Krishnamurti Subtitles
LS84S1 - 思想可能有创造性吗？
1984年3月20日
美国新墨西哥州
洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室
与科学家们的第一次讨论会
| 0:47 | M. R. Raju: It is a privilege for me to introduce our speaker today, but Mr Krishnamurti needs no introduction. He is a world-renowned teacher. He has been giving lectures around the world for nearly sixty years now. The more than thirty books which he has had published are never out of date, they maintain their freshness. Dr Oppenheimer was a philosopher-scientist and a Sanskrit scholar. It is a most happy occasion, on the day of the official beginning of spring to have Mr Krishnamurti as our colloquium speaker. On behalf of the Laboratory, I want to express our appreciation to him for accepting our invitation in spite of his busy schedule. So, without taking any more precious time from the speaker, I invite Mr Krishnamurti to give his presentation, and the title of the presentation is Creativity in Science. Thank you very much for your attention. Sir, may I request for you to present the talk. | 拉朱先生：我很荣幸地向各位 介绍我们今天的演讲者， 但克里希那穆提先生已经无需多做介绍了。 他是一位举世闻名的导师。 他一直在全世界各地进行演讲， 到现在已经将近有60年了。 他已经出版了超过30本的著作， 这些著作从未过时，它们一直保持着新鲜感。 奥本海默博士是一位哲学家兼科学家， 同时也是一位梵文学者。 这是一个令人无比快乐的时刻， 在今天这个春天正式来临的日子， 我们邀请了克里希那穆提先生作为我们座谈会的演讲者。 我想要代表实验室， 向他表示我们的感激之情， 感谢他能在百忙之中接受我们的邀请， 所以，为了不再占用更多这位演讲者宝贵的时间， 我请求克里希那穆提先生开始他的演讲， 而此次演讲的题目是「科学中的创造性」。 非常感谢大家。 先生，我能否请你开始你的演讲。 |
| 2:29 | Krishnamurti: If I may, this is not a lecture. This is a conversation between you and the speaker. The subject, I believe, is Creativity in Science. Science generally means knowledge, accumulated through two or three hundred years, and increasing, more and more knowledge. What relationship has creativity with knowledge? That's the subject I've been asked to talk about. | 克里希那穆提：如果可以的话，我想说 这并不是一次演讲。 而是你和讲话者的一次交谈。 这次谈话的主题，我想应该是「科学中的创造性」。 科学通常意味着知识， 最近两三百年所积累起来的知识， 而它正在增长为越来越多的知识。 那么创造性 和知识有什么关系呢？ 我曾经被要求谈论过这个主题。 |
| 3:24 | What is knowledge? It is acquired through thousands of years, through experience, stored in the brain as knowledge and memory, and from that memory, thought arises. So knowledge is limited always, whether now or in the future, and so thought is always limited, and where there is limitation there is conflict. So, what place has creativity with regard to science? Is there a relationship at all? Please, we are thinking together, we are questioning the very source, the accumulative process of knowledge. Science means knowledge, Latin and so on. Can creativity in its deepest sense, in its profound activity, what place has creativity or creation with regard to knowledge? We have given tremendous importance to knowledge. From the ancient times, from China, India, before the Christian civilisation came into being they were tremendously respectful, worshipped knowledge. Knowledge, as we said before, is always limited because it's based on experience and so memory, thought, is limited. Thought has created the most extraordinary things in the world, all the great monuments from the ancient of times, great art, vast technology in the present day, and the creation of a nuclear bomb, and so on. Thought has brought about an extraordinary state in the world. Thought has created God, built vast cathedrals of Europe, all the things that fill the museums, poetry, statue, and all the marvellous things that thought has done. Because thought is the outcome of knowledge, knowledge is science, expressed technologically or otherwise. Thought also has created wars, and we are faced with another war, maybe. Human beings for the last five thousand years or more have been killing each other in the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of their own particular tribal country. Man has destroyed other human beings, now, in the present civilisation where we are gathered here, where they are producing these enormous destructive things, that is the result of science which is knowledge. | 什么是知识？ 知识是数千年以来， 通过经验而获得的， 它们作为知识与记忆储存在大脑里， 从那些记忆中便产生出了思想。 所以知识永远都是局限的， 不管是现在还是未来， 因此思想也永远是局限的， 当有了局限，就会有冲突。 所以，创造性 它在科学中的位置是什么？ 它们之间真的有什么关系吗？ 请注意，我们是在一起思考它， 我们正在询问知识的源头， 知识积累的过程。 科学就意味着知识，拉丁语等等。 那么最深层意义上的创造性， 最深刻的创造性活动， 那种创造性或创造， 它在知识中的位置是什么呢？ 我们已经赋予了知识巨大的重要性。 从远古时代开始，从中国、印度开始， 然后是基督教文明的形成， 这种文明无比尊敬 和崇拜知识。 而知识——就如我们之前说过的——它总是局限的， 因为它是建立在经验之上的， 因此记忆和思想都是局限的。 思想已经创造出了世界上最非凡的事物， 所有那些伟大的名胜古迹， 那些来自于古代的历史遗迹， 伟大的艺术， 以及如今的广泛的科学技术， 还制造出了核弹， 等等。 思想已经造就了 如今这个令人惊叹的世界。 思想也创造出了上帝， 建造了欧洲的那些宏伟的教堂， 所有那些博物馆里的展品， 诗歌、雕像， 以及所有那些思想所做的了不起的事情。 因为思想是知识的结果， 而知识就是科学 ——只不过是以技术或其他形式表现出来罢了。 思想也制造出了战争， 而我们也许正面临着另一场战争。 人类在过去五千多年的时间里， 一直在彼此杀戮， 以上帝的名义， 以和平的名义， 以他们自己特定的部落主义国家的名义而自相残杀。 人类已经摧毁了其他的人， 而现在，在如今的文明中， 也就是我们所身处于的文明， 人们正在制造着那些具有惊人破坏力的东西， 这是科学所造成的结果——科学就是知识。 |
| 9:21 | So what place has knowledge, science, with creation? Creation has been one of the most complex problems. Various religions say this is the source of creation, God and so on. Each tribal country, which is called nationalism, have their own particular expression, have their own tribal gods. And science, which has produced extraordinary, marvellous things in the world, communication, computers, medicine, surgery, all that has been the result of thought, going to the moon and so on. So can thought ever be creative, in its most profound sense? What is creation? Must creation always be expressed, manifested? That which is manifested must be limited. We are the result of tremendous years, or centuries of endeavour, conflict, struggle, pain, sorrow, we are the result of all that. Our brains have infinite capacity, but it has been conditioned not only religiously but also nationally. You're all Americans, Chinese, Russians, and so on. We have divided the world geographically, religiously, culturally, and also we have divided human beings, the Caucasians, the blacks and the browns, like us. And so thought has brought about tremendous conflict between human beings, that's a fact, not only between individuals, but also collectively. We have also suffered through wars, through pestilence, every form of disease. And science has been able to help or cure some of all that. But also science has produced the most destructive instruments of war. Before, you killed a man, perhaps in a war with two or three hundred people or more, now you can destroy the whole world. Again based on ideals, ideologies, tribal glorification, which is nationalism. Taking all that, what are we, after 45,000 years as Homo sapiens, what are we, what have we become? And in this confusion, because most human beings are terribly confused, though they may not admit it, uncertain, not only seeking physical security, but also they want inward psychological security in their relationships, with regard to future, and so on. So taking all this into consideration, our brains are specialised, conditioned by knowledge, and so our activities are conditioned, limited. Wherever there is limitation there must be conflict. When you divide the world into the Americas, the Asiatics, the Europeans, the Jew and the Arab, there must be conflict, not only wars but conflict between individuals, between man and woman. Considering all this, what place has creation? | 所以，知识、科学，它们在创造中的位置是什么？ 创造是最为复杂的问题之一。 各种宗教都会说：这就是创造的源头 ——那源头就是上帝，等等之类的。 每一个部落主义的国家——它被称为民族主义—— 都有着他们自己特定的表达， 他们自己的部落神明。 而科学 它已经制造出了这个世界上那些惊人的、了不起的事物， 各种通讯工具、电脑、 药物、外科手术， 所有这些都是思想的结果， 登上月球等等。 所以思想可能具有创造性吗？ 具有那种最深刻意义上的创造性？ 什么是创造？ 创造是否总是必须要表达出来， 呈现出来才行？ 那个可以呈现出来的东西必定是局限的。 无数个年头， 无数个世纪的努力、 冲突、 斗争、 痛苦、悲伤 ——我们就是所有这一切的产物。 我们的大脑有着无限的能力， 然而它却被局限了 ——不仅受到了宗教的制约， 也受到了国籍的制约。 你们是美国人、 中国人、俄罗斯人， 等等。 我们已经在地域上、 宗教上、文化上划分了这个世界， 我们也划分了人类， 把人类划分为白色人种、 黑色人种，以及像我们一样的棕色人种。 因此，思想已经带来了 人类之间巨大的冲突， 这是一个事实， 不仅是个体之间的冲突， 也包括群体之间的冲突。 我们同样也遭受了战争的痛苦， 遭受了瘟疫和各种疾病的痛苦。 而科学能够帮助缓解或者治愈这其中的一些疾病。 但科学同样也制造出了 最具毁灭性的战争工具。 以前，你们也许可以在一场战争中 杀死两三百人或更多一点， 但现在，你们已经可以摧毁整个世界了。 而你们的战争同样也是基于理想、意识形态， 或部落的荣耀的——也就是民族主义。 考虑到所有这些， 我们是什么呢？在成为智人（现代人的学名） 45000年以后， 我们是什么呢？我们变成什么样了呢？ 在这种混乱困惑中， 因为大多数人都是无比困惑的 ——尽管他们也许不承认这一点—— 都是不确定的， 人们不仅在寻求物质上的安全感， 他们同样也想要有内在的、心理上的安全感， 那种关系中的安全感， 对于未来的安全感，等等。 所以，思考了所有这些之后， 我们发现我们的大脑已经「专业化」了， 它已经被知识所局限了， 因此我们的行动也是局限的、受制约的。 当有了局限，就必定会有冲突。 当你将全世界的人划分为美国人、 亚洲人、欧洲人、 犹太人和阿拉伯人以后，就必然会有冲突， 不仅仅是战争，也包括人与人之间的冲突， 男人和女人之间的冲突。 在思考了这些之后， 创造的位置是什么呢？ |
| 16:15 | Knowledge can never be creative. We're going to question all this. Knowledge can bring about a better physical world, externally, and when we give such extraordinary importance to knowledge, which is the intellect, to us intellect is vital, important, essential, but intellect is also limited. We never look at life holistically, as a whole, not as a scientist, a physician, psychiatrist and so on. We are human beings first. And as human beings what are we, what have we become? After millennia upon millennia, are we civilised? I know you are all of a very affluent society, you've got a great many cars, marvellous country, beautiful roads and so on, but we, as human beings, what are we? It is human beings that are capable of creation, not only as scientists but also in our daily life. Because after all, what is important? We have forgotten, or we never had the art of living, not as scientists, as human beings. We are perpetually in conflict, and can conflict, struggle, pain, anxiety, uncertainty, can such a brain be creative, or creation is something entirely different? | 知识永远不可能是创造性的。 我们将会来质疑这一切。 知识能够带来一个更好的物质世界， 这只是外在上的， 而当我们如此强调重视知识 ——知识就是智力—— 那么智力对我们来说就变得必不可少、 非常重要、不可或缺了。然而智力也是局限的。 我们从来没有完整地去看待过生活，将其视为一个整体， 不是以一个科学家、医生、精神病学家等等的身份去看它。 我们首先是人类。 而作为人类，我们是什么呢？ 我们已经变成什么样子了呢？ 在数千年以后， 我们变得文明了吗？ 我们知道你们都属于社会富裕阶层， 你们有很多的汽车， 了不起的国家，美丽整洁的道路，等等， 然而我们作为人类， 我们又是什么呢？ 人类都能够去创造， 而不只是那些科学家们， 我们在日常生活中也可以创造。 因为毕竟，什么才是重要的？ 我们已经忘记了，或者说我们从未有过那种生活的艺术， 不是作为科学家，而是作为人类的一员。 我们永远都处于冲突之中， 然而冲突、斗争、痛苦、 焦虑、不确定， 这样的大脑可能具有创造性吗？ 还是说创造 它是某种截然不同的东西？ |
| 19:34 | As we said, we are thinking together, if that's possible. Not that the speaker thinks and tells you, or do we together as human beings think about these matters now? That is, to forget our professions, our vocations of imitation, and as human beings, can we be creative? First, if we understand the significance of that then we can turn to science, religion and so on. Can we, as human beings, look at the world as what we have made of it? I wonder if one realises whether we are individuals at all. Because our consciousness, which is made up of our reactions, physical, biological reactions, our beliefs, our faith, all the prejudices that we have, multiplication of opinions, the fears, the insecurity, the pain, the pleasure, and all the suffering that human beings have born for thousands of years. All that is our consciousness. Our consciousness is what we are. And in this confusion, in this contradiction, can there be creation? We share the consciousness of the entire humanity because you suffer, you have pleasures, beliefs, conclusions, opinions, and all the religious dogmas and faiths, which is shared by all human beings on this earth. So one questions whether we are individuals psychologically. You may be different, you may be tall, you may be short, but as human beings with our consciousness, are we different from the rest of mankind? We've never questioned all this. We trot along all the days of our lives accepting, imitating, conforming. When we rebel, we rebel outwardly. There have been revolutions, Russian, French, thousands of revolutions have taken place. But inwardly, we remain more or less as we have been for thousands of years. So taking all this, not intellectually but as a whole, are we creative? Or creation is something entirely different. You can invent a new method, discover, explore, break up the atom and so on. It is all the activity of thought, cunning, capable, deceptive, creating illusions, and worshipping those illusions. After all, all religions are based on that. Thought has created God. The speaker is not an atheist, but thought has created wars, murdered in the name of God millions of people, and thought has created all the things in the cathedrals, in the churches, in the temples, in the mosques. | 就如我们所说的，我们正在一起思考 ——如果这可能的话。 不是讲话者思考它，然后告诉你， 而是我们作为同样的人类，在此刻有没有一起去 思考这些事情呢？ 换句话说，忘掉我们的专业， 忘掉我们基于模仿的职业， 而是作为人类， 我们能否具有创造性？ 首先，如果我们理解了创造性的意义， 那么我们就可以转向科学、宗教等等的主题了。 我们能否作为人类 去看看我们已经把这个世界变成了什么样？ 我不知道你们是否明白这一点： 即我们究竟是不是个体？ 由于我们的意识 它是由我们的反应 ——物理上的、生物学上的反应， 我们的信仰，我们的信念， 我们持有的所有偏见， 不断增加的观点意见， 各种恐惧， 不安全感， 痛苦，快乐， 以及人类数千年以来所承受的 所有的苦难，它们组成了我们的意识。 这一切就是我们的意识。 我们的意识就是我们的真实模样。 而在这种混乱困惑中，在这种矛盾中， 可能会有创造吗？ 我们共享着整个人类的意识， 因为你在受苦，你有着快乐、 信仰、结论、各种观点， 以及所有宗教教条和信仰 ——而这些都是这个地球上所有的人共有的。 所以某人在质疑：从心理上来说，我们究竟是不是独立的个体？ 你也许有别于他人，你可能高一点，也可能矮一点， 然而作为有着我们自身意识的人类， 我们和其他的人真的有所不同吗？ 我们从未质疑过这一切。 我们一路小跑， 就这样度过了生命中所有的日子， 接受，模仿，遵从。 当我们反抗时， 我们的反抗也只是外在的。 俄国和法国都曾经发生过革命， 人类曾有过成千上万次革命。 可是内在而言， 我们仍旧多多少少和数千年以来的我们 没什么两样。 所以，看到这一切以后， 不是思想智性上看到，而是完整地看到它以后， 你觉得我们是创造性的吗？ 还是说创造是某种截然不同的东西？ 你可以发明出一种新的方法， 用它去发现、去探索、 去分裂原子，等等。 但这些全都是思想的活动， 狡猾、能干、欺骗，制造幻想， 然后再去崇拜那些幻想。 从根本上讲，所有的宗教都是建立在这之上的。 思想已经创造出了上帝。 讲话者并不是一个无神论者， 但的确是思想制造出了那些战争， 它以上帝的名义谋杀了成百上千万的人， 而思想也创造出了大教堂、 普通教堂、寺庙和清真寺里的所有事物。 |
| 26:19 | So, can thought be creative? As we said, thought is limited because it's based on knowledge, and knowledge is the result of vast experience. So we're asking a really very fundamental question: whether thought can ever be creative. It can invent, it can produce new weapons of war, the surgery, medicine and so on. And in our relationship with each other, man, woman, what place has thought in that? Is thought love? I know we say not, but if we look at ourselves and our relationship with each other, husband, wife, and boy and girl and so on, our relationship is based on the image you have built about her and she has built about him. That relationship is based on thought. | 所以，思想可能有创造性吗？ 就如我们说过的，思想是局限的， 因为它是建立在知识之上的， 而知识是丰富广泛经验的产物。 所以我们正在问一个非常根本性的问题： 思想是否可能具有创造性？ 思想可以去发明， 思想可以制造新式的战争武器， 外科手术、药物等等。 那么在我们彼此间的关系中，男人和女人的关系中， 思想在其中的位置是什么呢？ 思想是爱吗？ 我知道我们会说它不是， 但如果我们看看自己，以及我们彼此间的关系， 丈夫、妻子，男女朋友等等， 你会发现我们的关系是建立在印象之上的， 你已经建立起了一个关于她的印象，而她对你也有一个印象。 那种关系是建立在思想之上的。 |
| 28:31 | So thought has been extraordinarily capable of certain things, and thought has also brought about the destruction of man, of human beings like ourselves, dividing them into ideologies, the Russian ideology, democratic ideology and so on. So please, thought can never be creative because what it can manifest must be limited. And where there is limitation there must be conflict, between man and woman, between ideologies, between the Arab and the Jew, between the American and the Russian, this division, geographically, nationally, religiously. And conflict can never under any circumstances bring about a creativity of creation. So, if thought is not the ground of creation, then what is creation, when does it take place? Baking bread is also creation of a certain kind, having babies, also creation and so on, all the way up. Surely, creation can only take place when thought is silent. You may totally disagree with this. I hope you do. I'm sure you do. Because to us thought is extraordinarily important, which means the intellect, which is only part of a human being. | 所以思想 它有着惊人非凡的能力，能够去做某些事情， 而思想同样也造成了人类的毁灭， 摧毁了像我们一样的人类， 它将人类划分为不同的意识形态， 俄国的意识形态，民主的意识形态，等等。 所以请注意， 思想是永远无法具有创造性的， 因为它所能表现出来的东西必定是局限的。 而当有了局限，就必然会有冲突， 男人和女人之间的冲突，不同意识形态间的冲突， 阿拉伯人和犹太人之间的冲突， 美国人和俄国人之间的冲突， 存在着这种分裂， 地域上的、国家的、宗教上的分裂。 而无论在任何情况下，冲突永远不可能 带来创造性，带来创造。 所以，如果思想不是创造的土壤， 那么什么是创造呢？创造何时会发生呢？ 烘焙面包同样也是某种创造， 生孩子也是创造， 等等，所有这类事情。 但毫无疑问，只有当思想安静下来以后， 创造才会发生。 你们也许完全不同意这一点。 我希望你们不同意。 而且你们肯定不会同意。 因为对我们来说，思想是无比重要的， 思想就意味着智力， 但智力只是一个人的一部分而已。 |
| 31:46 | So, the speaker says creativity can never take place where there is the activity of thought. The question then arises: can thought be quiet, can thought be put aside for a while? Then who is it that helps thought to put it aside? It is still thought. I don't know if you are following all this. So it's a very complex process. They have tried every method to quieten thought, drugs, tranquillisers, and also they have tried every form of meditation, the Zen meditation, the Tibetan, the Hindu, the Buddhist, and all the latest gurus with their nonsense, they have tried everything to quieten the thought. Because thought has its place. But psychologically, inwardly, can there be a certain silence, quietness? Love is that silence, is that quality of great strength, quiet energy. | 所以，讲话者说： 当有了思想的活动时， 就绝不可能会有创造性了。 然后问题就出现了： 思想能够安静下来吗？ 思想可以暂时被搁置一旁吗？ 那时，又是谁在帮助着去把思想搁置一边呢？ 那个将思想搁置一边的仍旧是思想。 我不知道你们有没有跟上这些。 所以这是一个非常复杂的过程。 人们已经尝试过了每一种方法来让思想安静下来， 毒品、镇静剂， 人们也尝试了各种形式的冥想， 禅宗冥想， 西藏人的冥想， 印度教的冥想，佛教的冥想， 以及所有最新古鲁们的瞎搞， 人们已经尝试了一切办法来让思想安静下来。 虽然思想有它自己的位置。 但心理上而言，内在而言， 能否有某种寂静与安静呢？ 爱就是那种寂静， 就是那种巨大力量的品质， 那种安静的能量。 |
| 34:28 | So, we're asking, is love the only factor that is creative? Not sex. I know we have reduced love to pleasure. And we have to ask what is love? If you once comprehend, perceive that thought can never under whatever circumstances be creative, because thought is limited, of that there is no question. If we once see the truth of it, then we can begin to ask, is there another instrument, another way of looking at life? Then we can begin to enquire, what is love? What is compassion? What is intelligence? Intelligence is part of that thought, intelligence has created Los Alamos. And what is the nature of love? Is it desire? Is it pleasure? Is it creating images, images about your wife, your husband? Is it the images of ideologies? So to find out, to discover, to come upon that extraordinary thing called love one must have a very clear understanding of our daily life. And that means psychologically, inwardly, we have no freedom. We talk about freedom, especially in this country where you have experts who tell you what to do, specialists. You must be aware of all this: how to bring up a baby, how to have sex, how to beautify yourself, what kind of exercise, and so you have specialists in religion, in science, and so on. And this you call freedom. As our time is very limited we cannot possibly go into the question more deeply: what is freedom. Without freedom there is no love. But we are not free. We're anxious, we're frightened of death, frightened of the future, we have carried this burden of fear for thousands of years. We are talking about psychological fears first, and the physical fears later. | 所以我们在问： 爱是不是唯一创造性的因素？ 而不是性。 我知道我们已经将爱沦为了快感。 所以我们必须要问：什么是爱？ 如果你曾理解了或看到了这一点： 即无论在任何情况下， 思想永远不可能是创造性的， 因为思想是局限的 ——这一点是毋庸置疑的。 一旦我们看到了它的真相， 那么我们就可以开始问了： 是否还有另一种手段， 另一种方式来看待生活呢？ 然后我们就可以开始探询： 什么是爱？ 什么是慈悲？ 什么是智力？ 智力是那种思想的一部分， 是智力创造了洛斯阿拉莫斯实验室（Los Alamos）。 而爱的本质又是什么呢？ 是欲望吗？ 是快感吗？ 是制造意象吗？ 关于你妻子或丈夫的异象？ 还是各种意识形态的意象？ 所以要去找到、 去发现、去邂逅那被称为“爱”的非凡之物， 我们就必须非常清楚地了解 我们的日常生活。 它的意思就是：心理上，内在而言， 我们并没有自由。 我们谈论自由， 特别是在这个国家里， 在这里你们有一些权威会告诉你们该怎么做， 那些专家。 你们一定都知道这些： 如何去抚养小孩，如何去做爱， 如何让自己变得更美， 该做什么样的运动， 因此你们在宗教、科学、等等领域中， 都有着专家。 而你们就把这称之为自由。 由于我们的时间非常有限， 我们不可能更深入地探讨 什么是自由了。 没有自由，就没有爱。 但我们并不自由。 我们很焦虑，我们害怕死亡， 害怕未来， 数千年以来，我们一直背负着恐惧的重担。 我们谈论的首先是心理上的恐惧， 然后才是生理上的恐惧。 |
| 40:35 | So, can such a brain which is so conditioned, as a computer, can such a brain love? And is creativity, whether in science, in biology and so on, where there is the great activity of thought with its own peculiar intelligence, can that thought create, be creative? If not, then how does creation take place? They have asked this question, religious people have asked this question, theologians. If you go to India, they'll invent their own theory about creation, so do the Christians, Muslims, and all say God, or some biological reason. | 所以这样一个如此局限的大脑， 一个像电脑般的大脑， 这样的大脑能够去爱吗？ 它会有创造性吗？ 不管是在科学领域、生物学领域，还是其他什么领域， 当思想非常的活跃， 带着它自己特有的智性时， 这样的思想能够去创造吗？它会有创造性吗？ 如果不能的话， 那么创造是如何发生的呢？ 人们已经问过了这个问题， 宗教人士曾经问过这个问题，那些神学家们。 如果你去印度， 那里的人会发明出他们自己关于创造的理论， 基督教徒、穆斯林也是一样，他们都会说是神（创造了万物）， 或者是某种生物学上的原因。 |
| 42:26 | So we are saying that creation is only possible where there is love. Then what is love? Love is not desire, love is not pleasure. Love is not religious entertainment. To understand the complexity of desire, the complexity of sorrow, and the enormous, the thing that we call death, all that is part of our life, our daily living. So is there freedom? Have we love? If there is love, we'll never kill another human being, never. And this whole world now is collecting armaments. Every country wants the latest instrument of destruction. America is supplying it, England, Russia, Germany, and each country is producing its own deadly instruments, and amongst this chaos, we want to have the spirit of creation, creativity. On one hand, you produce the most destructive instruments of war, on the other, you talk about love, peace, and so on. We live in a state of contradiction, and where there is contradiction there must be conflict and therefore there can never be creation, or creativity. It's only when the brain is quiet, not controlled quietness, when the brain is absolutely silent, though it has its own rhythm. Man has enquired into this from the ancient of days. Can the brain be utterly still for a while? Not everlastingly chattering, not probing, not enquiring, not searching, but quiet, still. | 所以我们在说的是， 只有当有了爱，才可能会有创造。 那么，什么是爱呢？ 爱并不是欲望，爱并不是快感。 爱也不是宗教娱乐。 要了解欲望的复杂性， 苦难的复杂性， 以及那巨大无限的 我们称之为「死亡」的东西， 所有这些都是我们生命、我们日常生活的一部分。 所以，是否存在自由呢？ 我们有爱吗？ 如果我们有爱，我们就永远不会去杀死另一个人，永远不会。 如今全世界都在筹集军备武器。 每一个国家都想要最新式的毁灭性武器。 美国正在供应着这些武器，还有英国、俄罗斯、德国， 而每一个国家都在制造着它自己致命的战争工具。 而在这一片混乱之中， 我们却想要拥有创造的精神， 想要拥有创造性。 一方面， 你们制造出了最具破坏性的战争工具， 另一方面，你们却在谈论着爱、 和平，等等这些东西。 我们生活在一种矛盾的状态中， 而当有了矛盾，就必然会有冲突， 因此便永远不会有创造 或创造性了。 只有当大脑安静下来， 不是那种经由控制而来的安静， 当大脑彻底的寂静， 尽管大脑会有它自身的节奏。 人类从古代就开始探询这个问题了： 即大脑能否暂时地彻底安静下来？ 而不是一直在那里喋喋不休， 大脑不再去追根究底，不再去询问，不再去寻找， 而是安静下来， 变得寂静无声。 |
| 46:32 | And to understand that stillness one must understand what is meditation, and so on. Meditation is not conscious meditation, because that's what you have been taught, conscious deliberate meditation, sitting cross legged or lying down or repeating certain phrases and so on. That is all deliberate, conscious effort to meditate, which is part of desire. And the speaker says such meditation is nonsense. It's like desiring a good house, a good dress, and you desire to have a peaceful mind, which is the same thing. Conscious meditation destroys, prevents the other form of meditation. To go into that we haven't time, because that requires extraordinary perception, without the word, without image. | 而要了解这种寂静， 我们就必须了解什么是冥想，等等。 冥想并不是那种有意识的冥想， 因为这就是你们被教导的东西， 去进行那些有意识的、刻意的冥想， 盘腿打坐，或者躺在那里， 或者反复念诵某些词句，等等。 所有这些“冥想”都是刻意的、有意识的努力， 它也是欲望的一部分。 而讲话者想说：这类冥想是荒谬愚蠢的。 它和你渴望一栋豪宅、一件漂亮衣服并没有什么两样， 只是现在你渴望拥有一个平静的头脑， 它们其实是一回事。 有意识的冥想， 它摧毁和阻碍了其他形式的冥想。 我们没有时间去深入探讨它了， 因为那需要非凡的觉察， 没有文字，没有意象。 |
| 48:24 | So, science is the movement of knowledge, gathering, more and more and more. The more is the measurement, and thought can be measured because thought is a material process. And knowledge has its own insight, its own limited creation, and therefore it brings conflict. But we are talking about holistic perception, in which the ego, the me, the personality doesn't enter at all. Then only there is this thing called creativity. | 所以，科学就是知识的运动， 收集积累越来越多的知识。 「越来越多」就是一种度量， 而思想是可以被度量的，因为思想是一个物质化的过程。 而知识 它有着自身的洞察力，自身局限性的创造， 因此它会带来冲突。 但我们正在谈论的是整体性的觉察， 在这种觉察中， 完全不会有自我、「我」和个性的介入。 只有那时才可能会有这个被称为「创造性」的事物。 |
| 49:40 | Right, sir. | 我讲完了，先生。 |
| 49:49 | MR: We have some time for a few questions, maybe for about fifteen minutes or so. Would anybody like to explore the subject further by asking any specific questions? | 拉朱先生：我们还有一点时间，你们可以提一些问题， 大约有15分钟左右的时间。 有人想要问一些具体的问题， 从而进一步地探究这个话题吗？ |
| 50:02 | Questioner: Mr Krishnamurti, it seems one category you have not considered in too much depth is the category of the will. | 提问者：克里希那穆提先生， 有一类事物你似乎并没有深入地考虑过它， 那就是「意志」这类事物。 |
| 50:15 | K: Sorry sir, I can't hear you. | 克：很抱歉，先生，我听不清。 |
| 50:32 | Q: I was commenting that one category that you seem not to have dealt with in too much detail is the category of the will, as opposed to thought. And could it not be that the problem, the source, the root problem, the source of the conflict is wrong use of the will rather than wrong thought? | 提问者：我刚在在说，有一类事物 你似乎并没有深入详细地去探讨过它， 那就是「意志」——这里的「意志」是相对于思想而言的。 有没有可能我们的问题， 那个源头，根源的问题， 冲突的根源，它在于我们错误地使用了意志， 而不是错误的思想？ |
| 50:57 | K: Yes, sir. You've understood the question? What is will? Is it not the essence of desire? And the gentleman asks, do not will and thought go together, or are separate? | 克：好的，先生。 你们明白他的问题了吗？ 什么是意志？ 意志不就是欲望的本质吗？ 而这位先生问： 意志与思想是不是如影随形的， 还是说它们是分离的？ |
| 51:36 | Q: I would make a distinction between the will, the capacity to make choices, and thought. I would say they are not one and the same, there is a distinction between them. And the problem is in the will rather than in a thought. The thoughts, to a large extent, flow from the will. | 提问者：我会将意志 ——也就是那种做出选择的能力——与思想区分开来。 我想说它们并不是同一个东西， 它们之间是有区别的。 而问题在于那种意志，而不在于思想。 思想在很大程度上是来自于意志的。 |
| 51:57 | K: Yes, that's what I am saying, the same thing. Desire, we are saying, is will. | 克：是的，这就是我在说的东西，它们是同一回事。 我们说：欲望就是意志。 |
| 52:09 | Q: I would make will a little more fundamental than simply desire. It's at the very heart of our personality, of who we are, this capacity to make choice, to make choices. I have another issue that I am really concerned about and that is that there may be more than just human thought and human experience. There may be a bigger aspect to reality. And one thing that there may be other wills involved besides human wills. And that there may be a factor of what we might call supernatural evil at work in the world. And there may be a bigger conflict than many people may have given much thought to, much consideration to. | 提问者：我所说的是那种更为根本性的「意志」，它不仅仅是欲望。 它处于我们人格的中心，它是我们实际模样的核心， 这种去做选择的能力，做出各种选择的能力。 我还有另一个问题，它是我非常关心的， 这个问题就是：或许存在着某种 超越人类思想和人类经验的事物。 也许存在着一种「实相」更为巨大的层面。 也许存在着某个事物，它包含了 除了人类意志以外的其他意志。 也许还存在着某种要素，我们或许可以把它称为 「超自然的恶」，它在这个世界上运作着。 也许还存在着某种更大的冲突， 而很多人或许并没有怎么考虑过它， 也没有怎么关心过它。 |
| 53:11 | K: So, what is the question? | 克：所以，你的问题是什么呢？ |
| 53:15 | Q: OK, I am saying that regardless of how many attempts we make to quiet our thoughts... | 提问者：好吧，我在说的是：无论我们多么努力地 去让思想安静下来 |
| 53:25 | K: No, you can't quieten thought. I carefully explained, we haven't time. Sir, what is the question? | 克：不，你是无法让思想安静下来的。 我已经仔细解释过这一点了，我们没有多少时间了。 先生，你的问题是什么？ |
| 53:35 | Q: OK, as a human being how can I protect myself from supernatural evil? How can I protect myself from Satan's authority in this world? | 提问者：好吧，作为人类的一员，我要如何才能保护自己 免于「超自然的恶」呢？ 我要如何才能保护自己在这个世界上免于魔鬼撒旦的影响力呢？ |
| 53:50 | K: Supernatural evil, and protection from that. What is the relationship of the good with the evil? Are we good? What does goodness mean? And what do we mean by evil? Is evil related to goodness? Is love related to hate? If it is related, then it's not love. If good is related to evil, then it is not good. And are we controlled or shaped by external super-evil? I know this is an old theory: there is something beyond us which we haven't created that controls us, that shapes our life and so on. | 克：超自然的恶， 以及如何保护自己。 「善」与「恶」的关系是什么呢？ 我们是「善」的吗？ 「善」是什么意思呢？ 而我们所说的「恶」又是什么意思呢？ 「恶」与「善」有关系吗？ 爱与恨有关系吗？ 如果爱和恨有关系，那么它就不是爱了。 如果「善」和「恶」相关，那它就不是「善」了。 而我们是被外在的「超自然的恶」所掌控或塑造的吗？ 我知道这是一个古老的理论： 即存在着某种超越我们的事物， 它并非是我们创造的事物， 它在控制着我们， 塑造着我们的生活， 等等。 |
| 55:28 | Q: Well, let me pose another question. | 提问者：哦，我还想提一个问题。 |
| 55:31 | Audience: No. | 听众：别提了。 |
| 55:35 | Q: OK, I'll make it very brief. OK, thank you. | 提问者：好吧，我长话短说。 好吧，谢谢你。 |
| 55:44 | K: I am sorry, sir. Let's have some fun, shall we? | 克：我很抱歉，先生。 让我们轻松一会儿吧，可以吗？ |
| 56:00 | Q: I have had trouble understanding what you mean by creativity. Could you dwell on that a bit? | 提问者：我很难理解你所说的「创造性」是什么意思。 你能够稍微细讲一下吗？ |
| 56:11 | K: I don't mean anything by creativity, it was posed to me. Whom are we questioning? Are you questioning the speaker, or questioning what he has said, or are you questioning yourself? Which is, together we are questioning the whole problem of existence, with its creation, with its destruction, with its pleasures, etc., the whole of life we are questioning. And we try to find an answer outside the question. But the answer lies in the question, not away from it. That depends how you regard the question. If we want a solution to the question, as most of us do, we have problems, and we are seeking solutions to the problems. Our brain is trained to the solution of problems from childhood. When a child goes to school he has mathematical problems, problems of how to read and write. So our brains from childhood have been conditioned to the solution of problems, and so we never understand the problem itself, we want a solution for it. | 克：当我说「创造性」的时候，我并没有表达什么意思， 是你们向我提出它来的。 先生，我们是在向谁提问呢？ 你是在向讲话者提问吗？ 还是说，是在对他所说的东西提出疑问？ 或者是在向自己提出问题？ 也就是说，我们是在一起提出问题， 关于生活的全部问题，包括它的创造， 它的毁灭，它的快感，等等， 我们是在质疑这整个生活。 我们试图在问题之外找到答案。 但答案就存在于问题之中， 而不是远离问题的。 那取决于你是如何看待这个问题的。 如果我们想要解决问题 ——我们大多数人都是如此， 那我们就会有问题了， 我们在寻求问题的解决， 我们的大脑被训练着去解决问题， 从小就开始了。 当小孩去学校上学， 他会遇到数学上的问题， 如何读书写字的问题。 所以我们的大脑从小开始就一直被制约着 去解决各种问题， 因此我们从未能够了解问题本身， 我们只是想要去解决它。 |
| 58:45 | So what is a problem? The gentleman said the problem is will, and thought. Who is going to answer that question? Or what is creativity. You can read books upon books, listen to professors, specialists, and then has one really, deeply, inwardly grasped the truth of something? What is truth, what is reality? The tiger is a reality, thought has not created it, thank God. Thought has not created nature. So reality is what we are, what we have made of ourselves. And we are incapable apparently of facing what we are, and transforming, bringing about a mutation in what we are, actually, not verbally, not theoretically. And then find out for oneself what is creation, what is creativity, what is love, what is the essence of compassion which is intelligence. To find that out for oneself, not selfishly, because we are the rest of humanity. That's a marvellous thing, to discover that. That we are the rest of humanity, psychologically, inwardly, though outwardly, externally we may be different. So when we understand this thing for ourselves, not be told everlastingly by professors, psychologists and so on, so that we have a clear perception of life, and the art of living, then we'll ask nobody to tell us what to do. | 那么，什么是「问题」呢？ 这位先生说，「问题」就是意志 和思想。 谁将来回答这个问题呢？ 或者来回答“什么是创造性”。 你可以阅读无数的书籍，聆听教授或专家们的话语， 然而你能够真正地、深刻地，从内心深处 领悟事物的真相吗？ 什么是真相？什么是「真实」（reality）？ 老虎就是一种「真实」， 它并不是思想所创造的，谢天谢地。 思想并没有创造出大自然。 所以，「真实」就是我们的实际模样， 就是我们一手造就的真实的自己。 而我们很显然无法去面对真实的自己， 然后转变自己，让自己有所「突变」， 真实的突变，而不是口头上的、理论上的。 然后亲自去发现什么是创造， 什么是创造性，什么是爱， 什么是慈悲的本质——慈悲即智慧。 亲自去发现它， 不是自私地为自己， 因为我们就是其余的人类。 发现这一点是一件了不起的事情： 即从内心的角度，从心理的角度而言，我们就是其他的人。 尽管表面上看起来，外在看起来我们也许是不同的。 所以，当我们自己理解了这件事， 而不是永无止息地 让那些教授、心理学家等等来告诉我们， 那时我们就会看清生活， 看清那种生活的艺术， 那时我们就不会请求任何人来告诉我们该怎么做。 |
| 1:02:30 | Q: You say we're the rest of humanity. I am different than you, and I want to tell you that I am glad I am not you. And I want to tell you that there is a difference between each person and the rest of humanity, that we're all individuals. You keep implying that we should be individuals, but then you say that we are the rest of humanity. We are not, I am not you, and I'm glad of that. | 提问者：你说我们就是其余的人类。 可我和你是不同的， 而我想要告诉你，我很高兴自己并不是你。 我也想告诉你， 每一个人和其他人都是不同的， 我们全都是独立个体。 你一直在暗示我们应该成为个体， 可是你又说：我们就是其他人。 我们并不是其他人，我并不是你，而我对此感到高兴。 |
| 1:03:04 | MR: Please, this is really a very serious topic. There is really no room for clapping or laughing, please. | 拉朱先生：请注意，这是一次非常严肃的主题讨论， 请各位不要鼓掌或大笑。 |
| 1:03:11 | K: May I answer that question? The gentleman said, I am glad I am not you, that he's different from everybody else. Is that so? We'll have to enquire, not say yes, I'm different from you. Don't you suffer? Don't you have conflicts? Don't you have problems? Don't you quarrel with each other? You have beliefs, don't you? Conclusions, fears? Go to India, or Egypt, or anywhere else in the world they have exactly the same thing psychologically, inwardly. They suffer. | 克：我可以来回答这个问题了吗？ 这位先生说：我很高兴自己不是你。 他和其他人是不同的。 是这样的吗？ 我们必须来探询它，而不是说：是的，我和你是不同的。 你难道不会痛苦吗？ 你难道没有冲突吗？ 你难道没有问题吗？ 你难道不会和别人争吵吗？ 你也有信仰，不是吗？ 各种结论，各种恐惧？ 当你去印度，去埃及，或者世界上任何地方， （你会发现）人们的心理，人们的内心是完全一样的。 所有人都在受苦。 |
| 1:04:18 | Q: I do not suffer when you suffer. I do not die when you die. I do not feel what you feel. | 提问者：可当你受苦时，我并不痛苦。 当你死掉时，我并不会死。 我也无法体会到你的感受。 |
| 1:04:31 | K: I do not die when you die. I do not feel what you feel. But go beyond that a little bit further, deeper. When I die, what is death? You answer, death, dying, biologically, physically one dies. Man on this earth, men have died by the million. And when you die and I die, what does that mean? Who dies? The name, the person, the qualities, the images he has built about himself? What dies? Please, one has to go into this, not just say, I'm different from you, and stop there. Of course we are different. Biologically we are different. You are tall, I am short, or I am black or you are blue. Of course there is a difference. You are a woman, I am a man. But inwardly, go into it. What are we, of which you are so proud? A series of memories we are, aren't we? Remembrance of things past. We are a bundle of memories. And to find out if there is something sacred, real truth beyond all these words and impressions and reactions, there must be that quality of investigation, without prejudice, without a conclusion. To go into these matters very carefully one has to have, not in one talk, you can't understand all this, it requires a great deal of enquiry on the part of all of us, not assertions, I believe and that's good enough for me. We must question the very nature of belief, the nature of conclusion, our ideologies. | 克：当你死掉时，我并不会死。 我也无法体会到你的感受。 但稍微超越它一点，再深入一些。 当我死了，那种死亡是什么呢？ 你来回答，死亡，死去， 我们在生物学上、在肉体上死亡了。 这个地球上的人类， 数以百万计的人死去了。 而当你死去，当我死去时，这意味着什么？ 是谁死去了？ 是那个名字，那个人， 那些个性特质吗？ 是某人建立起来的关于自己的意象吗？ 是什么东西死去了？ 请注意，我们必须要来探究这一点， 而不只是说：我和你是不同的，然后止步于此。 毫无疑问，我们是不同的。 从生物学角度来说，我们是不同的。 你很高，我很矮，或者我是黑色皮肤，而你是蓝色皮肤。 毫无疑问存在着某种区别。 你是一个女人，而我是一个男人。 但就内在而言，当你深入它以后， 我们是什么呢？你们如此为之自豪的「自己」是什么呢？ 我们都是一系列的记忆，不是吗？ 过去事物的回忆。 我们就是那一大堆的记忆。 而要去发现是否存在某种神圣之物， 某种超越所有语言文字、印象和反应的真正的实相， 我们就必须具备探究的品质， 没有偏见，也没有结论。 要非常仔细地探究这些问题，我们就必须要有 只靠一场谈话你是无法理解所有这些东西的， 它需要我们所有人亲自去进行大量的探询， 不是去断言宣称什么， 我相信它，这对我来说已经够好了。 我们必须去质疑信仰的本质， 结论的本质，去质疑我们的意识形态。 |
| 1:08:23 | Q: Can you give some concrete examples of creativity from your point of view? Some concrete examples of what creativity is from your point of view, some examples, maybe? | 提问者：你能否举一些关于创造性的具体的例子 ——从你的观点立场出发来举例？ 举一些关于什么是创造性的具体的例子， 从你的观点立场出发，能否举一些例子？ |
| 1:08:35 | K: I don't quite understand. | 克：我不是很明白。 |
| 1:08:37 | Q: I, for example, would say Einstein was creative in a certain way. Can you give some examples from your point of view. | 提问者：比如说， 我会认为爱因斯坦在某种意义上是很有创造性的。 你能否从你的观点立场出发，举一些（关于创造性）的例子？ |
| 1:08:46 | K: I have no point of view. I wouldn't have a point of view. I really mean it. It's not just a clever response. Because I am not an Indian, I don't believe all that kind of stuff - not believe - I reject all that. Not that I am vain and superstitious, all that business, but I say, look what has happened to human beings. And each one has a point of view, and he sticks to that point of view. And so there is perpetual division, conflict. And out of that conflict, creation cannot exist. | 克：我并没有什么观点立场。 我不会有什么观点。 我是说真的。 这并不是一个聪明机灵的回复。 因为我并不是一个印度人， 我并不相信所有那类东西 不但不相信，我还拒绝了它们。 并不是说我很自负、很迷信， 等等这些， 我想说的是：看看人类都发生了些什么。 每个人都有自己的观点， 然后他会坚持那种观点立场。 因此我们永远有着分裂和冲突。 而经由这种冲突，是不可能产生创造的。 |
| 1:09:55 | Q: You indicated that when we become very quiet the brain would have its own rhythm. Could you speak about that? | 提问者：你曾指出：当我们变得非常安静时， 大脑就会有它自身的节奏。 你能够谈谈这一点吗？ |
| 1:10:17 | K: Have you ever been, if I may most respectfully ask, have you ever been quiet? Literally really quiet, both physically and inwardly. The brain to be absolutely quiet, have you ever tried it? The gentleman asks - you asked something. | 克：你是否曾经 恕我冒昧地问一句， 你是否曾经安静下来过？ 真正意义上的安静下来， 身体上和心理上都安静下来。 大脑必须要完全安静下来才行， 你是否曾经尝试过它呢？ 这位先生问 ——你问的是什么。 |
| 1:11:11 | Q: I wanted to understand more clearly the reference that you made to the rhythm which the brain exhibits. | 提问者：我想要更清楚地理解 你所谈到的关于 大脑所展示出来的那种「节奏」。 |
| 1:11:22 | K: The brain is a muscle. An extraordinary muscle, immense capacity, infinite capacity. You can see what we human beings have produced. But when the brain is quiet in the sense psychologically, inwardly, which means no measurement, I won't go into all this. To have no measure, which means the brain doesn't compare, so that there is no 'more'. May I put the question differently? Or rather state something. The now, the present, the now, contains the past and the future. The future is the present. The future is what we are. It's so obvious. I am greedy for power, position. Aggression. I am that, now. And the future, which is tomorrow, or a thousand tomorrows, is what I am now. If there is no radical change in the now, the future is what I am. So death, I won't go into this, it's too complicated. | 克：大脑就是肌肉。 它是一种非凡的肌肉，它具有惊人的能力， 无限的能力。 你可以看到我们人类所制造出来的那些东西。 然而当大脑安静下来 ——从心理的、内在角度而言的安静， 那意味着没有了量度， 我就不深入下去了。 没有度量， 它意味着大脑没有在比较， 由此便不会有「更多」。 我可以换个方式来说一下这个问题吗？ 还是直接陈述一些东西。 现在，当下， 现在，它包含了过去 和未来。 未来就是当下。 未来就是我们现在的模样。 这是显而易见的。 我贪婪地追求权力和地位。 充满侵略性。 我现在就是这个样子。 而未来——也就是明天， 或者说是上千个明天——它就是我现在的样子。 如果我此刻没有根本性的改变， 那么未来我也会是这个样子。 所以死亡 我就不深入它了，它太复杂了。 |
| 1:13:48 | Q: You said many things that were true today such as about the limitations of human thought, and about the all importance of love. But I am a little disappointed that you have not told us the real answer to these things. | 提问者：你今天说了很多真实正确的东西， 比如人类思想的局限性， 以及爱的无比重要性。 但令我稍感失望的是你并没有告诉我们 对于这些问题的真正解答。 |
| 1:14:04 | K: Oh yes, I have answered. | 克：噢，不，我已经回答了。 |
| 1:14:06 | Q: The answer has been given to us by the infinite God who is the only creator. He has sent Jesus Christ to this earth who has shown us what love is by dying on the cross for us. And he is love, and he is the personification of love, and without knowing him you cannot know love. | 提问者：给予我们答案的是那个无限的上帝， 也就是那个唯一的创造者。 是他将耶稣基督送到了地球上， 而耶稣基督为了我们而牺牲在十字架上，以这种方式告诉了我们什么是爱。 而耶稣就是爱，他就是爱的人格化， 不知晓耶稣基督，你就无法知晓爱。 |
| 1:14:32 | K: Sir, I don't want to know what God is. I don't want to know. What do you mean by knowing? Knowing implies remembrance. This morning we met, you have seen the speaker, his face, you remember it. You may not remember it. And the remembrance is the image you have built about the person. But the person, the thing, may be totally different from the image you have built about him. This is so obvious. And we have built this extraordinary thing called God, each civilisation, the past, the present and the future, have their own ideas about what God is. I believe in India there are 330,000 gods, and in the Christian world there is only one God. There you can play with 3,000 gods, choose any God you like and have fun. Please, I am serious. It sounds rather silly but it's a fact. And when there is no fear inwardly of dying, of insecurity, no fear whatsoever psychologically and therefore biologically, then there is freedom. You understand? And in that freedom there is no... it is freedom, which is the essence of energy, and that energy may be called various names, who cares. | 克：先生，我并不想知道什么是上帝。 我不想知道它。 你所说的「知晓」是什么意思？ 「知晓」暗指了记忆。 今天早上我们见面了， 你见到了讲话者，你看到了他的脸，你记住了它。 也可能没有记住它。 而那种记忆，就是你所建立起来的关于那个人的印象。 然而那个人，那个事物， 它也许和你所建立起来的关于他的印象是完全不同的。 这是显而易见的事。 而我们已经制造出了这个称之为“上帝”的非凡之物， 每一个文明——不管是过去的、现在的，还是未来的， 都有着他们自己关于神的概念。 我相信在印度， 那里有33万个神， 而在基督教的世界里，只有一个上帝。 但在那里，你可以和3000个神一起玩耍， 你可以选择任何你喜欢的神，然后从中找点乐子。 请注意，我是很严肃认真的。 这听起来相当愚蠢，但它却是事实。 而当内心没有了对死亡，对不安全的恐惧， 没有任何心理上的恐惧——从而也没有了生理上的恐惧时， 那么就会有自由了。你明白了吗？ 在那种自由中就不会有……它就是自由， 它就是能量的本质， 那种能量或许可以被叫做任何名字，谁在乎呢？ |
| 1:16:58 | Q: He said, 'Be still and know that I am God.' and Jesus Christ also said, 'If you keep my commandments, ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.' | 提问者：他说，“安静下来，然后明白我就是上帝。” 而耶稣基督也说过，“如果你们遵守我的诫命， 你们就能知晓真理，而那真理将会让你自由。” |
| 1:17:09 | K: I don't quite understand your question. | 克：我不是很明白你的问题。 |
| 1:17:11 | Q: The question is: how can you have freedom without knowing Jesus Christ? Without having a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. | 提问者：我的问题就是： 不知晓耶稣基督，你又怎么可能获得自由呢？ 没有关于耶稣基督本人的知识。 |
| 1:17:24 | K: I don't understand your question. | 克：我不明白你的问题。 |
| 1:17:33 | Q: Jesus Christ said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life.' He is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. And without him there is no truth and no life, and it is the only way. | 提问者：耶稣基督说过， “我就是道路、真理和生命。” 他是唯一的道路、唯一的真理和唯一的生命。 没有他，就没有真理和生命， 他就是唯一的道路。 |
| 1:17:49 | K: Sir, forgive me, two thousand years ago this was stated according to the Bible by disciples who wrote the thing sixty years or more afterwards. This statement existed long before, every prophet, every guru from the most ancient days has stated this. But what has that to do with our daily life? All the statements of all the religious books, there is a very complex problem in this. Those who live on books, here you have the Bible and the Islamic world has the Koran, and the Indian and the Chinese world, there are a thousand books, or half a dozen books is good enough. So those who rely on one book become terribly dogmatic. If you have watched it carefully, they have called heretics and burnt, in the past. And those, they depend on Marx, Lenin, and you can see what is happening there. And if you have several books, all called religious books, they are not so dogmatic, assertive. In India, for example, you can be a good person without believing in God, not doing any ritual, and all rituals become a form of entertainment anyhow, religious or otherwise. | 克：先生，请原谅我打断你， 根据《圣经》中的说法，这是两千年前耶稣基督所说的， 然后门徒们在六十年或更多年之后把这些东西写了下来。 这种声明很久以前就存在了， 自古以来，每一位先知， 每一位古鲁都曾说过它。 然而它和我们的日常生活又有什么关系呢？ 所有宗教书籍中的所有那些声明， 这其中包含了一个非常复杂的问题。 那些依靠宗教书籍而生活的人， 在这里，你们有《圣经》， 而在伊斯兰教的世界里，他们有《古兰经》， 而印度以及中国， 他们也有上千本宗教书籍， 或者有半打书籍就足够了。 所以那些只依赖于一本书的人，就会变得非常教条主义。 如果你曾仔细地观察过这一点， （你会发现）在过去，他们会把异教徒叫过来，然后放火烧死他们。 而还有一些人，他们依赖于马克思、列宁， 而你也可以看到他们那里发生了些什么。 而如果你们能有几本书：它们都被称为宗教书籍， 但并不是那么教条和独断的话。 举个例子，在印度， 不信仰神明，也不去做任何宗教仪式， 你也可以是一个好人， 无论如何，所有的仪式都会变成一种娱乐 ——无论是宗教仪式还是其他什么仪式。 |
| 1:20:36 | If one is dogmatic, assertive, confirming one's own conclusions, then that is what is creating so much trouble, horror in the world. The Russians will not yield an inch in what they believe, their ideology, and those who are Christians and so-called democratic, they will not yield an inch either, so there is a war. And so please, we are not stating anything, we are just observing and moving, not static. Therefore one has to have extraordinary vitality, energy. And we waste our energy in all the absurdities. Is that enough, sir? | 如果一个人是教条的、独断的、 确信他自己的各种结论， 那么这就会制造出世界上无数的麻烦 与恐怖之事。 俄国人对于他们所坚信的东西， 对于他们的意识形态不会有丝毫的妥协让步。 而那些基督教的人，所谓的有民主精神的人， 他们也不会有丝毫的让步， 由此便有了战争。 所以，请注意， 我们并没有在声明任何东西， 我们只是在观察和前进， 没有停滞。 因此我们必须要有惊人的活力与能量才行。 然而我们却在所有那些荒谬之事上浪费了自己的能量。 差不多可以结束了吧，先生？ |
| 1:21:51 | MR: Thank you. There is another question from this gentleman. | 拉朱先生：非常感谢。这位先生还有一个问题。 |
| 1:21:57 | Q: As I listened, I was thinking that our thoughts and our knowledge can bring us to the crux of the problem, bring us to the foot of the problem, and what I wanted to ask you was whether you considered it creativity when we stand at the foot of the problem, to be able to divorce ourselves from all our knowledge and all our past that has brought us to the problem, to walk away from that? | 提问者：听了你的讲话后，我在想：我们的思想和我们的知识 可以带领我们找到问题的症结， 带领我们找到问题的根基， 而我想要问你的是： 你所认为的「创造性」， 它是不是指：当我们站在了问题的根基处以后， 我们有能力让自己摆脱掉 将我们带至这个问题的 所有我们的知识和过去， 让自己离开那些知识与过去？ |
| 1:22:27 | K: Yes, we cannot possibly put away all our knowledge. You can't, you must have knowledge to go from here to your house. You must have knowledge to write a letter. You must have knowledge to speak English or French or Italian, or Russian. Knowledge is necessary. Otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here. | 克：是的，我们是不可能抛弃掉所有的知识的。 你无法这样做， 你必须要有知识才能从这里回到你自己的家。 你必须要有知识才能写一封信。 你必须要有知识才能说英语、 说法语、说意大利语， 或者说俄语。 知识是必需的。 否则的话，我们就不会坐在这里了。 |
| 1:22:56 | Q: In other words we wouldn't recognise the problem unless we had knowledge. | 提问者：换句话说，除非我们有知识， 否则我们是无法识别那个问题的。 |
| 1:23:03 | K: Knowledge is necessary at a certain level, and I am questioning very deeply whether knowledge, psychological knowledge, is necessary at all. Psychological knowledge, you understand what is implied? The self is the essence of knowledge, which is accumulated through various experiences, incidents and so on. All that is knowledge, psychological knowledge, and therefore that is unnecessary. One can exist only in that state of freedom when you have relegated knowledge to its right place. Psychologically, no recording of reactions. Suppose you insult me, why should I record it, why should the brain record that insult? Or if you flatter me, why should I record it? The recording creates the self, the me, and so there is a division, and so on. | 克：知识在某种程度上是必需的， 而我在深刻质疑的是：知识是否 那种心理上的知识究竟是不是必需的。 心理上的知识，你知道它暗示着什么吗？ 自我，它就是知识的本质， 而知识通过各种经验， 各种事件等等而积累了起来。 所有这些都是知识，心理上的知识， 因此它并不是必需的。 只有当你将知识「降级」到它正确合理的位置时， 你才能活在那种自由的状态中。 在心理上不去记录那些反应。 假如你侮辱了我， 为什么我要把它记录下来呢？ 为什么大脑要记录下那种侮辱？ 或者你奉承了我，为什么我要记录它呢？ 那种记录创造出了自我，我， 由此便有了分裂，等等。 |
| 1:24:43 | Q: Then my question is: is it creative to walk one step further, different than the step you have taken previously. | 提问者：所以我的问题就是： 创造性是否就是向前再走一步， 它不同于你之前所走的那一步。 |
| 1:24:52 | K: What? I can't understand. | 克：你说什么？我不明白。 |
| 1:24:54 | Q: Is it creativity to recognise a problem, having all this knowledge that has brought you to where you are, to be able to take a different step. To not be bound by what you know, but to be able to walk away from that? | 提问者：创造性是否就是识别一个问题， 拥有所有那些将你带至那个问题的知识， 却能够踏出截然不同的一步。 不被你已知的东西所束缚， 而是能够脱离它们？ |
| 1:25:10 | K: Yes. What you are is, all this. | 克：是这样的。 真实实际的你自己，这就是一切。 |
| 1:25:19 | Q: Yes, you are the recorded messages. | 提问者：是的，你就是那些记录下来的讯息。 |
| 1:25:21 | K: Can there be freedom from all that, then there is real creativity, that's what he said. | 克：我们能否摆脱掉所有这些东西， 那时就会有真正的创造性，这就是他所说的意思。 |
| 1:25:27 | Q: Thank you. | 提问者：谢谢你。 |
| 1:25:29 | K: Is that enough? | 克：差不多了吧？ |
| 1:25:35 | Q: Well, I wish we had a lot more time. | 提问者：啊，我希望我们能有更多的时间。 |
| 1:25:39 | MR: Thank you very much, sir. | 拉朱先生：非常感谢你，先生。 |