Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR85Q1 - 1st Question & Answer Meeting



0:33 Krishnamurti: Thank you, sir. 谢谢你，先生。
1:05 A lot of questions have been put. We can’t possibly answer all of them. These questions have been chosen, not by the speaker, by others. I haven’t seen them, and you haven’t seen them either. Probably some of you wrote those questions. 你们向我提出了很多问题。 我们不可能一一回答它们。 我们从中挑选出了（我手上的）这些问题——不是演讲者挑的，而是别人挑的。 我还没有看过这些问题，而你们也没有看到过它们。 但这些问题或许是你们中某些人所写下的。
1:39 If I may most respectfully ask you, I am putting a question to you – why are you here? This is a serious question as you have put to the speaker several other questions. Why each one of us is here, in this not too nice a weather, windy, and one hopes that you are comfortably seated, but why? Not that you are not seated comfortably, but why are we all here? Is it out of curiosity, nothing better to do? I am asking most respectfully, not in any sense of impudence. Are we here to be stimulated, to be challenged, to have more energy or release energy, or merely intellectual flirtation – that is a good word! – or romantically, sentimentally, or some kind of help, wanting to be helped by another? If one put all these questions to oneself, what would be our answer? You might just as well ask the speaker: why he is talking. Is it a habit? Is it he feels happy facing an audience, fulfilling, and that he needs an audience? All these questions must not only be put to oneself, but also to the speaker. And if we explore into that: why we are doing what we are doing, with all this trouble, travail, and the anxiety, and fear of all life. And if one doesn’t find an answer to why the speaker is going on the various continents talking for the last 60, 70 years – is it a habit to him? He has tested it out, kept quiet for a year and more. And also at one time he talked behind a curtain to the audience and he felt rather silly, and so he went before the audience. He has tested this out very carefully, whether he depends on another to fulfil, to be, to become, to feel famous – all that nonsense. Why, in his return, he is asking you, if he may respectfully, why we are all here? Is it old age because we have nothing else better to do? Is it that we really deeply want to understand ourselves? He is only acting as a mirror, in which each one of us can see ourselves as we are, not be depressed or elated to discover what we are. Is that mirror clear, sharp, every feature of it is so... without any distortion? And if that mirror is clear and you see oneself exactly as one is, then the mirror is not important. You can break the mirror without feeling any lack of luck! And if you can answer that question – it is rather serious – why we behave as we do, as each one of us does, why we think in a certain pattern; why we follow somebody – the crazier the better; why we store up all the things that one has said, that others have said, why there is nothing in ourselves that is ourselves. And to discover what we are, ourselves, that deep-rooted seed, not only the cultural seed, the traditional, the religious, all the outgrowth of all that, but go very, very, very deeply in oneself to find out the origin of all things. Not the cells and all that, not the genes that one has inherited, but much beyond all that. 请允许我恭敬地问一下你们， 我要问你们一个问题：为什么你会在这里？ 这是一个严肃的问题 ——就像你们向演讲者提出的那几个问题一样。 为什么我们每个人会在这里，今天天气也不是很好， 风有点大，而某人希望你们都能舒服地坐着，但为什么呢？ 不是说你们坐的不舒服，而是为什么我们全都在这里呢？ 是出于好奇心吗？是没有什么更好的事情可做吗？ 我是很恭敬地在问这些问题，我没有任何放肆无礼的意思。 我们来到这里是为了得到一些刺激，接受一些挑战，获得更多的能量 或者释放能量，还是说 只是为了玩一场“智力游戏”？ 这个词不错！或者是为了一些浪漫感觉或出于多愁善感， 或者是为了寻求某种帮助，想要得到别人的帮助？ 如果我们问问自己所有这些问题，我们的回答是什么呢？ 但你可能也会反问演讲者：为什么你要演讲呢？ 是出于习惯吗？ 是不是当你面对听众时，你会感到很开心， 感到很满足，所以是你需要听众？ 我们不仅一定要问问自己这些问题，也要问问演讲者这些问题。 而如果我们深入探究它：即为什么我们要做现在正在做的事， 我们的一生充满了各种困境、艰难、焦虑和恐惧。 而你们并不明白 为什么演讲者在过去的六七十年里要旅行各大洲， 不停地演讲，这对他来说只是出于习惯吗？ 他曾经测试过这一点，他有一年多的时间保持沉默。 他也曾经向听众们“垂帘演讲”（笑声）， 但后来他觉得这实在太蠢了（笑声）于是他便走到了台前，面对听众。 他已经非常小心仔细地测试过了这一点：他是否依赖于别人 去实现自我，去成为某人，去变成什么，感到自己很出名，所有这些荒谬之事。 为什么在他归来以后，他要问你们 ——如果他可以恭敬地问一下的话——为什么我们都会在这里？ 是因为我们年事已高，没有其他什么更好的事情可做吗？ 是因为我们内心深处真的很想要了解我们自己吗？ 演讲者只是作为一面镜子，而我们每一个人都可以通过这面镜子看到 自己的实际模样，从而不悲不喜地去发现真实的自己。 这面镜子是否干净、清晰，并且方方面面都是如此， 没有任何的扭曲。 如果这面镜子是清晰的，你可以从中如实地看到你自己， 那么这面镜子就变得不重要了。 你可以打破这面镜子，而不必感到有什么不幸！ 而如果你可以回答这个问题——它是相当严肃的： 即为什么我们每个人会像现在这样子行动， 为什么我们会以特定的模式去思考，为什么我们要跟从别人 ——越疯狂的人越好；为什么我们要储存某个人说过的所有东西， 储存别人说过的东西， 为什么我们内在没有什么属于自己的东西。 而要去发现我们自己的真实模样，那个根深蒂固的种子， 不仅是文化上的种子，传统上的或宗教上的种子， 以及所有它们生长出来的结果，还要非常非常深入地去探究自己， 从而发现一切事物的源头。 不是各种细胞等等这类东西， 不是我们遗传继承下来的基因，而是远远超越这一切的东西。 我们可以稍微来探究一下它吗？
10:53 Shall we go into that a little bit? What is the origin – not the biological and evolutionary process – the origin of all things? This demands, or asks, what is creation? What is creation? Who created all this – the marvellous universe, everything living in it and out of it? What is the origin of all that? Do you want to go into all that?

Q: Yes. 		那个源头是什么呢？ 不是生物学和进化过程的源头——而是一切万物的起源。 而这需要……或者我们要问：什么是「创造」？ 什么是「创造」呢？ 是谁创造了这一切——这个不可思议的宇宙， 以及宇宙中和宇宙外的一切生灵？ 所有这些事物的源头是什么呢？ 你们想要来探究这一切吗？
12:32 K: Sure? Why? As an amusement? As a form of entertainment, something new? I am afraid it is not anything like that. 听众：是的。

克：你们确定？ 为什么？（笑声）是把它当成一种娱乐吗？ 把它作为一种娱乐活动，某种新奇的玩意儿吗？ 但我恐怕它不是任何这类事情。
13:02 Our brains have extraordinary capacity, extraordinary, not ordinary, but beyond all ordinary things. When one observes all the technological world, what they have done and what they are doing, and what they are going to do – tremendous advancement. The brain has this capacity. The computer is going to take over more and more, all our activities, more or less, except sex, and probably it can’t look at the stars of an evening. But it is going to take over all our activities – may bring about a new industry, new way of living, without electricity, it may depend on light. They are having great competition, – America and Japan – tremendous competition. And we will all be slaves to that god – the computer. So we are saying, the brain has an extraordinary capacity, but that brain has been restricted, narrowed down by our education, by our self-interest. I know you will hear all this, but you will do nothing about it. That’s all right, too. And that very brain, which has evolved for centuries, millions of years, that brain has become what it is now – old, tired, with a lot of trouble, conflicts and misery. That brain, which is the centre of all our existence, all our being, which is the future and the past – we went into it the other day – and this brain wants to find out what is beyond all this, what is the origin, the source, the beginning. Can it ever find out? You understand my question? Can it ever find out what is the source, the life, the beginning of all creation, of all things, not only ourselves, but the tiger, the marvellous trees? Have you ever been very close to a wild tiger? No. We have been very close, almost touching it – wild. And who brought all this about – inexhaustible nature and the rivers, the mountains, the trees, the lawns, the groves, the orchards, and us? How will you find out? Please, ask this question of ourselves. How will you, ordinary human beings like us, find out something which science, biology and bio – something or other, and the people who are digging into the earth finding new cities – how will you find out? By following somebody? By making some gurus inexhaustibly rich? How will you go into this? That is my question to you. Who will answer it? Are you waiting for the speaker to answer it? Or invent a new god who will say he created it? That invention, that imagination is still part of the brain. 我们的大脑拥有惊人的能力， 这种能力是非凡的，不同寻常的，它超越了所有庸常的事物。 当我们观察整个科学技术的世界， 那些人类已经实现的事情，那些人类正在做的事情， 以及他们即将要做的事情——那是一种令人惊叹的进步。 大脑拥有这样的能力。 电脑将会接管越来越多的事务，它差不多会接管我们所有的活动， 除了性生活， 另外，它可能不会仰望夜空中的繁星。 但电脑还是会接管我们所有的活动——它或许会带来一个全新的产业， 一种全新的生活方式，那时的生活不需要电，可能只需要依靠光能就行。 人类彼此之间正在大肆竞争，美国和日本之间，那种疯狂的竞争。 而我们都将会成为那个“上帝”的奴隶——那个“上帝”就是电脑。 所以我们在说：大脑有着非凡的能力，但这个大脑 已经被我们的教育和自私自利所限制和制约了。 我知道你们都听到了所有这些话，但你们并不会对此做些什么。 不过这也没什么关系。 而那个已经进化发展了无数个世纪、几百万年的大脑， 这个大脑已经变成了如今的模样： 衰老、疲惫不堪，充满了无数麻烦、冲突和痛苦。 这个大脑就是我们整个生活、我们整个存在的中心， 它就是「未来」和「过去」——这个我们前几天已经谈过了。 而这个大脑想要去发现那个超越这一切的事物， 想要发现那个起源、源头和起点。 大脑有可能找到它吗？ 你们理解我的问题吗？ 它是否可能发现一切创造物、一切万物的起源、生命 和起点？ 不只是我们自己，也包括老虎、那些不可思议的树木。 你们是否曾经离野生老虎很近？没有吧。 我们曾经非常靠近一只野生老虎，几乎可以触碰到它——野生的老虎。 那么，是谁带来了这一切呢——那取之不尽的自然界，那些河流、 山川、树木、草地、小树林、果园，还有我们？ 你们要如何去发现它？ 请问问自己这个问题。 你们要如何——像我们这样的普通人要如何 去发现某种科学上的、生物学上的、 这样或那样的起因呢，还有那些挖掘 土地而发现新城市的人，你要如何去发现呢？ 通过追随某人吗？ 通过让某些古鲁富得流油吗？ 你要如何去探究它呢？ 这就是我向你提出的问题。 那么谁会来回答它呢？ 你是在等待着演讲者来回答它吗？ 还是会发明一个新的“上帝”，这个“上帝”会说是他创造了万物。 但这种发明物，这种想象，它仍旧是大脑的一部分。
19:35 So how will you find out? May I leave you with that question? What will you give to it, give, in the sense, your energy, your capacity, your enthusiasm, your passion, your whole time? to find out? Or will you treat it like something, ‘Oh, I am too busy today, I will think about it tomorrow’, or ‘It is a question to put to the old, not to the young generation, we are too young to think about all that’. How much energy will you give to it? Not seeking energy or releasing energy – that is all too childish. 所以你要如何去发现它呢？ 我可以把这个问题留给你们吗？ 你将会为此付出什么？这里“付出”的意思是：付出你的能量、你的能力、 你的热情、你的激情，以及你全部的时间，去发现它？ 还是说，你会这样来对待它，比如说，“噢，我今天太忙了 我还是明天再来思考它吧”，或者你会说“这是一个应该抛给那些老年人的问题， 而不应该抛给年轻一代，我们还太年轻，不需要去思考所有这些东西。” 你将会为此付出多少能量？ 不是去寻求能量或者释放能量，那样都太幼稚了。
20:56 May I go on with these questions? 我可以开始回答这些问题了吗？
21:07 FIRST QUESTION: At various times, we have had mystical and spiritual experiences. How can we know if they are illusions unless we know reality? （第一个问题）在不同的时候，我们会有一些 神秘经验和灵性经验。 然而除非我们知晓了「实相」，否则我们怎么判断这些经验是不是错觉呢？
21:29 At various times, we have had mystical and spiritual experiences. How can we know if they are illusions unless we know reality? 在不同的时候，我们会有一些神秘经验和灵性经验。 然而除非我们知晓了「实相」，否则我们怎么判断这些经验是不是错觉呢？
21:49 How do you answer such a question? If it was put to you, how do you approach it, what is your reaction to it? How do you come so close to it that the question itself unfolds? You understand? The question itself begins to evolve. If you are merely seeking an answer, it is already determined – right? Are we seeing this together? To find an answer is fairly easy, but to delve into the question, to see all the complications of that question, it is like having the map of the world in front of you, seeing all the countries, the capitals, the villages, the hamlets, the rivers, the ocean, the hills, the mountains – the whole of it. How do you look at this question? Not the answer. Perhaps the response to the question may lie in the question. 你会怎么来回答这样的一个问题？ 如果这个问题向你提出来，你会如何去处理它？你对它的反应是什么？ 你要如何无比靠近这个问题，使得这个问题本身可以展开它自己？ 你理解了吗？ 这个问题本身就会开始演化发展。 但如果你仅仅是在寻求一个答案，那么问题就已经被确定下来了——对吧？ 我们是否都看到了这一点？ 要找到一个答案是相当容易的，然而我们需要的是深入探究这个问题， 去看到这个问题所有的错综复杂，这就像是 把一张世界地图摆在你面前，这时你看到了所有的国家、 首都、村落、小村庄、河流、 海洋、丘陵、山脉，所有的东西。 那么你会如何来看待这个问题呢？ 不是问题的答案。 也许对于问题的回应就藏在问题之中。 来看一下它：在不同的时候，我们会有一些神秘经验和灵性经验。
23:41 So at various times, we have had mystical and spiritual experiences. What is an experience? I am just asking each other. What is an experience? And who experiences? Right? I may have had, or be having, some kind of mystical experience. Before I use the word ‘mystical’ or ‘experience’, what do I mean by experience? And does experience involve recognition? Right? Does it involve a sense of something happening to me – from heaven, or from some place, or something or other – which I call mystical, which is not the daily experience, but something totally outside, which happens to me? And I call that mystical or spiritual. I like, if one may, stick to those two words – ‘spiritual’ and ‘experience’. 什么是“经验”？ 我只是在询问彼此。 什么是“经验”？ 是谁在经验？对吧？ 我或许曾有过、或正在经历某种“神秘经验”。 然而在我使用“神秘”或“经验”这样的词之前，我所谓的“经验”是什么意思呢？ 经验之中是不是包含了“识别”？对吧？ 在那种经验中，你是不是会感到某种事情发生在了自己身上，它来自于天国， 或者来自于某个地方，或者是某种我称之为“神秘事物”的东西， 它不是日常生活的经验， 而是某种完全来自外界的、然后降临在我身上的东西？ 而我把它称为是“神秘的”或“灵性的”。 如果可以的话，我想要紧扣这两个词语——「灵性」和「经验」。
25:33 Is there an experience without an experiencer? You understand my question? Are we together exploring into the question or are you waiting for the speaker to explore it? So we are walking together, step in step, slowly or fast, but we are together, step by step – right? We agree to that? If we do not agree, we are friends talking over this problem. I have had a spiritual experience, suppose, and what do I mean by those two words? Experience, something new, something that I have already had renewed, or something that is happening to the experiencer – you understand? And if the experiencer is experiencing and that experiencing is a form of recognition, that is the remembrance, identification, and so on, to that which I call experience, then there must be in that feeling that I have already known it, otherwise I couldn’t recognise it. It is fairly simple, isn’t it? I don’t want to labour the point. It is fairly clear. As long as there is an experiencer, experiencing, then it is something that is happening to the experiencer, something separate, something which is not ordinary, which is not a daily, boring, habitual experience that one has – right? Are we playing the game together? So as long as the experiencer is there, every kind of experience – call it mundane, or spiritual, or holy, or sacred, or releasing energy, and all that stuff that goes on, mostly nonsense – then what is important in this process – experiencer, experiencing? What is most important is the experiencer – right? He is gathering. So when there is an experiencer it gets more and more subliminally egotistic, more and more: ‘I know a great deal which you don’t know’. ‘I have had marvellous spiritual experience’. ‘I am illumined’. ‘Poor chap, you are not, come with me.’ ‘Give me all your money, then you will be quite safe’. They are playing this game, I assure you. ‘Surrender yourself. Put on the beads which I give you’, and all that rather silly game that is going on in the world. 是否存在一种没有“经验者”的经验？ 你们理解我的问题吗？ 我们是不是在一起深入探索这个问题， 还是说你正在等待着演讲者来探究它？ 所以我们正在一起行进，一步一步地往前走， 或快或慢，但我们是在一起一步一步地前行——对吧？ 我们同意这点吗？ 如果我们同意——不应该说是“同意”，我们就像朋友一样地在讨论这个问题。 我曾有过一次灵性经验 ——假如我有过的话——那么我所说的这两个词语（灵性和经验）它们是什么意思呢？ 经验——它是某种全新的东西，某种我重新开始的东西， 或者某种发生在经验者身上的事情——你理解了吗？ 而如果经验者正在体验它，那种体验 就成了一种“识别”，也就是记忆、 认同，等等——而我把它们称之为「经验」， 然后我必然会感到自己已经知晓了它， 否则的话，我是无法识别它的。 这是很简单的道理，不是吗？ 我不想过多地强调某个观点。 这是相当清楚明白的事。 只要还是存在着一个经验者在“经验”，那么这种“灵性经验”就是某种 发生在经验者身上的、某种和经验者相分离的事物， 某种不同寻常的事物，它并不是我们日常生活的、 令人厌烦的、习惯性的经验——对吧？ 我们正在一起玩这个游戏吗？ 所以只要经验者还是在那里，那么每一种经验 ——不管你把它称为世俗经验、灵性经验、神圣的或圣洁的经验，或者能量释放， 等等所有这类正在进行着的东西——它们基本上都是荒谬无意义的。 那么，在这个过程中，重要的是什么？——是经验者，还是经验？ 最重要的应该是那个经验者——对吧？ 这个经验者正在收集着（经验）。 所以当存在着一个经验者，他就会下意识地变得越来越 自我本位，越来越觉得“我知道很多东西，而你并不知道”。 “我曾有过不可思议的灵性体验。” “我已经开悟了。” “可怜的家伙，你还没有开悟，所以请跟我来吧。” “把你所有的钱都给我，那时你就会无比安全了。”（笑声） 我向你们保证，他们就是在玩着这种游戏。 “臣服于我吧。戴上我给你的念珠。” 所有这类愚蠢至极的游戏正在这个世界上进行着。
30:01 And what is spiritual? Religious? Something holy? Something unexpected? Something totally out of the ordinary? Why do we want something totally outside the daily life? Go on, please, answer this question. Which means something totally different from our daily life. Then we are bored with our daily life: the habits, the loneliness, the despair, the attachments – you know, power, and all the rest of it. We want to avoid all that and invite heaven, which is called spiritual. We can deceive ourselves so enormously – right? We have the capacity to deceive ourselves incredibly. Right? Christianity is based on belief and faith. Sorry, I am not trying to hurt anybody, just pointing out. Two thousand years. And you go across the ocean to India and there, 3,000 to 5,000 years old. The same process of selling god. Why do we have to believe all this? Because we are frightened? We want to know the unknown, and so on. We don’t have to go into all that. 那么究竟什么才是「灵性」呢？是宗教吗？ 是某种神圣之物吗？某种意想不到的东西吗？ 某种极其不寻常的事物吗？ 为什么我们会想要某种完全脱离日常生活的东西呢？ 继续，请你们来回答这个问题。 它意味着某种完全不同于我们日常生活的东西。 这就说明我们已经厌倦了我们的日常生活：那些习惯性的事情、孤独、 绝望、执著依恋，你知道的，权力斗争，等等这类东西。 我们想要回避所有这些东西，然后邀请“天堂”进来——这就被称之为“灵性”。 我们可以自欺到如此的地步——对吧？ 我们拥有难以置信的欺骗自己的能力——是吧？ 基督教就是建立在信仰和信念基础上的。 对不起，我无意伤害任何人，我只是指出这一点。 基督教已经有两千年历史了。 然后你们穿越海洋来到印度，而印度已经有三千年到五千年的历史了。 在那里，同样的“售卖神明”的过程正在进行着。 为什么我们要去相信这一切？ 是因为我们感到害怕吗？ 我们想要知道那个「未知之物」等等。 我们就不深入所有这些东西了。
32:25 So what is illusion? And what is reality? You follow? Are we following this question? The questioner says: how can we know if they are illusions unless we know reality. Then we have to examine what is reality? What is reality? The real, the actual, is you are sitting there, the speaker is up here, unfortunately. And reality is nature, that tree, that animal, that dog, the marvellous earth, the blue sky about us. Reality. Right? Reality – I have feeling for my wife, husband, sister and so on, and so on – the whole movement of recognition. And the actual. Right? I wonder if we are together in this. The actual – you and the speaker are sitting now, twelve o’clock. That is actual. There is wind. I hope it won’t rain. And the actual is the nature, the birds, the rivers, the water, and so on. 所以什么是「错觉」？什么是「实相」？ 你们跟上了吗？ 我们都理解这个问题了吗？ 这个提问者在问：除非我们知晓了「实相」， 否则我们怎么可能知道它们是不是「错觉」呢？ 那么我们就必须来检视一下什么是「实相」？ 什么是「实相」？ 那个真实的事物，实际的事物，就像你们正坐在这里， 而演讲者正坐在演讲台上——这很不幸。 「实相」就是自然界，我们周围的那些树木、动物、 狗、不可思议的地球、蓝色的天空。 它们就是「实相」。对吧？ 实相就是我对我的妻子或丈夫有感情， 对我的姐妹等人有感情，这一整个识别的运动。 也就是真实的状况。对吧？ 我不知道是否……我们都理解这点了吗？ 真实状况就是：你和演讲者此刻正坐在这里，而时间是十二点钟。 这就是真实状况。起风了。 我希望最好别下雨。 「真实状况」就是自然、鸟儿、小河、流水，等等。
34:13 And the questioner says: I can’t know what is an illusion unless I know reality – right? What is reality in ourselves? Is there anything real in us? Actual? Or is it all a movement, change? The other day, in Switzerland, when we closed Saanen Gathering altogether – no more – some people came up and said to us, to the speaker, ‘We are so sad we have closed it’. And the speaker said, ‘When you are sad, it is about time we closed it’. You understand? We closed it. So nobody wants a change. Very few people want fundamental change. And the questioner says, ‘If I knew reality, then I’d know what is illusion’. So we should look at illusion, the word. What is illusion? The word itself, in a dictionary, means something you play with – ludere. Something you invent, enjoy yourself: I am god, I am – whatever it is, I am Napoleon, or I am such a great man. You play with something that is not actual. One has pain, a despair, a sense of tremendous unaccountable loneliness. That is actual, precise. And we create an illusion that somebody is going to help us, somebody is going to fulfil our lives, make us feel not lonely. That is all illusions. The actual fact is one is desperately lonely. 而这位提问者说： 除非我知晓了「实相」，否则我无法知道什么是「错觉」——对吧？ 我们内在的「实相」是什么呢？ 我们内在有任何真实的东西吗？ 实际的东西？ 还是说它们全都在运动着、改变着？ 前几天在瑞士的时候，当我们要彻底结束萨能聚会， 不再举行它时，有人跑过来对我们说，他对演讲者说： “我们感到很难过，我们已经结束了它。” 然后演讲者告诉他说，“当你难过的时候，我们才正要来结束它呢。” （笑声）你们听懂了吗？ 我们结束了它。 所以没有人想要改变。 极少有人想要根本性的改变。 而这位提问者说，“如果我知道了「实相」，我就能知道什么是「错觉」了。” 所以我们应该来看一下「错觉」，看一下这个词。 什么是「错觉」？ 这个词本身在词典里的意思是：某种你所玩弄的东西——ludere（拉丁语：戏弄、欺骗） 某种你所发明出来的、自娱自乐的东西： 我就是神，我就是……无论什么东西，我是拿破仑，或者我是一个如此伟大的人。 你在玩弄某种并非真实的玩意儿。 然而真相是：我们会痛苦，我们会绝望，我们会感到巨大的、 无法解释的孤独。 这才是真实的、确切的情况。 于是我们创造出了一种错觉：认为某人将会过来帮助我们， 某人将会让我们的生命得到满足，让我们不再感到孤独。 这些全都是错觉。 现实中的事实是我们无比的孤独。
37:18 So it is fairly simple to see for oneself, if one wants to, what is an illusion, what is reality and why this craze for experience. We have had sexual experience, thousands of experiences. Everything going from here – across the field you see the birds, the house-martins, and so on – that is an experience, but you don’t call that spiritual. I see you sitting there – it is a challenge, it is moving. So what is important in all this is why the experiencer invents all this. You understand my question? Why the experiencer has become so important? Is there a period where the experiencer is not? That is the real question, not what is reality, what is illusion, what is experience, and all the rest of it, but is there a period, a length of time, a space, where the experiencer, the observer, and so on, is not? Then you don’t want experiences. You understand? There is nothing. You see, that is the word. The word ‘nothing’ – sorry, I am not a dictionary – means ‘not a thing’. Not a thing of thought – you understand? Not a – nothing means there is the end of time and thought. That is where there is no experiencer at all. That is the real thing, not all this. 所以，你可以自己去看清 什么是错觉， 什么是实相，以及为什么你会狂热地追求经验——如果你愿意的话，这件事是非常简单容易的。 我们有过性爱的经验，成千上万种经验。 所有各种经验……从这里穿过田野，你会看到那些鸟儿， 那些家燕，等等， 这也是一种经验，但你并不会把它称为“灵性经验”。 我看到你们坐在那里，这是一种挑战，它也在运动变化着。 所以，在这一切之中重要的是：为什么经验者要发明出所有这些东西。 你们理解我的问题吗？ 为什么经验者变得如此重要。 是否有一段“经验者不存在”的时期？ 这才是真正的问题，问题并不是：什么是「实相」，什么是「错觉」， 什么是「经验」，等等这些， 而是：是否有一段时期、一段时间、 一个空间，在其中经验者、观察者等等都不存在了？ 那时你就不会想要「经验」了。 你理解了吗？ 那就是「空无」（nothing）。 你瞧，这就是准确的词。 「空无」（nothing）这个词——很抱歉，我可不是活词典——这个词的意思是“没有一物”（not a thing）。 没有思想范畴的事物——你们明白了吗？ 没有……——「空无」就意味着时间和思想的结束。 在那里完全没有「经验者」。 而这才是真实的东西。而不是所有其他那些东西。
40:18 May we go on to the next question? 我们可以继续讨论下一个问题吗？
40:26 2ND QUESTION: Is illness due to simply to degeneration or abuse of the body, or does it have some other significance? Sorry, I am reading it badly. Is illness due simply to degeneration or abuse of the body, or does it have any other significance? （第二个问题）疾病的发生是否仅仅是由于 身体的衰退或滥用身体所导致的，还是说疾病具有某种别的意义？ 不好意思，我读得不太好。 疾病是否仅仅是由于身体的衰老或滥用身体所引起的， 还是说它具有某种别的意义？
41:01 You understand? The questioner is asking: has illness any significance at all? Right? You tell me! We have all been ill at some time or other in our life. Paralysed, accidents which break our body, every kind of illness we have known. Society, modern society is producing more disease than ever – right? You read the papers, and so on. Has it any benefit? Does it make us understand deeply why we become ill, what is health, and why we cling to health and not to illness? You understand my questions? Am I talking to myself? Am I? Really, I am surprised you are listening. Or you are sharing with it. You are sharing what we are talking about together. We are at the same table, eating the same food. You may eat loudly and another may eat gently, but we are sharing the same food, at the same table, at the same time. So the speaker is not talking to himself. 你们听懂了吗？ 这个提问者正在问：疾病究竟有没有什么意义？ 对吧？你们来告诉我吧！ 我们都曾在生命中的某个时候生过病。 瘫痪、意外事故——它会让我们的身体残废， 我们知道各种各样的疾病。 社会，这个现代社会，正在制造出比以往更多的疾病——对吧？ 你们读一下报纸等等就知道了。 那么疾病有任何益处吗？ 它能否让我们深刻地理解为什么我们会生病， 什么是「健康」，以及为什么我们要执著于健康而不是疾病呢？ 你们理解我的问题吗？ 我是在自言自语吗？是吗？ 说真的，我很惊讶你们正在听。 或者说你们正在分享它。 你们在分享我们正在一起讨论的东西。 我们正在同一张桌子上，吃着同样的食物。 你吃东西时或许响声很大，而另一个人吃的时候或许很文静， 但我们是在同一张桌子上、在同一时间共享着同样的食物， 所以演讲者并没有在自言自语。
43:28 We have all been ill. And we don’t put up with it a little bit. Immediately doctor, pills, the whole circus begins. We never stay with it a little, see what is implied, how you meet pain. You understand what I am saying? How do you meet pain? I know how you meet pleasure – that is fairly simple. But pain, not only physical pain, but the psychological pain, getting wounded psychologically, hurt, how do you meet it? Psychological hurt is a form of illness – right? I wonder. If I get hurt because you are rude to me or you say, ‘You are a silly ass’, I get hurt. That is a form of illness. But physically if I get hurt, there is a doctor, there is somebody to do something about it. I want to avoid the psychological pain and also I want to avoid, run away from the physical pain, unless, of course, you have terminal cancer and all the cancerous agony. I hope none of you have it. So we never stay with something and see what it is like. Or put up with it. You understand my question? Are we together, sharing the same food? 我们都曾生过病。 但我们无法忍受它们哪怕一点点。 我们会立即去找医生，去吃药，于是整场闹剧就这样开始了。 我们从未花费片刻时间和它待在一起，看看它暗示了什么，以及你是如何面对痛苦的。 你们明白我在说的东西吗？ 你们是如何面对痛苦的？ 我知道你们是如何面对快乐的，这是相当容易的。 然而对于痛苦，不只是外在身体上的痛苦，也包括心理上的痛苦， 内心的创伤与伤害，你是如何去面对它的？ 心理上的伤害也是某种形式的疾病——对吧？ 我不知道（你明白了没）。 如果你对我很粗鲁， 或者你说，“你是个蠢驴”，那么我就会受到伤害。 这也是某种形式的疾病。 然而如果我受到的是身体上的伤害，那么我可以去找医生， 会有某个人来处理解决这个问题。 而我想要避免心理上的痛苦，也想要回避 想要逃离身体上的痛苦 ——当然了，除非你是癌症晚期，已经被癌症折磨得痛苦不堪了。 我希望你们中没有人得癌症。 所以我们从来没有和某个事物待在一起，然后看看它究竟是什么样的。 或者忍受它。 你们理解我的问题吗？ 我们是在一起分享着同样的食物吗？
45:50 Far more important in all this is psychological pain – right? The pain of being wounded, hurt, the feeling of deep agony inside. That’s a great illness, to which we don’t pay too much attention. If we paid great attention to that, to the inward pain, in different forms, and nobody can heal it. There is no pill, no guru, no book, no gods, no ritual – nothing will stop that pain. And if you don’t run away from it, and if you really deeply stay with it, it has immense significance – right? It has – then you penetrate into something that goes beyond all self, self-interest. The outward then, the outward pain can be dealt with – go to a doctor, put up with it, that becomes secondary. When the speaker was ill some doctors gave to the speaker heavy doses of antibiotics. And after a while he was paralysed for a month, completely paralysed. You understand? Everybody had to carry the body, put it in a bath, and all the rest of it, comb his hair, shave, and all that, for a month. Don’t sympathise, please. I am not asking anything from you – I mean it. Neither your money, except to have this marquee and other things, he doesn’t want a thing from you, neither your praise nor your criticism, nothing to do with your pocket. So this is not an invitation for sympathy, or ‘How could you put up with it?’, and all that stuff. I am just saying – there it was, for a whole month. ‘That is the end’, I said to the person who was with me. All right. But slowly the antibiotic effect went away and he was all right and he is still living. So if one stays with something, with pain, not too long, of course, if it is really very, very, very painful, then you are unconscious, and all the rest of it. 而在这一切中远远更为重要的是心理上的痛苦——对吧？ 那种内心的创伤、伤害所带来的痛苦，内心感到极度痛苦。 这是一种重大的疾病——而我们并没有对此非常关注。 如果我们可以非常关注 各种形式的内心的痛苦，（你会发现）没有人可以治愈它。 没有什么药物、古鲁、书籍、 神明、仪式可以治愈它，没有任何东西可以停止这种痛苦。 而如果你不逃离它，如果你真正地、在内心深处与之共存， 那它就会具有重大的意义——对吧？ 它会具有某种意义——那时你就会洞察了解到某些东西， 它是超越所有的「自我」，超越自私自利的。 那时外在的事物，外在的痛苦就是可以被处理解决的， 你可以去医生那里，或者忍受它，它已经变成次要的事情了。 演讲者曾经生过一场病， 当时那些医生给演讲者服用了大剂量的抗生素。 过了没多久之后，演讲者就瘫痪了，瘫痪了一个月，处于彻底瘫痪的状态。 你们明白了吗？ 于是大家不得不抬起（演讲者的）身体，给他洗澡，等等， 给他梳头发，给他剃胡子等等，折腾了一个月。 请不要同情我。（笑声） 我并没有要求从你们这里获得任何东西——我是说真的。 他既不要你们的钱——除了要有个大帐篷等必需品之外—— 他并不想要你们的任何东西。 他既不要你们的赞美，也不要你们的批评，和你们口袋里的钱包没有任何关系。 所以这并不是要博取同情，或者要告诉你们 “你要如何去忍受痛苦？”等等这类东西。 我只是在说，当时确实瘫痪了整整一个月。 当时我对和我在一起的人说，“一切都完了”。 那就这样吧。 但慢慢地，抗生素的药效消退了，于是他（克氏）的身体恢复了， 他仍然还活着。 所以，如果我们可以和某个事物共存，与痛苦共存，当然了，不要共存太久 ——如果真的非常非常痛苦的话， 因为那样你会不省人事的，等等这类事情。
49:53 So it has, if you will go into it for yourself, it has some significance, and that significance depends on each one. How you face life, how you look upon it, in what manner you receive it, in what way you react to it, how you respond to all the things that you are faced with in daily life, not on Sunday mornings. So if one observes as you observe a lovely tree, or a pigeon on the flight, observe yourself closely, it is an extraordinary thing what it reveals. 所以如果你可以亲自去探究它的话，这种痛苦会具有 它会具有某种意义，而它的意义取决于不同的人。 你是如何面对生活的，你是如何看待它的，你是以何种方式接收它的， 你是以什么方式对它作出反应的，你是如何回应 你日常生活中所要面对的一切事物的——而不是在每个星期天的早晨。 所以，如果你能去观察一下，就像你观察一棵可爱迷人的树或者飞翔的鸽子的话， 去密切地观察你自己，它就会揭示出非凡的东西。
51:12 3RD QUESTION: What is my responsibility toward the present world crisis? （第三个问题）对于当今世界的危机，我的责任是什么？
51:21 What is my responsibility toward the present world crisis? Of whom are you asking this question? What is my responsibility, your responsibility? Why do we use the word ‘responsibility’? To be responsible. To be responsible to keep your body clean, if you have hot water, or not too cold a water. You are responsible for your children. The professors, the teachers, the educators are responsible for educating the children. Why do we use that word ‘responsible’? You understand my question? If you eliminated that word, what is your responsibility in a world crisis, my responsibility and your responsibility, if you cut out that word ‘responsibility’, because that word implies you and responsibility – you understand? If you cut out that word, then would you put that question? It is my duty to kill for my country. It is my duty as being a Russian, or an American, or a British citizen, to fight for my country, and God, and all the rest of it. If we could put away that word altogether from our brain, then how do you deal with it? Duty, responsibility, I must – all those words. If you put away those words, what happens? It is a very interesting question – right? What takes place when this duality? which is implied in responsibility – right? Are we together a little bit? The word ‘responsibility’ implies I am responsible for you, for my children, for my wife, for my boss, for my job, etc., etc. I am responsible to represent God to you. And if I totally forget that word – not forget, put away that word entirely. Sorry! As that paper went down, similarly, banish that word from our whole being. Then what takes place? Go on, sirs. Have you put away that word? No. We never – you see? you hear something, but you don’t act about it. I am not responsible for Brockwood. I don’t feel that way – the speaker doesn’t feel that way. I am not responsible to tell you anything. But, if that word is not, which means there is no I and responsibility to you, there is only you and I – right? Then what takes place? Come on, sirs. 对于当今世界的危机，我的责任是什么？ 你们是向谁提出这个问题？ 我的责任是什么？你的责任是什么？ 为什么我们要使用“责任”这个词？ 负起责任来。 你有责任保持身体的洁净 ——如果你家有热水，或者不那么冷的水的话。 你也要对你的孩子负责。 教授、老师、 教育者则要负责教育孩子们。 那为什么我们要使用“责任”这个词呢？ 你们理解我的问题吗？ 如果你们去除掉这个词，在这场世界危机中，你的责任是什么？ 我的责任和你的责任， 如果你去掉“责任”这个词，因为这个词暗示着 “你”和“责任”的分裂——你理解了吗？ 而如果你去除掉这个词，你还会提出这个问题吗？ 我的责任是为了祖国而去杀戮。 我的责任是成为一个俄罗斯人或美国人，或者英国公民， 去为我的国家、为上帝等等而战。 而如果我们可以将这个词完全地从我们的大脑里除去， 那么你会如何去处理它呢？ 责任、职责、我必须——所有这些词语。 如果你抛开这些词语，会发生什么呢？ 这是一个非常有趣的问题——对吧？ 当有了这种二元性时会发生什么呢？ ——「责任」之中就包含了这种二元性。对吧？ 我们是不是稍微同频一些了？ 「责任」这个词暗示着：我要对你负责， 对我的孩子、妻子、老板、工作等等负责。 我的责任是在你们面前担当上帝的代表。 而如果我彻底忘记了这个词——不应该说是“忘记”——如果我彻底抛开这个词。 （写有问题的纸张掉落到了地上） 不好意思！（笑声） 就像这张纸掉落一样，我们也要将那个词（责任）从我们的整个存在中驱逐出去。 那时会发生什么呢？ 继续，先生们。 你们是否已经抛开了这个词？没有吧。 我们从来没有……你瞧，你听到了一些东西，但你却没有为此而去行动。 我对布洛克伍德学校并不负有责任。 我并未感到要为它负责——演讲者并未感到要为它负责。 我告诉你们这些东西也不是出于责任。 然而如果这个词不存在了，这意味着 “我对你负责”这件事不存在了，存在的只有「你」和「我」——对吧？ 那时会发生什么呢？ 继续，先生们。
57:03 Has love a responsibility? Go on, sirs, please, shout, something about it. 「爱」之中会有「责任」吗？ 来吧，先生们，请大声说出来，谈谈你对此的看法。
57:21 Q: It is unity. 听众：「爱」是完整一体。
57:22 K: If love has no responsibility, then what takes place? If love is not attachment which is implied in responsibility, then what takes place? 克：如果「爱」里面没有「责任」了，那时会发生什么呢？ 如果「爱」不再是隐含在「责任」中的执著依恋， 那么会发生什么呢？ （来自听众的回复，但声音很小听不清）

克：不要使用——如果允许我很尊敬地指出这一点——
57:49 K: Don’t use – please, don’t say something, if I may most respectfully point out, don’t say anything that you haven’t lived, worked, to find out. If I love you, if the speaker loves you and the word is not, the word ‘responsibility’, ‘duty’, ‘attachment’, and so on, then what is our relationship? Go on, think it out. You are not waiting for my reply. I – the speaker is not going to reply to that question. It is really a very, very serious question. 请不要说那些东西，不要说任何你还没有经历体验过和做过的东西，而是去发现。 如果我爱你，如果演讲者爱你——而那个词已经不在了， 诸如「责任」、「职责」、「执著」等等这些词都没有了——那么我们的关系是什么呢？ 继续探索下去，仔细想一下。 你们并没有在等待我的回答。 我——这个演讲者——并不准备回答这个问题。 因为这真的是一个非常非常严肃的问题。 所以，这一切意味着：我们是不是真的爱某些东西？
59:13 So all this implies: do we love anything? Love, having something which is not dualistic – ‘I love you’. Well, I have answered the question. No, I have not answered, the question has been answered, has evolved. 「爱」，它意味着你拥有某种非二元对立的东西——“我爱你”。 好了，我已经回答了这个问题。 不对，我并没有回答它，而是问题已经被回答了，它已经进化发展了。
59:46 4TH QUESTION: Does asking for guidance necessarily prevent understanding? Cannot seeking help be a means of discovery of ourselves? If not, what is the sense of listening to you, K? （第四个问题）请求指引一定会阻碍了解吗？ 寻求帮助难道不可以成为发现自我的手段吗？ 如果不可以，听你克氏的演讲又有什么意义？
1:00:09 Does asking for guidance necessarily prevent understanding? Cannot seeking help be a means of discovery of oneself? If not, what is the sense of listening to you, K? There is no sense. You are not listening to K. If you are actually truthful, you are not listening to K. You are listening to see where you agree or disagree. You are listening, in the process of listening you are translating what he says to your convenience, to your conditioning. You are listening, not to K but to yourself. K is not talking about something extraordinary. There is something extraordinary far beyond all this but he is not talking about that now. You are listening to yourself – right? As we said earlier, you are seeing yourself in the mirror. And you can distort the mirror. Or say, ‘I don’t like the mirror, I don’t like what I see’, and break the mirror, but you are still what you are. So you are listening not to K. You are not trying to understand what K is saying. You are actually listening to yourself. If you are listening to yourself for the first time, that is the greatest thing that can happen. But if you are listening to K, X, Y, Z – no, sorry, not X, Y, Z – if you are listening to K, then they are just a lot of words, a lot of reactions, and so on. That is so utterly, if one may respectfully point out, utterly meaningless, unnecessary. You have listened to so many things, listened to the preachers, to the books, to poems, you have listened to the voice of your wife, and husband, and the girl, and so on, or you are casually listening. But if you give all your attention to listening, hearing, not only with the ear, but hearing much more, much deeper, then you will listen to everything. And you will listen to what K has to say, either you live with it – it is real, true, actual – or it is something verbal, intellectual, and therefore very little meaning in our life. 请求指引一定会阻碍了解吗？ 寻求帮助难道不可以成为一种发现自我的手段吗？ 如果不可以，听你克氏演讲又有什么意义？ 没什么意义。（笑声） 你并不是在听克氏演讲。 如果你确实很真诚，你就不是在听克氏演讲。 你正在聆听，以便发现你在哪一点上同意或不同意。 你在聆听着，而在聆听的过程中，你正在根据你自己的方便 和你的局限来翻译他所说的东西。 所以你正在聆听的不是克氏，而是你自己。是吧？ 克氏并没有在谈论某些非同寻常的东西。 存在着某种远远超越这一切的非凡之物， 但他现在并没有在讲这个东西。 所以你正在聆听的是你自己——对吧？ 就如我们之前所说的：你正在看着镜中的自己。 虽然你可以扭曲那面镜子。 或者说，“我不喜欢那面镜子，我不喜欢我所看到的东西” 然后打破那面镜子，但你仍旧会是这个样子。 所以你并没有在聆听克氏。 你并没有在试图了解克氏所说的东西。 你实际上是在聆听你自己。 如果你可以第一次开始聆听你自己， 这将是可能发生的最伟大的事情。 但如果你是在聆听克氏，聆听张三、李四、王五——不对，不好意思，不是张三、李四、王五， 如果你只是在聆听克氏，那么演讲就只是一大堆话语， 一大堆的反应，等等。 而这样它就会变得彻底的……——如果允许某人恭敬地指出这一点的话—— 变得彻底无意义且毫无必要了。 你已经听过了那么多的东西，你听过了传道士的话， 听过了书本的话，听过了诗歌，你曾经听过你妻子或丈夫、 以及女朋友等等的话，或者你只是漫不经心地在听。 但如果你可以集中注意力地去聆听、去倾听， 不只是用耳朵去听，而是聆听到更多的东西、更深层的东西， 那时你就可以聆听一切事物了。 然后你就会听到克氏要说的东西——要么你经历体验到了它， 它是某种真实的、正确的、实际的东西，要么它是某种口头文字上的、 思想智力上的东西，因此在我们的生活中并没有什么意义。 而这个提问者说：寻求指引
1:04:26 And the questioner says, does seeking, asking for guidance necessarily prevent understanding? Understanding of what? Chemistry? Mathematics? Some philosophical concept? Understanding Gorbachev? What do we mean by understanding? Please, I am not, the speaker is not trying to be rude, or he is rude, sorry, he is not trying, he is not rude, just asking. What do we mean by that word ‘understanding’, first, and we can then relate that word to understanding – to bring about understanding through guidance, through seeking guidance. First, what do we mean by understanding? To understand. I understand French because I know some French and the speaker understands Italian because he knows that. So there is an intellectual, verbal communication – right? That is one form of understanding. We use common language, you speak English and the speaker speaks English, and the verbal communication, if we mean the same thing and not give to the word different meaning – like Alice in Wonderland says, ‘I give to the word what I want, the meaning what I want’, you can do that too, but communication becomes rather difficult then. So what do we mean by understanding? A verbal communication? Intellectual comprehension of a concept, of an idea? Or understanding means actually listening to what another is saying, not try to interpret, not try to change it, not try to modify it, actually what he says, not only intellectually, with all your being, with great attention, then it is not merely intellectual, or emotional, or sentimental, all that kind of stuff, but entirely you are there. Then there’s not only verbal communication but non-verbal communication. 请求指引一定会阻碍了解吗？ 了解什么呢？ 了解化学吗？了解数学吗？ 了解某个哲学概念吗？ 了解戈尔巴乔夫吗？ 我们所说的“了解”是什么意思呢？ 请注意，我并没有……演讲者并没有试图变得粗鲁无礼或者说他是粗鲁无礼的人 很抱歉，他没有试图这样做，他并不是粗鲁无礼的，而只是在询问。 我们所说的“了解”，这个词是什么意思呢？首先我们要明白这一点， 然后我们才可以将这个词与「了解」关联起来 ——通过指引，通过寻求指引来获得了解。 首先，我们所说的“了解”是什么意思呢？ 去搞懂它。 我懂法语，因为我知道一些法语（知识）， 演讲者懂意大利语，因为他知道这门语言。 由此我们便可以有一种思想智力上的、口头上的交流——对吧？ 这是一种形式的了解。 我们使用共同的语言，你说英语，而演讲者也说英语， 于是我们便可以有口头文字上的交流——如果我们指的是同样的东西，而不要 赋予那个词语不同含义的话，就像《爱丽丝梦游仙境》中说的， “我赋予这个词我想要的……我想要的含义”， 你们也可以这么做，但这样的话，交流就会变得相当困难。 所以我们所说的“了解”是什么意思呢？ 是口头文字上的交流吗？ 只是在思想智力上理解一个概念、一个观念吗？ 还是说「了解」实际上意味着聆听对方所说的东西， 不要试图去解释它、改变它，也不要试图去修正它， 而是切实地去聆听他所说的东西，不仅仅是在思想智力上聆听，而是用你全部的存在， 聚精会神地去聆听，那时它就不仅仅是思维智力上的、情绪上的， 或者感情泛滥，等等这类东西了，而是你整个人都沉浸其中了。 那时我们就不只是口头文字上的交流，同样也会有非口头文字的交流了。 而这位提问者说，他问：
1:07:57 And the questioner says, asks, does asking guidance prevent, necessarily prevent, understanding? Right? Why do I want guidance? About what? You answer me, those of you who follow these gurus, and all the rest of it, churches and temples and mosques, what do you mean by guidance? Another fellow human being in different robes, with beard or non-beard, specially from Asia, India included, why does one want guidance? Are you being guided now? Be simple, sirs. Are you being guided now? Or are we together investigating, exploring, communicating, saying ‘I don’t understand what you are saying’, and I say, ‘I’ll explain it’, and then you explain something to me and I say, ‘Yes’. We are moving together, there is no guidance. You understand? Are we? We have had guidance galore: every newspaper, every magazine, every preacher, every priest throughout the world is guiding us, telling us what to do, what not to do, think this, don’t think that, surrender yourself, oh, don’t listen to him, he is a reactionary – you follow? We are being guided, shaped, moulded, all the time. Consciously or unconsciously. Here we are not guiding anybody, we are talking like two friends talking over things together. That is totally different. And guidance prevents understanding, in the deeper sense of that word, because I can’t understand myself first, look at myself, you are guiding me all the time, do this, don’t do that. I am not looking at myself, I am listening to what you have said. That means you become the authority, I become your slave, whether psychological slave, or slave to some other factor. These gurus with their ashramas, their places, become concentration camps. They tell you what to do, how to salute – all that Tommy rot. I am not condemning, it is so. 请求指引会阻碍，它一定会阻碍了解吗？ 对吧？ 为什么我会想要指引？ 指引我什么呢？ 请你们回答我，你们中那些追随过这些古鲁等等的人， 去教堂、去寺庙、去清真寺的人，你们所说的“指引”是什么意思呢？ 去找另一个人类同胞，他穿着与众不同的长袍，留着胡须或者没有留胡须， 尤其是来自亚洲的人——包括印度，为什么我们会想要指引呢？ 你们现在正在被我指引吗？ 简单一点吧，先生们。 你们现在正在被指引吗？ 还是说，我们是在一起探究、探索和交流，你说， “我并不明白你说的东西”，然后我说，“我将会来解释它”， 接着你也向我解释了一些东西，然后我说，“你说的对”。 我们正在一起前行，这里并不存在什么指引。 你们理解了吗？我们都理解了吗？ 我们已经有了大量的“指引”：全世界所有的报纸、杂志、 传道士和神职人员都在指引着我们， 告诉我们该做什么，不该做什么，要这样去思考，不要那样去思考， 让自己臣服，噢，别去听他的， 他是一个保守人士——你们跟上了吗？ 我们一直在被指引着、改造着、塑造着 ——有意识的或无意识的。 但我们在这里并没有在指引任何人， 我们就像两个朋友一样地在交谈，一起讨论事物。 这是完全不同的。 而指引阻碍了「了解」——深层意义上的「了解」， 因为首先，我无法了解我自己，也无法看我自己了， 你一直在指引着我，要这样做，不要那样做。 我并没有在观察我自己，我正在聆听你所说的东西。 这意味着，你变成了权威，而我变成了你的奴隶 ——不管是心理上的奴隶，还是其他什么奴隶。 这些古鲁连同他们的静修院和场地已经变成了一个个的集中营。 他们告诉你该怎么做，如何去行礼致敬，所有这些荒唐的东西。 我并不是在谴责，它就是如此。 所以，如果我们完全不去寻求指引——寻求指引确实会阻碍对自我的了解——
1:11:33 So if we don’t seek guidance at all, which actually prevents understanding of ourselves, then cannot seeking help be a means, or discovery of ourselves – good God, need we go into all this again? Why can’t we be simple? Not in clothes, I don’t mean that. Simple. See things as they are. Look, face things actually as they are instead of all this labyrinth of maze. Why do we have to go through all this? Except the doctor – that is a different matter. Psychologically we are talking about. Why can’t we be very, very simple and look at things as they are. Is our brain so incapacitated, so cunning, so desperately devious that it cannot see things, what is in front of their nose or eyes? If you are very, very simple psychologically, then that very simplicity has immense subtlety, much more subtle than all the cunningness of the brain. But we are never simple. If it is raining, it is raining. I am lonely – not the speaker – one is lonely, that is a fact. Why all the circus round it? 那么寻求帮助能否成为一种手段，或者说成为 一种对自我的发现？天哪，我们还需要再次探讨所有这些东西吗？ 为什么我们就不能简单一点？ 不是着装服饰上的简单，我不是这个意思。 而是「简单纯粹」。 如实地去观察事物。 去看、去面对事物实际的模样， 而不是所有这些迷宫般复杂的事情？ 为什么我们必须要去经历所有这一切呢？ 除了寻求医生的指引，那是另一回事了。 我们在说的是心理上的指引。 为什么我们就不能非常非常简单，去如实地看待事物呢？ 难道我们的大脑是如此的无能，如此的狡猾，如此极度的不坦诚， 以至于它无法看到那些就在鼻子前或眼前的事物吗？ 如果你在心理上可以非常非常简单， 那么这份「简单」本身就会具有巨大的微妙机敏， 它远远要比大脑所有的狡猾更加灵活微妙。 但我们从来都不是简单的。 如果天下雨了，那就是下雨了。 我很孤单——不是说演讲者——某人很孤单，这是一个事实。 为什么还要围绕孤单问题搞出所有那些闹剧呢？
1:14:05 5TH QUESTION: Could you please explain what is total vision? Is it an extension of our normal brain function? Or does it imply something totally different? （第五个问题）你能否解释一下什么是「全观」？ 它是不是我们正常大脑功能的一种延伸扩展？ 还是说它意味着某种截然不同的东西？
1:14:28 Could you please explain what is total vision? Is it the extension of our normal brain function? Or does it imply something totally different? To be very simple: do we see anything entirely? Do we see, – not trees and nature, all that – do we, each one of us, see your wife, see, actually see, not imagine, all the images, simply see? Do I see partially, because I have so much prejudice, so much fear, so much anxiety, and all the rest of it, so I never see somebody entirely – right? To see something wholly, holistically, if I may use that word, completely, wholly, in that seeing there is no contradiction, it is so. Understand? Right? There is no contradiction in seeing what is actually going on. I am angry. I am impatient, exhausted. To see that simply. But the moment I bring in the fact, ‘Oh, I shouldn’t be. I am like this. I am exhausted. I am exasperated’ – excuses. Right? Can I see myself wholly as I am? Can I see the whole map? A map is put in front of each one of us, a map of the world, with various colours, with various flags, various prime ministers, various presidents – all the cuckoodom that is going on. There it is in front of me, in front of us. Can I look at that whole map as a whole? And it is not possible to look at that whole map if my attention is on Britain. Or if my attention is on Russia. So my attention then is directed to one point. You follow? So this sense of direction to one point, or self-interest, prevents the holistic, the outlook – the seeing of the whole thing. It is simple. Right? But if I am stuck to, or my roots are in this one particular corner of the earth, then I can’t possibly see the whole thing. If I am always thinking about India – thank God I don’t, I never do – if I am always thinking about India, what is happening, why I am an Indian, why am I poor, why am I this – you know, all the rest of it, how can I diddle somebody, or believe in some particular god, or something or other, I am there, stuck, I can’t see the whole of it. Right? It is as simple as that. So I won’t be… Naturally when I see the truth of it I say, what nonsense. 你能否解释一下什么是「全观」？ 它是不是我们正常大脑功能的一种延伸扩展？ 还是说它意味着某种截然不同的东西？ 非常简单地来说：我们是否完整地观察过任何东西？ 我们是否这样去看过——不只是看树木，看大自然等等这些东西， 我们每个人是否曾这样看自己的妻子： 如实地去看，而不是想象，去除掉所有想象，而只是简单地去看？ 我是否只是在局部地看，因为我有着如此多的偏见、 如此多的恐惧、如此多的焦虑，等等这些东西， 所以，我从来没有完全地去看某个人——对吧？ 去完全地、“整体性”地看某个事物——如果我可以使用“整体性”这个词的话—— 完整地、完全地去看，在这种「看」中是没有矛盾的，它就是如此。 明白了吗？对吧？ 在观察实际发生的事情之中是不会有什么矛盾的。 我很愤怒。 我感到不耐烦，感到精疲力尽。 只是简单地看到这一点。 然而一旦我在这个事实中掺杂加入了“噢，我不应该这样。或者我就是这样。 我精疲力尽了。我很愤怒。”——各种理由辩解。 对吧？ 我可以如实地、完整地去看我自己吗？ 我可以看到整张地图吗？ 一张地图摆在了我们每个人面前，一张世界地图， 地图上有着各种色彩、各种旗帜、各种首相、 各种总统——所有那些愚蠢疯狂的事情正在发生着。 这张地图就摆在我的面前，摆在我们面前。 我能够看着这张地图，将其视为一个整体吗？ 如果我的注意力集中在英国， 那我就不可能看到整张地图了。 或者如果我的注意力集中在俄罗斯。 因此，那时我的注意力就是指向某一点的。 你们跟上了吗？ 所以这种“指向一点”的感觉或者说是利己主义， 它阻碍了那种完整的、那种视野——去看到全部的东西。 这是很简单的道理。 对吧？ 但如果我固定于……或者我根植于地球上的某个特定的角落， 那么我就不可能看到全部的东西了。 如果我总是在想着印度——感谢上帝，我没有，我从没有去想它， 但如果我总是在想着印度：印度正在发生些什么？ 为什么我是一个印度人？为什么我这么穷？为什么我会这样 你知道所有这类问题，我要如何才能骗取别人的钱财 或者去信仰某个神明，或者别的什么东西。 我卡在那里，我已经固定住了，我无法看到整张地图了。 对吧？ 它就是这么的简单。 所以我不会再……很自然的，当我看到了它的真相，我就会说：这是多么荒谬愚蠢。
1:19:34 Not only seeing holistically – we must stop – but also there is much more to seeing than that. Observing without any words, without any interference of thought, just seeing. First of all, visually, then inwardly seeing everything as is. And from that seeing we can go much further, then you ask what is insight. Seeing something absolutely to be true and acting at that moment. I won’t go into all that now. It is time to stop. But all this requires investigation, or observing without analyser, into what one is. And from there you can move infinitely, boundlessly. There is no beginning or end there. 我们不仅要整体性地去看——我们必须就此打住了—— 同样我们也要看到比这更多的东西。 去观察而没有任何文字词语， 没有任何思想的干扰，只是去看。 首先在视觉上去看，然后在内心如实地看到一切事物。 而从这种观察中，我们就可以前进一大步，那时你就会问：什么是「洞察」？ 看到某个绝对真实正确的事物，然后在那一刻立即行动。 我现在就不深入这一切了。演讲该结束了。 但是，所有这一切都需要探究或观察， 没有分析者地去探究、观察真实的自己。 从那里开始，你就可以无限地、无穷无尽地前进。 那里没有开始，也没有结束。
1:21:07 May we get up? 我们都可以站起来了吧？