Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ81Q4 - 第四次问答会
欧亥，美国，1981年5月14日



0:21 There have been many questions and we cannot possibly answer all of them. So we've chosen out of those. Perhaps some of those questions which you've asked might be answered in the following questions. There are eight questions here, I hope we can go through them this morning. 这里有很多问题，我们不可能 全部回答。所以，我们选择了一些。 也许你们提问的其中一些问题， 在接下来会被回答。这里有八个问题， 我希望今天早晨我们能回答他们。
1:17 I suppose I have to answer all these questions. I wonder, if we put these questions to ourselves, seriously, would we be able to answer them all? Truly, authentically, not quote somebody else but answer them for oneself? And the answer must be true, applicable. And, to answer it correctly, one has to have a certain amount of integrity a quality of humility that goes with integrity. So, let's together, ask these questions and find out for ourselves the right and accurate answer. Not according to the speaker but find out for ourselves the truth of the question and the answer. 我想我必须回答所有这些问题。 我想知道，如果我们向我们自己严肃地 提出这些问题， 我们能全部回答他们吗？真实地，真正地， 不是引用其他人，而是自己回答他们？ 这些答案必须是真实的，适用的。 为了能正确地回答，一个人必须有一定程度的正直， 以及一种伴随着正直的谦逊。 所以，让我们一起，提出这些问题， 然后为我们自己发现， 正确和准确的答案。 不是根据演讲者说的， 而是自己来发现， 这些问题的真相和答案。
3:03 First Question: 'Imagination and words are the tools that man uses to function in life. Is it really possible to achieve an attention, so constant and alert, that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion and conflict?' 第一个问题：“意向和词语， 是一个人用来在生活中运作的工具。 真的有可能达到一种持续而警觉的觉察， 一个人可以总是看到必要的思想和 导致幻觉和冲突的意象之间的界线吗？”
3:37 I hope this question is not too intellectual and is applicable to our life. 'Imagination and words are the tools that man uses to function in daily life. Is it really possible to achieve an attention so constant and alert that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion and conflict?' 我希望这个问题不是太理智化， 在我们的生活中可以适用。 “意向和词语，是一个人用来在 生活中运作的工具。 真的有可能达到一种持续而警觉的觉察， 一个人可以总是看到必要的思想和 导致幻觉和冲突的意象之间的界线吗？”
4:32 Why does one create images? About others, about oneself, have images about others and about oneself, and images that we worship, the symbols that we think are sacred, the whole network of philosophical construction of words, ideas and ideals and so on? Why do we always create images? I do not know if one realises what an important part images have played in our lives. The temples are filled with them, the churches, the mosques – in the Islamic world, the mosque has no images, but beautiful writing, which is a symbol of the same thing. So, why does man create images, either by the hand, or by the mind, by the brain? And the questioner wants to know, is it really possible to achieve an attention so constant and alert, that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion and conflict. 一个人为什么创造意象？ 创造关于其他人，关于自己 的意象， 我们崇拜的意象，某些我们认为很神圣的符号， 整个哲学构建的词语， 观念等等的网络？ 我们为什么总是创造意象？ 我不知道一个人是否意识到 意象在我们生活中扮演了多么重要的角色。 寺庙里填满了它们，教堂，清真寺 ——在伊斯兰世界，清真寺里没有意象， 但是有美丽的艺术品，那是同一件事的符号。 所以，人类为什么创造意象， 或者用手， 或者用意识，用头脑？ 提问者想知道， 是否真的有可能达到一种如此 持续而警觉的关注，一个人能总是看清 必要性的思想和 意象导致幻觉和冲突之间的界线。
6:43 Do we understand the question? I’m not quite sure I understand it myself. I’m glad such a question is put. We always use words to communicate. There are many means of communication with each other: through words, through a gesture, through a look, through a slight movement of the head. There is always this communication going on, either through words and so on. And words have played an extraordinary part in our lives. First of all, is there thought without words, without images, without constructing symbols? Is there a thought without words and so on? You understand my question? Or words are part of thought? And, if one observes, our whole mode of thinking is a network of words, symbols, ideas. Right? Are we moving together? 我们理解这个问题吗？ 我不确定我自己理解它。 我很高兴提出这样一个问题。 我们总是使用词语来交流。 有许多种彼此交流的方式， 通过词语，通过姿势，通过眼神， 通过脑袋轻微的移动。 总是有沟通在进行， 或者通过词语，或者通过其他。 而词语在我们生活中扮演了如此重要的角色。 首先，存在没有词语， 没有意象，没有构建的符号的思想吗？ 存在没有词语等等的思想吗？ 你理解我的问题吗？ 或者词语是思想的一部分吗？ 此外，如果一个人观察我们思想的整个模式， （它）就是词语，符号，观点的网络。 对吗？我们在一起前进吗？
9:03 And what is the division, the questioner asks, between thought – the necessary use of thought, the necessary use of knowledge, skill, born of knowledge – the line between that and the image-making that leads to various forms of illusions and conflict? Are we understanding the question together? The question seems rather difficult, isn’t it? 提问者问到的分裂，思想 ——思想的必要之处， 知识的必要使用， 技能，诞生于知识—— 和构建意象，进而导致各种 幻觉和冲突的界线。 我们一起理解这个问题了吗？ 这个问题似乎很难，不是吗？
10:13 Are we asking where is the line between thought and the action of images, symbols? Are we asking what part imagination plays in life? Is not imagination necessary? I’m investigating the question. Is not the capacity to imagine the beauty of the hills, as a painter, as a poet, with their extraordinary capacity to imagine and put into words, or the painter and so on, is not imagination necessary? And does imagination play a part in our daily life? And, if it does, is that imagination put together by thought, a tool which we can use, skilfully? You are following? Right? Is it too cold? All right. 我们问， 思想，和意象及符号的行动的 界线在哪里？ 我们问， 意象在我们生活中扮演了怎样重要的角色？ 意象不是必须的吗？ 我在探究这个问题。 作为一个画家，诗人， 或者其他类似的人， 想象群山之美，用他们惊人 的能力想象，并付诸文字， 这种意象化难道不是必须的吗？ 这种意象化在我们的日常生活中又有怎么样的位置？ 同样，那种意象化是否是思想构成的， 一种我们可以富有技巧地使用的工具？ 你明白吗？对吗？ 是不是太冷了？好吧。
12:19 A poet, a writer, a painter, a sculptor and so on, they must have imagination, otherwise they can’t write, but is imagination necessary in our life, daily life? Or imagination – or fancy – prevents the actual perception of what is going on? You understand? Is it not more important to understand what actually is going on in our daily life without all the imaginative, idealistic suppositions, ‘if's and ‘when's, actually observe what is going on. Isn’t that far more important than having great imagination? If one can observe, attentively, what is going on, then that very attention throws a light on ‘what is’. Right? Throws a light on ‘what is’, and that light of attention clarifies the problem, right? Are we meeting, are we thinking together about this? Reasoning together? Not accepting what the speaker says, but actually reasoning together to see what place has imagination and where that imagination brings about illusion, which prevents actual understanding of ‘what is’. Is this clear? 一个诗人，作家，画家，雕塑家等等， 他们必须要想象，否则他们没法写， 但意象化在我们的日常生活中是必要的吗？ 或者想象——幻想—— 阻止了对事实上发生的事情的真正的觉察？ 你明白吗？ 理解我们日常生活中， 实际上在发生什么不是更重要吗？ 没有任何想象的，理想中的假定， “如果”和“当……”， 真实地观察事实上在发生什么。 这不比有伟大的想象更重要吗？ 如果一个人能充满关注地觉察，事实上在发生什么， 那种觉察就会给“事实之是”投射一束光。 对吗？在“事实之是”上投射一束光， 而那种关注的光，理清了那个问题，对吗？ 我们在一起思考这个问题吗？ 一起探究？ 不是接受演讲者说的东西， 而是真正地一起想清楚，去看看意象有怎么样的位置， 意象在哪里带来了幻觉， 进而阻碍的对“事实之是”的真正的理解。 这一点清楚了吗？
14:48 I am afraid – suppose – and I imagine a state of mind when there is no fear. That imagination becomes very important for me because it offers an escape from actual fear. I live with that. Living in that imagination is an illusion, not actual. And that capacity to imagine some state of mind, or heart, when there is absolutely no fear, it gives me a certain sense of vitality, a certain neurosis, a certain fanciful way of living, which is not actual. So, perhaps, such imagination prevents me from looking directly at fear. And looking at it with complete attention reveals the whole nature of fear. And, from the understanding of that attention, fear begins to disappear. But if I have imagination about a state of mind, a state of heart, absolutely a delightful state, where there is no fear, I’m a bit loony! 我害怕——我假定， 我想象出一种没有恐惧的意识状态。 那种意象对我变得非常重要， 因为它提供了一种对真实的恐惧的逃避。 我和那个生活在一起。 在那种意象中生活，是一种幻觉，不是真实的。 那种想象某种意识，心灵的 状态，其中完全没有恐惧， 它给了我一种活力感，一种神经质， 一种充满幻想的生活方式，那不是真实的。 所以，也许，这种想象， 阻碍了我直接看到恐惧。 而带着彻底地关注看着它， 揭示了恐惧的整个本质。 从那种觉察的理解中，恐惧开始消失。 但是如果我有对某种意识、心灵状态的想象， 彻底地喜悦的状态， 其中没有恐惧。我就有一点疯狂了！
16:36 So, imagination has a certain value for the poets, for the artists, but art – really 'art' means to place everything in the right place. That’s the true meaning of that word ‘art’: to put everything in its proper place. But the poets, the painters and the artists lead a pretty hectic life, a life of conflict – you know all that goes on with those artists, the great and the so-called artists. So, we are concerned with life, in our daily life. 所以，想象对于诗人， 对于艺术家有某种价值，但是艺术 ——“艺术”真正的含义是把所有事物放到正确的位置。 这才是“艺术”这个词，真正的含义： 把所有事放到正确的位置。 但是诗人，画家，艺术家过着相当忙碌， 充满冲突的生活——你知道艺术家身边发生的一切， 那些伟大的，所谓的艺术家。 所以，我们关心我们的生活，我们的日常生活。
17:45 And the questioner asks, is it really possible to achieve an attention so constant and alert, that one can always see the fine line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to illusion? You understand, now, the question? Right? Do we understand the question? Where to draw the line between the necessary use of thought and where images lead to conflict and illusion. And, is it possible to sustain a constant state of attention, alertness, where thought has its place – which is skill, born of knowledge as a carpenter, plumber, scientist – and a state of mind that is constantly in total attention. That’s the question. Right? 提问者问，是否真的可以达到一种关注， 是如此持续而警觉，一个人总能看到 在思想的必要运作， 和带来幻觉的意象之间的界线？ 现在，你们明白这个问题了吗？ 对吗？我们理解这个问题了吗？ 要在哪里画一条思想的必要运作和 带来冲突和幻觉的意象之间的界线。 以及，是否有可能保持一种持续的觉察的状态， 警觉的状态，其中思想有它的位置 ——也就是技能，脱胎于知识，作为一名木匠，水管工，科学家—— 一种持续的，处于彻底觉察的意识的状态。 那就是问题。对吗？
19:13 So, we have to enquire what it is to be aware. We will go into it, slowly and come to the point, what it means to be completely attentive. Are we ever aware, not only of what is going on in the world but also what is going on inwardly, aware? That is, are we aware, as we sit here, of the trees, the nature of the limbs, the boughs, the beauty of it, are we aware of the hills, the mountains, the slopes, all that? And that is perhaps fairly easy. But are we also aware of what is going on inwardly – our thoughts, our feelings, our peculiar attitude towards life, convictions? And, if we are aware, can we be aware without any choice? Are we following each other? To look, to observe, without any choice. Right? Is that possible? It is possible only when we understand how choice has become very important in life. Choice of profession, choice of jobs, choice of so-called woman, man – choosing, choice of so many things. We choose between this material and that material. So, choice plays a great part in our life. That’s clear, obviously. A better tailor, better shirt – you follow, the whole business of it. Choice at a certain level is necessary, between a good car and bad car. But when there is choice psychologically, inwardly, does it not indicate confusion? Please look at it for a moment. If there is clarity there’s no choice. Right? I wonder if you see that. It’s only when we are confused, uncertain, we begin to choose. Right? Isn’t this logical? But is it very difficult to be clear? Clarity, not about politics and politicians and all that business, but inwardly, to be so absolutely clear, so that your action is never born out of confusion, out of choice. Is that at all possible? And, we are saying, that’s only possible when thought finds its own right place. Right? You are following all this? Right place, in the sense, I must know how to drive a car. Knowledge is necessary in order to speak English, French, or Spanish or Italian. Or, if there is to be a career, I must have knowledge about it. There knowledge is absolutely necessary. And, psychologically, we feel knowledge is also necessary. To know somebody, to know your wife or your husband, to know. Can you know – ever – about your wife or your husband? You cannot know a living thing. I wonder if you understand all this. 所以，我们必须探究什么是觉察。 我们会慢慢来探究它， 然后到达那一点，也就是彻底的觉察意味着什么。 我们是否曾觉察，不只是世界上发生了什么， 而是内在在发生什么，觉察过吗？ 也就是，当我们坐在这里时，我们在觉察， 觉察那些树，大自然，四肢，树干， 其中的美，我们在觉察那些山丘， 山峰，山坡，等等一切吗？ 那些相当容易。 但是我们也在觉察内在在发什么什么吗？ ——我们的思想，我们的感觉， 我们奇怪的对待生命的态度，我们的信念吗？ 也就是，当我们觉察时，我们能觉察而没有任何选择吗？ 我们在跟上彼此吗？ 去看，去观察，而没有任何选择。 对吗？那可能吗？ 它只有当我们理解，选择已经变得 在我们生活中无比重要时，才有可能。 选择职业，选择工作， 选择所谓的女人，男人——选择， 选择如此多的事情。 我们在这种材料和那种材料之间选择。 所以，选择在我们生活中扮演了非常重要的角色。 显然，这一点很清楚。 一个更好的裁缝，更好的衬衫——你知道， 那整个活动。 选择在某些层面是必要的， 选择一辆好车或者坏车。 但是当有心理上的，内在的选择时， 它是否暗示着困惑？ 请看着这一点。 如果真的有清晰，就不会有选择。 对吗？我想知道你是否看到了它。 只有当我们困惑，不确定时，我们开始选择。 对吗？这不是很符合逻辑吗？ 但是它很难弄清楚吗？ 清晰，不是政治上的，或政治家的，等等， 而是内在，彻底的清晰， 所以，你的行为从来不是诞生于困惑，诞生于选择。 那有可能吗？ 我们说只有当思想找到它 自己正确的位置时，这才有可能。 对吗？你明白这一切吗？ 正确的位置，意味着，我必须知道如何去驾驶一辆车。 为了讲英语，知识是必要的， 讲法语，西班牙语或者意大利语。 或者，如果要成为某个职业，我必须有关于它的知识。 那些知识显然是必须的。 而心理上，我感觉知识也是必须的。 去了解某人， 了解你的妻子或丈夫，去了解。 你能了解——甚至曾经了解——你的妻子或者丈夫吗？ 你不能了解一个活生生的东西。 我想知道你是否理解这一切。
25:03 So, psychologically, when we say, ‘I must know myself’ – please understand this a bit – when we say, ‘I must know myself’, one means by it, 'I must accumulate knowledge about myself', right? Which is the same as the other. To become a good carpenter – I prefer to be a carpenter rather than a scientist, big shots, – to be a good carpenter, I must know a great deal about wood, tools and so on and I carry the same mentality when I say, ‘I must know myself’, which means I must gather a lot of information about myself. Right? Are you following this? So that I can act rightly, or skilfully, etc. So, can I know myself ever completely, according to knowledge? Or ‘myself’ is so subtle, so constantly changing, moving, acting, it's never the same? Right? But I would like it to be always the same. I wonder if you are following all this. So I create an image about myself, which is static and I act according to that. So, knowing oneself is not accumulating knowledge about oneself, but to be aware of what is happening with all, complete attention, so that there is no accumulation of knowledge about myself but the movement of myself. You understand? 所以，心理上，当我说，”我必须了解我自己“ ——请多少理解一点—— 当我说，”我必须了解我自己“， 我的意思是，”我必须积累关于自己的知识“， 对吗？这和另一件事是完全一样的。 去变成一名好木匠 ——比起科学家，或者大人物，我更喜欢做木匠， ——做一个好木匠，我必须了解很多， 关于木料，工具，等等（的知识）， 而我们把同样的事带到了心理上，当我说，”我必须了解我自己“， 那就意味着我必须获得许多关于我自己的信息。 对吗？你明白这一切吗？ 所以，我能正确地，富有技巧地，等等地行动。 所以，我能彻底地，根据知识来了解我自己吗？ 或者”我自己“是如此的微妙，在不断的变化， 前进，行动，他从不是相同的， 对吗？ 但是我希望它总是相同的。 我想知道你们否是跟上这一切了。 所以我创造了关于自己的意象，那是静止的， 然后我根据那个来行动。 所以，知道自己不是积累关于自己的知识， 而是去觉察发生了什么， 带着所有的，彻底地关注， 所以，没有积累关于我自己的知识， 而是我自己的运动。你明白吗？
27:36 Are we understanding each other? I want to know myself, which is very important. The ancient Greeks talked about it, the ancient Hindus also went into it, the Buddhists, but the religious world of the western world, hasn’t gone into this question of ‘know yourself’. They have talked about it but they haven’t gone very deeply into it. Now, we have tried to know about ourselves according to some philosophers, some analysts, psychologists and so on, so we are learning about ourselves from others. Whereas the others are ourselves. You understand? I wonder if you see this. Vous avez compris? Bien? So, to know myself, I can only observe it in my relationship to another. There, I perceive all my reactions, all my desires, all my conflicts, I perceive it there. Relationship acts as a mirror in which I see myself actually as I am. If we make that mirror a thing which becomes merely image, imagery then it leads to illusion. So, can one be aware of oneself without any choice, and that awareness moves into attention when there is no border, when there is no limited perception – 'me' watching. I wonder if you understand all this. 我们理解彼此了吗？ 我想去了解我自己，那非常重要。 古希腊人谈到它， 古印度人也谈到过它，还有佛教徒， 但是西方的宗教世界， 没有探究过”了解你自己”的问题。 他们谈到过它，但是没有深入。 现在，我们尝试去了解我们自己， 根据某些哲学家，某些分析师， 心理学家等等， 所以我们在从其他人那里学习我们自己。 然而其他人就是我们自己。你明白吗？ 我想知道你们是否看到了这些。 你们明白了吗？对吗？ 所以，去了解你自己，我只能在我和其他人 的关系中，去观察它。 在那里，我观察到我所有的反应， 所有的欲望，冲突，我看到了它们。 关系是一面镜子， 在其中我能看到我自己真实的样子。 如果我把那面镜子变成了 一件只是意象，想象的东西， 那么它只会导向幻觉。 所以，我能没有任何选择的觉察自己， 当没有边界，没有限制， 没有“我”在看时，那种觉察变成了关注。 我想知道你们是否理解这一切。
30:09 Has one ever given attention, complete attention, to anything? Now, are you now listening to this speaker, poor chap, are you giving complete attention to what you are hearing? And if you so give your complete attention, which means you hear the word, you understand the fullness of the meaning of that word, and the word is not important but the meaning and the content of the word and giving your complete attention, with your nerves, with your ears, with your eyes, with all your energy, then you will see, if you do, there is no ‘me’ attending. There is no centre from which you are attending, only there is attention. Understand? 一个人是否曾经对任何事给予彻底的关注？ 现在，你是在聆听演讲者，这个可怜的家伙吗？ 你在给予你彻底的关注到你在听的东西吗？ 如果你给予你彻底的关注， 那意味着你听到了词语， 你充分地了那些词语的含义， 而词语不重要， 重要的是词语的含义和内容， 当你给予你彻底的关注，包括你的神经， 你的耳朵，眼睛，你所有的能量， 然后你会看到，如果你那么做，其中没有“我”存在。 没有一个你存在的中心， 只有觉察。你明白吗？
31:25 So, there can be constant alertness and attention when one has really understood very, very deeply the nature of thought – which we have explained a dozen times. Sorry to have taken half an hour over this question. 所以，当一个人真的非常非常深刻地 理解了思想的本质，才会有持续的警觉和关注 ——这一点我们已经解释过很多次了。 很抱歉，这个问题谈论了半个小时。
31:56 Second Question: 'I’m a writer. I feel responsibility and the urge to voice my understanding. Yet I know my understanding is imperfect. What is right action for one who sees or understands something and is in a position to be heard but whose understanding is not total?' 第二个问题：“我是一名作家。 我感受到一种责任感，迫切地说出我的理解。 但是我知道，我的理解是不完美的。 对于看到或者理解一些事，但是理解的不彻底， 并且是在一个被人倾听的位置上的人来说， 什么是正确的行动？”
32:25 'I’m a writer. I feel responsibility and an urge to voice my understanding. Yet I know my understanding is imperfect, limited. What is right action for one who sees or understands something and is in a position to be heard but whose understanding is not complete, total?' “我是一名作家。 我感受到一种责任感，迫切地说出我的理解。 但是我知道，我的理解是不完美的。 对于看到或者理解一些事，但是理解的不彻底， 并且是在一个被人倾听的位置上的人来说， 什么是正确的行动？“
33:02 Most of us are not writers. Most of us are not in a position to be heard by the public, by many. But I have heard certain things from the speaker, or from my own perception, from my own watchfulness of the world and so on, and I see my understanding is limited. And what am I to do in my life when my understanding is imperfect? I must act. Right? I must do. But my understanding of life is very limited. Right? Now is that a fact? Or I say, 'my understanding is limited' – you are following this? Is it an actual fact that my understanding is limited? Then, if my understanding is limited and I realise actually it’s limited, my expression will be as limited, incomplete as my understanding. I have heard the speaker, for many years unfortunately, and I have gathered some things from him and I know it is incomplete, it's not a total comprehension of the whole of life, but my understanding is limited. So, I know it’s limited, I'm not pretending that it is not limited, I acknowledge to myself that it is limited, so I express myself in a limited way, and I acknowledge it's a limited way. You understand all this? There is no pretension about it. 我们中的绝大部分人不是作家。 不在一个被倾听的位置， 被公众，被许多人倾听。 但是我从演讲者那里听到一些事， 或者从我自己的观察， 从我自己对这个世界的观察等等， 并且我看到我的理解是局限的。 当我的理解是不完美的，我要在我的生活中做什么？ 我必须要行动。对吗？我必须做。 但是我对生命的理解是非常有限的。 对吗？现在这是一个事实吗？ 或者我说，“我的理解是局限的”——你们明白吗？ 我的理解是局限的，是一个事实吗？ 那么，如果我的理解是局限的，并且我事实上认识到它是局限的， 我的表达仍然是局限的，就像我的理解一样不完整。 很不幸，我听演讲者谈论了许多年， 我从他那里收集了一些东西， 并且我知道它是不完整的， 它不是对整个生命的彻底的领悟， 我的理解只是局限的。 所以，我知道它是局限的。 我没有假装它不是局限的， 我自己承认它是局限的， 所以我用一种局限的方式表达自己， 我承认那是一种局限的方式。 你们明白这一切吗？ 这里没有任何自负。
35:52 And, if I'm a writer and I happen to be famous enough to be heard, by the public, and I realise also that my understanding of life is limited, imperfect, not complete. Naturally, I'm going to express myself, because I'm a writer, I want to be heard. And I also say to myself, and to the audience who are going to read, my understanding is limited. You understand what that all means? The public wants everything complete. Right? They want somebody who says, ‘I understand the whole of it’. And if a writer says, ‘Look, my understanding of life is limited’, his publisher – you know! For a writer, his responsibility lies in absolutely having integrity. That’s where his responsibility is. I'm not saying the questioner has not integrity but, sir, to be honest, having integrity – there, one can be total, complete. To have complete integrity, without any pretension, without any double talk, that demands – you follow? – humility, modesty and a certain clarity. 并且，如果我是一名作家， 我碰巧很有名，足以让公众来聆听我， 并且我也认识到我对生命的理解是有限的， 不完美，不彻底的。 自然地，我会表达我自己，因为我是一名作家， 我想被聆听。 并且我也对自己，对要来阅读的听众说， 我的理解是局限的。 你理解这一切意味着什么吗？ 公众想要完整的东西。对吗？ 他们想要某人说，“我全部都理解了。” 如果有一个作家说，“看，我对生命的理解是局限的”， 他的出版商——你知道的！ 对于一个作家，他的责任在于绝对得有诚信。 那就是他的责任所在。 我不是在说提问者不诚信， 而是，先生，要诚实，诚信 ——那样，一个人才是完整的，彻底的。 拥有彻底的诚信，没有任何自负， 没有任何言行不一，那需要——你明白吗？—— 谦逊，谦虚和一定的清晰感。
38:15 Third Question: 'What is the role of the question in life?' 第三个问题：“问题在生命中有怎样的角色？”
38:24 'What is the role of the question in life?' “问题在生命中有怎样的角色？”
38:28 That is, what is the role of questioning in life? Clear, the question? Do we ever question, fundamentally? Or only superficially? Or only when there is some kind of trouble, then we begin to question? But that questioning is trying to find an answer to the problem. And, the questioner wants to know, what is the role of always questioning? Has it any importance? When do we ever question seriously, apart from a crisis? When there is a crisis, when there is a trouble, when we are in pain, suffering, then we begin to question. That questioning is perhaps seeking a way out of pain, sorrow, trouble and so on. We do question, then. But the questioner also wants to know, what is the role, what part questioning plays in life. Not at moments of crises, but the questioning mind. Is it clear? 也就是，质疑在生命中有怎样的角色？ 清楚了吗？是质疑吗？ 我们是否曾经根本性地质疑？ 或者只是肤浅的？ 或者只有遇到某些麻烦时， 然后我们开始质疑？ 但那种质疑，就是尝试给问题找出一个答案。 此外，提问者想知道， 质疑在生命中有怎样的角色？ 它重要吗？ 我们曾经严肃地质疑过吗？除了面对危机的时候。 当有危机时，当有麻烦时， 当我们痛苦，苦恼时，我们开始质疑。 那种质疑也许是要找出一种方法， 摆脱痛苦，麻烦，等等。 我们质疑，然后。 但是提问者也想知道， 质疑在生命中扮演了怎样的角色。 不是在危机的时刻，而是那个质疑的意识。 这一点清楚了吗？
40:47 Do you ever question, investigate – which is part of questioning – into your own experiences, into your own desires, into your own opinions, evaluations, convictions, or do you take those for granted and only question when there is actual trouble? You understand my question? Are our minds enquiring, watching, recollected, aware? Or only superficially? And is not questioning important? Questioning your beliefs, your faith. You know what would happen if you questioned your faith, especially in the western world? You understand? Your religious faiths, if you questioned. The whole thing would collapse. And one is frightened to question. So the mind, the brain especially, is always seeking a position of safety, where it can be secure. I don’t know if you have observed all this, for yourself. A child needs to be secure, he needs the mother, the father to love him so that he feels completely secure, protected. Up to a certain point, the mothers and fathers do that – up to a certain point. But they soon get bored with, or whatever they do, they have their own interests, their own problems, their own travail and gradually the child, boy or girl, is neglected, goes off. So one discovers the brain needs security to function. Right? To be a good physicist, to have all the knowledge of physics, gives the brain a certain quality of assurance, of safety, protection. Right? And the more you question along that line, the more you learn, the more safe it becomes. Come on, sir. We understand all this. 我们曾经质疑，探究——这些是质疑的一部分—— 我们自己的经验，自己的欲望， 自己的观念，评价，信仰吗？ 或者我们认为它们理所当然， 只有当有真正的危机时，才会去质疑？ 你明白我的问题吗？ 我们的意识 在探究，观察，觉察吗？ 或者只是肤浅地？ 质疑难道不重要吗？ 质疑你的信仰，你的信念。 你知道如果你质疑你的信念会发生什么吗， 尤其是在西方世界？ 你明白吗？你的宗教信仰，如果你质疑。 那整个事情会崩塌。而一个人害怕去质疑。 所以意识，尤其是头脑 总是在寻找安全的角落， 那些安全的地方。 我不知道你是否，为你自己，观察过这些。 一个孩子需要安全， 他需要妈妈，爸爸来爱他， 所以他感受到彻底的安全，被保护。 直到某个时刻，父母都能这么做 ——直到某个时刻。 但是他们很快就厌倦了，或者他们做其他的事了， 他们有他们自己的兴趣，自己的麻烦，琐碎之事， 渐渐地，孩子，男孩或女孩，就被忽视了，（关爱）熄灭了。 所以一个人发现，头脑需要安全感来工作。 对吗？ 去做一个好的物理学家，拥有所有物理学的知识， 那带给头脑一种被保证， 安全的，被保护的感觉。 对吗？ 并且你沿着那条路质疑的越多， 你学的越多，你就变得越安全。 来吧，先生。我们理解这一切。
44:46 So, it is finding safety in knowledge. Like a good surgeon, he has operated a hundred times, he knows, and his brain is active along that line, secure. It gives money, position, all that. So, it gives the brain a certain quality of limited security. Right? So, knowledge becomes important as a means to be safe. And that knowledge, as we have pointed out many times, is always limited, all knowledge is always limited. And, therefore, the questioning becomes very limited. Naturally. Are you following all this? 所以，它在知识中找到了安全。 就像一个好的外科大夫，他做了几百次手术， 他知道，他的头脑沿着那个道路活动，是安全的。 它给予了他金钱，地位，等等。 所以，它给了头脑一种受限的安全。 对吗？ 所以，知识就变成了很重要的变安全的手段。 并且那种知识，就像我们多次指出的， 总是受限的，所有知识都是受限的。 因此，质疑变得非常有限。 自然如此。你们跟上这一切了吗？
46:06 But, if one is not a specialised entity, if one observes that security is necessary for the brain, to have food, clothes, you know, a house, it’s secure, but having that physical security, the brain demands psychological security – security in relationship, security in ideas, security in faith and so on. We never question those. You are following? We are saying now, to have a mind that is questioning, investigating, never caught in a limited understanding, questioning, in that there is a great deal of intelligence. From that arises intelligence, and that intelligence is security. I wonder if you understand all this. Are we together in all this, or am I just talking? Shall we go on to the next question? 但是，如果一个人不是一名专家， 如果一个人观察到安全对于大脑是必要的， 拥有食物，衣服，你知道的，房子，这都是安全， 但是拥有了物理的安全， 头脑要求心理的安全 ——关系中的安全，观点， 信仰中的安全，等等。 我们从不质疑这些。 你们跟上了吗？ 我们在说，拥有一个在质疑的头脑， 探究，从不陷入一种受限的理解， 或质疑， 在那其中，就有巨大的智慧。 从那里升起了智慧，而那种智慧就是安全。 我想知道你们是否理解了这一切。 我们在一起探究吗？还是只有我在讲？ 我们要进入下一个问题吗？
47:56 Fourth Question: 'Life separates friends through death, and physical separation. Is this separation the end of relationship, leaving nothing more than memory? Is there love between people only when they are physically present? Or can there be something more than thought when they are absent? Is all relationship momentary, with no lasting bond?' 第四个问题：“生命通过死亡， 物理的分隔，分开了朋友。 这种分离是关系的终结吗？ 它除了记忆没有留下任何东西。 只有在物理上在一起时，人们之间才有爱吗？ 或当他们不在一起时，存在某种思想之外的东西？ 所有关系都是暂时的，没有持久联系的吗？“
48:41 'Life separates friends through death, and physical separation. Is this separation the end of relationship, leaving nothing more real than memory? Is there love between people only when they are physically present? Or can there be something more than thought when they are absent? Is all relationship momentary, with no lasting bond?' “生命通过死亡，物理的分隔，分开了朋友。 这种分离是关系的终结吗？ 它除了记忆没有留下任何东西。 只有在物理上在一起时，人们之间才有爱吗？ 或当他们不在一起时，存在某种思想之外的东西？ 所有关系都是暂时的，没有持久联系的吗？“
49:16 Lordy! There are so many questions involved in this one question. So, let’s take one by one in it. 天呐！ 在这一个问题中包含了许多问题。 所以，让我们一个一个来。
49:30 'Life separates friends through death and physical separation. Is this separation the end of relationship, leaving nothing more than memory?' That's an actual fact, isn't it? Right? I'm separate from my wife, I may go off travelling. My wife remains in India, or in Britain, or here, and I think about her, telephone her, I write to her, and so I keep up communication. Right? It is based on memory. I don’t quite see what's the problem there, that’s an actual fact, leaving nothing more than memory. “生命通过死亡，物理的分隔，分开了朋友。 这种分离是关系的终结吗？ 它除了记忆没有留下任何东西。 这是一个事实，对吗？ 我和我的妻子分开了，我也许要去旅行。 我的妻子仍然在印度，或者在英国，或者在这里， 而我想念她，给她打电话， 我给她写信，所以我们继续着交流。 对吗？这都是基于记忆。 我没有看到这其中哪里有问题， 这是个事实，除了记忆没有留下任何东西。
50:32 'Is there love between people only when they are physically present, or can there be something more than thought when they are absent?' This is the real question. 'Is there love between people only when they are physically present, or can there be something more than thought when they are absent?' My golly. “只有在物理上在一起时，人们之间才有爱吗？ 或当他们不在一起时，存在某种思想之外的东西？” 这是真正的问题。 “只有在物理上在一起时，人们之间才有爱吗？ 或当他们不在一起时，存在某种思想之外的东西？” 我的天。
51:04 Now, let’s go into it. If we understand, very deeply and very clearly, the nature of thought, which is, if I may repeat again, thought is the outcome of memory, the response of memory. Memory is born out of knowledge, knowledge is out of experience. Right? This is the cycle: experience, knowledge, memory, action and from that action learn more, so have more experience, knowledge, memory, action. It’s a circle, a chain in which we are operating. That’s how our thinking is going on all the time. Now, we must be very clear about the nature of thinking. It is a material process. There is nothing whatsoever sacred about it. Right? Please don’t accept this. If you accept it then you don’t see the whole meaning of it, unless you have gone very deeply into it. Everything thought has created in the world, technologically, computers, etc., the atom bomb, all the things in the temples, the mosques, the churches, are put together by thought. Right? So, the symbols, the images these temples, churches contain, there is nothing sacred about it. Right? But thought, having created it, then thought makes it appear as sacred. Examine it please, don’t accept it, don’t get angry, just look at it. 现在，让我们探究它。 如果我们理解，非常深刻，清晰地，理解思想的本质， 也就是，如果我能再重复一遍， 思想是记忆的结果，是记忆的回应。 记忆诞生于知识，知识诞生于经验。 对吗？ 这是个循环：经验，知识，记忆，行动， 从那种行动中学到更多，所以有了更多的经验， 知识，记忆和行动。 这是一个循环，是我们都身处其中的链条。 这就是我们一直以来思考的方法。 现在，我们必须清楚思想的本质。 他是一个物质过程。 其中没有任何神圣的东西。 对吗？请不要接受这一点。 如果你接受它，然后你就看不到它的整个意义， 除非你已经非常深入地探究了它。 思想在这个世界上创造的任何事， 技术的，计算机，原子弹等等， 庙宇、清真寺、教堂里的所有东西， 都是思想构建的。对吗？ 所以，庙宇和教堂里的符号的图像， 并没有任何神圣的。对吗？ 但是思想创造了它， 然后思想让它变得神圣。 请检查它，不要接受它，不要生气， 只是看着它。
53:56 And is the movement of thought, love? That’s what the questioner is asking. The questioner says, 'Is there love between people only when they are physically present, or can there be something more than thought when they are absent?' So, if thought is the only movement in relationship, thought with its images about each other, if that is the only relationship that we have, then what place has love? You are following all this? Is love the image that we have created about each other in that relationship, pleasant, unpleasant, all the travail of relationship, and in that relationship when there is this conflict, each one acting separately, wanting to fulfil his own desires, his own lust and so on, each one separate and trying to fulfil in his own separate ways – ambition, aggressiveness, greed, you know all that goes on – is there love? And then, what is love? Is it put together by thought? Go on, sir, answer all this. Is love desire? Is love the pursuit of self-fulfilment? Is love the pursuit of pleasure? You understand? That's what is happening in the world. And so, when that is missing altogether, or perhaps happens rarely, occasionally, then thought is the only means of communicating with each other: telephone, writing letters, thinking about your wife or your friend. You know, all that takes place. 思想的活动是爱吗？ 这就是提出的问题。 提问者说，“只有在物理上在一起 时，人们之间才有爱吗， 或当他们不在一起时，存在某种思想之外的东西？” 所以，如果思想是关系中的所有活动， 思想带着它关于彼此的意象， 如果这就是我们拥有的关系， 那么哪里有爱呢？你们跟上了吗？ 爱是我们在关系中创造的关于彼此 的，快乐的，不快的， 所有关于关系里的琐碎之事的印象吗？ 在那种关系中有冲突， 每个人都在分裂地行动， 想去满足他自己的欲望，渴望，等等， 每个人都是分裂的，尝试在他自己的分裂的方式中获得满足 ——野心，侵略性，贪婪，你知道那里发生的一切—— 这是爱吗？此外，那么，什么是爱？ 爱是思想构成的吗？ 来，先生，回答这一切。 爱是欲望吗？ 爱是追求自我满足吗？ 爱是追求快感吗？ 你明白吗？这就是这个世界上发生的事情。 所以，当完全不在一起时， 或者也许发生了什么偶然的意外， 那样思想就成了彼此之间唯一的交流方式： 电话，写信，思念 你的妻子或朋友。 你知道那一切。
57:15 So, what is one to do? You understand my question? I realise thought has become so extraordinarily important in life: in the business world, in the technological world, in the economic world, in the world of religion – all the rituals are put together by thought, the dogmas, the faith, everything is based on thought – thought made, through tradition, holy. And, when one realises, very deeply, that thought is not that flame which purifies everything else, how is one to capture it, to hold it, to have it? You understand my question? Are you following me? Now, that becomes a problem. And my brain – listen to it carefully – my brain is trained to solve problems. In the technological world, it has been trained year after year to solve technical problems – the atom bomb, computers, and so on. And my brain has been educated to solve psychological problems. So, I am faced with this question, which is, I know thought is not – all that we have said. And I also know, without the other, life becomes very shallow. So, I have a problem. I've a problem. Right? You understand this? So, I’m ready to solve it! My brain is active to solve it. Whereas, love is not a problem to be solved. You understand? The problem is not thought and love, but the problem is this tremendous egotistic, egocentric movement going on all the time. That is the real problem. And so, I begin again to try to solve it. I never say, 'There’s the problem, let’s look at it. I'm not going to solve it, let’s look at it'. I wonder if you are following all this? Right? Don’t let me make it into a problem, but let me first look at it. Let me look at the whole movement of thought, and also, as I don’t know the other, perhaps I know it very rarely, like a beautiful flower which withers so quickly, I know something of it, but the knowledge of it is not the real thing. So I look, I am aware of thought – rather, not ‘I am aware of thought’ – thought begins to be aware of itself. You're beginning to understand this? Are you all asleep? 所以，一个人要做什么？你明白我的问题吗？ 我认识到思想已经 在生命中，变得无比重要： 在商业世界，在科技世界， 在金融以及宗教世界 ——所有的仪式，教条，信仰都是思想构建的， 基于思想的一切—— 思想，通过传统，构建了神圣。 并且，当一个人非常深刻地认识到， 思想不是净化一切事物的火焰， 一个人要如何抓住，把握，拥有它？ 你明白我的问题吗？你跟上了吗？ 现在，那变成了一个问题。 并且我的头脑——仔细地倾听—— 我的头脑被训练去解决问题。 在科技世界，它被年复一年地训练， 去解决技术的问题——原子弹，电脑，等等。 并且我的头脑已经被教育去解决心理问题。 所以，我面对这个问题， 也就是，我知道思想不是——我们说的那个东西。 我也知道，没有那个东西，生命是非常肤浅的。 所以，我有一问题。 我有一个问题。对吗？你明白这些吗？ 所以，我准备去解决它！ 我的头脑活跃地去解决它。 然而，爱不是一个要被解决的问题。 你明白吗？ 问题不是思想和爱， 问题是极度地自我中心， 持续不断地自我中心的活动。 这才是真正的问题。 所以，我又开始去尝试解决它。 我从不说，”这里有一个问题，让我们看看它。 我不要去解决它，让我们看看它。“ 我想知道你们跟上了吗？对吗？ 不要让我把它变成一个问题，而是让我首先看着它。 让我看着思想的整个活动， 此外，我不知道其他的， 也许我知道那个东西，非常罕见， 就像一朵美丽的花，它枯萎的很快， 我知道一点， 但是关于它的知识，不是那个真实的东西。 所以，我看，我觉察思想 ——不是，“我在觉察思想“—— 思想开始觉察它自己。 你开始去了解这些了吗？你们都快睡着了吗？
1:01:57 And... the thing is never to make a problem of anything. I wonder if I can… This one thing, if we understand. Only a mind that has no problem can solve problems. Vous avez compris? You have understood? But we have so many problems and we try to solve other problems and so keep on multiplying problems. So, we never ask of ourselves, if it is possible to have no problems. There are problems, but to meet them, instantly, and finish with them, so that the mind, the brain is free from all conflict, problems. 也就是， 永远不要把任何事变成问题。 我想知道我能否 就是唯一的事，如果我们能理解。 只有一个没有问题的头脑，才能解决问题。 你明白了吗？ 但是我们有如此多的问题， 并且我们尝试去解决其他问题， 所以不断地制造更多的问题。 所以，我们从不问自己，是否有可能没有问题。 存在问题， 但是去面对它们，即刻地，结束它们， 所以，意识、头脑，从所有冲突、问题中，解放了出来。
1:03:33 'Is all relationship momentary with no lasting bond?' That’s part of the question. Sorry, I missed that. 'Is all relationship momentary with no lasting bond?' What do you mean by that word ‘bond’? Bondage? Depending on each other, holding on to each other? Is that what relationship is? The establishment of a constant, lasting bond. Is that what relationship is? I'm asking, sir. Or, is relationship something entirely different in which there is no bondage, in which there is no dependency? Which means deep, inward sense of freedom and integrity and – you follow? – having this love. Then love has not bondage. ”所有关系都是暂时的，没有持久联系的吗？“ 这也是问题的一部分。抱歉我漏了它。 ”所有关系都是暂时的，没有持久联系的吗？“ 你所谓的“联系”这个词，是什么意思？ 束缚？ 互相依赖，互相扶持？ 那就是关系吗？ 建立一种持久的，持续的联系。 那就是关系吗？ 我再问你，先生。 或者，关系是某种完全不同的东西， 其中没有束缚，没有依赖？ 那意味着，深刻地，内在的自由和正直感 此外——你跟上了吗？——有那种爱。 那么爱就没有束缚。
1:05:39 Fifth Question: 'One sees the fact that the essential response to the conflict in the world is a revolution in consciousness, in each individual. But does this mean that without that total action all other lesser but perhaps helpful actions are useless?' 第五个问题：“一个人看到这个事实，即对这个世界 的冲突的根本的反应， 是每个人意识层面的革命。 但是这是否意味着，没有彻底的行动， 所有其他较小的，看似有帮助的行动，都是无用的？“
1:06:08 'One sees the fact that the essential response to the conflict in the world is a revolution in consciousness, in each individual. But does this mean that without that total action all other lesser but perhaps helpful actions are useless?' Now... one sees the fact that the essential response to the conflict in the world is a revolution in consciousness, in each individual. As we have explained very carefully, and I hope we can go into again if one is not clear on this point, our consciousness with its content, is the common ground of all humanity. Right? Your consciousness, which is your education, your beliefs, your convictions, your values, your greed, your suffering, your pain, your anxiety, uncertainty, joy, pleasure, is common to all mankind. Right? Is it not so? Are we uncertain about that? Go to India, go to Japan, go over to Russia, Europe or here, every human being goes through great sorrow, every human being has conflict, pain, physical, psychological, is wounded, every human being is uncertain, confused, violent, pleasure-seeking. That is the common consciousness of man. Right? It's not your consciousness and my consciousness. This is very difficult to see, to see this fact because we are all so trained, educated and we take delight in an illusion calling, 'My consciousness is different from everybody else’s’. Is this so, or not? You won’t accept this. “一个人看到这个事实，即对这个世界 的冲突的根本的反应， 是每个人意识层面的革命。 但是这是否意味着，没有彻底的行动， 所有其他较小的，看似有帮助的行动，都是无用的？“ 现在……一个人看到这个事实，即对这个世界上的冲突的， 根本的反应，是每个人意识层面的革命。 就像我们非常仔细地解释过的， 我希望我们再探究一次，如果我们对这一点还是不清晰， 我们的意识，和它的内容， 是所有人类普遍的共同点。对吗？ 你的意识，也就是你的教育，你的信仰， 你的信念，价值观，贪婪，苦难， 你的痛苦，焦虑，不确定，喜悦，快感， 是所有人类共同的。对吗？ 不是这样吗？我们对那一点不确定吗？ 印度，日本，俄罗斯，欧洲，或者这里， 所有的人类都经历着巨大的悲伤， 都有冲突，痛苦，物理的，还有心理上的， 伤害， 所有人类都是不确定，困惑，暴力，追求快感的。 这是人类共同的意识。对吗？ 他不是你的或者我的意识。 非常难看到这一个事实， 因为我们都被训练，教育， 我们乐于陷在幻觉中， ”我的意识和其他所有人的都不同“。 就是这样，不是吗？ 你不会接受这一点。
1:09:30 So, the revolution is the crisis and its answer is a total revolution in consciousness, which is the ending of fear, the understanding of the whole nature of pleasure which man has pursued endlessly, this sense of anxiety, uncertainty, desperate loneliness, sorrow, death, that is the content of our consciousness. That content makes our consciousness, right? Can we go on from there? 所以，革命就是危机， 它的答案是意识层面的彻底的革命， 也就是终结恐惧， 理解快感的整个本质， 人类无尽地追求的快感， 焦虑感，不确定感，令人绝望的孤独， 悲伤，死亡，那就是我们意识的内容。 那些内容构成了我们的意识，不是吗？ 我们可以从这一点开始吗？
1:10:45 And is it possible to be free of its content? And, as we explained on many occasions, the philosophers, the psychologists, all those people say, 'It's not possible, human nature can never radically be transformed because mankind has lived for five, ten million years, and look, he has not changed radically, so accept what is'. You understand? Modify it, control it, educate it to be a little better behaved and so on, so on, but remain within the limits of that. You are following all this? So, meditation is within the limits of that. Seeking God, truth, is within the limits of that. And somebody comes along, like the speaker, says, ‘No, it is possible to radically transform that consciousness.' Which means, first one must realise that you are not separate from the rest of mankind, you are mankind. Therefore, you're not an individual. Right? You see, if you see that it is already a revolution. Right? No, you don’t… It’s already changed the pattern of thought, altogether. Which means you are the world and the world is you. That’s just not a theory, not an ideal, a Utopia, but it is an absolute fact. And, therefore, you become terribly responsible for everything that is happening in the world. （意识）有可能摆脱它的内容吗？ 此外，就像我们在许多场合解释的， 哲学家，心理学，等等，都说， ”人类的本质不可能被彻底地转变， 因为人类已经这么生活了五百万，一千万年， 看，他没有根本地转变， 所以，接收事实吧。“你明白吗？ 调整它，控制它，教育它 变得好一点，行动，等等， 但是依旧处于局限之中。 你明白这一切吗？ 所以，冥想在那种局限之中。 寻找上帝，真相，也在那种局限之中。 而某人，就像演讲者这样的人，过来，说， ”不，有可能彻底地转变意识。“ 那也就意味着，首先一个人必须认识到， 你和其他人类不是分离的， 你就是人类。 因此，你不是一个个体。 对吗？ 你看，如果你看到这一点，它已经是一场革命。 对吗？不，你没有 整体上看，它已经改变了思想的模式。 那意味着你就是世界，世界就是你。 那不是一个理论，不是一个理想，一个乌托邦， 而是一个绝对的事实。 因此，你对这个世界上发生的事情， 负有极大的责任。
1:14:00 But does this mean that without that total action, that total revolution, all other lesser and perhaps helpful actions are useless? Answer it for yourself! We never face the truth. We never face facts. We try to cover them up, run away from them but, when you realise that, the next question is answered for itself. 但是那是否意味着，没有整体的行动， 彻底的革命，所有其他较小的， 也许有帮助的行动都是无用的？ 那要你自己来回答！ 我们从不面对真相，面对事实。 我们尝试掩盖它，逃离它， 但是，当你认识到它，那问题就回答它自己了。
1:15:01 Sixth Question: 'I am appalled at what is happening in society today. I do not want to be a part of it. And yet I realise I am not separate. What is my relationship to society?' 第六个问题：”我震惊于现在这个社会上发生的事。 我不想变成它的一部分。 但我也认识到我不是（与它）分离的。 我和社会的关系是怎样的？“
1:15:23 'I am appalled at what is happening in society today. I do not want to be a part of it. And yet I realise I am not separate. What is my relationship to society?' ”我震惊于现在这个社会上发生的事。 我不想变成它的一部分。 但我也认识到我不是（与它）分离的。 我和社会的关系是怎样的？“
1:15:50 What is your relationship to society? Why do you, if one may ask most respectfully, why do you separate yourself from society? Society is an abstraction, is it not? Society is put together by man in his relationship with another. Right? Are you following? But we have said, ‘I am separate from society', and so I act upon society, I want to change society – something abstract, it's not an actuality. Society is opinion, judgement, the economics, the political activity – all of that is part of what you call ‘society’. That society is built by us, by our parents, grandparents, all the rest of it. It’s built by us. So, we are that. This is so. Is this also another revolution? Society is not separate from me, I am the society. The speaker is not saying this because he's a communist, or any of that kind of thing. The communists have maintained this, as a theory, and, as a theory, they have said, 'Change society, control it, shape it, become a dictator, totalitarian, then man will change.' You know all that business. Whereas, on the contrary, man has created it, unless man changes society cannot change – unless the computers come along with their robots and change the whole structure of the economic society. You follow all this? 你和社会的关系是怎样的？ 你为什么，如果我可以非常尊敬地问， 你为什么把你和社会分离开？ 社会是一个抽象，不是吗？ 社会由人与他人的关系构建的。 对吗？你跟上了吗？ 但是我们说，“我和社会是分离的。” 所以我要对社会行动，我想改变社会 ——某些抽象的东西，它不是真实的。 社会是观念，判断，经济，政治活动 ——它们都是你所谓的“社会”的一部分。 社会是由我们构建的，由我们的父母，祖父母， 等等一切。它是我们构建的。 所以，我们就是它。就是这样。 存在另一种革命吗？ 社会和我不是分离的，我就是社会。 演讲者这么说， 不是因为他是一个共产主义者，或者其他此类事。 共产主义者作为一种理论，坚持这一点， 作为一种理论，他们说， “改变社会，控制它，塑造它， 变成一个指挥者，极权主义国家，然后人类就会改变。” 你知道那一切。 然而，正相反，是人类创造了社会， 除非人类改变，社会不可能改变—— 除非计算机和它的机器人， 改变了社会经济的整个结构。 你明白这一切吗？
1:18:37 So one is not separate from society. One is the world. Sir, if one realises that, you would never put this question! 所以，一个人和社会不是分离的。 一个人就是世界。先生， 如果一个人认识到这一点，你就永远不会问那个问题！
1:18:58 Then the problem is – the question is, what am I to do, how am I to radically transform myself? That’s the real question. How am I not to be self-centred, everlastingly, all self-centred activity come to an end? We never ask these questions. So, at your leisure moments, please ask these questions. When you are not totally occupied with your pleasures, with your occupations, with wanting to be somebody, success, you know, all the rest of it, perhaps you will have time to ask this question. Ask it and remain with it, not try to find… remain with the question. Then see what happens. Because if you say, ‘I must change myself’, who is the man, who is the entity that is demanding change? It is still – you understand all this? So, one discovers that the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker apart from thought, there is no experiencer apart from experience, there is no analyser apart from the analysis, that which is analysed. So, when you realise that there is a totally different movement takes place. 然后问题就是—— 我要做什么，我要如何彻底地转变我自己？ 那才是真正的问题。 我要如何不永无止尽的自我中心， 所有自我中心的活动如何结束？ 我们从不问这些问题。 所以，在你闲暇的时候，请问一下这些问题。 当你不是被你的快感完全占据， 被你的事务，想要成为某人，想要成功 等等，你知道那一切，所占据， 也许你会有时间去问这个问题。 问它，和它在一起，不尝试去找到 和那个问题在一起。然后看看会发生什么。 因为如果你说，“我必须改变我自己”， 谁是那个要求改变的实体？ 它仍然是——你明白吗？ 所以，一个人发现，思想者就是思想。 思想之外没有思想者， 经验之外没有经验者， 分析之外没有分析者，也就是被分析之物。 所以，当你认识到那一点， 就会有完全不同的运动发生。
1:21:21 Are you all tired? One last question. Thank the lord! 你们都累了吗？最后一个问题。感谢上帝！
1:21:28 Seventh Question: 'There is a deep root of violence in me. I know it is there behind my other feelings. How do I deal with it?' 第七个问题：”我心中存在暴力的深层的根源。 我知道它在我其他感受的背后。 我要对它做什么？“
1:21:42 'There is a deep root of violence in me. I know it is there behind my other feelings. How do I deal with it?' ”我心中存在暴力的深层的根源。 我知道它在我其他感受的背后。 我要对它做什么？“
1:22:04 What is violence? The shooting of people? That’s part of violence. The hurting of others? That's part of violence. War is the essence of violence, with its bestiality, cruelty – appalling things war does. And anger, hate, imitation is violence, conformity is violence. I don’t know if you follow all this. And is one aware of all this, in oneself, that one is conforming all the time to a pattern, to an ideal, to a concept, imitating, comparing oneself with another, aggression? Is one aware of all this as violence? Or only the killing of somebody with a gun? You understand? Is it not violence when you believe very strongly in something and another believes equally strongly about some belief, and you are trying to convert the other, and the other is trying to convert you: conflict. Is that not violence? This hectic propaganda that is going on in the name of religion, in the name of everything, is that not violence? You see, you limit violence to only a very small affair. 暴力是什么？ 射击别人？那是暴力的一部分。 伤害他人？那是暴力的一部分。 战争和它的兽性、残忍，是暴力的本质 ——战争里那些可怕之事。 此外，愤怒，仇恨，模仿是暴力，遵从是暴力。 我不知道你跟上了吗？ 一个人在自己身上觉察到所有这些， 也就是一个人总是一直遵从某个模式， 某个理想，某个概念， 模仿，把自己和其他人比较，富有侵略性？ 一个人觉察到这些都是暴力了吗？ 或者只有用枪杀死某人才是暴力？ 你明白吗？ 当你非常强烈的信仰某事，那不是暴力吗？ 其他人同样强烈地信仰其他东西， 而你尝试去改变其他人， 其他人也尝试改变你：（这就有）冲突。 那不是暴力吗？ 以宗教名义进行的轰轰烈烈的宣传， 或者以任何名义进行，那不是暴力吗？ 你看，你把暴力限定在一些非常小的事情上了。
1:24:25 So, what is one to do, the questioner asks. First, if one may point out, don’t create its opposite, which is non-violence. Right? I wonder if you understand. Do you want an explanation of this? That is, I am violent and I have been trained, that's part of my habit to say, ‘I must not be violent’. You follow? I am violent, and I have created the ideal of being non-violent, so I have a conflict. You follow? Being violent and not wanting to be violent is conflict. Right? And that very conflict is violence. I wonder if you see this! Are we communicating? 所以，一个人要做什么，提问者问。 首先，如果一个人可以指出， 不要创造对立面，也就是非暴力。 对吗？我想知道你是否理解了。 你想要关于这个的解释吗？ 也就是，我是暴力的，我被训练， 那是我习惯的一部分去说，”我必须不暴力“。 你明白吗？我是暴力的， 我创造了非暴力的理想， 所以我有了冲突。你明白吗？ 暴力，又因不想暴力而冲突。 对吗？那种冲突就是暴力。 我想知道你们看到了吗！我们在互相交流吗？
1:25:44 So, the first realisation is not to create the opposite. Right? Then I am faced with the fact, not with its opposite. The opposite has its roots in its own opposite. Oh, come on! So, I’m faced with the reality of violence, not with the idea I must not be violent, which is an illusion. It’s not a fact. The fact is I am violent. You see how we have been trained not to deal with facts? So, I realise I'm violent, and I have no idea of trying to become non-violent. That’s completely gone out of my blood. So, I'm only dealing with fact. Now, how do I look at that fact? As an observer looking at something to be observed? Or, the observer himself is violent? You get the point? I wonder if you do. Are we together in this? Come on, sirs! Are we? 所以，首先认识到不要创造对立面。 对吗？ 然后我在面对事实，而非对立面。 对立面扎根在它自己的对立面中。 哦，快来！ 所以，我面对暴力的真相， 不是我必须不暴力的观点， 那是一个幻觉。它不是一个事实。 事实是我是暴力的。 你看到了我们如何被训练不去处理事实了吗？ 所以，我认识到我是暴力的， 并且我没有尝试变得不暴力的想法。 那完全从我的血液中消失了。 所以，我只处理事实。 现在，我如何看着那个事实？ 作为一个观察者看着某个被观察的东西吗？ 或者，观察者自身是暴力的？ 你明白吗？我想知道你是否懂了。 我们在一起探究吗？ 来吧，先生！我们在一起吗？
1:27:51 The man, the entity or the thought that says, ‘I am violent, and it must be changed, or transformed to something else’, and the transformer is part of that violence. There is no separate entity, superior entity who is non-violent, who is peaceful. You understand? That is another invention of thought, to escape from the basic fact that I am violent. 那个说”我是暴力的，它必须被改变或 转化成其他东西”的人，实体或者思想， 那个转化者，就是那个暴力的一部分。 没有一个非暴力的，和平的，分离的， 更高级的实体。你明白吗？ 那是思想的另一个发明， 来逃避我是暴力的，这个基础事实。
1:28:36 So, please just follow this, give a little attention, you may be tired, but just give a little attention to this. That is, there is no division between the observer and the observed. Right? There is only the fact. There is only the observation of the fact, not, ‘I observe the fact’. Right? There is only the pure observation of that reaction, which... In the past a word has been given to that reaction which is ‘violence’. So, I realise the word is not the thing, but the actual movement of that feeling, of that reaction. And I and that reaction are not separate, that there is only reaction. This requires – you understand? – very close watching. Then you will see, when you come to that point which is, you are giving tremendous attention to the fact, there is attention of the fact, and that attention is like a light put on something, and that dissipates the violence. Have you got it? No, not got it from me. See the fact, see how deceptive we are. It becomes so deceptive, it’s so dishonest, all this. 所以，请跟上我，给予一点关注， 你也许累了，但是只是再给予一点关注。 也就是，观察者和被观察之物，不是分离的。 对吗？只有事实。 只有对那个事实的观察， 没有，“我在观察事实”。 对吗？只有对那种反应的纯然的观察， 也就是……过去，我们给予这种反应 一个词，也就是“暴力”。 所以，我认识到词语不是那件事， 它是那个反应，那个感受的真实的运动。 并且我和那个反应不是分离的， 只有反应。 那要求——你明白吗？——非常密切地观察。 然后你会看到，当你到达那一点， 也就是，你给予了那个事实巨大的关注， 有对事实的关注， 那种关注就像投射在事物上的一束光， 它驱散了暴力。 你明白了吗？ 不，不是从我这里得到它。 看到那个事实，看到我们多么自欺欺人。 这一切都变得如此具有欺骗性，如此不诚实。
1:30:58 So, when you allow time to dissolve an issue, that issue increases, multiplies. It’s only the mind that sees clearly, acts. Right, finish. 所以，当你允许时间去解决一个问题， 那个问题就会增长，繁殖。 只有清晰地看的意识，来行动。 对，结束了。