译按：这类对话体原本就不易捕捉，而此篇经过了选编者Raymond Martin的删选，虽有精心连缀，但难免文意跳跃。此篇译文属勉强为之。
Krishnamurti: So what is the self? The whole process of identification: my house, my name, my possessions, what I will be, the success, the power, the position, the prestige—the identification process is the essence of the self.
Can this identification come to an end if thought doesn't identify itself with possessions, because identification gives it pleasure, position, security? The root of the self is the movement of thought.
When thought comes to an end, that is a form of death while living. Now, can thought come to an end? Every human being has identified himself and so conditioned himself with something or other. While living can that death, which is the end of thought, take place?
克里希那穆提：那么，什么是自我？自我，就是整体的认同感：认同我的房子、名字、财产，认同我的理想、成功、权力、地位、声望……认同感，是自我的本质。
既然认同感为人带来快乐、地位与安全感，那么如果思维不再认同于财产，认同感能终结吗？毕竟，思维活动就是自我的根源。
当我们息心止念，那就是一种“方生方灭（death while living）”。那么，意念能寂灭吗？每人都将自己认同于某事物，因而被该物所羁；意念止息，就是方生之际，自我寂灭；那么这方生方灭，能够发生吗？
Walpola Rahula: I agree when you say it is not necessary to wait until the end of your life. Buddha pointed out the same thing when this question was put to him. When asked what would happen to the Buddha after his death, he asked the disciple, "What is Buddha? Is it this body?"—just as you asked about the name, the form, exactly what you said. In Buddhist terminology, this is called the kamarupa.
化普乐 · 罗睺罗：你说：没必要等到生命的终点才息心止念，这点我赞同。有人曾向佛陀提这个问题，佛陀也如是说。有弟子问：“佛陀死后，会发生什么？”佛陀问弟子：“何谓佛陀？是这肉身吗？”这与你谈及“名称与相状”时的话是一样的。佛学术语中，这叫名色（kamarupa）。
K: Sir, if I may ask, I hope you don't think me impudent—why do we bring in the Buddha? We are talking as human beings.
克：先生，容我提醒——希望你不认为我无礼：为什么我们要把佛陀拉进来呢？我们在探讨人。
WR: Just because I raised the question from the Buddha's point of view.
罗：因为我是从佛陀的观点提出问题。
K: Ah, no, as a human being I want to know: can one live in daily life without the self?
克：哦，不。作为一个凡人，我想知道：人能不能在寻常日子里无我而生？
WR: Of course, my question was not that. The question is what happens to the person who has realized the truth, who has become liberated, free.
罗：当然，我的问题不是那样的。我的问题是：人一旦觉悟真理、获得解脱自由后，会发生什么？
K: I would never ask that question, because he might say this happens, or he might say that happens, or nothing happens. Then it becomes a theory to me, which is an idea.
克：我恐怕绝不提那种问题，因为对方可能会说：发生了这个，发生了那个，或什么都没发生。那就变成了一种理论、一种理念。
WR: I wanted from you a little more than that.
罗：我期待，在理论之外你能多给点儿启发。
K: Ah, you want from me.
克：哦，你期待从我这有所得。
WR: Not a theory.
罗：不要理论。
K: If you want it from this person who is talking, you have to inquire as he is inquiring. And therefore he asks: is it possible to live in daily life—not at the end of one's existence, in daily life—without this identification process, which brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which is the result of thought?
克：如果你期待从我的谈话中有所得，你必须随我一起探索。所以，我问：能不能在日常生活——不是在生命的终点，而是在日常生活中，放下认同过程？因为恰是认同感滋生了自我的结构与秉性，认同感是思维的产物。
Can the movement of thought end while I am living? That is the question, rather than what happens when I die. The 'me' is merely a movement of thought. Thought itself is very limited. So can a human being, you or I or any of us, can we live without the movement of thought, which is the essence of the self?
在生活的当下，思维活动能不能止息？这才是问题所在，而不是我死的时候将发生什么。“我”，只是一念之动，而意念是非常局限的。那么生而为人，如你我等，能不能在生活中没有心念妄动？心念妄动，就是自我的本质所在。
Suppose the speaker, this person says: yes, it is possible, I know it is possible, then what? What value has it to you? Either you accept it; or you say: don't be silly, and walk away, as it is not possible, and you leave it. But if you want to inquire and say: look, is it possible?—let's find out, not as an idea, but as an actuality in daily life.
假设，我——你对面这位谈话人告诉你：“能，可能。我知道那是可能的。”然后呢？这话于你价值何在？你要么接受，要么心里说：“别犯傻了，走开吧，那不可能。”然后把我的话弃之脑后。但，如果你想参究，想知道究竟是否可能，那么我们就一起来探索，不是探索理念，而是发现日常生活中的真实。
G. Narayan: Dr. R, we have been talking in this context of the value of Buddhist meditation, preparation, practice, mindfulness. What is the value of all those things that are mentioned in the Buddhist literature, which is practiced as a very important thing in relation to the ending of thought?
那拉扬：罗睺罗博士，我们一直在佛家的禅定、资粮、修行、正念的价值框架下进行探讨。佛家文献中所提到的这些，用作修炼止念的重要法门，其价值何在？
K: Sir, I hope you don't think me impudent or irreverent to what the Buddha said. I personally haven't read all these things. I don't want to read a thing about all this. They may be correct or not correct, they may be under illusion or not under illusion, they may have been put together by disciples, and what the disciples do with their gurus is appalling—twist everything.
So I say: look, I don't want to start with somebody telling me what to do, or what to think. I have no authority. I say: look, as a human being—suffering, going through agonies, sex and mischief, and terror, and all the rest of it—in inquiring into all that I come to the point, which is thought. That's all.
克：先生，希望你不认为我无礼或对佛陀之言大不敬。我自己没读过佛经，也根本不想阅读。那些经卷或对或错，或真或幻，或许是由门徒们集成，而门徒所为是骇人的，他们会扭曲导师的一切。
所以我说：注意，我可不想在起步之际，让别人教我怎样做，怎样想。我不尊奉任何权威。我说：我是个受苦之人，经历各种折磨、性欲、伤害、恐怖，等等，当探究这些痛苦时，我形成了自己的论点，这就是观念。这就够了。
I don't have to know all the literature in the world, which will only condition further thinking. So forgive me for putting it that way: I brush all that aside. We have done this—Christians, I have met Christians, Benedictine monks. Jesuits, great scholars, always quoting, quoting, quoting, believing this is so, this is not so. You understand sir? I hope you don't think I am irreverent.
You see, I only start with what is a fact, for me. What is a fact, not according to some philosophers and religious teachers and priests, a fact: I suffer, I have fear, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my life?—and I am so utterly miserable, unhappy. From there I start, not from what somebody said, that means nothing. I am not belittling—forgive me—the Buddha, I wouldn't.
我不必熟知天下所有文献，那只会进一步束缚思维。所以，请原谅我的处置之策：对于文献，我一概弃置一侧。我们是这么做的，我曾遇到过基督徒、本笃会修士、基督会修士、大学者，不停地引经据典、旁征博引，相信这个是真，那个是假……先生你明白吗？希望你别认为我不恭敬。
你看，我只以事实为出发点。何谓事实？不参照哲学家、心灵导师、神父牧师，而是直面事实：我的痛苦，我的恐惧，我的性需求。我如何应对这些异常复杂的事务，这构成了我的生活，我陷入了彻底的痛苦与烦恼。我应从这个事实出发，而不是从别人的语录出发，那是毫无意义的。请原谅，我不是藐视佛陀，我不会那样。
WR: That, I know; I know you have the highest respect for the Buddha. But we have the same attitude, and I want to examine it with you. That is why I put the question.
罗：我明白。我知道你对佛陀抱有至高尊敬。我们的心态是一致的，我想与你检讨这心态，所以我才提出这问题。
K: No, sir, not quite, sir, forgive me for saying so, not quite. I start with something which is common to all of us. Not according to the Buddha, not according to some Christian God or Hindu or some group, to me all that is totally irrelevant. They have no place because I suffer; I want to find out to end it.
克：不，很不一样，先生。原谅我说不，我们的心态很不一样。我的出发点是你我共同的事实，而不是佛陀、基督教、印度教或其他团体的神，对我来说，所有那些完全不切题，在我这里完全没有位置，因为我在受苦，我想发现真相，终结痛苦。
I see the root of all this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort, the root of this is the self, the 'me'. Now is it possible to be free of the 'me', which produces all this chaos, both outwardly, politically, religiously, economically, and all the rest of it, and also inwardly, this constant struggle, constant battle, constant effort? I am asking, can thought end? So thought has no future—that which ends then has a totally different beginning, not the beginning of the 'me', ending and picking up again later.
我看清了所有的迷惑、沉浮不定、恐惧不安、痛苦与拼搏的根源，那就是自我、我执。既然是这个“我”滋生了所有的混乱，不仅外在的、政治、宗教、经济等领域的混乱，还包括内在的不懈挣扎、不懈冲突、不懈拼搏，那么能不能放下这个“我”，从而获得解脱？我是在问：思维造作能不能止息？所以，思维毫无未来，而思维一旦止息，我们就有了全新的开始，不是“自我”重新开始，不是“自我”先熄火、再启动。
Can this thought end? The priest comes along and says: yes it can end, only identify yourself with Christ, with the Buddha—you follow? Identify, forget yourself. Some people have said, suppress it, identify the self with the highest, which is still the movement of thought. Some people have said, burn out all the senses. They have done it: fasting, do everything for this thing.
思维能够止息吗？神父高僧马上过来，告诉你：“能！唯有将你自己完全认同于基督，认同于佛陀，才能止息。”——你明白了吧？认同，就是忘掉你自己。有人说过：“降伏自我，与至高的神合一。”但这仍然是思维活动。有人说过：“将所有感受付之一炬。”他们斋戒、苦修，为之千方百计。
Somebody like me comes along and says: effort is the very essence of the self. Do we understand that? Or has it become an idea, and we carry that idea out? A person like me says: effort of any kind only strengthens the self. Now how do you receive that statement? When you eat, you are eating because you are hungry. The stomach receives the food, there is no idea of receiving the food. So can you listen—listen—without the idea of receiving, or accepting, or denying, or arguing, just listen to a statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just listen to it. Can you do it?
也有人，比如我，走上前来说道：“自我的本质是有为造作。”我们明白这句话吗？这话是不是已固化为理念，来供我们贯彻实行呢？有人如我宣称：“任何形式的造作，只能强化自我。”你是如何接受这句话的？你吃饭，是因为你饿了；你的肚子只需进食，而无需秉持进食的信念。同样，你能不能聆听——只需聆听，而不需秉持接受、接纳、否定、争辩等信念，而只是单纯地聆听一句话？话本身可能是错的，可能是对的，但你只需聆听。你能做到吗？
After carefully explaining the mood of thought which identifies itself with the form, with the name, with this and that and the other thing—after explaining very carefully, it is said that thought is the very root of the self. Now how do we receive, listen to the truth of that fact, that thought is the root of the self? Is it an idea, a conclusion, or is it an absolute, irrevocable fact?
我详细解释了思维的定式：认同于名相，认同于这，认同于那。经过这番解详解，我们说：思维恰是自我的根源。那么，我们是如何接收、倾听“思维是自我根源”这一事实真相的？这究竟是一个观念、结论，还是个一个无可置疑的、无可改变的事实？
WR: If you ask me, it is a fact. You see, I listen to it, receive it. I see it.
罗：让我说，那是事实。你看，我聆听，我接收，我明白。
K: Are you listening as a Buddhist—forgive me for putting it that way?
克：你是在以佛教徒身份聆听吗？原谅我这样问。
WR: I don't know.
罗：我不知道。
K: No, you must know.
克：不，你肯定知道。
WR: I am not identifying anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or a non-Buddhist.
罗：我没有认同任何东西。我聆听你的时候，既不是佛教徒，也不是非佛教徒。
K: I am asking you, sir, are you listening as a Buddhist? Are you listening as a person who has read a great deal about the Buddha and about what the Buddha has said, and therefore you are comparing and therefore you have gone away from listening? So, are you listening? I am not being personal, sir; forgive me.
克：先生，我在问：你是否以佛教徒身份聆听？你在聆听之际，是否一个博览佛籍、通晓佛陀教诲的人，因而不断比较，故而走神没在聆听？所以，你在聆听吗？我不是在盘问隐私，先生，见谅。
WR: Oh, you can be quite free with me—I won't misunderstand you and you won't misunderstand me.
罗：哦，你尽管随意问，我不会误解你，你也不会误解我。
K: No, no. I don't mind you misunderstanding me at all. I can correct it. Are you listening to the idea, to the words, and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of verbal comprehension, which you have gone through quickly, and you say: yes, I see the absolute truth of that?
克：不，不。我不介意你误解我，我可以纠正。你究竟是在聆听观念、言辞，聆听言辞的含义，还是不执着任何字面意思，而是快速穿越语言，领悟话语的完整真意？
WR: That is what I said.
罗：我的话就是这意思。
K: Do you?
克：是吗？
WR: Yes.
罗：是。
K: No, sir. Then it is finished. It is like seeing something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don't touch it. I wonder if you see it.
When you say something to me about what the Buddha has said, I listen. I say, he is just quoting from what Buddha has said, but he is not saying something I want to know. He is telling me about the Buddha, but I want to know what you think, not what Buddha thought, because then we are establishing a relationship between you and me, and not between you, Buddha, and me. I wonder if you see that.
克：不，先生。言语真意已经消失。就如同一旦看见极其危险之物，那危险就消失了，你不会去触碰。不知你明白没有。
当你向我讲述佛陀语录时，我聆听。我说：他只是引述佛陀之言，而不是讲述我想知道的东西。他向我讲述佛陀，而我不想知道佛陀的想法，只想知道你怎么想，那样我们才能建立你我彼此的关系，而不是你、佛陀和我之间的关系。不知道你明白没有？
David Bobm: It seems to me this question of identification is the main one, it is very subtle, in spite of all that you have said, identification still goes on.
戴维 · 鲍姆：在我看来，认同问题才是主要的，非常微妙。虽然你说了那么多，认同感依然在运转中。
K: Of course.
克：当然。
DB: It seems to be built into us.
鲍：似乎已经植入我们心中，根深蒂固。
Questioner: And this raises a question whether that identification can be ended—if I understood rightly.
提问者：如果我理解正确的话，这又引出一个问题：认同感能够终结吗？
DB: Identification prevented listening freely, openly, because one listens through the identification.
鲍：认同感阻碍了自由、开放的聆听，因为人都是透过认同感来收听。
K: What does identification mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something: my car, my house, my wife, my children, my country, my god, my—you follow? Why?
克：认同感是什么意思？为什么人将自己认同于某事物：车子、房子、妻子、孩子、国家、上帝……你明白吗？为什么？
Q: To be something, perhaps.
问：或许，想出人头地。
K: Let's inquire why. I identify not only with outward things, but also inwardly with my experience. I identify with experience and say: this is my experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time?
克：我们一起探索原因。我不仅认同外在事物，而且还认同于内在的经验。我认同于我的经验，而且宣称：我是我的经验！为什么人们总是经受认同感？
DB: At one stage you said we identify with our sensations, for example, our senses, and this seems very powerful. What would it be not to identify with our sensations?
鲍：一度，你曾说过，我们认同自己的感觉，例如我们的感官，这种认同感看起来很强大。如果不认同于自己的感觉，那将怎样？
K: When I listen, am I listening to identify myself with the fact, or is there no identification at all and therefore listening with a totally different ear? Am I hearing with the ears of my hearing, or am I hearing with total attention? Am I listening with total attention or is my mind wandering off and saying, "Oh my goodness, this is rather boring"?
克：当聆听之际，我是为了认同话语中的事实吗？或者，我毫无认同感，是用一副全然不同的耳朵聆听？我是在用听觉的耳朵聆听，还是在运用全部的觉照力？我是在运用全然的觉照力，还是一边心神涣散，一边嘀咕：“我的天，这话真无聊！”
Can I attend so completely that there is only the act of listening and nothing else, no identification, no saying: yes, that is a good idea, bad idea, that's true, that's false—which are all processes of identification—but without any of those movements, can I listen?
我能不能全然地觉照，唯有聆听，心无别鹜？没有认同，没有判断，没有嘀咕：“对，这是个好主意，那是个坏主意！这是真的，那是假的！”——这些都是认同感！我能不能纯然聆听，而没有任何诸如此类的心理活动？
When I do so listen, then what? The truth that thought is the essence of the self, and the self creates all this misery, is finished. I don't have to meditate, I don't have to practice; it is over when I see the danger of these things. Can we listen so completely that there is the absence of the self? And one says: can I see, observe something without the self—which is, my country, I love that sky, it is a beautiful sky, and all the rest of that. The ending of thought, which is the ending, or cutting at the very, very root of the self—a bad simile, but take that—when there is such active, attentive, nonidentifying attention, then does the self exist?
当我如是聆听，将会怎样？思维，是自我的本质；思维，制造了所有苦难；当我聆听之际，这些都终结了，我不必再打坐、冥想，不必再修炼。当我看清“自我”的危险，自我就止息了。我们能不能彻底地忘我，全然地聆听？有人会说：一旦抛却“自我”——我的国家，我挚爱的蓝天，那美丽的天空……等等，我还能观察，我能看见什么吗？息心止念，是终结，是对“自我”剪草除根——这是个蹩脚比喻，姑且举例，当内心的觉照如此活泼、专注、无执，此时那个“自我”还存在吗？
I need a suit, why should there be identification in getting a suit? I get it; there is getting it. So the active listening implies listening to the senses, to my taste, the whole sensory movement. I mean, you can't stop the senses, then you would be paralyzed. But the moment I say, "That's a marvelous taste, I must have more of that"—begins the whole identification.
我需要一套西装，为什么就一门心思地获取西装？一旦到手，内心就有有获得感。所以，活泼泼的聆听，就是聆听自己的感官、趣味，聆听全部的感觉活动。我的意思是，你不可能让感官停止，否则你就被催眠了。但，一旦我宣称：“那感受太棒了！我要拥有更多！”心理认同就开始了。
DB: It seems to me that that is the general condition of mankind, to be identifying with the senses. Now how are we going to change that?
鲍：在我看来，认同于感官觉受是人类的普遍状态。那么我们该怎样改变该局面？
K: That is the whole problem sir. Mankind had been educated, conditioned for millennia, to identify with everything: my guru, my house, my god, my country, my king, my queen, and all the horror that goes on.
克：那就是全部问题所在，先生。人类已经被教育、约束了几千年，总认同于一切事物：我的上师、我的房子、我的神灵、我的国家、我的国王、我的王后……等等烦人的劳什子，没完没了。
DB: You see, with each one of those there is a sensation.
鲍：你看，对于其中每一个，我们都有感觉。
K: It is a sensation, which you call experience. When there is the ending of the self, what takes place? Not at the end of my life, not when the brain becomes deteriorated; when the brain is very, very active, quiet, alive, what then takes place, when the self is not? Now, how can you find out, sir?
克：那是一种感觉，你称作经验。当自我止息之际，会怎样？我不是指生命的终点，不是指大脑腐坏之际，而是指大脑还异常活跃、平静、富有生机的时候，当“自我”寂灭之际，会发生什么？先生，你怎样去发现？
Say, X has ended the self completely, not picks it up in the future, another day, but ends it completely; he says: yes, there is a totally different activity which is not the self. What good is that to me, or to any of us? He says: yes, it can end, it is a different world altogether, different dimension: not a sensory dimension, not an intellectual projected dimension, something totally different. I say he must be either a cuckoo, a charlatan, or a hypocrite; but I want to find out, not because he says so, but I want to find out.
假设，张三的“自我”彻底止息了，未来也不再复活，而是彻底熄火了；他宣称：“没错，我内心活动已经全然不同，与‘自我’无涉。”这对我，对我们任何人有什么好处呢？他又宣称：“对，自我能够止息，这是迥然不同的世界，迥然不同的境界，这不是感觉，不是智力投射，而是迥然不同的新境界！”我敢说，这位张三先生要么是个呆子、骗子，要么是个伪君子。但我想发现真相，不是因为张三如是说，而是我想自己发现真相。
Can I, as a human being—living in this tremendously ugly, brutal, violent world, economically, socially, morally, and all the rest of it—live without the self? I want to find out. And I want to find out not as an idea; I want to do it, it's my passion. Then I begin to inquire: why is there identification with the form, with the name?—it is not very important whether you are K or W or Y. So you examine this very, very carefully, not to identify yourself with anything, with sensation, with ideas, with a country, with an experience. You understand sir? Can you do it? Not vaguely and occasionally, but with passion, with intensity to find out.
我，人类的一员，生活在这个极其丑陋、残酷、暴力的世界上——经济、社会、道德等等层面无不如此，那么我能不能无我地生活？我渴望找到真相，我渴望发现真相——这不是理念，而是渴望躬行，我充满激情。所以，我开始探索：为什么我认同于名相？至于认同的是张三、李四，还是王五，那无关紧要。所以，请用心省察，不要认同于任何事物、感觉、理念、国家、经验。先生，明白吗？你能做到吗？不是含糊地、偶然地，而是充满热情地，壮怀激烈地去探索。
Then what place has thought? You understand, sir? What place has thought? Has it any place at all? Obviously, when I am talking I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so on and so on, so there is thinking there—not with me, there is very little thinking as I am talking, don't let's go into that.
此时，思维在何处？明白吗，先生？心念住于何处？是不是根本无所住？显然，我说话时运用言语，而言语关乎记忆等等，所以产生了思维——不过我不是这样，我谈话时很少思维。我们不谈那些。
So thought has a place. When I have to catch a train, when I have to go to the dentist, when I go to do something, thought has its place. But it has no place psychologically as when there is the identifying process taking place. Right? I wonder if you see.
所以，思维有其存在的位置。当我必须赶火车，看牙医，或去干什么事，是需要思维力的。但，当发生心理认同时，内心不该有思维。对不对？不知你明白了没有？
DB: You are saying it is identification that makes thought do all the wrong things.
鲍：你是说，所有错事都是认同感驱使思维做的。
K: That's right. Identification has made thought do the wrong things.
克：对，认同驱使思维做错事。
DB: It would be all right otherwise.
鲍：否则就一切平安无事了。
K: Otherwise thought has its place.
克：否则，思维就有存在的空间了。
DB: But when you say no identification, you mean the self is empty, that it has no content, doesn't it?
鲍：但，你说无认同感，你的意思是：自我虚空，本无一物，是吧？
K: There are only sensations.
克：唯有感觉。
DB: Sensations, but they are not identified. They are just going on, do you mean?
鲍：感觉，但并没被认同，而是在流动，你是这意思吗？
K: Yes, sensations are going on.
克：对，感觉在流动。
DB: Outside or inside.
鲍：外在或内在。
K: Inside.
克：内在。
GN: And you are also implying there is no slipping back.
那：你另一层意思：这感觉没有回流。
K: Of course not. When you see something most dangerous, you don't slip back or go forward; it is dangerous. Sir, then is that death? That is the question we began with. Is there a living with the sensations fully awakened?—they are awakened, they are alive, but the nonidentifying with sensation deprives, wipes away the self. We said that. Is it possible to live a daily life with death, which is the ending of the self? The moment you have an insight, it is finished.
克：当然没有。但你看到某种极危险的之物，你不后退，也不前进，进退是危险的。先生，那是死亡吗？这就是我们开场时的问题：是否存在一种感觉被完全唤醒的生活？各种感觉都觉醒、鲜活，同时不认同于任何感觉，这样“自我”就被抹去、消除了。我们说过这一点，有没有可能过上这种方生方死的生活？所谓死，就是自我的寂灭。一旦你心生省悟，自我就消泯了。
DB: Would you say the insight transforms the person?
鲍：你是说，心灵省悟能转化一个人？
K: The insight transforms not only the state of the mind, but the brain cells themselves undergo a change.
克：省悟不仅能转化心灵状态，而且脑细胞也经历变化。
DB: Therefore the brain cells being in a different state behave differently; it is not necessary to repeat the insight.
鲍：所以，脑细胞进入全新状态，则行为也将改变。心灵的省悟，并非必然可重复的。
K: Either it is so, or it is not so. I am left with this now—I am left with the question of what is death. Is the ending of the self death?—death in the ordinary accepted sense of the word. It is not, obviously, because the blood is circulating, the brain is working, the heart is pumping, and all the rest of it.
克：或许如此，或许不这样。此刻剩下一个问题：什么是死亡？“自我”的止息，是死亡吗？是常规意义上的死亡吗？显然不是，因为自我止息之际，血液还在流，脑子还在转，心脏还在跳。
DB: It is still alive.
鲍：生命还是鲜活的。
K: It is alive but the self is nonexistent because there is no identification of any kind. This is a tremendous thing. Nonidentification with anything, with experience, with belief, with a country, with ideas, with ideals, wife, husband, love, no identification at all.
克：生命是鲜活的，但自我已经不复存在，因为已经没有任何认同感。这可是了不起的事。心无任何执着，不认同任何经验、信仰、国家、理念、理想、太太、先生、爱……无一丝认同。
Is that death? People who call that death say: my god, if I don't identify myself with my something or other, why I am nothing. So they are afraid of being nothing—then identify. But nothingness is not a thing—you understand, sir, not a thing—therefore it is quite a different state of mind. Now that is death while there is living, breathing, sensations, the heart beating, the blood circulating, the brain active, undamaged. But our brains are damaged.
那是死亡吗？有人称之为死亡：“我的天！如果我不认同于这或那，为什么我一无所是？”他们恐惧于虚空，所以又玩起认同游戏。但，虚空（nothingness）并非实物，明白吗，先生？虚空并非一物，而是一种心灵之境，这就是方生方死，在呼吸、感觉、心跳、血流、大脑活跃未损之时，我执心归于寂灭。但，我们的大脑实际上已经受损了。
DB: Can this damage be healed? Is it possible to heal the damage?
鲍：这种损伤能疗愈吗？有没可能治愈这损伤？
K: Insight, that is what I want to get at. Our brains are damaged. For thousands of years we have been hurt psychologically, inwardly, and that hurt is part of our brain cells, remembered hurts: the propaganda for two thousand years that I am a Christian, that I believe in Jesus Christ, which is a hurt; or I am a Buddhist—you follow, sir—that is a hurt. So our brains are damaged. To heal that damage is to listen very carefully, to listen, and in the listening to have an insight into what is being said, and therefore there is immediately a change in the brain cells. Therefore there is no identification, complete and total.
克：我想说：省悟！我们的大脑受损了，几千年来，我们遭受心灵创伤，这种创伤是我们大脑细胞的一部分，是被记忆的创伤：两千年的宣传鼓动，我是基督徒，我信耶稣，这就是伤害；或者我是佛教徒，那也是伤害，明白吧，先生？所以，我们的大脑受伤了。要治愈这创伤，我们必须非常细心地聆听，聆听，在聆听中，对所讲的话产生省悟，从而使脑细胞产生即刻改变。所以，心无认同感，圆满完整。
Do you see the truth that identification is the root of the self, with thought and all the rest of it? That is an absolute fact, like a cobra, like a dangerous animal, like a precipice, like taking deadly poison. So there is no identification, absolutely, when you see the danger.
认同，是我执、思维及一切造作的根源，你看清这真相了吗？这是确凿的事实，如同眼镜蛇，如同猛兽，如同悬崖，如同致死毒药，真实不虚。当你看到这些危险时，你就绝对毫无认同感了。
Then what is my relationship to the world, to nature, to my woman, man, child? When there is no identification, is there indifference, callousness, brutality? Do I say, "I don't identify," and put my nose in the air?
那么，我与世界、与自然、与女人、男人和孩子的关系是什么？当关系中没有认同感，我心中还有冷漠、麻木和残忍吗？我会口称“我绝无认同”并傲慢得鼻孔朝天吗？
I am asking, sir, is this nonidentification an ideal, a belief, an idea which I am going to live with and therefore my relationship to the dog, to the wife, to the husband, to the girl, or whatever it is becomes very superficial, casual. It is only when identification is absolutely cut out of one's life that there is no callousness, because then relationship is real.
13. Brockwood Park, 2nd conversation with Prof. Bohm, Mr. Narayan, and two Buddhist scholars, 23 June 1978.
先生，我在问：生活中我是否把“心无认同”奉为一种理想、信仰与理念呢？如果那样，那么我的各种关系，与小狗、与太太、与丈夫、与女孩等等，就会变得非常肤浅、随意。唯有当认同感从生活中彻底地抹除，你的生活才不会麻木不仁，因为唯有那时，你的关系才是真实的。
（1978年6月23日英国伦敦布洛克伍德公园与鲍姆教授、那拉扬先生和两位佛教学者的对话）
网友评论