There was something which Krishnaji said in his talk yesterday. I do not know whether it will bear discussion. It was a very startling statement. The question he posed was whether the brain cells could strip themselves of everything except the movement of survival, the pure biological necessity which alone makes the organism exist? Krishnaji seemed to suggest that before any movement in the new dimension could take place, this total stripping to the bare bedrock was essential. In a sense he was totally back to the materialistic position.

在昨天的谈话中，克里希那吉说了一些东西。 我不知道它是否值得讨论。它是一个非常令人吃惊的陈述。 他所提出的问题是： 脑细胞能剥离它们所拥有的一切， 而只留下维持这个有机体生存的机能吗？ 克里希那吉似乎暗示： 在新维度的任何运动发生之前， 这种完全剥离，直到剩下裸露的基石，是至关重要的。 从某种意义上说，他完全回到了唯物主义的立场。

If you have survival as the dimension of existence, there is no other dimension. Can this bear investigation? Is such stripping of every element of consciousness as we have understood it, possible? We have always claimed that the human being is more than the urge for survival.

如果你把生存作为存在的维度，那就没有别的维度了。 这经得起调查吗？ 剥离我们所理解的意识的每一个因素，可能吗？ 我们一直声称，人类不仅仅只有生存的冲动。

Are the brain cells not the repository of culture?

脑细胞不是文化的宝库吗？

If you strip man of every psychological element except the urge for physical survival, how is he different from the animal?

如果你把人的所有心理因素都剥光了，只留下生理生存的冲动，他和动物有什么不同？

We know both biological and psychological survival. The biological exists on survival, but psychological factors have made that survival almost impossible.

我们知道，有两种生存 —— 生理上的和心理上的。 有机体的存在依赖于生存，但心理因素使那种生存几乎不可能。

You are now bringing in other elements.

你现在引入了其他因素。

There are these two elements - the biological and the psychological. Psychological elements like nationalism are preventing man from surviving. Psychological fragmentation is destroying the beauty of survival. Can one strip man of all the psychological factors?

有这两个因素 —— 有机体的和心理的。 民族主义等心理因素正在阻碍人的生存。 心理上的分裂正在摧毁生存的美。 一个人能剥离所有的心理因素吗？

Apart from the biological and psychological, is there anything else? You spoke of stripping yourself of all factors, not psychological. I am asking you is there any other element excepting the biological and the psychological?

除了有机体和心理，还有别的吗？ 你说的是剥夺你自己的所有因素，而不是心理的。 我问你，除了有机体和心理之外，还有其他因素吗？

As far as we know these are the only two factors that operate in man.

据我们所知，这是人仅有的两个因素。

Is there not such a factor as psychological survival, apart from the physiological?

除了生理之外，难道没有心理生存这个因素吗？

Which means the survival of the psyche. The psyche that is the result of environment, of heritage. Last evening when we used the word "consciousness", we said the whole of consciousness is the content of consciousness. The content of consciousness is conflict, pain; the whole of that is consciousness.

这意味着心灵的生存。心灵是环境的结果、遗传的结果。 昨晚当我们使用“意识”这个词时，我们说过，意识全部就是意识的内容。 意识的内容是冲突、痛苦；那一切就是意识。

You said also that intelligence is more than consciousness.

你也说过，智慧远不止是意识。

Wait. We said in understanding the fact of consciousness and going beyond it, is intelligence. You cannot come to that intelligence if this consciousness is in conflict. Now all that we know is biological survival and the survival of psychological consciousness. What is the next question?

等一下。我们说过，理解关于意识的这个事实，并且超越它，即是智慧。 要是这个意识处于冲突之中，你就无法来到那个智慧。 现在，我们知道，只有机体的生存和心理意识的生存。 下一个问题是什么？

You said or implied yesterday that there was a necessity to strip so that nothing existed but biological survival.

你昨天说过或暗示过 —— 有必要剥离，这样，除了有机体的生存之外，什么都不存在。

Can you not strip the whole content of consciousness which is psychological? In stripping, that intelligence is in operation. There is the biological and intelligence - there is no other.

你能剥离意识的全部内容，也就是心理内容吗？ 在剥离中，那种智慧就在运转。 这个有机体和智慧 —— 再没有其它的东西。

You did not speak of intelligence yesterday. You said when there is this total stripping and no other thing, that operation is the biological movement of survival and that perceives. Is there such a seeing?

你昨天没有提到智慧。 你说，当有了这种完全剥离，什么都不剩的时候， 那种运转是有机体的生存运动，在那运转中，有感知。有那样的看吗？

Then the mind is not merely the survival element, but there is another quality in it which perceives.

那么，这颗头脑不仅仅是这种生存的因素，里面还有另一种品质，而这种品质，即是感知。

What is that quality?

那种品质是什么？

What did "K" say yesterday?

“克”昨天说了些什么？

He said there is a stripping and there is only the movement of survival and that silence sees

他说了那是一种剥离，只有生存的运动，那种安静在看。

Perfectly true. Now what is silence? What is the nature of silence?

完全正确。现在，什么是安静？安静的本质是什么？

That seeing is something which we can affirm. But there was this other thing said, so that we cannot help asking if man is stripped of everything which we consider the elements of the human.....

那种看是某个我们可以肯定的东西。但还有另一个东西要说， 因此，我们不禁要问，人是否被剥离了我们认为是作为的人的一切要素……

Which is conflict, pain.

也就是冲突，痛苦。

Not only that, compassion -

不是只有那些，还有慈 ——

We consider that man is human as opposed to the animal. What are the things which differentiate man - intelligence, the capacity to analyse, speech -

我们认为人是人类，而不是动物。 区分人的东西是什么 —— 智慧、分析能力、言语 ——

Man is a language animal. Language and man are co-related. And that is the mark of man that distinguishes him from the rest of the animal world. What language does to man is to enable him to say "I am I". And the moment he goes beyond it, he speculates, projects; he says "I am I" and in that "I" you can bring in the whole cosmology. There is no language for the other.

人是一种语言动物。语言和人是相互关联的。 这就是人类区别于动物世界其他部分的标志。 语言对人的作用是使人能够说“我就是我”。当他超越它的那一刻，他推测，投射； 他说“我是我”，在那个“我”中，你可以引入整个宇宙学。没有语言可以代表另一个。

And one more thing. Because of language, man has been able to evolve culture and he cannot go back to the biological stage.

还有一件事。因为语言，人类已经能够进化出文化，他不能回到有机体阶段。

In twenty-five thousand years of evolution, of thinking, of speaking and so on, there is very little change in man; the environment has changed, but fundamentally there is very little change in man.

在两万五千年的进化、思考、说话等等中，人几乎没有什么变化； 环境已经改变，但从根本上说，人类几乎没有变化。

Yes.

是的。

One says right, or I accept what "B" or "D" says, but still I am aware "I am". That statement is where it is.

普：一个人说，是的，或者我接受“芭”或“德”所说的，但我仍然知道“我是”。 那句话就是这样。

"B" is saying very simply: strip man of all the psychological factors and what is the difference between animal and man? Oh, there is a vast difference.

“芭”说的很简单：把人所有的心理因素都剥光了，动物和人有什么区别？ 哦，有一种巨大的不同。

The moment you posit a difference, then you are investigating something else.

当你假设一种不同的那一刻，那么你正在调查别的东西。

Man is aware of himself and the animal is not; that is the only distinction.

人觉察他自己，而动物没有；那是唯一的区别。

Let us go back. There is psychological survival. We want to survive psychologically and also biologically.

我们回去。有心理上的生存。我们希望有心理上的和有机体上的生存。

I say there is something else.

我说还有别的。

We will have to find out. Merely to posit that there is something else has no meaning.

我们必须找出答案。仅仅假设有别的东西是没有意义的。

But you say all other aspects of the human being have ended.

但是，你说人类的所有其他方面都已经结束了。

When conflict, misery, pain have ended......

当冲突、苦难、痛苦结束的时候……

As also the fantasy, the wonder, imagination; that which has made man reach out, reach in.

还有幻想、奇迹、想象力；使人伸出援手，伸手进去。

"K" said both the outer and the inner.

“K”说了这两者，外在的和内在的。

Do you mean to say there is intelligence which manifests itself in stripping?

你的意思是说，在剥离中，智慧显露？

Listen carefully. My consciousness is all the time trying to become, change, modify, struggle, etc. That is all I know. Biological survival and that. Everybody operates within these two. And within that struggle we project something beyond consciousness which is still within consciousness because it is projected. The mind that really wants to be free from the wrangle, the back-chattering asks, can the mind strip "itself" of all the content of "itself"? That is all. (Pause.) And in that, intelligence comes to be.

仔细听。我的意識一直在試圖成為、改變、修改、掙扎等等。 那就是我所知道的。生理生存等等。每个人都在这两者之内运作。 在这场挣扎中，我们投射出超越意识的东西，而这种东西仍然在意识之内，因为它是被投射出来了。 这颗头脑真地想要摆脱这种争吵、喋喋不休，问： 这颗头脑能把“它自己”的所有内容都剥光吗？仅此而已。（暂停。） 在那里，智慧出现了。

Is stripping, emptying an endless process?

剥离、清空是一个无止境的过程吗？

Certainly not. Because then I am caught in the same phenomenon.

当然不是。因为那样我就陷入了同样的现象中。

Let us pause here. Is it not an endless process?

让我们在这里停一下。这难道不是一个无止境的过程吗？

It is not an endless process.

这不是一个无止境的过程。

You mean, once it is done, it is done?

你的意思是，一旦完成了，就完成了？

Let us go slowly. You must first understand this verbally. My consciousness is made up of all that we have talked about.

让我们慢慢来。你首先必须在言语上理解这一点。 我的意识是由我们所谈论的一切组成的。

Is the emptying of it, does it take time or is it free of time? Is it piecemeal? Or is it an emptying of the whole?

它的清空，是需要时间还是不受时间影响？ 是零碎的？还是整体的清空？

Is that the question? The piecemeal and the whole? Is that the question?

那是问题吗？零碎与整体？那是问题吗？

You see, putting the question as the piecemeal and the whole is the query. What is revealed is the whole which contains the piece.

你看，把问题表述为零碎与整体就是疑问所在。 所揭示的是包含部分的整体。

Stripping has to be a joint process.

剥离必须是一个联合的过程。

Discuss it.

讨论一下。

What is it that one strips? Or what is it that one perceives? Or is there dissolution of that which emerges? There cannot be dissolution of anything else. What emerges is thought.

一个人剥离的是什么？或者说一个人感知的是什么？ 还是说，是对显现之物的消解？不可能有任何其他东西的消解。显现的就是思想。

If all these go what remains?

如果所有这些都消失了，剩下的是什么？

When you say all goes, what does it mean?

当你说一切都消失时，那是什么意思？

Only awareness remains. Is complete awareness the whole?

只剩下觉察。完整的觉察就是整体吗？

Yes.

是的。

She says Yes. What is the question?

她说是的。问题是什么？

Is the awareness of a point of consciousness - such as jealousy - is the awareness of that one thing, the totality of all consciousness?

对意识中某一点——比如嫉妒——的觉察，对那一个东西的觉察，就是所有意识的整体吗？

When you use the word "aware", what do you mean by that word "aware"? If you mean aware of the implications - in which there is no choice, no will, no compulsion, no resistance - obviously it is so.

当你使用“觉察”这个词时，你说的“觉察”是什么意思？ 如果你指的是觉察到其中的含义 ——其中没有挑剔、没有意志、没有强迫、没有抗拒 ——显然是的。

So at any point this is possible?

所以在任何一点上这都是可能的？

Of course.

当然。

Yes, because that is the door; the door of dissolution.

是的，因为那就是门；消解之门。

No. Hold it a minute.

不。等一下。

I used that word "door" deliberately.

我是故意使用“门”这个词的。

Hold on. Let us begin slowly because I want to go step by step. My consciousness is made up of all this. My consciousness is part of the whole, both at the superficial and at the deeper level and you are asking, is there any awareness which is so penetrating that in that very awareness the whole is present? Or is it bit by bit? Is there a search, is there a looking in, an analysing?

等等。让我们慢慢开始，因为我想一步一步来。我的意识由这一切组成。 我的意识是整体的一部分，无论是在表层还是深层，而你在问： 是否存在一种如此透彻的觉察，以至于在那觉察之中整体就呈现了？还是说是一点一点的？ 是否存在寻求、向内看、分析？

The yogic position is that nature is a flowing river. In that flow, man's organism comes into being. As soon as it comes into being, it has also the capacity to choose and the moment it chooses, it separates itself from the now, from the river. This is a process of separation from the flow and the only thing which brings this into being is choice. Therefore, they say the dissolution of choice may bring you to total emptiness and in that emptiness you see.

瑜伽的立场是，自然是一条流动的河流。在那流动中，人的有机体产生了。 一旦它产生，它也有挑选的能力， 而一旦它挑选，它就使自己与当下、与河流分离。 这是一个与流动分离的过程，而带来这种分离的唯一东西就是挑选。 因此，他们说，挑选的消解可能会带你进入完全的空虚，在那空虚中你看到。

Right sir, that is one point. "P"s question was, is this awareness, this process of stripping bit by bit? Is this awareness in which there is no choice, the total? Does it empty the whole of consciousness? Does it go beyond consciousness?

对的，先生，那是一个观点。“P”的问题是：这种觉察、这种一点一点剥离的过程，是这样的吗？ 这种不挑选的觉察，就是整体吗？ 它能清空整个意识吗？它能超越意识吗？

Supposing I cease to choose, is that stripping?

假设我停止挑选，那就是剥离吗？

Is there an end to stripping?

剥离有终点吗？

Or is it a constant process?

还是一个持续的过程？

And the second question was where there is intelligence is there stripping?

第二个问题是：哪里有智慧，哪里就有剥离吗？

Let us start with the first question which is good enough. What do you say? Discuss it.

让我们从第一个问题开始，这个问题就够了。你怎么说？讨论一下。

It is one of those extraordinary questions where you can neither say "Yes" nor "No".

这是那些你既不能说“是”也不能说“否”的非凡问题之一。

It hangs on time or no time. If it is invited, it is time.

它取决于有时间还是没有时间。如果它是被邀请的，那就是时间。

If you say it is not a question of time then it is not a process. five minutes later it will emerge again. So this question cannot be answered.

如果你说这不是时间的问题，那么它就不是一个过程。 五分钟后它又会再次出现。所以这个问题无法回答。

The word is swarupa shunyata. The observer becomes empty. He is stripped.

这个词是swarupa shunyata。观察者变为空。他被剥光了。

Now is that awareness to be cultivated which implies time? How does this awareness come into being in which there is no observer? Are we meeting each other? How is this awareness to come about? Is it the result of time? If it is, then it is part of consciousness in which choice exists. And you say awareness is not choice. It is observation in which there is no observer. Now how is that to come about without consciousness interfering? Or does it come out of consciousness? Does it flower out of consciousness? Or is it free of consciousness?

现在，这种觉察是要培养的吗，培养意味着时间？ 这种觉察是如何在没有观察者的情况下形成的？我们相互碰面了吗？ 这种觉察是如何产生的？是时间的结果吗？ 如果是，那么它就是意识的一部分，挑选存于其中。 你说，觉察不是挑选。它是没有观察者的观察。 现在，如何在没有意识干扰的情况下做到这一点？ 或者它来自于意识？它是意识的绽放吗？ 或者，是意识的解放？

It is free of consciousness.

它是意识的解放。

I want to ask two things. Does it come about when I ask the question "who am I? ""

我想问两件事。当我问“我是谁？”这个问题时，它会出现吗？

All the traditionalists have asked that question.

所有的传统主义者都问过这个问题。

But it is an essential question. When I really try to investigate the source of the ego itself, that is the one question. Or does awareness come about when one tries to discover the observer?

但这是一个重要的问题。 当我真正地试图调查自我的本源时，那就是一个问题。 或者，当一个人试图发现观察者时，觉察就会产生？

No. The moment you try, you are in time.

不是。当你尝试的那一刻，你就在时间中。

It is a question of language, of semantics. You can strip at any point. Where is the observer? We are taking for granted that the observer "is".

这是一个语言问题，语义问题。您可以随时剥离。 观察者在哪里？我们理所当然地认为观察者“在”。

Let us begin slowly. One sees what consciousness is. Any movement within that field, any movement is still a process of time. It may try to be or not to be, it may try to go beyond, it may try to invent something beyond consciousness, but it is still part of time. So I am stuck.

让我们慢慢开始。一个人看到意识是什么。 在那个领域内的任何运动，任何的运动，依然是一个时间的过程。 它可能試圖存在或去死，它可能嘗試超越，它可能試圖發明超越意識的東西，但它仍然是時間的一部分。 所以，我被困住了。

I want to use words which are not your words. So I have rejected all your words. I have to use my own instruments. What is the element in me which seems to me the most potent and powerful: It is the sense of the "I".

我想用不是你所用的词来表达。因此，我拒绝了你所有的言词。我必须使用我自己的仪器。 在我看来，我内在最有潜力和最强大的因素是什么：它是“我”的感觉。

Which is the past.

也就是这个过去。

I will not use your language. It is very interesting not to use your language. I say the most potent thing is the sense of the "I"? Now can there be a perception of the "I"?

我不会用你的语言。不使用您的语言非常有趣。 我说，最有力的是“我”的感觉？ 现在能不能对“我”有感知？

That is a wrong question. I will tell you why. You ask can I perceive the "I"? Now the "I" is nothing but an insatiable hunger for experience.

这是一个错误的问题。我会告诉你为什么。你问我能感知到“我”吗？ 现在的“我”，只不过是对体验的永不满足的渴望。

"P" began by asking "who am I?" Is the "me", the "I" an action of consciousness?

“普”首先问“我是谁？这位“我”、这个“吾”是意识的一种行为吗？

So I say let us look, let us investigate.

所以，我说让我们看看，让我们调查一下。

When I ask myself "who am I?", is that the central factor in consciousness?

当我问自己“我是谁？”时，那是意识的中心因素吗？

It seems so. And then I say let me see the "I", let me find it, perceive it, touch it.

它好像是。然后，我说让我看这位“我”，让我找出它，感知它，触摸它。

So you are asking, is this central factor perceivable sensorily? Is the central factor tactable, to be felt, to be tasted? Or is that central factor, the "I", something which the senses have invented.

所以，你在问，这个中心因素在感官上是可以感知的吗？ 这个核心因子是否可被感知、感受、被品味？ 或者说，那个核心因子，这位“我”，是某个感官发明的东西。

That comes later. First of all, I see whether it is tactable.

那是以后的事。首先，我看它是否可触摸。

When I have asked the question, "who am I?", one must also question who is investigating, who is asking the question "who am I?".

当我问“我是谁？”这个问题时， 一个人还必须质疑是谁在调查，谁在问“我是谁？”

I do not ask that question. I have asked that question over and over again. I have discussed awareness endlessly. I leave it, because the one thing which you have said is, do not accept one word which is not your own. I start looking. Is this "I" which is the central core of myself, is it tactable? I observe it in the surface layers, in the depth layers of my consciousness, in the hidden darkness and as I unfold it what takes place is a light within, an explosion, an extension within. Another factor that operates is that which has been exclusive becomes inclusive. So far I have been exclusive, now the world movement flows in.

我不问这个问题。我一遍又一遍地问过这个问题。我无休止地讨论意识。 我离开它，因为你说过的一件事是，不要接受一个不是你自己的词语。 我开始寻找。这个“我”，这个我自己的中心，是可触摸的吗？ 我在表层，在我意识的深层，在隐藏的黑暗中观察它。 当我展开它时，发生的是內在的光，爆炸，內在的延伸。 另一个运作的因素是，排它性的东西变得具有包容性。 到目前为止，我一直是排它性的，现在，这个世界的运动流入。

We see that.

我们看到那。

And I find this is not something which can be touched, perceived. What can be perceived is that which has been, which is a manifestation of this "I". I see I had a thought of this "I" in action, but it is already over. Then I explore - from where does thought emerge? Can I find the springs of thought? Or where does thought go? Can I pursue a thought? How far can I go with a thought? How far can I hold a thought? Can thought be held in consciousness? These are tangible things which I think the individual has to completely feel for himself.

我发现，那不是可触摸和感知的东西。 可感知的是曾经的，是这个“我”的体现。 我看到，我有一个‘我’的思想在活动，但它已经结束了。 然后我探索 —— 思想从哪里浮现？我能找到思想的源泉吗？ 或者思想去哪儿了？我可以追求一个思想吗？我能跟着一个思想走多远？ 我能抓住一个思想吗？思想可以被保持在意识中吗？ 这些是有形的东西，我认为需要本人亲自己去感觉。

We have gone through this. I thought we had done all this.

我们已经经历过这。我以为我们已经完成了这一切。

I say all this is awareness.

我说这一切都是觉察。

Let us be simple. When I ask "who am I?", who is asking the question? And one finds on investigation that the "I" is not observable, touchable, hearable, and so on. And so, is the "I" within the field of the senses? Or have the senses created the "I"?

简单一点。当我问“我是谁？”时，谁在问这个问题？ 一个人在调查中发现，这位“我”不是可观察的、可触摸的、可听的等等。 那么，“我”是否在感官领域内？还是感官创造了“我”？

The very fact that it is not within the field of the senses......

事实上，它不在感官领域之内……

Do not move away from that. Is it not also within the field of the senses? We jump too quickly. Is perceiving a visual perception or something else?

不要离开它。它不也在感官的领域之内吗？我们跳得太快了。 感知是视觉感知还是别的什么？

We are going into the nature of awareness. Now how does awareness arise?

我们正在进入觉察的本质。现在，觉察是如何冒出来呢？

I want to put aside everything Krishnaji has said and I find that the very enquiry, that the very investigation into the "I" creates light, intelligence.

我想把克里希那吉所说的一切都放在一边 我发现，正是这种询问，对“我”的调查，创造出光和智慧。

You are saying, the very enquiry brings about awareness. Obviously I did not say it did not.

你是说，询问本身就带来了觉察。显然我没有说不。

And in the enquiry one can only use certain instruments which are the senses. Whether the enquiry is outside or within, the only instruments which can be used are the senses, because that is all we know - the seeing, listening, feeling - and the field is illuminated. The field of the without and the field of the within is illuminated. Now in this state of illumination, you suddenly find that there has been a thought, but that it is already over.

在这询问中，一个人只能使用某些仪器，即感官。 无论询问是在外部还是内部，唯一可以使用的仪器是感官， 因为，这就是我们所知道的一切 —— 看、听、感觉 —— 场域被照亮。 外在的场和内在的场被照亮。 現在，在這種光照的狀態中，你突然發現有一个思想，但它已經結束了。

Thought exists in the field of relationship and observation. It does not exist by itself. It exists in observing relationship - the lamp.

思想存在于关系和观察的场域中。 它本身并不存在。它的存在，有赖于去观察关系 —— 这盏灯。

In this, if you ask is there a partial or total stripping, the question is irrelevant. It has no meaning.

在这里，如果你问，是否有部分或完整的剥离，这个问题无关紧要。它没有任何意义。

Wait a minute. I am not sure. Is perception partial? I have investigated through the senses, the senses creating the "I", investigating the "I". The activity brings a lightness, clarity. Not entire clarity, but some clarity.

等一下。我不确定。感知是局部的吗？ 通过感官，我进行调查，感官们创造出“我”，调查这位“我”。 这个活动带来一道光，一种清晰。不是完全的清晰，而是有些清晰。

I will not use the word some clarity, but clarity.

我不会用“有些清晰”这个词，而是“清晰”。

It brings clarity. We will stick to that. Is that clarity expandable?

它带来了清晰。我们将坚持这一点。这种清晰是可扩展的吗？

The nature of seeing is such, I can see here, and I can see there, depending on the power of the eye.

看的本质就是这样，我能看到这里，我能看到那里，这取决于眼睛的视力。

We said perception is not only visual but also non-visual. We said perception is that which illuminates.

我们说感知不仅是视觉的，也是非视觉的。我们说感知是照亮。

Here I would like to ask something. You have said that seeing is not only visual but non-visual. What is the nature of this non-visual seeing?

在这里，我想问一点。你说过，看不仅是视觉的，而且是非视觉的。 这种非视觉看，其本质是什么？

It is non-visual which is non-thinkable. It does not pertain to the word. It does not pertain to thought. That is all. Is visual perception non-verbal perception? The non-visual perception is the perception without the meaning, the expression, the thought. Is there a perception without thought? Now proceed.

它这种非视觉是不可想象的。它与这个词无关。它与思想无关。仅此而已。 视觉上的感知是非语言的感知吗？ 非视觉的感知是指，这种没有携带意义、表达和思想的感知。 没有思想，还有感知吗？现在，继续。

And that also is not such a difficult thing. I see there is such perception. Now that perception can see close, can see far.

那也不是一件困难的事情。我看到，有这样的感知。 现在，这个感知可以看近，可以看远。

Wait. Perception. We are talking only of perception. Not the duration, length, size or breadth of perception, but perception which is non-visual which is not deep perception or shallow perception. Shallow perception or deep perception comes only when thought interferes.

等等。感知。我们只谈论感知。不是感知的持续时间、长度、大小或广度， 而是非视觉的感知，不是深层的感知或浅表的感知。 浅表的感知或深层的感知只有在思想干扰时才会出现。

Now in that is there partial stripping or total stripping? We started with that.

现在，是部分的剥离，还是完整的剥离？我们是从这个问题开始的。

When there is non-verbal perception, what are you asking? What are you asking further?

当有了非语言的感知，你在问什么？你还要问什么？

She is asking, in every perception, there is the non-verbal element of mere perception. Then there is the psychological superimposition. The stripping refers only to the psychological superimposition. Is there a state of mind in which superimposition does not occur and there is no stripping?

她在问，在每一次感知中，都有单纯感知的非语言因素。 然后，是心理上的叠加。剥离仅指心理上的叠加。 有没有一种不发生叠加、没有剥离的心理状态？

That is right. Perception is perception. We are asking is there a perception in which stripping is not necessary?

没错。感知就是感知。我们在问，是否有一种不需要剥离的感知？

There is no such thing as an everlasting perception.

没有所谓的永恒的感知。

Is it identical with what you call intelligence?

它和你所说的智慧一样吗？

I do not know. Why are you asking that?

我不知道。你为什么这么问？

Because it is timeless.

因为它是非时间的。

Timeless means timeless. Why do you ask? Is perception which is non-verbal, is it not also non-time, non-thought? If you have answered this question you have answered that.

非时间意味着没有时间。你为什么这么问？ 感知是非语言的，不也是非时间的，非思想的吗？ 如果你回答这个问题，你也就回答了那一个。

There is the momentary time of the "now". And there is another timeless in which one moves and lives.

有“现在”的瞬间。还有另一种非时间的，一个人在其中移动和生活。

I do not understand what you say.

我不明白你所说的。

Still, perception can be sensory.

不过，感知可以是感官化的。

Now is there perception that is non-verbal and therefore not pertaining to thought? Then what is the question? A mind that is perceiving is not asking this question, it is perceiving. And each perception is perception. It is not carrying over perception. Where does the question of stripping or not stripping arise?

现在，有没有一种感知是非语言的，因此与思想无关？ 那么，问题是什么呢？一个正在感知的头脑不是在问这个问题，它在感知（覺察）。 每一次感知都是感知。它没有留下感知到的痕迹。 剥离或不剥离的问题从哪里冒出？

I say even in perception which is not linked with thought, perception is never carried into another thought. I see that lamp. The seeing has not been carried. Thought is only being carried.

我说，即使是在不与思想关联的感知中，感知也从未被带入另一个思想。 我看到那盏灯。看的行为没有被带走。只有思想被带走了。

That is obvious. My consciousness is my mind, is my brain cells, is the result of my sensory perceptions. That is my consciousness. That is all consciousness. That consciousness is the result of time, evolution, growth. It is expandable, contractable and so on. And thought is part of that. Now somebody comes along and asks "who am I?". Is the "I" the permanent entity in this consciousness?

那是显而易见的。我的意识就是我的头脑，是我的脑细胞，是我感官感知的结果。 那就是我的意识。那就是所有的意识。那种意识是时间、进化、成长的结果。 它是可扩展、可收缩的，等等。思想是其中的一部分。 现在有人过来问“我是谁？”。“我”是这个意识中永恒的实体吗？

It cannot be.

不可能是。

This "I" - is it consciousness?

这个“我”——它是意识吗？

It is not permanent.

它不是永恒的。

Consciousness is heritage. Of course it is.

意识是传承。当然是。

We are mixing the concept of consciousness, with the experience of consciousness.

我们把意识的概念和意识的经验混在一起了。

This is very clear. "I" is that consciousness.

这很清楚。“我”就是那个意识。

"I" has a great reality for me till I investigate.

在我探究之前，“我”对我来说具有很大的真实性。

Of course. The fact is after looking, observing, I see I am the whole of this consciousness. This is not a verbal statement. I am all that. I am the heritage. And is that "I" touchable, observable? Can it be felt, twisted? Is it the result of perception, of heritage?

当然。事实是，经过观察、审视之后，我看到我就是这整个意识。 这不是一个口头陈述。我就是那一切。我就是传承。那个“我”是可触摸、可观察的吗？ 它能被感觉到、被扭曲吗？它是感知、传承的结果吗？

It is not the result. It is the inherited.

它不是结果。它是被传承的。

And then she asks who is that "I"? Is that "I" part of consciousness, part of thought? I say yes. Thought is part of it. Thought is the "I", except where thought is functioning technologically, where there is no "I". The moment you move away from the scientific field, you come to the "I" which is part of the biological heritage.

然后她问那个“我”是谁？那个“我”是意识的一部分、思想的一部分吗？我说是的。 思想是它的一部分。思想就是“我”，除了在思想进行技术性运作时，那时没有“我”。 一旦你离开科学领域，你就来到了那个作为生物传承一部分的“我”。

The "I" is the centre of perception, a working centre of perception, an ad hoc centre and the other is an effective centre.

“我”是感知的中心，一个运作中的感知中心，一个临时中心，另一个是有效中心。

Be simple. We see consciousness is the "I". The whole of that field is the "I". In the field, the "I" is the centre.

简单一点。我们看到意识就是“我”。 整个那个领域就是“我”。在这个领域里，“我”是中心。

I want to put aside everything and tackle it in a new way. I see that the most important element in me is the "I". Now what is the "I"? What is its nature? One investigates that and in the very process of observation there is clarity.

我想把一切都放在一边，用一种新的方式来处理它。 我看到我身上最重要的元素就是“我”。 那么“我”是什么？它的本质是什么？ 一个人探究那个，而在观察的过程中，就有清晰。

Full stop.

到此为止。

Clarity being not eternal.,....

清晰不是永恒的……

But it can pick it up again.

但它可以再次拾起。

I say, maybe.

我说，也许吧。

Because I have an idea that perception is whole.

因为我有一个观念，认为感知是整体的。

Is it a question which legitimately arises in this state?

在这个状态下，这是一个合理产生的问题吗？

In the state of perception it does not arise. It only arises, exists when I ask, is this process eternal, everlasting?

在感知的状态下，它不会产生。 只有当我问“这个过程是永恒的、永久的吗？”时，它才会产生、存在。

And what would you say?

那你会怎么说？

You are being asked. Answer. Wait. You have to answer this question. At the moment of perception the question does not arise. The next moment I do not perceive so clearly.

你被问到了。回答。等等。你必须回答这个问题。 在感知的那一刻，问题不会产生。下一刻，我就感知不那么清晰了。

If I am alert to see that I am not perceiving so clearly, I will investigate that.

如果我警觉地看到自己感知不那么清晰，我就会探究那个。

So what am I doing? There is perception. That is all.

那么我在做什么？有感知。仅此而已。

The doorway is in the question. The "key" of the doorway is in that question.

门就在问题中。门的“钥匙”就在那个问题中。

Let us be simple about this. There is perception. In that perception there is no question of duration. There is only perception. The next minute I do not see clearly. There is no clear perception. It is muddled. There is investigation of pollution and so clarity. Right? And again perception; move again; cover and uncover - and this goes on. This is going on.

让我们简单看待这件事。有感知。 在那感知中，没有持续性的问题。只有感知。 下一分钟我看不清楚。没有清晰的感知。它是混乱的。 有对污染的探究，然后清晰。对吗？ 然后又是感知；再移动；掩盖和揭示——这持续着。这正在发生。

Is it a movement of time?

这是一种时间的运动吗？

A very interesting thing takes place. The very nature of this awareness is that it operates on the "other".

一件非常有趣的事情发生了。这种觉察的本质就是它在“其他”上运作。

What do you mean by the "other"?

你说的“其他”是什么意思？

Inattention.

忽视。

Wait. Attention and inattention. Then be aware of inattention which becomes attention. This balancing is going on all the time.

等等。注意和忽视。 然后觉察到忽视，这就变成了注意。这种平衡一直在发生。

I observe the very nature of attention. It has its own action on inattention. Now if I make a statement "it lessens inattention" it would be an incorrect thing for me to say. The only thing I can observe is that there is an action of attention on inattention.

我观察到注意本身的本质。它对忽视有它自己的作用。 如果我断言“它减少了忽视”，那对我来说将是不正确的说法。 我唯一能观察到的是，注意对忽视有一种作用。

Does that action on inattention wipe away inattention so that inattention does not come again?

那种对忽视的作用是否消除了忽视，使忽视不再出现？

It is attentive to the inattentive.

它对忽视者是注意的。

I am going further than being attentive to the inattentive. I say the nature of this attention is such that it operates on the brain cells. I am very very hesitant when I say this. It is the nature of attention to operate on the brain cells. That which is dormant in the brain-cells - which re-emerges when it is exposed to attention, the very nature of the dormancy undergoes a change. I would like this area to be investigated.

我再更进一步。 我说，这种注意的本质是这样的，它作用于脑细胞。 当我说这句话时，我非常非常犹豫。 注意的性质，作用于脑细胞。 作用在脑细胞们的昏沉之处 —— 当它曝露于注意之中时，会再次浮现， 这种昏沉的本质历经了一种变化。我希望对这个领域进行调查。

---