Krishnaji, at one level, your teaching is very materialistic because it refuses to accept anything which does not have a referent. It is based on "what is". You have even gone so far as to say that consciousness is the brain cells and that nothing else exists. And that thought is matter, and nothing else exists. Now in terms of this, what is your attitude to God?
克里希那吉，在某种程度上，你的教诲是非常唯物主义的 因为它拒绝接受任何没有参照物的东西。它基于“什么是”。 你甚至說意識是腦細胞，沒有別的東西存在。 你说，思想是物质，而没有其余的。 现在，就这一点而言，你对上帝的态度是什么？
I do not know what you mean by materialistic and God?
你说的唯物主义和上帝是什么意思？我不知道。
You have said, thought is matter, the brain cells themselves are consciousness. Now these are material things, measurable, and in that sense yours would be part of a materialistic position, in the tradition of the"Lokayatas". In terms of your teaching what place has God? Is God matter?
你说过，思想是物质，脑细胞本身就是意识。 现在，这些都是物质性的东西，是可衡量的， 从这个意义上说，你所说的，是唯物主义立场的一部分，在“Lokayatas”的传统中。 就你的教诲而言，上帝有什么地位？上帝是物质吗？
Do you understand clearly the word "material"?
你清楚“物质”这个词的意思吗？
Material is that which is measurable.
物质就是可测量的东西。
There is no such thing as the material, "P".
“P”，根本没有物质这种东西。
Brain is matter.
大脑就是物质。
No, it is energy. Everything is energy but that energy is not observable. You can only see the effects of energy which you call matter. The effects of energy appear as matter.
不，它是能量。一切都是能量，但那种能量是不可观察的。 你只能看到能量的效应，你称之为物质。能量的效应显现为物质。
When she says matter, she probably means energy. Energy and matter are convertible, but still measurable.
当她说物质时，她可能指的是能量。 能量和物质是可转换的，但仍然是可测量的。
That is, you are saying matter is energy and energy is matter. You cannot divide them to say this is pure energy and this is pure matter.
也就是说，你说物质就是能量，能量就是物质。 你不能把它们分割开来说这是纯粹的能量，那是纯粹的物质。
The material is the expression or appearance of energy.
物质是能量的表达或显现。
What we call matter is nothing but energy. It is only energy as apprehended by the senses of perception. There is no such thing as matter. It is only a way of talking.
我们所谓的物质只不过是能量。它只是被感官知觉所把握的能量。 根本没有物质这种东西。这只是一种说话的方式。
Energy is E equal to Mc2.
能量是 E 等于 Mc²。
You see Krishnaji, if we go into any aspect of your teaching, it is based on that which is observable. The instruments of hearing, of seeing, are within the field of sensory apprehension. Even though you may talk of not naming, that which is observable is through the instruments of seeing, listening. The instruments of the senses are the only instruments we have with which to observe.
你看，克里希那吉，如果我们进入你教诲的任何一个方面，它都是基于可观察的。 听觉、视觉的工具都在感官捕获的领域之内。 即使你可能说‘别命名’，但可观察的是通过看、听的工具。 感官工具是我们唯一可以用来观察的工具。
We know sensory seeing, sensory hearing, sensory touching and the intellect which is part of the whole structure. Now what is the question?
我们知道感官上的视觉、听觉、触觉和智力， 智力也是整个结构的一部分。现在，问题是什么？
In that sense, the teaching is materialistic as opposed to the metaphysical. Your position is a materialistic position.
从这个意义上说，这种教诲是唯物主义的，而不是形而上学的。你的立场是唯物主义的立场。
If you want to stick to facts, the only instrument we have is the brain. Now, is the brain everything or is it an instrument in the hands of somebody else? If you say there is only brain, it will be a materialistic position. If you say the instrument is materialistic then the teaching is not materialistic.
如果你想坚持事实，我们唯一的工具就是大脑。 现在，大脑是一切还是某个人手中的工具？ 如果你说只有大脑，那将是一种唯物主义的立场。 如果你说这个工具是唯物主义的，那么，教诲就不是唯物主义的。
The Tantrik position and the ancient alchemist position are in one sense similar to Krishnaji's position. Everything has to be observed. There is nothing that has to be accepted that has not been seen with the eyes of the seer. Seeing this I now ask, "what is your view of God". I feel it is a very legitimate question.
在某种意义上，密宗的立场和古代炼金术士的立场与克里希那吉的立场是相似的。 一切都必须被观察 没有什么是必须接受的，除非被双眼看见。 看到这一点，我现在问，“你对上帝的看法是什么”。我觉得这是一个非常合理的问题。
Can you explain what God is?
你能解释上帝是什么吗？
What do you mean by God? We have explained energy and matter and now you ask what we mean by God? I never use the word "God" to indicate something which is not God. What thought has invented is not God. If it is invented by thought, it is still within the field of time, within the field of the material.
你说的上帝是指什么意思？ 我们已经解释了能量和物质，现在你问：我们所说的上帝是什么意思？ 我从不使用“上帝”这个词来表示不是上帝的东西。思想发明的不是上帝。 如果它是通过思想发明的，它仍然在时间的领域内，在物质的领域内。
Thought says I cannot go further.
思想说：我不能再往前走了。
But it may invent God because it cannot go further. Thought knows its limitations. Therefore, knowing its limitations, it tries to invent the limitless which it calls God. That is the position.
但它可能会发明上帝，因为它无法再往前走。思想知道自己的局限。 因此，知道了自己的局限，它试图发明那无限的东西，称之为上帝。情况就是如此。
When thought sees its limitations, it is still aware of an existence beyond itself.
当思想看到自己的局限时，它仍然意识到自身之外的存在。
Thought has invented it. It can only go beyond when thought comes to an end.
思想发明了它。只有当思想结束时，它才能超越。
Seeing the limitations of thought is not the knowing of thought.
看到思想的局限并不是对思想的认识。
So we must go into the knowing of thought and not God.
所以我们必须深入对思想的认识，而不是上帝。
When thought sees its own limitation, it practically debunks it.
当思想看到自己的局限时，它实际上是在揭穿它。
When you say limitation, does thought realize it is limited or does the thinker realize that thought is limited? You see the point, or does the thinker who is the product of thought realize it?
当你说局限时，是思想认识到自己是有限的，还是思想者认识到思想是有限的？ 你明白这点了么？还是作为思想产物的思想者认识到了它？
Why do you draw the distinction?
你为什么要做这种区分？
Thought has created the thinker. If thought did not exist, there would be no thinker. Does the thinker, observing the limitations, say "I am limited" or does thought itself realize its limitations which are two different positions. Let us be clear in all this. We are exploring. There are the two - the thought and thinker. The thinker, observing thought, sees through reasoning which is the material, which is energy, that energy is limited. In the realm of thought, the thinker thinks this.
思想造就了思想者。如果思想不存在，就不会有思想者。 是这位思想者在观察这个限制，并说“我是受限的”； 还是思想本身意识到了它的限制？这是两种不同的立场。 让我们明确这一切。 我们正在探索。有两个 —— 思想和思想者。 思想者观察思想，通过推理看到了什么是物质，也就是能量，而能量是受限的。 在思想的领域，思想者是这么认为的。
When the thinker says thought is limited, both the thought and the thinker become question-marks.
当思想者说思想是受限的，思想和思想者都变成了问号。
No, not yet. Thought is memory, thought is the response of knowledge. Thought has brought about this thing called the thinker. The thinker then becomes separate from thought; at least it thinks it is separate from thought. The thinker, looking at reasoning, at the intellect, at the capacity to rationalize, sees that it is very very limited. Therefore, the thinker condemns reason; the thinker says thought is very limited, which is condemnation. Then he says there must be something more than thought, something beyond this limited field. That is what we are doing. We are taking things as they are. Does the thinker think that thought is limited or does thought itself realize it is limited? I do not know if you see the difference.
不，还没有。 思想是记忆，思想是知识的回应。思想带来了这个叫做思想者的东西。 然后，思想者与思想分离；至少，它认为它是与思想分开的。 这位思想者用推理，用智力、用理性去检察，发现它是非常非常受限的。 因此，思想者谴责理性；思想者说思想是非常受限的，也就是谴责。 然后他说，一定有超越思想的东西，超越这个受限领域的东西。 那就是我们正在做的事情。我们如实地看待它们。 思想者认为思想是受限的，还是思想本身意识到它是受限的？ 我不知道你是否看到了这种区别。
Thought is prior to the thinker.
思想先于思想者。
Thought can end. Thought can never feel it is limited. Thought can end - through what reason, do not ask. There is no real reason but thought can end. But how does thought feel it is limited?
思想能够结束。思想永远不能感觉到它是受限的。 思想能够结束 —— 通过什么原因，不要问。 没有真正的理由，但思想能够结束。但是，思想如何感觉它是受限的？
Thought says I cannot go further.
思想说：我不能再往前走了。
But it may invent God because it cannot go further. Thought knows its limitations. Therefore, knowing its limitations, it tries to invent the limitless which it calls God. That is the position.
但它可能会发明上帝，因为它无法再往前走。思想知道自己的局限。 因此，知道了自己的局限，它试图发明那无限的东西，称之为上帝。情况就是如此。
When thought sees its limitations, it is still aware of an existence beyond itself.
当思想看到自己的局限时，它仍然意识到自身之外的存在。
Thought has invented it. It can only go beyond when thought comes to an end.
思想发明了它。只有当思想结束时，它才能超越。
Seeing the limitations of thought is not the knowing of thought.
看到思想的局限并不是对思想的认识。
So we must go into the knowing of thought and not God.
所以我们必须深入对思想的认识，而不是上帝。
When thought sees its own limitation, it practically debunks it.
当思想看到自己的局限时，它实际上是在揭穿它。
When you say limitation, does thought realize it is limited or does the thinker realize that thought is limited? You see the point, or does the thinker who is the product of thought realize it?
当你说局限时，是思想认识到自己是有限的，还是思想者认识到思想是有限的？ 你明白这点了么？还是作为思想产物的思想者认识到了它？
Why do you draw the distinction?
你为什么要做这种区分？
That is my point. Does the thinker see he is limited or does thought say, I cannot go any further? You see the point?
那就是我所指出的。是思想者看到他是受限的，还是思想说，我不能再走出一步吗？ 你看到这一点了吗？
Why do you separate the thinker from the thought? There are many thoughts out of which the thinker is also another thought. The thinker is the guide, helper, censor; he is the most dominant thing.
你为什么要把思想者和思想分开？有许多思想，思想者也是另一种思想。 思想者是向导、帮助者、审查者；他是最有支配力的东西。
Thought has gone through all this and established a centre from which there is the observer, and the observer looking at thought says thought is limited.
思想经历了这一切 并建立了一个中心，从中出现了一个观察者，这位观察者在观察思想的时候，说思想是受限的。
In fact, it can only say "I do not know".
其实，它只能说“我不知道”。
It does not say that. You are introducing a non-observable fact. First of all, thought is the response of knowledge, thought has not yet realized that it is very limited. What it has done in order to have security, is to put together various thoughts which have become the observer, the thinker, the experiencer. Then we are asking the question: Does the thinker realize that it is limited, or thought itself realizes it is limited? The two are entirely different.
它没有这么说。您正在引入一个不可观察的事实。 首先，思想是知识的回应，思想还没有意识到它是非常受限的。 为了获得安全感，它所做的就是把各种思想放在一起，使其成为这位观察者、思想者、体验者。 然后，我们问一个问题： 是思想者意识到它是受限的，还是思想本身意识到它是受限的？ 这两种情况是完全不同的。
We know only a state of thinker thinking thought.
我们只知道思想者在思考的状态。
That is all we know. Therefore, the thinker invariably says we must go beyond thought; therefore it questions: Can one kill the mind? Does God exist?
那就是我们所知道的。因此，思想者总是说‘我们必须超越思想’; 因此，它质疑：一个人能杀死这颗头脑吗？上帝存在吗？
You are giving existence to the thinker instead of thought.
你在用思想者取代思想的存在。
The thinker is modifying, adding. The thinker is not a permanent entity as thought is not permanent, but the thinker is adjusting, modifying. This is important. I may be mistaken. It is important to find out whether the thinker sees it is limited or whether thought as idea - idea being organized thought - thinks it is limited.
思想者在修改，在添加。 思想者不是一个永恒的实体，因为思想不是永恒的，但思想者在调整、修改。 这很重要。我可能弄错了。 重要的是要找出：这位思想者是否看见它是受限的 或者说，作为观念的思想 —— 观念是组织化的思想 —— 是否认为它是受限的。
Now, who says it? If the thinker says it is limited, then the thinker says there must be something more. Then the thinker says there must be God, there must be something beyond thinking. Right? If thought itself realizes it cannot go beyond its own tether, beyond its own rooted brain cells, the brain cells as the material, as the root of thinking; if thought realizes that, then what takes place?
现在，是谁在说？如果思想者说它是受限的，那么思想者说一定还有更多的东西。 然后，思想者说必定有上帝，必定有某种超越思考的东西。对吗？ 如果思想本身意识到它不能超越它自己的束缚， 超越自身根深蒂固的脑细胞，脑细胞作为物质，是思考的根源； 如果思想意识到了那一点，那么，在发生什么？
You see, Sir, that is the whole point. If you were to leave your teaching at this point, I would understand. If you were to leave it at this point, that thought itself sees this, the brain cells themselves see it and leave it, then there is a total consistency and logic; but you are always moving, going beyond this and you cannot use any words. Thereafter call it what you like, but the feeling of God is introduced.
先生，你看，那就是整个重点。 如果你把你的教诲留在这一点上，我就会理解。 如果你留在这一点上，那就是，思想本身看到了这，脑细胞自己看到它并离开它， 那么，就有一个完全的一致性和逻辑； 但是你总是在移动，去超越这，你却无法使用任何语言。 此后，随心所欲地称呼它，但是，上帝的这种感觉被引入了。
I won't accept the word "God".
我不会接受“上帝”这个词。
You take us by reason, by logic to a point. You do not leave it there.
你把我们用理性，用逻辑带到了一个点。你没有把它留在那里。
Of course not.
当然没有。
That is the real paradox.
那才是真正的悖论。
I refuse to accept it as a paradox.
我拒绝接受它是一个悖论。
The material of something and the meaning cannot be interchanged. "P" is mixing up the two.
事物的物质和意义是不能互换的。普普尔将两者混为一谈。
It is fairly simple what she says: The thinker and the thought - we can see the whole logic of that, of what you say, but you do not leave it there. You push it further.
她说的很简单：思想者和思想 —— 我们可以看到你说的整个逻辑，但你没有把它留在那里。你把它推得更远。
Into an abstraction. I say that thought and the thinker being essentially one, man has separated them for his own safety, permanency, security. We are asking the question whether the thinker thinks thought is limited and therefore posits something beyond, because he must have security; or does thought say that whatever movement however subtle, however obvious, reasonable, thought is still limited. But K does not say that. K goes further into abstractions.
进入一种抽象。 我说思想和思想者本质上是一体的， 人之所以将它们分开，是为了自己的安全、持久和保险。 我们问，思想者是否认为思想是受限的，因此提出了超越的东西， 因为他必须安全； 或者思想是否说，无论活动有多么微妙，多么明显和合理，思想仍然是受限的。 但K没有这么说。K进一步深入到抽象。
I realize that thought and the thinker are very very limited and I do not stop there. To do so would be a purely materialistic philosophy. That is what many intellectuals in the east and west have come to. But they are always tethered, and being tethered, they expand but remain tied to a pole which is their experience, their belief.
我意识到思想和思想者非常受限，但我没有停留在那里。 这样做，就是纯粹唯物主义的哲学。那是东方和西方的许多智者都达到的一点。 但是他们总是被束缚， 由于这种束缚，不管他们如何扩展，都始终被绑在那一点上，也就是他们的经验，他们的信仰。
Now, if I can answer the question - does thought itself realize the limitations of itself, then what takes place? Knowing thought is energy, thought is memory, thought is the past, thought is time, suffering, then what takes place? It realizes that any movement of thought is consciousness, is the content of consciousness, and without the content there is no consciousness. Now what takes place? Is that observable or not? I do not invent God.
现在，如果我能回答这个问题 —— 思想本身是否意识到自己的局限性，那么，在发生什么？ 认识到思想是能量，思想是记忆，思想是过去，思想是时间、苦难，那么，在发生什么？ 它意识到任何思想运动都是意识，是意识中的内容，没有内容就没有意识。 在发生什么？那是否是可观察的？我没有发明上帝。
I do not say that. I never said you invent God. I say up to this point your position is material, rational, logical; suddenly you introduce another element.
我没有那么说。我从来没有说过你发明了上帝。 我说，到目前为止，你的立场是物质的、理性的、合乎逻辑的； 突然，你引入了另一个元素。
No. Look at it. Thought itself realizes - not the thinker who thinks it cannot and therefore posits super-consciousness, a higher self, God or whatever it will - but thought itself realizes that any movement it makes is within the field of time. Then what happens? Then thought becomes completely silent - this is an observable, testable fact. The silence is not the result of discipline. Then what happens?
不，你看。思想本身意识到 —— 不是因为思想者无能，所以假定了一个超级意识，一个更高的自我、上帝或者别的任何东西 —— 而是思想自己意识到它所做的任何运动都在时间的领域。 那么，在发生什么？那么，思想变得完全安静 —— 这是一个可观察、可测试的事实。 这种安静不是纪律的结果。那么，在发生什么？
Sir, let me ask you a question. In that state the registering of all noise goes on, the machine which registers, what is that thing?
先生，让我问你一个问题。 在那种状态下，所有的对噪音的记录都在继续，这台记录的机器，是什么东西？
The brain.
这颗大脑。
The brain is the material. So this registering goes on.
大脑是物质。所以这个记录在继续。
It goes on all the time, whether I am conscious or unconscious.
它一直在继续，无论我是有意识的，还是无意识的。
You may not name it but the sense of existence goes on.
你可能没有说出它的名字，但存在感还在继续。
No, you are using the word "existence" but recording goes on. I want to make the difference here.
不，你在用“存在”这个词，而是记录还在继续。我想这是有区别的。
Let us not move away. It is not that all existence is wiped out. It would be if thought ends.
让我们不要离开。并不是说所有的存在都被消灭了。如果思想结束了，那才会。
On the contrary.
恰恰相反。
Existence; the sense of existence "is".
存在；存在感就是“是”。
Life goes on but without the "me" as the observer. Life goes on, the registration goes on, memory goes on, but the "me" which thought has brought about, which is the content of consciousness, that "me" disappears; obviously because that "me" is the limited. Therefore thought as the "me" says "I am limited". It does not mean the body does not go on, but the centre, which is the activity as the self, as the "me", is not. Again that is logical because thought says I am limited. I will not create the "me" which is further limitation. It realizes it and it drops away.
生命在继续，但没有这位作为观察者的“我”。 生命在继续，记录在继续，记忆在继续， 但思想所带来的，也就是意识中的内容所带来的这个“我”，那位“我”消失了; 显然，因为那个“我”是受限的。因此，作为思想的‘我’说：“我是受限的”。 它并不意味着身体没有继续，而是这个中心，也就是自我的活动，这位“我”，没了。 这也是合乎逻辑的，因为思想说我是受限的。 我不会创造这位‘我’，这位‘我’是进一步的局限。它意识到了它，它就丢弃了。
Having said that thought creating the "me" is the limitation......
话虽如此，创造“我”的思想是这种局限......
Thought creating the "me" and the "me" realizing it is limited and therefore the "me" is not.
思想创造出这位‘我’，这位‘我’意识到它是受限的，因此‘我’消失了。
When this happens, why should I name what is going on as thought at all?
当这种情况发生时，我为什么要把那正在发生的命名为思想呢？
I am not naming anything. I realize that thought is the response of the past. The "me" is made up of various additions of thought which have created the "me", which is the past. The "me" is the past. The "me" projects the future. Now the whole phenomenon is a very small affair. That is all. Now what is the next question?
我没有命名任何东西。我意识到思想是过去的回应。 “我”是由各种思想的组装而形成的，这些思想创造出“我”，也就是这个过去。 “我”是这个过去。“我”投射出这个未来。 现在，这整个现象，是一件非常小的事情。仅此而已。 现在，下一个问题是什么？
What has the state of this hopelessness to do with God?
这种绝望的状态与上帝有什么关系？
It is not a state of hopelessness. On the contrary, you have introduced the quality of hopelessness because thought has said it cannot go beyond itself and therefore it is in despair. Thought realizes that whatever movement it makes it is still within the field of time, whether it calls it despair, fulfilment, pleasure, fear.
它不是绝望的状态。相反，你引入了绝望的品质 因为思想说它不能超越自己，因此它处于绝望之中。 思想意识到，无论它做什么运动，它仍然在时间的领域内，无论它称之为绝望、满足、快乐还是恐惧。
So the realization of the limitations is a state of despair.
所以意识到局限性是一种绝望的状态。
No, you are introducing despair. I am only saying despair is part of thought. Hope is part of thought and that thought says any movement I make, whether it is despair, pleasure, fear, attachment, detachment, is a movement of thought. When thought realizes all this is a movement of itself in different forms, it stops. Now let us proceed further.
不，你在引入绝望。 我只是说，绝望是思想的一部分。希望是思想的一部分，而那个思想说 我所做的任何运动，无论是绝望、快乐、恐惧、依恋、超脱，都属于思想运动。 当思想意识到这一切都属于它自己的运动，以不同的形式而呈现，那么，它停下了。 现在，让我们继续。
I want to ask you a question. You said existence goes on without the "me". What or who proceeds further?
我想问你一个问题。 你说没有‘我’，存在继续。是什么，或者，是谁在继续？
We have moved away from the word "God".
我们已经远离了“上帝”这个词。
If my using the word "God" is very much within the field of thought, I have put it aside. Now I am moving with that. Therefore I am saying if thought as the "me" has ended, what is the instrument of investigation?
如果我在思想领域之内使用“上帝”这个词，那么，我把它放在一边。 现在，我正在移动。 因此，我说，如果作为“我”的思想已经结束，那么，这个调查的工具是什么？
We have come to a point where there is no movement of thought. Investigating into itself so profoundly as we are doing now, so completely, so logically, thought has ended. It is now asking what is the new factor that comes into being which is going to investigate or what is the new instrument of investigation. What is the instrument? It is not the old instrument. Right? The intellect, its sharpness of thought, the quality of thought, the objectivity, thought that has created tremendous confusion; all that has been denied.
我们已经到了没有思想运动的点。 我们现在，如此深刻地调查自己，如此地彻底，如此地合乎逻辑，思想已经结束了。 现在问，将要去调查的新的因素是什么， 或者说，新的调查工具是什么。 工具是什么？它不是旧工具。对吗？ 作为思想的智力，它的敏锐，思想的品质，这种客观性，造成了巨大混乱的思想； 所有这些都被否认了。
Thought is word and meaning. If in consciousness, there is movement where there is no word and meaning, there is something else operating. What is this?
思想是言词和意义。 如果在意识中，存在这种运动，里面没有词和意义，而是其他东西在运作。这是什么？
We have said thought is the past, thought is the word, thought is meaning, thought is the result of suffering. And thought says I have tried to investigate and my investigation has led me to see my own limitations. Now what is the next question? What is investigation then? If you see clearly the limitations, then what is happening?
我们说过，思想是过去，思想是言词，思想是意义，思想是痛苦的结果。 思想说，我试图调查，我的调查使我看到了自己的局限性。 现在，下一个问题是什么？ 那么，什么是调查？如果您清楚地看到这种限制，那么，在发生什么？
Only the seeing.
只有这种看。
No, seeing is visual and the sensory seeing depends on the word, the meaning.
不，看是视觉的，感官的视觉取决于这个词，这种意义。
After what we have said, there is only seeing which operates.
在我们说了之后，在操作的，只有看。
I want to be clear. The seeing with sensory perception, you say, is there. We have gone beyond that.
我想说清楚。你说，感官上的视觉在运转。我们已经超越了那。
When you use the word seeing, is it a state where all the instruments are functioning?
当你使用“看”这个词时，是所有的工具都在运作的一种状态吗？
Absolutely.
当然。
If there is one instrument functioning at a time, then it is tethered to thought. When there is seeing and no listening, it is tethered to thought. But when all the sensory instruments are functioning, then there is nothing to be tethered to. That is the only thing one can know. That is existence. Otherwise there would be death.
如果一次只有一个工具在起作用，那么它就受到思想的束缚。 当有看而没有听时，它就被思想所束缚。 但是，当所有的感官工具都在运作时，那么，就没有什么被束缚了。 那是一个人唯一能知道的事情。那就是存在。否则就会死。
We agree, then what is the next question? What is perception then? What is investigation there? What is there to investigate? What is there to explore? Right? What have you to say; you have all become silent?
我们同意，那么下一个问题是什么？什么是感知？ 那里，调查是什么？有什么要调查的？在那里探索什么？对吗？ 你有什么要说的；你们都安静了？
When thought has come to an end there is nothing more to investigate.
当思想结束的时候，就没有什么可调查的了。
When thought comes to an end, then what more is there to investigate? Then who is the investigator? And what is the result of investigation? Now which is it? What is there to investigate, or who is the instrument or what is the instrument that investigates?
当思想结束的时候，还有什么需要调查？ 那么调查者是谁？调查结果是什么？现在，到底是哪一个呢？ 要调查的是什么，或者这个工具是谁，或者调查的工具是什么？
One has always regarded investigation as moving towards a point.
一个人一直以为，调查是朝着一个点前进的。
Is it a forward movement?
它是一个向前的移动吗？
We are trying to investigate God, truth, but as thought has ended, there is no point towards which there can be movement.
我们试图调查上帝，真理， 但随着思想的结束，没有一个可以朝向它移动的点。
Go slow; do not say anything categorically. All that you can say is that there is no movement, no forward movement. Forward movement implies thought and time. That is all I am trying to get at. When you really deny that, you deny movement, outward or inward, then what takes place?
慢慢来；不要断然的说任何事物。 你只能说没有移动，没有向前的移动。 前进意味着思想和时间。那就是我想要表达的全部内容。 当你真正地否定了那，你拒绝移动，向外或向內，那麼，在發生什麼？
Now begins an investigation of a totally different kind. First of all, the mind, the brain realizes it wants order, security, safety to function sanely, happily, easily. That is its basic demand. Now the brain realizes that any movement from itself is within the field of time and therefore, within the field of thought; then is there a movement at all? Or is there a totally different kind of movement, qualitatively different, which is not related to time, to process, to the forward or backward movements?
现在，开始一种完全不同的调查。 首先，这颗头脑，这个大腦意識到它想要秩序、安全、保障，以正常地、快樂地、輕鬆地运转。 那是它的基本要求。现在，这颗大脑意识到，来自于它自己的任何运动都在时间的领域内。 因此，在这思想领的域内；那么，究竟还有没有运动？ 或者，有一种完全不同的运动，质的不同，一种与时间、过程、前进或后退无关的运动？
Now we are asking, is there any other movement? Is there something which is not related to time? Any movement as far as the brain is concerned, is within the field of time, outwardly or inwardly. I see that. The brain realizes that though it may think that it is extended infinitely, it is still very small. Now, is there a movement which is not related to thought? This question is put by the brain, not by some super-entity. The brain realizes that any movement in time is sorrow. So it abstains from any movement, naturally. Then it is asking itself if there is any other movement which it really does not know, which it has never tasted?
现在，我们要问，还有其它的运动吗？什么东西与时间无关？ 就大脑而言，任何运动都在时间的领域内，向外的或向内的。 我看见那。这颗大脑意识到，尽管它可能认为它是无限延伸的，但它依然非常小。 现在，存在一种与思想无关的运动吗？这个问题是由大脑提出的，而不是由某个超级实体提出的。 大脑意识到，在时间中的任何运动都是悲伤。所以，它自然会放弃任何一个运动。 然后，它问它自己，是否还有一种它真的不知道的、从未品尝过的运动？
That means one has to go back to the question of energy. There is human energy and cosmic energy. We have separated energy as human and cosmic. I have always been looking at human energy as separate, limited, incomplete within its limited field. Now the battle is over. Do you follow what I mean? Do you see it?
那意味着，一个人必须回到这个能源的问题上。有人类的能源和宇宙的能源。 我们已经将能源分为人类的和宇宙的。 我一直认为人类的能源是独立的、受限的、不完整的，在它有限的领域内。 现在，这场战斗结束了。你明白我的意思吗？你看到它了吗？
I have always regarded the movement of energy as being within the limited field and separated it from cosmic, universal energy. Now thought has realized its limitation and therefore, human energy has become something entirely different. The division - the cosmic and the human - is created by thought. The division ceases and another factor has entered. To a mind which is not centred within itself, there is no division.
我一直认为能源的运动是在有限的领域内， 并将它与宇宙、宇宙的能源分开。 现在，思想已经意识到它的局限性，因此，人类的能源已经变得完全不同。 这种分裂 —— 宇宙和人类 —— 是由思想创造的。 分裂消亡了，另一个因素进入。 对于一个不以自身为中心的头脑来说，并不存在着分裂。
Then what is there to investigate or what is the instrument of investigation? There is investigation but not the investigation to which I am used - the exercising of intellect, of reason, and all the rest of it. And this investigation is not intuition. Now, the brain realizes that in itself there is no division. Therefore, the brain is not divided in itself as cosmic, human, sexual, scientific, business. Energy has no division.
那么，有什么要调查的，或者调查的工具是什么？ 有调查，但不是我所常用的调查 —— 智力、理性和其它一切的练习。 这种调查也不是直觉。现在，这颗大脑意识到它自己没有分裂。 因此，大脑自身并没有被分为宇宙、人类、性、科学、商业。能源没有分裂。
Then what takes place? We started by asking if thought is materialistic? Thought is material, because brain is matter; thought is the result of the material; thought may be abstract but it is the result of the material. Obviously it is. Few have gone beyond.
那么，在发生什么？我们首先问：思想是物质吗？ 思想是物质的，因为大脑是物质；思想是物质的结果； 思想可能是抽象的，但它是物质的结果。 显然是这样。很少有人超越。
The meaning of the body is consciousness; literally what is the meaning of existence?
身体的意义是意识；从字面上看，存在的意义是什么？
What is the meaning of this room? Let us begin. Emptiness, because emptiness is created by the four walls and in that emptiness, I can put a chair and use the room.
这个房间的意义是什么？让我们开始吧。 空无，因为空无是由四面墙所创造的，在这种空无中，我可以放一把椅子并使用这个房间。
The room has meaning because "P" lives there.
这个房间有意义，因为普普尔住在里面。
Furnishes, lives, fears, hopes, quarrels.
家具、生活、恐惧、希望、争吵。
What is consciousness and you say the content, but I am asking more. What is the meaning, not the description?
什么是意识，你说的是内容，但我问的更多。 它有什么意义，而不只是描述？
The question of meaning is only for meaning.
意义问题只是为了意义。
"F" means something more. The meaning of my existence. None at all......
“莫”意味着更多的东西。我存在的意义。完全没有……
Is there no question of your wanting to have meaning? What is the meaning of Krishnamurti? Can you negate the self? Then you are guillotined. The individual within, the censor, existence, consciousness, body; there is the more - the abstract soul; ultimately a soul around which everything impinges. Can you negate that?
难道你不问‘你想要有意义’的问题吗？ 克里希那穆提的含义是什么？你能否定这位自我吗？然后你就被送上断头台了。 这位内在的个体，审查者，存在，意识，身体；还有更多 —— 抽象的灵魂； 最终是一个灵魂，一切都围绕着它起作用。你能否定那个吗？
The soul is the "me".
灵魂就是这位“我”。
It is that which is the difficulty. There is a validity in "F"'s question because the self is the most difficult thing to negate. If you attempt to negate the "ego" and the self you never will. But if you proceed as we have just done, that is all that is necessary.
困难就在于此。 “莫”的问题有道理，因为自我是最难否定的东西。 如果你试图否定“自我”，这位我，你永远不会。 但是，如果你象我们刚才所做的那样去做，就是那样，那是必要的。
What is the meaning of all this? Why should the "me" end? The meaning of the atoms is organism, the meaning of organism is consciousness. Why should it stop there?
这一切的意义是什么？为什么“我”应该结束？ 原子的意义是有机体，有机体的意义是意识。为什么它应该止步于此？
It does not stop there. It stops there only when thought realizes its limitations. Let us come back. What is the instrument that is going to investigate, in which there is no separation, in which there is no investigator and the investigated? I see thought has really no meaning. It has meaning only within its small field. Now it asks what there is to discover - not as a discoverer discovering something.
它没有停在那里。只有当思想意识到自己的局限时，它才会停在那里。 让我们回来吧。 要调查的工具是什么，其中没有分裂，其中没有调查者和被调查者？ 我看到，思想真的没有意义。它只在它小小的领域内有意义。 现在它问，有什么要发现的 —— 而不是作为一个发现者去发现某个东西。
What is the movement which is neither inward nor outward? Is it death? Is it the total negation of everything? Then what takes place? What is investigation? When thought ends, we include everything in it; we include the meaning, consciousness, the content of consciousness, despair, failure, success. It is all within that field. When that ends, then what takes place?
什么是既不向内又不向外的运动？ 它是死亡吗？是对一切的彻底否定吗？那么，在发生什么？什么是调查？ 当思想结束时，我们把一切包括在它里面； 我们包括了意义、意识、意識的內容、絕望、失敗、成功。 这一切都在这个领域内。当这一切结束时，在发生什么？
The brain exists, the recording - the part which is registering. The registering goes on. It must go on, otherwise, it would become insane, but there is the whole, which is totally quiet. Thought is no more involved. Thought does not enter into that field at all. Thought enters into a very small field of the brain.
这颗大脑存在，在记录 —— 作记录的那部分。 这种记录在继续。 它必须继续，否则，它可能变得疯狂。而这个整体，它是完全安静的。 思想不再参与。思想根本不会进入那个领域。 思想进入这颗大脑的一个非常小的领域。
It is a fact that we use only a millionth part of our brain.
事实是，我们只使用了大脑百万分之一的部分。
There is the other part.
还有另一部分。
There is no reason to suppose that the remnants of the brain which are not used, can become anything more than other parts of consciousness.
没有理由假设大脑中未被使用的残余部分能变成比意识的其他部分更多的东西。
No, do look at it.
不，看看吧。
Even biologically, you are not correct. The size of the brain which is usable, determines the extent of consciousness If you use more, consciousness will be greater.
即使在生物学上，你也不正确。可使用的脑容量决定了意识的范围。如果你使用更多，意识就会更大。
The old brain is very limited. The entire brain is the new which has not been used. The entire quality of the brain is new; thought which is limited, functions in a limited field. The old brain is not active because the limited has ceased.
旧大脑非常有限。整个大脑是尚未被使用的新东西。 大脑的整个品质是新的；有限的思想在一个有限的领域内运作。 旧大脑不再活跃，因为有限已经停止了。
You know what you are saying? If you see a little part of the brain as limited, limitation ends.
你知道你在说什么吗？如果你把大脑的一小部分视为有限，局限就结束了。
No, limitation goes on.
不，局限仍在继续。
But because it does not take over the whole part, nor limit itself to itself the rest of the brain, which is not used, becomes operable. Then this is again a totally materialist position.
但由于它既没有接管整个部分，也没有把自己局限在自身之内， 大脑中未被使用的其余部分就变得可操作了。 那么这又是一个完全唯物主义的位置。
Agreed. Carry on further.
同意。继续往下说。
That is all, there is nothing more to discuss.
仅此而已，没有什么可讨论的了。
I have an objection. Even if the entire brain is used fully, it will still only be consciousness; it will be a tremendously enlarged consciousness.
我有一个反对意见。 即使整个大脑被充分使用，它仍然只是意识；它会是一个极度扩大的意识。
Depending if there is a centre.
取决于是否有一个中心。
If there is a centre, then you are not using the other.
如果有一个中心，那么你就没有在使用“另一个”。
We have been operating only within the limited. Now if you move into the other, how do you know that that consciousness has not a focalizing tendency?
我们一直在有限之内运作。现在如果你进入“另一个”，你怎么知道那种意识没有聚焦的倾向？
Focalizing takes place when thought operates as pain, despair, success, when thought operates as the "me". When the "me" is silent, where is consciousness?
当思想作为痛苦、绝望、成功而运作时，当思想作为“我”而运作时，聚焦就发生了。 当“我”沉默时，意识在哪里？
After that, it all becomes conjecture. You presume the only factor that can project the centre is disappointment, hurt. Thought is limited. And therefore, it projects itself. Why should focalization depend upon limitation?
在那之后，一切都变成了推测。你假定能够投射中心的唯一因素是失望、伤害。 思想是有限的。因此，它投射自身。为什么聚焦要依赖于局限呢？
Focalization takes place when thought is functioning.
当思想在运作时，聚焦就发生了。
If thought ceases with its meaning and word, if thought ceases, whatever becomes operable is not recognizable as word and meaning.
如果思想连同其意义和词语一起停止， 如果思想停止了，那么任何变得可操作的东西都无法被识别为词语和意义。
You are becoming very narrow. I am still legitimately questioning the point that frustration is the only point of focalization.
你变得非常狭隘了。 我仍然在合理地质疑“挫败是聚焦的唯一焦点”这一点。
I included everything, not only frustration but everything in the field of time. Now I see that the brain cells have operated in a very small field and that small field with its limited energy has created all the mischief. The old brain becomes quiet. What we have called quietness is limitation becoming quiet. The noise of that has ended and that is the silence of limitation. When thought realizes that, then the brain itself, the whole brain, becomes quiet.
我包括了所有一切，不仅是挫败，而是时间领域内的一切。 现在我看到，脑细胞在一个非常小的领域里运作， 而那带着有限能量的小领域制造了所有混乱。 旧大脑变得安静。我们所谓的安静就是局限变得安静。 它的噪音结束了，那就是局限的寂静。 当思想认识到这一点时，大脑本身、整个大脑，就变得安静了。
Yet it registers.
然而它仍在记录。
Of course. Noise is going on.
当然。噪音仍在继续。
Existence continues.
存在在继续。
Existence without any continuance. Then what? The whole brain becomes quiet, not the limited part.
没有任何连续性的存在。然后呢？整个大脑变得安静，而不是有限的部分。
It is the same thing to us.
对我们来说，这是同一回事。
If you do not know the other, and the other is not operable, what becomes quiet for us is only limitation.
如果你不知道“另一个”，而“另一个”又不可操作，那么对我们来说变得安静的只是局限。
Therefore, that quietness is not quietness.
因此，那种安静并不是安静。
This is something new which you are introducing.
这是你在引入的新东西。
What makes you say we are not using the whole brain?
是什么让你说我们没有使用整个大脑？
I am saying my total brain is functioning but I am not conscious because I am enclosing myself within the limited field.
我是说我的整个大脑都在运作，但我没有意识，因为我把自己封闭在有限的领域里。
Please stop first the movement of thought, then see what happens.
请先停止思想的运动，然后看看会发生什么。
When the movement of thought stops, things happen on their own and then is the enquiry of what happens necessary?
当思想的运动停止时，事情自行发生，那么对发生之事的探究还有必要吗？
I want to ask one question here. You have said that the ending of the limitation of "me" as thought, is not silence.
我想在这里问一个问题。 您说过，作为思想的“我”的局限的结束，并不是寂静。
That is the beauty of it.
这就是其中的美妙之处。
Let me get the feeling of it. Please say it again.
让我感受一下。请再说一遍。
I said when thought with its limitations says it is silent, it is not silent. Silence is when the total quality of the brain is still; the total thing, not just part of it.
我说过，当带着其局限的思想说“我是寂静的”时，它并不是寂静的。 寂静是当大脑的整体品质静止时；是整体，而不仅仅是它的一部分。
Why should the total brain become silent?
为什么整个大脑要变得寂静？
The total brain has always been quiet. What I have called silence is the ending of the "me; the thought which is rattling around. The rattling around is thought. The chattering around has stopped completely. When the chattering comes to an end, then there is a feeling of silence but that is not silence. Silence is when the total mind, the brain, though registering, is completely quiet, because energy is quiet. It may explode but the basis of energy is quiet. (Pause)
整个大脑一直都很安静。我所说的安静是‘我’的终结；这个嘎嘎作响的思想。 这种喋喋不休，就是思想。周围的喋喋不休已经完全停止了。 当喋喋不休结束时，就会有一种安静的感觉，但那不是安静。 当整个头脑、这个大脑，尽管在记录，完全地静下来时，才是安静，因为能源是安静的。 它可能会爆炸，但能源的基础是静。（暂停）
Now, there is passion only when sorrow has no movement. Have you understood what I have said? Sorrow is energy. When there is sorrow there is the movement of escape by understanding it, by suppressing it, but when there is no movement at all in sorrow there is an explosion into passion. Now the same thing takes place when there is no movement - outward or inward; when there is no movement of silence which the limited "me" has created for itself in order to achieve something more. When there is absolute silent, total silence, therefore no movement of any kind, when it is completely quiet, there is a totally different kind of explosion which is......
现在，只有当悲伤没有动静时，才会有激情。你理解我说的话了吗？ 悲伤是能量。当有悲伤時，就有通过理解它、压抑它而产生的逃避 但是，当悲伤中完全没有动静时，就会爆发出激情。 现在，当没有运动时 —— 外在或内在的，同样的事情在发生； 受限的“我”为了获取更多的东西而为自己创造出安静 —— 当这种运动停下时。 当有绝对的安静，完全的安靜，因此，沒有任何形式的运动， 当它完全安静时，有一种完全不同的爆炸，那就是……
Which is God.
是上帝。
I refuse to use the word "God" but this state is not an invention. It is not a thing put together by cunning thought because thought is completely without movement. That is why it is important to explore thought and not the "other".
我拒绝使用“上帝”这个词，但这种状态不是发明。 它不是由狡猾的思想拼凑起来的东西，因为思想完全没有运动。 那就是为什么探索思想而不是“另一个”的很重要的原因。