http://www.j-krishnamurti.org.cn/viewthread.php?tid=151&extra=page%3D1
THE URGENCY OF CHANGE - 'SEEING THE WHOLE'
《轉變的緊迫性》之「看到整體」
Questioner: When I listen to you I seem to understand what you are talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeper level. I am part of it; I fully grasp with my whole being the truth of what you say. My hearing is sharpened, and the very seeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow, makes me feel I am part of them. In this awareness I have no conflict, no contradiction. It is as though I could do anything, and that whatever I did would be true, would not bring either conflict or pain. But unfortunately that state doesn't last. Perhaps it lasts for an hour or two while I'm listening to you. When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm back where I was. I try to be aware of myself; I keep remembering the state I was in when I listened to your talks, keep trying to reach it, hold on to it, and this becomes a struggle. You have said, "Be aware of your conflict, listen to your conflict, see the causes of your conflict, your conflict is yourself". I am aware of my conflict, my pain, my sorrow, my confusion, but this awareness in no way resolves these things. On the contrary, being aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration. You talk of choiceless awareness, which again breeds another battle in me, for I am full of choice, decisions and opinions. I have applied this awareness to a particular habit I have, and it has not gone. When you are aware of some conflict or strain, this same awareness keeps looking to see if it has already gone. And this seems to remind you of it, and you never shake it off.
發問者：當我聽你演講的時候，我似乎能理解你所說的內容，不只從字面上能理解，而且能在更深的層次上理解。我已經融入其中；我以我的整個存在充分領會了你所說的真相。我的聽覺敏銳了，看到花朵、樹木與那些積雪的山脈，就讓我感覺我是它們的一部分。在這份覺察之中，我沒有衝突，沒有矛盾。好像我可以做任何事情，我不論做什麼，都是正確的，都不會帶來衝突與痛苦。但是很不幸，這種狀態無法持續。或許在聽你演講的時候，能持續一兩個小時。在我離開演講時，那狀態似乎就全都蒸發掉了，我又回到了原來的樣子。我努力地覺察自己，不斷回想我在聽你演講時的狀態，一直努力再進入並保持那種狀態，於是這就變成了一種掙扎。你曾經說過，「覺知你的衝突，聆聽你的衝突，認清你衝突的原因，你的衝突就是你自己。」我知道自己的衝突、痛苦、悲傷和困惑，但是這份覺察並沒有解決這些問題。相反地，這種覺知反而給它們賦予了生命力和持久性。你還談到毫無選擇地覺察，這又滋生了我內心的另一種衝突，因為我的心中充滿了選擇、決斷及觀點。我曾把這份覺察應用於自己的某個特殊習慣，可是那習慣並沒有因此消失。當你覺察到某種衝突或壓力時，那覺察同樣會一直注意看它是不是已經消失了。這似乎總在提醒你那衝突的存在，這麼一來你就永遠無法擺脫它了。
Krishnamurti: Awareness is not a commitment to something. Awareness is an observation, both outer and inner, in which direction has stopped. You are aware, but the thing of which you are aware is not being encouraged or nourished. Awareness is not concentration on something. It is not an action of the will choosing what it will be aware of, and analysing it to bring about a certain result. When awareness is deliberately focused on a particular object, as a conflict, that is the action of will which is concentration. When you concentrate - that is, put all your energy and thought within your chosen frontiers, whether reading a book or watching your anger - then, in this exclusion, the thing you are concentrating upon is strengthened, nourished. So here we have to understand the nature of awareness: We have to understand what we are talking about when we use the word awareness. Now, you can either be aware of a particular thing, or be aware of that particular as part of the total. The particular by itself has very little meaning, but when you see the total, then that particular has a relationship to the whole. Only in this relationship does the particular have its right meaning; it doesn't become all-important, it is not exaggerated. So the real question is: does one see the total process of life or is one concentrated on the particular, thus missing the whole field of life? To be aware of the whole field is to see also the particular, but, at the same time, to understand its relationship to the whole. If you are angry and are concerned with ending that anger, then you focus your attention on the anger and the whole escapes you and the anger is strengthened. But anger is interrelated to the whole. So when we separate the particular from the whole, the particular breeds its own problems.
克：覺察並不是對某件事情的專注。覺察是沒有方向的觀察，內心和外在所有的事物你都能觀察到。你是覺知的，而你覺察到的東西又不會被助長或增強。覺察不是專注於某個特定的事物上。覺察不是意志力的行為，也不揀選任何覺察的對象，更不是通過分析來達到某種結果。如果刻意把覺知集中在某個特定的對象上，譬如某個衝突，那麼這時的覺察就變成了意志力的行為，也就是專注。在專心的時候，也就是把你全部的精力和思想都集中在自己所選擇的區域中，不管是讀書還是觀察自己的憤怒，如此一來，在這種排外的行為中，你就增強了、滋養了自己所專注之物。因此我們首先必須瞭解覺察的本質，我們得瞭解我們用「覺察」這個詞時探討的究竟是什麼。要麼你覺察的是某個特定的事物，要麼覺察的是作為整體的一部分的某個特定的事物。特定的事物本身並沒有什麼意義，但是你如果能看到整體，特定事物就和整體產生了關係。只有在這種關係之中，特定的事物才有真正的意義；而同時又不會變得特別重要，不會被誇大。因此真正的問題就在於：我們看到的是人生的整個過程，還是專注於其中的細節，從而錯過了生命的整個領域？對整個領域的覺知，也能看到細節，但同時，還能瞭解細節與整體的關係。假設你發怒了，而你又很想息怒，然後你把所有的注意力集中在憤怒上，這麼一來你不但看不清整體，反而助長了怒氣。而憤怒是和整體關聯在一起的。如果你把細節從整體中分離出來，細節就會自己滋生出問題。
Questioner: What do you mean by seeing the whole? What is this totality you talk about, this extensive awareness in which the particular is a detail? Is it some mysterious, mystical experience? If so then we are lost completely. Or is this perhaps what you are saying, that there is a whole field of existence, of which anger is a part, and that to be concerned with the part is to block out the extensive perception? But what is this extensive perception? I can only see the whole through all its particulars. And what whole do you mean? Are you talking about the whole of the mind, or the whole of existence, or the whole of myself, or the whole of life? What whole do you mean, and how can I see it?
Krishnamurti: The whole field of life: the mind, love, everything which is in life.
發問者：你所謂的看到整體是什麼意思？你說的這個整體，在這廣泛的覺知中局部只是細節而已，這整體到底是什麼東西？它是不是某種神秘的、不可思議的經驗？如果是的話，我們就徹底迷失了。或者你也許指的是，存在的整個領域中有個局部是憤怒，如果只關心這一小部分，就會阻礙廣泛的覺知？然而廣泛的覺知又是什麼？只有透過所有的細節，我才能看到整體。你所謂的整體到底是什麼意思？你說的是心智的整個領域，存在的整個領域，我自己的全部，還是整個生命？你說的整體是什麼意思，我要如何才能看到這點?
克：我指的是生命的整個領域:包括心智、愛與生命中的所有事物。
Questioner: How can I possibly see all that! I can understand that everything I see is partial, and that all my awareness is awareness of the particular, and that this strengthens the particular.
Krishnamurti: Let's put it this way: do you perceive with your mind and your heart separately, or do you see, hear, feel, think, all together, not fragmentarily?
Questioner: I don't know what you mean.
Krishnamurti: You hear a word, your mind tells you it is an insult, your feelings tell you you don't like it, your mind again intervenes to control or justify, and so on. Once again feeling takes over where the mind has concluded. In this way an event unleashes a chain-reaction of different parts of your being. What you hear had been broken up, made fragmentary, and if you concentrate on one of those fragments, you miss the total process of that hearing. Hearing can be fragmentary or it can be done with all your being, totally. So, by perception of the whole we mean perception with your eyes, your ears, your heart, your mind; not perception with each separately. It is giving your complete attention. In that attention, the particular, such as anger, has a different meaning since it is interrelated to many other issues.
發問者：我怎麼可能看得到所有的那些！我知道自己看到的都是局部，我所有的覺察也只限於特定的局部，這反而助長了局部的問題。
克：讓我們換一種方式來探討：你在覺知的時候，心智與情感是不是分開的？還是你的聽覺、視覺、感覺和思想，不分割地一起並用？
發問者：我不知道你說的是什麼意思。
克：假設你聽到一句話，你的心智告訴你，這是一句侮辱的話，你的感覺又告訴你，你不喜歡這句話，接著你的心智又插手進來，企圖控制自己或為自己辯解，等等。當心智下了一個結論，感覺又一次佔了主導。如此一來，一個事件便從你的存在的不同局部引發了一連串的連鎖反應。你所聽到的變得支離破碎，而你如果只專注於其中的一個碎片，你就錯過了整個的聆聽過程。聆聽可以是支離破碎的，也可以用你的整個存在完整地做到。所以我們所謂的覺察整體指的就是你的視覺、聽覺、情感和心智同時並用，而不是各自分開去覺察。你付出全部的注意力。在全神貫注之下，那局部，比如憤怒，就有了不同的意義，因為它和很多其他的問題是相互關聯的。
Questioner: So when you say seeing the whole, you mean seeing with the whole of your being; it is a question of quality not quantity. Is that correct?
Krishnamurti: Yes, precisely. But do you see totally in this way or are you merely verbalizing it? Do you see anger with your heart, mind, ears and eyes? Or do you see anger as something unrelated to the rest of you, and therefore of great importance? When you give importance to the whole you do not forget the particular.
Questioner: But what happens to the particular, to anger?
Krishnamurti: You are aware of anger with your whole being. If you are, is there anger? Inattention is anger, not attention. So attention with your entire being is seeing the whole, and inattention is seeing the particular. To be aware of the whole, and of the particular, and of the relationship between the two, is the whole problem. We divide the particular from the rest and try to solve it. And so conflict increases and there is no way out.
發問者：因此你所謂的看到整體，指的就是以你的整個存在去觀察；這是質而不是量的問題，對不對？
克：是的，完全正確。但是你真的能這樣看到全部嗎？還是只說說就算了？在觀察自己的憤怒時，你的視覺、聽覺、心智與情感，能同時並用嗎？還是你看到的憤怒是和你其他的部分無關的，因而顯得特別重要？當你賦予整體重要性時，並不表示你就忽略了局部。
發問者：但是局部的憤怒又會怎麼樣？
克：你以你的整個存在去覺察憤怒。如果是這樣，憤怒還會產生嗎？粗心大意之下才會產生憤怒，全神貫注之中絕沒有憤怒。以你的整個存在全神貫注就是看到整體，粗心大意則只能看到局部。覺察整體和覺察局部，以及兩者之間的關係，就是整個問題。我們總是把局部和其他部分分開，然後再企圖解決它。於是衝突就加深了，沒有解決的出路。
Questioner: When you speak then of seeing only the particular, as anger, do you mean looking at it with only one part of your being?
Krishnamurti: When you look at the particular with a fragment of your being, the division between that particular and the fragment which is looking at it grows, and so conflict increases. When there is no division there is no conflict.
Questioner: Are you saying that there is no division between this anger and me when I look at it with all my being?
Krishnamurti: Exactly. Is this what you actually are doing, or are you merely following the words? What is actually taking place? This is far more important than your question.
發問者：你所謂的只看到局部的憤怒，你的意思是不是僅以生命的某一部分來觀察憤怒？
克：如果你僅以生命的某個片段來觀察那個特定的問題，那個特定的問題和正在觀察它的碎片之間的距離就會拉大，如此一來衝突便增強了。假如根本沒有那種距離，就不會有衝突。
發問者：你是說，我能以我的整個存在去觀察憤怒，憤怒和我之間就不會產生距離？
克：一點也不錯。你是真的做到了這點，還是只聽聽話語而已？實際發生了什麼？這比你的問題重要多了。
Questioner: You ask me what is taking place. I am simply trying to understand you.
Krishnamurti: Are you trying to understand me or are you seeing the truth of what we are talking about, which is independent of me? If you actually see the truth of what we are talking about, then you are your own guru and your own disciple, which is to understand yourself. This understanding cannot be learnt from another.
發問者：你問我實際發生了什麼。我只是想明白你的意思罷了。
克：你想弄明白我的意思，還是你看到了我們所討論的真相？而這真相是獨立於我而存在的。如果你真的能認清我們所討論的真相，也就是瞭解你自己，那麼你不但是自己的老師，同時也是自己的學生。這份自我瞭解，你無法從別人那裡學到。