Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ82Q4 - 第四次公开问答
美国，加州，欧亥
1982年5月13日



0:40 This is the last question and answer meeting. Again, there have been so many questions handed in and we cannot answer all of them. 这是问答会的最后一场。 又有如此多的问题提交了上来， 但是我们无法全部一一作答。
1:05 I really would like to ask a question of you, if I may. You have put so many questions for the speaker to answer, the speaker would like to ask you a question, and I hope you don't mind. Why is it, being so educated, living in an affluent society, with marvellous land, with forests, rivers, great mountains, why is it that you do not change? I think that’s a very important question to put. Why is it that we are so indifferent – not to outward responses, but to something deep, abiding, something that is worthwhile? Why is it that we don’t change? 我真的很想问你们一个问题——如果我可以的话—— 你们提出了这么多的问题让讲话者回答， 讲话者也想问你们一个问题， 希望你们不介意。 为什么——你们受过如此良好的教育，生活在如此富裕的社会里， 有着壮美的土地、森林、河流、高山， ——为什么你们没有改变呢？ 我认为，提出这个问题非常重要。 为什么我们会如此漠不关心 ——不是指对外部的各种回应， 而是对深刻的、恒久的事物， 对有价值的事物如此漠不关心？ 为什么我们没有转变？
2:49 This has been a question the speaker has been concerned with wherever he goes. There are large audiences, small discussions, interviews and so on, and at the end of the journey there are so very, very few who deeply bring about a radical transformation in themselves. They are very friendly, there are social workers, some are politicians, some are some of the well-known gurus. They all seem to follow the same old pattern, outwardly demanding certain political changes, to stop a particular kind of war, to have a little more money and so on. But deeply in their relationships, in their enquiry they go up to a certain point and there it ends. Why? I leave that question with you, and we’ll answer these questions and I’ll pick up that question again at the end of the several questions that have been put. 这是讲话者一直都很关心的 一个问题——无论他走到哪里。 我们有大型的演讲、有小范围的讨论、有面谈等等， 但在这段旅程的最后，极少有人 会真正为他们自己的内心带来一场彻底的革命。 他们都非常友善，有的是社会工作者， 有的是政客，有的是一些很有名的古鲁。 他们似乎都追随着同样的陈旧模式 ——需要某种外部的政治改革 以此来停止某种特定的战争， 以此拥有更多一点的金钱等等。 但是，在他们深层的人际关系中， 在他们的探询中，他们只深入到某个点，然后就打住了——为什么？ 我把这个问题留给你们， 然后让我们来回答这些问题，而我会再次提出这个问题 ——在回答了这几个已经提出的问题之后。
5:03 First Question: 'One sees that chaos in the world is rapidly increasing. Billions are being spent on arms, social justice is being eroded, governments, both totalitarian and democratic are increasingly aggressive, and violent. Though one sees the necessity of much deeper fundamental human change, could the speaker comment on the issue of active political involvement?' 第一个问题：我们看到这个世界的混乱正在快速地增加， 数十亿都耗费在武器上，社会公正正被腐蚀， 政府——极权主义和民主主义的， 都越来越具侵略性和越来越暴力。 虽然我们看到了人类迫切需要更为深刻的、根本的转变， 但讲话者能否就积极的政治参与这一问题作一下评论呢？
5:43 'One sees that chaos in the world is rapidly increasing. Billions are being spent on arms, social justice is being eroded, governments, both totalitarian and democratic, are increasingly aggressive, and violent. Though one sees the necessity of much deeper fundamental human change, could the speaker comment on the issue of active political involvement?' 我们看到这个世界的混乱正在快速地增加， 数十亿都耗费在武器上，社会公正正被腐蚀， 政府——极权主义和民主主义的， 都越来越具侵略性和越来越暴力， 虽然我们看到了人类迫切需要更为深刻的、根本的转变， 但讲话者能否就积极的政治参与这一问题作一下评论呢？
6:20 Am I Democratic or Republican, is that it? Apart from joking, why, if one may ask, why do we have such great confidence in political leaders? It is the same issue in all the countries – in France, in England, here, in India, and so on. Why? We put such confidence in the economists, in the politicians, in the leaders. Why do we do this? And what do we mean by political action? 我是民主党人还是共和党人——是这个意思吗？ 撇开玩笑，为什么——如果我可以提问的话—— 为什么我们会对政治领袖深信不疑? 这是所有国家都存在的一个问题 ——在法国、英国、这儿、印度，等等——为什么？ 我们投入了如此巨大的信心给经济学家、 给政客们、给领导人——为什么我们会这么做？ 而我们所说的“政治行动”是什么意思？
7:26 Please, we are enquiring together, you are not just listening to the speaker, waiting for his explanation and answer. We are thinking together over this problem which is really a very serious problem, which is affecting the whole of mankind. Some political group, Democratic, comes into power – Conservative or Labour, or Republican or Democrats – and they seem to have such extraordinary power, position and authority, and we follow them. They tell us what to do and we accept them. Why is it that sense of trust in them and accepting their judgements. We are sent to war, according to some rulers, government officials, and thousands are being killed; because a majority has voted them into power, position and direction and we merely like sheep follow them. Generally they appeal to our lowest instincts, to our national pride, honour and all that business. And we are stimulated by all that and we are willing to kill others for this, for a piece of land. Why? Why do we trust them? 恳请你，我们是在一起作探究， 你不要一味地听讲话者讲， 等待他的解释和回答， 我们是在一起仔细思考这个问题， 这真的是个非常严肃的问题， 它影响着整个人类。 某个政治团体——民主党——执政了， ——或者保守党、工党、共和党又或者民主党执政了—— 他们似乎位高权重、 无比权威，而我们对他们亦步亦趋。 他们告诉我们怎么做，我们就会欣然接受。 为什么会对他们有信任感，并且言听计从？ 我们被送上战场——拜一些统治者和政府官员所赐， 数千人惨遭杀害， 是因为我们大多数人都选了他们来当权、就职以及发号施令， 而我们就像群绵羊一样听从他们。 通常他们会唤起我们最低级的本能， 唤起我们的民族自豪感、荣誉感等等这一切。 而我们则会受这些的鼓动， 甘愿去杀害他人——为这个或者为一片土地，等等。 为什么？为什么我们会信任他们？
9:40 Please, you answer this question. And what do we mean by political action which is different from all other actions? Why do we separate politics from our daily living? Why do we separate a political activity of the left, right, centre, or extreme left, extreme right? Why, if one may ask, why is political action so very different from our action of relationship, action with regard to fear in ourselves, and so on? Or is politics part of our life, not something separate. The politics, as we explained the other day, according to the common usage, which is in the dictionary, is the art of government, science of government. Why do we give this art to the politician? They apparently are a separate breed, different from us. This is really a question that involves, why do we depend on a politician, a guru, a priest, on anybody to govern us? Please answer this question. Why do specialists take charge of our life? Is it that we have no so-called confidence in ourselves? We are not sure of ourselves, and we attribute this clarity to the politicians and to the others. Is it in ourselves that we are insufficient and somebody out there is going to make us sufficient? 恳请你来回答这个问题。 而我们所说的“政治行动”是什么意思， 它不同于其他的行动吗？ 我们为什么把“政治”从我们的日常生活中分离出来？ 我们为什么把一个政治活动划分为左派、 右派、中立派或者极左派、极右派呢？ 为什么——如果我可以问的话—— 为什么政治行动，这么有别于 我们关系中的行动， 有别于我们内在恐惧的行动，等等呢？ 还是，政治是我们生活的一部分，不是独立的东西。 政治——就如我们前几天解释过的， 按它的常规用法，也就是在字典中的意思， 就是统治的艺术，管理的科学。 我们为什么会把这门艺术拱手让给了政客呢？ 他们看起来是单独的一类人——有别于我们。 这个问题实际上牵涉到 ——为什么我们会仰赖一名政客、一个古鲁、 一个牧师——仰仗他人来统治我们呢？ 恳请你们回答这个问题。 为什么行家们掌管了我们的生活？ 是不是我们对自己没有所谓的“信心”呢？ 我们对自己没有把握， 我们把这份清晰归属于政客们和他人所有。 是不是因为我们内心不足， 而别处会有人让我们的内心变得富足？
12:54 So, are we to treat life as separate factors: political, religious, economic, and so on? There is a new noise today. Or, are we to treat life as a whole? Please, regard, question this. The questioner asks, what political action is there that one can take? The questioner perhaps – one may be misjudging him, if one is, please forgive us – is that action, political, different from religious action, from the action of an idealist, or does one treat life, the whole living, learning in colleges, universities, schools, relationship, fears, faith, anxiety, and political action – isn’t that a whole way of living? Am I conveying this? 因此，是不是我们将生活视作互相分离的部分： 政治、宗教、经济等等？（锯子的声音） 今天又有了新的噪音。 还是，我们把生活看作是一个整体？恳请你们，对此思考、质疑。 提问者问，我们对此能采取什么样的政治行动？ 提问者也许 ——我也许错会了他的意思，如果是的话，请原谅我们—— 是不是这种行动——政治行动——有别于宗教的行动， 有别于理想主义者的行动， 还是，我们把生活看作是一个整体 ——在学院、大学、中学学习， 关系、恐惧、信念、焦虑，以及政治行动， 难道这不是种整体的生活方式吗？我表达清楚了吗？
14:47 Is it that we are so fragmented in ourselves – as a religious action, political action, family action, individual action, collective action – you follow? Or do we treat life as a total movement in which all these activities are included. But if we separate one from the other, we’ll inevitably bring about contradiction. A religious life is incompatible, one will say, with political life. A religious person will have no part with politics, because generally politics is such a crooked affair, controlled by big industrialists, by wanting great deal of money for the party, and they’re depending on rich people and so on. So how do we, each one of us, answer this question? There is increase of armaments. Just now they are destroying each other, killing each other for – God knows for what. And both the democratic world and the totalitarian world are becoming, as the questioner says, more and more aggressive. So how do you deal with this question? It’s very easy to put questions. Very easy to put a question and try to find an answer from another. But if we have to answer this question ourselves, taking what is actually going on in the world: the national, religious, economic divisions, wars, tremendous spending of money on armaments – what’s your answer? How would you answer this question? If you are Americans, we’ll say, ‘Our way is the best way’, and so on. Or, would you consider the right answer, the true answer is, that we cannot separate these activities but treat life as a whole movement? 是不是我们内在是如此的四分五裂 ——分裂成了宗教的行动、政治的行动、家庭的行动、 个人的行动、集体的行动——你跟上了吗？—— 还是，我们把生活看作是一种整体的运动 ——其中囊括了所有这些活动。 但是，如果我们把其中之一和其他的分离开来， 我们就无可避免地会招致矛盾。 宗教生活——我会说——和政治生活是毫不相容的， 宗教人士和政治将毫无瓜葛， 因为，一般说来，政治是如此不正当的营生 ——受着大实业家的摆布， 需要大量金钱来支持政党， 这些政党仰赖于富人等等。 因此，我们——我们每个人，要如何来回答这个问题？ 各类武器在不断增加， 眼下他们正在互相毁灭， 互相杀害，为了——天知道是为了什么。 并且民主主义的世界以及极权主义的世界 都在变得——正如提问者说的——越来越具侵略性。 因此，什么是你的……你要如何处理这个问题？ 提出问题很简单， 这很容易：提出一个问题，然后翘首以待别人的解答。 但是，如果我们必须靠自己来回答这个问题， 认清这个世界实际正在发生的一切： 国家的、宗教的、经济的各种划分，各种战争， 巨额的金钱耗费在武器上， 那么，你的回答是什么，你要如何来回答这个问题？ 如果你们是美国人，就会说，“我们的方式是最好的”，等等。 还是，你会仔细思考正确的答案、真正的答案是什么， 也就是我们是无法肢解这些活动的， 而是要把生活视为一种整体的运动？
18:19 And what is a political action? Would you like to start a new party, social democratic party? Or, look for a new leader for the next election, condemn the present leader, and when the new leader comes into being next election, again there is doubt about him – you know, when the honeymoon is over then begins the whole problem. 那么，什么是政治行动？ 你想成立一个新的政党——社会民主党吗？ 或者，想为下届选举物色一位新的领导人， 谴责现任的领导人， 当新任领导人在下届选举中产生时， 又会对他有所怀疑——你知道这整件事—— 当蜜月期结束，所有的问题就都露出端倪来。
19:04 So, what is your answer? Please, sir, go into it for yourselves. What is your answer when you have thought it out deeply? Do you want to ask if there is an activity, if there is action which is not divisible, an action that includes politics, religion, economics, everything – the whole bundle of life. And is that possible? 因此，你的答案是什么？ 恳请你，先生，自己去探究。 当你已经很深入地思考过它，你的答案是什么？ 你是不是想问——有没有一种活动， 有没有一种行动，它是不可分割的， ——这种行动囊括了政治、宗教、经济，一切， 整个的生活。 那么，这有可能吗？
20:06 One sees corruption right through the world – black market, rich people getting tremendously more rich, the privileged classes, and so on. Where do you begin to bring about an action that will include all actions? Where do you begin? To go very far, one must begin very near. Right? So what is very near? Me. I am the nearest person, so I begin – not as a selfish activity, or self-centred movement – I am the nearest, or I am the centre from which I start, not out there. Can I live a life that is absolutely not broken up? A religious life separate from all other lives, activities, but a life that is political, religious – you follow? Can I live that way? 我们看到腐败正在全世界蔓延 ——黑市交易，富人愈加暴富， 享有特权的阶级，等等。 我们要从何着手 去带来一种囊括了所有行动的行动呢？ 你要从何处着手？ 要走得很远，你就必须由近处开始。 对吗？ 那么，什么是这个近处？ “我”。“我”就是最近处的人，所以从“我”开始 ——不是以一种利己的活动、以自我中心的活动开始—— “我”是最近处的，或者“我”就是这个中心——我从这个中心着手， 而不是别处。 我能不能过一种毫不破碎的生活？ 宗教生活从其他的所有生活和活动中分离了出来， 但是，有没有一种既是政治也是宗教的生活 ——你跟上了吗？——我能不能过这样的生活？
22:20 That implies, does it not, do I understand the whole separative activity completely, and in the comprehension of the separate activities which then become contradictory, conflicting, endless divisions – if I understand that very clearly, perceive it not in abstraction or as an ideal or intellectually, but as a factual thing. From that observation one will act which will be complete. Have I answered the question? If you are actually wanting to start a political action, new party, new group, new leader of your own, then I am afraid you and I won’t meet, we are back into the same old pattern. But we are saying, a life that is complete, sufficient psychologically, from that quality of mind and heart, then all action is included in that. 这就意味着——不是吗—— 我能不能彻底地了解这整个分裂性的活动， 在对这种分裂性活动的了解中 ——这种分裂性的活动会变得矛盾、冲突，造成无休止的划分—— 如果我对此了解得非常清楚， 觉察它，并非抽象化或是作为一种理想，也不是从道理上理解， 而是洞察这个真切的事实， 那么，经由这份观察，我们就会行动——这种行动就会是完整的。 我回答这个问题了吗？ 如果你真的想启动一个政治行动 ——新的党派、新的团体，以及你自己新的领导人， 那么，恐怕你我不会达成共识，那样我们就折回到老一套的模式里了。 而我们说的是——一种在心理上是完整而富足的生活， 经由这种品质的心智和心灵，一切行动就都囊括其中了。
24:19 Second Question: 'You say that out of the negative comes the positive. How does one negate the ‘I’ without suppression or denial or without conflict? Who is that which does the negating? Can you go into this problem?' 第二个问题：你说，经由否定，那肯定的就会到来， 我们要如何毫无压抑、 毫无推拒、毫无冲突地去否定“我”呢？ 而谁又是那个在否定的人？你能就这个问题探讨一下吗？
24:45 'You say that out of the negative comes the positive. How does one negate the ‘I’ without suppression or denial or without conflict? Who is that which does the negating? Can you go into this problem?' 你说，经由否定，那肯定的就会到来， 我们要如何毫无压抑、 毫无推拒、毫无冲突地去否定“我”呢？ 而谁又是那个在否定的人？你能就这个问题探讨一下吗？
25:13 You are going to go into this problem, not the speaker. 是你去探究这个问题，而不是讲话者。
25:26 What is positive action? And what is negative action? The positive action is, I must do that, I will do that, this is right, this is wrong, or what is considered positive following certain idealistic cause which will eventually bring about a different world and so on – the positive action, positive thinking as the evangelists and others propagate. Positive thinking. And what is negative thinking? To think of others badly? I don’t know what negative thinking is, really. Thinking is in itself is negative, but it doesn’t matter, we’ll go into it. 什么是“肯定式的行动”？ 而什么又是“否定式的行动”呢？ 肯定式的行动也就是——我必须这么做，我会这么做， 这是对的，这是错的， 或者被认为是肯定式的行动有：追随某个理想主义的事业 ——这最终会带来一个不同的世界等等。 肯定式的行动、肯定式的思想 ——就如福音传道者和其他的传道者那样， 这是肯定式的思考。 那么，什么是否定式的思考呢？ 把别人想得很糟糕吗？ 我不知道什么是否定式的思想——真的不知道。 思想其本身就是否定的， 但是，这没关系，我们会对此作探究的。
26:41 So the questioner wants to know whether the self, the essence of selfishness, the self-centred activity, can be denied without suppression, without conflict, without any form of evasion. That is the question. We are not saying that you must negate the 'I'. How can you negate the I? And who is it, as the questioner says, who negates or asserts? When you say ‘I am’, who is it that says ‘I am’ aggressively? And who is it that says, ‘I am not’? Both the positive and the negative, who is it? Go on, sirs. 因此，提问者想知道自我 ——也即利己的本质，自我中心的活动—— 能不能被否定——而毫无的压抑、 毫无冲突、毫无任何形式的逃避。 就是这个问题。 我们并不是说你必须否定这个“我”。 你怎么能否定这个“我”呢？ 而它又是谁——正如提问者问的——这个作出否定或者主张的人是谁？ 当你说“是我”时，谁是这个咄咄逼人地说“是我”的人？ 而这个说“不是我”的又是谁？ 肯定和否定这两者，它们都是谁呢？ ——继续，先生们——
28:07 Is there a separate consciousness, a separate state of mind, a separate clarity in our consciousness? You follow all my questions? Is there some element of clarity in this messy consciousness – messy, conflicting, aggressive, with their fears, faith, beliefs, superstitions, anxious – all that. In that confusion which is our consciousness, is there a spot of clarity which then can say, 'I will direct, I won’t suppress, I will change this whole confusion.' Do you understand my question? Is there? Please answer. If one is terribly honest with oneself, doesn’t want to deceive oneself or accept some comforting idea, or merely follow some tradition, then you will say there is a field in this messy consciousness that is clear, unconfused, and that will bring about clarity in the whole field of confusion. You understand my question? This is the old, very old story, that there is, according to the Hindus in the Asiatic world, a certain entity apart from all this – they call it Atman, God, or what you like – who is witnessing all this, and seeing all this, through various forms of assertions, conflicts and so on, will ultimately free the mind from the confusion. Right? And probably here too, in the Western world, there is this idea of permanent soul, whatever that may mean, who is gradually asserting himself and will ultimately go to heaven. These are all very comforting utilitarian theories. But they have not so far cleared man’s confusion, man’s conflict, his agonies, his loneliness, his depression, and so on. 我们的意识之中是不是存在一块独立的意识， 一种独立的心智状态，一份分离出来的清明呢？ 你跟上所有的问题了吗？ 在这个混乱的意识之中是不是存在某种清明的成分？ 混乱、冲突、好斗、恐惧——他们的各种恐惧、 信念、信仰、迷信、焦虑——这一切， 在这团混乱之中——也就是我们的意识—— 是不是存在一点清明，它说，“我会去指引， 我不会去压抑，我会去改变这整个的混乱。” 你了解我的问题吗？存在吗？恳请你回答。 如果你对自己极其诚实， 不想自欺， 不想接受某种令人舒服的观念，也不想单纯追随某种传统， 那么，你就会说：在这个混乱的意识之中存在着一块领域， 它是清晰的、没困惑的， 并且它会给整个混乱的领域带来清明。 你了解我的问题吗？ 这是很古老，非常古老的故事，那就是存在 ——根据亚洲的印度教徒的观点—— 某种脱离于这一切的存在体， ——他们称之为“灵魂”、“神”，或者别的你喜欢的称呼， 它目睹着这一切，看着这一切—— 通过各种形式的决心以及历练等等， 它最终将会使心智从混乱中解脱出来——对吗？ 而在这儿可能也一样——在西方国家， 人们都持有这种永恒的灵魂的概念——无论这到底是什么意思， 这个灵魂正逐步地坚定他自己，并且最终将会上天堂——对吗？ 这些都是非常令人欣慰的功利主义的想法。 但是，到目前为止，这些都没有清除掉人类的混乱、人类的矛盾、 焦虑、孤独、沮丧，等等。
31:50 So, why not try – when you are all so practical in the West and the East is also trying to copy you by becoming very practical – why not see that this is so utterly impractical, the god within you, or the soul within you, or the clarity within you which will wipe away this confusion so easily. If that is not practical, as it is not, apparently, because it has not succeeded – succeeded in the sense, please let’s be clear in the usage of that word, succeeded, not to be something in this world, to have more money and so on – succeeded in bringing about complete comprehension, the ending of conflict and so on. As it has not, let’s look at it differently. That means one must deny this, negate this. That’s going against all your religious tradition – the Bible, the soul. You understand what I am saying? – negating all that. Then if you do, then we can look at it differently, but if you have slight attachment to all that, conscious or unconscious, then you will not look for anything else. 因此，为什么不试着 ——既然在西方世界，你们都是如此的讲究实际， 而东方也正在学你们变得非常实际—— 为什么不看看，这一切其实是如此的不切实际： 你内在的上帝或者你内在的灵魂，又或者你内在的清明， 它们会很轻松地消除掉这种混乱。 如果这很不切实际——显然事实正是如此， 因为它并没有成功 ——“成功”的意思，请弄清楚这个词的含义—— 成功，不是在这个世界上成为什么， 不是去拥有更多的金钱等等 ——成功的意思是带来彻底的了解， 结束冲突，等等。 因为它没有成功，所以我们换个方式来看这个问题。 这也就意味着，我们必须抛开那些、否定那些， 也就是背弃你所有的宗教传统： 圣经、灵魂， ——你了解我在说的吗？——否定那一切。 然后，如果你这么做了，那么，我们就能换种方式去看了。 但是，如果你有些执着于那一切——有意识或者下意识的—— 那么，你就不会想去另寻他法。
34:06 So, first of all, what is the self, the ‘I’? All the attributes, all the tendencies, the various forms of idiosyncrasies, various beliefs, the various hurts, the conflict in relationship, fear, loneliness, agony, seeking some illusive security, suffering – all that – the name, the form, is the ‘you’. Right? Or do you doubt that? If you doubt it – one should – then when you doubt something it means you must examine, not just doubt. If you doubt that there is God – doubt, I am not saying you should – if you doubt it, then you must enquire if there is such a thing. But merely to doubt, say, well... – has no meaning. Scepticism has great value, but if you are merely sceptic all the time, what’s the point, it’s like being illusory, caught in an illusion, they are both the same. So where there is doubt there is also the movement of enquiry. So we are enquiring together. This ‘I’, this separatist activity, so-called individual, which is the essence of the ‘I’ – and the questioner wants to know how to negate that, the very whole activity of me – my possessions, my qualities, my aggression, you follow, the whole of that – how is one to negate it? 因此，首先，什么是自我——这个“我”？ 所有的特质、所有的偏好， 各种形式的个人风格， 各种信仰、各种伤害、 关系之中的冲突、恐惧、孤独、痛苦、 寻求某种虚幻的安全感、苦难——这一切—— 名字、外貌——就是这个“你”， 对吗？还是你对此有所怀疑？ 如果你对此有所怀疑——你应该去怀疑—— 那么当你怀疑某个东西时， 这意味着，你必须检视，而不只是怀疑。 如果你怀疑是不是存在上帝——怀疑—— 我不是说你应该怀疑，而是如果你怀疑它， 那么，你就必须去探查是不是有这种东西。 但仅仅只是怀疑，说，“好的”——这是毫无意义的。 怀疑的态度有着重要的价值， 但是，如果你一直都只是怀疑——这又有什么意义， 这就像是有错觉，陷入了错觉一样，这两者是一样的道理。 因此，既然有怀疑，也要有探询的活动。 因此，我们正在一起探询 这个分裂分子的活动——所谓的“个人”， 也就是自我的本质—— 而提问者想知道如何去否定它， “我”的这整个活动——我的财产、 我的品性、我的好斗——你明白吗——它的全部， 我们要怎么去否定它？
37:04 Now, the questioner asks that: how to negate it. Then he goes on to ask, who is it that negates? You follow? First he said tell me how to negate it, then he says, who is it that negates. You follow? I wonder if you understand this. So we are not negating it. We are trying to find out what it has done in the world first, this self-centred egotistic activity, what it has done in the world, and see the reality of it, the actuality of it, and then enquire who is it that is acting all the time from the centre. You understand my question? It is not that we are negating the self, but that the activity of the self in the world, what it has done in the world, what it has done in the family, in the group, in the community, in the nation, in the world, and so on, and seeing the reality of it, not the idea of what it has done in the world, but the actual happening, the actual activity of it, and from there – which is our criteria – from there enquire if that self, which is creating such mischief in the world, can that self be looked at? You follow? 现在，提问者问：“要如何否定它”， 然后他接着问，“进行否定的又是谁？”——你跟上了吗？—— 首先，他说，告诉我如何否定它， 接着他问，谁是这个作否定的人。 你跟上了吗？我不知道你是不是了解了这些。 因此，我们不是在否定它， 我们首先试着弄清楚它在这世界上的所作所为 ——这种自我中心的、利己的活动在这个世界上的所作所为， 看清它的真相、它的实情， 接着质问，一直由中心出发去行动的是谁。 你了解我的问题吗？ 并不是说我们在否定自我， 而是看清自我在世界上的所作所为， 它在这个世界上所做的，在家庭中所做的， 在团体里、社区里、国家里、世界上等等所做的， 看清它的真相， 不是关于它在世界上所作所为的观念， 而是看到实际发生的事，它实际的活动， 从事实出发——这才是我们的准则—— 由此出发去探究是不是这个自我 ——它制造着这个世界上这么多的不幸—— 这个自我能不能被看到？——你跟上了吗？——
39:14 Then we will enquire, what is it that is looking at the self? It is the same question put differently. So, first, what has it done in the world? I don’t have to answer that question, obviously. It has separated itself into nations, into communities, into various forms of social divisions, it has divided itself from the rest of the community, society, world, as the family, and from the family, the ‘me’: my aggression, my happiness, my pursuit, and so on. It has brought about division in the world, because it said, in that division as my particular belief, my particular religion, my particular faith, in that faith, in that belief, in that dogma I will be secure, I will be safe. Right? Are you following all this? So it has created vast division, incredible divisions, and so where there is division there must be conflict. So the 'I', which is the creator of this division, which is the essence of conflict – right? – can that 'I' come to an end? Not suppressing, not evading, not avoiding, and so on. Can that 'I' which has done all this mischief, all these terrible things in the world – separate gods, it has brought about a million wars, thousands of wars. Is that a fact? For you, not for me. Is that a fact? Or is it an exaggeration? Or is it some kind of concept, and you are adjusting yourself to that concept? That is, we think war is cruel, and therefore the ‘I’ must be – you follow? First conceive an idea, then adjust ourselves to that idea. We are saying, observe what is happening in the world without bias, without any partiality, and you see what the ‘I’, the so-called individual expansion, the individual aggression, the individual success, what it has done in the world. 然后，我们会问，那个在观察自我的东西是什么？ 这是同一个问题，以不同方式被提出来而已。 因此，首先，它已经在这个世界上做了什么？ ——显然这个问题不用我来回答—— 它已然把自己分裂为国家、社区， 分裂为各种形式的社会阶层， 它把自己作为家庭从社区、 社会、世界的其余部分孤立出来，又从家庭中分离出一个“我” ——我的争强好胜、我的幸福、我的追求，等等。 它已经引起了这个世界的分裂， 因为它说——在我特定的信仰、 我特定的宗教、我特定的信念这样的划分之中， 在这种信念、这份信仰之中，在这种教条之中， 我就会很安心，我就会很安全。 对吗？你明白这一切了吗？ 因此，它已经制造了巨大的分裂、难以置信的分裂， 而有分裂的地方，就必定有冲突。 因此这个“我”——这种分裂的制造者， 也是冲突的本质——对吗？——这个“我”可以终结吗？ 而没有压抑、没有规避、没有逃避等等之类。 这个“我”——造成了这一切的伤害， 世界上所有可怕的事， 以及各自为政的神明， 它已带来了上百万次战争、无数的战争。 这是不是个事实——对你而言，并非对我而言—— 这是不是个事实？还是言过其实了呢？ 或者，它只是某种概念， 而你正在调整自己去适应这种概念呢？ 也就是说，我们认为战争是残酷的，因此，必须 ——你跟上了吗？—— 首先，我们构思出一个观念，然后调整自己去适应这个观念。 而我们说，观察这个世界上正在发生的事——不带任何偏见、 没有丝毫偏袒地观察， 于是你看到了 所谓的个人膨胀、个人攻击、 个人成功，等等，它们在这个世界的所作所为。
43:05 If you are very clear on that point, then we say, now, seeing what cruelties, bestiality is brought about in the world, can this movement which is the ‘me’, can this movement ever stop or radically change? When you have put that question to yourself, then who is it that is to bring about a change? The questioner says that. Who is it that will end this self-centred activity. Right? That is what the questioner is saying. That is, we have to go much deeper into that, which is, is there a difference from the observer and the thing he observes? Please just listen to it. Don’t agree or disagree or say, ‘Oh, you are repeating the old stuff. I have heard this last year – or two years ago, or twenty years ago – you are repeating, move out of that rut.' We’ll move out of that rut. It is not a rut, but you may call it a rut. 如果对这点你很清楚了，接下来我们说， 既然看到了残酷和兽行给这个世界所带来的后果， 那么这种运动——也就是“我”—— 这个运动究竟能不能停止或者彻底改变呢？ 当你向自己提出了这个问题， 那么，要由谁带来这种改变呢？ ——提问者这么问的。 要结束这种自我中心活动的是谁——对吗？ 这就是提问者问的。 这也就是说，我们必须更深入地探究这个问题： 这个观察者和他所观之物之间 是否存在区别？ 恳请你只是认真听着，不要同意或者不同意，也不要嘟囔， “哦，你在重复老一套，我去年已经听过这些了， ——或者两年前，又或者二十年前—— 你只是在翻来覆去地说这些而已，请丢掉这一套。” 我们会丢掉这一套的 ——可这不是“老一套”，只是你称它为“老一套”罢了。
45:00 When you observe a tree, that thing, can you look at it without the word first? Or when you look at it, the instant response is, that’s a tree, oak tree or whatever it is. Can you look at it without the word? Word being the symbol, the idea, the memory, which uses the word as the tree. You follow? Experiment for a minute, for a second or two to look at that thing which is around you now. And when you so look without the word, because we are caught in a network of words. I don’t know if one realises that. The word, the symbol has taken the place of reality. When you say, ‘My wife’, you have the complete picture. Or my husband or my son, my country, the flag, and when you use the word ‘Communist’, it is – you follow? – the whole intonation, the quality, what is behind that word. And when you say, I am an American, or I believe in God, I don’t believe in God – you follow? – this vast network of words in which the mind lives, the brain lives. I don’t know if you have noticed all this. I hope it interests you. The questioner asks it, if you are not interested, it is a nice day. Does one realise that? That one can never look at a thing, living thing, or a dead thing or a thing that is moving – always with a word. To look at a river, at the flowing water, not call it the Mississippi or Thames or the Ganges, or the Nile – just look at the moving water. It has quite a different quality. 当你观察一棵树，那件东西时， 你能不能看着它而不马上带上任何言语呢？ 还是当你看着它时，即刻的反应就是 ——那是一棵树，一棵橡树，或者是别的什么。 你能不能看着它而不带有任何言语呢？ 言语——也就是符号、观念和记忆， 它用这个词指代这棵树——你明白吗？ 做一下实验——就一分钟，一秒钟或者两秒钟—— 去看看此刻在你身旁的东西。 而当你如此去看却不带任何只言片语时—— 因为我们都陷入了言词的网络里 ——我不知道你是不是认识到了这一点—— 言词、符号已然取代了真实。 当你说，“我的妻子”，你就会想起那整幅画面； 或者当你说我的丈夫、我的孩子、我的国家、国旗的时候。 而当你使用“共产主义者”这个词时，它包含了——你跟上了吗？—— 所有的语调，它具有的特质，以及这个词背后所隐藏的意义。 当你说，“我是美国人”， 或者“我信仰上帝”，“我不信仰上帝”——你明白吗？—— 这个巨大的语言网络，心灵、头脑都深陷其中。 我不知道你是不是注意到了这一切，我希望这能引起你的兴趣， 提问者提出它，那么讲话者 如果你没有兴趣的话，今天天气还不错。 你意识到了这个事实了吗： 我们永远无法去看一件东西——有生命的，或者无生命的， 又或者一个活动着的东西—— 如果我们总是带着言语的话。 去看一条河流，看着流动的河水， 不命名它为密西西比河、泰晤士河，或者恒河，又或者尼罗河， 就看着流动的河水， 这就会有一种截然不同的品质。
48:19 Now, so can you observe – not you observe, sorry – is there an observation of the movement of the self which is anger, bitterness, hurt, just to look at all that without the word. Are you following all this? The word is the past. Right? The word indicates the content of the past. ‘My wife’ – I am taking an ordinary example – my wife. When you use ‘my wife’ see the content of that word, the enormous implications of various incidents, accidents, ideas, hurt – all that in the past. Right? And that word ‘my wife’ indicates the tremendous content of the past. But, can you look at the woman or the man without the past, to look at her? Go on, sir, do it, don’t listen to me, there’s no point in listening to me if you are not applying, if you are not doing it. 因此你现在能不能观察， 是不是存在一种观察——不是你观察，对不起—— 是不是存在一种对自我运动的观察 ——自我就是愤怒、痛苦、伤害—— 只是看着这一切而不带任何言语。 这些你都跟上了吗？ 言语也就是过去，对吗？ 言语代表着过去的内容。 我的妻子——我只是举一个很普通的例子——我的妻子， 当你使用“我的妻子”时，看看这个词的内容， 其中隐含了大量的内容：各种事件、意外、观念以及伤害， 这一切都属于过去，对吗？ “我的妻子”这个词，隐含着属于过去的海量内容。 但是，你能不能看着这个女人或者这个男人，不带任何过去地看着她？ 继续，先生，去做，不要听我讲，听我讲毫无意义 ——如果你不去实施，如果你不去做的话。
50:15 So first of all we are asking, is there an observation of the whole movement of the self, which we have described both outwardly and inwardly, can you look at that – no – is there an observation of that without the past? You get it? You understand what I am talking about? Look, I have lived 80 years or more – 87 years. A man who has lived 87 years has collected lots of experience, lots of ideas, met lots of people. There are all these past memories throbbing away. And either he is an idiot to live in the past, or – memory with this person being very, very selective – not live in the past but watch things are happening: to observe without the observer, which is the past. Have you got it? Am I making it clear? To observe. To observe one’s reactions without naming it as jealousy, as anger – just to observe. When you so observe, what happens? Go into it, sir, I hope you are doing this, not just listening or getting bored with the damn stuff. If you are listening, we are asking a question, which is: when there is an observation without direction, without motive, which is the past, what happens? Now, to find out what happens, actually, you must enquire what takes place when you are directing it, when you are remembering it, your reactions, or giving direction to your reactions. That is, there is a separation between the observer and the observed. Then there is a division and hence a conflict – I must not do this/I must do that, this is right/this is wrong, I say this is right according to my motive – and so on. So, when there is an observation that where there is division there must inevitably be conflict, outwardly and psychologically, that is absolute fact. When I call myself British or American, and I am willing – you follow, the whole thing you’ve right in front of you. You are willing to destroy thousands of people, spend enormous sums of money to do something which your national pride or some nonsense dictates. 因此，首先我们问， 是不是存在一种对自我的整体运动的观察 ——我们已经从外在和内在说明过这种运动了—— 你能不能看着它——不对—— 是不是存在一种不带过去的对它的观察？ 你明白了吗？你了解我正在谈的内容吗？ 瞧，我已经活了80年或者更久——87年—— 一个已经活了87年的人累积了许许多多的经验、 各种各样的观念，遇到过形形色色的人， 所有这些过去的记忆都悸动着。 要么他是个傻瓜，活在过去或者记忆里 ——认为自己是那个被选中的救世主—— 但是他不要活在过去里，而是观看正在发生着的事， 去观察，而没有观察者——也就是过去。 你明白了吗？我讲清楚了吗？ 去观察 ——观察自己的各种反应 而不去命名它为嫉妒、愤怒， 就只是去观察。 当你这么观察的时候，会发生什么？ 请去探究一下，先生，我希望你正在这么做， 而不是一味地听，或者对这些可恶的东西感到厌烦。 如果你在倾听，那么我们正在问这个问题： 当存在一种没有取向、没有动机的观察时 ——动机就是过去——会发生什么？ 要去弄清楚实际上会发生什么， 你就必须在你控制 以及在你记起你的各种反应的时候， 或者在你指引你的各种反应的时候，去探究发生了什么。 那就是，在观察者和所观之物之间存在着一种分离， 接着，有了划分，因而也就有了冲突 ——我一定不能那么做，我必须那么做，这是对的，那是错的， 我出于自己的动机说这是对的——等等。 因此，当我看到——当存在一种 有划分的观察时，就无可避免地会有冲突 ——外在和心理上都如此，这是个绝对的事实。 当我自称为英国人或者美国人，并且甘愿 ——请你跟上，这整件事情就摆着你面前—— 你甘愿去摧毁数千人， 花费巨额的金钱去做 你的民族自豪感或者什么荒唐说法指示你去做的事。
54:29 So, can this conflict in the human mind, which is your mind, it is not my mind – the human mind, which is in constant travail, constant conflict – we are enquiring whether that conflict can end. It can end only completely when the observer is not, only observation is. Is the thinker different from thought? Look at it. Is the thinker different from the thought which he has created? The thinker says, I am a Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, I am a Democrat, totalitarian – whatever it is. The thinker says that. But the thinker has created the Democrat, the Republican, the left, far left, far right, far centre, and so on – the thinker has done that. And is the thinker different from his thoughts? Oh, come on, sir, this is so simple. Obviously not. But we have divided it. Right? 因此，这种存在于人类心灵之中的冲突能不能 ——也就是你的心灵，它并不是我的心灵，而是人类的心灵， 它处在持续的痛苦、持续的冲突之中—— 我们正在问这种冲突能不能终止。 只有当观察者不存在，只存在观察时，它才能够被彻底地终止。 思想者有别于思想吗？ 请看看这个问题， 思想者是不是——对吗？——有别于他所制造出来的思想？ 思想者说——我是名天主教徒、新教徒、印度教徒， 我是个民主主义者、极权主义者，或者是别的什么， 思想者这么说。 而思想者创造出了——对吗？—— 民主党人、共和党人、 左派、极左派、极右派、中立派，等等， 思想者做了这些。 那么，思想者有别于他的思想吗？ ——哦，拜托，先生，这是如此简单—— 显然没有，但是我们却划分了它，对吗？
56:02 So look at another question: is the experiencer different from experience? Ah, this is, now you – I am glad. Now you are caught! We all want experiences: going to the moon, experience of God, experience of a dozen kinds – of sex, experience of going to the Himalayas and climbing the Everest – you follow? – experiences. Now we are asking, is the experiencer different from his experience? Experiencer must recognise the experience. Right? Right? Otherwise it is not an experience. You follow all this? Am I talking some strange language? I experience – what? – a motor accident, I have an experience in an accident in a car, and that is recorded as pleasant, unpleasant, as hurt, and so on, the expense of it, and so on, that is recorded. Right? The experience of that thing is remembered, and that experience is a memory which is different from that which has happened last year. Right? So the observer is that experience of last year. Right? Oh, come on, sir. And that experiencer either wants to avoid future incidents of that kind, or if he is prone to accidents, he’s inviting them. We are asking, is the experiencer different from the experience? Of course not. 因此，看看另一个问题：经验者有别于经验吗？ 啊，就是这个，现在你……我很高兴引起了你的注意！ 我们都想要各种经验：登陆月球， 体验上帝，一打子的经验—— 性经验，登上喜马拉雅山和攀登珠穆朗玛峰的经验， ——你跟上了吗？——各种经验。 现在，我们问，经验者有别于他的经验吗？ 经验者必须辨认出经验，对吗？ 对吗？否则它就不是一个经验。 这些你都跟上了吗？ 我在说什么奇怪的语言吗？ 比如我遭遇了——说什么好呢——一次车祸吧， 我坐在车里，然后经历了一次车祸， 而这被记录为开心的、不开心的，记录为受伤，等等， 它的代价，等等，这些都被记录下来，对吗？ 这件事的经验被记住了， 而这个经验变成了一个记忆，这个记忆有别于 去年所发生的那个经验。对吗？ 因此，观察者也就是去年的那个经验，对吗？ 哦，拜托，先生。 而这个经验者要么想避开将来发生这样的事件， 或者，如果他易于发生事故的话，他就会招来它们。 我们问，经验者是不是有别于经验？ 当然不是。
58:56 I have invented God, and I am going to experience that marvellous state. Right? I have visions of – if I you are a Christian, the Virgin Mary, if I was a Buddhist, I would have an experience of various types of Buddhist consciousness, or if I’m a Hindu – you follow? Being conditioned to a particular tradition, which is the past, I experience that. Oh, come on, sir. I have projected that and I experience that. ——我发明出了上帝， 我将会体验到那种不可思议的境界，对吗？ 我会看到——如果我像你一样是个基督徒的话——圣母玛利亚， 如果我是个佛教徒，我也会有某种体验 ——体验到各类佛教意识， 或者我是个印度教徒，我也会有体验——你明白吗？ 我受限于一种特定的传统 ——也就是过去，我体验了这种传统——哦，恳请你，先生—— 我将它作了投射，并且体验了它。
59:44 So the experiencer is the experience. And if there is no experience, what is the state of mind? Do you understand all these questions? We are all wanting experiences, and when one actually goes into it very, very deeply, experience, we hope, will bring about more knowledge, more clarity, more this and more that, but the experiencer is the experience, therefore the mind is no longer seeking any experience. Only such a mind is absolutely clear, it requires no challenge. That’s a different thing. 因此，经验者就是经验， 而如果没有经验，那么心灵又处于什么样的状态呢？ 你了解这所有的问题吗？ 我们都想要各种经验， 并且当我们真正非常、非常深入地去探究时 ——我们都希望经验会带给我们更多的知识、 更多的清明，更多的这个，更多的那个—— 就会发现经验者就是经验， 因此，心灵就不再寻求任何经验。 只有这样的心灵才是绝对清晰的，它不需要任何的挑战， 这是截然不同的。
1:00:55 So, is there pure observation of the movement of the self? Because in that the self is not different from the observer, there is only observation, without the past accumulated memories interfering with observation. When the past memories and accumulated knowledge interfere, then there is wastage of energy. I don’t know if you are following all this. Wastage of energy in conflict, in denying, in suppressing, in arguing why should I, rationalising the whole business, which is a form of conflict. Now, that’s a wastage of energy. Whereas when there is observation without the past, all energy is brought into being, all energy comes in that observation, which dispels that which is observed. It’s up to you, I’ve said it in ten different ways. So there is no conflict with the self, or denial of the self, or suppression of the self. It is clarity of observation, which is the greatest form of intelligence. 因此，是否存在对自我活动的纯粹观察呢？ 因为，在这样的观察中，自我无异于观察者， 只存在观察， 没有过去累积的记忆去干涉这份观察。 当过去的记忆和累积的知识作干预时， 就会有能量的浪费。 我不知道这些你是不是都明白了。 能量浪费在冲突之中、拒绝之中、压抑之中， 浪费在争论为什么我应该如何，浪费在合理化所有的事 ——这也是一种冲突。 那么，这是种能量的浪费， 然而，当观察而不带上过去的时候， 就会带来所有的能量， 所有的能量都会聚集到这份观察里，这会消融掉所观之物。 这就要看你自己了，我已经用了十种不同的方式讲过了。 因此，就没有了与自我的冲突，没有了对自我的否定， 也没有了对自我的压抑， 这是清明的观察——它是最高形式的智慧。
1:02:41 What time is it? Good lord, there are about nine questions – I’ve only answered two questions. 几点了？ 天哪，大概有九个问题， 我只回答了两个。
1:03:02 Third Question: 'How does one not become a victim while not becoming a predator?' 第三个问题：我们要如何不沦为一名受害者 同时又不去成为一名掠夺者呢？
1:03:08 'How does one not become a victim while not becoming a predator?' 我们要如何不沦为一名受害者，同时又不去成为一名掠夺者呢？
1:03:14 That is, how does one stop exploiting without being exploited? Right? It’s the same question, isn’t it? I don’t want to exploit you, but you are exploiting me. You actually are. You follow? It is the same – very interesting, this question. 也就是说，我们要如何停止剥削他人同时也不被他人剥削？对吗？ 这是同一个问题，不是吗？ 我并不想剥削你，而你却要剥削我， 你们事实上就是如此。你跟上了吗？ 这同样是个非常有趣的问题。
1:03:53 How do I – no – the unconditioning of the mind doesn’t become another form of conditioning. You have understood? There is a movement away from this trap, and not be caught in another trap. I am a Hindu, I say it’s absurd and become a Catholic. Or I am a Catholic and say, what silly stuff and I join Hinduism or Buddhism, or become a Muslim. It is the same phenomena – you understand? So one has to enquire, what is freedom? 我要如何——不对—— 消除心灵的局限不会变成另一种局限。 你了解吗？ 我脱离——有一种脱离这个陷阱的运动， 但同时又不掉进另一个陷阱。 我是个印度教徒，我觉得这很荒谬，然后我就变成了一名天主教徒， 或者，我是名天主教徒，说，“多愚蠢的事”， 然后加入了印度教或者佛教，或者成了一名穆斯林。 这是同一种现象——你了解吗？—— 因此，我们必须问，什么是自由？
1:04:59 Does one realise one is caught in a trap? That is, the same repetitive movement, which the computer is doing, it is repeating much more rapidly, more quickly, more intelligently, more alive, quick, programmed. And we are also programmed to be a Catholic, to be a Protestant, to be a Hindu, to be a Buddhist – you follow? – to be a Democrat, to be right, left – we are also programmed, don’t let’s fool ourselves. Therefore we are repeating, repeating, repeating. Come on, sirs, what are you waiting… And the questioner asks: is it possible to be free from conditioning – the predator and the victim – and yet not fall into another form of conditioning? Am I being fair to the question? Of course. You agree? 我们有没有意识到我们掉进了陷阱里呢？ 这也就是，反复的同一种运动 ——这是计算机在做的，计算机重复得快速得多， 更迅速、更智能、更有效、更快捷、程序化， 而我们也被程序化为一名天主教徒、一名新教徒、 一名印度教徒、一名佛教徒——你跟上了吗—— 一名民主党人——右派、左派、右派—— 我们也被设定了程序，我们不要欺骗自己。 因此，我们一直在反复，反复，反复。 对吗？拜托，先生们，你们在等什么？ 提问者问：有没有可能从这种局限中解脱出来 ——掠夺者和受害者—— 而不掉入另一形式的局限中呢？ 我对这个问题理解对了吗？当然，你同意？
1:06:24 So one has to enquire what is freedom? This movement from one corner to the other corner of the field – you understand? – the field is my consciousness, this whole world is my field, and I move from one corner of this field, psychological field, to another corner, and I call that freedom. Or I choose to move south instead of north, and I call that freedom. So I call choice freedom. I am a Democrat, I choose to become a Republican, but it is the same movement. We are silly enough not to see that. So is that freedom? You are following all this? Does choice bring about freedom? Or where there is choice there is no freedom. I may choose to move from Los Angeles to New York, and I can’t do that in the totalitarian state, I have to have permission, special grants and so on. So I feel I am a free man. So at what level, at what depth, or superficial level, do you consider freedom lies? Here in this country you can say what you like, so far. But you cannot say what you like when there is a war. Right? Then we are all united to hate somebody, to kill somebody. 所以我必须，我们必须问一问，什么是“自由”？ 这种从同一领域的一个角落到另一个角落的运动， ——你了解吗？——这个领域就是我的意识， 这整个世界就是我的领域， 而我从这个领域的一个角落——心理上的领域—— 挪到另一个角落，我称这个为“自由”。 或者，我选择去南方，而不是北方——我称这为“自由”。 因此，我把选择称作为自由。 我是一名民主党人，我选择成为一名共和党人， 但这是同一种活动——我们是够愚笨，才没有看到—— 因此，那是自由吗？你跟上了这些吗？ 选择会不会带来自由？ 还是，只要有选择，就不会有自由。 我可以选择从洛杉矶搬到纽约 ——而在极权主义国家，我就不能这么做了， 我必须得到允许，特许等等—— 因此我觉得自己是个自由的人。 那么你认为在什么层面，在什么深度，或者在多浅的层面 自由是存在着的呢？ 在这个国家你可以畅所欲言，至少目前如此。 但是，当战争爆发时，你就无法畅所欲言了，对吗？ 那时，我们就全都联合起来去仇恨他人，去杀害他人。
1:08:37 So what is freedom? Enquire, sir. The question is involved in that. What is freedom? To move from trap to trap to trap? To move from one kind of misery to another kind of misery? I am married, I am bored with my wife, I want a divorce and I go, because I like or love, or whatever word one uses, to another woman, but the same pattern is repeated. And I call that freedom. So is there freedom in this moving in the same area – that area may be wide, or very, very narrow, but it is the same movement. That is not freedom. Right? So what then is freedom? Freedom obviously means to totally be free from the whole content of consciousness. You understand? The problem of one corner is different from another corner, but it’s in the same field, and we separate the problems, but it’s one problem. You understand? I wonder if you see? All problems are interrelated, that’s clear – my sexual problem, my problem of earning a livelihood, my problem of God – it’s all one movement of this everlasting search for something or other, of becoming. So, freedom is the ending of completely becoming something. 因此，什么是“自由”？问问这个问题，先生。 这里面就包含了这个问题：什么是“自由”？ 从一个陷阱掉到另一个陷阱然后再陷进另一个吗？ 从这种不幸陷入另一种不幸吗？ 我结婚了，但我对妻子感到厌倦，我想离婚，我要离开， 因为我喜欢或者爱上了——或者无论你用什么词——另一个女人， 但重演的还是老一套的模式，而我称这为“自由”。 因此，同一领域的活动中是否存在自由 ——这个领域也许很宽广，也许非常狭窄，但这是同一种运动。 这不是自由，对吗？ 那么，什么是自由呢？ 很显然，自由意味着彻底地 从意识的全部内容中解脱出来， ——你了解吗？—— 某个角落的问题有别于另一角落的问题， 但都属于同一个领域， 而我们将问题作了划分，但这是同一个问题。 你了解了吗？我不知道你是不是明白了？ 所有的问题都是密切相关的——这很清楚—— 我性方面的问题、 谋生的问题、上帝的问题， 这是同一个运动——持续不断地追寻 某样东西或者别的什么，以及变成什么。 因此，自由就是“变成什么”的彻底结束。
1:11:22 Is it time to stop? 到结束时间了吗？
1:11:31 Fourth Question: 'What is humility and modesty?' 第四个问题：什么是谦卑和谦恭？
1:11:41 That doesn't exist in this country! Nor in Europe or India. So what is humility? And why have religions all over the world said you must be humble – inherit the land – right? They have, certainly. You understand it? The humble shall inherit the earth. And the empire builders have inherited the earth. I wonder if you see this? No, you don’t. It doesn’t matter. What is humility? Can one ever know, or aware, of oneself being humble? When you know, are aware, realise that you are humble, you are not. Right? And, modesty – are we modest? 这个国家没有这些！ 欧洲或者印度也没有。 那么，什么是“谦卑”？ 为什么世界各处都有宗教说你必须要谦卑， 以继承这片土地——对吗？ 他们的确这么说过——你了解这点吗？ “谦卑者将会继承土地”。 然而，帝国缔造者却继承了土地。 我不知道你是不是明白这点？不，你没有，没关系。 什么是“谦卑”？ 我们究竟能不能知道或者发觉自己是谦卑的？ 当你知道、发觉、意识到你是谦卑的，你就不谦卑了——对吗？ 还有，谦恭，我们谦恭吗？
1:13:19 We were talking the other day to an Indian, in India. He was looking at a magazine printed in this country. It was one of those magazines where you see half-naked ladies. And he said, ‘My god, what has happened? Have they lost all modesty?’ And was horrified, because he has an idea of modesty – that you must be absolutely up to here. You understand all this? So why do we want to be modest or humble? Please ask all these questions. 我们前几天在印度与一个印度人谈话， 他正在看一本这个国家出版的杂志， 是那种你能在其中看到半裸女性的杂志， 然后他说，“天哪，到底怎么了？他们已经丢掉了所有的恭敬心吗？” 他很惊骇，因为他持有谦恭的观念 ——你绝不能容忍那些。 你了解这些吗？ 那么，为什么我们想要变得恭敬或者谦卑？ 请问问这些问题。
1:14:27 When I try to be humble, that is, willing to learn, willing to be told, abnegating myself in front of authority, and hang my head down to the tome to receive something which you are giving me, is that a form of vanity? It’s like a man who is vain – most of us are and out of that vanity we try to be humble. Is that humility? A man who is full of aggression, violence, tries to be modest. You understand? It’s absurd, it’s lost its meaning. Whereas, a man who is aggressive realises, sees, what aggression has done in this world and all the consequences of that aggression, when he ends that aggression, a new thing can begin. The ending – please realise something – the ending of something is the beginning of the new. Right? If I end my vanity, if I have it – I am a big man, I am blah, blah – if I am that and I end it, there is something totally new taking place. But we want to be assured, before we end, that something will happen, guaranteed. Then what you are receiving is not guarantee, it’s the same thing in another form. 当我努力去变得谦卑，也就是乐于学习，虚心接受， 臣服于权威， 并埋首书山，吸收 你传授给我的知识， 这是不是种自负呢？ 这就像一个自负的人——就像我们大多数人那样—— 出于这份自负，我们想变得谦卑。 这是谦卑吗？ 一个充满攻击性、暴力的人，想要变得谦和 ——你明白吗？——这很荒谬，早已丧失了谦和的意义。 但是，如果一个好斗的人 认识到、看到攻击性在这个世界上所造成的一切， 并且看到这种攻击性的所有后果， 那么当他去终结这种攻击性时，崭新的东西就开始了。 终结——请至少有所领悟—— 终结某物也就是新事物的开始。 对吗？ 如果我终结我的自负，如果我自负的话——我是个大人物，我是某某某—— 如果我是这样的，而我终结了它，那么，就会有崭新的东西产生。 但是我们想在终结某事前，就确定会有新东西产生， 要有保证， 但那样的话你所接收到的就根本不是保证， 它还会是老样子，换汤不换药。
1:16:45 Sir, I’d like to come back to our first question. You have heard all this, some many, many times, others perhaps for the first time. Why we human beings, who have lived on this marvellous, lovely earth, destroying it, why we have become what we are, after so many millennia: vulgar, cruel, bestial, self-seeking, jealous, lonely – you follow? – the whole thing. Why don’t we change? Why don’t we end what we are? Why? Is it we are lazy? Is it we are caught in a particular rut, pattern, that we haven’t the energy to change that pattern? We have plenty of energy when we want to do something. When we want to go to the moon we have incredible energy. When we want to be champion of the world as in the Olympics – to run, you have an incredible energy. We have enormous energy when there is an urge, when there is a demand. But apparently there is no urge, there is no demand – why? Is it our food we eat, too much indulgence in sex, in drink, in this and that, too much demand to be entertained? So we are wasting all that extraordinary energy which is part of us in some futile things and therefore no energy to face these things and move, end. Is that it? Please, one can’t tell what the cause of all this – there are many causes. But the explanation of the causes is not the ending of the causes. 先生，我想回到我们最初的那个问题。 你已经听了这一切，有些人已经听过很多很多次了， 另一些人可能是第一次。 为什么我们人类， ——生活在这个非凡的、美妙的地球上，同时又在破坏它—— 在经过数千年之后为什么我们变成了现在这个样子： 粗俗、冷酷、凶暴、自私、善妒、孤独 ——你明白吗？——这全部的东西。 为什么我们没有改变？为什么我们不终结现在的样子？ 为什么？是不是因为我们很懒惰？ 是不是因为我们都陷在了某种特定的惯例和模式里， 以至于我们没有精力去改变这种模式呢？ 当我们想做某件事时，我们就会有很多的精力。 当我们想登陆月球时，我们就拥有了难以置信的能量； 当我们想成为奥运会冠军时 ——比如赛跑——你就会拥有惊人的能量。 当有一个强烈的愿望，有一种需求时，我们就会拥有巨大的能量， 但很显然我们并没有强烈的愿望，也没有这种需求，为什么？ 是不是因为我们吃的食物，太多地沉溺于性、 沉溺于酒精，沉溺于这个或那个，太渴望娱乐了？ 因此我们把所有这些非凡的能量 ——这些能量是我们的一部分——浪费在了一些无意义的事情上， 因此就没有能量去面对这些事，去行动并且终结它了。 是不是这样？ 恳请你，我可以告诉你这一切的根源是什么，有许多的根源， 但是，对这些根源的解释并不能终结它们。
1:19:36 So why is it, after so many, many years and thousands upon thousands of years we are what we are? So that’s for you to answer. 那么，为什么 经过了这么多年，成千上万年之后， 我们依然是现在的这个样子？ 所以这要留给你去回答。
1:20:08 May I get up now? 我现在可以起身了吗？