Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR80Q2 - 問與答(二)
問與答(二)
英國布洛克伍德公園
1980 年9 月4 日



0:31 This is the last day of questions and answers. On Saturday and Sunday there will be a talk. 今天是問與答的最後一次 星期六與星期日要談話
0:43 As we said the other day, a question implies that we are seeking an answer. The answer is in the question, not away from the question. And in asking these questions and finding their answer we are together investigating the question. It is not that the speaker talks or answers, but together we are trying to find the right answer. It is not the answer according to me or according to you, but what is the right, true answer to these questions. 前幾天說過 問題暗示著 我們在尋找答案 答案就在問題裡 並沒有遠離問題 在提問與回答的過程中 我們也在一起探究問題 並不是說者說話或回答 而是我們一起找正確的答案 不是根據我或你說的答案 而是找出正確、真實的答案
1:45 I have been handed over nearly a hundred and fifty questions, probably, and we cannot possibly answer all those and I hope you won’t mind if some of them are not answered. It isn’t that we have chosen something that suits us, that can be answered by us, but rather we have tried to find out what are the most significant and worthwhile questions to be answered. 你們交來大概有 150 多個問題 我們無法回答所有的問題 有一些沒有回答的問題希望你們不介意 我們並沒有選擇一些適合的 可以由我們回答的問題 而是…試圖找出 最有意義、最有價值的問題
2:20 1st Question: What is the relationship between thought and consciousness? Why do we seem unable to go beyond thought? 問題一：思想與意識 兩者有什麼關係？ 為什麼我們似乎無法超越思想？
2:31 What is the relationship between thought and consciousness, and why do we seem unable to go beyond thought? 思想與意識有什麼關係？ 為什麼我們似乎無法超越思想？
2:46 Do we want to be serious about all this? All right, let’s be serious. 你們想認真討論這個問題嗎？ 好吧，讓我們認真以待吧
2:57 First of all, what is thinking, what is thought, and what is consciousness? Are the two different? When you say, what is the relationship between thought and consciousness, it implies, does it not, that there are two different entities, or two different movements. And we are trying to find out, the questioner tries to find out, what is the relationship between thought and consciousness. So first of all we have to consider together what is thought, what is this whole question of thinking upon which all our conduct, our activity, political, religious, economic, social and all other factors of life, are based on thought. Thought is part of emotions, sentiment, reactions, the recognition of those reactions and so on. And what is consciousness? When we use the word ‘consciousness’, to be conscious of something, to be aware of, to be able to recognise, to understand, to have a whole field in which the mind is operating. That is more or less what we mean by consciousness. And the questioner says: what is the relationship between the two? 首先，思考是什麼？思想是什麼？ 意識是什麼？ 兩者是不同的嗎？ 當你問思想與意識有什麼關係的時候 就暗示了它們是兩個不同的實體 或不同的活動 提問者想找出 思想和意識之間的關係 首先，我們要一起思考思想是什麼 整個思考的問題是什麼 我們所有的行為和活動 政治、宗教、經濟和社會活動 以及生活的所有因素都建立在思想上 思想是情感、感性和反應的一部分 對那些反應的認知等 意識是什麼？ 我們用意識這個詞是指對一個事物有意識 有覺知，能夠認知、了解 一個讓心靈運作的場域 這差不多就是意識這個詞的意思 提問者問 兩者的關係是什麼？
5:00 So first we have to find out what is thought upon which all our activities are based, with all its images, all the past remembrance and future projections, this enormous activity. Technologically, psychologically, physically, almost in every direction, thought is operating. And our relationship with each other is based on thought, the thought which has created the image about you and the other, and the other about you. Now what is that thought? That thought surely is, is it not, based on knowledge. Experience, knowledge, memory. And the reaction of that memory is thinking. So it is experience, knowledge, memory and the movement of thought, which is a material process. So, thought is always limited because knowledge is always limited. There is no complete knowledge about anything except the ending of knowledge, that is quite a different matter. So where there is the operation of knowledge and the movement of memory, thought is limited, finite, definite. 首先，我們得找出思想是什麼 我們所有活動建立的基礎 伴隨著活動的形象 所有過往的記憶和對未來的投射 這個龐大的活動 科技的、心理的、身體的 幾乎都是思想運作的方向 我們與彼此的關係也建立在思想的基礎上 思想製造你和其他人的形象 以及別人對你的形象 那麼思想是什麼？ 思想當然是建立在知識的基礎上，不是嗎？ 經驗、知識和記憶 對那個記憶的反應就是思考 也就是經驗、知識、記憶 和思想的活動 這是一個物質過程 思想始終有侷限因為知識有它的侷限 任何事物都沒有完整的知識 除了知識的終結以外這是相當不同的一回事 凡是有知識運作的地方 以及記憶的活動 思想就有它的限制、侷限和定性
7:12 And what part does thought play in consciousness? I hope we are together in this, thinking together. What is consciousness? Our consciousness – all the knowledge which we have accumulated, all the experiences, not only personal but collective, memory, genetic responses, the accumulated experience of generations after generations, all the travail, the trouble, the anxiety, the fears, the pleasures, the dogmas, the beliefs, the attachments, the pain of sorrow and all that is our consciousness. I think there is no question about that, no one would doubt that or argue about it. You can add or take away from it but it is still the movement of thought as consciousness. One can say that there is super consciousness but it would still be part of thought. This consciousness is in constant movement and breaking up the you and the me, my nationality with all its technological development which is becoming a tremendous danger in the world – nationalism plus technology. My religious beliefs, my dogmas, my rituals, my wounds, my beliefs, my ideals, my constant struggle to become something, all that is part of our consciousness, not only the consciousness of a particular person but it is the consciousness of mankind, because mankind, wherever one lives, goes through sorrow, agony, doubt, despair, depression, great uncertainty, insecurity and so clinging to some image, belief, all that is part of our being, our consciousness. So our consciousness is its content. I hope we are meeting each other. Our consciousness is made up of its content. Without the content what is our consciousness? Is there a consciousness totally different from that which is made up of the various activities of thought which we call consciousness? 思想在意識中扮演什麼角色？ 希望我們在一起思考這件事 意識是什麼？ 我們的意識也就是我們累積的所有知識 所有的經驗，不只是個人的也包括集體的經驗 記憶、基因反應 世世代代累積下來的經驗 所有的辛勞、煩惱、焦慮、恐懼 享樂、教條、信念、執著 哀傷的痛苦，都是我們的意識 我認為這一點是無庸置疑的 沒有人會質疑或提出論辯 你可以添加或刪減 但仍然是思想也就是意識的活動 你可以説有一種超意識 但它仍然是思想的一部分 這個意識持續地活動 並分化…你和我 我的國籍伴隨著它的科技發展 已經變成世界巨大的危險 國族主義加上科技 我的宗教信仰、我的教條 我的儀式、我的創傷 我的信念、我的理想 我為了變成什麼的持續奮鬥 這些都是意識的一部分 不只是某一特定個人的意識 也是人類的意識 因為人類，無論他住在哪裡都要經歷哀傷 劇痛、懷疑、絕望 沮喪、重大的不確定、不安全感 因而依附於一個形象、信念 這一切都是我們存在或意識的一部分 因此，意識就是它的內容 希望我們有彼此交會 我們的意識是由它的內容組成的 沒有了內容，何來的意識？ 有一種完全不同的意識 也就是由各種思想活動組成 我們所謂的意識嗎？
11:12 To come to that point one has to find out if thought can end, not temporarily, not between two thoughts, there is a gap and a period of silence or unconscious movement. Can thought ever end? This has been the problem of most serious people who have gone into this very deeply through meditation to end thought. I hope we are following each other in all this. I am not talking to myself. 要來到這個點，我們必須找出 思想能否終結 不是暫時性的不是介於兩個念頭之間 有一個間隙、有一段靜默或無意識的活動 思想有終止的時候嗎？ 這是所有最…認真探索者的問題 許多人透過冥想深入其中 試圖終結思想 希望我們有彼此交會 我不是在自言自語
12:11 Can thought, which is so enormously powerful, which has got such a volume of energy behind it, that energy created through millennia, both in the scientific field, economic, religious, social, personal, all that activity, can that come to an end? Which means can those things that thought has built into our consciousness, of which we are, can that consciousness with its content end? Why do we want to end it? What is the motive behind this desire to end thought? Is it that we have discovered for ourselves how thought creates enormous trouble, a great deal of travail, great anxiety of the future, of the past, of the present, the thought that brings about a sense of utter isolation and loneliness. Can all that come to an end? 思想，這個具有龐大的力量 背後擁有浩瀚的能量 那個經歷幾千年製造的能量 在科學、經濟、宗教領域 社會、個人領域的所有活動 能夠終止嗎？ 也就是…思想建立在 我們意識裡的東西，也就是我們 那個意識和它的內容能夠終止嗎？ 我們為什麼要結束它？ 結束思想背後的動機是什麼？ 是因為我們親自發現 思想如何製造無數的麻煩 一大堆的辛勞 對未來、過去和現在的大焦慮 那個會帶來徹底孤立 和孤獨的思想 這一切能結束嗎？
13:58 When one asks that question: can it come to an end are we seeking a method to end it? A system of meditation? A system which you practise day after day so as to end thought? If you practise day after day to end thought, that very practice intensifies thought, naturally. So what is one to do? I hope we are meeting each other. One realises the nature of thought, its superficiality, its intellectual game. One knows all this, how thought divides into nationalities into religious beliefs and so on. And conflict, that is all we know, perpetual conflict from the moment we are born till we die. Is that the reason why we want to end thought? So one has to be very clear, if one may point out, the motive. One must be very clear why one wants to end thought – if that is possible. Because the motive will dictate, will direct. One can live in an illusion that thought has come to an end and many people do but that illusion is merely another projection of thought which desires to end itself. 當我們問思想能否結束這個問題時 我們是在尋找一個結束它的方法嗎？ 一套冥想的系統？ 用一套日復一日修習的系統來結束它嗎？ 如果你為了結束思想而日復一日地修習 那個修習本身自然會強化思想 因此我們該怎麼做？ 希望我們有彼此交會 我們要體會思想的本質 它的膚淺 它玩弄的知性遊戲 我們知道這一切 知道思想如何分化、分化分化成國籍 分化成宗教的信仰等等 還有衝突這是我們所知的一切了 持續不斷的衝突從出生的一刻到死亡為止 這是我們要終結思想的理由嗎？ 容我指出，我們必須非常清楚自己的動機 我們必須非常清楚為什麼要結束思想？ 如果有可能的話 因為動機會支使、主導 我們會活在一個幻相裡 以為思想已經結束了 許多人會這麼做 但那個幻相只是思想的另一個投射 一個想終結自己的思想
16:15 So realising the whole complex problem of this, thought and the things that thought has built as consciousness with its content, can all that come to an end? If the speaker says it can, what value has it? None whatever. But if one realises the nature of our consciousness and the movement of thought as a material process and to observe it, can we do this? To observe the movement of thought, not as an observer different from thought – are we following this, can we go a little bit into this? Can one observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement. The awakening of thought and thought itself observing its movement. Can we do this? 明白整個問題的複雜性 思想與思想建立的東西 也就是意識和它的內容 這一切能結束嗎？ 如果說者說有可能這個可能有什麼價值？ 毫無價值 但…如果一個人體會 意識的本質和思想的活動 是一個物質過程 並觀察它，我們能做到嗎？ 觀察思想的活動 不是以一個有別於思想的觀察者 你們懂嗎？可以再深入一點嗎？ 我們能觀察思想的活動 不是以一個注視著思想的觀察者 而是思想本身覺察到它的活動 思想的覺醒 思想本身在觀察它的活動 我們能做到嗎？
18:37 Take a very simple example, either greed or nationalism, which are both the same: to observe it as it arises in one, and then to discover for oneself, is the observer, is the thinker different from thought? I hope you are following all this. Am I making myself somewhat clear? I observe thinking, that is fairly easy. I separate myself as an observer and watch my thinking, which most of us do. But this division is illusory, is fallacious, because the thinker is thought. So, can the observer be absent in his observation? The observer, the thinker is the past: the remembrance, the images, the knowledge, the experience, all the things that he has accumulated during that time, the past, is the observer. The observer names a reaction as greed and when he names it he is already caught in the past. I don’t know if you are following all this? Whereas to observe this reaction without naming it. This reaction which we call greed, by the very naming of it you have established it in the past. It becomes the past. Whereas if there is no naming but pure observation in which there is no division as the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experience, then what takes place? You are following all this? Are we coming along together, somewhat? 我舉一個很簡單的例子 無論是貪婪或國族主義 兩者都是一樣 當它從自己的內在生起時就觀察它 接著親自探索 觀察者…思考者不同於思想嗎？ 希望你們聽懂了 我有說的比較清楚嗎？ 我觀察思考，這一點相當容易 我把自己分離成一個觀察者注視著我的思考 多數人都這麼做 但這個分化是虛幻的虛假不實的 因為思考者就是思想，對嗎？ 因此…觀察者能在觀察中缺席嗎？ 觀察者、思考者是過去 記憶、意象、知識和經驗 在時間、在過去累積下來的一切 就是觀察者 觀察者把一個反應命名為貪婪 當它命名的那一刻已經陷入過去了 不知你們聽懂沒有 觀察這個反應而不加命名 這個被我們稱為貪婪的反應 你命名的動作已經把它安立在過去了 它變成了過去 當沒有命名，只有純粹的觀察 這種觀察中既沒有觀察者也沒有被觀察的對象 思考者和思想、經驗者和經驗 接著…會發生什麼？ 聽懂了嗎？ 我們有一起前進嗎？
21:32 You see, our conditioning is this division between the observer and the observed. That is why we make such enormous trouble to control the thing that is observed. I am greedy, that is the reaction. I am different from greed and therefore I can control it, I can operate on it, I can suppress it, I can enjoy it, I can do something about it. But the fact is, the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker without thought. 我們所受的制約 就是觀察者與被觀察者之間的分化 這是我們會製造無數麻煩的原因 想控制被觀察的事物，對嗎？ 我貪婪，這是一個反應 我有別於貪婪因此我能控制它 我能操作、壓抑、享受 我能對它做些什麼 但事實上，思考者就是思想 沒有思想就沒有思考者
22:22 So, to observe without the past memories, reactions, all that projecting itself immediately in observation. So to observe purely without any direction, without any motive, then one will find if one goes into it pretty deeply, that thought does come to an end, thought being time. Thought is a movement and so time is a movement, so time is thought – right, sir? This is real meditation, not all this stuff that goes on in the name of meditation, this is real meditation, which is: to see the movement of thought, for thought to see its own movement, how it arises, the creating of the image and the pursuit of that image, and to observe it so that there is no recognition of what is being observed. You understand what I am saying? That is, to make it very simple: to observe a tree without naming it, without wondering what use it can be put to, just to observe it. Then the division between the tree and you comes to an end, but you don’t become the tree – I hope not. The division which the word creates, the division, the physical, nervous, neurological responses to that tree creates the division. That is, can I observe my wife if I have one, or my girl if I have one, or another, without the word and so without the image, without all the remembrance in that relationship, which is to observe purely? Then in that observation, which is complete attention, has not thought come to an end? This requires a great deal of attention, close, step by step watching, like a good scientist who watches very, very carefully. When one does that thought does come to an end, therefore time has a stop. Has this question been sufficiently answered? 因此…在沒有過去的記憶反應的情況下觀察 那些在觀察中立刻投射自己的東西 純粹地觀察 沒有任何方向和動機 你就會發現…如果你非常深入的話 思想確實會結束思想就是時間，對嗎？ 思想是活動，時間也是活動 因此，時間就是思想 對嗎，先生？ 這才是真正的冥想 不是那些假冥想之名的玩意 真正的冥想是看見思想的活動 讓思想看見它自己的活動看見它如何生起 如何創造意象，如何追逐意象 只有觀察 對被觀察者不做任何認知 了解我在說什麼嗎？ 舉一個非常簡單的例子 觀察一棵樹，但不給它命名 不思考樹木有什麼用途 只是觀察它 接著樹和你之間的分別就結束了 但你不會變成樹，我希望不會 這種分別 也就是言說創造的 你對那棵樹的生理、神經反應 創造了分別 換言之，我能觀察我的妻子如果有的話 或觀察我的女朋友或別人 沒有言說，也因此沒有意象 沒有對那個關係的記憶 也就是純粹地觀察 那麼，在那個觀察裡也就是全然的關注 思想不會結束嗎？ 這需要大量的關注 密切的、有步驟的監看 像一個優秀的科學家非常非常仔細地監看 當你這麼做的時候思想的確會結束 因此時間也停止了 對嗎？我回答得夠充分嗎？
26:26 2nd Question: Does compassion spring from observation, or thought? Is not compassion an emotional feeling? 問題二：慈悲來自觀察，還是思想？ 慈悲不是一種感情嗎？
26:43 Does compassion spring from observation, or thought? Is not compassion an emotional feeling? 慈悲來自觀察，還是思想？ 慈悲不是一種感情嗎？
27:01 I don’t know how to answer this. What is compassion? Is it an emotion? Is it something romantic? Does it expend itself in some kind of social work? So one has to go into this. To find out what is compassion, one has to enquire what is love. Then that means: is love desire? Is love pleasure? Please, sir, question yourselves. And can there be love where there is ambition? Can there be love when one is trying to become something, not only in the outward world but also psychologically, this constant struggle to be or to become something? Can there be love? Can there be love when there is jealousy, violence, when there is division between you and me? And can there be love when we are nationalistic? Please, sir, think about it. You hear on the television every evening; British, British. The same thing in Italy, the same thing in France, in Russia, in India – we and they. When there is such nationalistic, religious, division of beliefs, images, can there be love? Go on, sir. Of course there can be no love when there is such division. But all of us are so heavily conditioned. And we accept that condition as normal. 我不知道該如何回答 慈悲是什麼？ 是一種情感嗎？ 是一種浪漫的東西嗎？ 它會擴展到社服的領域裡嗎？ 我們必須深入其中 才能找出慈悲是什麼我們必須參問愛是什麼 這意味著愛是欲望嗎？ 愛是一種享樂嗎？ 先生，請你質問自己 有野心的地方會有愛嗎？ 當你想變成什麼的時候會有愛嗎？ 不只是外在的世界也包括心理的世界 這種為了變成什麼而持續不斷的奮鬥 那裡會有愛嗎？ 有嫉妒、暴力的時候會有愛嗎？ 你我之間有分別的時候 一個國族主義者會有愛嗎？ 先生，請思考一下 你每晚在電視上聽到的都是英國、英國、英國 義大利和法國也是同樣的情形 俄國和印度，我們和他們 有這種國族主義、宗教 信仰、形象的分化裡會有愛嗎？ 說呀，先生 這種分化裡當然不會有愛 但我們所有人都被制約得如此之深 我們接受那種制約是正常的事
29:57 A friend the other day said, ‘I read about what you are talking about conditioning. Wouldn’t it be very dangerous if I unconditioned myself and drove on the right side in England?’ So don’t uncondition ourselves too much. 一位朋友前幾天說 我讀過你有關制約的書 如果我解除自己的制約不是很危險的事嗎？ 比如，在英國馬路的右邊開車 因此不要解除太多制約
30:31 And what relationship is love to sorrow? I have lost my son and I suffer enormously because I loved him. Can suffering and love go together? Please, sir, please, ask these questions. Not only personal suffering but the enormous suffering of mankind, the suffering that wars have brought about and are still bringing about, the suffering of people living in the totalitarian states. So, can there be love when there is suffering? Or only with the ending of suffering there is this passionate compassion. 愛與哀傷的關係是什麼？ 我因為失去兒子而承受了巨大的痛苦 因為我愛他 受苦和愛能並存嗎？ 先生，請問自己這些問題 不只是個人的受苦 還有人類巨大的受苦 戰爭帶來的受苦 目前還在發生 極權國家人民的受苦 有受苦的時候會有愛嗎？ 或者…只有當受苦結束後 才會有熱情的慈悲
31:58 After stating all this, where are we? Is love just an ideal? Something which we don’t know and therefore we want to have that thing, we want to have that extraordinary sense of great compassion? But we won’t pay the price for it. We would like to have the marvellous jewel but we are unwilling to either make a gesture, or do something that will bring it about. If we want peace one must live peacefully, not divided into nations and wars and all the hideousness that is going on. So what price do we pay for this? Not coins, not with coins and paper, but inwardly how deeply is this reality to come? How deeply, profoundly do we see nationalism, all division must end in myself as a human being? Because we human beings, you and I, are like the rest of the world, psychologically. You may have a different colour, short, tall, darker, black, white and so on, but inwardly psychologically we are like the rest of mankind. We all suffer, we all go through agonies, we all go through great fears, uncertainties, confusion, we are all caught in this absurd religious nonsense. We are that. And can we see the totality of this, not as an idea, not as something longed for, but as a fact, as a burning, actual, daily fact? Then out of that perception the responsibility of compassion comes Compassion goes with great intelligence. That intelligence is not the operation of knowledge. Knowledge can solve many problems – intellectual, technical and so on, but intelligence is something entirely different. Please don’t accept what I am saying, just look at it. One may have read a great deal and be capable of great arguments. The mind can solve problems. The problem-solving mind is not an intelligent mind. Intelligence comes with compassion, with love. And when that intelligence is an action of compassion it is global not a particular action. I hope we can go on to the next question. 聽過這一番陳述以後我們有什麼進展？ 愛只是一個理想嗎？ 一個我們不知道 因此想擁有的東西 想擁有那個大慈悲的不平凡感？ 但我們不願意付出代價 我們想擁有珍奇的珠寶 但卻不願意…表態 或做些可以引發它的事情 我們必須活得和平才能擁有祥和 而不是把人分裂成國家和戰爭 或進行一些醜惡的事 我們要付出什麼代價？ 不是銅幣和紙鈔 而是內在的實相有多深？ 身為一個人類，我們想結束 國族主義和分裂的程度有多深？ 因為我們人類，你和我 心理上和世界的其他人一樣 你也許膚色不同個子高矮不同、膚色較黑 黑色、白色等 但內在的心理上 我們和其他人類一樣 我們都受苦，都承受劇痛 都經歷重大的恐懼不確定和困惑 我們都陷在這個宗教的無意義裡 我們就是那個 我們能看見這一切的整體嗎？ 不是理想或一個渴求的東西而是事實 一個熾熱的、實際的日常事實 接著從那個感知裡 慈悲的責任就會來臨 慈悲伴隨著龐大的智慧 那個智慧不是知識的運作 知識能解決許多知性的或科技的問題等 但智慧卻是截然不同的東西 請不要接受我說的話只要注視它 你也許博覽群籍 擁有世智辯聰的能力 心智能解決問題 解決問題的心智沒有智慧 智慧伴隨著慈悲和愛而來 當那個智慧變成慈悲的行為時 它就是全面性的，不是…一個特別的行為 希望可以進入下一個問題
36:38 3rd Question: Why is it that in the balance of nature there is always death and suffering? 問題三：為什麼大自然的平衡裡 始終有死亡和受苦？
36:46 Why is it that in the balance of nature there is always death and suffering? 為什麼大自然的平衡裡 始終有死亡和受苦？
36:58 Why is it man has killed fifty million whales? Do you understand what I am saying? Fifty million. And still Russia and Japan are killing whales. They are killing every kind of species, man. The tigers are coming to an end, the cheetahs, the leopards and the elephants, for their tusks, for their flesh, etc. Is not man a much more dangerous animal than the rest of the animals? And you want to know why in nature there is death and suffering. You see a tiger killing a cow, or a deer. That is their natural way of life but the moment we interfere with it, it becomes real cruelty. You have seen, I am quite sure, baby seals being knocked on the head, and when there is a great protest against it, the unions say that we have to live that way. You know all this. 人為什麼會殺死五千萬隻鯨魚？ 了解我說什麼嗎？ 五千萬隻 俄國和日本仍然在屠殺 人類屠殺每一個物種 老虎已經瀕臨絕種了還有獵豹和花豹 還有大象為了象牙和象肉而屠殺 人不是比動物更危險的動物嗎？ 你想知道 大自然裡為何有死亡和受苦 你看過老虎獵殺乳牛或鹿 這是牠們自然的生活方式 但我們干涉的那一刻它就變成真正的殘酷了 我很確定你看過 人用木棒敲小海豹的頭 有人發動大規模的抗議 國聯說我們必須過這種生活方式 你們知道這一切
38:46 So, where shall we start to understand the world about us and the world within us? The world within us is so enormously complex but we want to understand the world of nature first. All that becomes our mania. Perhaps if we could start with ourselves – not to hurt, not to be violent, not to be nationalistic, but to feel for the whole of mankind, then perhaps we shall have a proper relationship between ourselves and nature. Now we are destroying the earth, the air, the sea, the things of the sea, because we are the greatest danger to the world, with our atomic bombs – you know all that, what is happening. 那麼我們該從哪裡開始 才能了解我們身邊的世界 以及我們內在的世界？ 內在的世界無比複雜 但我們想先了解自然世界 這變成了我們的狂熱 或許我們該從自己開始 不傷害、不暴力 不做國族主義者 而是感受全人類 或許我們和大自然之間 就會有適當的關係 我們正在摧毀地球、空氣 海洋與海裡的生物 因為我們是世界最大的威脅 我們的原子彈，你們知道正在發生的事
40:21 4th Question: Why do you say attachment is corruption? Are we not attached to those we love? 問題四：你為什麼說依附就是腐敗？ 我們不都依附所愛的人嗎？
40:31 Why do you say attachment is corruption? Are we not attached to those we love? 你為什麼說依附就是腐敗？ 我們不都依附所愛的人嗎？
40:43 Does this need explanation? When you are attached to an idea, to a concept, to an ideal as the Communists are, or the Catholics, or the Protestants or the Nationalists, isn’t there the beginning of corruption? Corruption being, to corrupt, to break up, the meaning of that word is to break up. When I am a devout Marxist and to me that is the only solution to all our problems and then I am unwilling to examine any other questions, any other avenues, I am committed, I am tied. When I am tied to a belief, to a God, to an image, to a person, is there not the beginning of corruption? Please, sir, it is not what I am saying, just look at it for yourselves. Is attachment love? When I am attached to you as an audience, God forbid, when I am attached to you as an audience I am exploiting you, I am deriving great comfort, I am fulfilling myself. Is that not corruption? When I am attached to my wife, or to my friend, or whatever it is, to a piece of furniture, especially antique furniture – somebody has put antique furniture in the room I happen to live. When I am attached to that piece of furniture I become that furniture. And then corruption begins, I have to guard it, I have to protect it – fear. Fear begins with attachment. I may derive pleasure in that attachment, comfort, encouragement, but in that there is always the shadow of fear in it, anxiety, jealousy, possessiveness, and people like to be possessed and to possess, is that not corruption? Because in that there is an enormous sense of fear, anxiety that I might lose it. 這需要解釋嗎？ 當你依附於一個觀念 一個概念或理想就像共產主義者一樣 或天主教徒、新教徒或國族主義者 那不就是腐敗的開始嗎？ 腐敗的意思是腐化、分解 那個字的意思就是分解 如果我是一個死忠的馬克斯主義者 對我來說，這就是所有問題的唯一解決之道 我就不願意檢視其他的問題或途徑 我全心奉獻…我被綁住了 當我綁在一個信仰上 綁在一個神、形象和人的時候 這不是腐敗的開始嗎？ 先生，不是因為我這麼說 你只要親自看一下 依附是愛嗎？ 當我把你們當聽眾來依附時但願不會 當我把你們當聽眾來依附時 我就是在剝削你們 從你們身上獲得極大的安慰我在滿足自己 這不是腐敗嗎？ 當我依附於妻子、朋友或任何事物時 或一個家具 特別是古董家具 有人在我住的房間裡放了一個古董家具 當我依附於那個家具時我就變成那個家具，對嗎？ 接著腐敗就開始了我必須看管它 必須保護它…明白嗎？恐懼 恐懼是從依附開始的 我也許從依附中獲取享樂 舒適、鼓勵 但其中始終有恐懼的陰影 焦慮、嫉妒、占有欲 人喜歡被占有或占有 這不是腐敗嗎？ 因為依附中有龐大的恐懼感 害怕失去的焦慮
44:24 So, can one live in this world without a single sense of attachment to anything? To your beliefs, dogmas, to God, to various symbols, ideologies and images, wife, furniture, house, experience – all that, to be completely... which doesn’t mean that one becomes detached. When there is an attempt to be detached then detachment is part of attachment. Because the opposite has its roots in its own opposite. Is that clear? So to understand the nature of attachment, the consequences of it, to see the whole movement of attachment, not just one particular attachment to a person, to an idea, to a piece of furniture, but to have the comprehension, the insight into this whole movement of attachment. When you have an insight into it, which I have gone into, which we’ve explained the other day, then attachment drops away immediately without any conflict. Then perhaps one has love because love and fear and jealousy cannot go together. 人能活在世間 沒有對任何事物的依附嗎？ 對任何事物 對信仰、教條和上帝 各式各樣的象徵意識型態和形象 妻子、家具、房子、經驗等一切 完全不依附 這不意味著你會出離 當你有出離的企圖時 那個出離也是依附的一部分對嗎？ 因為對立物的根源就在相對的事物裡 這麼說清楚嗎？ 因此了解依附的本質 了解它的後果 看見依附的整個活動 不只是對人、觀念的依附 或家具 而是有一份理解、洞察 深入依附的整個活動 當你有了洞察以後我前幾天 已經探討和說明過了 那個依附就會立刻脫落 沒有任何衝突 或許你就會有愛 因為愛不能與恐懼、嫉妒並存
46:43 5th Question: You say we are the world but the majority of the world seem to be heading for mass destruction. Can a minority of integrated people outweigh the majority? 問題五：你說我們是世界 但絕大多數的人似乎正走向大規模的毀滅 少數人格完整的人能抗衡絕大多數人嗎？
46:58 You say we are the world but the majority of the world seems to be heading for mass destruction. Can a minority of integrated people outweigh the majority? 你說我們是世界 但絕大多數的人似乎正走向大規模的毀滅 少數人格完整的人能抗衡絕大多數人嗎？
47:13 Are you the minority? No, I am not joking. This is not a callous question. Are we the minority? Or, is there one amongst us who is totally free of all this? Or partially we are contributing to the hatred of each other – psychologically. You may not be able to stop Russia attacking Afghanistan or some other country – or America, or England, or Japan, or whatever country it is, but psychologically are we free of our common inheritance, which is our tribal glorified nationalism? Are we free from violence? Violence exists where there is a wall around ourselves. Please understand all this. And we have built ourselves walls, ten feet high or fifteen feet thick. We have all of us have walls around us. And from that arises violence, this sense of immense loneliness. So the minority and the majority is you. If a group of us fundamentally have psychologically transformed ourselves you will never ask this question, because we are then something entirely different. 你是少數人嗎？ 不，我不是開玩笑 這不是一個…冷笑話 我們是少數人嗎？ 或者我們之中有一個人完全擺脫了這一切？ 或者我們是造成彼此憎恨的一部分原因？ 心理上的 你也許無法阻止俄國攻打阿富汗 或其他國家，或美國或英國 日本或任何別的國家 但心理上 我們有擺脫人類共同的傳承嗎？ 也就是部落的…被榮耀化的國族主義 我們有…擺脫暴力嗎？ 只要我們身邊有圍牆暴力就會存在 請了解這一點 我們為自己築起 10 呎高或 15 呎厚的圍牆 我們身邊都有一道圍牆 暴力就從那裡生起 以及一股龐大的孤獨感 因此你就是少數人也是絕大多數人 因為如果我們根本上 或在心理上轉化自己 你就不會問這個問題 因為我們已經變成截然不同的人了
49:54 6th Question: Christian mystics describe certain forms of mental prayer in which they speak to God, or what they call God. They say that in such prayer something tremendous happens which they call union with God. They are convinced this is not an illusion. Are they deceiving themselves? Then, what is faith? It appears to give people the power to do extraordinary things. 問題六：基督教神秘主義者描述 某種形式的心理祈禱 他們在祈禱中與神對話或他們所謂的神 他們說在那種祈禱中會發生某些奇事 他們稱之為與神合一 他們深信這不是幻覺 他們是在自我欺騙嗎？ 信心是什麼？ 信心似乎能給人做出異常事物的力量
50:38 Christian mystics describe certain forms of mental prayer in which they speak to God, or what they call God. They say that in such prayer something tremendous may happen which they call union with God. They are convinced this is not an illusion. Are they deceiving themselves? And, what is faith? It appears to give people the power to do extraordinary things. 基督教神秘主義者描述某種形式的心理祈禱 他們在祈禱中與神對話或他們所謂的神 他們說在那種祈禱中會發生某些奇事 他們稱之為與神合一 他們深信這不是幻覺 他們是在自我欺騙嗎？ 信心是什麼？ 信心似乎能給人做出異常事物的力量
51:15 When you are tremendously national it gives you extraordinary powers to kill others. Look what they are doing. So, can an illusion really give you enormous vitality, enormous strength to do extraordinary things? Apparently it does. The Christian missionaries, what they have done in the world because they believe in something. That belief may be totally unreal, the image which the mind has created, they believe in that and they are attached to that, and they want to convert all the others of the world to that. And they’ll put up with extraordinary discomforts, with disease, and every kind of trouble. And those mystics who talk to God through prayer – I don’t know what God is, nobody knows. But to have an image that there is a supreme entity and through prayer, through faith, through dedication, through devotion, you can achieve mountains. Because, sir, if you look, what America and Russia and England and France are doing. They have tremendous faith in their country, in their nationalism, and they are building an enormous technological world to destroy the others who are also doing exactly the same thing. To go to the moon, what enormous energy it needed, what technological capacity, faith, the American first on the moon with their flag. Or the British with their flag – it is equally the same. 一個強烈的國族主義者 會有殺人的強大力量，對嗎？ 看看他們正在做的事 因此…幻覺…真的能給你龐大的活力 龐大的力量讓你做出異常的事嗎？ 顯然會 基督教的傳教士 他們在世界的所作所為 因為他們相信某些東西 那個信念也許完全不真實 心靈創造出來的形象 他們相信它，也依附它 也想改變所有的人接受那個信仰 他們會製造出極大的不舒適 疾病與各種麻煩 那些神秘主義者 他們透過祈禱與神對話 我不知道神是什麼 沒有人知道 但…抱持一個至高實體的意象 再透過祈禱和信心 透過奉獻和虔敬 你就能移山倒海 因為，先生，如果你注意看 美國人、俄國人、英國人和法國人在做的事 他們對國家有極大的信心 對他們的國族主義 也建立了龐大的科技世界 想摧毀其他也在做同樣事的國家 登月需要龐大的能量 需要科技的能力和信心 美國人最先帶著國旗登月 或英國人帶著國旗登月都是同一回事
54:32 And in the Christian world they place faith first and not doubt. Faith has taken the place of doubt. Doubt is very cleansing, purifies the mind. If you doubt your experiences, your opinions, etc., if you doubt them, you are free, you can observe clearly then. If you doubt your gods, your saviours, everything that comes along. In the Eastern world, like Buddhism and Hinduism, doubt is one of the major factors, it is demanded that you must doubt, you must question, you must not accept – be a light to yourself and that light cannot be given to you by anyone. Of course now in India and Asia it has all gone to pieces, they are just like anybody else, they are becoming merchants. But to have great strength – it doesn’t come through prayer, it doesn’t come through illusions, or faith, it comes through clarity, when the mind can see clearly, and that clarity doesn’t come and go. When you see something clearly like nationalism it is the most destructive thing in the world, then you are finished with it. And the ending of that burden gives you vitality, energy, strength. 基督教的世界 把信心列為首要的地位不是懷疑 信心取代了懷疑 懷疑有淨化心靈的作用 如果你懷疑自己的經驗、意見等 如果你懷疑它們 如果你是自由的你就能清楚地觀察 如果你懷疑神、救世主等一切隨之而來的東西 東方的佛教和印度教 懷疑是主要的因素之一 它們要求你必須懷疑和質問 你不能照單全收 要做自己的光 那個光無法由任何人給你 當然現在的印度和亞洲這個精神已經蕩然無存了 他們也像其他人一樣變成了生意人 但龐大的力量不是透過祈禱得來的 不是透過幻覺或信心得來的 力量來自清明 當心靈能清晰地看事物 那個清明不會來去不居 當你清晰地看國族主義時 就知道它是世界最有毀滅力的東西 接著你就會了結它 那個負擔的結束 就會帶給你活力、能量和力量
57:07 Similarly, if one is totally free of all attachments it gives you the strength of love, and that can do much more than all the other experiences and prayers. But you see, it is an easy way to escape through an illusion, through a symbol, through an idea. It is much more arduous, it demands a great deal of energy, perception, and action to see exactly what we are and go beyond it. That means we have to become astonishingly aware of all our activities and feelings and all that. But we are unwilling to do all that. We think through some easy prayer you can talk to God. God is, after all, put together by thought – the Christian God, the Hindu gods, the Buddhists have no gods, but they have their own images. 同樣地如果人能完全擺脫依附 就會帶來愛的力量 這個力量能做的事遠超過所有的經驗和祈禱 但是透過幻覺來逃避是一個容易的方法 透過象徵、透過觀念 這是非常耗力的事它需要龐大的能量 知覺和行動 才能看見我們的處境進而超越它 這意味著必須對所有活動 和感覺保持高度的覺知 但我們不願意這麼做 以為透過輕易的祈禱就能與神對話 上帝畢竟是思想組合出來的 基督教的上帝，印度教的泛神 佛教徒沒有神 但他們有自己的意象
58:48 7th Question: If there is a supreme truth and order why does it allow mankind to behave on earth in such a shocking way? 問題七：如果有一個至高無上的真理和秩序 它為何容許人類做出如此令人驚懼的行為？
59:01 If there is a supreme truth and order why does it allow mankind to behave on earth in such a shocking way? 如果有一個至高無上的真理和秩序 它為何容許人類做出如此令人驚懼的行為？
59:19 If there is such a supreme entity, they must be a very odd person because if he created us, then we are part of him. And if he is order, sane, rational, compassionate, we wouldn’t be like this. Either you accept the evolutionary process of man, or that man has suddenly come into being, created by God. And God, that supreme entity, is order, goodness, compassion and all the rest of it, all the attributes that we give to it. So you have these two choices; that there is a supreme entity and made man according to his image, or there is the evolutionary process of man, which life has brought about from the beginning of a small molecule, cells and so on, right up to now. 如果有這種至高無上的實體 他們必然是非常古老的人 因為如果他創造了我們 那我們就是他的一部分，對嗎？ 如果他古老、有理性、有慈悲 我們就不會是這個樣子 你若不接受人類的演化過程 就得接受人是突然冒出來的 被上帝創造的 上帝，那個至高無上的實體就是秩序、善 慈悲以及諸如此類的 我們賦予他的所有特性 因此你有兩個選擇 有一個至高無上的實體 依照他的形象造人 或者…接受人是演化來的 也就是生命帶來的 從一個小分子開始 細胞等一直演化到現在
1:00:55 If you accept the idea of God, the supreme person in whom total order exists and you are part of that entity, then that person must be extraordinarily cruel, extraordinarily intolerant to make us behave as we are doing, destroying each other. 如果你接受上帝的觀念一個至高無上的人 他的內在有全然的秩序 你是那個實體的一部分 那麼那個人必然是非常殘酷，對嗎？ 非常不包容 才會讓我們有今天的行為 互相毀滅
1:01:34 Or, there is the other, which is man has made the world as it is, the human beings have made this world: the social world, the world of relationship, the technological world, the world of society, our relationship with each other, we have made it, not God or some supreme entity. We are responsible for this horror that we have perpetuated. And to rely on a certain external agency to transform all this – this game has been played for millennia and we are still the same. I don’t know if you know all this. Perhaps a little changed, a little more kind, a little more tolerant – tolerance is something ugly. 或者是另一種說法認為今天的世界是人製造的 人類製造了這個世界 社會的世界、關係的世界 科技的世界、社會的世界 我們彼此的關係，是我們製造的 不是上帝或某一個至高的實體 我們對這個永續不止的恐怖世界有責任 想依賴某一個外在的代理 來轉化這一切 這種遊戲已經玩了幾千年 我們還是一成不變 不知道你們是否知道 或許有一點改變稍微仁慈一點 稍微容忍一點容忍是一件醜陋的事
1:02:54 So, to have order in ourselves, then we are supreme gods because the universe is order. Sun sets, the sun rises, the stars, the heavens, the nature, this whole universe is order – not according to us, it is order, explosion, destruction, whatever is going on out there but it is order. With us there is no order. We live in confusion, we live in conflict, we live in every kind of disorder. Can there be in us total, complete order? That order is not created by thought, that order has no relationship whatsoever to any system, method, which are all put together by thought. Order comes only when there is complete ending of thought, because then thought has no place as a divisive movement. 如果我們的內在有秩序 我們就變成至高的神 因為宇宙就是秩序 對嗎？日落日出 星體、天空和大自然 整個宇宙就是秩序 不是根據我們的秩序它的秩序、爆炸、毀滅 無論發生什麼都是秩序 我們沒有秩序 我們活在混淆和衝突裡 活在各種失序之中 我們的內在能夠有完全、徹底的秩序嗎？ 那種秩序不是思想創造出來的 那個秩序與任何制度、方法沒有任何關係 那些都是思想拼湊出來的 只有當思想完全終止時秩序才會來到 因為思想的分裂活動就沒有存在的餘地了
1:04:49 8th Question: I have been a member of a Gurdjeiff group – from order to disorder! I think this is right – I have been a member of a Gurdjeiff group. I find it has given me a background to better understand what you are saying. Should I continue in such a group to possibly help others, as I was helped, or does such a group make for fragmentation? 問題八：我是葛吉夫第四道的成員 從秩序到失序 我認為這麼說是對的 我是葛吉夫第四道的成員 我發現它給我一個背景 讓我更能了解你說的話 我該繼續參加那個團體 像我以前受幫助一樣去幫助別人 或這種團體是一種分化？
1:05:25 I have been a member of a Gurdjeiff group, or other groups, I find it has given me a background to better understand what you are saying. Should I continue in such a group to possibly help others, as I was helped, or does such a group make for fragmentation? 我是葛吉夫第四道或其他團體的成員 我發現它給我一個背景 讓我更能了解你說的話 我該繼續參加那個團體 像我受幫助一樣幫助別人 或這種團體是一種分化？
1:05:50 It is an extraordinary idea of helping others, as though you have got extraordinary comprehension, beauty, love, truth and the whole world of order, and that great immense sense of wholeness. If you have that you don’t talk about helping others. 幫助別人是一個很棒的想法 彷彿你擁有非凡的理解美、愛、真理 和一個有秩序的世界 以及一種無量的整體感 如果你擁有這些就不會說要幫助別人了
1:06:30 First of all, why do we want to belong to something? Belong to some sect, some group, some religious body, why? Is it because it gives us strength? It gives one great strength if you are British and living in this country. To feel that you are in Britain, or in Russia or in China or in India. Is it that we cannot stand alone? The word ‘alone’ means all one. Is it that we need encouragement, we need somebody to tell us this is the right way? And the questioner asks: as I belong to certain groups, they have helped me to understand you – understand what, me? Do please look at it. Understand what we are talking about? Do we need interpreters to understand what we are talking about? To be kind, to love, to have no sense of nationality. Does it need anybody to tell you? 首先，我們為什麼想歸屬於某一個東西？ 歸屬於某一個宗派、團體 某一個宗教團體，為什麼？ 是因為它會給我們力量嗎？ 給我們很大的力量 如果你是這個國家的英國人 感覺你是英國人 或在俄國、中國或印度 是因為我們無法獨立嗎？ Alone（單獨）這個字的意思是 all one（合一） 是因為我們需要鼓勵 需要有人告訴我們這是正確的方法嗎？ 提問者問 我歸屬的某一個團體幫助我更了解你 了解什麼，我嗎？ 請你們注視它 了解我們說話的內容嗎？ 我們需要一個傳譯才能了解嗎？ 仁慈、愛、沒有國籍觀念 這需要別人告訴你嗎？
1:08:35 Why do we depend on others, whether the others be the image in a church, or in a temple or in a mosque, or the preacher, or the psychologist, or anybody – why do we depend on others? If we do depend on others psychologically we become second-hand people, which we are. The whole history of mankind is in us, the whole story of mankind is not in books – there is... but the whole history is here. And we don’t know how to read that. And if we could read it, and to read it you are not the reader. You understand? You are the book. But when you read the book as a reader it has no meaning. But if you are the book and the book is showing you, telling you the story, and you are not telling the story but the book is telling, then you will not depend on a single person, then one will be a light to oneself. But we are all waiting for the match of another, the fire of another. And perhaps that is why you are all here. And that is where the tragedy lies because we cannot see clearly for ourselves. And before we help others we have to see clearly, for God’s sake! It is like the blind leading the blind. 我們為何要依賴別人？ 無論是教堂裡的形象 寺廟、清真寺、傳教士或心理學家 或任何人我們為何要依賴別人？ 如果我們在心理上依賴別人 我們就變成了二手人其實我們就是 整部人類史都在我們裡面 人類的整個故事不在書本裡書本裡有 但整個歷史都在這裡 我們不知道如何閱讀 如果我們能閱讀 閱讀的時候…你不是讀者 了解嗎？你是那本書 如果你以讀者的身份閱讀它就沒有意義了 如果你是那本書而那本書向你展示… 跟你講故事 不是你在說故事，是書在說 這時你就不會依賴任何人 你就會成為自己的光 但我們都在等別人的火柴 等別人的火 或許這是你們來此的原因 也是悲劇的所在 因為我們無法親自看清楚 我們必須先看清楚才能幫助別人，看上帝的份上 否則就會像以盲引盲一樣
1:11:12 Questioner: Mr. Krishnamurti I wanted to say; you flower, and we see this flower, but you also help year after year those who come again and again. 聽眾：克里希那穆提先生我有話要說 你在綻放，我們看見這朵花 但你也年復一年地幫助來這裡的人
1:11:24 K: Sir, I am glad you come here year after year. I would too. Like going and seeing the mountain day after day. There is great beauty in the mountain. I am not saying I am the mountain. There is great beauty in the mountain – the skyline, the snow, the valleys, the absolute quietness, and the river flowing, rippling along, chattering. There is great beauty in that, and the lake that is so still and the ocean so... I would go and see it every day. The more I see it the more beauty there is in it. Not one casual look of a weekend but the constant looking, asking, observing the truth and the beauty of it. Naturally one must go, move. 克：先生我很高興你年復一年地來 我也會 就像日復一日地去看山一樣 山有一種偉大的美 我不是說我是山 山裡有一種偉大的美 天際線、白雪、山谷 絕對的寧靜 還有河水潺潺的流動聲滔滔不絕 其中有偉大的美 湖水如此寂靜，海洋如此… 我每天都會去看 我看的次數越多看到的美就越多 不是週末不經意地看一眼 而是持續不斷地注視、詢問 觀察…其中的真理和美 人自然會去，會活動
1:12:49 9th Question: What is freedom? 問題九：自由是什麼？
1:12:51 This is the last question, thank God. What is freedom? 這是最後一個問題，感謝上帝 自由是什麼？
1:13:10 Many philosophers have written, talked, about freedom. We talk about freedom – freedom to live where we like, freedom to have any job we like, freedom to choose a woman or a man, freedom to read any literature, or freedom not to read at all. We are free, and so what do we do with that freedom? We use that freedom to express ourselves, to do what we like. Whatever we like. More and more it is becoming permissive – you can have sex in the open garden. 許多哲學家 著作、談論自由 我們談論自由 隨心所欲過生活的自由 選擇工作的自由 選擇女人或男人的自由 閱讀任何文學的自由 或不閱讀的自由 我們是自由的 我們如何運用這個自由？ 我們用這個自由來表達自己 做自己喜歡的事，對嗎？ 無論我們喜歡什麼 自由變得越來越氾濫 可以在公園裡做愛，對嗎？
1:14:34 You have every kind of freedom and what have we done with that freedom? We think where there is choice we have freedom. I can go to Italy, to France, a choice – only I would have to have a passport and a visa. And does choice give freedom? Please follow me. Why do we have to choose? If you are very clear – clear, purely perceive, clear – there is no choice. Out of that comes right action. It is only when there is doubt, uncertainty you begin to choose. So choice, if you will forgive my saying so, choice prevents freedom. 你們擁有各式各樣的自由 我們用那個自由做了什麼？ 我們認為有選擇就是自由 我可以去義大利、法國這是選擇 只不過我得有護照或簽證 選擇會帶來自由嗎？ 請注意聽 我們為什麼非要選擇？ 如果你非常清明 清明，純粹地感知、清明 就沒有選擇 其中就會出現正確的行動 懷疑、不確定存在的時候你才會選擇 因此選擇，請原諒我這麼說 選擇會阻礙自由
1:15:59 And the totalitarian states have no freedom at all. Because they have the idea that freedom brings about the degeneration of man, therefore control, suppress – you are following what is happening and all the rest of it. 極權國家完全沒有自由 因為他們有一個觀念 認為自由會讓人墮落 因此要加以控制、壓抑 明白這一切的發生嗎？
1:16:23 So what is freedom? Is it based on choice? Is it to do exactly what we like? Some of the psychologists are saying, if you feel something do it immediately, don’t suppress it, don’t restrain it, don’t control it; express. And we are doing that very well, too. And it is called also freedom. Throwing bombs is also freedom. Just look what we have reduced our freedom to. 那麼自由是什麼？ 是建立在選擇上嗎？ 是做自己喜歡的事嗎？ 有些心理學家說 有感覺就馬上行動 不要壓抑、約束或控制要表達出來 我們這方面做得很好 這也被稱為自由 丟炸彈也是自由 看我們把自由降格為什麼了
1:17:09 So what is freedom? Does freedom lie out there, or here? I am just asking, I am not saying. Where do you begin to search for freedom? In the outward world, which is to express and do, act whatever you like, so-called individual freedom. Or does freedom begin inwardly, which then expresses itself intelligently outwardly? You understand my question? That is, freedom exists only when there is no confusion, confusion inside me. When I am seeking, perhaps psychologically, religiously, not to be caught in any trap – you understand? There are innumerable traps – gurus, saviours, preachers, the excellent books, psychologists, and psychiatrists, they are all there. And if I am confused and there is disorder, mustn’t I first be free of that disorder before I talk of freedom? If I have no relationship with my wife, or with my husband, with another person, because we haven’t got relationship with another; our relationship is based on images. You have an image about me and I have an image about you. And so the conflict which is inevitable where there is a division – right, sirs? So, shouldn’t I begin here, inside me, in my skin, in my mind, in my heart to be totally free of all the fears and anxieties, despairs, hurts and wounds that one has received through some psychic disorder? All that, to watch it for oneself and be free of it. 那麼自由是什麼？ 自由在那裡，還是這裡？ 我只是在問，我沒說… 你要從哪裡尋找自由？ 從外在的世界嗎？ 也就是…表達或做你喜歡的事 所謂的個人自由 或者…自由是從內在開始 接著再以智慧的方式表達於外？ 了解我的問題嗎？ 換言之，自由只存在於沒有混淆的地方，對嗎？ 我內在的混淆 當我在追尋也許是心理的或宗教的追尋 不會掉進任何陷阱，明白嗎？ 陷阱多不勝數 上師、救世主、傳教士 一流的書籍、心理學家精神科醫生 到處都是陷阱 如果我感到混淆，我有失序 在我談論自由以前 是否要先擺脫失序？ 如果我和妻子、丈夫沒有關係 或另一個人 因為我們從沒跟任何人有過關係 我們的關係是建立在形象上 你對我有形象我對你也有形象 因此有分裂的地方就必然會有衝突 對嗎，先生？ 我是否該從這裡開始 我的內在，我的皮膚心智和真心之內 擺脫所有的恐懼、焦慮 絕望，以及因為精神失序 而承受的傷害、創傷 親自注視這些，擺脫它們
1:20:31 But apparently we haven’t got the energy. We go to another to give us energy. The psychiatrists, by talking to him you feel much more relieved. Confession and all the rest of it. Always depending on somebody else. And so that dependence inevitably brings great conflict, disorder. So one has to begin to understand the depth and the greatness of freedom, one must begin quite near. And the nearest is you. As long as there is you and me there is no freedom. As long as you have your prejudice, and I have my prejudice, your experience, my experience, etc. and so on, there is no freedom. We can express, we can criticise each other, we can do all that, that is what is called freedom. The right to think what you like. But real freedom, the greatness of freedom, and the enormity, the dignity, the beauty of it is in oneself when there is completely order. And that order comes only when we are a light to ourselves. Right, sir? Finished. May I go, please? SUBTITLE TEXT COPYRIGHT 1980 KRISHNAMURTI FOUNDATION TRUST LTD 但顯然我們沒有那個能量 我們求助於別人給我們能量 跟精神科醫生談過你會有如釋重負的感覺 告白等諸如此類的事 始終想依賴別人 那種依賴必然帶來 重大的衝突、失序 因此我們必須先了解 自由的深度和偉大 我們必須從切身之處開始 最切身的地方就是你 只要有你和我的地方就沒有自由 只要你有你的偏見我有我的偏見 你的經驗、我的經驗等等 就不會有自由 我們可以表達 可以彼此批評，可以做這一切 這就是所謂的自由 思考的權利 但真正的自由自由的浩瀚和龐大 自由的尊嚴和美都在人的內在 當內在有完全的秩序時 只有當我們成為自己的光那個秩序才會來臨 對嗎，先生？ 結束了 我可以走了嗎？ 字幕版權所有 1980克里希那穆提基金會