WHAT AN UGLY thing it is to be satisfied! Contentment is one thing and satisfaction another. Satisfaction makes the mind dull and the heart weary; it leads to superstition and sluggishness, and the edge of sensitivity is lost. It is those who are seeking gratification and those who have it that bring confusion and misery; it is they who breed the smelly village and the noisy town. They build temples for the graven image and perform satisfying rituals; they foster class segregation and war; they are forever multiplying the means of gratification; money, politics, power and religious organizations are their ways. They burden the earth with the irrespectability and its lamentations.
满意是多么地丑陋！ 满足是一回事，满意是另一回事。 满意使头脑沉闷，心灵疲惫； 它导致迷信和迟钝，失去敏感的锋芒。 正是那些寻求满意的人 和那些已经满意的人，带来了困惑与痛苦； 是他们滋生了臭气熏天的村庄和嘈杂的小镇。 他们为雕刻的塑像建造寺庙，并举行令人满意的仪式； 他们助长阶级划分与战争； 他们永远在使满意的手段倍增； 金钱、政治、权力和宗教组织是他们的方式。 他们给地球带来难堪和悲痛的负担。
But contentment is another matter. It is arduous to be content. Contentment cannot be searched out in secret places; it is not to be pursued, as pleasure is; it is not to be acquired; it cannot be bought at the price of renunciation; it has no price at all; it is not reached by any means; it is not to be meditated upon and gathered. The pursuit of contentment is only the search for greater satisfaction. Contentment is the complete understanding of what is from moment to moment; it is the highest form of negative understanding. Gratification knows frustration and success, but contentment knows no opposites with their empty conflict. Contentment is above and beyond the opposites; it is not a synthesis, for it has no relation to conflict. Conflict can only produce more conflict, it breeds further illusion and misery. With contentment comes action that is not contradictory. Contentment of the heart frees the mind from its activities of confusion and distraction. Contentment is a movement that is not of time.
但满足是另一回事。 满足是艰巨的。 满足不能在秘密的地方被搜寻出来； 它不是能够被追求的，就像快乐一样； 它不是能被购买的；它不能以抛弃世俗的代价来购买； 它根本没有价格；它不能通过任何手段来实现； 它不能被沉思、被聚敛。 对满足的追求，只不过是对更大的满意感的追求。 满足是完整地理解每时每刻的事物； 是被动性理解的最高形式。 满意知道挫折与成功， 但满足不知道对立面及它们虚幻的冲突。 满足，超越了对立面； 它不是一种综合，因为它与冲突无关。 冲突只能产生更多的冲突，它滋生进一步的幻觉与痛苦。 随着满足而来的是，没有矛盾的行动。 心灵的满足，解放了头脑，解散了头脑的困惑与零碎的活动。 满足是一种与时间无关的运动。
She explained that she had taken her master’s degree in science, with honours, had taught, and had done some social work. In the short time since her graduation she had travelled about the country doing various things: teaching mathematics in one place, doing social work in another, helping her mother, and organizing for a society to which she belonged. She was not in politics, because she considered it the pursuit of personal ambition and a stupid waste of time. She had seen through all that, and was now about to be married.
她解释说，她以优异的成绩获得了科学硕士学位， 教过书，并做过一些社会工作。 在她毕业后的短暂时间里，她走遍全国，做了各种各样的事情： 在一个地方教数学，在另一个地方做社会工作， 帮助她的母亲，以及组织她所从属的社团。 她没有从政，因为她认为 这是对个人野心的追求，是愚蠢的浪费时间。 她看穿了这一切，现在就要结婚了。
Have you made up your own mind whom to marry, or are your parents arranging the matter? “Probably my parents. Perhaps it is better that way.”
你有没有自己决定嫁给谁，或者你的父母在安排了这件事？ “可能是我的父母。也许这样更好。”
Why, if I may ask? “In other countries the boy and girl fall in love with each other; it may be all right at the beginning, but soon there is contention and misery, the quarrelling and making up, the tedium of pleasure and the routine of life. The arranged marriage in this country ends the same way, the fun goes out of it, so there isn’t much to choose between the two systems. They are both pretty terrible, but what is one to do? After all, one must marry, one can’t remain single all one’s life. It is all very sad, but at least the husband gives a certain security and children are a joy; one can’t have one without the other.”
为什么，如果我可以问的话？ “在其他国家，男孩和女孩彼此相爱； 一开始可能没事， 但很快就有了各自的主张和痛苦，争吵和妥协， 乏味的快乐和生活的例行公事。 这个国家的包办婚姻以同样的方式结束，乐趣从中消失， 所以在这两种制度之间，没有太多选择。 它们都非常可怕，但是该怎么办呢？ 毕竟，一个人必须结婚，一个人不能一辈子都单身。 这一切都很伤心，但至少丈夫给了一定的保障， 而孩子是一种快乐；而没有另一半，一个人不可能有孩子。”
But what happens to all the years that you spent in acquiring your master’s degree? “I suppose one will play with it, but children and the household work will take most of one’s time.”
但是，你在获取硕士学位上所花费的这些年月，会发生什么呢？ “我想我会把玩它， 但孩子和家务劳动会占用一个人的大部分时间。”
Then what good has your so-called education done? Why spend so much time, money and effort to end up in the kitchen? Don’t you want to do any kind of teaching or social work after your marriage? “Only when there is time. Unless one is well-to-do, it is impossible to have servants and all the rest of it. I am afraid all those days will be over once I get married – and I want to get married. Are you against marriage?”
那么你所谓的教育有什么好处呢？ 为什么要花这么多时间、金钱和精力，最终却进入厨房？ 婚后，你不想做任何教学或社会工作吗？ “只有在有时间的时候。 除非一个人富裕，否则就不可能有仆人和所有其他的。 我担心一旦我结婚，所有的日子都会结束 —— 我想结婚。你反对婚姻吗？”
Do you regard marriage as an institution to establish a family? Is not the family a unit in opposition to society? Is it not a centre from which all activity radiates, an exclusive relationship that dominates every other form of relationship? Is it not a self-enclosing activity that brings about division, separation the high and the low, the powerful and the weak? The family as a system appears to resist the whole; each family opposes other families, other groups. Is not the family with its property one of the causes of war?
你把婚姻当作是建立家庭的制度吗？ 家庭难道不是一个与社会对立的单元吗？ 它难道不是一个中心，所有的活动都从中散发出来， 具有一种排它性，支配着所有其他形式的关系吗？ 它难道不是一种自我封闭性的，引发出分裂 —— 分裂出高低、强弱的活动吗？ 家庭作为一个系统，似乎在抵制整体； 每个家庭都反对其他家庭、其他群体。 家庭及其财产难道不是战争的原因之一吗？
“If you are opposed to the family, then you must be for the collectivization of men and women in which their children belong to the State.”
“如果你反对家庭， 那么你必定支持男人和女人的集体化， 而他们的孩子们属于国家。”
Please don’t jump to conclusions. To think in terms of formulas and systems only brings about opposition and contention. You have your system, and another his; the two systems fight it out, each seeking to liquidate the other but the problem still remains. “But if you are against the family, then what are you for?”
请不要跳入结论。 从公式和系统的角度思考，只会引起反对与争论。 你有你的系统，别人有他的系统； 这两个系统都在战斗， 每个系统都试图清算另一个系统，但问题仍然存在。 “但是，如果你反对家庭，那么你是为了什么？”
Why put the question that way? If there is a problem, is it not stupid to take sides according to one’s prejudice? Is it not better to understand the problem than to breed opposition and enmity, thereby multiplying our problems?
为什么要这样回答这个问题？ 如果出现了问题， 按照自己的偏见偏袒一方，难道不是愚蠢的吗？ 滋生出对抗和敌意，从而导致我们的问题成倍增加， 理解问题难道不是比它更好吗？
The family as it is now is a unit of limited relationship, self-enclosing and exclusive. Reformers and so-called revolutionaries have tried to do away with this exclusive family spirit which breeds every kind of antisocial activity; but it is a centre of stability as opposed to insecurity, and the present social structure throughout the world cannot exist without this security. The family is not a mere economic unit and any effort to solve the issue on that level must obviously fail. The desire for security is not only economic, but much more profound and complex. If man destroys the family, he will find other forms of security through the State, through the collective, through belief and so on, which will in turn breed their own problems. We must understand the desire for inward, psychological security and not merely replace one pattern of security with another.
现在的家庭是一个有限的关联、自我封闭和排它性的单元。 改革家和所谓的革命者试图废除 这种滋生出各种反社会活动的排它性的家庭精神； 但在对抗不安全的时候，它是一个稳定的中心， 而没有这种安全，全世界目前的社会结构就不可能存在。 家庭不仅仅是一个经济单元， 而在这个层面上解决问题的任何努力，显然都注定要失败。 对安全的渴望不仅是经济上的，而且更加深刻与复杂。 如果人摧毁家庭，他将会找到其他形式的安全 —— 通过国家、通过集体、通过信仰等等， 这反过来又会滋生出他们自身的问题。 我们必须理解对内在、对心理安全的渴望， 而不仅仅是用一种安全模式去取代另一种安全模式。
So the problem is not the family, but the desire to be secure. Is not the desire for security, at any level, exclusive? This spirit of exclusiveness shows itself as the family, as property, as the State, the religion, and so on. Does not this desire for inward security build up outward forms of security which are always exclusive? The very desire to be secure destroys security. Exclusion, separation, must inevitably bring about disintegration; nationalism, class-antagonism and war, are its symptoms. The family as a means of inward security is a source of disorder and social catastrophe.
所以问题不在于家庭，而在于对安全感的渴望。 在任何层面上，对安全的渴望难道不是排它性的吗？ 这种排它性的精神表现为 家庭、财产、国家、宗教等等。 不正是这种对内在安全的渴望，建立起了外在的安全形式， 而这些形式总是具有排它性的吗？ 正是对安全感的渴望，破坏了安全。 排斥、分离，必然带来瓦解； 民族主义、阶级对立和战争是它的症状。 把家庭作为内在安全的手段， 是混乱和社会灾难的根源。
“Then how is one to live, if not as a family?”
“那么，如果不是从属于一个家庭，一个人该如何生活呢？”
Is it not odd how the mind is always looking for a pattern, a blueprint? Our education is in formulas and conclusions. The ‘how’ is the demand for a formula, but formulas cannot resolve the problem. Please understand the truth of this. It is only when we do not seek inward security that we can live outwardly secure. As long as the family is a centre of security, there will be social disintegration; as long as the family is used as a means to a self-protective end, there must be conflict and misery. Please do not look puzzled, it is fairly simple. As long as I use you or another for my inner, psychological security, I must be exclusive; I am all-important, I have the greatest significance; it is my family, my property. The relationship of utility is based on violence; the family as a means of mutual inward security makes for conflict and confusion.
头脑总是在寻找一种模式，一种蓝图；这难道不奇怪吗？ 我们的教育是公式化和结论。 “如何”是对公式的需求，但公式不能解决问题。 请理解这一点的真实性。 只有当我们不寻求内在的安全感时，我们才能过上有外在安全的生活。 只要家庭是一个安全中心，就会使社会分裂； 只要家庭被用作达到自我保护目的的手段， 就一定存在冲突和痛苦。 请不要看起来很迷惑，它相当地简单。 只要我利用你或他人来维持我内在的、心理上的安全感， 我就必定是排它性的；我是最重要的，我是最终的意义； 这是我的家人，我的财产。 这种利用关系，是建立在暴力之上的。 家庭作为一种相互获取内在安全感的手段，会带来冲突与困惑。
“I understand intellectually what you say but is it possible to live without this inward desire to be secure?”
“我在理智上理解你说的话， 但是有没有可能生活，却不带着这种对内心安全感的渴望呢？”
To understand intellectually is not to understand at all. You mean you hear the words and grasp their meaning, and that is all; but this will not produce action. Using another as a means of satisfaction and security is not love. Love is never security; love is a state in which there is no desire to be secure; it is a state of vulnerability; it is the only state in which exclusiveness, enmity and hate are impossible. In that state a family may come into being, but it will not be exclusive, self-enclosing.
理智上的理解，根本不是理解。 你的意思是：你听到了这些话，并掌握了它们的含义，仅此而已； 但这不会产生行动。 使用另一个人，来作为满意和安全的手段不是爱。 爱从来都不安全； 爱是一种状态，其中没有对安全感的渴望； 它是一种脆弱的状态； 它是唯一一种不可能具有排它性的、敌对的和仇恨的状态。 在这种状态下，一个家庭可能会形成，但它不会是排它性的，自我封闭的。
“But we do not know such love. How is one..?”
“但我们不知道这样的爱。一个人怎么……？”
It is good to be aware of the ways of one’s own thinking. The inward desire for security expresses itself outwardly through exclusion and violence, and as long as its process is not fully understood there can be no love. Love is not another refuge in the search for security. The desire for security must wholly cease for love to be. Love is not something that can be brought about through compulsion. Any form of compulsion, at any level, is the very denial of love. A revolutionary with an ideology is not a revolutionary at all; he only offers a substitute, a different kind of security, a new hope; and hope is death. Love alone can bring about a radical revolution or transformation in relationship; and love is not a thing of the mind. Thought can plan and formulate magnificent structures of hope, but thought will only lead to further conflict, confusion and misery. Love is when the cunning, self-enclosing mind is not.
意识到自己的思想方式是件好事。 对安全的内在渴望通过排斥和暴力向外表达， 只要不充分地理解这个过程，就不可能有爱。 爱不是寻求安全感的另一个避难所。 对安全的渴望必须完全停止，爱才能存在。 爱是无法通过强迫而能带来的东西。 任何形式的强迫，在任何层面上，都是对爱的拒绝。 一个有意识形态的革命者，根本不是革命者； 他只是提供一种替代品，一种不同的安全感，一种新的希望； 希望就是死亡。 只有爱，才能带来关系上的彻底革命或转变； 爱是不属于头脑的东西。 思想可以计划和制定希望的宏伟蓝图， 但思想只会导致进一步的冲突、困惑与痛苦。 当狡猾的、自我封闭的头脑不存在的时候，爱存在。