P: The problem of duality and its ending cannot be understood unless we go into the nature of the thinker and thought. Can we discuss this? K: How do the Hindu thinkers, the Advaita philosophers deal with this problem? P: Patanjali's Yoga-sutras postulate a state of liberation which has anchors, and a state of liberation which is without anchors. In the one, the thinker is the prop; it is a state where the thinker has not ceased. In the other, there is a state where everything including the thinker has ceased. The Buddhist talk of kshana vada, time as instant, total and complete in itself where the thinker has no continuity. The Advaita philosophers talk of the cessation of duality and the attainment of non-duality. They go through a dualistic process to attain this non-dual state. Sankara approaches this state of non-duality through negation (neti, neti). Nagarjuna, the Buddhist philosopher's negation is absolute; if you say there is God, he negates it; if you say there is no God, he negates it. Every statement is negated.
普：二元性问题和它的终结，不能被理解， 除非我们深入到思想者和思想的性质。我们能讨论这一点吗？ 克：印度的思想家，这些不二论的哲学家们是如何处理这个问题的？ 普：帕坦伽利的《瑜伽经》假设了一种有锚定的自由状态和一种无锚的自由状态。 在前一种假设中，思想者是支撑者，在这种状态下，思想者没有消亡； 在后一种假设中，是一种任何事物，包括思想者都消亡的状态。 佛教徒讲‘刹那灭论’，时间是刹那的、完整的、自身圆满的，在那里思想者没有延续性。 不二论的哲学家们讲二元性的消亡和非二元性的实现。 他们通过二元性的过程，去实现非二元的状态。 商羯罗通过否定来达到这种非二元的状态。 龙树，这位佛教哲学家的否定是绝对的； 如果你说上帝存在，他会否定它；如果你说上帝不存在，他也会否定它。 每个说法都被否定。
B: Buddha says what exists is the "Solitude of Reality". You are the result of your thoughts. P: They have all talked about non-duality - the Buddha, Sankara, Nagarjuna. But non-duality has become a concept. It has not affected the structure of the mind itself. In India for centuries the negative approach has been discussed, but it has not affected the human mind. The brain cells have remained dualistic; they operate in time and are caught in time. Though negation and the non-dual have been posited, there is no clue to apprehend these states. Why has non-duality not affected the mind of man? Can we go into it to see whether we can discover that which will trigger the non-dual state? B: All other developments - scientific, technological - have affected the minds of people. Man has discovered the non-dualistic state but it has not affected his mind nor his life.
芭：佛陀说存在就是‘现实的孤独’。你是你思想的结果。 普：他们都谈过非二元性 —— 佛陀、商羯罗、龙树。 但非二元性已经成了一个概念。 它对头脑本身的结构没有产生影响。 在印度，几个世纪以来，这种否定方式已经被讨论，它却并没有影响人的头脑。 这些脑细胞依然是二元性的；他们在时间中运转，并困于其中。 尽管提出否定和非二元性的假设，却没有领悟那些状态的线索。 为什么非二元性没有影响人的头脑？ 我们能深入其中，去看看我们是否能够发现非二元性的状态的关键？ 芭：其它所有的发展 —— 科学的、技术的 —— 已经影响了人们的头脑。 人已经发现了非二元性的状态，但它并没有影响他的头脑或他的生活。
S: If every experience leaves a mark on the brain cells, what is the impact of the state of non-duality, of oneness? Why is a mutation not taking place in the relationship between the thinker and the thought? P: Is the mechanism which records the technological, the same mechanism which "sees, perceives"? K: The technological cell, the recording cell and the perceptive cell - P: And they seem to form the "ego".
苏: 如果每一个体验都在脑细胞中留下记号， 那么，这种非二元性的、独立的状态留下了什么？ 在思想者和思想之间的关系中，为什么没有发生一场突变？ 普：记录技艺的机制与‘观看、感知’的机制，相同吗？ 克：这种用于技艺的细胞，这种用于记录的细胞，与这种用于感知的细胞 —— 普：它们似乎构成了这个‘自我’。
K: The technological and the recording fragment - these two make up the ego. Not the perceptive. P: I am including "perceiving" also. The recording is concerned with both - the technological and perception. K: It may be a verbal explanation. P: The core of man never seems to get affected. The basic essential duality between the thinker and thought continues.
克：这种技艺和记录的碎片 —— 这两者构造出这个自我。而不是那用于感知的。 普：我把‘感知’那一部分也包括在里面。记录功能包括了两者 —— 技艺和感知。 克：这可能是一个文字化的表述。 普：人的核心似乎从未受到影响。这种基本的二元性 —— 思想者和思想的对立，还是存在。
K: Do you think there is basically a duality or only "what is", the fact? P: When you, Sir, ask a question like that, the mind stands still and one says "yes, it is so". Then the query starts - am I not separate from S, from B? Though the mind says "yes", it also queries a split second later. The moment you asked the question, my mind became still. K: Why not stay there?
克：你觉得究竟有没有二元性？或者只存在‘什么是’，也就是存在本身？ 普：当你提出那样的问题，先生，这颗头脑是静止的，一个人说‘是的，它确实是如此’。 接着就开始询问 —— 我和苏纳达、我和芭拉，难道不是分开的吗？尽管这颗头脑说‘是’，之后，它也会询问这种划分。 你提出问题的那一刻，我的头脑变得静止。 克：为什么不待在那里？
P: The query arises. K: Why? Is it habit, tradition, the very nature of the operation of the self, the conditioning? All that may be due to the cultural imposition to survive, to function and so on. Why bring that in when we are looking at the fact - whether there is duality which is basic? P: You say it may be a reflex action of the brain cells?
普：这种询问升起了。 克：为什么？它是一种习惯、传统吗？是这个自我、这个囚犯的运转特性吗？ 那一切可能是出于他的生存、意义等等的需求而被风俗所强迫。 当我们在观察这个事实‘究竟有没有二元性’的时候，为什么会出现这种询问？ 普：你说，它可能是脑细胞的一种条件反射？
K: We are the result of our environment, of our society, We are the result of all our interactions. That is a fact also. I am asking myself is there a basic duality at the very core, or does duality arise when I move away from "what is"? When I do not move away from the basic non-dualistic quality of the mind, the thinker there, has he a duality? He thinks. Does the thinker create a duality when he is completely with "what is"?
克：我们是环境和社会的产物；我们是我们交互的产物，那也是事实。 我问我自己，在核心之处，究竟有没有二元性，或者，在我远离‘什么是’的时候，二元性就冒了出来？ 当我不远离头脑的这种非二元性的特征，这位思想者，它有二元性吗？他思考。 当他完全处于‘什么是’，他创造二元性吗？
I never think when I look at a tree. When I look at you, there is no division as the "me" and "you". Words are used for linguistic and communicative purposes. The "me" and "you" are somehow not rooted in me. So, where does the thinker arise separate from thought? Mind remains in "what is". It remains with pain. There is no thinking of non-pain. There is the sense of suffering. That is "what is".
当我看一棵树，我从来不思考。当我看你，没有‘我’和‘你’的区分。 文字的使用，是出于语言学和交流的意图。这个‘我’和这个‘你’，并没有在我的里面扎根。 因此，从思想中分离出来的思想者在哪儿？头脑居于‘什么是’之中。 它与痛苦相伴。没有无痛的想法。有的是痛苦的感觉。那就是‘什么是’。
There is no feeling of wanting to be out of it. Where does duality arise? Duality arises when the mind says, "I must be rid of pain. I have known states of non-pain and I want to be in a state of non-pain" (Pause). You are a man and I am a woman. That is a biological fact. But is there a psychological dualism? Is there a basically dualistic state or only when the mind moves away from "what is"?
没有想离开它的感觉。二元性从哪里冒出？ 二元性的冒出，是由于这颗头脑说：“我必须根除痛苦。我已经知道无痛的状态，我想处于无痛的状态”。(停顿) 你是一个男人，我是一个女人。那是一个生理上的事实。但是，有心理上的二元论吗？ 究竟有没有二元性的状态，或者，当这颗头脑远离‘什么是’的时候，才出现？
There is sorrow. My son is dead. I do not move away. Where is the duality? It is only when I say I have lost my companion, my son, that duality comes into being. I wonder if this is right? I have pain - physical or psychological grief. They are all included in pain. A movement away from it, is duality. The thinker is the movement away. The thinker then says this should not be; he also says there should not be duality.
那里有悲伤。我的儿子死了。我不远离。二元性在哪里？ 只有当我说‘我失去了伴侣，我的儿子’，那种二元性才出现。我在想是不是这样？ 我痛苦 —— 身体上或心理上的悲痛。它们都属于痛苦。远离它的行为，就是二元性。 这个思考者，就是这种远离。 这位思想者说，不应该这样；他也说，不应该有二元性。
First see the fact that the movement away from "what is", is the movement of the thinker who brings in duality. In observing the fact of pain, why should there be a thinker in that observation? The thinker arises when there is a movement, either backwards or forwards. The thought that I had no pain yesterday - in that duality arises.
首先看这个事实：远离‘什么是’，思想者的这种行为，带来了二元性。 看痛苦，看这个事实，在看的时候，为什么有一个思想者？ 当有一个移动，不论是向前或向后的移动，思想者就冒了出来。 ‘昨天我没有痛苦’ —— 这样一来，冒出了二元性。
Can the mind remain with the pain, without any movement away from it, which brings in the thinker? The mind is asking itself how this dualistic attitude towards life arises? It is not asking for an explanation of how to go beyond it. I have had pleasure yesterday. It is finished. (Pause). Is it not as simple as that?
头脑能与痛苦作伴吗，能够不离开它，也就是不引来思想者吗？ 这颗头脑问它自己: 这种对生命的二元性观念是如何产生的？ 它并不是在寻求一个解释，一个如何超越它的解释。 我有一个快乐的昨天，它结束了。(停顿)。就这么简单，难道不是吗？
P: Not really. K: I think it is. You see, this implies non-comparative observation. Comparison is dualistic. Measurement is dualistic. There is pain today, there is the comparison with the non-pain of tomorrow. But there is only one fact: the pain which the mind is going through now. Nothing else exists. Why have we complicated this? Why have we built tremendous philosophies round al1 this? Are we missing something?
普：真的不是。 克：我想它是。 你看，这意味着没有比较的观察。比较是二元性的，衡量是二元性的。 今天有痛苦，与没有痛苦的明天作比较。 但是只有一个事实： 头脑正在经历的这种痛苦。其它的，都不存在。 为什么我们把这复杂化？ 为什么我们围绕着这一切建立庞大的哲学？ 我们丢失了什么东西？
Is it that the mind does not know what to do and therefore moves away from the fact and brings duality into being? If it knew, would it bring about duality? Is the "what to do" itself a dualistic process? Do you understand? Let us look at it again. There is pain - physical or psychological. When the mind does not know what to do in the non-dualistic sense, it escapes.
是因为头脑不知道要做什么，因此远离这个事实，并催生出二元性吗？ 如果它知道，它会引入二元性吗？ 这个问题‘做什么’，不就是一个二元性的过程吗？你理解吗？ 让我们再来看一下它。有痛苦 —— 身体上的或者心理的。 在这种非二元性的感觉中，这颗头脑不知道做什么，它就逃跑了。
Can the mind caught in the trap, the backward and the forward movement, can it deal with "what is" in a non-dualistic way? Do you understand? So we are asking, can pain, the "what is", be transformed without dualistic activity? Can there be a state of non-thinking, in which the thinker does not come into being at all; the thinker who says "I had no pain yesterday and I will not have it tomorrow"?
这颗被困于陷阱中的、摇摆不定的头脑，能在非二元性的道路上处理‘什么是’吗？ 你理解吗？所以我们问：痛苦，这个‘什么是’，能够在没有二元性活动情况下被转化吗？ 能不能处于一种无思想的状态，其中根本没有思想者； 那位思想者说：‘我昨天没有痛苦，我明天也不会有痛苦’？
P: See what happens to us. What you say is right. But there is a lack of something within us; it may be strength, energy. When there is a crisis, the weight of that crisis is sufficient to plunge us into a state where there is no movement away from the crisis; but in everyday life, we have "little" challenges. K: If you really understood this, you would meet these little challenges. P: In everyday life, we have the chattering, erratic movement of the thinker operating with its demands. What does one do with that? K: I do not think you can do anything with it. That is the denial. It is irrelevant.
普：看看我们的样子。你说得对。但我们缺少了什么；它可能是力量、能量。 当出现危机，这危机的重量足以使我们陷入一种无法远离危机的状态； 但是在日常生活中，我们有的只是‘细微’的挑战。 克：如果你真地理解这一点，你就会面对这些细微的挑战。 普：在日常生活中，我们在闲聊，思绪在莫名地游荡。我们该做什么？ 克：我想，你不能对它下手。那就是否定。它无关紧要。
P: But that is very very important. That is what our minds are - the erratic part. One does not have the capacity to negate that. K: Listen, there is noise outside. I cannot do anything about it. P: When there is a crisis, there is contact. In normal living there is no contact. I go out. I can look at a tree and there is no duality. I can see colour without duality. But there is the other, the non-stopping, erratic no-sense part that is continuously chattering. The thinker starts operating on it when it sees it functioning. The great negation is to let it alone.
普：但那是非常非常重要的。那就是我们的现状 —— 这个流浪者。一个人无法否定它。 克：听，外面的噪音。对于它，我什么都做不了。 普：当有危机的时候，就会产生联系。 在正常的生活中，没有联系。 我走出去，看见一棵树，那时没有二元性。我能看见色泽而不带二元性。 但是还有另一个，一个躁动的、游移不定的、非感知的、在喋喋不休的部分。 这位思想者在上面运转，当它看见它的功能。这巨大的否定就是：随它去吧。
K: Settle the primary factor - to observe pain without moving away from it - that is the only non-dualistic state. P: Let us speak of the chattering mind instead of pain, because that is the fact at this moment. The noise of that horn, the chattering mind, that is "what is". K: You prefer this and do not prefer that and thereby begins the whole circle. P: The central point is the observation of "what is" without moving away. The moving away creates the thinker.
克：处理主要因素 —— 观察痛苦而不远离它 —— 那是唯一的、非二元性的状态。 普：让我们抛弃痛苦，来说说这颗喋喋不休的头脑，因为那就是此时此刻的写照。 那个喇叭的噪音，这个喋喋不休的头脑，就是 ‘什么是’。 克：你倾向于这，而不喜欢那，因此，引发了这整个循环。 普：重点在于观察‘什么是’而不走开。走开的行为，创造出这位思想者。
K: Because the noise, the chattering which was the "what is", has gone, has faded away but the pain remains. Pain has not gone. To go beyond pain non-dualistically; that is the question. How is it to be done? Any movement away from "what is", is dualistic because in that there is the thinker operating on "what is", which is the dualistic. Now can one observe "what is", which is the dualistic? To observe "what is", without the dualistic movement taking place, will that transform "what is"? Do you understand my question?
克：因为这噪音，这喋喋不休，也就是这‘什么是’，已经消逝，已经褪色，而痛苦却还在。 痛苦没有消逝。非二元性地走出痛苦，就是问题之所在。要怎么去做？ 任何远离‘什么是’的动作都是二元性的，因为思想者在上面动手脚，在对‘什么是’，也就是对这个二元性动手脚。 现在，一个人能观察‘什么是’，也就是这个二元性吗？ 观察‘什么是’，不让这个二元性移动，会转变‘什么是’吗？ 你理解我的问题吗？
P: Is it not really a dissolution of "what is"? That which was created? K: I know only "what is", nothing else. Not the cause. P: That is so. One can see that when there is no movement away from pain, there is a dissolution of pain.
普：它不正是在消除‘什么是’吗？那是怎么创造的？ 克：我只知道 ‘什么是’，没有了。不知道这原因。 普：就是如此。一个人能看到，当没有远离痛苦的动作，就有痛苦的消除。
K: How does this happen? Why has man not come to this? Why has he fought pain with a dualistic movement? Why has he never understood or delved into pain without the dualistic movement? What happens when there is no movement away from pain? Not what happens to the dissolution of pain but what happens to the mechanism that operates? It is simple. Pain is the movement away. There is no pain where there is only listening. There is pain only when I move from the fact and say this is pleasurable, this is not pleasurable. My son dies. That is an absolute, irrevocable fact. Why is there pain?
克：这是怎样出现的？人为什么没有踏进这里？他为什么要通过二元性的动作来对抗痛苦？ 为什么他不停下二元性的方式，去理解或深入探究痛苦？ 当没有远离痛苦的动作，什么出现了？ 不是痛苦的消除，而是所呈现出的运作机制是什么？ 它是简单的。痛苦就是这种远离。只有听，没有痛苦。 只有当我远离这个事实，说‘这令人快乐，这令人不快’的时候，才有痛苦。 我的儿子死了。那是绝对的、无法更改的事实。为什么有痛苦？
P: Because I loved him. K: Look what has already happened unconsciously. I loved him. He has gone. The pain is the remembrance of my love for him. And he is no more. But the absolute fact is he is gone. Remain with that fact. There is pain only when I say he is no more, which is when the thinker comes into being and says, "my son is no longer there, he was my companion," and all the rest of it.
普：因为我爱过他。 克：看，在这不知不觉中，发生了什么。 我爱过他。他去世了。这痛苦就是我回忆起对他的爱。 他已经不复存在。这确凿的事实是他去世了。停留在那个事实上。 痛苦之所以出现，恰好是因为我说他已经不复存在了，也就是当思想者出现并说， "我的儿子再也回不来了，他曾经是我的伴侣" 等等。
S: It is not merely the memory of my son who is dead which is pain. There is loneliness now. K: My son is dead. That is a fact. Then there is the thought of loneliness. Then there is my identification with him. All that is a process of thought and the thinker. But I have only one fact. My son is gone, loneliness, the lack of companionship, despair, are all the result of thought, which creates duality;a movement away from "what is".
苏: 它不仅有我对死去的儿子的痛苦的回忆，还有现实的孤独。 克：我儿子去世了，那是一个事实。 接着有这种孤独的思想，然后勾起我对他的认同。 那一切都是一种思想和思想者的过程。 但是我只有一个事实， 我的儿子离开了，孤独，缺乏陪伴，绝望，这一切都是思想的产物， 并创造出二元性；一种远离‘什么是’的移动。
It does not need strength or determination not to move. The determination is dualistic. There is only one thing, which is the fact and my movement away from the fact, from "what is". It is this that breeds bitterness, callousness, lack of love, indifference, which are all the product of thinking. The fact is my son is gone.
不移动，是不需要力量或者决心的。决心是二元性的。 只有一个东西，也就是这个事实和我的移动 —— 远离这个事实、这个‘什么是’的移动。 正是它滋生出苦涩、绝情、爱的匮乏、冷漠，这一切都是思想的产物。 这个事实是我的儿子去世了。
The complete non-perception of "what is" breeds the thinker, which is dualistic action; and when the mind falls again into the trap of dualistic action, that is "what is"; remain with that - for any movement away from that is another dualistic action. The mind is always dealing with "what is" as noise, no noise. And "what is", the fact, needs no transformation because it is already "the beyond".
对‘什么是’的麻木滋生出思想者，也就是二元性的行为。 当这颗头脑再次陷入二元性的行为中，那就是‘什么是’； 留在那里 —— 因为任何远离那的移动，就是另一个二元性的行为。 这颗头脑总是在处理作为噪音的‘什么是’，没有噪音。 而‘什么是’，这个事实，不需要转化，因为它已经‘脱离’。
Anger is "what is". The dualistic movement of non-anger is away from "what is". The non-movement from "what is", is no longer anger. Therefore, the mind - once it has perceived, once it has had non-dualistic perception - when anger arises again, does not act from memory. The next time anger arises, that is "what is". Mind is always dealing with "what is". Therefore, the dualistic concept is totally wrong, fallacious.
愤怒就是‘什么是’。不要愤怒 —— 这种二元性的移动，就是在远离‘什么是’。 不离开‘什么是’，就不再是愤怒。 因此，这颗头脑 —— 一旦它感知到，一旦它有非二元性的感知 —— 当愤怒再次升起，不根据记忆来行动。 接下来愤怒升起，那就是‘什么是’。 头脑总是在处理‘什么是’。因此，二元性的概念是完全错误的，是骗人的。
P: This is tremendous action. The dualistic action is non-action. K: You have to be simple. It is the mind that is not clever, that is not cunning, that is not trying to find substitutes for dualistic action, that can understand. Our minds are not simple enough. Though we all talk of simplicity, that simplicity is of the loincloth. The non-dual means really the art of listening. You hear that dog barking - listen to it, without a movement away from it. Remain with "what is". (Pause) The man who remains with "what is" and never moves away from it, has no marks. P: And when marks take place, to see that they take place. One act of perception removes the mark. K: Quite right. That is the way to live.
普：这是巨大的行动。二元性的行动是不作为。 克：你必须简单。 它是指，这颗头脑不聪明，不狡猾， 没有尝试去寻找二元性行为的替代品，那种头脑能理解。 我们的头脑不够简单。虽然我们都在谈论简单，那个简单只是缠腰布罢了。 这种非二元性，实际上意味着听的艺术。 你听到狗在叫 —— 听它，不离开它。留在‘什么是’。(停顿) 一个留在‘什么是’，而从不远离它的人，没有痕迹。 普：当出现痕迹，看着它们的发生。一个感知的行为擦除这个痕迹。 克：相当正确。那就是生活之路。