Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SA79T4 - 良善、爱和真相能从训练中产生吗？
第四次公开讲话，
瑞士，萨能，
1979年7月15日



0:59 Krishnamurti: We should go on, I think, with what we were talking about the last three meetings here. 我想，我们应该把 前三次在这儿谈的东西接着讲下去。
1:19 Each trade, each skill, has its own discipline. If you are a carpenter, it has a particular discipline, scientist, architect and so on – each function has its own discipline. And human beings throughout the world are used to this idea of discipline, not only in the technological field, but also in the psychological realm. And we are, through education, through our culture, in every form of relationship, there is, as we have accepted, a certain discipline. I would like, if I may, to go into this question rather deeply: why human beings need discipline at all. Please, carefully listen. Don’t jump to any conclusion and say there must be no discipline, we must live in a permissive society, as we are now, and any form of restraint, any form of holding, is inhuman and therefore the other extreme. 各行各业，每一门手艺，都有它自己的一套准则。 木匠有他的那一套准则， 科学家，建筑师等等，每个职业也都有自己的一套准则。 全世界的人都习惯于这个准则的理念， 不只在技术领域，在心理领域也是如此。 由于教育和我们的文化的影响，正如 我们所认可的那样,在各种形式的关系当中都存在着某种行为准则。 如果可以的话，我希望就这个问题进行相当深入的讨论： 人类究竟为什么需要行为准则？ 请仔细听。 不要跳到任何结论上去，认为我们不能有任何行为准则，我们得 像现在这样在一个放任的世界里生活，任何形式的约束、 控制都是不人道的。那样的话，就走到另一个极端去了。
3:18 As we were saying the other day we must all have the capacity not only to be able to listen, to observe together, but also think together, which apparently is much more difficult because we are so trained through our religion, through our culture, to think individually, separately. And so there is always diversity of opinion, judgement, evaluation, your belief opposed to another belief, ideals opposed to other ideals, and so on. These differences, contradictory, opposing, keep the individual separate, and when there is separation, there must be conflict, which is so obvious: national conflicts, racial conflicts, class conflicts, ideological conflicts, and so on. Now we are asking, we are thinking together if that is possible; I think it is possible when you put aside your own particular opinion, your particular evaluation, experience, conclusions, and feel the necessity of thinking together. Right? Please, do this as we are talking, not when you go home or later on, but now as we are sitting together, let’s find out if it is possible that we can communicate with each other so that there are no barriers. 就像我们前几天说的， 我们全都得不仅能够一起倾听、 一起观察，还应该能够一起思考，显然 这要困难得多，因为我们在宗教和 文化中受到的训练就是分别地思考、单独地思考。 所以总是存在观点、评判和评价上的分歧， 信仰与信仰的对立，理想和理想的对立，等等。 这些分歧、矛盾和对立造成个体的分裂， 而有分裂就必然会有冲突，这是不言而喻的： 国家冲突、种族冲突、 阶级冲突以及意识形态的冲突等等。 我们问，我们一起想一想，我们能否做到一起思考？ 我认为，如果你放下你自己的那个观点， 你的那个评价、经验 和结论，并感受到一起思考的必要性，那就是可能的。 是不是？ 在我们谈话的时候，请这样去做，不要等到回家或者以后再做， 在我们坐在一起的这个时候，咱们就来弄清楚， 我们能否沟通上，彼此间毫无隔阂。
6:09 The speaker is only sitting on the platform not to assume any authority, but it is convenient because you can all see the man. That is the only reason he is sitting on the platform. And is it possible to think together about this whole question of discipline, effort, and whether it is possible at all in life to live without a single effort. Effort means strife, struggle to become something, to achieve something, not only in the psychological realm, but also in the physical realm. Is it possible to act without effort, to have a relationship with each other in which there is no strife whatsoever between two people, and no conflict within oneself to think clearly without the determination to think clearly? All that implies conflict. Can we together think out this question, and as we are thinking it out, eliminate as we are going, so that we can together put aside through our clarity of perception, clarity of hearing, of thinking, that very movement sets aside the contradictory elements. That’s what we are going to discuss this morning, if we may. 讲话者坐在台上，不是为了 扮演任何权威，只是为了方便大家看到这个人。 那是他坐在台上的唯一原因。 我们能否一起思考 整个这个行为准则、努力的问题， 我们究竟能否毫不费力地生活？ 费力意味着竞争,意味着努力去成为什么，去实现什么， 不仅在心理领域，也包括身体领域。 有没有可能毫不费力地行动， 拥有一种彼此毫无争斗， 内心毫无冲突的关系， 清晰地思考而没有为了清晰思考而做出的决定？ 那些全都意味着冲突。 我们能一起思考这个问题吗？在我们对它的思考 过程中把它消除，这样我们可以一起 通过清晰的理解，清晰的倾听和思考把它丢开， 正是这种运动让我们放弃了那些矛盾的因素。 如果我们愿意，这是我们上午要讨论的话题。
8:43 Like the soldiers throughout the world are highly disciplined people, and that very discipline encourages violence. I don’t know if you have not thought about this. A soldier is trained, day after day, month after month, suppressing his personality, suppressing his desires, conforming to a pattern, and there is this very, very strict discipline. And that discipline, when it is in action against somebody, it is violent. That is war. Obviously. The word ‘discipline’ means to learn, not to conform, not to suppress, not to imitate, but to learn. 就像全世界的士兵，他们受到严格的训练。 而正是训练鼓励了暴力。 大家可曾考虑过这个问题？ 一名士兵，日复一日，月复一月地接受训练， 压制他的个性、压制他的欲望，服从 一种模式，这里存在着非常非常严格的训练。 而这种训练，如果用来反对某个人，它就是暴力。 那就是战争。这很明显。 “训练”（discipline）这个词的意思是学习， 不是服从，不是压制，不是模仿而是学习。
10:08 Now, in our thinking together, we are going to observe whether there can be an action in our daily life, without this quality of conformity, without this quality of imitation to a pattern, to an idea, to a nationalism, and so on, so on. I hope you are following all this. For some this may be totally new, so please, have the goodness to listen. To listen implies that you are interested in trying to find out. You know you have listened to yourself probably many times. You have listened to others, but one always listens partially. And when you listen partially, you don’t listen at all. When you listen, you listen. Right? 在我们一起思考当中，我们要观察一下， 我们的日常生活中，能否存在这样一种行动， 没有这种服从的性质，也不是对一种模式、 一个理念以及一种国家主义等所有这类东西的模仿。 所有这些我希望你们都清楚了。 对有些人来说，这可能是全新的东西，那么请仔细听。 听的意思是你有兴趣去弄明白。 你知道你听自己说话可能有很多次了。 你听过别人说话，但是你总是在部分地听。 而当你在部分地听的时候你根本没有在听。 当你听的时候，你听。 对吧？
11:30 Now we are going to find out why man has submitted himself to a series of disciplines, not only in the physical world, technological world, but also psychologically. And is this discipline helping man to free himself from his idiosyncrasies, his conflicts, his problems, his relationship, and so on? You understand my question? Right? Are you all very hot? 现在我们来弄明白为什么人让自己服从 一套纪律，不仅在物理世界、 技术领域，在心理上也是这样。 还有，纪律对于人类摆脱他的嗜好、 内心的矛盾、困难以及关系等等有什么帮助吗？ 大家明白我的问题吗？ 对吧？ 大家都很热吗？
12:37 Can one listen without effort, first? Not to the speaker only, but to learn the art of listening, which means not creating an image about the speaker, about the person who is speaking – your wife, your husband, and so on – not to have an image when you are listening. Right? Not to have a concept, not to hold on to one’s own knowledge, and as you are listening, interpret what is being said according to your knowledge. All this denies actual listening. If you want to see something very clearly, you must give your attention. Attention implies not concentration, just observation, to see what is actually happening. Like a good scientist looking through a microscope, he must look what is actually taking place. But if he has a hypothesis, a conclusion, with that he is looking, then he is incapable of pure observation of what is going on. Right? Please. Therefore there is the art of listening, the art of observing, seeing, then there is the art of thinking together. From that arises the art of learning. We will go into all this presently. 首先，你能否不费力地去听？ 不是只听讲话者说什么，而是学习听的艺术， 这意味着在听的时候，不在心目中制造一个讲话者、 正在说话的人——你的妻子、你的丈夫等人的形象， 心中没有形象。 对吧？ 心中没有观念，不执着于自己的知识， 在听的时候，不根据你的知识来加以解释。 这些做法都阻碍了真正的倾听。 你要想非常清楚地看什么，就必须给予注意。 注意的意思不是专注，注意就是观察， 就是去看实际正在发生的事情。 就像一位优秀的科学家通过显微镜去看， 他必须观看实际正在发生的事情。 可是，如果他带着一个假设，一个结论去看, 他就不能单纯地观察正在发生的情况。 对吧？请理解这一点。 所以，有听的艺术，观察的艺术， 看的艺术，还有一起思考的艺术。 学习的艺术从那里产生。 我们马上就来探究所有这些东西。
15:00 We are now going into the art of thinking together. You and the speaker having put aside their personal problems, issues and all the rest of it, so that we can think together, to observe our problems. Not the problems that the speaker imposes, but the human problems. Right? 我们现在来探究一起思考的艺术。 你和讲话者都把个人的问题，争议 之类的东西丢开，我们好一起去思考和观察我们的问题。 这不是讲话者强加给你的问题，这是人类的问题。 对吧？
15:32 So we are saying: why has man throughout the ages lived in a constant state of conflict? Whether he is seeking God, whether seeking heaven, whatever he does, both in our relationships outwardly and inwardly with each other, there is this constant struggle, strife. How has this come about? Why can’t we live completely without a single shadow of strife? You understand my question? Please, put that question to yourself, and let’s find out the true cause of it, together. 那么我们说： 为什么古往今来人类生活在一种不断冲突的状态当中。 无论他是在寻找上帝，还是天堂， 无论他做什么，我们外在的关系和我们 彼此的内心当中，都存在着不断的挣扎和斗争。 这是怎么造成的？ 为什么我们不能全然地生活，没有一丝斗争的阴影？ 大家理解我的问题吗？ 请问自己这个问题， 然后，咱们一起去弄清楚它真正的原因是什么。
16:49 Strife must exist where there is division. That is obvious; division between the guru and the disciple, between our nationalities, as long as there is a division of any kind, there must be conflict. This is obvious. Right? Do we see that? As long as one thinks one is superior to another, there must be conflict. As long as one asserts one’s opinions, judgements as opposed to another’s opinions, another judgement, there must be division and conflict. In relationship between two people, each pursuing his own ambitions, his own fulfilment his own desires, division exists, and therefore there is conflict. Right? I hope you are following. You are observing it not verbally, not intellectually, but actually as it is taking place in your daily life. Right? 哪里有分裂，哪里必然就存在斗争。 那是不言而喻的。 古鲁与弟子之间、各个国家之间的分裂， 只要存在任何形式的分裂，就一定会有冲突。 这很明显。 对吧？ 我们看到那一点了吗？ 只要一个人觉得他比别人优越就一定存在冲突。 只要你坚持自己的观点、意见，反对别人的 观点、意见，就一定会有分裂和冲突。 在两个人的关系当中， 每个人都追逐他自己的野心、他自己的满足、 他自己的欲望，那么分裂就会存在，于是就会有冲突。 对吧？希望大家都清楚了。 你不是在言语上、智力上进行观察， 而是在日常生活中，在事情发生的时候，真正地去观察。 对吧？
18:29 Now we are asking: why has this division come into being? There is the sunset and sunrise, darkness and light, the stars in their great brilliancy and beauty, and the dark earth, there is a man and a woman, there is nature and technological improvement. All at that level, which is actual. And inwardly, if you observe carefully, inwardly, there is also division: I must/I must not, I have been/I shall be, I shall achieve/I may not achieve. So there is always this inward division as well as outward division. Right? Right, sir? Some of you at least agree or disagree with me. 那么我们问：为什么出现这种分裂？ 日出、日落，黑暗、光明，璀璨的星辰、 黑暗的大地，男人、 女人，自然、技术进步，这些都是存在的。 那个层面的所有现象都是真实的。 而如果你仔细向内观察，那里也存在着分裂。 我必须/我绝不能，我已经/我将要，我可能达到/我可能达不到。 所以，和外在的分裂一样，总存在着内部的分裂。 对吧？对吧，先生？ 你们至少有些人是同意我或者反对我的。
20:01 We are asking why. How has this come about? Is this the normal state, natural healthy state? Or it is really abnormal. Really non-existent. This is what we are going to find out. You are following all this? First of all, we are asking: is this normal, this division? And why does this division exist, between God and man, the good and the bad, the better – and so on, this constant division, comparison, conformity to a pattern, and so on, so on? Is this normal? We have accepted it as normal. Like war – please, follow – like war, like the man who says, ‘I know, you don’t know’, ‘I interpret God and you listen’. We have accepted nationalism, division of classes, hierarchical outlook as being normal, healthy, necessary, because we think that is progress. Right? That is evolution, that is achieving the good. Right? Now we are saying – is this normal? We are questioning to find out together – together – not the speaker says something and you accept or reject, but together we are investigating into this question, which means we are thinking together, not you think and I accept, or I think and you accept, or you reject or I reject, but together we are thinking and exploring. Right? Please. Because we want to point out that there is a way of living without a single effort, both physically as well as psychologically. Right? So is this normal? We say yes, it is normal, because everything struggles to exist. Nature is in constant battle of survival – the tiger killing the deer and so on, so on. That struggle, strife is normal. Because it exists there, it must exist naturally here. And without struggle, without comparison, without competition, you cannot progress. Perhaps that may be so in the technological world, but we have accepted it also psychologically – right? – that the more knowledge we have, the greater the ascent of man. Right? The more one knows about the universe, about the environment, the more and more, the more cultivated, the more educated, the more enlightened the human being becomes. All that implies struggle. 我们在问这是为什么？这是怎么产生的？ 这是正常状态吗？这是自然、健康的状态吗？ 还是说这实在是不正常的。实在不是真实的存在。 这就是我们要去弄清楚的问题。 这些大家都清楚了吗？ 首先我们问：这种状态正常吗？——这种分裂？ 为什么存在上帝和人、 好和坏，好和更好等等分裂，这种不断的分裂、 比较，服从一种模式等等？ 这正常吗？我们已经把它看成是正常的了。 比如战争——请跟着我——比如战争，比如那个人说， “我知道，你不知道”，“我来诠释上帝，你听着”。 我们已经把国家主义、阶级分裂和等级观念， 看作是正常的、健康的和必须的东西了，因为我们觉得那是进步。 对吧？ 那是在进化，是在臻于至善。 对吗？ 我们问，这是正常的吗？ 我们提出质疑，一起去弄清楚——一起， 不是讲话者说些什么，然后你或者接受或者排斥， 而是我们一起弄清楚这个问题， 这意味着我们是一起思考的，不是你思考，我接受， 或者我思考，你接受或者你拒绝接受，或者我拒绝接受， 而是我们一起思考、一起探索。 对吧？请注意。 因为我们想要指出，无论是身体上 还是心理上，都存在一种毫不费力的生活方式。 对吧？那么这是正常的吗？ 我们说，是的，它是正常的，因为一切事物都为生存而斗争。 自然界一直在为生存而斗争， 比如，老虎杀死鹿等等。 那种努力、斗争是正常的。 因为它在那里存在，它自然一定也会在这里存在。 要是没有努力，没有比较， 没有竞争的话，你就不会进步。 在技术领域可能是这样，可是我们 在心理上也相信这一点了。对吧？ 人类的知识越多，进步就越大。 对吧？ 人类越是了解宇宙和 环境，人类知道得越多，就会越文明、 越有教养、越有觉悟。 那全都意味着努力。
25:05 Why is there this division? Have we taken it over from the actual fact that I must struggle with the earth and cultivate it to produce what one can eat? Is it the struggle in the outward world for sheer existence has that concept, or that actuality slipped into the psychological world? You are following all this? Or is this too brainy, all this? I don’t think it is too brainy, it’s just clarity of explanation – right? – verbal clarity. We must begin with verbal clarity, otherwise we cannot communicate with each other. If you say that is all too complicated for me, too highbrow, too intellectual, you stop investigating, finding out for yourself why human beings have lived like this through millennia, struggling. Is that the reason? We see nature in struggle, in conflict, we see to learn a new language implies a certain amount of strain, conflict, attention, to learn a skill requires effort, so perhaps that movement has been accepted in the psychological field. That is one fact. We are asking that. Or is it that human beings throughout the world have emphasised in their culture, in their religion in their activity, the ego, the me, separate from you? Do you follow? So, culture, religion, economics, politics, everything has educated man to the idea, to the concept of the me and the you. Therefore there is a division. And in the me there are innumerable divisions. Right? The ‘me’ not wanting and wanting. The ‘me’ that says, ‘I shall be, I have been, I must be in the future’. So is that the reason why – is that the cause of this division, which is brought about by culture, religion, and so on, so on? That is second. Or is it that each human being is seeking salvation individually, seeking security individually, seeking Nirvana, heaven, illumination, by himself? And the idea that when you reach that, then you are all one. You follow? 为什么会存在这种分裂呢？ 是因为我必须跟土地斗争，耕耘土地，生产粮食， 于是我们把那种实际的分裂照搬到了内心的世界里，是这样吗？ 外部世界的斗争，纯粹是为了生存， 那种观念或者那种真实的情况却溜到了心理世界里面，是这样吗？ 这些大家都清楚了吗？还是说这些都很难理解？ 我觉得不难理解， 它只是一个清晰的解释，对吧？——清晰的表达。 我们先得表达清楚， 否则我们彼此无法交流。 如果你认为它对你来说太复杂、太高深， 智力要求太高，你就是没有亲自去弄明白 为什么人类几百万年来一直生活在这种斗争当中。 是因为那个原因吗？ 我们看到自然界中有斗争和冲突， 学习一门新的语言需要付出一定的艰苦努力、 奋斗和注意力，掌握一门技术，需要努力， 可能是因为这个，我们在心理领域就容许了那种运动。 那是一个事实。我们在思考那个问题。 或者，全世界的人 在他们的文化、宗教和 活动里都强调这个独立于你的自我，我，是这样吗？ 你跟上了吗？ 于是，文化、宗教、经济、政治，全都灌输给人 这种关于我和你的思想、观念， 于是就存在分裂。 在我里面存在着无数的分裂。 对吧？ 想要又不想要的“我”。 认为“我将如何，我已经如何，我将来必须如何”的“我” 文化、宗教等等所造成的“我” 是出现这种分裂的原因吗？ 那是第二个事实。 或者是因为每个人都在单独地寻求自己获得拯救，获得 安全，都在自己寻求涅槃、天堂和启迪？ 还有那个达到那个境界你就会完全融为一体的观念，是这样吗？ 大家明白吗？
29:32 So this has been what we have been taught, encouraged, learnt, conditioned. Right? And a man – or rather when I say a man, there might be ladies who are opposed to man, and all the rest of it – why has a human being not gone into this question? No saint has gone into it. No religious teacher has gone into it. They say ultimately you will be without effort, but you must make effort to reach the ultimate, therefore you must struggle, you must conform, you must discipline, you must starve, you must fast, you must – you know, all the rest of it – you must follow, accept authority. Seeing that, one begins to question it. One asks: is it possible? One sees the causes of this division – political, religious, national: the Arab, the Jew, the Hindu, the Muslim – you follow? – all that, the totalitarian, the capitalist, they are all the same. 我们接受的就是这种教育，这种鼓励和制约。 对吧？ 而一个人——或者其实当我说一个人时，也可能是指与男人 相对应的女士们等等, 为什么没有人探究过这个问题？ 没有一位圣人探究过。 那些宗教导师，谁也没有做过调查。 他们说你最后会达到轻松自如的状态的， 但必须要努力才能臻于完美， 因此你必须努力，必须服从、必须训练、 必须忍饥挨饿、必须斋戒，你必须， 等等、等等,那些东西你都知道的，——你必须遵从权威。 看到那个情况，你开始质疑。 你问：那是可能的吗？ 你看到这种分裂的各种原因，政治的、宗教的、民族的、 阿拉伯人、犹太人、印度人、穆斯林——大家明白吗？ 所有那一切，极权主义者、资本主义者，他们全都一样！ 那么，这是正常的吗？
31:25 So, is this normal? Or we have so given to this individual, isolated self-centred problems, seeking security there and never finding it, because when one is isolated, one can never be secure. Right? I wonder if you see that? Now when one country is isolating itself from another country, how can they co-exist? There must be wars – you know, the whole thing that is going on. But yet we, as human beings, are isolating ourselves in all our activities and trying to find in that isolation security, and have a relationship with another who is also seeking, isolating himself – there must be inevitably conflict. And therefore no security. Right? Security implies a state of mind in which there is no conflict. You following this? Right, sir? 还是我们如此沉浸在个人的、孤立的 和自我中心的问题当中，想从那里寻求安全，却从未 找到过，因为当你与别人隔离的时候，你就永远无法安全。 对吧？大家明白吗？ 一个国家要是跟 另一个国家彼此隔离，它们怎么可能和平共处？ 那是比然会发生战争的——大家知道现在整个世界的形势。 可是，作为人类，我们还是在所有的活动中把自己隔离起来， 试图在隔离中找到安全， 并和另一个也在隔离自己、寻求安全的人 形成关系，这里面必然会存在冲突，那是不可避免的。 因此也就没有安全。对吧？ 安全意味着一种心里毫无冲突的状态。 这一点跟上了吗？是这样吗，先生？
33:23 Is this an illusion, this division, a delusion that man thought has invented? Or is it an actuality in the sense – real, true? Right? Is it the result of thought? You understand? We have the capacity to think, at least most people have, to a limited or to a wide extent. To think clearly. Or think in illusion created by thought. Right? Are you following all this? Thought, as we have been saying, is the response of memory, experience, knowledge. Right? You have stored up through experience certain knowledge, that knowledge has become memory, and that memory responds as thought. This is obvious, we don’t have to discuss this point. Which is, knowledge is the past, experience is the past, memory is in the realm of the past, and so thought, being in the past, is limited. Right? I wonder if you see all this. Yes, sir? Please, don’t agree. Watch it. It is so obvious. So thought is the movement of the past, movement modifying itself in the present, going on, but always rooted in the past. Therefore it is limited. Right? Isn’t that so? Please, come on. 这是一个幻觉吗？这个分裂是人， 是思想发明出来的错觉吗？ 或者在真实这个意义上它是实际的存在吗？ 是吗？ 它是思想的结果吗？ 大家理解吗？ 我们具有思考的能力， 至少大多数人具有这种能力，能够进行有限的或者广泛的思考。 清晰地思考。 或者在思想制造的幻觉中思考。 对吧？ 这些大家都清楚了吗？ 思想，正如我们一直在讲的， 是记忆、经验和知识的反应。 对吧？ 通过经验你积累了一定的知识， 那个知识变成了记忆，而那个记忆做出反应就是思想。 这显而易见，我们无需对此进行讨论。 知识是过去，经验是过去，记忆属于 过去的范畴，于是，因为思想属于过去，所以它是局限的。 对吧？ 不知这些大家是否都看到了。 看到了吗，先生？先不必表示同意。 看着它。那非常明显。 所以，思想是过去的运动，运动在当前 自我调整并继续，而根却一直扎在过去当中。 因此它是局限的。 对吧？ 难道不是这样吗？嘿，加把劲儿。
36:01 So has thought invented this idea as the ‘me’ separate from you? You are following all this? Has not thought created nationalities? Has not thought created the Catholic and the Protestant? Has not thought created the Jew and the Arab, the Muslim and the Hindu, and so on? Has not thought divided this? Right? It is obvious. So in this division, thought hopes to find security. Right? Of course. If you found no security in isolation, you would have some other quality. You are following? So I am asking: as thought is limited, because it is the response of the past and therefore it must always, under all circumstances, be limited, and has thought brought about this isolating existence of each one, separate, in order to be secure in this isolation? You are following all this? Are we following this? 那么，是思想发明了这个独立于你的“我”这个概念的吗？ 这些大家都跟上了吗？ 难道不是思想创造了各个民族吗？ 难道不是思想创造了天主教徒和新教徒吗？ 难道不是思想创造了犹太人、阿拉伯人、 穆斯林和印度人等各个种族吗？ 难道不是思想造成的这个分裂吗？ 对吧？这很清楚。 那么思想希望在这个分裂当中找到安全。 是吗？当然。 如果在隔离当中你没有找到安全，那么你可能会拥有一些其它的品质。 你跟上了吗？ 所以我问：由于思想是有限的，因为它是过去的反应， 因此在所有情况下它必然总是 局限的，思想造成了这种每个人彼此分隔、 相互独立的生存状态，以便在隔离中寻求安全,是这样吗？ 大家都清楚了吗？这一点我们清楚了吗？ 思想也创造了真实的东西：这个帐篷、电灯
38:10 And what thought has created is also actual: the tent, the electric light, the whole technological field – that is actual, real. And is the ‘me’, the ego, real? You understand? Thought has created the world of technology, architecture, poems, statues, beautiful gardens, excellent carpentry, great cathedrals, and also thought has created the things in the cathedrals. Right? I wonder – obvious. All the rituals, dogmas, the whole circus that goes on in every church, in every temple, in every mosque, this is the whole process of the movement of thought. Right? So I am asking, we are asking: is the ‘me’, the ego, actual? Or is it an illusion? A delusion that has been brought about by thought, thought being limited? You understand? In its limitation, it has created the thing which is limited. Do you see this? Or you are rejecting this? Because we are thinking together. And we are saying, where there is division, there must be conflict, there must be strife, there must be this constant battle going on, outwardly and inwardly. Right? Take a very simple example: man and woman. In all relationships, as it exists now, there is conflict. Right? Would you agree to that? At last! At last everybody agrees about something! 和整个技术世界——那是实际存在的、真实的。 而“我”，自我是真实的吗？ 大家明白吗？ 思想创造了技术的世界、建筑、诗歌、 雕塑、优美的园林、精良的木器和宏大的教堂， 而思想也创造了教堂内部的那些东西。 对吧？ 我想知道——很明显。 所有那些仪轨和教义，上演在每一座教堂、 每一所寺庙和每一所清真寺里的 整个这台马戏演出，这是思想运动的完整过程。 对吧？ 于是我在问，我们在问：这个“我”，这个自我，是真实存在的吗？ 还是说它是一个幻觉？ 是一个由局限的思想所导致的错觉？ 大家理解吗？ 处于局限之内的思想，它所创造出来的事物也是局限的。 大家看到这一点了吗？还是说你是在排斥这个事实？ 因为我们是在一起思考。 我们说，哪里有分裂，哪里就一定会有冲突， 就一定会有斗争，在外部世界和内心世界 就一定会存在这种持续不断的斗争。 对吧？ 举个非常简单的例子：男人和女人。 在所有的关系当中，正如现在它就存在一样，都存在着冲突。 对吧？ 对此大家都同意吗？总算同意了！（笑声） 我们终于在某个问题上取得了一致意见！
41:13 You have accepted that conflict, that strife in relationship, and you either escape from it through entertainment, drugs, various forms of fulfilments and all the rest of it, run off to a monastery, to gurus and all that, or – you know all that is happening. And one has never asked in that relationship whether you can live with another perfectly peacefully, not indifferently, not callously, not caring for each other, but caring, being tremendously affectionate, being responsible, but without a sense of conflict. Right? Now, can we think this out together now? Not go home and think it out – now, sitting here, can we together think it out, so that you can totally end this conflict in relationship? 你已经认可了关系当中的冲突和斗争， 你或者通过娱乐、或者通过毒品、 或者通过各种形式的满足之类的东西来逃避它，你躲到 修道院、古鲁等等那里去，或者——你知道所有那类事情。 而你从未问过，在那个关系当中，你能否与 另一个人完全和谐、完全安宁地生活在一起，那不是漠不关心，不是冷酷无情， 也不是彼此在乎对方，而是你们怀着深深的 情感，相互关爱和体贴，你们对对方负有责任，却没有一丝冲突的感觉。 对吗？ 现在我们能一起来想清楚这个问题吗？ 不要等到回家之后——而是现在坐在这里，我们能一起 把它想清楚吗？这样你就能彻底结束关系当中的这种冲突。 问：它可能取决于

克：等一下，等一下。
42:37 Questioner: It could depend... Krishnamurti: Wait, wait. 问：只是对于我以及另一个人。
42:40 Q:...only for me and also for the other one. 克：我就要讨论到那个问题，先生。请稍等一下。
42:42 K: I am going to go into that, sir. Un momento per favoure. We will go into it. 我们会讨论它的。
42:59 First of all, do we see actually, not verbally, actually that which is happening in our relationship? Right? That is obvious. Go slowly, go slowly. Why has this division in relationship taken place? Go on. Don’t say, ‘If we loved each other, it would be all right’. But we don’t love each other. That is obvious. So don’t bring that in, it has no meaning. But the actual fact is conflict. I am saying why? Isn’t it fairly obvious that each one – man, woman – each one is exploiting each other, each one using each other, trying to fulfil sexually, non-sexually in each other, and each one being ambitious in different directions, pulling away all the time from each other and meeting perhaps in bed and thinking we love each other. Now I say: what is the root of all this? Ask yourselves: what is the root of this? Apart from man, woman, nature – you know, difference in sexes – apart from that, why is there this division between you and me, between the woman and man, in their relationship? Is it – we are asking, please, enquire with me – is it our culture, our education, which has so emphasised the ‘me’ so strongly, and the ‘you’ equally strongly? You follow? That is, my ego and your ego. Right? The ego being created by thought, thought which is limited. 首先，我们实际，不是口头说的 实际，我们实际上看到了我们关系当中所发生的事情了吗？ 对吧？那很明显。 我们慢点儿说。慢慢来。 为什么关系会发生这种分裂？ 咱们继续思考一下。 不要觉得，“如果我们彼此相爱就没问题了”。 我们彼此并不相爱。那很明显。 所以，不要把那玩意搬进来，它没有任何意义。 实际的情况是冲突。我在问这是为什么？ 这不是很明显吗？每一个人——无论男人还是女人， 每个人都在剥削对方，每个人都在利用对方， 都在努力从对方那里得到性和非性的满足， 每个人都在各个不同的方向上野心勃勃， 都在时时刻刻远离对方， 然后我们见面，有可能是在床上，我们以为我们彼此相爱。 现在我来问：所有这一切的根源是什么？ 问问你自己：这种分裂的根源是什么？ 除了男人、女人，自然——你知道，性别上的差异， 除了那个，为什么在你和我， 女人和男人之间，在他们的关系当中存在分裂？ 是不是——我们在问，我们一起询问， 是不是我们的文化，我们的教育太过于强调这个“我”， 同样也太过于强调这个“你”了？ 大家明白吗？就是，我的自我和你的自我。 对吗？ 自我是由思想创造，而思想是局限的。
45:54 Now when you look at yourself as an ego, the self, the self-centred entity, what is it? Actually, what is it? Is it the name, the form, the shape, the idea, the concept, the image? Right? That is the ‘me’, with all the tendencies, and all the rest of it. Essentially, it is the product of thought. Do you see that? Or do you say, ‘No, no, that is not it. It is God, in me, and God in you’? You see, that is too silly. To maintain this division, man has invented so many concepts: the Hindus have extraordinary concepts, the Atman and so on, so on – I won’t go into all that. You follow? To maintain this division and to continue in the strife, and no way out of it, man has invented gods, and all the rest of it – the saviours, the – all that nonsense to me. 那么当你把自己当作一个自我、 自身、自我中心的主体看待的时候，自我是什么呢？ 它实际上是什么？ 它是名字、身体、外形、观念、概念或者形象吗？ 对吧？ 那就是“我”，他有着各种各样的倾向，等等。 从本质上讲，它是思想的产物。 大家看到那一点了吗？ 或者，你认为，“不，不，它不是那个东西。 它是我心里的上帝，是你心里的上帝”？ 你看，那太荒唐了。 为了维持这个分裂，人发明了这么多的观念， 印度教徒们有阿特曼等等 那些非凡的观念——我不想讨论所有那些东西。 大家明白吗？ 为了维持这种分裂并在争斗中继续下去， 又因为从中找不到任何出路，人类发明了上帝之类的东西， 那些拯救者，所有那些在我看来就是胡说八道的东西。 那么，你能观察这个思想创造的“我”，
47:50 So, can you observe this ‘me’, which is created by thought, observe it without introducing the movement of thought in that observation? Have you got it? Please, see, first of all, the logic of it. The logic. Thought is the response of knowledge and memory, which is the past. So thought is the past, modifying itself all the time, but it is rooted in the past. And therefore it must always be limited, narrow, can never be whole. Right? And thought has created the division in its action: the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’, the ‘you’ and ‘I’, ‘we’ and ‘they’. And has also created various kinds of divisions: the technological action, the personal action, the ideological action, the supreme action, and so on, so on. Right? That’s a fact. Now can you observe that fact – please, listen carefully – can you observe that fact without thought entering into that observation? 观察它，在那个观察当中不引入思想的运动吗？ 大家明白了吗？ 首先，请看到它所有的逻辑。逻辑。 思想是知识和记忆的反应，二者都是过去。 所以，思想是过去， 它时时刻刻都在调整自身，可是它根植于过去。 因此它必然总是局限和狭隘的，永远都不是完整的。 对吧？ 思想在它的行动中创造了 “我”和“非我”，“你”和“我”，“我们”和“他们”之间的分裂。 思想还创造了其它各种分裂： 技术上的行动、个人的行动、 意识形态的行动以及至高的行动等等。 对吧？那是事实。 那么你能观察那个事实——请仔细听——你能观察 那个事实，而不让思想进入到那个观察当中去吗？
49:52 Q: It is the only instrument I have to use. 问：它是我拥有的唯一的工具。
49:55 K: One moment, sir. I am coming to that, sir. First, go slowly. The gentleman says it is the only instrument that I have, and therefore how can I look without employing that instrument? You have understood? Right? That is a wrong question you have put. Because we have not clearly understood the limitation of thought. If you see clearly the limitation of thought, so you recognise the instrument is itself limited – right? And is it possible not to employ that instrument? If you find a particular drill cannot dig a hole, you find other means to dig a hole. But if you say, ‘I have only this instrument’, then you cannot dig a hole. You understand? So do we realise the instrument itself is useless to investigate into this question of conflict? That is the whole point. You understand? I wonder if you understand this? 克：等一下，先生。我就要说到那个问题，先生。 咱们先慢点儿说。 这位先生认为，它是我唯一的工具， 因此，不使用那个工具我怎么能看呢？ 大家理解了吗？对吧？ 你提出的那个问题是一个错误的问题。 因为我们没有清晰地理解思想的局限性。 你要是看到了思想的局限性， 你就会认识到这个工具自身是局限的。——对吧？ 那么，能否不使用那个工具呢？ 如果你发现有一台钻机不能凿孔， 你就会去找其它工具来凿孔。 但是如果你认为，“我只有这一个工具” 你就无法凿孔了。大家明白吗？ 那么，我们是否认识到这个工具本身 对于研究冲突这个问题毫无用处了呢？ 那就是整个问题的关键。大家明白吗？ 我不知道大家是否理解这一点？
51:54 Sir, we see, we are so used to a particular form of action, which has not produced results, but we hold on to it. We don’t say as it has not produced results, I will put it away, throw it out, let me find out another. You follow? That is our struggle. You want to employ the instrument of thought, and through thought you hope to resolve the problem, but thought itself is limited and therefore it is not the instrument. Right? Do we see that? Do we see in our relationship that there is conflict, each one having his own image and therefore division, and these images have been created by thought, and thought is limited and cannot solve the problem. 先生，我们看到我们太习惯于某种特定种形式的行动， 即使它不会带来结果，我们也还是抓住它不放。 我们不去判断，既然用这把工具毫无效果，我应该把它搁在一边， 把它扔掉，再找一把别的工具。 大家明白吗？那就是我们的斗争。 你想要使用思想这把工具， 你希望通过思想解决这个问题， 但是思想自身是局限的，因此它不是合适的工具。 对吧？我们看到那一点了吗？ 我们看到在我们的关系中存在着冲突了吗？ 每个人都有他自己的形象，因此就有冲突， 这些形象由思想创造出来， 而思想是局限的，无法解决这个问题。 现在，我们要取得一种新的工具，
53:17 Now, we are acquiring a new instrument, which is to observe without the old instrument interfering. You have got this? This is... You see, you won’t let go the old instrument. You think that old instrument will help you, but you don’t see that old instrument has created such tremendous problems in life, and you keep on employing that instrument. Once you see that, then you are looking in other directions. Right? It is like a good carpenter: the chisel doesn’t work, therefore he either throws it away or buys a new one, or sharpens it, but he is rejecting it. But you won’t, because we are not clear, we don’t think clearly. Or we are afraid if the new instrument comes, things might break up. Frightened. Which means you have already projected, thought has already projected an idea that it might not. You are following all this? 就是去观察，不受旧工具的干扰。 大家明白了吗？ 这就是……你看你不想放弃旧的工具。 你以为旧的工具会给你帮助， 可是你没有看到那个旧的工具在生活中造成了如此 巨大的问题，于是你继续使用那个工具。 一旦你看到了那一点，你就会把目光转向别的方向了。 对吧？ 就好比是一个优秀的木匠，要是这把凿子不好使，按理说他应该 把它扔掉，或者去买把新的，要不把它磨快也好，可是他却拒绝这么做。 可是，你不想那样做，因为我们没有弄清楚，我们的思考不清晰。 或者，我们害怕，如果有了新工具的话，事情可能会分崩离析、不可收拾。 你担心。 这意味着你早已投射出， 思想早已投射出一个观念，即事情不可以四分五裂。 这些大家全都跟上了吗？
55:12 So can you, after this, can you observe without the old instrument of thought the actual relationship of two images between two people and the division that exists? Look at it, observe it, see it. Then what takes place? You can only do that when you have put aside the old instrument. 那么你能否，从此以后，你能否不带着旧的思想 工具去观察两个形象、 两个人之间的真实关系以及存在着的分裂。 就是审视它，观察它，看到它。然后，会发生什么情况？ 只有在你把旧的工具摆在一边之后你才能做到那一点。
55:54 Look, sir, if I want to understand what you are saying, I must listen to you, I must listen to you with affection, with care, with attention, because I want to find out what you are saying. But if I say, ‘Yes, I agree with you. I have heard this before’. Or, ‘You are saying something new which is impossible’, you are not listening. So listening implies, sir, a great sense of attention, love, care. But if you haven’t got that, your old instrument is in operation. And then you say, ‘How am I to pay attention? Tell me the method, the system’. Then thought invents the system, then you become a prisoner to the system and you go on with that. Whereas if you see the importance, the danger of separation in relationship – the real danger – we are destroying each other. Right? The terrorists, the capitalists, all the rest of it, we are destroying each other because each one of us feels he’s separate. And if you see the danger, then you will listen, you are already in a state of acute listening to find out if there is a way out of this. 瞧，先生，如果我要理解你说的话，我就必须听你说， 我必须带着情感、带着关心， 注意地听，因为我想要弄懂你在说什么。 可是如果我说，“对，我同意你的意见。我以前听过这个了。” 或者，“你在讲一些新的东西，但那是不可能的。” 你就没有在听。 所以，先生，听意味着 一种巨大的注意、关心和爱的感觉。 而如果你还没有那些东西，你的旧的工具就还在起作用。 然后，你说，“我该如何去注意呢？ 告诉我该采用什么方法、遵循什么体系”。然后，思想就会发明出体系来， 接着，你就成了体系的囚徒，在体系的牢笼里过活。 而如果你看到了听的重要性，如果你看到了分裂的关系所带来的危险 ——那是真实的危险，我们在彼此毁灭。 对吧？ 那些恐怖分子、那些资本主义者，等等， 我们在彼此毁灭，因为我们每一个人都觉得自己是独立的、与别人没有关系。 你要是看到了危险，你就会去听，这时你已经处于 一种敏锐的倾听状态，已经开始着手弄清楚是否有办法摆脱这种危险了。
58:04 Right? Are you listening that way? That means to observe silently. Silence means not just going off to sleep or this or that. Silence is tremendous attention. That attention is complete energy. All the energy that you have, with all your mind and heart. That is attention. Then you listen, and that very listening, that very observation dissolves the limitation of the instrument. 对吧？你是在那样听的吗？ 那意味着寂静地观察。 寂静的意思不是睡着了，也不是这么做或者那么做。 寂静是惊人的注意。注意是完整的能量。 是你全心全意投入进去的全部能量。 那就是注意。 然后，你听，正是那个倾听， 正是那个观察消除了工具的局限。
58:58 But we have not touched upon this question of discipline, because if one understands the nature of discipline: the ‘me’ and the thing to be achieved. You understand? To achieve that, I must discipline myself. If I am to reach God, whatever God may be, which, again, is the invention of thought. Do you accept all this? You see, we discipline ourselves to be good. You tell the child, ‘Be good. Don’t do this, do that’. Is goodness born out of discipline? Have you ever asked that? Is love born out of discipline? Is charity, humility, generosity born out of discipline? And is truth to be found by discipline? Enlightenment through discipline? Which means conformity to a pattern, which is conforming, the ego, the ‘me’, to another pattern, that pattern invented by another ego. You are following all this? 但是我们还没有触及这个训练的问题， 因为如果你理解了训练的本质， 这个“我”和要去达成的东西。 大家明白吗？ 要实现什么我必须训练自己。 如果我要到达上帝那里，无论上帝是什么，那又 是一个思想的发明——大家相信这一切吗？（笑声） 你看，我们训练我们自己，要做好人。 你告诉孩子，“要善良。不要这么做，不要那么做。” 善是训练出来的吗？ 你是否曾经问过那个问题？爱是训练出来的吗？ 慈善、谦卑、慷慨是训练出来的吗？ 真相是通过训练来发现的吗？ 觉悟是通过训练实现的吗？ 这意味着服从一种模式，即让自我 “我”去服从另一个自我发明的模式。 这些大家全都跟上了吗？
1:01:07 So when you see all this, the basic question is: can one live in this world without the ‘me’, without the ego, without all the things thought has created – gods, you know, psychologically? Thought has created the postman – right? – the engineer. You need the postman, you need the engineer, but you don’t need the things that thought has created in its desire to be secure, psychologically. And in that there is no security. Security exists only when there is no division. Right? Will you allow me to go? 那么，当你看到这一切的时候，这个基本的问题就是： 你能否生活在这个世界上，而在心理上没有这个“我”，没有自我，没有 所有那些思想创造出来的——你明白，上帝以及其它神祇那些东西吗？ 思想创造了邮差——对吧？创造了工程师。 你需要邮差，需要工程师，但是你不需要 那些思想因为渴望获得心理上的安全而创造出来的那些东西。 那里面并没有安全。 只有当分裂不存在的时候，安全才会存在。 对吧？ 我可以走了吗？