“OUR LIFE HERE in India is more or less shattered; we want to make something of it again, but we don’t know where to begin. I can see the importance of mass action, and also its dangers. I have pursued the ideal of non-violence, but there has been bloodshed and misery. Since the Partition, this country has had blood on its hands, and now we are building up the armed forces. We talk of non-violence and yet prepare for war. I am as confused as the political leaders. In prison I used to read a great deal, but it has not helped me to clarify my own position.”
“我们在印度的生活或多或少地破碎了。 我们想再做点什么事情，但我们不知道从哪里开始。 我可以看到集体行动的重要性，以及它的危险性。 我追求非暴力的理想，但已经有流血和苦难。 自从分治以来，这个国家的手上沾满了鲜血， 而现在，我们正在建设武装力量。 我们谈论非暴力，但又为战争做准备。 我和政治领导人一样感到困惑。 在监狱里，我曾经读过很多书， 但它并没有帮助我澄清自己的立场。”
“Can we take one thing at a time and somewhat go into it? First, you lay a great deal of emphasis on the individual; but is not collective action necessary?”
“我们能一次拿出一个东西，并稍微深入研究一下它吗？ 首先，你非常重视个人； 但集体行动难道没有必要吗？”
The individual is essentially the collective, and society is the creation of the individual. The individual and society are interrelated, are they not? They are not separate. The individual builds the structure of society, and society or environment shapes the individual. Though environment conditions the individual, he can always free himself, break away from his background. The individual is the maker of the very environment to which he becomes a slave; but he has also the power to break away from it and create an environment that will not dull his mind or spirit. The individual is important only in the sense that he has the capacity to free himself from his conditioning and understand reality. Individuality that is merely ruthless in its own conditioning builds a society whose foundations are based on violence and antagonism. The individual exists only in relationship, otherwise he is not; and it is the lack of understanding of this relationship that is breeding conflict and confusion. If the individual does not understand his relationship to people, to property, and to ideas or beliefs, merely to impose upon him a collective or any other pattern only defeats its own end. To bring about the imposition of a new pattern will require so-called mass action; but the new pattern is the invention of a few individuals, and the mass is mesmerized by the latest slogans, the promises of a new Utopia. The mass is the same as before, only now it has new rulers, new phrases, new priests, new doctrines. This mass is made up of you and me, it is composed of individuals; the mass is fictitious, it is a convenient term for the exploiter and the politician to play with. The many are pushed into action, into war, and so on, by the few; and the few represent the desires and urges of the many. It is the transformation of the individual that is of the highest importance, but not in terms of any pattern. Patterns always condition, and a conditioned entity is always in conflict within himself and so with society. It is comparatively easy to substitute a new pattern of conditioning for the old; but for the individual to free himself from all conditioning is quite another matter.
个人本质上属于集体，而社会是由个人创造的。 个人和社会是相互关联的，不是吗？ 他们不是分开的。 个人组建出社会的结构，社会或环境塑造个人。 虽然环境限制个人， 但他总是可以解放自己，脱离自己的背景。 个人是环境的创造者，尽管他变成了环境的奴隶； 但他也有力量摆脱它， 创造一个不会使他的头脑或灵性变得迟钝的环境。 个人之所以重要， 只是因为他有能力从他的制约中解放，并理解真实。 只有在它自身的束缚下，才滋生出无情， 才建立了一个以暴力和对抗为基础的社会。 个人只存在于关系中，否则他就什么都不是； 正是对这种关系缺乏理解， 才滋生出冲突与困惑。 如果个人不理解他 与人们、与财物、与观念或信仰的关系， 仅仅把一种共同的或其它任何形式的规范强加于他自己， 就只会使它所抱有的目的落空。 要强加一种新的规范，需要所谓的大规模的行动。 但这个新规范，却是少数人的发明， 而群众就被最新的口号、最新的乌托邦的承诺愚弄了。 群众和以往一样， 只是现在它有了新的统治者、新的短语、新的牧师、新的教义。 这些群众是由你和我组成的，是由个人组成的。 群众这个概念，是虚构的， 它是剥削者和政客玩弄的一个方便的术语。 在少数人的利用下，众人被推向了游行，加入战争，等等； 少数人代表了众人的欲望和冲动。 个人的转变，是最重要的， 而不是任何规范。 规范总是一种限制， 而一个受限制的实体，总是与他的内心相冲突，并导致与社会的冲突。 用新的限制规范代替旧的规范，是相对容易的； 但是对于个人来说，将自己从所有的限制中解放出来，则是另一回事。
“This requires careful and detailed thought, but I think I am beginning to understand it. You lay emphasis on the individual, but not as a separate and antagonistic force within society. “Now the second point. I have always worked for an ideal, and I don’t understand your denial of it. Would you mind going into this problem?”
“这需要小心和详细的思考， 但我认为我开始理解它了。 你强调个人， 但不是作为社会中一种独立的对抗力量。 “现在这第二点。 我一直为一个理想而努力，我不理解你对它的否定。 你介意进入这个问题吗？”
Our present morality is based on the past or the future on the traditional or the what ought to be. The what ought to be is the ideal in opposition to what has been, the future in conflict with the past. Non-violence is the ideal, the what should be; and the what has been is violence. The what has been projects the what should be; the ideal is homemade, it is projected by its own opposite, the actual. The antithesis is an extension of the thesis; the opposite contains the element of its own opposite. Being violent, the mind projects its opposite, the ideal of non-violence. It is said that the ideal helps to overcome its own opposite; but does it? Is not the ideal an avoidance, an escape from the what has been, or from what is? The conflict between the actual and the ideal is obviously a means of postponing the understanding of the actual, and this conflict only introduces another problem which helps to cover up the immediate problem. The ideal is a marvellous and respectable escape from the actual. The ideal of non-violence, like the collective Utopia, is fictitious; the ideal, the what should be, helps us to cover up and avoid what is. The pursuit of the ideal is the search for reward. You may shun the worldly rewards as being stupid and barbarous, which they are; but your pursuit of the ideal is the search for reward at a different level, which is also stupid. The ideal is a compensation, a fictitious state which the mind has conjured up. Being violent, separative and out for itself, the mind projects the gratifying compensation, the fiction which it calls the ideal, the Utopia, the future, and vainly pursues it. That very pursuit is conflict, but it is also a pleasurable postponement of the actual. The ideal, the what should be, does not help in understanding what is; on the contrary, it prevents understanding.
我们现在的伦理道德，是基于过去或将来， 基于传统或‘应该是’。 所谓的‘应该是’，即是指理想，与已经出现的情况相左， 未来与过去相冲突。 非暴力是理想，是‘应该是’； 而一直以来的情况即是暴力。 已经出现的情况投射出‘应该是’； 理想是自制的，它是由它自己的对立面 —— 实际情况投射出来的。 对立面是论点的延伸； 反面，包含它自己的对立面的元素。 处于暴力之下的头脑投射出它的对立面，即‘非暴力’这个理想。 它说，理想有助于克服自己的对立面；但事实是这样的吗？ 理想难道不是一种逃避，一种逃避过去或现在的手段吗？ 实际与理想的冲突， 显然是一种对实际情况的理解的拖延手段， 而这种冲突，只会引入另一个问题 —— 有助于掩盖眼下的问题。 理想是一个奇妙和体面的逃避现实的手段。 非暴力的理想，就像集体乌托邦一样，是虚构的； 这个理想，这个‘应该是’，帮助我们掩盖和回避真实。 追求理想，就是搜刮财物。 你可以把世俗的奖赏当作愚蠢和野蛮来规避，它们就是。 但你对理想的追求是寻找一种不同层次的奖励，这也是愚蠢的。 理想是一种补偿，一种头脑召唤出的虚构状态。 处于暴力、分裂的状态下，为了使自己脱离出来， 头脑投射出令人满意的补偿， 它称之为‘理想’、‘乌托邦’、‘未来’的虚构物，并徒劳地追求它。 这种追求本身就是冲突， 但它也是对实际情况的愉快的拖延手段。 理想，这个‘应该是’，无助于理解真实； 相反，它阻碍了理解。
“Do you mean to say that our leaders and teachers have been wrong in advocating and maintaining the ideal?”
“你的意思是说， 我们的领导们和老师们在倡导和维护理想方面犯了错误吗？”
What do you think? “If I understand correctly what you say...”
你怎么想？“如果我没听错的话……”
Please, it is not a matter of understanding what another may say, but of finding out what is true. Truth is not opinion; truth is not dependent on any leader or teacher. The weighing of opinions only prevents the perception of truth. Either the ideal is a homemade fiction which contains its own opposite, or it is not. There are no two ways about it. This does not depend on any teacher, you must perceive the truth of it for yourself.
拜讬，这不是一个理解别人可能说什么的问题， 而是找出什么是真实。 真理不是意见；真理不依赖于任何领导者或老师。 对意见的权衡，只会阻止对真理的感知。 要么理想是包含自己对立面的自制小说，要么不是。 它无法脚踏两只船。 这不依赖于任何老师， 你必须自己去感知它的真实性。
“If the ideal is fictitious, it revolutionizes all my thinking. Do you mean to say that our pursuit of the ideal is utterly futile?,”
“如果理想是虚构的，它就会彻底改变我所有的想法。 你的意思是说，我们对理想的追求是完全徒劳的吗？”
It is a vain struggle, a gratifying self-deception is it not? “This is very disturbing, but I am forced to admit that it is. We have taken so many things for granted that we have never allowed ourselves to observe closely what is in our hand. We have deceived ourselves, and what you point out upsets completely the structure of my thought and action. It will revolutionize education, our whole way of living and working. I think I see the implications of a mind that is free from the ideal, from the what should be. To such a mind, action has a significance quite different from that which we give it now. Compensatory action is not action at all, but only a reaction – and we boast of action!... But without the ideal, how is one to deal with the actual, or with the what has been?”
这是一场徒劳的斗争，一种令人欣慰的自欺欺人，不是吗？ “这非常令人不安，但我被迫承认确实如此。 我们把很多事情视为理所当然， 以至于我们从未允许自己走近，去观察我们手中的东西。 我们欺骗了自己， 你所指出的，完全扰乱了我思想和行动的框架。 它将彻底改变教育，彻底改变我们的生活和工作方式。 我想我看到了一个头脑从理想中，从‘应该是’中解脱出来的含义。 对于这样一个人来说，行动的意义与我们现在赋予它的意义完全不同。 补偿的行动根本不是行动，而只是一种反应 —— 而我们在吹嘘行动！…… 但是，如果没有理想， 一个人该如何处理实际情况，或者现在发生的事情？”
The understanding of the actual is possible only when the ideal, the what should be, is erased from the mind; that is only when the false is seen as the false. The what should be is also the what should not be. As long as the mind approaches the actual with either positive or negative compensation, there can be no understanding of the actual. To understand the actual you must be indirect communion with it; your relationship with it cannot be through the screen of the ideal, or through the screen of the past, of tradition, of experience. To be free from the wrong approach is the only problem. This means, really, the understanding of conditioning, which is the mind. The problem is the mind itself, and not the problems it breeds; the resolution of the problems bred by the mind is merely the reconciliation of effects, and that only leads to further confusion and illusion.
只有当理想，‘应该是’，从头脑中抹去时， 只有当假被视为假时， 才有可能理解真实。 应该是什么，等同于不应该是什么。 只要头脑以积极或消极的补偿接近真实， 就不可能理解真实。 要理解真实，你必须间接地与它共融； 你与它的关系不能通过理想的屏幕， 或者通过过往的、传统的、经验的屏幕。 摆脱错误的处理方式，是唯一的问题。 这意味着，真切地理解制约，也就是头脑。 问题在于头脑本身，而不是它所滋生的问题。 解决头脑滋生的各种问题， 只不过是对效果的调解， 这只会导致进一步的困惑与幻觉。
“How is one to understand the mind?”
“一个人如何理解头脑？”
The way of the mind is the way of life – not the ideal life, but the actual life of sorrow and pleasure, of deception and clarity, of conceit and the pose of humility. To understand the mind is to be aware of desire and fear. “Please, this is getting a bit too much for me. How am I to understand my mind?”
头脑之道，即是生活之路 —— 不是理想的生活，而是真实的生活 是悲伤与快乐、欺骗与清楚、自负与谦卑。 理解头脑，就是意识到欲望和恐惧。 “拜托，这对我来说有点太难了。我该如何理解自己的头脑？”
To know the mind, must you not be aware of its activities? The mind is only experience, not just the immediate but also the accumulated. The mind is the past in response to the present, which makes for the future. The total process of the mind has to be understood.
要理解头脑，难道不是必须意识到它的活动吗？ 头脑只是经验，不仅仅是直接的，也是累积的。 头脑是对现在的回应，制造出了‘将来’。 头脑的整个过程必须被理解。
“Where am I to begin?”
“我从哪里开始？”
From the only beginning: relationship. Relationship is life; to be is to be related. Only in the mirror of relationship is the mind to be understood, and you have to begin to see yourself in that mirror. “Do you mean in my relationship with my wife with my neighbour, and so on? Is that not a very limited process?”
从唯一的起点：关系。 关系就是生命；存在即是关联。 只有在关系的镜子里，头脑才能被理解， 而你的起点，必须是从那面镜子里看见自己。 “你是说我和我妻子的关系，以及我的邻居，等等吗？ 这难道不是一个非常有限的过程吗？”
What may appear to be small, limited, if approached rightly, reveals the fathomless. It is like a funnel, the narrow opens into the wide. When observed with passive watchfulness, the limited reveals the limitless. After all, at its source the river is small, hardly worth noticing.
看似渺小、有限的东西，如果处理得当，会揭示出深不可测的东西。 它就像一个漏斗，从狭窄的开口进入那广阔的空间。 当以被动性的警觉观察时，有限的揭示出无限。 毕竟，在它的源头之处，这条河非常的细小，几乎不值一提。
“So I must begin with myself and my immediate relationships.”
“所以我必须从我自己和我眼前的关系开始。”
Surely. Relationship is never narrow or small. With the one or with the many, relationship is a complex process, and you can approach it pettily, or freely and openly. Again, the approach is dependent on the state of the mind. If you do not begin with yourself, where else will you begin? Even if you begin with some peripheral activity, you are in relationship with it, the mind is the centre of it. Whether you begin near or far, you are there. Without understanding yourself, whatever you do will inevitably bring about confusion and sorrow. The beginning is the ending.
当然了。关系从来都不是狭隘或渺小的。 与一个人或与许多人，关系是一个复杂的过程， 你可以琐碎地，或者自由和公开地接近它。 同样，这种方法取决于头脑的状态。 如果你不从自己开始，你还会从哪里开始？ 即使你从一些外围活动开始，你也与它有关系， 头脑是它的中心。 无论你是从近处还是远处开始，你都在那里。 不理解自己， 无论你做什么，都不可避免地会带来困惑和悲伤。 开始就是结束。
“I have wandered far afield, I have seen and done many things, I have suffered and laughed like so many others, and yet I have had to come back to myself. I am like that sannyasi who set out in search of truth. He spent many years going from teacher to teacher, and each pointed out a different way. At last he wearily returned to his home, and in his own house was the jewel! I see how foolish we are, searching the universe for that bliss which is to be found only in our own hearts when the mind is purged of its activities. You are perfectly right. I begin from where I started. I begin with what I am.”
“我曾远道而去，我看到并做了很多事情， 我像许多其他人一样遭受痛苦和嘲笑， 而最终，我不得不回到自己身边。 我就像那个开始寻求真理的桑雅生。 他从一个老师转到另一个老师，花了很多年的时间， 每个人都指出了不同的方向。 最后，他疲惫地回到了自己的家， 而在自己的房子即是珍宝！ 我看到我们是多么愚蠢，在宇宙中寻找那种快乐， 只有当头脑的活动被清除时， 这种快乐才能在我们自己的心中找到。 你是完全正确的。我从我开始的地方开始。 我从‘我是什么’开始。