money on him. But if society exists for the individual, then it must help in freeing him from its own conditioning influence. It must educate him to be an integrated human being.
难道不是要带来一个完整的个人吗？ 如果这是教育的‘目的’，那么我们必须弄清楚 个人是为了社会而存在，还是社会是为了个人而存在。 如果为了社会的需要并利用个人，以达到它的目的， 那么它就不关心一个完整的人的培养； 它想要的是一台高效的机器，一个顺从和受人尊敬的公民， 而这只需要一个非常肤浅的协调。 只要个人服从并愿意被彻底地制约， 社会就会发现他是有用的，并且会花时间和金钱在他身上。 但是，如果社会是为了个人而存在， 那么它必须帮助他，将他从自身的限制中解放出来。 它必须教育他成为一个完整的人类。
“What do you mean by an integrated human being?”
“你说的一个完整的人是什么意思？”
To answer that question one must approach it negatively, obliquely; one cannot consider its positive aspect. “I don’t understand what you mean.”
要回答这个问题，人们必须被动地、间接地靠近它。 人们不能从积极的方面去考虑它。“我不明白你的意思。”
Positively to state what an integrated human being is, only creates a pattern, a mould, an example which we try to imitate; and is not the imitation of a pattern, an indication of disintegration? When we try to copy an example, can there be integration? Surely, imitation is a process of disintegration; and is this not what is happening in the world? We are all becoming very good gramophone records; we repeat what so-called religions have taught us, or what the latest political, economic, or religious leader has said. We adhere to ideologies and attend political mass-meetings; there is mass-enjoyment of sport, mass-worship, mass-hypnosis. Is this a sign of integration? Conformity is not integration, is it?
积极地陈述一个完整的人是什么， 只会创造一个模式，一个模具，一个我们试图模仿的模范； 而模仿一种模式，难道不是残疾的迹象吗？ 当我们尝试复制例子时，还存在完整吗？ 模仿必定是一个致残的过程； 而这难道不是世界上正在发生的事情吗？ 我们都在成为非常好的留声机唱片； 我们重复所谓的宗教，来教导我们， 或者采纳最新的政治、经济或宗教领袖所说的话。 我们依附于意识形态，参加政治群众集会； 有盛大的体育运动，群体性崇拜，大众式催眠。 这是完整的标志吗？顺从不是完整，它是吗？
“This leads to the very fundamental question of discipline. Are you opposed to discipline?”
“这导致了一个非常基本的纪律问题。你反对纪律吗？”
What do you mean by discipline? “There are many forms of discipline: the discipline in a school, the discipline of citizenship the party discipline the social and religious disciplines and self-imposed discipline. Discipline may be according to an inner or an outer authority.”
你说的纪律是什么意思？ “纪律的形式有很多种形式：学校的纪律， 公民纪律，党的纪律，社会和宗教纪律以及自我强加的纪律。 纪律可以是根据内在的权威，也可以是外在的权威。”
Fundamentally, discipline implies some kind of conformity, does it not? It is conformity to an ideal, to an authority; it is the cultivation of resistance, which of necessity breeds opposition. Resistance is opposition. Discipline is a process of isolation, whether it is isolation with a particular group, or the isolation of individual resistance. Imitation is a form of resistance, is it not?
从根本上说，纪律意味着某种顺从，不是吗？ 它是对一个理想、一种权威的顺从； 这种对抵抗的培养，必然滋生对立面。 抵抗就是敌对。纪律即是一个隔离的过程， 无论是与特定群体的隔离，与个人抵抗的隔离。 模仿是一种抵抗形式，它不是吗？
“Do you mean that discipline destroys integration? What would happen if you had no discipline in a school?”
“你的意思是纪律会破坏完整吗？ 如果你在一所学校里没有纪律，会发生什么？”
Is it not important to understand the essential significance of discipline, and not jump to conclusions or take examples? We are trying to see what are the factors of disintegration, or what hinders integration. Is not discipline in the sense of conformity, resistance, opposition, conflict, one of the factors of disintegration? Why do we conform? Not only for physical security, but also for psychological comfort, safety. Consciously or unconsciously, the fear of being insecure makes for conformity both outwardly and inwardly. We must all have some kind of physical security; but it is the fear of being psychologically insecure that makes physical security impossible except for the few. Fear is the basis of all discipline: the fear of not being successful, of being punished, of not gaining, and so on. Discipline is imitation, suppression, resistance, and whether it is conscious or unconscious, it is the result of fear. Is not fear one of the factors of disintegration?
去理解纪律的本质， 而不是匆忙下结论或举例，难道不重要吗？ 我们试图看见什么是致残的因素，或者是什么阻碍了完整。 纪律隐含着顺从、抵抗、反对、冲突， 从这个意义上来说，它不是导致残废的因素吗？我们为什么顺从？ 这不仅是为了人身安全，也是为了心理上的舒适，安全。 有意或无意地， 不安的恐惧使人顺从，无论是内在还是外在的顺从。 我们都必须有某种人身安全； 但正是心理上的不安，使生理上的安全变得不可能，除了少数人之外。 恐惧是所有纪律的基础： 害怕不成功，害怕被惩罚，害怕够不到，等等。 纪律即是模仿、压抑、反抗， 不管是有意的还是无识的，都是恐惧的结果。 恐惧不是一种导致残废的因素吗？
“With what would you replace discipline? Without discipline there would be even greater chaos than now. Is not some form of discipline necessary for action?”
“你会用什么来取代纪律？ 没有纪律，就会有比现在更大的混乱。 难道行动不需要某种形式的纪律吗？”
Understanding the false as the false, seeing the true in the false, and seeing the true as the true, is the beginning of intelligence. It is not a question of replacement. You cannot replace fear with something else; if you do, fear is still there. You may successfully cover it up or run away from it, but fear remains. It is the elimination of fear, and not the finding of a substitute for it, that is important. Discipline in any form whatsoever can never bring freedom from fear. Fear has to be observed, studied, understood. Fear is not an abstraction; it comes into being only in relation to something, and it is this relationship that has to be understood. To understand is not to resist or oppose. Is not discipline, then, in its wider and deeper sense, a factor of disintegration? Is not fear, with its consequent imitation and suppression, a disintegrating force?
理解假即是假，在假中看到真， 看见真即是真，是智慧的开始。 这不是一个取代的问题。你不能用别的东西取代恐惧； 如果你这样做，恐惧仍然存在。 你可能会成功地掩盖它或逃避它，但恐惧依然在那里。 重要的是消除恐惧，而不是找到替代恐惧的办法。 任何形式的纪律都不可能带来免于恐惧的自由。 恐惧必须被看见、研究、理解。恐惧不是一种抽象， 它只有在与某个东西相关联时才存在， 而这种关联，必须被理解。 理解，而不是去抵抗或反对。 那么，在更广泛和更深刻的意义上，纪律难道不是一种致残的因素吗？ 恐惧，及其随之而来的模仿和压制，难道不是一种残暴的力量吗？
“But how is one to be free from fear? In a class of many students, unless there is some kind of discipline – or, if you prefer, fear – how can there be order?”
“但是，一个人如何才能从恐惧中解脱出来呢？ 在一个有很多学生的班级里，除非有某种纪律 —— 或者说，如果你喜欢，恐惧 —— 否则怎么会有秩序呢？”
By having very few students and the right kind of education. This, of course, is not possible as long as the State is interested in mass-produced citizens. The State prefers mass-education; the rulers do not want the encouragement of discontent, for their position would soon be untenable. The State controls education, it steps in and conditions the human entity for its own purposes; and the easiest way to do this is through fear, through discipline, through punishment and reward, Freedom from fear is another matter; fear has to be understood and not resisted, suppressed, or sublimated.
通过拥有很少的学生和正确的教育。 当然，只要国家对大规模生产的公民感兴趣，这就是不可能的。 国家更喜欢大规模化的教育； 统治者不希望鼓励不满， 因为他们的立场很快就会站不住脚。国家在控制教育， 它为了自己的目的，介入并制约人类实体； 而最简单的方法就是通过恐惧， 通过纪律，通过惩罚和奖励， 从恐惧中解放，是另一回事； 恐惧必须被理解，而不是被抵制、压抑或升华。
The problem of disintegration is quite complex, like every other human problem. Is not conflict another factor of disintegration? “But conflict is essential, otherwise we would stagnate. Without striving there would be no progress no advancement, no culture. Without effort, conflict, we would still be savages.”
致残的问题相当复杂，就像其他人类问题一样。 冲突难道不是残废的另一个因素吗？ “但冲突是必不可少的，否则我们将停滞不前。 没有奋斗就没有进步，就没有进步，就没有文化。 如果没有努力，没有冲突，我们可能仍然是野蛮人。”
Perhaps we still are. Why do we always jump to conclusions or oppose when something new is suggested? We are obviously savages when we kill thousands for some cause or other, for our country; killing another human being is the height of savagery. But let us get on with what we were talking about. Is not conflict a sign of disintegration?
也许我们仍然是。 为什么当有人提出新的建议时，我们总是匆忙下结论或反对？ 当我们为了某种原因或其他原因为我们的国家而杀害数千人时， 我们显然是野蛮人； 杀人是野蛮的顶点。 但是，让我们继续我们所谈论的内容。冲突难道不是败坏的标志吗？
“What do you mean by conflict?”
“你说的冲突是什么意思？”
Conflict in every form: between husband and wife, between two groups of people with conflicting ideas, between what is and tradition, between what is and the ideal, the should be, the future. Conflict is inner and outer strife. At present there is conflict at all the various levels of our existence, the conscious as well as the unconscious. Our life is a series of conflicts, a battleground – and for what? Do we understand through strife? Can I understand you if I am in conflict with you? To understand there must be a certain amount of peace. Creation can take place only in peace, in happiness, not when there is conflict, strife. Our constant struggle is between what is and what should be, between thesis and antithesis; we have accepted this conflict as inevitable, and the inevitable has become the norm, the true – though it maybe false. Can what is be transformed by the conflict with its opposite? I am this, and by struggling to be that, which is the opposite, have I changed this? Is not the opposite, the antithesis, a modified projection of what is? Has not the opposite always the elements of its own opposite? Through comparison is there understanding of what is? Is not any conclusion about what is a hindrance to the understanding of what is? If you would understand something, must you not observe it, study it? Can you study it freely if you are prejudiced in favour of or against it? If you would understand your son must you not study him, neither identifying yourself with nor condemning him? Surely, if you are in conflict with your son, there is no understanding of him. So, is conflict essential to understanding?
各种形式的冲突： 丈夫和妻子之间的冲突，有不同观念的两个组织之间的冲突， 现在与传统之间的冲突，现状与理想，与‘应该是’，与‘未来’之间的冲突。 冲突即是内在和外在的纷争。 目前，在我们存在的各个层面，意识和无意识层面，都存在着冲突。 我们的生命是一系列的冲突，一个战场 —— 为了什么？ 我们通过冲突来理解吗？如果我和你有冲突，我能理解你吗？ 要理解，必须有一定程度的和平。 创造只能在和平、快乐中发生，而不是在有冲突、纷争的时候发生。 我们持续挣扎于现状与‘应该是’之间，挣扎于正方观点和反方观点之间； 我们已经接受了这场冲突，认为它是不可避免的， 这种不可避免，已经成为常态，成为真实 —— 尽管它可能是虚假的。 现状和与之对立的‘应该是’，双方能够通过冲突而改变吗？ 我是这样，通过努力变成那样，那个与之对立的样子，我变样了吗？ 所谓的‘对立面’、反方观点，难道不是对现状投射出的影子的扭曲吗？ 对立面的要素不总是它自己的对立面吗？ 通过比较，能理解现状吗？ 与现状相关的任何一个结论，难道不是理解的障碍吗？ 如果你要理解某个东西，你不去观察它，研究它吗？ 如果你对它有偏爱或成见，你能自由地研究它吗？ 如果你愿意理解你的儿子， 你难道不放下自己的观念、不去谴责他，而研究他吗？ 当然了，如果你和你的儿子有冲突，他就不理解他。 那么，冲突对理解至关重要吗？
“Is there not another kind of conflict, the conflict of learning how to do a thing, acquiring a technique? One may have an intuitive vision of something, but it has to be made manifest, and carrying it out is strife, it involves a great deal of trouble and pain.”
“难道没有另一种冲突， 学习如何做一件事，获得一种技术的冲突吗？ 一个人可能对某事有一种直觉的洞察力，但它必须展现出来， 而展现的过程即是纷争，它牵扯到大量的麻烦和痛苦。”
A certain amount, it is true; but is not creation itself the means? The means is not separate from the end; the end is according to the means. The expression is according to creation; the style is according to what you have to say. If you have something to say, that very thing creates its own style. But if one is merely a technician, then there is no vital problem.
某种程度上，这是真的；但创造本身不就是手段吗？ 手段不是与目的分开的； 目的基于手段。 展现根据创造； 风格依照你要说的内容。 如果你有事情要说，那件事本身就创造了自己的风格。 但是，如果一个人只是一个技术人员，那么就没有重要的问题。
Is conflict in any field productive of understanding? Is there not a continuous chain of conflict in the effort, the will to be, to become, whether positive or negative? Does not the cause of conflict become the effect, which in its turn becomes the cause? There is no release from conflict until there is an understanding of what is. The what is can never be understood through the screen of idea; it must be approached afresh. As the what is is never static, the mind must not be bound to knowledge, to an ideology, to a belief, to a conclusion. In its very nature, conflict is separative as all opposition is; and is not exclusion, separation, a factor of disintegration? Any form of power, whether individual or of the State, any effort to become more or to become less, is a process of disintegration. All ideas, beliefs, systems of thought, are separative, exclusive. Effort, conflict, cannot under any circumstances bring understanding, and so it is a degenerating factor in the individual as well as in society.
任何领域的冲突都会产生理解吗？ 这种努力，这种想占据、想成为，无论是积极的还是消极的， 难道不是一个持续的冲突链吗？ 冲突的起因变成了结果，而结果又反过来变成了起因，难道不是吗？ 除非理解了现状，否则无法从冲突的镣铐中解脱出来。 通过思想的屏幕永远无法理解它； 必须重新接近它。 由于现状从来都不是静止的， 那么头脑就不能被知识、被各种意识形态、信仰、结论所束缚。 就其本质而言，冲突与所有的对立面是分开的； 而排斥、分离，难道不是一个致残的因素吗？ 任何形式的权力，无论是个人的还是国家的， 任何更多或更小的努力，都是一个解体的过程。 所有的想法、信仰、思想体系，都是分裂的，排他性的。 努力，冲突，在任何情况下都不能带来理解， 因此它是个人和社会的退化因素。
“What, then, is integration? I more or less understand what are the factors of disintegration, but that is only a negation. Through negation one cannot come to integration. I may know what is wrong, which does not mean that I know what is right.”
“什么，那么，完整是什么呢？ 我或多或少理解了致残的因素，但这只是一个否定。 通过否定，人们无法实现完整。 我可能知道什么是错的，这并不意味着我知道什么是对的。”
Surely, when the false is seen as the false, the true is. When one is aware of the factors of degeneration, not merely verbally but deeply, then is there not integration? Is integration static, something to be gained and finished with? Integration cannot be arrived at; arrival is death. It is not a goal, an end, but a state of being; it is a living thing, and how can a living thing be a goal, a purpose? The desire to be integrated is not different from another desire, and all desire is a cause of conflict. When there is no conflict, there is integration. Integration is a state of complete attention. There cannot be complete attention if there is effort, conflict, resistance, concentration. Concentration is a fixation; concentration is a process of separation, exclusion, and complete attention is not possible when there is exclusion. To exclude is to narrow down, and the narrow can never be aware of the complete. Complete, full attention is not possible when there is condemnation, justification or identification, or when the mind is clouded by conclusions, speculations, theories. When we understand the hindrances, then only is there freedom. Freedom is an abstraction to the man in prison; but passive watchfulness uncovers the hindrances, and with freedom from these, integration comes into being.
当然，当虚假被看见是虚假时，真实就存在。 当一个人意识到退化的因素时，不仅仅是口头上的，而是深刻的， 那么难道不存在完整吗？ 完整是静态的，是某个可以获得和完结的东西吗？ 完整是无法抵达的；到达即是死亡。 它不是一个目标，一个目的，而是一种状态； 它是活的，一个活的东西，怎么能成为一个目标，一个意图呢？ 想变完整的欲望，与其它的欲望没有什么不同， 所有的欲望都是冲突的起因。 没有冲突的时候，就有完整。 完整是一种完全的关注状态。 如果有努力、冲突、抵抗、专注，就不可能有完全的注意力。 专注是一种固定；转注是一个分裂、排斥的过程， 当有排斥的时候，完全的关注是不可能存在的。 排斥即是狭隘、降低，而狭隘永远无法意识到完整。 当有谴责、辩解或认同时， 或者当心灵被结论、推测、理论所笼罩时， 完全的、充分的关注是不可能存在的。 当我们理解这些障碍，才会有自由。 对于监狱里的人来说，自由是一种抽象； 但被动的警觉揭露了障碍， 从中解放，完整出现了。