作者：梁漱溟,（美）艾恺著,（美）艾恺(译)
出版社：外语教学与研究出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
这个世界会好吗--梁漱溟晚年口述(双语精选本)试读：
Preface
I am honored to be able to write a preface to this volume.
First I want to explain how this dialogue between Mr. Liang Shuming and me came about.
I became interested in Mr. Liang's life and career as a graduate student at Harvard University, and took it as the subject of my Ph.D. dissertation. I gathered materials in Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as sought out and interviewed many of his old friends and acquaintances. Because of the Sino-American political situation at the time, I never had an opportunity to go to Chinese Mainland and meet personally the subject of my research, Mr. Liang.
In the first part of 1973 I had my first opportunity to go to Chinese Mainland. For an American to be able to go to Chinese Mainland at that time was still extremely unusual. Why was I able to make the trip? After President Nixon visited China, several Chinese delegations visited the United States in succession, and I served as their interpreter, and so became a channel of communication between the two countries. So in 1973, my wife and I had this rare opportunity to visit Chinese Mainland. At the time, the first request I made of the Chinese was that I hoped I could meet with Mr. Liang. But because it was the time of the Cultural Revolution, and a very sensitive time, my wishes to pay my respects to Mr. Liang were not answered, so I could only return regretfully to America.
In 1979, at the same time as my study of Liang Shuming The Last Confucian was published, the Chinese political situation underwent a tremendous change. This current of reform and openness also changed Mr. Liang's life. He had originally been living with his wife in a small room, but then he was moved by his unit, the People's Political Consultative Conference, into Building Number 22, called the "Ministers' Mansion," where many celebrities such as the writer Ding Ling also lived. Having more comfortable quarters, Mr. Liang felt that it was more appropriate for receiving visitors, and immediately thought of ways of contacting me.
One day I suddenly received a phone call from a stranger; it was from an octogenarian named Shi who had been Mr. Liang's student in the 1920s at Peking University. He had just come from Beijing and was delivering a verbal message to me at Mr. Liang's request. It was that Mr. Liang already knew of the publication of The Last Confucian, and hoped that he could meet me. A few months passed, and after class one day, a Chinese student suddenly came to see me. She had just come recently from Beijing to join her father in the United States. She gave me Mr. Liang's address, and told me that she had been a neighbor of "Uncle Liang," and that he very much hoped to be able to see me, and to see the work on him that I had published.序
我非常荣幸能为这本小书作序。
我想先说说我与梁漱溟先生两人对谈的因缘。
我在哈佛读书的时候，对梁先生的生平志业产生兴趣，以他作为博士论文的主题，在台湾与香港收集相关资料，寻访他的故友旧交。碍于当时中美政治局势，我始终无法前往中国大陆，亲见我研究的对象梁先生。
1973年初，我头一次有机会前往中国大陆。在当时，一个美国人能到中国大陆去，仍是极不寻常的异例。为什么我能成行呢？这是因为在尼克松总统访华后，几个中国代表团在1972年陆续来美，而我充当中文翻译，起了沟通两国的桥梁作用，所以在1973年时，我与内人才有这个难得的机会可以造访中国大陆。当时，我向中方提出的第一个请求，便是希望可以同梁先生见面，但由于正值“文革”，时机敏感，我并没有如愿以偿地拜见到梁先生，只能抱憾返美。
1979年，在我的梁漱溟研究《最后的儒家》出版成书的同时，中国的政治局势起了巨大的变化。这波改革开放的潮流也改变了梁先生的生活。原本与夫人蜗居在狭小房间的梁先生，被政协安置到有“部长楼”之称的22号楼，与文化名流如丁玲等对门而居。有了舒适的房舍，梁先生认为比较适宜见客，便即刻想办法与我联系。
某日我突然接到一通陌生的来电，电话那头是一位八旬高龄的石老先生。他是梁先生20世纪20年代在北大的学生，刚从北京来美，受梁先生所托，捎来口讯，说是梁老已经知道《最后的儒家》出版了，希望可以与我见面。又过了几个月，一天课后，有个中国学生突然来见我。她不久前才从北京来美与父亲团聚。她拿着梁先生的联络地址，告诉我她旧日的邻居“梁伯伯”十分希望可以见到我，看到我所出版的关于他的著作。
I immediately sent him a copy of the book. Before long I received an amicable reply from Mr. Liang, agreeing to my definitely going to Beijing to visit him the next year.
In 1980, the first day I arrived in Beijing, I immediately contacted Mr. Liang. He told me how he had moved to Building Number 22. The next morning, I went to Mr. Liang's residence to visit him formally. All of Mr. Liang's family members, who took my visit very seriously, were also there. Mr. Liang introduced me to his family. I then presented him with some Harvard University souvenirs. I also gave him works of his father's. After all of those years and experiencing diverse setbacks, I had finally got to meet Mr. Liang. Sitting face to face, with only a small table between us, we began our chats. In the two weeks that followed, I went to the Liang's home every morning to ask questions of Mr. Liang. I put in order the recordings of our dialogues, part of which later was included in Mr. Liang's published collected works.
In our talks, through Mr. Liang I came to understand more fully the trait of traditional Chinese intellectuals. This is most worthy of mentioning.
During the two weeks of intensive conversation, in the first few days Mr. Liang spoke to me a great deal about Buddhism, which perplexed me, and so I asked, "Didn't you abandon Buddhist thought a long time ago?" He answered that he didn't really abandon it. We talked about the title of my book The Last Confucian, which fixed him as a Confucian. He said that he could accept the title. Yet sometimes he would express to me that Marxist-Leninist science was very good. When we spoke about traditional Chinese culture, he also praised Daoism. Once, because he had organized the Democratic League, he met with George Marshall. He evaluated Marshall very highly, and thought that he was a good person because he was a pious Christian.
At the time, I didn't quite understand. How could a person be both a Buddhist and a Confucian, and also identify with Marxist-Leninist thought and approve of Christianity? Later I finally grasped it. This ability to blend mutually contradictory thought is a special characteristic of typical traditional Chinese intellectuals.
我即刻将拙著寄给他，不久便获得梁先生友善的回应，约定好次年一定到北京去拜访他。
1980年我到北京第一天，马上便去寻找梁先生，他告诉了我他是如何搬到22号楼来的。第二天早上，我到梁家正式拜见，梁先生所有的亲人都出现在那里，对于我的来访相当郑重其事。梁先生将我介绍给他的家人，我则送予他哈佛大学的纪念品以及一幅他父亲的遗作。经过种种波折，在这多年之后，我终于得以与梁先生仅仅隔着一方小几，相对而坐，开始对谈。之后的两周，我天天一早便到梁家拜访，请教梁先生。我将对话的内容录音整理，后来收进梁先生的全集。回顾两人对谈因缘，真是感慨万千。
在我们的对谈中，我透过梁先生理解到中国传统知识分子的一种特质。这是最值得一提的部分。
在我们密集谈话的两周里，头两三天梁先生多与我说关于佛家的想法，让我很感疑惑，便问：“您不是早在多年前便公开放弃佛家思想了吗？”他说他算放弃也算没放弃，谈到拙作的标题《最后的儒家》将他定位为一位儒者，他表示他可以接受。然而有时他也向我表示马列主义的科学很好；当谈到中国传统文化，他亦赞美道教。有次提到他因组织民盟而见到马歇尔，他对马歇尔的评价很高，认为他是个好人，因为他是一个虔诚的基督徒。
那时我相当不解，一个人如何可以既是佛家又是儒家？既认同马列思想又赞许基督教？后来终于想通了，这种可以融合多种相互矛盾的思想，正是典型的中国传统知识分子的特质。
Although, during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Periods, many schools of thought contended and debated with one another, the scholars of the time did not recognize themselves to be a specific school. For example, when we now discuss Mencius and Xunzi, we recognize them as Confucian, even though one said that human nature was good, and the other that human nature was evil. They were followers of Confucius, but at that time, even Confucius did not necessarily recognize himself to be "Confucian." The academic classifications we are used to today—Sima Qian (in "Preface to the Histories of Sima Qian") and his father Sima Tan (in "A Summary of the Six Schools")—actually first classified the various pre-Qin thinkers and invented the system that we use today.
I think that Chinese culture is actually an eclectic blend of many kinds of thought that seem to be incompatible, yet at the same time is a culture that likes to classify things. It's easily seen that actually most Chinese intellectuals amalgamated various kinds of thought into one eclectic body. For example, although the Cheng brothers (Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi), Zhu Xi, Lu Xiangshan and Wang Yangming are all Neo-Confucians who focus on the nature of the mind, there are differences among them. There are Buddhist elements in their thought. Although the late Qing Dynasty intellectuals such as Liang Qichao and Zhang Taiyan were at the two opposite extremes politically and on the New Text/Old Text controversy, they both amalgamated Buddhism, Western thought and Confucianism into their individual thought.
So this perhaps explains why I, having been trained in modern academic standards and categories, thought that it was impossible for someone to be simultaneously a believer in Marxism-Leninism and Confucianism. As far as Mr. Liang was concerned, though, this was not in the least a problem. Looked at in this way, Mr. Liang was still quite a traditional Chinese intellectual.
In my opinion, the various pre-Qin philosophers were each on different paths, but they all assumed the same cosmology, that the universe was an organic whole, with each element in that whole interconnected. So, in such a cosmology, there are no absolute dichotomies and contradictions, only relative ones. This worldview was the underlying bedrock of the thought of all Chinese intellectuals, and so various different elements of thought could coexist in an individual's thought without the currents conflicting.
春秋战国百家争鸣时，虽有许多辩论，但百家学者并不认为自己是特定的一家，比方说现在我们讨论孟子与荀子，认为他们虽然一言性善，一言性恶，但都是儒家，是孔子的信徒，然而在当时，即便是孔子也未必认为自己是儒家。我们今日习以为常的学术分类，其实是司马迁在《太史公自序》中论及其父司马谈的《论六家要旨》，为诸子百家分门别派而发明出来的体系。
我认为中国文化本就是个融合许多看似不相容的思想于一体、却同时又喜欢分门别类的文化。只需留心便会发现，其实大部分的中国知识分子都是融合各类思想于一身。比方程朱陆王，同为新儒家，虽然讲义理心性，歧异很大，但他们的思想中都含有许多佛家的成分。晚清的知识分子，如梁启超、章太炎，固然在政治立场与今古文经学上分踞两极，但同样都将佛家、西方思想及儒家融入他们个人的学思中。
这解释了为什么对于受现代学术规范训练的我而言，一个人不可能同时是儒家，又是马列信徒；但对梁先生来说，这完全不是问题。从这点看来，梁先生仍是一个相当传统的中国知识分子。
依我浅见，先秦诸子虽然路线不同，但他们都共享一个宇宙观，认为宇宙是一体而有机的，天地间的每个成分跟其他的成分相互关联，所以在这样的宇宙观里，没有绝对的矛盾，只有相对的矛盾。这种宇宙观，经历数千年，仍深植在中国知识分子思想的底层，是以各种不同的思想成分，可以共存在一个人的思想里，运行不悖。
The greater part of the content of our talks was Mr. Liang's responding to my questions about historical figures in the early twentieth century. Instead of asking him about his contacts and associations in the past, why didn't I just quietly listen to Mr. Liang expostulate his thinking? I study history, and naturally want to preserve much of the historical materials. As far as I know, Mr. Liang was the last person who had personally participated in those several decades of violent cultural change and who was still healthy and clear-headed, and who, moreover knew and had contact with so many important intellectuals. His memories were of great value, so I went well beyond my role of interviewer in guiding the conversation in hopes that these unique experiences of his could be recorded for posterity.
This special case of the biographer finally meeting the biographee only after publication of the biography is unprecedented in modern Chinese history. After having had these talks with Mr. Liang, I added a final chapter to The Last Confucian to supplement and revise the original, especially the section on his suffering during the Cultural Revolution. Because I had not been able to contact him before the book was finished, and because there was no other relevant documentation available, I did not know the details, and so couldn't include them in the book. Only after we talked did I know the real situation and added it in this last chapter. On the whole, I did not revise the structure or content of the book after meeting Mr. Liang. After our talks I discovered Mr. Liang's "unity of inner feelings and outer action." His writings had honestly reflected his impressions. He never disguised his true feelings and thoughts in order to be in tune with the times or the situation, so the Mr. Liang that I had seen through his writings and the real-life Mr. Liang with whom I talked were identical. So although I was fated not to meet him before the book was completed, I was still able, through his writings, to know Mr. Liang's real personality and ways of thinking.
Speaking as an historian, I think that a hundred years from now, Mr. Liang will still occupy an important position in history, not only because of the uniqueness of his thought, but because of his truthful character—his unvaring consistency between thought and deed. Compared to many other 20th century Confucians, he is closest to the traditional in that he put his ideas into actual practice in real life, rather than just talk about Confucianism within the academy. Mr. Liang's life embodied the ideals of Confucianism and of Chinese culture. In this respect, he will always have a singular position in history.Guy S. Alitto
梁先生与我谈话的内容，有一大部分是我向他请教20世纪初的人事。为何我不静静听梁先生抒发他的想法，而要询问他许多过去的交往呢？我是历史研究者，自然会希望多多保存历史资料，而梁先生是我所知最后一个健在且头脑清明的人，曾经亲身经历、参与过这几十年中国文化剧变，并且和许多重要知识分子相知相交过。他的回忆是宝贵的，所以我才僭越地主导谈话，希望可以将这些独一无二的经验记录下来。
像我这样，等到传记完成出书之后，作者才终于见到传主，在中国近代史学界可能是前所未有的特例。与梁先生谈话之后，我在《最后的儒家》一书最后加上一章，增补修订了原书的一些未竟之处，特别是他在“文革”期间受苦一节，由于我未能在书成前与他见面，也没有相关记录流通，所以不知悉细节，也无法载入书中，后来与他谈话后才知道实情，补充在这最后一章里。大体来说，我并没有在亲见梁先生之后，修改拙作的结构与内容。与他谈话之后，我发现梁先生表里如一，他的文章诚实地反映出他的观感，未曾因为要顺应时局而掩饰真心，所以我透过文字所见到的梁先生，与我后来实际上对谈的梁先生是一致的。是以我虽无缘在书成前见到他，但透过他的文章，我仍然深刻地认识到梁先生的真实的性格与想法。
从一个历史研究者的角度看来，我认为就算再过100年，梁先生仍会在历史上占有重要的地位，不单单是因为他独特的思想，也因为他表里如一的人格。与许多20世纪的儒家信徒相比较起来，他更逼近传统的儒者——确实地在生活中实践他的思想，而非仅仅在学院中高谈。梁先生以自己的生命去体现对儒家和中国文化的理想，就这点而言，他永远都是独一无二的。艾 恺I'm not a scholar; I'm a thinker.
I am completely unqualified to be a man of learning.
I do admit that I'm someone who has his own ideas, who acts according to his own ideas and puts them into practice.
I am someone of independent thought.
I have consistency between my thoughts and my actions.第一章 我不是学问家，而是一个思想家
我完全不够一个学问家。
我承认自己是一个有思想的人，
并且是本着自己思想而去实行、实践的人，
独立思考，表里如一。Confucianism and Buddhism are my basis.
Liang: I mean, in talking with you, I hope that you will understand the sources of my thought. The basis of my thought is Confucianism and Buddhism. This is the most important thing. That is more important than understanding my past. I hope you can know more about Confucianism and Buddhism. I want to tell you all about my Confucianism and Buddhism. I mean, I will put the emphasis in our conversations on this, rather than on my personal affairs or my opinions. Because Confucianism and Buddhism are my basis, if you can understand the basis, that would be best of all, the most important thing. Not only do I hope this for you but also I hope that Europeans and Americans can better understand these two schools of thought: Confucianism and Buddhism.
Alitto: Mr. Liang, has your interest in Buddhism and Buddhist studies been rekindled, or increased, as you have grown older? At the time of the May Fourth Movement, you publicly abandoned Buddhism and converted to Confucianism.
Liang: That is not relevant. You may say I abandoned Buddhism, but I really didn't abandon it. Originally I did want to leave the secular world and become a monk. What I abandoned was my plan for leaving the secular world and becoming a monk. But in my thought, on the philosophical level, I did not abandon Buddhism.
Alitto: Oh, I now understand a bit better. Actually, I also wrote about the same thing in the book [The Last Confucian: Liang Shu-ming and the Chinese Dilemma of Modernity, called The Last Confucian for short hereafter], that is, you hadn't completely abandoned Buddhism, but you felt that the problems of the time didn't need Buddhism as much as Confucianism. So because of this, you began to study Confucianism.
Liang: Let me explain myself. When I was young, around sixteen or seventeen, I wanted to become a monk. I didn't give up this ambition until I reached the age of twenty-nine. If I wanted to become a monk, I could not get married. But a person is not only composed of a brain. He is more than just thought. He cannot leave his corporal body. If I had really followed my ambition early on and had gone to a monastery, there probably would have been no problem, and [my life] would probably have been most congenial, and I would have lived out my life quietly.壹 我的思想的根本就是儒家跟佛家
梁：我的意思啊，我们彼此谈话，我还是希望你了解我的思想的根本，我的思想的根本就是儒家跟佛家。我的意思就是，如果能够对我的根本的思想——就是对佛家跟儒家多了解，比什么都好，比了解我的过去的一些事情都重要。我希望于你的，就是多了解儒家，多了解佛家，我愿意把我所懂得的儒家跟佛家说给你听。我的意思是把我们的谈话重点放在这个地方，而不是重在我个人的事情。因为佛家的跟儒家的是我的根本，所以如果了解这个根本，是最好，最要紧。不但是我期望于你，并且我是期望欧美人能够多了解这两家，一个儒家，一个佛家。
艾：梁先生，您现在年纪很大了，就是说，对佛教、佛学的兴趣有没有好像恢复了或者增加了？就是说，这个五四时代，您就好像是放弃了佛学而转入儒学。
梁：那个都不大相干，说放弃，也没有放弃，不过是，原来想出家做和尚，把这个“出家做和尚”放弃了，在思想上还是那样。
艾：啊，现在明白一点。其实我书里也是这么写的（指《最后的儒家——梁漱溟与中国现代化的两难》，以下简称为《最后的儒家》），就是说您不是完全放弃，不过觉得目前的问题不太需要佛学，比较需要儒学。因为这个关系，您就开始研究儒家。
梁：我说明我自己啊，我是年纪很小，比如说十六七岁就想出家为僧。那么这个志愿到了29岁才放弃这个念头，不出家了。出家当和尚不能娶妻子，可是一个人呢，他不单是一个有头脑、有思想的，他还脱离不开身体。假定啊，如果真是从自己的当初的那个志愿，很早就出家到庙里去了，大概也没有什么问题，也可能很相安，可能没有什么问题。
But before I could leave the secular world and enter a monastery, I was drawn into Peking University to teach philosophy by Mr. Cai Yuanpei. Because of this, my life underwent a change. What change was this? I didn't go off to a monastery, but instead I scurried off into the world of learning and the company of intellectuals. It is difficult to avoid having a spirit of competition. This desire to excel over others arises from the corporeal. If I had been as I first wanted, very early leaving secular life for a monastery, that could have been peaceful and stable, walking a calm path. But when I got to the university and into the company of a lot of intellectuals, debates developed easily, and created a desire to excel over others. This desire to excel over others arises from the corporeal. The problem of sex easily arises from the corporeal. A monk does not need to get married; he is able to live in a monastery and can completely forget [sex], and can completely want no part of taking a wife. But when I got to the university, and was together with intellectuals, often I had this desire to excel over others. This was a corporeal problem. Once it arose, I also wanted to marry.
不过没有很早地出家，就被蔡元培先生拉去，在北京大学要我讲哲学。走上这样一步，就起了变化。走上这一步就是什么样子呢？就是不是去到庙里当和尚，而跑到知识界，跟知识分子在一起。同知识分子在一起，他难免就有知识分子对知识分子这种好胜，就是彼此较量，这个好胜的心是从身体来的。如果是像当初想的，很早出家到庙里去，那个可以也很相安，很平稳，走一种很冷静的路子吧。可是一到大学里头，同许多知识分子在一起，彼此容易有辩论，就引起了好胜之心。这个好胜之心是身体的，是身体的他就容易有那个两性的问题。和尚是不要娶妻的，他在庙里头能够住下去，可以完全忘掉，可以完全不想娶妻。可（我）到了大学，同知识分子在一起，常常有这种好胜之心，这个是身体问题，身体问题来了，这个时候也就想结婚了。BuddhismThe Buddhist attitude toward life
Liang: A person is not just of this one life. A person's real substance is transmitted from the distant past down through time. He has a very long and distant past. So his so-called "fate" is none other than his past and his background. A man's life and destiny is decided by his past.
Alitto: Is this related to Buddhism?
Liang: Yes. Buddhism is… "Life, divided into endless instants, is at best similar and continuous; the meaning of life is neither interrupted nor persistent." It is linked, part of a continuous process. The me of today is like the me of the past, but isn't identical. Strictly speaking, the me of a previous period and the me of the present are different entities. So a person, from the time he is a small child growing up to old age—like me, I'm over 80 years old—is changing every instant, different every instant. As for this difference, simply speaking, in one aspect, the body is different; the brain is different; the influence from outside has long been different. So all is different, but within the differences is some similarity. So we call it "similar and continuous." In the phrase "neither interrupted nor persistent," "nor persistent" means "not perpetual as before," or you could say "not permanent." So "neither interrupted nor persistent" does not mean permanent, but it is still uninterrupted. This is to say that the present me is not the me of just now, they are not the same thing, but there is no interruption either—it still continues on. That life is "similar and continuous" not only means that there is similarity and continuity between the me of one year old and the me of two years old, and the me of three years old; it also means that after death this similarity and continuity is not broken. This is the Buddhist attitude toward life.
There are three realms (trailokya) talked about in the Buddhist scriptures. This is the Buddhist attitude toward life. The first is called "the realm of sensuous desire" (kāmadhātu)—the primal wants for food, drink and sex. This is all desire. The second is called "the realm of form" (rūpadhātu). The third realm is called "the formless realm of pure spirit" (arūpadhātu). The Buddhist scriptures have it this way, but it seems that this is not a theory created by the Buddhist scriptures. Rather, it seems that this is a common belief in India; it is commonly held that there are these three realms. The primal desires exist only in the realm of sensuous desire. It does not exist in the realm of form. In the realm of form there is still gender difference, but no food or drink, no intercourse between male and female. In the formless realm of pure spirit, there is nothing at all. The Buddhist scriptures contain such a theory.
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]