克里希那穆提 - 我们在寻找的是什么?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

SA77T1 - 我们在寻找的是什么?
公开讲座 1
萨能, 瑞士
1977年 7月 10日

0:23	Krishnamurti: As there are going to be several talks and discussions, I think we must begin with – if it is possible – that we should think over together, think together. Which doesn't mean that you accept or reject, or be of a similar mind, but rather in talking over thoughtfully the various problems and questions and the travails of life. And reasoning together, and communicating that reasoning over together, then we will find, as we go along, that reason doesn't solve any problems – as it has become so very obvious both politically, economically and socially. Reason has not solved our human problems, nor logic, but we are going to find out together in thinking over together, and so communicating with each other, that there is quite a different approach to all these problems of our life. And we are going to discover it together. Let's be very clear about this from the beginning. I am not your guru. I hope that's clearly understood from the beginning, that you are not my followers, because those who follow somebody destroy truth. We are not proselytising or convincing you of anything. We are going to reason together, talk over together, investigate together, explore together, and therefore there is no authority, there is no spiritual leader. But together, through very careful thinking over together, exploring together, investigating together we shall come upon something that is beyond reason because reason, as we said, has not solved any of our political, economic, social problems. Reason has neither solved our human problems between two people. It becomes more and more obvious in a world that is going to pieces, that has become quite insane, quite disorderly, and a dangerous place to live in. So all reason, though up to a point we must reason together, logically, sanely, holistically, then perhaps we shall be able to find out for ourselves a different state of mind, a different quality of a mind that is not bound by any dogma, by any belief, by any experience, and therefore a mind that is free to observe and through that observation and perception see what exactly is, and therefore there is energy to transform 'what is'.	克里希那穆提：由于我们将会有好几场演讲和讨论，首先，我认为我们必须 ——如果可能的话—— 我们应该一起思考，共同思考。这并不意味着要求你接受或是拒绝，又或是要有相似的思想，而是来更加透彻地探讨各种疑难问题，以及人生的艰难困苦。而经过一起推理以及一起交流那些推论之后，随着探究的深入，我们就会发现推理并不能解决任何问题 ——这点已经再明显不过了，无论是政治上、经济上还是社会学上。推理并没有解决我们人类的问题，逻辑也没有。然而，我们来共同探明真相，通过共同思考，进而通过彼此的交流，我们对于人生的所有问题就会有一种完全不同的解决之道。我们将一同去探索。让我们一开始就澄清这一点。我不是你们的宗教领袖。我希望这一点从一开始就是清楚明白的，你们不是我的追随者，因为那些追随别人的人毁掉了真理。我们并没有在劝说或者使你信服任何东西。我们将一起推理，一起讨论，一起调查，一起探索，因此，没有权威，没有精神领袖。而是，我们一起通过非常谨慎的共同思考，通过一起探索、一起调查，我们就会遇见某个超越理性的事物，因为，理性，如我们所言，并没解决我们任何的政治、经济和社会问题。推理也没有解决人与人之间的人类问题。这点变得越来越显而易见 ——在一个即将崩溃的、已经变得十分疯狂的、非常混乱的、危险重重的世界里。因此所有的理性 ——尽管在一定程度上我们必须一起来推理，有逻辑地、理智地、整体性地去推理，可是，或许我们应该能够自己找到一种不同的心灵状态，一种不同的心灵品质，一个不受困于任何教条、任何信仰、任何经历的心灵，进而是一个能自由观察的心灵，通过那种观察和感知看清事物的真相，才会有转变“现状”的能量。
5:18	So from the beginning, please, let us work together. You are not listening to me. You are listening to the speaker as though you are listening to yourself. And therefore to reason together, one must not start from any conclusion, from any belief, from any dogma which conditions the mind so that we cannot reason together. Because I am not a Hindu, nor a Christian or a Buddhist, nor any of those things. The speaker is not starting from any conclusion, from any belief, from any experience, therefore from a mind that is free to observe, to learn, to move, to act. And I think such a mind is a compassionate mind, because compassion has no cause, it is not a result. Please understand this, this is very important because we are going to go into this very deeply: that compassion comes when the mind is free. And such compassion has no cause and therefore no effect. But when there is that compassion it brings about a fundamental psychological revolution. That's what we are talking about from the beginning to the end.	因此，请让我们从一开始就一起工作。你们不是在听教于我。你们是在倾听说话的人，就像在倾听你们自己。因此，为了共同理性地思考，我们务必不能从任何结论、任何信仰、任何教条开始，那会约束心灵，以至于我们无法共同推理。因为我不是一个印度教徒，也不是基督教徒、佛教徒，我不属于那些事物。说话者并没有从任何结论、任何信仰、任何经历开始谈起，因此，这探讨是源于一颗自由地观察、学习、流动、行动的心。并且，我认为这样的一颗心是慈悲的，因为慈悲没有起因，它不是一个结果。请理解这点，这是非常重要的。因为，我们将非常深入地来探究：当心灵自由时，慈悲才会出现。并且这种慈悲没有起因，因而也没有结果。可是，当那种慈悲存在时，它会带来一种心理上的彻底变革。那是我们从头至尾都在讨论的。
7:37	So we will begin by asking ourselves: what is it that we are seeking? What is it that we are wanting, each one of us? This is a serious question, don't brush it aside as though this is easily answered – it is not. What is it that we want? Physical comfort? Physical security? Or deep down there is the demand, or a desire to be totally secure in all our activities, in all our relationships, to be stable, certain, secure, permanent, is that what we are seeking? We cling to an experience and that gives us a certain quality of stability, a certain sense of identification which gives us a sense of permanency, well being. In that there is security. In a belief there is security. In identification with a particular dogma, conclusion, nation, or an idea, gives us security. And that is why there are so many gurus springing up all over the world offering security: 'Follow me and you will know how to act, how to be secure.' Is that what you are seeking? Please go into it yourself, find out.	因此，我们一开始便问自己：我们在找寻的是什么？我们每个人在期待的是什么？这是一个严肃的问题，不要漠视它，好像它是非常容易回答的——不是的。我们想要的是什么？身体上的舒适？身体上的安全？或者内心深处的需求、希望绝对安全的渴望，在我们所有的活动中，在我们所有的关系里，期望稳定、确定、安全、长久 ——这就是我们在寻找的吗？我们紧抓着一个经验不放，而那给了我们某种品质的安定、某种特定的认同感，这种认同给了我们一种恒久的、幸福的感受。在那之中便有着安全感。在信仰中就有着安全感。认同于某个教条、结论、民族或者观念，都会给予我们安全感。那就是为什么有如此多的宗教领袖从世界各地冒出来提供安全感： “追随我，然后你就会知道如何行动，如何得到安全感。” 那是你在寻求的吗？请自己去探究，把它搞清楚。
10:14	If we are old, aged, we find security or happiness in remembrance of things past, in the experience that we have known, in the love that we have had, and we cling to that. The past becomes very important. And if we are young and lithe and cheerful we are satisfied for the moment, not thinking about the future or the past. And gradually youth slips into old age, and begins the trouble: the desire to be secure, the anxiety of uncertainty, not being able to depend on anything or anybody, and yet demanding, desiring deeply security, to have something to cling to. Don't you? If you are really deeply honest you are bound to come to that perception.	如果我们老了，年纪大了，我们会在过往的回忆中寻找安全感或是幸福感，在我们已知的经历中，在我们曾经拥有的爱中，然后我们紧握住它不放。过去变得非常重要。然而，如果我们是青春、轻盈、快乐的，这一刻我们会感到很满足，不去思考未来或是过去。然后青春渐渐溜走，我们年纪渐长，然后麻烦就开始了: 想要安全的欲望，对于不确定性的焦虑，无法依靠任何人或事，但内心深处却在要求和渴望着安全感，渴望拥有某些可以紧握的事物。不是吗？如果你真的非常诚实，你必然会看到这一点。
12:04	May I again remind you all, if I may, this is not an entertainment. This is not something that you come for on a Sunday morning to listen to somebody oriental and say, Good Lord, what is he talking about? Is he a mystic, is he this or that. – all that blah. And also, if I may point out very carefully that this is a serious gathering. For me at least, what we are talking about is very, very serious. One has spent over fifty years at this, and it would be a pity if you are not responsible for yourself and for the world, and merely be satisfied superficially and live for the day and not be concerned for tomorrow. So this is not an entertainment, this is not something ideological which you accept or deny, but together but together in the very process of thinking one becomes serious, in the very process of observation, reasoning, thinking logically, objectively you inevitably become very, very serious. And that is the purpose – if I may use that word – of these meetings. Not exchanging one set of ideas for another, or rejecting one guru and accepting another, or trying to find a new experience, and if you are not able to find that experience, be disappointed. We are together, seriously going into the problems of our daily life with all its misery, confusion, uncertainty. So please be responsible, not casual.	恕我再一次提醒你们所有人，如果可以的话，这不是一次消遣。这不是某个星期天的早晨你来到这里只是为了听某个来自东方的人的讲话，然后说： “上帝啊，他在说些什么？他是一个神秘主义者吗？他是这个或那个吗？” ——所有的那些胡话。同时，恕我非常认真地指出，这是一场严肃的聚会。至少对我来说，我们所讨论的是非常、非常严肃的。有人已经为这花费了五十多年，而最可惜的就是你对自己以及这个世界不负责任，只满足于肤浅的表面，只为今天而活，对明天并不关切。因此，这不是一场消遣，这不是某种意识形态上的你可以接受或是否认的事物，而是共同而是我们一起在这个思考的过程中都变得很认真，在这个观察、推理的过程中，去有逻辑地、客观地思考，你会不可避免地变得非常非常认真。而我们这几次聚会的目的——恕我使用这个词—— 就是这个。而不是将一套观念换成另一套，或是拒绝一个宗教领袖来接受另一个，又或者试图寻找一种新的体验，然后，如果你无法找到那种体验，便会觉得失望。我们是认真地在一起探究我们日常生活的问题，以及生活中所有的不幸、困惑、不确定性。因此，请一定负起责任来，而不是漫不经心。
15:26	So we are asking: what is it that human beings seek, you as a human being, who is the total summation of all humanity – you understand? – you are the summation of all humanity, whether they live in India, Russia, China or in America or here. You are the representative of every human being, and when you realise that it becomes tremendously important and responsible. But most of us don't want to recognise that because we don't want to be responsible. So if I may say again that we are together, as human beings, trying to find out deeply what it is that we are seeking, what is it you want! You understand my question? The world about us is very uncertain, it is becoming more and more insane, dangerous, violent. You know what is happening. People are being killed casually for the fun of it. You have read all about it, you know all about it. Politics has not solved our problems, has not put an end to this human violence, nor any religion either. On the contrary, religions have been tremendously responsible for killing millions of people. I don't have to go into the history of mankind, you know it very well if you read at all.	那么，我们在问：人类在寻找的是什么，作为一个人，你就是全人类的总和 ——你理解吗？—— 你是全人类的总和。无论人们住在印度、俄罗斯、中国、美国，还是这里。你代表了每一个人，当你意识到这点时，它就会变得极度重要和责任重大。可是，我们大多数人不想意识到这点，因为我们不想担负责任。因此，恕我重申一次，我们作为人类，正在共同尝试着深入探究什么是我们在追寻的，你想要的是什么！你理解我的问题吗？我们所处的这个世界非常不安定，这个世界正变得愈发疯狂、危险、暴虐。你知道在发生的一切。人们以随意杀人为乐。你读到过这些东西，你对这一切都心知肚明。政治并没有解决我们的问题，它没有终结人类的这种暴行，也没有任何宗教办到了。恰恰相反，宗教还对残杀数以百万计的人负有极大的责任。我不需要讲述人类的历史，如果你读过一些东西，自然会对此非常了解。
17:53	So, as one observes, thought, reason, logic, though necessary, have not solved our human problems. And if they have not, then, what is the solution for all this? So in asking that question – what is the solution for all this – one inevitably comes to: I, as a human being, really recognising that I am the world, what is it I want, essentially ? Because I represent the world. Every human being is responsible, every human being is the whole of mankind. If you go to India, they think like you, they worry, they are miserable, unhappy, sorrowful, poverty, degradation, which exists all over the world, same phenomena. So you are like every other human being whether you like it or not. So in finding out what you want then we can proceed.	因此我们看到，虽然思想、理性、逻辑都是必需的，它们却没能解决人类的问题。如果它们解决不了，那么，什么才是这一切的解决方案呢？所以在询问这个问题的过程中——什么才是解决之道？人必然会想到：我，作为人类的一员，真正意识到了我就是世界，从根本上而言，我想要的是什么？因为我代表了这个世界。每个人都是负有责任的，每个人都是全人类的整体。如果你去印度，那里人的想法与你相似，他们担忧，他们痛苦、不快乐、悲伤、贫困、堕落，全世界都存在同样的现象。因此，你和每个人都是一样的，不管你是否喜欢这一点。那么，在弄清你想要什么的同时，我们便可以继续了。
19:18	Is it that you desire essentially, deeply, irrevocably, you are concerned to find out if you want security, a sense of being identified with something, an idea, a person, a group, a conclusion that will give you tremendous satisfaction, and you say, I've come, I've reached, I've gained, I know? You understand my question? So we'll begin to find out slowly, carefully, if you desire satisfaction in security, whether that security be in a person, in an experience, in a conclusion, or in a romantic idealisation as God, then we must examine logically, sanely, if there is such a thing as security. Can I go on?	你根本上、从内心深处、不顾一切地渴望的是不是—— 如果你渴望安全，你就会关心去找到一种与某种东西的认同感 ——认同某个观念、某个人、某个团体、某个结论，那将给予你极大的满足感。然后你说我到达了，我实现了，我得到了，我知道了？你理解我的问题吗？所以我们将会慢慢地、小心地开始探明如果你渴望在安全感中得到满足，无论那种安全感是存在于一个人身上、一段经历里、一个结论中，还是一个浪漫的理念里，例如上帝，那么，我们就必须进行逻辑、理性的探究是否存在着安全这样的东西。我能继续吗？
21:01	We want security. Every child, every boy demands security. And because parents, society doesn't give them security, nor education, they become violent – what is happening in the world, how the youth is going to destroy itself. You see all this. So they must have security, both physiological as well as psychological. Are you following all this, or am I talking to a wall?	我们想要安全感。每个小孩、每个男孩都需要安全感。又因为父母、社会不能给他们安全感，教育也不能，于是，他们变得暴虐 ——这个世界上所发生的，年轻人在如何毁掉他自己。你看到了这一切。因此，他们必须要有安全，生理上以及心理上的安全。这些你都理解吗？还是说我是在对着墙讲话？
22:00	Are we seeking psychological security, which may destroy physiological security, and if you are seeking physiological security then psychological security becomes unnecessary. So we must find out what it is we are seeking?	我们在寻求心理上的安全感吗？而这种做法破坏了生理上的安全感，如果你只追求生理上的安全，那么心理上的安全感就会变得多余了。所以我们必须搞清楚自己在寻求什么。
22:32	I pause because – I can go on talking, but there must be pauses so that you and I can communicate with each other both verbally and non verbally. Because if you are thinking along the same lines communication becomes extraordinarily easy, we understand each other instantly. But we may not want to examine closely our psychological structure because we are frightened, we don't know where it may lead to. It may destroy everything that we hold as the most essential necessity for a human being. So we rather examine superficially and agree or disagree and go away. And that is what the speaker is trying to prevent. That you examine very, very closely, hesitantly, knowing that reason, logic, thought has not solved our problems, and yet thought must be used, which we are presently going to go into all that business.	我停下是因为我可以继续讲下去，可是必须得有停顿，这样你和我才可以和彼此同时以语言和非语言的方式交流。因为，如果你们正在沿着同样的线路思考，交流会变得异乎寻常的容易。我们会即刻理解彼此。但我们可能并不想密切地检视我们心理上的结构，因为我们心怀恐惧。我们不知道这可能带我们去向哪里。这可能会摧毁我们所持有的一切，例如摧毁对于一个人而言最基本的必需品。因此，我们更情愿做肤浅表面的研究，同意或不同意，然后便离开。然而，那正是说话者在努力预防的。你要非常非常密切地去检视，带着踌躇，认识到理性、逻辑和思想并不能解决我们的问题，同时思想又是必须要用到的，我们即将来探究所有这些内容。
24:09	So from the beginning we are asking: what is a human being seeking, you? Aren't you really seeking security, both physical as well as psychological? You must have food, clothes and shelter otherwise you can’t function. Whether you function in a community, or in a chaotic society, you must have a certain kind of security, which gives a sense of well being from which you can begin to think, observe and go into all that. And also one demands, probably much more deeply, psychological security. One may not have physical security but psychological security becomes extraordinarily important, doesn't it? Have you not noticed it in yourself how deep is the craving for psychological security in our relationship, in our action, in our attitude towards life, in our experience, how we hold on to our experiences, because that gives us tremendous sense of security.	因此，从一开始，我们便问道：一个人，你，在寻找什么？你实际上不就是在寻求安全感吗？ ——包括生理上的和心理上的。你必须有食物、衣服和住所，否则，你便无法生活。无论你是在某个群体中生活，还是在一个混乱的社会中生活，你必须有一定的保障，这会给予你一种幸福感，基于它，你才可以开始思考、观察并且探究那些问题。同时，人也需要或许更加深层的心理上的安全。人可能没有生理上的安全，但心理上的安全感却变得异乎寻常的重要，不是吗？你难道没有注意到，你自身对心理安全感的渴望有多深——在我们的关系中，在我们的行动、我们对于生活的态度里，在我们的经历中，我们是如何紧抓住我们的经历的，因为那给予了我们极大的安全感。
25:54	So we have to examine closely whether there is psychological security at all. If there is no psychological security will a human being go insane? Will he become totally neurotic because he has no security psychologically. And therefore he becomes neurotic, and probably the majority of human beings are fairly neurotic. So we have to go and find out for ourselves whether you want psychological security. And what do you mean by the word security? When we say, I am secure with my wife or with my girlfriend, or with my ideas and conclusions as a Communist, as the Catholics, Protestants, and the Hindus, they are secure in their belief. They have no fear because they cling to this. And when you begin to investigate, or question them, or reason with them they stop at a certain point, they won't examine further, it is too dangerous. They feel they are being threatened. If you have talked to a Communist, a Catholic, they go up to a certain point and refuse to go further. Probably you are doing the same and then communication ceases. And to that which your mind clings to, whether it be a person, an object or an idea, or a conclusion, or something that you have deeply experienced, have they any significance have they any deep significance at all? I will show you what I mean.	因此，我们必须细致地探究到底有没有心理上的安全。如果没有心理上的安全，一个人是否会疯掉？他是否会变成彻底的神经病？因为他没有安全感，心理上的安全感。因此，他变得神经质，或许，大部分的人都是相当神经质的。所以我们必须自己去探究你是否想要心理上的安全感。而你所说的“安全”这个词指的是什么？当我们说，与我的妻子、我的女友，或者我的观念和结论在一起我很安全—— 作为一个共产主义者、天主教徒、新教徒或者印度教徒，在信仰中他们感到安全。他们没有恐惧，因为他们紧握着这信仰。而当你开始探查或是质问他们，又或是和他们一起推理时，他们便会在某个点上止步，他们不会更进一步探究，这对他们而言太危险了。他们会感觉受到了威胁。如果你和一个共产主义者或天主教徒谈过话，他们到达一个特定的点后便拒绝再更进一步。你或许也在做一样的事，于是，交流便终止了。对于你的思想紧抓不放的事物，无论是一个人、一个物体、一个观念，或是一个结论，或者某个你深深体验过的事物，它们是否具有任何意义它们是否真的具有任何深刻的意义？我会来告诉你我的意思。
29:33	If I cling to my particular form of experience, and that gives me an enormous satisfaction and I cling to that, what is then my relationship with another? He clings to his experience, or his belief, or his particular idea, so there is division, naturally, obviously – you follow this? So communication ceases completely. So are you doing that? Are you blocking yourself because you are afraid to examine that to which you are attached, that to which you are clinging? And therefore thought, logic, reason will not break through. You understand my point? May I go on?	如果我紧抓住我个人特有的经验不放，因为那种经验给了我巨大的满足感，于是我紧抓着那种经验不放，那么，我与另一人的关系是什么？他也紧紧抓着他的经验、他的信仰、他特别的观念。于是，就会有分裂，这很自然，显而易见——你理解这点吗？因此，交流完全终止了。那么，你在这样做吗？你是否正隔绝着你自己，因为你害怕去检视你所依恋的事物，你所紧抓不放的事物？因此，思想、逻辑、理性都无法产生突破。你理解我的意思吗？我能继续吗？
31:06	If I am deeply convinced of my Buddhism, or Zen or certain forms of meditation, convinced and hold on to them, and you think something entirely different, where is there communication between us two? That is what is taking place in the world: either you are a Communist, or a European Communist, or a Capitalist, or a Catholic – division, division, division. Because each human being clings to his particular dogma, to his particular conditioning. Are you doing that? Sorry to bring it home. Then if you are doing that, you may reason, think logically up to a certain point, and therefore incapable of breaking through to a different dimension altogether.	如果我深信我的佛教或禅宗，或某些特定形式的冥想，我深信它们并且紧抓不放，而你的想法与我完全不同，那么我们两个之间还会有交流吗？这就是这个世界正在发生的事：你要么是一个共产主义者或者欧洲共产主义者，要么是一个资本主义者或天主教徒 ——分裂，分裂，还是分裂。因为每个人都紧紧抓着他特定的教条、他特定的局限。你正在那样做吗？很抱歉把这点说得这么直白。如果你正在那样做，你可能会通过推论和逻辑地思考而达到某个点，但却无法突破它进入到一个完全不同的维度。
32:25	So we are asking, knowing that all human beings – practically the whole of humanity – clings, is attached to some form of an idea, to some form of thought which has created a belief, to some form of an experience which is a reaction to what is, and he clings to that. So generally throughout the world this is the phenomena. If you are deeply convinced of Communism, or rather Marxism and Leninism, then you are stuck in a groove. You won't investigate anything else, and so on. So does that give security? Please follow this: does thought, which has created all these beliefs, dogmas, experiences, divisions, can thought give security? You understand my question? Because you function with thought, all your activity is based on thought, horizontal or vertical: wether you are aspiring to great heights it is still the movement of thought vertically. Or if you are merely satisfied to bring about a social revolution, it is still the horizontal movement of thought. So does thought fundamentally, basically, give security psychologically? You are getting my point? I can go to my guru – I haven’t got any, thank God – but I may go to a guru: the action of going to a guru is based on thought, thought hoping that he will give me some kind of security in this uncertain world, he will lead me to some kind of happiness, to some kind of enlightenment, all that is the movement of thought. And I'm asking: does thought give security psychologically? And yet thought has its place. But when thought assumes that it can bring about a psychological security then it is living in an illusion. If you believe in Jesus and all the rest of it, it is the movement of thought, isn’t it? And thought can create every kind of romantic illusion. When the mind psychologically seeks in the dogma of the church or non-church, it is the structure of thought. And thought is essentially – what ? – the movement of the past through the present, modified. Please go into it, you will see it. Thought is the response of memory. Memory is the result of experience, stored up as knowledge, which is all the past. No? Somebody contradict me, for God’s sake.	所以我们在问，认识到全人类 ——实际上，所有的人都紧握着、执着于某种观念、某种形式的思想——这种思想创造了信仰—— 执着于某种经验，这种经验只是对于现状的反应，而他执着于这种反应。所以，总的来说，这是一个遍及全世界的现象。如果你深深地相信共产主义，或者更确切地说是马克思主义和列宁主义，那么你就陷入于窠臼中了。你不会去探究任何其他东西了。那么，这给你带来安全感了吗？请跟上：思想已经创造了所有这些信仰、教条、经验、分裂。思想能带来安全吗？你明白我的问题吗？因为，你是用思想来生活的，你所有的活动都是基于思想的，不管是横向还是纵向：你立志于达到伟大的成就，但这仍旧是思想纵向的运动；或者如果你仅仅满足于带来一场社会变革，它也仍旧只是思想横向的运动。那么从根本上、本质上而言，思想是否带来了心理上的安全？你理解我的意思了吗？我可以去求助于我的古鲁 ——感谢上帝，我没有古鲁—— 但我也许会去找一个古鲁：去找古鲁的行为是建立在思想之上的，思想希望古鲁可以在这个不确定的世界里给予我某种安全感，他会带领我得到某种幸福，得到某种启示，而这一切都是思想的运动。而我在问：“思想是否能给予心理上的安全？” 思想有它的位置，然而当思想假装它可以带来心理上的安全时，它就是生活在错觉中。如果你信仰耶稣，以及诸如此类的一切，这是思想的运动，不是吗？思想可以创造出任何一种浪漫的幻想。当心灵在心理上寻找时 ——在教会或者非教会的教条中寻找—— 这便是思想的结构。而本质上来说，思想就是 ——是什么呢？—— 它就是过去的运动经过现在而得以修正。请探究这点，你会明白的。思想是记忆的回应。记忆是经验的产物，它作为知识被储存了起来，然而这一切都是过去。你认为不是？有人来反驳我啊，看在老天份上。
38:13	So thought, which is the response of memory, knowledge, experience, stored up in the brain as knowledge, memory, that response is always moving from the past. Is there security in the past? Use your reason, logic, all your energy to find out. Is there security in the past, which is tradition, tradition may be one day old, or ten thousand years old, it is still tradition, which is the past. And any activity of thought, which is the essence of the past, can that give security? Have you got my point? Bene? Go into it, think it out. Our religions are based on the past, organised religions, their rituals, dogmas, and all the circus that goes on with it, meaningless, is essentially a tradition, which is the past. And the thought is seeking – see what is happening – is seeking security in the thing it has created itself! I wonder if you see that.	所以思想—— 它就是记忆、知识、经验的反应，经验以知识、记忆的形式储存在大脑里，因此，那种反应永远都是源自于过往。过往中有安全吗？利用你的理性、逻辑和所有的能量去弄清楚。安全是否存在于过去——也就是传统中，这个传统也许只诞生了一天，也许已经有上万年的历史，但它仍旧是传统，也就是过去。那么，思想的任何活动，也就是过去的本质，它能带来安全吗？你明白我的意思了吗？明白了吗？去探究，把它搞明白。我们的宗教是基于过去的，组织化的宗教，它们的仪式、教条，以及所有随之而来的闹剧，都是毫无意义的，本质上来说都是一种传统，也就是过去。而思想正在寻找——看看发生了什么—— 它正在它自己创造的东西里寻找安全感！我想知道你是否看到这点了。
40:36	Mankind has created, through thought, the idea of God. I am not discussing whether there is God or not God, we will go into that much later. Thought wanting ultimate security has created a thing called God. And humanity clings to that idea. The other day the speaker tried to get a passport for a certain country, a pass from a certain country, and one of the questions asked was, 'Do you believe in God?' That is respectable, safe, then you belong to the gang. Thought has created it and thought seeks, in that which it has created, security. Follow the sequence of it. That which it has created, in that it seeks security, and that security is in the past. Because thought is the past, though it may project in the future and say, there is the future of God, I am going to attain godhood, but that movement, thought has created it. And thought is the essence of the past. So you are seeking security in the past, in the things that you have created! So one asks: is there security in the past? You're following? Go into it step by step, you will find out for yourself. Is there security in the past? Or recognising there is no security in the past thought then projects an idea, an idealistic state or an idealistic mind and finds security in that, in the future. It is still the movement of the past.	人类已经通过思想创造了上帝的概念。我不是在讨论是否有上帝的存在，我们以后再探讨那个话题。思想渴望终极的安全感，于是它创造出了一个叫做“上帝”的东西。然后他执着于这个概念。前几天讲话者试图得到某个国家的护照，也就是这个国家的通行证，面试的时候有个问题是，“你是否信仰上帝？” 信仰上帝的人是值得尊敬的、安全的，这样你就和他们是一伙的了。思想创造了“上帝”，然后思想在它所创造的东西里寻找安全感。跟上这个顺序。它在它的创造物中寻求安全，而那份安全存在于过去之中。因为思想就是过去，尽管它可能会投射到未来，说上帝会在未来存在，我将会与神合一，但这种运动是思想创造出来的。而思想就是过去的核心。所以你是在过去中寻找安全感，在你所创造出的事物中寻求安全感！那么我要问：过去之中是否存在安全？你跟上了吗？一步步地探究，你会自己找到答案的。在过去之中存在安全吗？或者在意识到过去中没有安全以后，思想就投射出一个观念、一种理想的状态，或理想中的心灵，然后在它们中、在未来中找到安全感。但这仍旧是过去的运动。
43:26	Is there security in the movement of thought at all? I have explained it. You've got it? So far we have reasoned together, right? And we are asking: is there security in the very things which we hold together as dear, holy, etc., which are all the movements of thought which is the essence of the past, is there in thought total security? If there is not, then what? You understand my question? I have throughout my life – suppose – a human being, throughout his life he has depended on thought and the things that thought has put together as being holy, unholy, moral, immoral, etc., and to that human being, he holds all that as most essential. You come along and say, all that is the movement of the past, after having reasoned with him logically and so on. And he says why not, what is wrong with holding with the past because thought is the past, he acknowledges it, and I'll hold to it, what is wrong? That is, I have had an experience in my relationship with you, as a human being with another human being, I have had an experience with you and to that experience I cling, which is memory, which is the past. So what happens to our relationship? I am living in the past, and obviously a relationship is only in the present. No? If I am living in the past, and you are living in the past, where is our relationship?	在思想的运动中究竟有没有安全存在？我已经解释过了。你明白了吗？到目前为止，我们已经一起推理了，对吗？并且，我们问：安全感是否存在于这些我们紧握不放的、视为珍贵、神圣等等的事物中，这些都是思想的运动，也就是过去的核心，思想中是否存在绝对的安全？如果没有的话，那有什么呢？你理解我的问题吗？在我的一生中——假如一个人在他的一生中都依赖于思想，以及思想所堆砌的事物，视为神圣的、不神圣的，道德的、不道德的等等的事物，对那个人来说，他紧握着这些东西，视为最重要的东西。然后你过来说，这一切都是过去的运动，在通过和他进行逻辑的推理等等之后。然后他说为什么不行呢？紧抓着过去有什么错？因为思想即是过去，他承认这点， “可我就要抓着它不放，这有什么错？” 也就是说，在我和你的关系中，我有了一种经验，作为一个人，和另一个人，我和你有了一段经历，我执着于那段经历，而这段经历就是记忆、就是过去。那么，我们的关系将会怎样？我活在过去，而很显然，关系只存在于当下。不是吗？如果我活在过去，而你也活在过去，我们的关系又在哪里呢？
46:06	Some thoughtful people realise this, have gone into this, then their problem is: if thought and all the things, however noble, ignoble, the churches, the temples, the mosques, all that, whatever it has created is the result of the past, and when the human mind lives in the past and holds to the past then it is incapable of living, or perceiving what is truth. Do you admit that? So if there is no security in thought – and there must be security otherwise you are lost – if there is no security in thought then what? Do you face that problem intensely, vitally, urgently now? Or are you just thinking about it? Are we meeting each other somewhere?	一些有思考的人意识到了这点，探究了这点，然后他们的问题就是：如果思想及其创造的东西，不管它们有多么高尚、卑鄙，那些教堂、寺庙、清真寺，所有这些、如果思想创造出来的一切都是过去的结果，而当人的心灵活在过去中并且紧握着过去的话，那么他就无法去生活或者洞察真相了。你认可这一点吗？那么，如果安全不在于思想里 ——但安全必须存在，否则你将会不知所措—— 如果思想中不存在安全，那么会怎样？你现在是否正强烈地、极其认真地、热切地面对着这个问题？还是，你只是在思考它罢了？我们是否在某一点上达成共识了？
47:36	If I am sitting on a platform, it is only for convenience so that we can see each other. But sitting on the platform doesn't give one authority. So don't look to me to answer it for you. I'll answer it much later, but we must go through the whole phenomena of thinking actively together.	虽然我坐在讲台上，但这只是出于方便考虑，为了我们可以看见彼此。然而，坐在讲台上并不代表我就是权威。因此，不要指望我来替你回答。我最后才来回答它，然而我们必须经历一起积极思考的整个过程。
48:07	Why do you say in thought there is no security? If you say it. You understand my question? We have come to a certain point in our dialogue, dialogue being a conversation between two people. We have come to a certain point in our dialogue, which is: we recognise, we see or we think we understand that thought, with all the things it has created, the most extraordinary technological things – the missile, have you heard about the missile? – and what the Russians have done and so on, the most technological, the most extraordinary things. And technologically human beings are destroying the earth, polluting the lakes, the rivers, all that is happening. And thought has also created the so-called religious structure, the popes, the anti-popes, etc. And we say, yes I see that, and I recognise logically that in that there is no security because when that is questioned there is fear. therefore there is no security. When we say, 'Do you see that?', what do we mean by that word 'see'? Do you understand it? Is it a logical understanding, a verbal understanding, a linear understanding, or an understanding which is so profound that that very understanding breaks down without your effort, that very understanding breaks down the whole movement of thought. Do you understand what I am talking about? Am I explaining it, or shall I go over it again?	为什么你说思想中是没有安全可言的？如果你这么说了的话。你理解我的问题吗？我们的对话已经到了一个特定的点上，对话就是两个人之间的交流。我们的对话已经到达了一个特定的点上，也就是：我们认识到，我们观察到，或者我们认为我们明白：思想创造出了所有的东西，那些最非同寻常的高科技的事物， ——比如导弹，你听说过导弹吗？—— 那些俄国人造出来的东西等等，那些无比高科技的、最先进的东西。从科技层面来讲，人类正在摧毁这个地球，污染湖泊、河流，等等这一切正在发生着。而思想也创造出了所谓的宗教架构，教皇、伪教皇等等。然而我们说，是的，我看到这点了，我从逻辑上明白了，在那之中并没有安全可言，因为当有人质疑这些东西时，就会产生恐惧，所以这其中并没有安全。当我们问：“你看到这点了吗？” 我们所说的“看到”是什么意思？你明白了吗？它是一种逻辑上的理解、字面上的理解、线性的理解，还是一种内在深刻的了悟 ——这种了悟是如此深刻，以至于它无需你的努力便打破了思想的整个运动。你明白我所说的吗？我是该解释它，还是要重新讲一遍？
51:00	I listen to you very carefully, what you are saying. So far logically, reasonably, without too many details, you have gone into this. I have listened to you that thought is the past, thought is the essence of the past, and thought has created all this world, both the technological world and the so-called religious world, moral world and all that, and we try to find in that psychological security. That security is the result of thinking. And you ask: is there in that structure, or in the very process of thinking, in the movement of thought, is there security? You may say, yes. Or you may say, there isn't. If you say there is, then it is obvious you are not thinking logically to the very end. Because people are breaking away from one form of conditioning: Catholic, Protestant, Communist, Leninism, and going off to another conditioning, which is the same. It is like a Catholic becoming a Buddhist or a Hindu, which they are trying to become which is so absurd, and they remain in their isolated fields. And therefore there is no communication between the two. And when there is no communication there is division, and when there is division there must be conflict. It is inevitable. And if you say, well that is life, conflict is necessary, violence is necessary, brutality, wars, every ugliness, torture is necessary, then that is all right, for you. If you say yes, that is the end result. But if you say that thought is not the answer, then what do you mean by saying, 'I understand, thought does not solve this problem.' When you say, I understand thought is the essence of the past and therefore whatever it does is still in the past, whatever it does, and therefore in that there is no security. We have gone into that. And when you say, 'I understand what you are saying', what do you mean by that word understand? That is all I am talking about. What do you mean by saying, I understand? Do you mean you understand the English words? Because you and I perhaps speak the same language. If I spoke in French and you say you understand, is it an understanding of the words, the meaning of the words, the explanation of the word, and therefore you are understanding at a very superficial level. Right? Or when you say, I understand, you mean you actually see, observe the truth of what thought is. You actually feel, taste, observe in your blood as it were, that thought, whatever it creates, has no security. Then you and the speaker can commune. But if you say, let's remain on the surface, we will remain on the surface but then there is no understanding. Am I making myself clear?	我非常仔细地聆听了你所说的话。到目前为止，虽然没讲太多的细节，但你从逻辑上、理性上探究了这个问题。我倾听了你所说的，即思想是过去，思想是过去的本质，是思想创造出了这世上的一切，无论是科技世界，还是所谓的宗教世界、道德世界，所有这一切，而我们试图在其中找到心理上的安全感。那种安全感是思想的产物。然后你问：在思想的结构里或在思考的过程中、在思想的活动中，是否存在安全？你可能会说，有。或者你会说，没有。如果你说有，那么很显然，你并没有逻辑地思考到最后。因为虽然人们摆脱了一种形式的制约，摆脱了天主教、新教、共产主义或列宁主义，然而他却又陷入了另一种制约里，到头来还是一样。这就像是一个天主教徒变成了佛教徒或者印度教徒，他们努力变成其他的东西，但这一切都是如此荒谬，他们仍旧留在了孤立中。因此两个人之间不存在交流。当没有交流，便会有分裂，当有了分裂，就必然会有冲突 ——这是不可避免的。如果你说：没办法，这就是生活，冲突必然会存在，暴力也必然会存在，残忍、战争、所有的丑陋、折磨都是无法避免的，那么对你来说，这一切都没问题。如果你说是这样的，那就是最终的结果了。但是，如果你认为思想并不是答案，那么，你所指的是什么，当你说 “我理解，思想不能解决这个难题。” 当你说，我理解思想是过往的本质，进而无论思想做什么都始终处在过去，无论它做什么，因此，在那当中是没有安全的。我们已经探讨过这些了。当你说：“我理解你所说的”，你所说的“理解”指什么？那就是我所讨论的全部。你所说的“我理解”是指什么？你是指你理解字面的意思吗？因为，你和我或许说着同一种语言。如果我讲法语，而你说你能理解，这是一种字面上的理解吗？理解文字的意思，知道某些词语的解释，因此，你的理解是在一个非常肤浅的层次上。对吗？或者，当你说“我理解”时，你是指你真的认识到、观察到了思想本质的真相。就像它在你的血液中般，你真切地感受、品尝、观察到了无论它创造了什么，思想都是没有安全可言的。那时你和讲话者就会有交流了。可是，如果你说，让我们只浮于表面，那么我们就仍旧只会浮在表面上，而这样就不会有了解了。我说清楚了吗？
55:39	When I say I love you, you understand very deeply if I really love you, don't you? There is instant emotional response. And with a very complex problem like thought, when you say you understand, is there an equal... total response to it? When somebody says I love you, the heavens are open. And in the same way we are asking, when you say, I understand what you are saying, is there an equal burst of energy, total energy? Or you are still saying, explain to me some more, let us think about it much further, give me several days, let me listen to you for the next week, another year, then I will begin to understand – is that your position? If it is, then you will never understand because you are postponing your direct challenge. It is like a house on fire and you say, 'I am going away' – your house has burned. I wonder if you see all this.	当我说：我爱你，如果我是真的爱你，你就能很深刻地理解这句话，不是吗？你马上会有情感上的回应。然而，对于一个像思想这样复杂的问题，当你说你理解时，你是否同样对它也有一种完全的回应？当某人说我爱你时，天堂之门便打开了。同样的，我们问，当你说：我理解你在说什么，是否同样也有一种能量的爆发，全部能量的爆发？或者你还是会说，再向我解释一下，让我们更进一步去思考一下，再给我几天时间，我下周再来听你讲一下，或者过几年再来听一下，然后我才会开始理解 ——你是这样的情况吗？如果是的话，那么你永远都不会理解，因为你在拖延直接去面对挑战。这就像一间房子着火了，你却还在说：“我要准备离开了”——你的房子已经烧焦了。我想知道你是否认识到了这一切。
57:39	So you cannot but respond instantly. When I say I love you, you respond instantly, don't you? That is, if you say, I like your love, then you respond instantly. In the same way, when you see that thought does not give security at all, whatever its creation is: the object, the person, the idea, whatever it is, in that there is no security, when you see that wholly, then what takes place?	因此，你只能立即回应。当我说我爱你时，你立即会有回应，不是吗？也就是说，如果你说，我喜欢你爱我，那么你就会立即有所回应。同样的，当你意识到思想完全无法给予我们安全，不管它创造了什么：不管是人还是物，或是某个理念，不管是什么东西，在那之中都是没有安全可言的，当你完全看到这一点，那么，会发生什么呢？
58:50	If I see, observe, logically have thought out, and deeply comprehend in my blood, not just intellectually, wholly, that all nationalities are a danger – which doesn't mean I accept Communism, or Brezhnev – is a danger because it divides people. I see that completely with all my blood, with all my being, then there is no problem, I have dropped it. But if I seek security in my nationality and cling to that, however logically you may point out the irrationality of it, I will still hold it. So are we dealing with irrational people, neurotic people, or with reasonable, somewhat sane people? You must be somewhat sane – somewhat – because you are here. I don't say you are totally sane, perhaps you will be at the end of the talks.	如果我认识到、观察到，从逻辑上明白了并且深入骨髓地理解了它，不只是从智力上，而是完整地领悟到所有的国家都是一种危险 ——这并不意味着我接受共产主义，或是勃列日涅夫，它们都是一种危险，因为它分裂了人们。我以我所有的存在，深入骨髓地彻底看清了这一点，那么就不会有问题了，我已经将其丢弃了。可是如果我在我的国籍中寻求安全，并且紧握着它不放，无论你多么逻辑清晰地指出其中的不合理性，我仍旧紧握不放。所以我们是在和不理性的人或者神经质的人交谈呢，还是在和理性的、相对清醒的人交谈？你们肯定多少还算是清醒的 ——因为你们到这里来了。我没有说你们是完全清醒的，也许在演讲结束时，你会变得清醒。
1:00:33	Questioner: E' una speranza.	提问者：这只是一种希望（法语）。
1:00:35	K: Una speranza, one hopes.	克：一种希望（法语），对。
1:00:48	When we say we understand, either it is verbal, or real. You see the truth of it and therefore you are free of it. So the seeing the truth of it is the essence of intelligence. Intelligence is not reason, logic, the very careful dialectical explanation, that is not intelligence. That's merely the exposition of thought in various forms. And thought is never intelligent. If it was, our world would be different. So the perception of the truth is intelligence. And in that intelligence there is complete security, because that intelligence is not yours or mine, that intelligence is not conditioned. We have finished with all that because we said, thought in its very movement creates conditions. When you understand that movement that understanding is intelligence. And in that intelligence there is security, from that there is action. Are you like that? Have you got that intelligence? Not got it – is there that intelligence taking birth in you like a child? If not, what is the point of your sitting there and listening to this poor chap?	当我们说我们理解了，要么是口头上的，要么是真理解了。你认识到了其中的真相，因此你就摆脱了它。因此，认识到其中的真相，便是智慧的本质。智慧并不是推理和逻辑，非常仔细的辩证解释，那不是智慧。那只是以各种形式来展示思想罢了。而思想从来不是智慧。如果它是，我们的世界将会是不同的。因此，对于真相的洞察即是智慧。而在那种智慧里，有着绝对的安全，因为，那种智慧并不是你的或是我的，那种智慧是不受制约的。我们已经探讨过了那一切，因为我们说过，思想在它的运动中制造了局限。当你理解了那种运动，那份理解就是智慧。并且，在那份理解中，就有着安全，从中便会产生行动。你们是这样的吗？你是否得到了那样的智慧？没得到——那样的智慧是否在你体内如一个婴孩般地孕育而生？如果没有，你们坐在这儿听这个可怜的家伙说话又有什么意义呢？
1:03:28	So we will talk about this question in different ways, in different fields, like fear, pleasure, sorrow, death, meditation, and all that, but the essence of this is this: that thought is the movement of the past, therefore of time, and therefore it is measurable. And that which is measurable can never find what is immeasurable, which is truth. And that can only take place when your mind actually sees the truth that whatever thought has created, in that there is no security and the very observation of that is intelligence. And when there is that intelligence then it is all finished. Then you are out of this world, though you are living in it, trying to do something in it, you are completely an outsider. And our question is, during the next six talks and gatherings: is it possible in this dialogue between you and the speaker to awaken this tremendous intelligence? That is the function of the speaker, to awaken this intelligence. And if you don't want it, don't sit there! Want it in the sense as you want food, when you want sex, it is a tremendous thing. In the same way you have to find out with all your energy, with all your total being to see if there is this intelligence in each one of us.	因此，我们将从不同的角度在不同的领域中讨论这个问题，比如恐惧、欢愉、悲伤、死亡、冥想等等，然而这一切的实质就是：思想是过去的运动，因此也就是时间的运动，所以它是可度量的。而那个可度量的事物永远无法找到那个不可度量的事物 ——也就是真理。那只能发生于当你的心灵的确看到了真相时，看到了无论思想创造出什么，在那之中都是没有安全可言的，看到这一点就是智慧。当有了这样的智慧，那么一切问题都结束了。于是你便超脱于这个世界之外了，尽管你生活在这个世界里，并且也在努力做一些事情，可你是个彻底的局外人。而我们的问题是，在接下来的六场演讲和集会中，在你和讲话者的对话中，是否可能唤醒这巨大的智慧？讲话者的工作就是去唤醒这种智慧。然而，如果你并不想要它，那就别坐在这儿了！渴望它就像你渴望食物一样。当你想要性爱时，那件事就会变得无比重要。同样的，你必须用你所有的精力全身心地去探究、去搞清楚这种智慧是否存在于我们每一个人身上。