在文明发展的早期阶段，人的观点本质上是整体性的，而不是碎片化的。在东方（尤其是印度），这种观点仍然存在，因为哲学和宗教强调整体性，并暗示将世界分成几部分进行分析是徒劳的。这些观念不仅包括否认分裂和碎片化的自我世界观，还包括冥想技巧，将整个非语言的思维运作过程引导到一种有序、顺畅的安静状态，而这种状态正是在实际思维过程及其内容中结束碎片化所必需的。那么，为什么我们不放弃我们碎片化的西方方法，而采用这些东方观念？

要回答这个问题，首先要了解西方和东方“度（measure）”的概念之间的差异是有用的。在西方，度的概念从很早开始就在确定一般的自我世界观以及这种观点中隐含的生活方式方面发挥了关键作用。因此，在古希腊人中，我们的大部分基本观念（通过罗马人）都来自于他们，将一切保持在适当的范围内被认为是美好生活的基本要素之一（例如，希腊悲剧通常描绘了人类的命运，由于超出了事物的适当尺度而遭受痛苦）。在这方面，度在现代意义上并不被视为主要是物体与外部标准或单位的某种比较。相反，后一种程序被视为一种更深层的“内在度”的外在展示或显现，它在一切事物中都发挥着至关重要的作用。当某件事物超出了其应有的尺度时，不仅意味着它不符合某种外在的正确标准，更意味着它的内在不和谐，因此必然会失去完整性并破裂成碎片。通过考虑某些单词的早期含义，人们可以对这种思维方式有所了解。因此，拉丁语“mederi”的意思是“治愈”（现代“医学”的词根），它是基本意思是“度”的词根。这反映了这样一种观点，即身体健康被视为身体所有部分和过程的正确内在度状态的结果。同样，描述古代主要美德概念之一的“节制”一词也基于相同的根源，这表明这种美德被认为是人类社会行动和行为背后正确的内在度标准的结果。同样，“冥想”一词也是同根，意味着对整个思维过程的一种衡量、思考或测量，可以使心灵的内在活动达到一种和谐度的状态。因此，从身体、社会和精神上来说，对事物内在度的认识被视为健康、幸福、和谐生活的关键。

显然，度应通过比例或比率来更详细地表达； “比率（ratio）”是拉丁词，我们现代的“理性（reason）”就源自于此。在古代观点中，理性被视为对比例或比例整体的洞察，被认为与事物的本质具有内在相关性（而不仅仅是在外表上作为与标准或单位进行比较的形式）。当然，这个比例不一定只是数字比例（当然也包括这样的比例）。相反，它通常是一种定性的普遍比例或关系。因此，当牛顿领悟到万有引力时，他所看到的可以这样表述：“当苹果落下时，月亮也会落下，一切事物也确实如此。”

A:B::C:D::E:F

其中 A 和 B 代表苹果在连续时刻的连续位置，C 和 D 代表月球，E 和 F 代表任何其他物体。

每当我们发现某件事物的理论依据时，我们就在例证这种比率概念，即暗示由于我们的想法中的各个方面都是相关的，因此它们在该想法所涉及的事物中也是相关的。一个事物的本质原因或比率是其结构及其形成、维持和最终消解过程中内部比例的总体。从这个角度来看，了解这个比例就是了解那个事物的“最内在的存在”。

由此可见，度是洞察一切事物本质的一种形式，人的感知遵循这种洞察所指示的方式，就会变得清晰，从而带来普遍有序的行动和和谐的生活。在这方面，回想起古希腊音乐和视觉艺术中的度的概念是有用的。这些概念强调，掌握度是理解音乐和声的关键（例如，度作为节奏、声音强度的正确比例、音调的正确比例等）。同样，在视觉艺术中，正确的度被认为对于整体和谐和美丽至关重要（例如，考虑“黄金分割”）。所有这些都表明，度的概念远远超出了与外部标准进行比较的范围，指向了一种通过感官和心灵感知的普遍的内在比率或比例。

当然，随着时间的推移，这种度的概念逐渐开始发生变化，失去了微妙性，变得相对粗俗和机械。这可能是因为人的度的概念变得越来越常规化和习惯化，无论是在相对于外部单位度量的外在表现上，还是在作为与身体健康、社会秩序和心理和谐相关的普遍比例的内在意义方面。人们开始通过遵循长辈或大师的教诲，机械地学习这种度的概念，而不是通过内心感受，理解他们所学习的比例或比率的深层含义来创造性地学习。因此，度逐渐被视为一种从外部强加给人类的规则，而人类又在其工作的每一个环境中，在身体上、社会上和精神上施加了相应的度。结果，流行的度的概念不再被视为洞察的形式。相反，它似乎是“关于现实的绝对真理”，人们似乎一直都知道这些真理，其起源常常被神话地解释为众神的约束性禁令，质疑这一点既危险又邪恶。因此，关于度的思想往往主要落入无意识习惯的领域，因此，这种思想在感知中引发的形式现在被视为直接观察到的客观现实，它们本质上独立于它们的思考方式。

即使到了古希腊时代，这个过程已经走了很长一段路，当人们意识到这一点时，他们开始质疑度的概念。因此普罗泰戈拉说：“人是万物的尺度”，从而强调度不是人外在的、独立于人而存在的现实。但许多习惯于从外部看待一切事物的人也用这种方式看待普罗泰戈拉所说的话。因此，他们得出的结论是，度的标准是任意的，并且受到每个人反复无常的选择或品味的影响。通过这种方式，他们当然忽视了这样一个事实，即度是一种洞察形式，必须适应人类生活的整体现实，正如其所导致的感知的清晰度和行动的和谐所证明的那样。只有当一个人认真、诚实地工作，把真理和事实放在第一位，而不是自己的突发奇想或欲望时，这种洞察才能正确地产生。

度的概念的普遍僵化和客观化继续发展，直到现代，“度”一词主要表示将某事物与外部标准进行比较的过程。虽然原始含义在某些上下文中（例如艺术和数学）仍然存在，但通常被认为仅具有次要的意义。

在东方，度的概念没有发挥如此重要的作用。相反，在东方盛行的哲学中，不可度量的（即无法通过任何形式的理性命名、描述或理解的事物）被视为主要现实。因此，在梵语（与印欧语系有共同的起源）中，有一个词“matra”，在音乐意义上意思是“度”，它显然与希腊语“metron”接近。但还有另一个词“maya”源自同一词根，意思是“幻觉”。这是非常重要的一点。然而，对于西方社会来说，“度”一词源自希腊语，它是现实的本质，或者至少是这一本质的关键，而在东方，“度”现在已被普遍认为是在某种程度上是虚假和骗人的。在这种观点中，呈现在普通感知和理性面前的形式、比例和 “比率 ”的整个结构和秩序被视为一种面纱，遮住了真正的现实，而感官无法感知现实，对现实也无从谈起或思考。

显然，两个社会的不同发展方式与其不同的度的态度相适应。因此，在西方，社会主要强调科学技术的发展（依赖于度量），而在东方，主要强调宗教和哲学（最终指向不可度量）。

如果仔细思考这个问题，就会发现，从某种意义上说，东方人把不可度量作为第一现实是正确的。因为，正如已经指出的，度是人类创造的洞察。超越人类且优先于人类的现实不能依赖于这种洞察。事实上，正如我们所看到的，试图假设度先于人而存在并且独立于人，这会导致人的洞察的“客观化”，从而使其变得僵化而无法改变，最终导致以本章描述方式的人类洞察的碎片化和普遍的混乱。

人们可能会推测，也许在古代，那些足够聪明的人看到不可度量的东西是主要现实，他们也足够聪明地看到度是对现实的次要和依赖但仍然必要的方面的洞察。因此，他们可能同意希腊人的观点，即对度的洞察能够帮助我们的生活实现秩序与和谐，同时，也许更深入地看到，它不可能是这方面最基本的东西。

他们可能进一步说的是，当度与现实的本质等同时，这就是幻觉。但后来，当人们通过遵循传统的教义来了解这一点时，其含义在很大程度上就变成了习惯性和机械性。正如前面所指出的那样，微妙之处消失了，人们开始简单地说：“度是幻觉”。因此，无论是在东方还是在西方，真正的洞察可能会因为机械地遵从现有教义进行学习，而不是创造性、独创性地把握这些教义中隐含的洞察，从而变成虚假的、误导性的东西。

当然，要回到东西方分裂之前可能存在的整体性状态是不可能的（如果只是因为我们对这种状态知之甚少，如果有的话）。相反，我们需要的是重新学习、观察、发现整体的意义。当然，我们必须认识过去西方和东方的教义，但模仿这些教义或试图遵守它们没有什么价值。因为，正如本章所指出的，要发展对碎片化和整体性的新见解，需要创造性的工作，这比在科学上做出根本性的新发现或伟大的原创艺术作品所需要的工作还要困难。在此背景下，可以说，在创造力方面与爱因斯坦相似的人，并不是模仿爱因斯坦思想的人，甚至也不是以新的方式应用这些思想的人，而是向爱因斯坦学习然后再去实践的人。做一些原创的事情，能够吸收爱因斯坦工作中有效的东西，但以新的方式超越了这项工作。因此，对于过去东方和西方的伟大智慧，我们要做的是吸收它们，并继续获得与我们当前生活状况相关的新的和原创性的感知。

在此过程中，重要的是我们要清楚技术的作用，例如各种冥想形式中使用的技术。在某种程度上，冥想技巧可以被视为人类为试图达到不可度量而采取的措施（由知识和理性命令的行动），即一种他不再感觉到自己与整个现实之间分离的心态。但显然，这样的概念是有矛盾的，因为不可度量的东西，如果有的话，就是不能被限制在人类知识和理性所决定的范围内的东西。

可以肯定的是，在某些特定的背景下，以正确的精神理解的技术措施可以引导我们做一些事情，如果我们善于观察，我们就能从中获得洞察。然而，这种可能性是有限的。因此，考虑制定技术以在科学或原创性和创造性的艺术作品中做出根本性的新发现，这将是一个矛盾，因为这种行动的本质是摆脱对他人的依赖，而这些人将被需要指南。这种自由如何在以遵循他人知识为主要能量来源的活动中传递？如果技术不能教授艺术和科学的原创性和创造力，那么它们更不可能让我们“发现不可度量的事物”？

事实上，人类无法做任何直接的、积极的事情来接触不可度量的东西，因为这一定远远超出了人类用头脑所能掌握的、用手或仪器所能完成的任何事情。人类能做的就是投入全部注意力和创造力，使度的全域变得清晰和有序。当然，这不仅涉及以外部单位度量的外在标准，还涉及内部度量标准，如身体的健康、行动的节制和冥想，从而洞察思想的度标准。后者尤为重要，因为正如我们所看到的，自我和世界被分解成碎片的幻觉源于一种超出其适当度的思想，并将其自身的产物与相同的独立现实相混淆。要结束这种幻觉，不仅需要洞察整个世界，还需要洞察思想工具是如何运作的。这种洞察意味着通过感官和心灵对生活的各个方面（精神和身体）进行原始和创造性的感知行为，这也许就是冥想的真正含义。

正如我们所看到的，碎片化本质上源于对形成我们整体自我世界观的见解的固化，它遵循我们对这些问题普遍机械的、常规化的和习惯性的思维模式。由于原始现实超出了这种固定度的形式所能包含的任何内容，因此这些见解最终必定不再充分，从而导致各种形式的不明确或混乱。然而，当度的全域向原创性和创造性的洞察开放，没有任何固定的限制或障碍时，我们的整体世界观将不再僵化，度的全域将变得和谐，因为其内部的碎片化结束了。但度的全域内的原创性和创造性的洞察是不可度量的行动，因为当这种洞察出现时，其源头不可能是已经包含在度领域中的观念，而必须是不可度量的事物，它包含了度的全域中发生的所有事情的本质形成原因。于是，可度量的和不可度量的就和谐了，事实上，人们看到它们只是考虑单一和不可分割的整体的不同方式。

当这种和谐盛行时，人不仅可以洞察整体的意义，更重要的是，他可以在生命的各个阶段和方面认识到这种洞察的真理。

正如克里希那穆提（Krishnamurti）以有力而清晰的方式指出的那样，这要求人类将其全部创造力投入到度的全域的探究中。做到这一点也许是极其困难和艰巨的，但既然一切都取决于此，那么它肯定值得我们每个人认真对待和深思熟虑。

原文：

APPENDIX: RÉSUMÉ OF DISCUSSION ON WESTERN AND EASTERN FORMS OF INSIGHT INTO WHOLENESS

In the very early phases of the development of civilization, man’s views were essentially of wholeness rather than of fragmenta- tion. In the East (especially in India) such views still survive, in the sense that philosophy and religion emphasize wholeness and imply the futility of analysis of the world into parts. Why, then, do we not drop our fragmentary Western approach and adopt these Eastern notions which include not only a self-world view that denies division and fragmentation but also techniques of meditation that lead the whole process of mental operation non- verbally to the sort of quiet state of orderly and smooth flow needed to end fragmentation both in the actual process of thought and in its content?

To answer such a question, it is useful to begin by going into the difference between Western and Eastern notions of measure. Now, in the West the notion of measure has, from very early times, played a key role in determining the general self-world view and the way of life implicit in such a view. Thus among the Ancient Greeks, from whom we derive a large part of our fun- damental notions (by way of the Romans), to keep everything in its right measure was regarded as one of the essentials of a good life (e.g. Greek tragedies generally portrayed man’s suffering as a consequence of his going beyond the proper measure of things). In this regard, measure was not looked on in its modern sense as being primarily some sort of comparison of an object with an external standard or unit. Rather, this latter procedure was regarded as a kind of outward display or appearance of a deeper ‘inner measure’, which played an essential role in everything. When something went beyond its proper measure, this meant not merely that it was not conforming to some external standard of what was right but, much more, that it was inwardly out of harmony, so that it was bound to lose its integrity and break up into fragments. One can obtain some insight into this way of thinking by considering the earlier meanings of certain words. Thus, the Latin ‘mederi’ meaning ‘to cure’ (the root of the mod- ern ‘medicine’) is based on a root meaning ‘to measure’. This reflects the view that physical health is to be regarded as the outcome of a state of right inward measure in all parts and processes of the body. Similarly, the word ‘moderation’, which describes one of the prime ancient notions of virtue, is based on the same root, and this shows that such virtue was regarded as the outcome of a right inner measure underlying man’s social actions and behaviour. Again, the word ‘meditation’, which is based on the same root, implies a kind of weighing, pondering, or measuring of the whole process of thought, which could bring the inner activities of the mind to a state of harmonious measure. So, physically, socially and mentally, awareness of the inner measure of things was seen as the essential key to a healthy, happy, harmonious life.

It is clear that measure is to be expressed in more detail through proportion or ratio; and ‘ratio’ is the Latin word from which our modern ‘reason’ is derived. In the ancient view, rea- son is seen as insight into a totality of ratio or proportion, regarded as relevant inwardly to the very nature of things (and not only outwardly as a form of comparison with a standard or unit). Of course, this ratio is not necessarily merely a numerical proportion (though it does, of course, include such proportion). Rather, it is in general a qualitative sort of universal proportion or relationship. Thus, when Newton perceived the insight of universal gravitation, what he saw could be put in this way: ‘As the apple falls, so does the moon, and so indeed does every- thing.’ To exhibit the form of the ratio yet more explicitly, one can write:

A : B :: C : D :: E : F

where A and B represent successive positions of the apple at successive moments of time, C and D those of the moon, and E and F those of any other object.

Whenever we find a theoretical reason for something, we are exemplifying this notion of ratio, in the sense of implying that as the various aspects are related in our idea, so they are related in the thing that the idea is about. The essential reason or ratio of a thing is then the totality of inner proportions in its structure, and in the process in which it forms, maintains itself, and ultimately dissolves. In this view, to understand such ratio is to understand the ‘innermost being’ of that thing.

It is thus implied that measure is a form of insight into the essence of everything, and that man’s perception, following on ways indicated by such insight, will be clear and will thus bring about generally orderly action and harmonious living. In this connection, it is useful to call to mind Ancient Greek notions of measure in music and in the visual arts. These notions emphasized that a grasp of measure was a key to the understand- ing of harmony in music (e.g., measure as rhythm, right propor- tion in intensity of sound, right proportion in tonality, etc.). Likewise, in the visual arts, right measure was seen as essential to overall harmony and beauty (e.g., consider the ‘Golden Mean’). All of this indicates how far the notion of measure went beyond that of comparison with an external standard, to point to a uni- versal sort of inner ratio or proportion, perceived both through the senses and through the mind.

Of course, as time went on, this notion of measure gradually began to change, to lose its subtlety and to become relatively gross and mechanical. Probably this was because man’s notion of measure became more and more routinized and habitual, both with regard to its outward display in measurements relative to an external unit and to its inner significance as universal ratio relevant to physical health, social order, and mental harmony. Men began to learn such notions of measure mechanically, by conforming to the teachings of their elders or their masters, and not creatively through an inner feeling and understanding of the deeper meaning of the ratio or proportion which they were learning. So measure gradually came to be taught as a sort of rule that was to be imposed from outside on the human being, who in turn imposed the corresponding measure physically, socially and mentally, in every context in which he was working. As a result, the prevailing notions of measure were no longer seen as forms of insight. Rather, they appeared to be ‘absolute truths about reality as it is’, which men seemed always to have known, and whose origin was often explained mythologically as binding injunctions of the Gods, which it would be both dangerous and wicked to question. Thought about measure thus tended to fall mainly into the domain of unconscious habit and, as a result, the forms induced in perception by this thought were now seen as directly observed objective realities, which were essentially independent of how they were thought about.

Even by the time of the Ancient Greeks, this process had gone a long way and, as men realized this, they began to question the notion of measure. Thus Protagoras said: ‘Man is the measure of all things’, thus emphasizing that measure is not a reality external to man, existing independently of him. But many who were in the habit of looking at everything externally also applied this way of looking to what Protagoras said. Thus, they con- cluded that measure was something arbitrary, and subject to the capricious choice or taste of each individual. In this way they of course overlooked the fact that measure is a form of insight that has to fit the overall reality in which man lives, as demonstrated by the clarity of perception and harmony of action to which it leads. Such insight can arise properly only when a man works with seriousness and honesty, putting truth and factuality first, rather than his own whims or desires.

The general rigidification and objectification of the notion of measure continued to develop until, in modern times, the very word ‘measure’ has come to denote mainly a process of com- parison of something with an external standard. While the original meaning still survives in some contexts (e.g., art and mathematics) it is generally felt as having only a secondary sort of significance.

Now, in the East the notion of measure has not played nearly so fundamental a role. Rather, in the prevailing philosophy in the Orient, the immeasurable (i.e. that which cannot be named, described, or understood through any form of reason) is regarded as the primary reality. Thus, in Sanskrit (which has an origin common to the Indo-European language group) there is a word ‘matra’ meaning ‘measure’, in the musical sense, which is evidently close to the Greek ‘metron’. But then there is another word ‘maya’ obtained from the same root, which means ‘illu- sion’. This is an extraordinarily significant point. Whereas to Western society, as it derives from the Greeks, measure, with all that this word implies, is the very essence of reality, or at least the key to this essence, in the East measure has now come to be regarded commonly as being in some way false and deceitful. In this view the entire structure and order of forms, proportions, and ‘ratios’ that present themselves to ordinary perception and reason are regarded as a sort of veil, covering the true reality, which cannot be perceived by the senses and of which nothing can be said or thought.

It is clear that the different ways the two societies have developed fit in with their different attitudes to measure. Thus, in the West, society has mainly emphasized the development of science and technology (dependent on measure) while in the East, the main emphasis has gone to religion and philosophy (which are directed ultimately toward the immeasurable).

If one considers this question carefully, one can see that in a certain sense the East was right to see the immeasurable as the primary reality. For, as has already been indicated, measure is an insight created by man. A reality that is beyond man and prior to him cannot depend on such insight. Indeed, the attempt to sup- pose that measure exists prior to man and independently of him leads, as has been seen, to the ‘objectification’ of man’s insight, so that it becomes rigidified and unable to change, eventually bringing about fragmentation and general confusion in the way described in this chapter.

One may speculate that perhaps in ancient times, the men who were wise enough to see that the immeasurable is the pri- mary reality were also wise enough to see that measure is insight into a secondary and dependent but nonetheless necessary aspect of reality. Thus they may have agreed with the Greeks that insight into measure is capable of helping to bring about order and harmony in our lives, while at the same time, seeing perhaps more deeply, that it cannot be what is most fundamental in this regard.

What they may further have said is that when measure is identified with the very essence of reality, this is illusion. But then, when men learned this by conforming to the teachings of tradition, the meaning became largely habitual and mechanical. In the way indicated earlier, the subtlety was lost and men began to say simply: ‘measure is illusion’. Thus, both in the East and in the West, true insight may have been turned into something false and misleading by the procedure of learning mechanically through conformity to existent teachings, rather than through a creative and original grasp of the insights implicit in such teachings.

It is of course impossible to go back to a state of wholeness that may have been present before the split between East and West developed (if only because we know little, if anything, about this state). Rather, what is needed is to learn afresh, to observe, and to discover for ourselves the meaning of wholeness. Of course, we have to be cognisant of the teachings of the past, both Western and Eastern, but to imitate these teachings or to try to conform to them would have little value. For, as has been pointed out in this chapter, to develop new insight into fragmen- tation and wholeness requires a creative work even more dif- ficult than that needed to make fundamental new discoveries in science, or great and original works of art. It might in this con- text be said that one who is similar to Einstein in creativity is not the one who imitates Einstein’s ideas, nor even the one who applies these ideas in new ways, rather, it is the one who learns from Einstein and then goes on to do something original, which is able to assimilate what is valid in Einstein’s work and yet goes beyond this work in qualitatively new ways. So what we have to do with regard to the great wisdom from the whole of the past, both in the East and in the West, is to assimilate it and to go on to new and original perception relevant to our present condition of life.

In doing this, it is important that we be clear on the role of techniques, such as those used in various forms of meditation. In a way, techniques of meditation can be looked on as measures (actions ordered by knowledge and reason) which are taken by man to try to reach the immeasurable, i.e., a state of mind in which he ceases to sense a separation between himself and the whole of reality. But clearly, there is a contradiction in such a notion, for the immeasurable is, if anything, just that which cannot be brought within limits determined by man’s knowledge and reason.

To be sure, in certain specifiable contexts, technical measures, understood in a right spirit, can lead us to do things from which we can derive insight if we are observant. Such possibilities, however, are limited. Thus, it would be a contradiction in terms to think of formulating techniques for making fundamental new discoveries in science or original and creative works of art, for the very essence of such action is a certain freedom from dependence on others, who would be needed as guides. How can this freedom be transmitted in an activity in which conform- ity to someone else’s knowledge is the main source of energy? And if techniques cannot teach originality and creativity in art and science, how much less is it possible for them to enable us to ‘discover the immeasurable’?

Actually, there are no direct and positive things that man can do to get in touch with the immeasurable, for this must be immensely beyond anything that man can grasp with his mind or accomplish with his hands or his instruments. What man can do is to give his full attention and creative energies to bring clarity and order into the totality of the field of measure. This involves, of course, not only the outward display of measure in terms of external units but also inward measure, as health of the body, moderation in action, and meditation, which gives insight into the measure of thought. This latter is particularly important because, as has been seen, the illusion that the self and the world are broken into fragments originates in the kind of thought that goes beyond its proper measure and confuses its own product with the same independent reality. To end this illusion requires insight, not only into the world as a whole, but also into how the instrument of thought is working. Such insight implies an original and creative act of perception into all aspects of life, mental and physical, both through the senses and through the mind, and this is perhaps the true meaning of meditation.

As has been seen, fragmentation originates in essence in the fixing of the insights forming our overall self-world view, which follows on our generally mechanical, routinized and habitual modes of thought about these matters. Because the primary re- ality goes beyond anything that can be contained in such fixed forms of measure, these insights must eventually cease to be adequate, and will thus give rise to various forms of unclarity or confusion. However, when the whole field of measure is open to original and creative insight, without any fixed limits or barriers, then our overall world views will cease to be rigid, and the whole field of measure will come into harmony, as fragmenta- tion within it comes to an end. But original and creative insight within the whole field of measure is the action of the immeasur- able. For when such insight occurs, the source cannot be within ideas already contained in the field of measure but rather has to be in the immeasurable, which contains the essential formative cause of all that happens in the field of measure. The measurable and the immeasurable are then in harmony and indeed one sees that they are but different ways of considering the one and undivided whole.

When such harmony prevails, man can then not only have insight into the meaning of wholeness but, what is much more significant, he can realize the truth of this insight in every phase and aspect of his life.

As Krishnamurti1 has brought out with great force and clarity, this requires that man gives his full creative energies to the inquiry into the whole field of measure. To do this may perhaps be extremely difficult and arduous, but since everything turns on this, it is surely worthy of the serious attention and utmost consideration of each of us.