THERE WERE SEVERAL of us in the room. Two had been in prison for many years for political reasons; they had suffered and sacrificed in gaining freedom for the country, and were well-known. Their names were often in the papers, and while they were modest that peculiar arrogance of achievement and fame was still in their eyes. They were well-read, and they spoke with the facility that comes from public speaking. Another was a politician, a big man with a sharp glance, who was full of schemes and had an eye on self-advancement. He too had been in prison for the same reason, but now he was in a position of power, and his look was assured and purposeful; he could manipulate ideas and men. There was another who had renounced worldly possessions, and who hungered for the power to do good. Very learned and full of apt quotations, he had a smile that was genuinely kind and pleasant, and he was currently travelling all over the country talking, persuading, and fasting. There were three or four others who also aspired to climb the political or spiritual ladder of recognition or humility.
房间里有几个人。 其中两人因政治原因而被关押了几年。 他们为国家获得自由而遭受到痛苦和牺牲，并且是众所周知的。 他们的名字经常出现在报纸上，虽然他们很谦虚， 但成就和名声的特殊傲慢仍然在他们的眼中。 他们读了很多，在对公众演讲时，他们讲得很棒。 另一位是政治家，一个目光犀利的大个子， 他充满了阴谋诡计，看重自我的进步。 他也曾因同样的原因入狱，但现在他处于权力地位， 他的外表是有把握和有目的性的。他可以操纵思想和人民。 还有一个人放弃了世俗的财产，渴望行善的权力。 他非常有学问，引用了大量的恰当的语录， 他的笑容是真正善良和愉快的， 他目前正在全国各地旅行、谈论、宣讲和斋戒。 还有三四个人 也渴望攀爬政治或精神阶梯，以得到认可或变得谦卑。
“I cannot understand,” one of them began, “why you are so much against action. Living is action; without action, life is a process of stagnation. We need dedicated people of action to change the social and religious conditions of this unfortunate country. Surely you are not against reform: the landed people voluntarily giving some of their land to the landless, the educating of the villager, the improving of the village, the breaking up of caste divisions, and so on.”
“我无法理解，” 其中一人开始说， “为什么你如此反对行动。活着就是行动； 没有行动，生命就是一个停滞不前的过程。 我们需要有献身精神的行动者，来改变这个不幸国家的社会和宗教状况。 你们当然不反对改革： 拥有田地的人自愿把一些土地给没有田地的人， 教育村民，改善村庄， 打破种姓划分，等等。”
Reform, however necessary, only breeds the need for further reform, and there is no end to it. What is essential is a revolution in man’s thinking, not patchwork reform. Without a fundamental change in the mind and heart of man, reform merely puts him to sleep by helping him to be further satisfied. This is fairly obvious, isn’t it? “You mean that we must have no reforms?” another asked, with an intensity that was surprising. “I think you are misunderstanding him,” explained one of the older men. “He means that reform will never bring about the total transformation of man. In fact, reform impedes that total transformation, because it puts man to sleep by giving him temporary satisfaction. By multiplying these gratifying reforms, you will slowly drug your neighbour into contentment.”
改革，无论多么的必要， 只会滋生进一步改革的需求，而且没有终点。 至关重要的是人类的思想革命，而不是拼凑的改革。 如果人的头脑和心灵没有根本的改变， 改革只会通过帮助他进一步的满意而使他昏睡。 这一点，是相当明显的，不是吗？ “你的意思是我们绝不能进行改革？” 另一个人问道，带着很强的惊讶。 “我想你误解了他，” 其中一位老人解释说。 “他的意思是，改革永远不会带来人的全面转变。 事实上，改革阻碍了这种彻底的转变， 因为它让人入睡，给了他暂时的满足。 通过增加这些满意的改革， 你会慢慢地给你的邻居下药，使其满足。”
“But if we strictly limit ourselves to one essential reform – the voluntary giving of land to the landless, let’s say – until it is brought about, will that not be beneficial?”
“但是，如果我们严格要求自身，推行一项重要的改革 —— 比方说，自愿将土地给予无地者 —— 直到它实现，这难道不是有益的吗？”
Can you separate one part from the whole field of existence? Can you put a fence around it, concentrate upon it, without affecting the rest of the field? “To affect the whole field of existence is exactly what we plan to do. When we have achieved one reform, we shall turn to another.”
你能从整个存在的领域中，分离出一个部分吗？ 你能在它的周围圈出一个篱笆，专注于它，而不影响领域中的其它部分吗？ “影响整个生存领域，正是我们计划要做的。 当我们实现一项改革时，我们将转向另一项改革。”
Is the totality of life to be understood through the part? Or is it that the whole must first be perceived and understood, and that only then the parts can be examined and reshaped in relation to the whole? Without comprehending the whole, mere concentration on the part only breeds further confusion and misery.
生命的整体性是通过部分来理解的吗？ 还是说，必须首先感知和理解整体， 只有这样才能检查和重塑与整体相关的部分？ 如果不理解整体，仅仅专注于部分， 只会滋生进一步的困惑和痛苦。
“Do you mean to say,” demanded the intense one, “that we must not act or bring about reforms without first studying the whole process of existence?” “That’s absurd, of course,” put in the politician. “We simply haven’t time to search out the full meaning of life. That will have to be left to the dreamers, to the gurus, to the philosophers. We have to deal with everyday existence; we have to act, we have to legislate, we have to govern and bring order out of chaos. We are concerned with dams, with irrigation, with better agriculture; we are occupied with trade, with economics, and we must deal with foreign powers. It is sufficient for us if we can manage to carry on from day to day without some major calamity taking place. We are practical men in positions of responsibility, and we have to act to the best of our ability for the good of the people.”
“你的意思是说，” 这个人激动地说， “在没有首先研究整个存在过程的情况下 我们绝不能采取行动或进行改革？” “那很荒谬，当然了” 这位政客说。 “我们根本没有时间去寻找生命的全部意义。 那必须留给梦想家、导师、哲学家。 我们必须处理日常生活； 我们必须采取行动，我们必须立法，我们必须治理，从混乱中带来秩序。 我们关心的是水坝、灌溉、更好的农业； 我们忙于贸易、经济，我们必须与外国势力打交道。 如果我们能够设法在不发生重大灾难的情况下，日复一日地继续下去， 这对我们来说就足够了。 我们是处在负责任地位的务实者， 我们必须竭尽所能，为人民的利益而采取行动。”
If it may be asked, how do you know what’s good for the people? You assume so much. You start with so many conclusions; and when you start with a conclusion, whether your own or that of another, all thinking ceases. The calm assumption that you know, and that the other does not, leads to greater misery than the misery of having only one meal a day; for it is the vanity of conclusions that brings about the exploitation of man. In our eagerness to act for the good of others, we seem to do a great deal of harm.
如果人可以问，你是怎么知道哪些是对人民有益的？ 你假设了这么多。你从这么多的结论开始； 当你从一个结论开始，无论它是你自己的，还是别人的，所有的思考都停止了。 这个冷静的假设，你知道，而别人不知道， 导致比每天只吃一顿饭的痛苦更大的痛苦； 因为正是这种结论的虚荣心，带来了对人类的剥削。 在我们渴望为他人的利益而行动时，我们似乎造成了很大的伤害。
“Some of us think we really do know what’s good for the country and its people,” explained the politician. “Of course, the opposition also thinks it knows; but the opposition is not very strong in this country, fortunately for us, so we shall win and be in a position to try out what we think is good and beneficial.”
“我们中的一些人认为我们确实知道什么对国家及其人民有益，” 这位政治家解释说。“当然，反对派也认为它知道； 但是这个国家的反对派不是很强大，对我们来说很幸运， 因此我们将获胜，并能够尝试我们认为是好的和有益的。”
Every party knows, or thinks it knows, what’s good for the people. But what is truly good will not create antagonism, either at home or abroad; it will bring about unity between man and man; what is truly good will be concerned with the totality of man, and not with some superficial benefit that may lead only to greater calamity and misery; it will put an end to the division and the enmity that nationalism and organized religions have created. And is the good so easily found?
每个政党都知道，或者认为它知道什么是对人民有益的。 但是，真正的好，不会在国内或国外造成敌对； 它将带来人与人之间的团结； 真正的好，将关心人的整体性， 而不是一些肤浅的好处，这种好处只会导致更大的灾难和痛苦； 它将结束民族主义和有组织的宗教所造成的分裂和敌对。 这种好，有这么容易找到吗？
“If we have to take into consideration all the implications of what is good, we shall get nowhere; we shall not be able to act. Immediate necessities demand immediate action, though that action may bring marginal confusion,” replied the politician. “We just haven’t time to ponder, to philosophize. Some of us are busy from early in the morning till late at night, and we can’t sit back to consider the full meaning of each and every action that we must take. We literally cannot afford the pleasure of deep consideration, and we leave that pleasure to others.”
“如果我们必须考虑到什么是好的， 我们将一事无成。我们将无法采取行动。 眼前的必需品要求立即采取行动，尽管这种行动可能会带来边际困惑”， 这位政治家回答说。“我们只是没有时间去思考，去哲思。 我们中的一些人从清晨到深夜都很忙碌， 我们不能坐下来考虑我们必须采取的每一个行动的全部意义。 我们真的无法承受深切考虑的乐趣， 我们将这种乐趣留给了其他人。”
“Sir, you appear to be suggesting,” said one of those who had thus far remained silent, “that before we perform what we assume to be a good act, we should think out fully the significance of that act, since, even though seemingly beneficial, such an act may produce greater misery in the future. But is it possible to have such profound insight into our own actions? At the moment of action we may think we have that insight, but later on we may discover our blindness.”
“先生，你似乎在暗示，” 一位迄今保持沉默的人说， “在我们执行我们认为是好的行为之前， 我们应该充分考虑该行为的意义， 因为，即使看起来有益，这种行为也可能在未来产生更大的痛苦。 但是，有可能对我们自己的行为有如此深刻的洞察力吗？ 在行动的那一刻，我们可能认为我们有这种洞察力， 但后来我们可能会发现我们的盲目性。”
At the moment of action we are enthusiastic, impetuous, we are carried away by an idea, or by the personality and the fire of a leader. All leaders, from the most brutal tyrant to the most religious politician, state that they are acting for the good of man, and they all lead to the grave; but nevertheless we succumb to their influence, and follow them. Haven’t you, sir, been influenced by such a leader? He may no longer be living, but you still think and act according to his sanctions, his formulas, his pattern of life; or else you are influenced by a more recent leader. So we go from one leader to another, dropping them when it suits our convenience, or when a better leader turns up with greater promise of some ‘good’. In our enthusiasm we bring others into the net of our convictions, and they often remain in that net when we ourselves have moved on to other leaders and other convictions. But what is good is free of influence, compulsion and convenience and any act which is not good in this sense is bound to breed confusion and misery.
在行动的那一刻，我们是热情的，冲动的， 我们被一个想法，或者被领导者的个性和火焰所迷惑。 所有的领导人，从最残暴的暴君到最虔诚的政治家， 都说他们是在为人类的利益行事，他们都走进了坟墓； 但尽管如此，我们仍然屈服于他们的影响，并跟随他们。 先生，你不是受到过这样一位领袖的影响吗？ 他可能不再活着， 但你仍然按照他的规则，他的公式，他的生活模式来思考和行动； 或者，你会受到一个更近的领导者的影响。 因此，我们从一个领导者转到另一个领导者，在我们方便的时候放弃他们， 或者当一个更好的领导者带着某种有‘好处’的、更伟大的承诺出现时。 在我们的热情中，我们把别人引入我们的信念网， 当我们自己转向其他领导人和其他信念时， 他们往往留在这个网中。 但是，‘好’摆脱了影响、强迫和舒适， 在这个意义上，任何不好的行为，都必然会滋生困惑与痛苦。
“I think we can all plead guilty to being influenced by a leader, directly or indirectly,” acquiesced the last speaker, “but our problem is this. Realizing that we receive many benefits from society and give very little in return, and seeing so much misery everywhere, we feel that we have a responsibility towards society, that we must do something to relieve this unending misery. Most of us, however, feel rather lost, and so we follow someone with a strong personality. His dedicated life, his obvious sincerity, his vital thoughts and acts, influence us greatly, and in various ways we become his followers; under his influence we are soon caught up in action, whether it be for the liberation of the country, or for the betterment of social conditions. The acceptance of authority is ingrained in us, and from this acceptance of authority flows action. What you are telling us is so contrary to all we are accustomed to that it leaves us no measure by which to judge and to act. I hope you see our difficulty.”
“我认为我们都可以承认，直接或间接地受到了领导人的影响，” 最后一位发言者默认道，“但我们的问题是这个。 意识到我们从社会中得到许多好处，而付出的回报却很少， 看到到处都是如此多的痛苦，我们觉得我们对社会负有责任， 我们必须做些什么来缓解这种无休止的痛苦。 然而，我们大多数人都感到相当地失落，所以我们跟随一个个性坚强的人。 他奉献的一生，他明显的真诚，他至关重要的思想和行为， 极大地影响了我们，我们以各种方式成为他的追随者； 在他的影响下，我们很快就陷入了行动， 无论是为了解放国家，还是为了改善社会条件。 对权威的接受在我们心中根深蒂固， 从这种对权威的接受中流淌出行动。 你所说的话，与我们所习惯的一切背道而驰， 以至于我们没有采取任何判断和行动的尺度。 我希望你能看到我们的困难。”
Surely, sir, any act based on the authority of a book, however sacred, or on the authority of a person, however noble and saintly, is a thoughtless act which must inevitably bring confusion and sorrow. In this and other countries the leader derives his authority from the interpretation of the so-called sacred books, which he liberally quotes, or from his own experiences, which are conditioned by the past, or from his austere life, which again is based on the pattern of saintly records. So the leader’s life is as bound by authority as the life of the follower; both are slaves to the book, and to the experience or knowledge of another. With this background, you want to remake the world. Is that possible? Or must you put aside this whole authoritarian, hierarchical outlook on life, and approach the many problems with a fresh, eager mind? Living and action are not separate, they are an interrelated, unitary process; but now you have separated them, have you not? You regard daily living, with its thoughts and acts, as different from the action which is going to change the world.
当然，先生，任何基于一本书的权威的行为，无论这本书有多么神圣， 或基于一个人的权威，无论这个人多么高尚和圣洁， 都是一种轻率行为，必然会带来困惑和悲伤。 在这个国家和其他国家，领袖的权威来自于 对所谓的圣书的解释，他自由地引用这些圣书， 或者从他自己的经历中获得的权威，这些经历受到了过去的制约， 或者来自他朴素的生活，这又是基于圣洁的记录的模式。 因此，领导者的生活与追随者的生活一样，受到了权威的束缚； 两者都是这本书的奴隶，也是别人的经验或知识的奴隶。 带着这个背景，你想重塑世界。这可能吗？ 还是你必须抛开这整个专制的、等级森严的人生观， 以一种新鲜的、热切的头脑来处理许多问题？ 生活和行动不是分开的，它们是一个相互关联的、统一的过程； 但是，现在你已经把它们分开了，不是吗？ 你认为日常生活，它的思想和行为， 与将要改变世界的行动是不同的。
“Again, this is so,” went on the last speaker. “But how are we to throw off this yoke of authority and tradition, which we have willingly and happily accepted from childhood? It is part of our immemorial tradition, and you come along and tell us to set it all aside and rely on ourselves! From what I have heard and read, you say that the very Atman itself is without permanency. So you can see why we are confused.”
“再说一遍，事实就是如此，” 最后一位发言者继续说道。 “但是，我们如何摆脱这种权威和传统的枷锁？ —— 我们从小就心甘情愿地愉快地接受了这些 它是我们远古传统的一部分， 你过来告诉我们，要把它放在一边，依靠我们自己！ 从我所听到和读到的，你说宇宙灵魂本身是没有永久性的。 所以你可以看到为什么我们感到困惑。”
May it not be that you have never really inquired into the authoritarian way of existence? The very questioning of authority is the end of authority. There is no method or system by which the mind can be set free from authority and tradition; if there were, then the system would become the dominating factor.
难道你从来没有真正探究过权威主义的存在方式吗？ 对权威的质疑本身就是权威的终结。 没有任何方法或制度可以使头脑从权威和传统中解放； 如果有的话，那么这个系统将成为支配因素。”
Why do you accept authority, in the deeper sense of that word? You accept authority, as the guru also does, in order to be safe, to be certain, in order to be comforted, to succeed, to reach the other shore. You and the guru are worshippers of success; you are both driven by ambition. Where there is ambition, there is no love; and action without love has no meaning.
你为什么接受权威，从这个词的更深层次意义上讲？ 你接受权威，就像上师所做的那样， 为了安全，为了确定，为了得到安慰，为了成功，为了到达彼岸。 你和上师是成功的崇拜者；你们俩都被野心所驱使。 哪里有野心，哪里就没有爱； 没有爱，行动就没有意义。
“Intellectually I see that what you say is true, but inwardly, emotionally, I don’t feel the authenticity of it.”
“在理智上，我看到你说的是真的， 但在内心里，在情感上，我感觉不到它的真实性。”
There is no intellectual understanding; either we understand, or we don’t. This dividing of ourselves into watertight compartments is another of our absurdities. It is better to admit to ourselves that we do not understand, than to maintain that there is an intellectual understanding, which only breeds arrogance and self-imposed conflict. “We have taken too much of your time, but perhaps you will allow us to come again.”
没有理智地理解； 要么我们理解，要么我们不理解。 这种将我们自己分裂成几个部分，放进防水的隔离室的做法，是我们的另一个荒谬之处。 我们还不如承认自己不理解， 而不是坚持认为存在着一种理智上的理解， 这只会滋生傲慢和增强自我的冲突。 “我们花了你太多的时间，但也许你会允许我们再来一次。”