克里希那穆提 - 战争只是一种“症状”

Krishnamurti Subtitles

OJ83T2 - 战争只是一种“症状” 第二次公开演讲美国，欧亥 1983年5月15日
0:33 Shall we wait for a few minutes or go on? People are coming in. Shall we wait?	0:33 克里希那穆提（以下简称“克”）：我们是要等个几分钟，还是直接开讲？因为还有人正在进来。我们要等等他们吗？
2:06 May we go on with what we were talking about yesterday and continue with it. It’s a lovely morning and I’m glad we have such a nice day.	2:06 我们可以接着我们昨天所讲的东西…… 继续讲下去吗？这是一个令人愉快的早晨，我很高兴我们能拥有如此美好的一天。
2:26 We were talking, weren’t we, about the general chaos in the world, not only in society and the divisions that religions are creating throughout the world, the threat of war, and the general chaos, and we were asking who is responsible for all this mess. And we were saying, weren’t we, that thought, which has so extraordinarily evolved technologically, but psychologically, inwardly, we are still very, very primitive. And this primitivism – if there is such a word, I doubt it – is creating this misery and confusion. And from there we talked about relationship. How without relationship there would be no humanity, without relationship there would be no existence at all. 4:14 Relationship, we said, was one of the most important things in life. And that relationship is generally, with most people, based on remembrance and things past. And we went into it somewhat in detail yesterday morning; I don’t think it would be necessary to go over it again. Remembrance and pleasure, we said, is not love. Desire to achieve, to become something, denies that perfume which we call love. That’s where we stopped yesterday, and we briefly talked about peace.	2:26 我们之前谈论了存在于这个世界的普遍混乱，是吧？不仅仅是社会中的混乱，也包括宗教所制造出来的、遍及世界的分裂，我们还谈论了战争的威胁，以及无处不在的混乱，然后我们问：谁应该对所有这些混乱负责呢？然后我们说了：是「思想」……对吧？我们的思想在科学技术领域已经有了如此惊人的进化，然而在心理上、在内心，我们仍然是非常非常原始的。而这种“原始主义” ——如果存在这个词的话，虽然我怀疑这一点—— 它正在制造出这种苦难与混乱。然后我们由此又讨论了「关系」。讨论了没有「关系」将如何导致人性的缺失，没有了「关系」，我们也就完全失去了「存在」。 4:14 我们说了：「关系」是生命中最为重要的东西之一。而对于绝大多数人来说，这种「关系」通常都是建立在回忆和过去的事物之上的。而昨天早上，我们也多多少少深入了一下相关的细节；但我认为在这里就不需要再复述一遍了。我们说了：回忆和快感，它们并不是「爱」。渴望获得成功，渴望成为某号人物，它否定了那种「芬芳」 ——也就是我们所说的「爱」。我们昨天就讲到了这里，然后我们还简要地探讨了一下「和平」。
5:23 Man has evolved probably a million years or less or more biologically, and man has always been crying for peace on earth; pacem in terris, the old Latin phrase. And apparently there is no peace in the world; without peace we cannot possibly flower. We can possibly, not evolve, but see the extraordinary depth of life, the beauty of it, the immensity of all living things. One must have peace. And that peace is denied wherever there is poverty. In this country, there is a great deal of poverty too, though this society is affluent. 6:41 As you go further east, poverty increases: Africa, Middle East, and India and so on. Where there is poverty, which no special nationalistic government can ever solve, because it’s a global problem; a problem of the whole world, not of a particular government, whether it is totalitarian, Marxist, or so-called democratic. And poverty, not only outwardly – if you have lived in a country where there is immense poverty, you see the effect of it: the degradation, the utter slavery of it, the brutality. 7:57 We have lived through all of it. And this poverty, not only of the mind, and the poverty of the mind is not enriched through books, through institutions and organisations and foundations or forums – that mind is enriched when one understands the whole existence of oneself and one’s relationship to the world at large.	5:23 从生物学上来说，人类已经进化了大概有一百万年左右了，然而人类却一直在呼求着地球的和平； “和平于世” ——这是个古老的拉丁文短语。但很显然，这个世界上并没有和平；而没有和平，我们就不可能开花绽放。我们就不可能……不是不可能“进化”，而是不可能看到生命非凡的深度，不可能看到生命之美，以及万物生灵的浩瀚无限。我们必须要拥有和平才行。而当有了贫穷，这种和平就会被否定。在这个国家（美国）里，同样也有着巨大的贫穷 ——尽管这个社会很富裕。 6:41 而当你一直往东走，你会发现贫穷增加了：非洲、中东地区，还有印度，等等。而当有了贫穷问题，没有哪个国家的政府可以解决它，因为它是一个全球性的问题；是一个全世界的问题，而不是某国政府的问题，不管是极权主义政府、马克思主义的政府，还是所谓的“民主政府”。而贫穷，它不只是外在的贫困 ——如果你曾经在一个无比贫穷的国家生活过，你就会看到贫穷所造成的影响：那些堕落侮辱、完全彻底的奴役、野蛮残忍。 7:57 我们已经历过了所有这一切。而这种贫穷 ——它不仅仅是心灵上的贫乏心灵上的贫乏是无法通过书本来充实的，也无法通过团体、组织、基金会或论坛来解决 ——要让心灵充实富足，我们需要了解自己的全部存在，以及我们自己与整个世界的关系。
8:47 And religions have not encouraged or brought about peace in the world. They talk a great deal – all the Christian world talks about pacem in terris, peace in the world – but religions have divided man. There are the Catholics, the Protestants; I don’t know how many religious groups there are in this little village, probably dozens of them, institutions and foundations, each trying to tell the other fellows what to do or inform them. Religions have prevented peace, they have had wars – ‘Hundred Years’ War in Europe, torture; all the brutality of this particular culture based on certain religious concepts, dogmas and beliefs. 10:01 And religions throughout the world, in India and Far East and Near East, have prevented man from right relationship with humanity. These are all facts. There has been 5,000 years of war. This is historically stated, and we are still going on with wars, killing each other – perhaps in the beginning with a club, now you evaporate man, vaporise man by the million. We have not psychologically evolved, inwardly. And as long as we are primitive psychologically, our society will be equally primitive.	8:47 各种宗教并没有鼓励或带来这个世界的和平。虽然它们会高谈阔论 ——所有的基督教世界都在谈论“和平于世”、谈论世界和平—— 然而宗教却已经分裂了人类。我们有着天主教徒和新教徒；我不知道在这个小村庄里有多少宗教团体，可能也有数十个吧，各种机构团体和基金会，每一个都在试图告诉其他人该怎么做，或者告知别人一些讯息。宗教已经阻碍了和平，它们曾经带来了战争 ——发生在欧洲的“百年战争”，那种酷刑折磨，以及这种特定文化的所有残忍 ——这种文化是建立在某种宗教理念、教条和信仰之上的。 10:01 而遍及世界的宗教——不管是印度的宗教、还是远东地区和近东地区的宗教，它们都阻碍了人类拥有那种人道主义的正确关系。这些全都是事实。人类已经经历过了5000年的战争。这都是有历史记载的，而我们如今仍旧在继续着战争，继续自相残杀 ——也许最开始的时候，我们是用棍棒打仗，而现在，你们的武器可以让上百万人一下子人间蒸发。所以在心理上、在内心，我们并没有什么进化。而只要我们在心理上仍旧很原始，我们的社会也将会是很原始的。
11:20 And can there be peace on this earth? This is a very, very serious question. Not only in oneself to live peacefully, without conflict, is that at all possible? Or man is condemned forever to live in conflict. Is that bothering you? The aeroplane?	11:20 那么这个地球上可能有和平吗？这是一个非常非常严肃的问题。不只是我个人的和平 ——我能够毫无冲突地、平静安宁地生活，而是地球的和平究竟可不可能？还是说人类已被定罪，要永远地活在冲突之中？这个声音有没有打扰到你们？飞机的噪音？提问者：没有。
12:07 Q: No.	12:07 克：那就好。
12:12 K: All right.	12:12 克：人类是不是被永久地定罪了，注定要活在冲突与战争之中呢？
12:17 K: Is man forever condemned to live in conflict, in wars? Or is there a way out of all this? Certainly not through religions, as they are; not through political organisation, whether it is democratic or totalitarian or Marxist. Nor through divisions of nationalities. As long as you remain an American, and the speaker remains a Hindu or a Buddhist or Muslim, we’ll have no peace on earth. Nor the racial divisions, as the Jew, the Arab, and the Hindu, and so on. Nor culturally. So it’s a very important question to ask of ourselves; not of another, not whether governments can bring about peace. Governments are created by what we are. They have been structured, put together by our own demands.	12:17 还是说有一条出路可以挣脱所有这一切？毫无疑问，这条出路肯定不是如今这样子的宗教、也不是政治组织—— 不管它是民主政治组织、还是极权主义政治组织，或者马克思主义政治组织。这条出路也不会是各个国家的割裂独立。只要你还是一个“美国人”，而演讲者还是一个印度教徒，或者佛教徒或者穆斯林，那我们就不可能拥有地球上的和平。而种族的划分同样也不是出路 ——将人类划分为犹太人、阿拉伯人、印度人等等。文化艺术也不是出路。所以这是一个我们需要问问自己的、非常重要的问题；不是去问别人，不是去问政府是否能够带来和平。我们现在的模样造就了我们的“政府”。 “政府”是经由我们自己的需求而被构建和组织起来的。
13:51 So, one asks, is it possible to have peace on this earth? This has been a cry for centuries; long before Christianity came into being. 2,500 years ago the Buddha was talking about peace. And we are still talking about it. And so realising all this, what is one to do? Individuals, so-called individual effort to live in peace doesn’t affect the whole world. You may live peacefully in this lovely valley, quietly, not too ambitious, not too corrupt, not too competitive; and live here quietly. Perhaps get on with your wife or your husband, but will that affect the whole of human consciousness? 15:27 Or, the problem is much greater, much more profound. To find that out, if we are at all serious… and please, if one may remind you, this is not an entertainment, this is far too serious. We have to think together; not the speaker thinks and explains and describes, but together like two old friends, sitting under the shade of the trees, and talking about all this, not merely intellectually, but their hearts are disturbed. They are greatly concerned about what is happening in the world and what is happening to themselves. 16:49 Like two old friends who have an amiable conversation; not convincing one or the other, not stimulating one or the other; not sticking to one’s opinions and judgements and conclusions; two old friends who have lived together, walked together, seen many things of the world. You and the speaker are like that; so that we can think together, not what to think, or how to think, but think, observe together; observe the same tree, the skies, the birds, and the astonishing beauty of the mountains. And so together, actually together, not you listen to the speaker, but together explore into this question; the question being – one puts to the other – can we live, not only you and I, but the rest of humanity? 18:36 Because this earth is ours, not the American or the Irish or the English or the French, it’s our earth. We are its guests. We have to live here peacefully.	13:51 所以某人（指克氏自己）要问了：我们是否可能拥有地球上的和平呢？这也是人类世世代代以来的呼声；在基督教诞生很久之前，在2500年前，佛陀就在谈论「和平」了。而如今我们仍然在谈论它。所以，在意识到了所有这些以后，我们该怎么做呢？而个体……所谓的“个体”的平静生活的努力，它并不能影响整个世界。你也许可以平静地、安宁地生活在这个可爱迷人的山谷中，没有很大的野心、没有腐败堕落、也没有什么好胜心，只是安静地生活在这里。你可能与你的妻子或丈夫相处融洽，但这能够影响整个人类意识吗？ 15:27 还是说，这个问题是远远更为重大、更为深刻的？去搞清楚这一点 ——如果我们真的很认真的话请注意，如果允许我提醒下你们的话：这并不是一次娱乐活动，它要严肃得多。我们必须要一起思考；不是演讲者思考，然后向你们解释与描述，而是我们一起就像两个老朋友一样，坐在树荫下面，然后讨论着所有这些东西，不仅仅是思想智力上的讨论，他们的内心也会被触动。他们无比地关心担忧这个世界上正在发生的事，以及他们自己身上正在发生的事情。 16:49 就像两个老朋友那样进行一场愉快友好的交谈；不是要去说服对方，不是要去刺激对方，也不是要坚持自己的观点、判断和结论；而是像两个老朋友那样，他们一起生活，他们一起散步，他们看遍了世间百态，阅尽了人间。你和演讲者也要像两个老朋友那样，这样的话，我们便可以一起去思考 ——不是去思考什么，或者如何去思考，而是一起去思考、去观察；去欣赏同一棵树、同一片蓝天、同一群小鸟，以及那些高山的惊人的美。如果我们能这样子一起去……真正的一起去不是你听演讲者说，而是我们一起去深入探索这个问题：这个问题就是 ——我们正在向对方提出这个问题—— 我们是否能够…… ——不只是你和我，也包括其他所有的人 18:36 因为这个地球是属于我们大家的，而不是属于美国人、爱尔兰人、英国人或者法国人的，它是我们所有人的地球。我们只是这个地球上的客人。所以我们必须要和平地生活在地球上。
19:00 And the one says to the other: what is the cause of all this? If one can find the cause, then the effect can end, the symptom. War is a symptom. The cause is very, very deep, complex. As when you can find the cause of a disease, that disease can be cured. So the two friends – I hope we are friends talking over together – two friends say: what is the cause of all this? Why have human beings become like this? So thoughtless, only concerned with themselves, and nothing matters except their own desires, their own urges, their own impulse, their own ambition, their own success; whether the success be in business world or in the professorial world. 20:41 And also psychologically, inwardly, we want to be somebody, become somebody. So please, one says to the other, do listen carefully what I am telling you. Is there psychological evolution at all? That’s a very, very serious question. That is: is there a becoming at all, psychologically? And that becoming, inwardly achieving, from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’, from misery to some form of happiness, from confusion to enlightenment, which is to become – from that ‘which is’ to ‘what should be’; that is becoming.	19:00 而我们中的一个会对另一个人说：造成所有这一切的原因是什么？如果我们可以找到那个原因，那么它的结果就可以终止，它的症状就会消失。「战争」就是它的症状。而那个原因是非常、非常深刻与复杂的。当你能够找到疾病的原因，那么那个疾病就可以被治愈了。所以这两位朋友 ——我希望我们就是这两位正在一起交谈的朋友—— 这两位朋友说：所有这一切的原因是什么呢？为什么人类会变成现在这个样子？如此的不关心他人，只关心他们自己，除了他们自己的渴望、他们自己的欲望、冲动、野心、成功，其他任何事情都是无关紧要的；无论那种成功是在商界获得成功、还是在学术界获得成功。 20:41 同样的，在心理上、在内心层面，我们想要成为某号人物，变成某种人。所以拜托了，某人对另一个人说：请务必小心仔细地聆听我正在告诉你的东西。究竟是否存在 “心理上的进化”呢？这是一个非常、非常严肃的问题。换句话说：究竟是否存在 “心理上的成为”？而那种“成为”——也就是内心层面的“达到”，从“我当前的模样”变成“我应该有的模样”，从「痛苦不堪」变成了某种「幸福快乐」，从「混乱困惑」变成了「开悟觉醒」，这就是“成为” ——从“实际的模样”变成了“应该有的模样”；这就是「成为」。
22:11 That becoming implies time. And this becoming, each one trying to become psychologically something, may be the same movement as physically to become from a clerk to whatever it is – bishop. No – local priest to become a bishop; like a clerk to become an executive. It’s the same movement, the same wave, brought over to the psychological realm. I hope – the friend is asking the other – I hope I am making myself clear. He says, you are not quite clear. Go into it a little bit more.	22:11 这种「成为」就暗示了「时间」。而这种「成为」 ——每一个人都试图在心理上去成为某种样子—— 这种「成为」也许和外在物理上的“成为”是同一种运动，也就是从一名职员变成…… 无论什么东西——变成主教。说错了——从本地的牧师变成一名主教；从职员变成一名主管。而同样的这种运动、同样的浪潮，它延伸扩展到了心理的领域。而我希望…… ——就像一个朋友在询问另一个朋友—— 我希望我已经把自己的意思表达清楚了。而他说：你还没有说得很清楚。请再稍微深入一下它吧。
23:29 In all religions and psychological world, the idea of change is to become. Right? I am confused, I must change this confusion to become clear. I quarrel with my wife, but the change to stop that, or to end that quarrel, is to move from the violence to non-violence. That is: there is always the attempt to be something that which is not. Right? So the friend says that’s fairly clear; fairly, not too clear. But we’ll go on with our conversation; it’s a lovely morning, we have plenty of time, the sun is warm, and the shadows are many. 24:59 And the shadows matter as much as the sun. There is great beauty in the shadows; but most of us are concerned with light, enlightenment, and we want to achieve that. This very psychological achievement may be one of the factors of conflict in life. So – my friend says – let’s examine that fact. What is it to become? I hope my friend is very interested – and I hope you are too – in listening to this conversation, which is you and the speaker. You and the speaker. There’s no friend outside you and the speaker. So, he says: is that the fundamental cause of division? 26:30 Division must exist, the other explains, as long as there is the psyche, the self, the ‘me’, the ego, the person, is separating himself from the other. But the other says, this has been a long history, this is what the human condition is, that we have been trained, educated to accept both religiously and economically and so on that we are individuals, separate from the rest of mankind, separate from another. And the friend says, is that so? Are we really individuals? I know this is the tradition, this is what all religions have said – separate souls in Christianity, and the Hindus, and so on. 28:00 But together, you as the friend and the speaker as the other, are going to examine whether we are really individuals at all. Be patient, please. See all the implications of it before you deny or accept. Now you accept it; it’s your condition, as an individual, free to do what you want to do. And the totalitarian denies this; they say you are just a cog in the whole social structure.	23:29 在所有的宗教领域和心理的领域，那种“改变”的想法就是去「成为」。对吧？我感到混乱困惑，所以我必须将这种「混乱困惑」变成「清晰明了」。我和我的妻子争吵，而「改变」就是停止争吵，或者结束这场吵架，也就是从「暴力」变成「非暴力」。换句话说：我们总是在努力成为并不符合我们“实际模样”的人。对吧？于是我的朋友就说了，这样的解释还算清楚 ——是“还算”清楚，而不是很清楚。所以我们还会继续我们的交谈；这是一个美好的早晨，我们有着大把的时间，阳光很温暖，四下遍布阴影， 24:59 而阳光与阴影，这两者是同等重要的。在阴影之中也有着巨大的美；然而我们大多数人关心的是光明、开悟，我们想要达到它。而这种心理上的“达到”本身，或许就是导致生活中冲突的因素之一。所以——我的朋友对我说—— 让我们来检视一下这个事实。什么是「成为」呢？我希望我的朋友对此很感兴趣 ——我希望你们也能有兴趣—— 有兴趣聆听这次谈话，它就是你和演讲者是你和演讲者之间的谈话。除了你和演讲者，并没有其他“朋友”。所以，他说：这是否就是导致分裂的根本原因？ 26:30 而另一个人解释说：只要还是存在着“灵魂”的概念、存在着我自己、 “我”、自我、以及那个与他人分离的人，那「分裂」就必定会存在。但另一个人会说：这种观念历史悠久，这是人类一直以来的局限：那就是我们被培养着、教育着去接受这一点 ——宗教上的、经济上的教育等等—— 即：我们都是“独立个体”，我们和其他所有的人是分离的，我们是有别于他人的。于是那位朋友说：是这样的吗？我们真的是“个体”吗？我知道这是「传统」的看法，这就是所有宗教所说的东西 ——基督教中的“独立灵魂”的概念，而印度教徒也是这么认为的，等等。 28:00 而我们要一起——你就是那位朋友，而演讲者就是另一位—— 我们要一起去检视我们究竟是不是真正的“个体”。请你们多一点耐心。在你否定或者同意之前，去看清它所有的暗示意义。现在你已经接受认可了这一点（自己是个体），这也是你的局限性，作为个体，你可以自由地去做你想要做的事。而极权主义者则否定了这一点；他们说你只是整个社会机器结构中的一个齿轮。
28:57 So we are questioning; not only the psychological becoming may be an illusion, and also psychologically we are not separate; because you suffer, you are confused, you are unhappy, you are anxious, uncertain, insecure; you may have security outwardly – even that is becoming more and more uncertain. There are millions unemployed in this country, and in England. Four million people are unemployed in England, a small country. And the unemployment in India is something they don’t know. This unemployment is causing great misery, unhappiness, and conflict, hate.	28:57 而我们正在质疑，我们觉得不仅仅那种“心理上的成为” 可能是一个错觉，同样的，在心理层面，我们也并非是彼此分离的；因为你会痛苦、你会困惑、你会不开心、你会焦虑，感到不确定、不安全；虽然你也许有着外在物质上的安全 ——但即使这种安全也正在变得越来越不确定。在这个国家（美国）里，有着数百万失业的人，在英国也一样。英国有四百万人找不到工作 ——在英国这样一个小国家里。而印度人的失业情况，人们甚至都无从知晓。失业问题正在导致巨大的苦难、忧愁、冲突与仇恨。
30:23 So we are questioning together – you and the other friend are questioning whether we are individuals at all. Or, we are like the rest of humanity; the rest of humanity is unhappy, sorrow-ridden, fearful, believing in some fantastic romantic nonsense; they go through great suffering, uncertainty, like you. And our reaction, which is part of our consciousness, is similar to the other. This is an absolute fact. 31:36 You may not like to think about it, you might like to think that you are totally separate from another, which is quite absurd. So your consciousness, which is you – what you think, what you believe, what your conclusions, prejudices, your vanity, arrogance, aggression, pain, grief, sorrow – is shared by all humanity. That’s our conditioning, whether you are a Catholic or a Protestant or whatever you are.	30:23 所以我们正在一起质疑 ——你和你的朋友正在质疑这一点，那就是：我们究竟是不是“个体”？还是说，我们和其他所有的人是类似的；其他人会不开心、无比悲伤、恐惧，信仰某种不切实际的浪漫幻想；他们也会像你一样感到巨大的痛苦与不确定。而我们的反应 ——我们的反应也是我们「意识」的一部分—— 它和其他人的反应是类似的。这是一个毋庸置疑的事实。 31:36 你或许不喜欢这种想法，你也许喜欢认为自己是有别于他人、完全独立的 ——这是相当荒谬的想法。所以你的意识——你的意识就是「你」—— 你所想的东西、你所信仰的东西，你的各种结论、偏见，你的虚荣自负、傲慢自大，你的好斗性、痛苦、悲伤、苦难—— 所有这些东西是全人类所共有的。这就是我们的局限，不管是你是天主教徒、还是新教徒，还是别的什么东西。
32:35 So, our consciousness is your essence, what your life is. That is the truth. And so you actually share the rest of humanity; you are the rest of humanity. You are humanity. This is a tremendous thing to realise. You may believe in a certain form of a saviour and the other believe in certain form of ideologies and so on; belief is common to all of us; fear is common to all of us; loneliness, the agony of loneliness is shared by the rest of humanity. So when one realises the truth of that, becoming – that is, to change from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’ – has a totally different meaning. The friend says, I don’t understand that at all. 34:22 What do you mean by that? The friend says, I don’t quite know, but let's examine it. I hope you are all following all this; because it’s your life, not mine. It’s your daily life – whether you live in this valley, New York or other big cities, all the cities of the world – it’s our life. We have to understand that, not from another, but to examine the facts of our life; to look at ourselves as you look at yourself when you comb your hair or shaving, objectively, sanely, rationally, without any distortion, seeing things as they are, and not be frightened or ashamed; but to observe.	32:35 所以我们的意识就是你的本质、就是你的生活。事实就是如此。所以你实际上与其他所有人是一体的你就是所有其他人。你就是整个人类。意识到这一点是意义重大的。你也许相信某一类的“救世主”，而另一个人则相信某种意识形态，等等；「信仰」是我们所有人共有的东西；「恐惧」是我们所有人共有的东西；你的孤独、以及孤独带来的极度痛苦，其他所有的人也会有。所以，当我们意识到了这个真相，那时关于「成为」 ——「成为」就是从“实际模样” 变成“我应该怎么样”—— 它（成为）就会有一种完全不同的意义了。 34:22 但我的朋友说：我完全无法理解这一点。你这话是什么意思？我的朋友说：我不是很明白，但还是让我们来检视一下它吧。我希望你们都跟上了所有这些；因为这是你的生活，而不是我的生活。它是你的日常生活 ——不管你是生活在这个山谷里、生活在纽约还是其他大城市，还是世界上的任何城市 ——这是我们的生活。所以我们必须要了解它 ——不是从别人那里了解它，而是要去检视关于我们生活的事实真相；去观察我们自己 ——就像你在梳头发或刮胡子时那样看你自己，客观地、清醒地、理性地，没有任何扭曲地看你自己，如实地看到你自己的模样，不要感到害怕或羞愧，而只是去观察。
35:54 So the friend says, all my life I have tried to change from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’. I know violence, disorder, I’ve known all that very well. And that disorder and violence, I’ve tried to change; that is, to become from violence to non-violence, from disorder to order. Now is there – the other friend says – is there… The fly likes me. The other friend says, is non-violence a fact? Or just an imaginary conclusion, a reaction from the fact of violence? I hope we understand each other. 37:33 I am violent; I project the idea of non-violence, because that’s part of my conditioning. I have lived in disorder and I try to seek order; that is, to change ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’. That’s part of becoming. And that may be the cause of conflict. And so let’s examine that carefully. You’re examining it, not the speaker is examining it. One must constantly remember that. And the speaker will constantly remind his friend that it’s not a one-sided conversation; it’s not one-sided communication. 38:48 We are both of us friends, you and the speaker are observing all this. The speaker is expressing it in words, but you are also observing it, not only the words but the fact. So the friend says, can this violence end? Not become non-violent. Can envy, greed, fear end? Not become courageous, free from this or that. That’s the question. So the other friend says, I’ll show it to you. Only perhaps this may be new to you, so please kindly listen most attentively.	35:54 于是我的这位朋友说：我终其一生试图去改变，从“实际模样”变成“我应该怎么样”。我知道我自己的暴力与混乱，我非常清楚所有这些。于是我试图去改变这种混乱与暴力；换句话说就是：从「暴力」变成「非暴力」，从「混乱」变成「秩序」。然而是否存在……——另一个人说：是否存在看起来这只苍蝇很喜欢我。另一位朋友说：「非暴力」是一个事实吗？还是说它只是一个你想象中的结论，只是一种针对于「暴力」这个事实而产生的反应？我希望我们已经理解了对方的意思。 37:33 我是暴力的，于是我投射出了那种“非暴力”的理念，因为这是我的「局限」的一部分。我生活在混乱之中，于是我努力去寻求秩序；也就是说，我想从“现有实际的模样” 转变为“我应该是什么样的”。这就是「成为」的一部分。而这或许就是导致冲突的原因。所以让我们小心仔细地来检视一下它。是你在检视它，而不是演讲者在检视它。我们必须始终牢记这一点。而演讲者也会持续不断地提醒他的朋友，那就是：这并不是一次单方面的谈话；它并不是单方面的交流。 38:48 我们俩是朋友，你和演讲者正在观察所有这一切。演讲者正在用语言文字把它表达出来，但你也正在观察它，不只是观察词语文字，而是观察这个事实。因此那位朋友说：这种暴力可以结束吗？不是去变成“非暴力”的。而是嫉妒、贪婪、恐惧……它们可以终止吗？不是去变得勇敢无畏，挣脱这个或那个。就是这个问题。于是另一位朋友说：让我来告诉你吧。只不过它也许对你来说是全新的东西，所以请你用心听好了。
39:57 First realise what we are doing; that is: ‘what is’ to become the ideal, which is ‘what should be’. The ideal is non-existent, is non-fact. But ‘what is’ is a fact. Right? So let’s understand ‘what is’ and not the idea of non-violence, which is absurd. This has been preached by various people in India, beginning with Tolstoy and others. This is our tradition, this is our conditioning; this is our attempt to become something. 40:55 And we have never achieved anything. We have never become non-violent. Never. So let’s examine carefully whether it is possible to end that ‘which is’, to end that disorder or violence. End, not become something. I hope we understand each other. The becoming implies time. This is very important to understand. When we talk about fear, which shall presently, we’ll go into the question of time, which is extraordinarily complex.	39:57 首先要明白我们在说的事情；那就是：从“实际模样”变成理想模样 ——也就是“应该要怎么样”。然而那个“理想”是不存在的东西。它并非事实。 “实际模样”才是事实。对吧？所以让我们来了解一下“实际模样”，而不是去研究“非暴力”的理念 ——这种理念是荒谬的。印度各类人士一直在宣扬这一理念，从托尔斯泰等人开始。这就是我们的传统，这就是我们的局限，我们努力去 “变成”什么。 40:55 但我们却从未实现过任何事情。我们从来没有变得“非暴力”。从来没有。所以让我们小心仔细地来检视一下：我们是否可能结束那个“实际模样”，去结束那种混乱或暴力。是「结束」，而不是去“变成什么”，我希望我们已经理解了对方的意思。因为“变成”就暗示了「时间」。理解这一点是非常重要的。当我们谈论「恐惧」时 ——我们马上就会谈到它—— 我们就需要来探究一下关于「时间」的问题 ——「时间」的问题是极其复杂的。
42:00 So, sir, let’s understand whether it’s possible to end ‘what is’; not to change ‘what is’ into that which we would like to be. We’ll take the question of violence. And if you prefer disorder, both are the same; it doesn’t matter what you take. Violence is inherited from beyond all time, from the animal, from the ape and to us. We have inherited it. That’s a fact, we are violent people. Otherwise we wouldn’t be killing anybody; we wouldn’t be hurting anybody; we wouldn’t say a word against anybody; but we are by nature violent. Now what is the meaning of that word? 43:19 To hold that word, feel the weight of that word, the complications of that word. Not merely physical violence, the terrorist throwing bombs; those terrorists who want to change society through various forms of disturbance and bombing and so on, they have never changed society. And there are the terrorists who do it for the fun of it. Violence is not only physical but psychological, much more. Violence is conformity, because conform to something, not understand ‘what is’, but to conform, imitate. And violence must exist as long as there is division outwardly and inwardly. Conflict is the very nature of violence. 45:02 The friend says, yes, I see that. That’s fairly clear. Now how do you end it? How do you end the whole complex question of violence? He says I understand very well that to become non-violent is a part of violence. Right? Part of violence, because you have projected from violence non-violence. And I understand that very clearly, that projection is really illusion. So I have rejected that concept, or that idea, that feeling that you must become non-violent. He says, I understand that very clearly. There is only this fact. Now, what am I to do?	42:00 所以先生，让我们来了解一下是否可能结束掉“实际模样”；而不是将“实际模样”转变成我们希望它成为的样子。我们会拿「暴力」的问题来举个例子。如果你更喜欢谈「混乱」的问题，那也可以，这两者是一样的；无论你谈哪一个都没有问题。暴力源自于亘古之初，并代代相传，从动物开始，再到类人猿，再到我们。我们已经遗传继承了暴力。这是一个事实：即我们是暴力之人。否则的话，我们是不会去杀死任何人的；我们不会去伤害任何人；我们不会对任何人恶语相向；然而我们的本性就是暴力的。那么，“暴力”这个词是什么意思呢？ 43:19 请你抓住这个词，感受这个词的分量，感受它的错综复杂。不仅仅是外在身体上的暴力 ——恐怖分子在投掷炸弹；那些恐怖分子，他们想要改变社会，通过各种形式的骚乱和爆炸等等来改变社会，然而他们从未能够改变这个社会。还有一些恐怖分子施行暴力只是为了取乐。「暴力」并不只是身体物理层面的，它更多是心理上的。「遵从」就是一种暴力，因为遵从于某物…… 你并未了解“真实现状”，而只是去遵从、去模仿。而只要还是存在外在和内在的分裂，那么暴力就必然会存在。冲突就是暴力的本质。 45:02 那位朋友说：是的，我看到了这点。这是很清楚的事儿。那么你要如何结束它呢？你要如何终结掉这整个关于暴力的复杂问题呢？他说：我非常清楚这一点 ——那就是：变得“非暴力” 也是属于暴力的一部分。对吧？它是暴力的一部分，因为你是经由「暴力」而投射出了那个「非暴力」。而我非常清楚那种投射其实是幻想。于是我拒绝了那个（非暴力的）概念或者说理念，那种“你必须要变得非暴力” 的看法。他说：我非常清楚地理解了这一点。存在的只有那个事实。那么现在，我该怎么做呢？
46:21 And the friend says, don’t ask me – listen carefully – don’t ask me, but let's look at it. The moment you ask what to do, or how to do, you put the other fellow as your guide. You make him your authority; therefore friendship ceases. Right? So together let’s look at it. Being free altogether from the idea of non-violence, observe what is violence, look at it, give attention to the fact, not escape from it, not rationalise it. Don’t say why you shouldn't be violent, it's part of myself. But if that is part of yourself, you’ll always create wars of different kinds: wars between yourself and your wife, wars between… killing others.	46:21 另一位朋友说：不要问我…… ——请仔细听好了—— 不要问我，而是让我们去观察一下它。一旦你询问“该怎么做” 或者“如何去做”的时候，你就把对方当成了你的指导者。你把他变成了你的权威；由此你们之间的友谊便终止了。对吧？所以让我们一起来观察它。我们要完全抛开 “非暴力”的理念，而去观察一下什么是暴力，去看一下它，去注意到这一事实，不要逃避它，也不要把它合理化。不要说：为什么你不应该暴力呢，暴力也是我自己的一部分啊。然而如果暴力是你自身的一部分，那你就会一直制造出各种“战争”了：你和你妻子之间的战争，还有那种……杀人的战争，等等。
47:51 So look at it without conflict. You understand? Look at it as though it was not separate from you. You understand all this? This is rather difficult. Which is: violence is part of you, you are violent, like you are greedy. Greed is not separate from you. Suffering is not separate from you. Anxiety, loneliness, depression – all that is you. But our tradition, our education has said you are separate from that. Right? So where there is separation, where there is duality, 48:57 there must be conflict. Like the Jew, Arab, I’m taking that, probably you’ll understand that better. Between the conflict of two great powers, division, and so on. So, it’s you; you are that. You are not separate from that. The analyser is not different from the analysed. Right? I hope you’ve… The friend says, I follow this a little more. Go on, explain a bit more. He says, I will.	47:51 所以，我们要毫无冲突地去审视它。你们理解了吗？去观察它——就好像它和你并不是分离的一样。你们理解所有这一切了吗？理解它是相当困难的。也就是：暴力是你的一部分，你就是暴力 ——就如你正是贪婪一样。「贪婪」并不是一个与你相分离的事物。「痛苦」和你并不是分开的。焦虑、孤独、抑郁 ——这一切就是你。然而我们的传统、我们的教育却说 “你和它们是分离的”。是吧？所以，当有了这种分隔、有了这种二元性，那就必然会有冲突了。 48:57 就像犹太人和阿拉伯人一样——我还是举这个例子吧，这个例子也许更便于你们理解。两个大国之间就会有冲突，分裂造成的冲突，等等。因此，它就是你，你就是那个东西。你和那个东西并不是分离的。分析者和被分析物并没有什么不同。对吧？我希望你们都已经那位朋友说，我稍微有点理解它了。请你继续下去，再多解释一点吧。对方说：可以的。
49:46 We observe the tree, the mountains, you observe your wife and your children, and who is the observer and who is the observed? Please, I am going into it carefully, follow this. Is the observer different from the tree? Of course he is different, I hope. The observer is different from that mountain. The observer is different from the computer. But is the observer different from anxiety? The anxiety is a reaction, put into words as anxiety, but the feeling is you. The word is different – please follow this – the word is different, but the word is never the thing. 50:59 The thing is the feeling of anxiety, feeling of violence. The word ‘violence’ is not that. So watch carefully that the word doesn’t entangle your observation. You are following? Because our brain is caught in a network of words. When I say you are an American, you feel very proud. When I call myself South African or a Zulu, I feel – you follow – something totally different. So one must be very careful that the language doesn’t condition our thinking. This is quite a different problem. 51:53 Right? So the friend says to the other, observe this feeling without the word. If you use the word, you strengthen the past memories of that particular feeling. Are you following? This is the act of observation in which the word is not the thing and the observer is the observed. The observer who says I am violent, that observer is violence. Right? So the observer is the observed. The thinker is the thought. The experiencer who says I must experience nirvana or heaven or whatever is the experience. Right? 53:02 The analyser is the analysed and so on. So look at that fact of that feeling, without a word, without analysing it, just look. That is, be with it. Be with this thing as is. Which means you bring all your attention to it. Right? By analysing, examining, that’s all waste of energy, whereas if you give your total attention, which is give all your energy to the feeling, then that feeling has total ending.	49:46 我们观察那棵树、那些高山，你观察你的妻子和你的孩子，谁是观察者，谁又是被观察的对象呢？请注意，我正在小心仔细地深入它，请跟上。那个观察者…… 他和那棵树是不同的吗？他当然是不同的，我希望如此。那个观察者是不同于那座高山的。观察者是不同于那台电脑的。然而，那个观察者是不同于「焦虑」的吗？焦虑是一种「反应」 ——只是我们用语言文字将其称为“焦虑”罢了。然而这种（焦虑的）感觉，它就是你。（焦虑）这个词才是有别于你的东西 ——请你们跟上它—— 词语才是那个“不同的东西”，词语永远不是它所指的那个事物本身。 50:59 真正的事物是那种焦虑的感受、那种暴力的感受。但“暴力”这个词并不是那种感受。所以请小心仔细地观察一下这个词语，不要让它束缚影响了你的观察。你们跟上了吗？因为我们的大脑陷入于文字词语的罗网之中。当我说“你是一个美国人”的时候，你会感到非常骄傲。当我称自己为 “南非人”或“祖鲁人”的时候，我就会感到……——你们能理解吧？ —— 我会有某种“与众不同”的感觉。所以我们必须非常小心，确保语言文字没有制约我们的思考。这是一个完全不同的问题。 51:53 是吧？于是这位朋友对另一个人说：要不带文字词语地去观察这种感受。如果你使用了这个词语，你就加强了与这种特定感觉相关的过去的记忆。你们跟上了吗？这才是「观察」的行动 ——在其中「文字词语」并不代表那个东西，观察者才是被观察物。那个说“我很暴力”的观察者，他就是「暴力」本身。对吧？所以观察者就是被观察物。思想者就是思想。那个说“我必须要经历体验涅槃或天堂” 或者无论什么东西的经验者，他就是「经验」本身。是吧？ 53:02 分析者就是被分析物，等等诸如此类的。所以，请你去观察那个感受的事实而不要引入文字词语，不要去分析它，只是去看。换句话说就是：和它在一起。与这个事物如其所是地共处。这意味着你正全神贯注于它。对吧？然而分析它、检视它 ——这些全都是在浪费能量，然而如果你能全神贯注于它 ——也就是将你所有的能量倾注于那种感受，那么那个感受就会完全止息了。
54:04 The friend says, are you mesmerising me by being so vehement, by being so passionate about it? I say no. I’m not stimulating you, I’m not telling you what to do. You yourself have realised that non-violence is non-fact, it’s not real. What is real is violence. You yourself have realised it. You yourself have said, yes, I am violent; not I am separate from the violence. The word separates. But the fact of the feeling is me. Me is my nose, my eyes, my face, my name, my character, my… that’s me. I am not separate from all that. When you separate, you act upon it. Right? Which means conflict. Therefore, you have fundamentally erased the cause of conflict when you are that, not separate from that. Is this clear? Right?	54:04 但我的朋友会说：你是在催眠我吗？搞得这么激动、这么激情四射的？我说：并没有。我并没有在给你打鸡血、我并没有在告诉你该怎么做。而是你自己意识到了…… 那就是：“非暴力”并不是事实，它不是真实的东西。真实的东西是「暴力」。你自己醒悟到了这一点。是你自己说：是的，我很暴力； “我”和暴力并不是分离的。是「文字词语」造成了这种分离。然而那个（暴力）感觉的事实——它就是我。 “我”就是我的鼻子、眼睛、脸蛋、名字、我的性格、我的……这些就是“我”。我和所有这些东西并不是分离的。因为当你把那个东西分离出来，你就可以对它采取一些行动了。对吧？而这就意味着冲突。由此，你便是从根本上消除掉了冲突的起因 ——因为你就是那个东西，你和那个东西是融为一体的。这点清楚了吗？对吧？
55:45 So we have… the friends have learned something. I have learned a great phenomenon, which I have never realised before. Before I have separated my feelings as though I was different from my feeling. Now I realise the truth that I am that. Therefore I remain with it. And when you remain with it, hold it, you are out of that, that gives you tremendous energy. And that energy dissipates, ends that violence completely. Not for a day, not while you are sitting here, but it’s the end of it.	55:45 所以我们已经…… 这两个朋友已经学到了一些东西。我已经了解到了一个意义重大的现象 ——它是我之前从未意识到的。在这之前，我会把我的各种感觉分离独立出来，就好像“我”是有别于我的感觉的。而现在我意识到了这个真相，即：我就是那些感觉。由此，我就会和这些感觉待在一起了。而当你与它共处、紧握住它，你就能跳脱出来，这给予了你巨大的能量。这股能量就能彻底地消除掉暴力、终结暴力。不只是当天消除掉它，不只是当你坐在这里的时候，而是暴力就此结束了。
56:48 So we can go on to the next question, if we have time. Oh, good, plenty of time. I hope you are not tired. We must now take up the question – two friends are asking – how to end fear? Because that’s been one of our problems; from time beyond time, man has lived with fear. Fear of various kinds: fear of ending, death, fear of not gaining, fear of being a failure in life, fear of losing a job, fear of darkness, fear of what public will say; fear of I might lose my wife, fear of so many kinds. Fear of being dull. When I see a bright man, intelligent, capable, alive, I am jealous of him; that’s part of fear.	56:48 好了，我们可以继续来谈下一个问题了 ——如果我们还有时间的话哦，太棒了，还有很多时间。我希望你们没有感到太累。我们现在必须来讨论下这个问题了 ——这两位朋友开始发问—— 那就是如何结束恐惧？因为这是我们一直以来的问题之一从亘古之初开始，人类就一直生活在恐惧中。各种形式的恐惧：害怕结束、害怕死亡、害怕无法得到、害怕生活中的失败、害怕失去工作、害怕黑暗、害怕公众的说法；害怕我也许会失去我的妻子，害怕如此多的、各种各样的事情。害怕自己是愚笨的。当我看到一个聪明的人 ——他非常有才华、充满智慧与活力，我就会嫉妒他，这也是恐惧的一部分。
58:43 So, to understand the nature of fear, and the structure of fear; because out of fear we have created gods and… You understand? If we are not afraid at all, we are the most liberated man on earth. Then you don’t want gods. You are a god yourself. So to understand the nature of fear, we must examine very carefully time. Time is fear. I’m afraid of tomorrow; I’m afraid of that which has happened two years ago. The two years ago is the past; the past is time, and I’m afraid of what might happen tomorrow. That’s part of time. I have a job, but I might lose it. That’s time. Right? So we must understand, if we can, and go into this question very carefully, what time is.	58:43 所以，我们要去了解恐惧的本质和恐惧的结构；因为我们正是经由恐惧而创造出了神明和…… 你们理解了吗？如果我们完全不害怕的话，我们就将是这个地球上最自由解脱的人。那时你就不会想要什么神明了。因为你自己就是“神”了。所以要了解恐惧的本质，我们就必须非常小心仔细地检视「时间」。「时间」就是恐惧。因为我会害怕「明天」；我会害怕那件两年前曾经发生过的事情。 “两年前”就是「过去」，而「过去」就是「时间」，而我也会害怕明天可能会发生的事。 “明天”也是时间的一部分。我现在拥有一份工作，但我可能会失去它。这就是时间。对吧？所以如果可以的话，我们必须了解关于“什么是时间”的问题，去非常小心仔细地探究这个问题。
1:00:11 Time exists not only physically, but psychologically. Time to learn a language, time is necessary to go from here to your home, time by the watch, time by the sun, rising and setting, the darkness of night and the light of day. There is physical time. To put together a computer needs time. You’ll understand that better because you’re all mechanically minded. That's not a sneer, please. So time is necessary at a certain area. 1:01:12 Now we are questioning whether time exists at all psychologically, inwardly. That is, the word ‘hope’ – don’t get depressed by all this; just look at it – the word ‘hope’ implies time. I hope to be; I hope to become; I hope to achieve; I hope to fulfil; I hope to reach heaven, enlightenment. All that psychologically demands time. We are saying time in one direction, one area is necessary, whether this psychological time may be a total illusion. 1:02:26 The word ‘illusion’ implies, the root meaning, etymological meaning of that word is ‘to play’, to play with something. We play with illusions. Because that’s fun. We take great pleasure in having a dozen illusions. The more the better, because the more neurotic they are. The word – that’s why we are examining the word itself, the root meaning of that word is ‘ludere’, to play.	1:00:11 不仅仅存在物理上的时间，同样存在着心理上的时间。我需要时间去学习掌握一门语言，从这里去你的家里，这需要时间 ——那种钟表上的时间、日出日落的时间、白天黑夜循环的时间。存在着这种物理上的时间。将一台电脑组装起来需要时间。你们应该更能理解这一点，因为你们的头脑思维都是机械化的。请注意，这并非嘲笑。所以在某些领域中，时间是必须要有的。 1:01:12 但现在，我们在质疑的是：在心理层面、内心层面，究竟是否存在“时间”？换句话说，关于“希望”这个词 ——请不要因为这一切而感到沮丧，只是去观察一下它—— “希望”这个词就暗示了「时间」。我希望成为什么什么，我希望变成什么什么，我希望实现什么什么，我希望获得满足，我希望达到天堂、开悟。所有这些都需要“心理上的时间”。而我们在说的是：某一个方向、某一个领域中的时间是必需的，然而那种“心理上的时间”，它有没有可能是一种彻底的幻觉？ 1:02:26 “幻觉（illusion）”这个词意味着…… 它的词根意思，这个词的词源含义是“去玩”、去玩某个东西。我们会和幻觉嬉戏玩耍，因为这很有趣。我们有着大量的幻觉，而我们从中获得了极大的快感。幻觉越多越好，因为这样它们就会变得更加神经质。 “幻觉”这个词——这就是为什么我们要检视这个词语本身，这个词的词根含义是“ludere（拉丁语原形动词：玩耍、嬉戏、游戏）” ——去玩耍。
1:03:13 So, is there psychologically tomorrow? Look at it, don’t deny it, don’t… I am asking my friend – don’t get upset about it. Don’t throw up your hands and say buzz off. Look at it, watch it. Don’t deny it or accept it. And you might deny it because you are conditioned. And being conditioned, you might say that I can’t live with the idea of not having hope. That involves conditioning. Is it possible not to be conditioned? All these questions are interrelated. 1:04:20 Conditioned – what does that mean? To be limited. Our brains are conditioned. Please listen to all this – the friend is saying to the other – please listen to this. Because this is really important if you can understand it. Then you’ll be an extraordinary person if you are free of your conditioning. Not that you will be extraordinary, therefore unconditioned, but understand it first, then naturally it happens. There are many scholars and scientists and others who say human beings, the human brain will always be conditioned – by their language, by their food, by their clothes, environment, society, and all the rest of it. 1:05:27 And you can modify that conditioning, but you can never be free from it. You know great writers have written about it. We have discussed with prominent people who are convinced that human beings cannot be free from all conditioning.	1:03:13 所以，是否存在“心理上的明天”呢？去观察一下它，不要否定它，不要我正在询问我的朋友 ——不要因此而感到烦躁。不要举起你的双手，然后说“滚蛋滚蛋”。而是去看它，去观察它，不要否定它或接受它。而你也许会否定它，因为你是有局限的。由于你备受制约，于是你可能会说：让我带着“不存在任何希望”的想法生活，我做不到。这其中就包含了你的局限。那么我们有可能没有局限吗？所有这些问题都是相互关联的。 1:04:20 局限——它是什么意思呢？也就是受到制约。我们的大脑是局限的。请聆听这一切 ——这位朋友对另一个人说—— 请听好它。因为这真的很重要 ——如果你可以理解它的话。那时你就会成为一个非凡之人 ——如果你能摆脱掉你的局限。不是说你变得非凡，从而摆脱了局限，而是先去理解它，然后你自然就会摆脱局限了。有很多学者、科学家等等，他们说人类、人类的大脑永远都会是局限的 ——被他们的语言、食物、服装、环境、社会等等这些所局限。 1:05:27 你可以去修改缓和这些局限，但你永远无法摆脱掉它。你们知道的，有些伟大的作家曾经写过这方面的东西。我们曾经和一些知名人士进行过讨论，他们都确信人类是不可能摆脱掉所有局限的。
1:05:54 So my friend says, tell me about it. Is it possible not to be conditioned? What is the factor of being conditioned? What causes the brain to be conditioned? First of all, it’s conditioned, there is the demand for security. We’re not advocating insecurity. Just listen to the whole story of it. We want security, both physically, which is natural – food, clothes and shelter – that’s natural. Everybody in the world must have it, not just the few. And that security is denied when it is only for the few. There’s poverty, therefore there must be conflict. So when the brain seeks, which is thought, naturally. You understand? 1:07:29 The essence of the brain is thinking. That is the root, the nature of the brain, to think. But thinking has realised that it is in itself uncertain, therefore it seeks security. And that security through division – I am an American, my family, your family – and that security now is being denied; you can see it. So, is there a security which is not of time? You understand? Which is not of hope. You are following? Is there security which is not put together by desire? Right? The friend says, yes, there is absolute security. Irrevocable security. The other friend says, show me. Don’t be too clever about it. 1:09:03 Don’t say lot of things, just show me where there is security. But the other says, don’t be so impatient. Look at it very carefully; that we need security, physical security. And that’s being denied by all the division in the world – religious, political, racial, division of ideologies, wars. Physical security is gradually being eroded. So do something about that. So the desire to find security inwardly as separate human being is causing that. I hope you are following all this.	1:05:54 于是我的朋友对我说：请跟我讲讲这个吧。即：我们是否可能没有局限？造成局限的因素是什么？是什么导致了大脑的局限？首先，大脑是局限的，它需要安全。我们并没有在提倡不安全。请你们把整个故事听完。我们想要安全——既包括外在物质上的安全…… 这也是很自然的 ——我们需要食物、衣服和住所—— 这是自然的需求。这个世界上的每一个人都必须要拥有这些东西 ——而不只是少数人。然而当只有少数人才拥有这些东西，这种「安全」便被否定了。贫穷出现了，由此就必然会有冲突。所以，当大脑去寻找……——大脑就是思想，当然如此了。这个你们能理解吧？ 1:07:29 大脑的本质就是「思维」。「思维」就是大脑的根源与本质。然而「思维」已经意识到它自身是感到不确定的，由此它便会去寻找安全。然而由于「分裂」的存在 ——我是美国人、我的家庭、你的家庭—— 所以那种安全如今已经被否定了，你们也可以看到这一点。那么，是否存在着一种无关「时间」的安全呢？你们能理解吗？一种无关「希望」的安全。你们跟上了吗？是否存在着并非由欲望所构建起来的安全？是吧？那位朋友说：是的，存在着一种绝对的安全、一种不可改变的安全。于是另一个人说：那就告诉我吧。别耍什么小聪明了。 1:09:03 也不要说一大堆废话，直接告诉我哪里会有这种安全。但另一个人说：不要那么急。请你非常小心仔细地去观察一下它；那就是：我们需要安全 ——外在物质上的安全。然而这种安全却被这个世界上所有各种「分裂」给否定掉了 ——宗教的分裂、政治上的分裂、种族的分裂、意识形态的分裂，各种战争。于是外在物质上的安全便逐渐地被侵蚀了。而我们需要对此做一些事情。所以，是我们作为“分离独立”的人，想要找到内心安全的渴望导致了这一切（外在安全的缺失）。我希望你们跟上了它。
1:10:25 So find out if there is security inwardly. There is no security in attachment. Right? Attachment to my wife, to my friend, to my girl, to my man or attachment to an idea, to a concept, to an image. There’s no security – right? – in those. When you say, ‘I agree with you, there is no security in that’, what happens? Before you had not examined this, you’re just attached. But now, by examining it, your whole… there has been a radical change. You are following this? The brain has been conditioned by attachment. 1:11:37 There in that attachment it sought security – to my wife, to my job, to an ideal, to some god. So, discovering that there is no security in any of that, what has happened to the brain? Please follow, watch this carefully. What has happened to your brain, which has been traditionally conditioned to be attached, hoping to find security in all this, and suddenly discovers there is no security in all this, what’s happened to the brain? You follow this? There has been a total change. You understand all this?	1:10:25 所以请你们去搞清楚究竟是否存在“内在的安全”。在「执著依恋」之中并没有什么安全。对吧？执著于我的妻子、我的朋友、我的女朋友、执著于我的男人或者执著于某个理念、概念或意象。在这些东西中并不存在「安全」——对吧？而当你说，“我赞同你的看法，在这些东西中并没有安全”，那时发生了什么呢？在这之前，你并没有去检视过它，你只是执著于各种事物。而现在，通过检视它，你的整个…… 你有了一种根本彻底的转变。你们跟上它了吗？大脑一直以来都被「执著」所制约。 1:11:37 它在这种「执著」中寻求安全 ——执著于我的妻子、我的工作，执著于理想、执著于某个神明。所以，当你发现在所有这些东西中都不存在安全以后，那时大脑会发生什么呢？请跟上，去小心仔细地观察它。那时你的大脑会怎么样呢？你的大脑一直以来都被传统所制约，从而去执著于各种事物，希望可以在所有这些东西中找到安全，然而它却突然发现：在所有这些东西中并没有安全，然后大脑会发生什么呢？你们跟上它了吗？那时就会有一种完全彻底的改变了。你们理解这一切了吗？
1:12:40 As long as you cling to a particular comforting attachment, and in that attachment you sought security, and you find now, after very careful observation, that there is no security in that. The whole movement has moved away from it. So your brain is unconditioned. Right? And that unconditioning has been brought about because you saw the truth that in attachment there is no security. The seeing that there is no security in illusion is intelligence. That intelligence, the beginning of that, gives you absolute security in intelligence, not in attachment. You have got it? Right? Is this clear?	1:12:40 你一直紧紧抓着某个令人舒适的「执著之物」，并在那种「执著」中寻求安全，然而在经过了非常小心仔细的观察以后，现在你发现：在这些东西中并没有安全。于是你全部的活动便会远离「执著」了。由此你的大脑就不再局限了。对吧？而之所以能够没有局限，是因为你看到了这个真相：那就是在「执著」之中是没有「安全」可言的。看到在错觉幻想中并没有安全 ——这就是「智慧」。而这种智慧，这种智慧的开启…… 便能够带给你「绝对的安全」 ——是智慧之中的安全，而不是执著之中的安全。你们明白它了吗？是吧？这点清楚了吗？
1:13:57 So, the friend says, now let’s go back to fear. Oh! I’ve got quarter of an hour. You don’t mind another quarter of an hour? It’s very interesting, all this, if you go into it; more fascinating than any cinema in the world. You take a long journey, an endless journey; that is endless, infinite. Which implies, where there is intelligence, there is compassion. We’ll go into that later.	1:13:57 于是，这位朋友说：现在，让我们回到「恐惧」的问题吧。噢！我还有十五分钟的时间。你们不介意我再讲个十五分钟吧？如果你能深入它的话，你会发现这一切是非常有趣的；它要比这个世界上的任何电影都更加吸引人。你将会踏上一段漫长的旅程，一段永无止境的旅程，它是永无尽头的、无穷无尽的。它意味着：当有了「智慧」，就会有「慈悲」
1:14:53 So now, my friend and I are talking about fear. The friend says, is there an ending to it? Not for one day, or few hours, but the total ending of it. Because he realises, he says, I realise what fear does. It darkens my whole life, it cripples my thinking; it’s a physical shrinking, a nervous tension. I know very well, the friend says, what fear is. I know several forms of fear; but I am not concerned about the forms of fear, because if I can root out the cause, then I don’t have to bother with the branches of it.	1:14:53 ——我们稍后再来讲这个。所以现在，我的朋友和我开始谈论「恐惧」了。我的朋友问：恐惧可以结束吗？不是结束一天，不是几个小时没有恐惧，而是完全彻底地结束恐惧。因为他意识到了…… 他说：我意识到了恐惧的后果。它让我的整个生活变得黑暗，它破坏了我的思考；我会有一种身体上畏缩、一种神经上的紧张。这位朋友说：我非常清楚什么是恐惧。我知道各种形式的恐惧；但我关心的并不是恐惧的各种形式，因为如果我可以根除掉恐惧的源头，那我就不用再去操心它的细枝末节了。
1:16:14 So the friend says, I am not concerned with the trimming of the tree of fear, but I am concerned with the ending of fear. Is that possible? Or must we everlastingly live with fear? Man has lived with fear, from thousands of years. And you come along and say you can end it. What right have you to say it? Is it just another verbal friction? Or is it a fact?	1:16:14 因此这位朋友说：我关心的并不是去修剪“恐惧之树”的枝叶，我关心的是「恐惧的终结」。这可能吗？还是说，我们必须要永远带着恐惧而生活？人类已经带着恐惧生活了数千年。然而你却过来告诉我说：你可以终结恐惧。你有什么权利可以说这话？它是否只是又一场口舌之争？还是说它是一个事实？
1:17:08 So the friend says, we’ll go into it together. You must see it for yourself, not I see it and I tell you, and then you reject or accept; but together let’s take the journey to find out whether it’s possible to end fear totally, psychologically. Then outwardly it will have its own expression. Right? When psychologically there is an ending of fear, then the ending has its own expression outwardly. Not the other way round. Is that clear? So the friend says, time is a factor of fear. That’s a fact. And also thought is a factor of fear. I think tomorrow may be dangerous; I think I am going to be ill; I think what the public might say; I have a job but I might become unemployed.	1:17:08 于是另一位朋友说：让我们一起来探究一下它吧。你必须要自己看到这一点才行，不是我看到了它，然后我告诉你，然后你拒绝它或接受它；而是我们要一起踏上这段旅程，去发现我们是否可能完全彻底地终结心理上的恐惧。然后它（恐惧的终结）自然就会有其外在的表现了。对吧？当我们在心理层面终结了恐惧，那时这种「终结」就会有其外在层面的表达了。而不是反过来。这点清楚了吗？于是这位朋友说：「时间」就是造成恐惧的因素。这是一个事实。而「思想」同样也是造成恐惧的因素。我觉得明天或许会有危险；我想我将会生病；我会顾虑公众的说法；虽然我有一份工作，但我可能会失业。
1:18:37 So time and thought are the root of fear. Go into it slowly. We explained the nature of time. Right? Time is hope, time is becoming, time as learning how to drive a car and so on; outwardly and inwardly. Now, we see time is a factor of fear, obviously. That’s clear. And also thought is a factor of fear. I am here; I might die. Thought says, I might die. So thought, without too elaborating the movement of thought, which is: thought is experience, knowledge from experience, knowledge is stored in the brain as memory, memory is the reaction to thought. 1:19:57 And thought is always limited, because knowledge is always limited; experience is always limited. In the scientific world, in the biological world, however much knowledge they have, they have to have more, more. So knowledge now or in the past or in the future will always be limited. This is a fact. And so thought is limited. And whatever thought does, it’s action is limited. So time and thought are the root of fear.	1:18:37 所以时间和思想就是恐惧的根源。请慢慢地来深入它。我们已经解释过了「时间」的本质。对吧？时间就是「希望」，时间就是「成为」，「时间」就是去学会如何驾驶汽车等等 ——外在的时间和内在的时间。而现在，我们看到「时间」是造成恐惧的因素，这是显而易见的。这是很清楚的事。而「思想」同样也是造成恐惧的一个因素。我还健在，但我可能会死去。是「思想」在说：我可能会死去。所以思想……我就不过多地详细解释思想的活动了，也就是说：思想就是经验，而知识则是来自于经验的，知识作为「记忆」储存在大脑中，记忆就是对于思想的反应。 1:19:57 而思想永远都是局限的，因为知识总是有限的，经验总是有限的。无论是在科学领域，还是在生物学领域，无论他们拥有了多少知识，他们仍旧必须要有更多更多的知识。所以无论是现在的知识、过去的知识，还是未来的知识，它都永远是局限的。这是一个事实。因此思想也是局限的。而无论思想做了什么，它的行动都是局限的。因此「时间」和「思想」就是造成恐惧的根源。
1:20:50 The friend says, yes, I see that, but how am I to stop thought? He says, don’t ask how. That’s the easiest question to ask. And whom are you asking? I’m your friend, I’m not your guide, I’m not your guru, I’m not your authority; don’t ask anybody ever how. But observe! Look very carefully. If time and thought are the root of fear, which they are – please listen, this friend says to the other, please listen carefully: they are the root of fear. And it’s not how to stop thought or time; but see the fact that thought is the originator of fear. 1:22:08 Realise that, see it. But you need time to go, or thought, to go from here to there. Right? You are sitting here, you have to go home, that requires time and thought. Otherwise you couldn’t move. But psychologically, time and thought have bred fear. And you are fear; you are not separate from fear. Right? So the examiner of fear is the examined. Right? The examiner who says, time and thought are the root of fear, after looking at it carefully, that time and thought is you. You are the trap of fear. Get it? You are fear. 1:23:28 This is a revelation – you understand? Before you said I am afraid, I will do something about it. I’ll run away from it; I’ll become courageous, I’ll be this, I’ll be that. Therefore there is conflict in that. Right? Whereas now you see for yourself that you are that: time and thought. So you can’t do a thing about it. Right? I wonder if you realise this.	1:20:50 那位朋友说：是的，我看到了这一点，那么我要怎么做才能停止思想呢？对方告诉他说：不要问“怎么做”了。问这个问题是最轻松容易的。而你是在问谁呢？我是你的朋友，我并不是你的导师，我也不是你的古鲁，我并不是你的权威，所以永远不要问任何人“怎么做”的问题。而是去观察！去非常小心仔细地看它。如果「时间」和「思想」是恐惧的根源 ——它们的确是的。请听好了——这位朋友对另一个人说 ——请认真听好了：它们就是恐惧的根源。而问题并不在于如何去停止「思想」或「时间」，而是要看到这个事实：即「思想」是恐惧的始作俑者。 1:22:08 去醒悟到这一点、看到这一点。但是你需要「时间」或者「思想」才能去某个地方 ——从这里去那里。对吧？虽然你坐在这里，但你必须得回家，而这需要「时间」和「思想」。否则的话，你无法启程出发。然而在心理上，「时间」和「思想」却已经滋生出了恐惧。而你就是恐惧，你和恐惧并不是分离的。对吧？所以那个恐惧的检视者就是被检视之物。对吧？这个检视者说：时间和思想就是恐惧的根源，在认真地观察过了它以后，我们发现：「时间」和「思想」就是你。你就是恐惧的陷阱。明白了吗？你就是恐惧。 1:23:28 这才是“启示”——你们理解了吗？之前你说：我感到“害怕”，所以我要对这种“害怕”做一些事情。我要逃离它；我要变得勇敢，我要变成这样的、变成那样的。因此这其中就会有冲突。对吧？然而现在，你自己看到了：你就是「时间」和「思想」。所以你是无法对它做什么事情的。对吧？我不知道你是否意识到了这一点。
1:24:07 The friend says to the other: do you realise the immensity of that statement, the depth of it, that you are that, therefore you cannot possibly do a thing about it. Which means what? All action with regard to fear has ended. Right? See what happens then. Before you acted upon it; now you are not acting, you are no longer the actor. You are that; you are both the actor and the act. Right? You are that. What takes place when you are that? 1:25:07 This is – please, this is part of meditation – look at it very carefully; take it in your hands, like a precious jewel, and look at it. You are that when all movement stops. You understand? When you realise you are that, all movements naturally stop. Movement is a waste of energy. Therefore – you understand? – when there is no movement, you have that tremendous energy to look. And therefore there is the ending of it.	1:24:07 这位朋友对另一个人说：你是否意识到了这一表述的巨大意义，它的深刻性——即你就是那个东西，因此你是不可能对它做什么事情的。而这意味着什么呢？所有你对「恐惧」所采取的行动都停止了。对吧？看看那时发生了什么呢。在这之前，你会对它采取行动；但现在，你不再去做什么了，你不再是那个行动者了。你就是它 ——你既是「行动者」也是「行动」。对吧？你就是它。而当你就是它的时候，会发生什么呢？ 1:25:07 这就是…… ——请注意，这就是冥想的一部分—— 请非常小心仔细地观察一下它；把它捧在你的手里，就像捧着一件珍贵的珠宝首饰，然后去欣赏它。当所有的行为活动都停止了以后，那时你就是那个东西。你们理解了吗？当你意识到你就是它时，所有的活动自然就会停止了。活动就是在浪费能量。因此……——你们理解了吗？ —— 当没有了任何行为活动，你就会拥有巨大的能量，可以用它去观察了。因此那个东西就会结束了。
1:25:57 The friend says, I am tired. You have taken a long journey together through valleys and mountains and meadows and groves. I have understood a great deal. I have not learned. I have learned nothing, but I have observed, and that observance has brought great light, great intelligence; and that intelligence operates – not me operating on that. Right?	1:25:57 那位朋友说：我累了。你们已经一起走过了一段漫长的旅途，穿越了山谷、高山、草地和树林。我已经了解了很多东西。但我并不是在“学习”什么东西。我并没有“学会”任何东西，但我已经进行了观察，而这种观察为我带来了巨大的光明、巨大的智慧；这种智慧就会对我产生影响 ——而不是我去对它施加影响。好吧？
1:27:06 May I get up, please?	1:27:06 请问我可以起身了吗？

🢁