Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SA84Q2 - 第二次问答会
瑞士，萨嫩，1984年7月24日



0:16 Again there have been probably a hundred and fifty questions or more. You can't answer them all. Probably it would take a couple of months? and I am sure you wouldn't like to sit here for another month. 同样的，我这里又有了 大概150个问题或者更多。 你无法全部回答它们。 那可能要花上好几个月的时间？ 而我相信你们也不想再在这里坐上一个月的时间。
0:43 I wonder - one wonders if there is a final question at all? one question that will answer all questions. 我想知道—— 某人想知道究竟有没有一个终极的问题？ 这一个问题就能回答所有的问题。
1:04 We haven't thought about it. I have just thought about it, just now. Is there a question or an enquiry, not an experience, because experiences are always limited and experiences are conditioned by one's own desires, intentions and limitations. So one cannot possibly rely on experiences, they are the most doubtful things in the world, even this so-called spiritual experience. I am sure most of you want that kind of experience that will sustain one, give one energy and so on. But every experience, however deep, however wide or intricate, such experiences are limited because there is always an experiencer who is experiencing - right? And the experiencer is the past, past memories, his background, and according to that background the experiencer recognises the experience and lives with it hoping he will have a greater experience. But the greater experience, or the wider, deeper, is still always limited because there is the experiencer. 我们并没有想过这件事。 我也是刚刚才想到它，眼下才想到了它。 有没有一个问题，或者一个询问， 不是一种经验， 因为经验总是有限的， 经验是被 我们自身的欲望、目的和局限所制约的。 所以我们不可能去依赖于经验， 经验是世界上最值得怀疑的东西 ——即使是那种所谓的‘灵性体验’。 我相信你们大多数人都想要这种经验， 这种可以支撑一个人，给予一个人能量活力等等的经验。 然而，每一种经验，不管它们是多么深刻，多么广阔或错综复杂， 这些经验都是局限的， 因为总是存在着一个 在经验的经验者——对吧？ 而经验者就是过去，无数过去的记忆，以及他的背景， 经验者根据那个背景 来识别那个经验然后与之生活， 并且希望能够拥有更高级的经验。 但是那个更高级的经验，或者更广阔、更深刻的经验， 它仍旧总是局限的，因为存在着一个经验者。
3:27 Now the question arises which I am putting to you, whether there is anything to experience at all? Except biological, sexual experiences, and so on, apart from those physical reactions and so on, is there any experience at all? Why do we want experiences? Please, as we said, we are enquiring into this together, not the speaker is saying something and you either reject or accept or pass it by. But if we could examine this very interesting question: is there, apart from the ordinary biological experiences and so on, is there any necessity of experience at all? Experiences apparently keep one awake. Experiences, or problems are something thrown at you, especially the meaning of that word 'problem' is something projected at you. That is a problem, the meaning, the root meaning of that word. And experience also means to go through, not hold on what you have gone through. 现在问题出来了，我向你提出了这个问题： 究竟是否存在任何可经验的事物呢？ 除了那些生理上的经验、性经验等等， 除了那些身体上的反应，等等， 究竟是否存在任何经验呢？ 为什么我们想要经验？ 请注意，就如我们所说的，我们是在一起探询这个问题， 不是演讲者说一些东西， 然后你要么拒绝它，要么接受它，或者忽视掉它。 而是我们是否可以来检视一下这个非常有趣的问题： 即除了那些通常的生理上的经验，等等， 其他任何经验是否有必要存在？ 很显然，经验能够保持一个人警醒。 经验，或者说是问题，它是某种向你扔过来的东西， 特别是‘问题（problem）’这个词的意思， 它的意思就是某个朝你投射过来的东西。 这就是‘问题’， 这就是这个词的意思，这个词的词根意义。 而经验同样意味着去穿越， 而不是紧紧抓着你已经经历过的东西。
5:47 So does the brain need problems to keep it awake, challenges, crises, shocks, does it need these things to keep it awake? Because we live such a superficial life and we are satisfied by it, most of us at least. And by all the education and so on we become rather mechanical and lazy, indolent. And to keep us awake we feel problems, pressures and so on are needed to keep the brain alert - right? Can the brain be alert, extremely watchful without any drugs, problems, challenges, shocks? Have we ever enquired into this at all? Or we are so eager to have something more, something better, measuring always which makes the mind still more dull. It is a dull mind asking for more - right? But we are not being cynical, please, but if we could enquire into something and find out whether the brain which has been conditioned for millennia upon millennia, conditioned through various accidents, incidents, pressures, propaganda, programmed, can that brain be naturally, without any effort, be fully awake? To find that out one must reject totally all experiences except the experiences, physical experiences, psychological experiences must be totally rejected. And so not depend, not depend on pressures, impressions, stimulations. You are being now, by the speaker, stimulated, unfortunately. He will act as a drug, like coffee, tea or stronger drugs, alcohol and so on. If one depends on these things as a stimulant, to keep the brain alert, then you are merely sustaining the mechanical process. And the brain has become for most of us mechanical, repetitive. 所以，头脑需要这些问题来保持自己的警醒吗？ 各种挑战、危机、打击， 头脑需要这些东西来让自己保持清醒吗？ 因为我们过着一种如此肤浅的生活， 而我们满足于此——至少我们大多数人满足于此。 而经由所有那些教育，等等这类东西， 我们变得相当机械化、懒惰和怠惰了。 因此为了保持自己警醒， 我们觉得自己需要各种问题、压力等等 来保持头脑的警觉——对吗？ 那么头脑能否在没有任何药物、问题、挑战和打击的情况下 保持警觉和高度的警醒呢？ 我们是否曾经探询过这个问题？ 还是说我们是如此渴望拥有更多的东西，更好的东西， 总是在度量着， 而这让头脑变得愈发迟钝了。 一个迟钝的头脑才会要求更多——对吗？ 但请注意，我们并不是在愤世嫉俗， 而是我们是否可以去探询某种可能性， 去发现是否头脑 ——这个已经被局限了有数千年的头脑， 被各种事故、 事件、压力、宣传洗脑所局限的头脑 它被程序化了， 这个头脑可以自然地、毫不费力地保持充分的警醒吗？ 要找到答案， 我们就必须彻底拒绝所有的经验， 除了那些生理上的经验， 而那些心理上的经验则必须彻底地拒绝。 由此我们就不会再去依赖， 不再需要依赖于各种压力、影响和刺激了。 你们此刻很不幸地正在被演讲者所刺激着， 他就像是一种兴奋剂， 就像是咖啡、茶或者更猛烈的药物，酒精，等等。 如果一个人依赖于这些东西来作为一种兴奋剂， 从而保持头脑的警醒的话， 那么你就只是在维持那个机械化的过程。 而对于我们大多数人来说，头脑已经变得机械化和重复化了。
10:29 So to live a life without a single challenge which doesn't mean it goes to sleep, without a single demand, both outwardly or inwardly, so that the brain is extraordinarily active. Action is not movement - I wonder if you see this? May I go into it a little bit? Interested in it? 所以，要去过一种没有丝毫挑战的生活 ——这并不意味着头脑沉睡过去了—— 一种外在或内在都没有丝毫要求的生活， 由此头脑就会极其活跃主动。 行动并不是一种运动——我不知道你们是否看到了这一点？ 我可以稍微深入一下它吗？你们对它有兴趣吗？
11:12 Action is not movement. Movement implies time - right? To go from here to there and so on. Any kind of movement is in the realm of time and thought. Right? All movement, both physical and psychological, all thought is contained in the field of time. Right? And action is not of time. Action is not having done and the remembrance of the things that have been done, or experience or problems solved, which is all the background which is time, or the future is also time. Therefore action is instant, the very living of it immediate, instantly. Are we conveying something? 行动并非运动。 运动意味着时间——对吧？ 从这里到那里，等等。 任何一种运动都是落入于时间和思想的范畴中的。 对吗？ 所有的运动，不管是物理上的运动还是心理上的运动， 所有的思想都是包含在时间的领域中的。 对吧？ 而行动并不属于时间。 行动并非是‘做了什么’， 然后回忆起那些做过的事情， 或者经验，或者那些已解决的问题 ——这些全都是那个背景，也就是时间， 或者说是未来，未来也是时间。 因此行动是即刻发生的， 立即和直接地去经历体验它。 我们是否在彼此传达着某些信息？
12:48 So we are talking over together the question of a brain that has been so spoilt, so shocked, so wounded. Any shock is a wound, or any hurt. To have such a brain which is not capable of being hurt, psychologically, you may receive a shock when you fall down the staircase - that is a different matter. I hope you won't fall down the staircase. But the shock that one receives over bad news or suddenly the doctor says, 'Old chap, you have got cancer'. Or the shock of someone leaving you. All those kinds of shocks wounding naturally the brain so that it is constantly in a strain. But to have a mind which is untouchable by circumstances - you understand? Such a brain is something extraordinary. That's part of meditation, not all the silly stuff that is going on. 所以我们正在一起讨论这个关于头脑的问题： 头脑已经受到了如此大的损坏、 如此大的打击和伤害。 任何一个打击——或者任何一个伤害——都是一道伤口。 要拥有这样一个不会受到伤害的头脑 ——这里说的是心理上的伤害， 当你从楼梯上摔下来时，你也会受到一个打击 ——但这是另一回事了。 我希望你们不会从楼梯上摔下来。 这里说的是那种当一个人得知了坏消息时所遭受的打击， 或者医生突然告诉你说，‘这位老兄，你得了癌症’。 或者那种某人去世，离你而去的打击。 所有这些打击很自然地会伤害到头脑， 由此使得头脑不断地处于紧张压力之中。 然而，我们要拥有一个不会被环境状况所影响触及的头脑 ——你明白了吗？ 这样的头脑才是某种非凡之物。 这些就是冥想的一部分， 而不是所有那些正在发生着的愚蠢之事。
14:57 So we have asked is there a question which would answer all questions - only one question. We have answered it. Right? 所以我们问：是否存在着这样一个问题， 它可以回答所有的问题——只要一个问题即可。 而我们已经回答了它。 对吧？
15:21 Your statement that art is merely the product of thought and therefore not creation has troubled many artists, poets, musicians who are here and who think that they are creators. Cannot creation include the activity of thought? 你说艺术仅仅是思想的产物， 因此它并非创造， 这番话给很多艺术家、诗人和音乐家带来了困扰， （包括我们）在座之中那些认为自己是创作者的人。 创造难道就不能包括思想的活动吗？
16:01 Your statement that, that is merely - no, there is something missing here. Your statement that all, all art - there is something wrong here. Your statement is merely the product that - No, this is all wrong. Ah, yes. Your statement that is merely... Your statement... Your statement that art is merely the product of thought and therefore not creation has troubled many artists, poets, musicians, including us who are here and who think that they are creators. Cannot creation include the activity of thought? Right? The question is clear. 你说……它仅仅是—— 不对，这里有一些东西忘记读了。 你说所有的，所有的艺术—— 这里好像有点不对。 你所说的仅仅是它的产物——即 不对，全都错了。 啊，看懂了。 你所说的仅仅是 你说 你说艺术仅仅是思想的产物， 因此它并非创造， 这番话给很多在座的艺术家、诗人和音乐家带来了困扰， 包括在座的我们， 我们中那些认为自己是创作者的人。 创造难道就不能包括思想的活动吗？ 对吗？这个问题很清楚。
17:42 The speaker has said that thought with all the nature of thought can never be creative. And thought which is the expression also of an artist, poet, musicians and all of us included, thought is always limited. Right? So first we must enquire into what is thought, why it is limited, whether it is expressed by the greatest poet in the world or the greatest artist or the artist who is just beginning - I hope the artist is always beginning, not achieving - I think it was Goya, or Velasquez, I have forgotten who, one of those, said, 'I am always learning'. Goya? Bene! He was ninety two when he said that - I am still learning. 演讲者曾经说过 思想以及所有思想的本质 永远无法具有创造性。 而思想，它同样也包括了 艺术家、诗人、音乐家和我们所有人的表达， 思想永远都是局限的。对吧？ 所以首先，我们必须探询什么是思想？ 为什么思想是局限的？ 不管是世界上最伟大的诗人表达了它， 还是最伟大的艺术家表达了它， 或者是刚刚起步的艺术家表达了它 ——我希望艺术家永远都像是刚刚起步一样，而不是去实现什么目标—— 我记得是戈雅（西班牙画家）还是委拉斯奎兹曾说过——我忘记是谁说的了， 他们中有个人曾经说过，‘我永远都在学习中’。 是戈雅吗？好的（意大利语）！ 当他说这话时，他已经92岁了——他说：我仍旧在学习中。
19:27 So we have to enquire into several things: first of all, what is creation? Creation, how the world has come into being - that is part of creation. And we ought also to enquire into thought and the art of living, which is far the greatest art, the supreme art, and the art of painting, the art of music, the art of speech. And why do we give such extraordinary importance to artists? The other day a picture was sold for ten million dollars - it was probably a very good investment! So we have to enquire into all this, not just condemn or say, why do you say that? 所以，我们必须要探询以下几件事情： 首先，什么是创造？ 创造，这个世界是如何形成的 ——这也是创造的一部分。 而我们也应该去探询思想 和生活的艺术 ——它是迄今为止最伟大的艺术，最高的艺术， 我们同样要去探询绘画的艺术、音乐的艺术， 演讲说话的艺术。 以及为什么我们要赋予艺术家们如此巨大的重要性？ 前几天，有一幅画卖了一千万美元 ——它可能是一笔非常棒的投资！ 所以我们必须去探询这一切， 而不只是去谴责，或者问，‘为什么你要这么说？’
21:09 So first let's enquire what is the art of living? Why do you say that is the greatest art, greater than any other art in the world, from the marvellous carpenter who puts a cabinet together and the great artists, Leonardo da Vinci and so on, great classical artists and the great poets, and those of us who are not so-called artists, but we may have the sensitivity to look at the mountains, sensitivity to someone suffering, sensitivity to nature, to look at a tree. There is a marvellous tree on the road - single, whole, one great trunk with many, many branches, full of foliage, fluttering in the wind. When you look at that beauty or the beauty of a cloud with sunlight on it, we have to also enquire then what is beauty - right? 所以首先，让我们来探询一下：什么是生活的艺术？ 为什么你说它是最伟大的艺术， 比这个世界上任何其他艺术都更加伟大， 从那个组装柜子的杰出木匠， 到伟大的艺术家们，列奥纳多·达·芬奇，等等， 伟大的古典音乐艺术家们和伟大的诗人， 以及我们中那些并非所谓‘艺术家’的人， 但是当我们观赏高山时，我们也许会有很强烈的感觉， 对某人的痛苦有强烈的感受， 对大自然很敏感，去观赏一棵树。 那条路上有一棵无比美妙的大树 ——它孑然独立、完整，粗壮的树干上长着无数的枝条， 枝条上长满了树叶，树叶在风中飘动着。 当你看到这种美， 或者闪耀着阳光的云彩的美丽时， 所以我们也必须来探询一下什么是美？ 对吧？
23:06 So this question implies a great many things, not just one thing. What is beauty apart from the physical form - clean cut face, healthy, full of sparkling eyes and smile and sense of dignity? There is the beauty of a mountain, of a tree, or the running waters. When does one see such great beauty? You may go to all the museums of the world, and the speaker has visited many, many museums, and everybody says, 'What a marvellous picture that is, how beautifully proportioned the colours, the shape, the grouping', and all the rest of it. So we use the word 'beauty' in so many ways. Beauty salon! And so on. What is, if you really enquire into it, what is beauty? Does beauty lie in the eye, in the heart, or in the mind? Or there is beauty when the self, the ego is not? You understand? The ego with all its problems, with all its travails, all its confusion, uncertainty, misery, happiness, you know - that is the self. And when that self, says, 'How beautiful it is', it has very little meaning. Perhaps you have heard of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, the most extraordinary canyon it is, miles of it, a river cutting through it. It is really a most extraordinary sight. And somebody has said in a book, in the hotel book, 'I have seen this glorious sight and I am glad I am going to have tea'. 所以这个问题其实暗示了很多的东西， 而不只是一个东西。 除了那些物质上的形式以外，什么是美呢？ ——除了好看的脸蛋，健康，闪闪发亮的眼睛， 微笑，以及高贵感以外，美又是什么呢？ 一座高山的美，一棵树的美，或流水之美。 我们何时才能看到这种巨大的美呢？ 你也许可以走遍全世界所有的博物馆， 演讲者曾经去过很多很多的博物馆， 大家都会说，‘这幅画是多么的精美绝伦啊， 色彩、形状与组合的比例分配是多么的美啊’， 等等这些。 所以我们在如此多的地方都会使用‘美’这个字。 美容院！ 等等。 但如果你真正地去探询它的话，什么是美呢？ 美存在于眼睛里吗？存在于心灵中吗？还是存在于头脑中？ 还是说，当‘我’和自我不在时，才会有美？ 你明白了吗？ 自我及其所有的问题，所有的劳苦， 所有的困惑、不确定、痛苦、幸福，你知道的 ——这就是自我。 而当那个自我说，‘它是多么美丽’的时候， 这并没有什么意义。 也许你听说过位于美国亚利桑那州的大峡谷， 它是最非凡惊人的峡谷，它绵延数里， 一条河穿过它，将它一分为二。 它真的是最非凡特别的景色。 而有人在一本书中说——在旅馆的书中说， ‘我已经看过了这惊人的美景， 而现在我很高兴自己将要去喝茶了’。
26:34 So is it possible to look at something - the tree, the mountain, the valley, your wife or your husband, or something - without the self, without you coming between that and your perception? You understand? Is it possible to appreciate that sense of great beauty? And that beauty cannot possibly exist when the self is there. You may be a great artist, in the modern sense of that word too, and be tremendously egocentric, tremendously ambitious, grabbing money - right? And painting the extraordinary picture. And we call that a great artist. 所以，我们是否可能看着某个东西 ——树木、高山、山谷， 你的妻子或你的丈夫，或者别的什么—— 而没有自我， 没有一个‘你’介入于你的感知和感知对象之间？ 你们明白了吗？ 我们是否可能领会那种伟大的美的感觉？ 而当自我存在时， 那种美便不可能存在了。 你也许是一个了不起的艺术家， 现代意义上的‘艺术家’， 但同时你可能是极度自我中心，野心勃勃的， 你会去攫取钱财——对吧？ 但同时也会画出非凡美丽的图画。 而我们把这样的人称为是伟大的艺术家。
27:58 So we have to ask what is the art of living? which is the greatest art on earth, because we have never... The great poets, the great sculptures, Michelangelo, and all the rest of them, have they understood... I am not belittling them or being disrespectful to them, or to you who are here as artists, poets, musicians. Can one discover first the art of living and then everything you do is art. And what is the art of living? 所以我们必须要问一下：什么是生活的艺术？ 这种艺术是地球上最伟大的艺术， 因为我们从来没有 那些伟大的诗人，伟大的雕塑家， 米开朗基罗，等等这些人， 他们是否了解 我并不是在贬低他们，或者对他们不敬， 或者对你们在座中的艺术家、诗人、音乐家不敬。 而是我们能否先去发现那种生活的艺术？ 然后，你所做的任何事情都将会是艺术。 所以什么是生活的艺术呢？
29:05 I believe the word 'art' means giving the right proportions to life, giving, placing all the things in life in their order, not exaggerating any one thing. And to find out the art of living requires tremendous... not only intellectual capacity, but also great sensitivity. The art of living can only come when there is total freedom, freedom from all our petty little worries, all our intentions, all our problems, fears, and when there is this extraordinary sense of wholeness. That is, when you are nothing. Nothingness is wholeness. I wonder if you understand all this. Because we are always wanting to be something. If you are a clerk, you want to become the manager, or if you are a scientist, you want to explore more and more, and fame, publicity, you know, all the rest of it - research. Research into biology, not research into your own mind, your own being. That doesn't count in the world. That is of no importance. But to be a scientist, exploring into the atom is given tremendous importance. 我认为‘艺术’这个词的意思是 正确合理地去分配生活的各部分， 让生活中所有的部分都按照自己的秩序运行， 不去夸大任何一个部分。 而要发现这种生活的艺术需要有极大的 不仅仅是聪明才智，同样也要有高度的敏感。 只有当有了完全的自由后，生活的艺术才会降临， 这种自由就是摆脱掉我们所有卑微琐碎的担忧， 我们所有的目的意图， 我们所有的问题和恐惧， 当我们有了这种非凡的整体感时， ——换句话说，也就是当你‘什么都不是（nothing）’时。 那种空无（Nothingness）就是完整。 我不知道你们是否理解了所有这些。 因为我们总是想要成为什么。 如果你是一个职员，你会想要成为经理。 如果你是一位科学家，你会想要探索发现更多的东西， 想要名声，知名度，你知道的，等等这些东西——想要做研究。 去研究生物学， 而不是去研究你自己的头脑，你自身的存在 ——因为这种研究在现实世界中并没有什么价值， 它并不重要。 而作为一名科学家，探索原子 却被赋予了巨大的重要性。
31:55 So can we find out for ourselves the art of living? To go into that we must find out the nature of thought. Thought is born of knowledge - right? - as memory. Thought is memory, knowledge, experience. If there is no experience, no knowledge, no memory, there is no thinking. You may have a feeling, but it is not active thinking. And our thinking in any direction - horizontal or vertical, linear or whole - is still limited because knowledge is always limited whether now or in the future. Is that clear? That is so. It is not what the speaker is saying, asserting, it is a fact, because all our experiences are limited. When it is limited, there is a demand for the more - more knowledge. And we see that knowledge, though some of the biologists and scientists say through knowledge man ascends - you must have heard them. Man ascends through knowledge, probably physically - you understand? They are building greater houses, better houses, better heating, better roads, better communication, better ways of killing man and so on and so on. So thought being limited has created this world, this society in which we live. Obviously. Thought has created all the rituals and all the religious organisations. Thought has created the gods out of fear, out of the desire for comfort, security. Thought is a material process because - you understand? - it is contained in the brain. The speaker is not an expert on brains, but he has watched how one's own brain works, its reactions, its rhythm, and so on. I won't go into all that. So thought, whatever it does, is limited. And being limited it can invent, invent new ways of building a cycle, better ways, invent new combustion, internal combustion machinery and so on, you know, the jet and so on. It can invent everything, but invention is not creation - right? One may write a beautiful poem and feel that is my creation, but it is still within the area of thought. Right? Bound to be. If one writes a poem, however magnificent, however beautiful, however the depth and the rhythm of the words and all that, it is still - the feeling may be different but the expression of it is still within the field of thought. 所以我们能否亲自去发现生活的艺术？ 要探究这一点，我们就必须去发现思想的本质。 思想源自于知识——对吧？——记忆也是。 思想就是记忆、知识、经验。 如果没有经验、知识和记忆， 就不会有思考了。 你或许会有某种感受，但它并非是积极主动的思考。 而我们的思考，任何方向上的思考 ——横向的、纵向的，线性的或整体性的—— 它仍旧是局限的， 因为知识永远都是局限的——不管是现在还是未来。 这一点清楚了吗？事实就是如此。 这并不是演讲者的声称和断言， 它是一个事实， 因为我们所有的经验都是局限的。 而当它是局限的时候，我们就会要求更多 ——更多的知识。 而我们看到，知识 尽管一些生物学家和科学家说 人类通过知识而提升了自己 ——你们一定听到过这样的说法。 人类通过知识获得了提升， 也许是物质上的提升——你理解了吗？ 人们建造了更大的房子，更漂亮的房子，更好的暖气设施， 修建了更好的道路，有了更好的通讯手段， 更强大高效的杀人方式，等等这一切。 所以局限的思想 已经创造出了这个世界，这个我们所生活于其中的社会。 这是显而易见的。 思想已经创造出了所有的宗教仪式和所有的宗教组织。 思想经由恐惧， 经由对安慰和安全的渴望而创造出了神明。 思想是一个物质化的过程， 因为——你明白吗？——思想是包含在大脑里的。 演讲者并不是一位大脑专家， 但是他已经观察过了自己的大脑是如何运作的， 观察了它的反应，它的节奏，等等。 我就不深入所有这些了。 所以思想，它所做的任何事情，都是局限的。 但局限的思想仍旧可以去发明， 发明新的制造自行车的方法，更好的制作方法， 发明新的燃烧方式，新的内燃机，等等， 你知道的，喷气式飞机等等。它可以去发明任何东西， 但是，发明并非创造——对吧？ 你也许可以写一首美妙的诗歌， 然后觉得这是我创造的， 但那首诗歌仍旧是落入于思想的领域中的。 对吧？它必然如此。 如果某人写了一首诗， 不管那首诗是多么的华丽，多么的美丽， 意义多么深刻，文字多么具有韵律，等等这些， 它都仍旧是 诗歌的感情或许会有所不同， 但是诗歌的表达仍旧是落入于思想的领域中的。
37:24 And so whatever thought does is limited. And inventions are limited. One invents something and somebody comes along and invents the same thing much better and so on and so on. So what is creation? This has been a question that has been asked by the ancient Hindus, the later Greeks, and we say 'God has created all this' - that is a very convenient way out of things. But if one asks for oneself putting all these assertions aside, what is creation? Can it be born out of knowledge and therefore creation is limited? Or creation is something beyond all knowledge, it has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge. You understand? If you go into this very seriously to find out, not I find out and tell you, but find out for oneself, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with thought, with memory, with knowledge, with experience. We will put all that in one word to convey all that knowledge. As we said knowledge is always limited, now or in the future. And creation must be something limitless. Not 'I create a poem', that is a misuse of that word, if one may point out. We are not belittling the artist, or the painter, or the etc., but we are enquiring very, very deeply into this question to find out that which is not created by thought, the immensity of the universe. One can look at the universe through a telescope, see the various gases and so on, but the enormity of creation, the thing that is not measurable by words, we measure everything by words, to be free of knowledge - you understand? and yet have knowledge in its place. To find that out whether the brain can ever be free from knowledge and the word, but yet keep knowledge in its place - you understand? Driving, talking, writing a letter, various forms of skills and disciplines, there knowledge is absolutely necessary, otherwise you and I, the speaker, wouldn't be sitting here. But the sense of immensity, the sense of that creation which is not measurable by thought and therefore creation is... So creation is something that has no relationship with knowledge. I would like to cry out for help, but how can one be helped, in quotes, to freedom? 因此思想所做的任何事情都是局限的。 而各种发明物也是局限的。 某人发明了一个东西，然后另外一个人出现了 他发明了同样的东西——但是更加好一点，等等。 所以什么是创造呢？ 古代的印度人， 和后来的希腊人， 都曾经问过这个问题， 然后我们说‘是上帝创造了所有这一切’ ——这是一种非常方便的解决办法。 但如果我们把所有这些断言都抛开，然后问问我们自己， 那么什么是创造呢？ 它能够从知识中诞生吗？ 那样的话，那种创造就是局限的。 还是说，创造是某种超越所有知识的事物， 它和知识没有任何的关系。 你明白了吗？ 如果你非常严肃认真地深入它从而去发现的话， 不是我发现了，然后再告诉你，而是你自己去发现它： 即创造和思想、 记忆、知识、经验没有任何关系。 我们将会用一个词——知识——来表达所有上述的东西。 就如我们所说，知识永远都是局限的——不管是现在，还是未来。 而创造则必然是某种无限之物。 不是‘我创造了一首诗歌’，这是对‘创造’这个词的误用 ——如果允许我指出它的话。 我们并没有在贬低艺术家、画家、等等这类人， 而是在非常非常深入地探询这个问题， 去发现那个并非思想所创造的事物， 那种宇宙的巨大无限。 我们可以通过望远镜来观察这个宇宙， 我们也能观察各种气体，等等， 然而那种创造的巨大无限， 那种无法用语言文字度量的事物， 我们会用语言文字来度量一切事物， 而我们需要超脱于知识——你明白了吗？ 同时也让知识有其自身的位置。 去发现它： 头脑是否可以摆脱掉知识与文字， 同时也保留知识在其应有的位置上——你们明白了吗？ 比如驾驶汽车、谈话、写信， 各种技能与学科， 在这些地方，知识是绝对必要的， 否则的话，你和我，和演讲者，就不会坐在这里了。 但是，那种巨大无限的感觉， 那种无法用思想度量的创造物的感觉。 所以，创造是 因此创造是某种 和知识无关的事物。 我想要大声求助， 但是我要如何才能‘得到救助’——‘得到救助’是加引号的——从而获得自由？
42:54 I would like to cry out for help, but how can one be helped, in quotation, to freedom? 我想要大声求助， 但是我要如何才能‘得到救助’——‘得到救助’加引号——从而获得自由？
43:09 Sir, there are moments and days, periods, when we want to be helped. We want to be helped when we go to a doctor, we want to be helped when we have a disease, when we have been troubled by asking, by talking over with somebody. We are always in the world, whether here or in Asia or different parts of the world, we are always wanting to be helped - right? And there are those who give you help - the priest, the vicar in the local village, the pope, those gurus who say, 'I'll help you'. There are all those people in the world who are trying to help others because people are wanting help. This is apparently a natural response to all their travail and to their misery, unhappiness. Probably most of you, if one may most respectfully point out, you are all perhaps wanting to be helped. Perhaps. Some may not. And why do you want to be helped? Who is to help one? This is really quite a serious problem. We have been helped by leaders, quotes 'leaders', helped by priests, by psychologists, by therapeutists, by various literature - right? The craving, the human craving, this crying to be helped. Why? This has been going on not only during our lifetime, this has been going on from the beginning of man, wanting to be helped. Or wanting, not only from another, helped by another, but also praying to God, to some symbol, to something, crying out to be helped. And this we have been doing for thousands and thousands of years, political leaders, social leaders, and so on, gurus with their absurdity. All this has been going on. And we have not been helped - right? To be helped means to become strong, not depend on anybody, to see things objectively very clearly, not personally. And because we are rather indolent we are so easily satisfied. For most of us are discontent. Discontentment is like a flame, we want to smother it. We don't keep that flame alive because it is too troublesome, it might bring about destruction, not destruction, revolutionary physical destruction, but the destruction of one's own pettiness, one's own uncertainties and so on. So we want to be helped. And there are people who are helping us, therefore they are keeping us permanently in a state of not being able to help ourselves - right? Is it possible not to look to another? Not to look to books, to nothing, because what you are is the result of being helped. If you say to yourself, 'I am going to understand myself, I am going to watch myself, see exactly what I am', not get depressed seeing what you are, or elated, but just to observe. And this observation is very simple if you really want it. You are not seeking help from anybody, therefore you have to rely entirely on yourself, which means tremendous responsibility. And we don't want to be responsible. This is one of the things that is happening in the world, we are becoming less and less responsible, because we say the politicians will see to it, the economists will see to it; if we are troubled, the psychologists, the therapeutists and all the rest of it. 先生，在某些时刻，某些日子里，某些时期中， 我们想要获得帮助。 当我们去医生那里时，我们想要获得帮助， 当我们得病了以后，我们想要获得帮助， 当我们有了困扰，我们便会询问， 便会与某人讨论，渴望获得帮助。 我们总是……在这个世界上， 不管是在这里还是在亚洲，或者全世界的其他地方， 我们总是想要得到帮助——对吧？ 而我们也有着那些给予你帮助的人 ——神父，本地村庄的教区牧师， 教皇， 还有那些说，‘我将会帮助你’的古鲁们。 这个世界上有很多这类人，他们都试图去帮助别人， 因为人们渴望得到帮助。 这显然是一种很自然的反应 ——因为人们有着那些劳苦、痛苦和不幸。 也许你们大多数人 ——如果允许我很恭敬地指出来的话—— 你们或许都想要得到帮助。 也许吧。 有些人也许不是。 那么，为什么你想要获得帮助呢？ 谁来帮助你呢？ 这其实是一个非常严肃的问题。 我们得到了来自‘领袖’的帮助——‘领袖’是加引号的， 得到了来自牧师、心理学家、临床医学家 和各种文学作品的帮助——对吧？ 那种渴望，人类的渴望， 哭喊着想要获得救助。 为什么？ 它不仅仅是在我们有生之年发生进行的事情， 它从人类诞生起就一直在发生进行着， 人们想要得到救助。 或者我们不仅想要获得来自他人的，他人的帮助， 同样也会向上帝，向某个象征符号， 向某个东西祈祷，哭喊着想要获得拯救。 这种事情我们已经做了有成千上万年了， 政治领袖、社会领袖、等等， 古鲁和他们的荒谬言行。 这一切一直在发生进行着。 然而我们并没有得到帮助——对吗？ 得到帮助意味着变得坚强， 不去依赖于任何人， 去客观地、清楚地、不带个人因素地观察事物。 而因为我们都非常懒惰， 我们是如此容易满足。 我们大多数人其实都心存不满。 那种不满就像是熊熊的火焰， 而我们想要闷熄这火焰。 我们并没有让那火焰保持燃烧， 因为这样做会带来很大的麻烦， 它也许会带来毁灭， 并不是那种破坏，那种革命所带来的物质上的破坏， 而是毁灭我们自身的琐碎卑微， 我们自身的种种不确定，等等。 所以，我们想要得到帮助。 而我们也有着那些帮助我们的人， 而这些人则永远地让我们处于一种 无法自我救助的状态中——对吗？ 那么我们是否可能不去依靠他人呢？ 不去依靠书本，不去依靠任何东西， 因为你现在的模样就是被帮助之后的结果。 而如果你能对自己说，‘我要去了解我自己， 我要去观察我自己， 去如实清晰地看我自己’， 不会因为看到自己的真实模样而沮丧或得意， 只是去观察。 如果你对此有真诚的意愿，这种观察其实是很简单的。 你不向任何人寻求帮助， 因此你必须完全依靠你自己， 这意味着肩负起巨大的责任。 然而我们并不想负责。 这就是世界上正在发生的事情之一， 我们正在变得越来越不负责任， 因为我们说政治家们会去负责的， 经济学家们会去负责的； 如果我们感到困惑忧愁，我们也有那些心理学家， 临床医学家，等等。
51:33 But to have the overflowing living, the depth and the understanding of this movement called the self, which can be perceived very clearly in the mirror of relationship - right? You are following? You can see yourself very clearly, with your wife and in that relationship. Every reaction, every thought, every feeling, not letting one thought escape. Watching. Then you have immense strength, then you don't rely on anybody, because you are totally responsible for yourself, for your actions. And that demands a great deal of energy, not wasting energy, chattering, chattering. You follow? All that. And very few will do all this. Unfortunately, because we are all rather slack. Forgive the speaker if he uses the word 'slack'. 然而，要有那种永远流动的生活， 那种深度，以及对于那个被称为‘自我’的运动的了解 ——只有在关系的镜子中 才能看清‘自我’——对吗？你们跟上了吗？ 当你和妻子在一起时，在那种关系中， 你便可以看清你自己。 看到你的每一个反应、每一个思想、每一个感受， 不要让任何一个念头溜走。保持观察。 然后你便会有巨大的力量，那时你就不会再去依赖于任何人了， 因为你完全地为自己，为自己的行为负责。 而这需要巨大的能量， 而不是浪费能量，去唠叨，去喋喋不休。 你明白了吗？所有这些事。 然而极少有人会完全这样去做。 很遗憾， 因为我们都是非常懈怠（slack）的。 请原谅演讲者使用‘懈怠’这个词。
53:13 And so the responsibility is on others, not for oneself. And if you ask for help, you are making yourself more and more feeble. If you have a headache, and I am afraid most people have some kind of neuralgia and so on, you take immediately a pill. But one doesn't go into why it comes, what is the nature of it, why... find out, work for it. You understand? See that it doesn't happen. You may be eating wrongly, etc., etc. We never go to the cause of things. Where there is a cause there is an end to it. You understand me? One drinks a tremendous lot and next morning you have a hang-over, headache, and to overcome that headache you take a pill, and the next day you carry on - you follow? This is the way we live. A highly sophisticated world we live in, and therefore to ask for help is to make oneself more feeble, more irresponsible, more dependent. Whereas if you are totally responsible for yourself, for everything that you do, or that you have promised to do, never find an excuse - you understand? So that you stand on your own feet, and dignity and responsibility. How can we educate our children to be intelligent and both free and responsible human beings in today's world? 因此责任是在别人身上，而不是在自己身上的。 如果你寻求帮助， 那么你就是在让自己变得越来越软弱无力。 如果你头痛了， 我恐怕大多数人都曾有过某种神经痛，等等。 这时你马上就会吃颗药。 但你并不会去深究为什么会得病？ 它的实质是什么？为什么……去找出答案，去为之努力。 你明白了吗？去确保它不会再发生。 它可能是因为你错误的饮食，等等，等等。 我们从来没有去探究过事物的原因。 当找到了原因，那个事物就会结束了。 你理解我话的意思吗？ 你喝了很多酒， 于是第二天早上，你会出现宿醉、头痛， 而为了消除头痛，你吃了一颗药， 然后明天你又会继续喝酒——你明白了吗？这就是我们的生活方式。 我们生活在一个无比复杂世故的世界中， 因此，寻求帮助使得我们自己变得更加软弱无力， 更加不负责任，更加有依赖性。 然而如果你完全对自己负责， 对自己所做的一切 或者你承诺要做的事情负责， 永远不去找借口——你明白了吗？ 那么你便会独立自主，拥有尊严和责任心了。 在如今这个世界中，我们要如何才能教育我们的孩子成为智慧、 自由且负责的人？
55:51 How can we educate our children to be intelligent and both free and responsible human beings in today's world? 在如今这个世界中，我们要如何才能教育我们的孩子成为智慧、 自由且负责的人？
56:11 Do you want to go into all this? Apparently this is a question that is asked by every parent in the world. Children, and how can we help them to be intelligent and free and responsible human beings in today's world? Are the parents intelligent and free? Are the teachers intelligent and free and responsible? Is the society, the educational system helping them to be free and responsible and intelligent? So we have to enquire, if you will, why are we being educated in mathematics and biology, science, chemistry, history - all the things that one has to learn? And go through university, college with a degree and get a good job, at least one hopes so, not in this world where there is an immense increase of population, unemployment. So if one had a son or a daughter, if the speaker had a son and a daughter, what is going to happen to them? School, where they have to learn how to write and read and mug up all the subjects, which then becomes a tremendous problem - you understand? You must go through mathematics, one doesn't like it but you must if you want to be a good engineer. And so that becomes a problem. And the society says, 'Become an engineer, we will pay you more' - you understand? 你们想要探究这一切吗？ 很显然，这是一个 世界上每一位父母都会问的问题。 关于孩子的问题， 我们要如何才能帮助他们在如今的世界中成为智慧、自由 和负责任的人？ 那么父母是否是智慧和自由的？ 老师是否是智慧、自由和负责的呢？ 这个社会，我们的教育体系， 是否在帮助他们变得自由、负责和智慧呢？ 所以如果你们愿意的话，我们必须去询问： 为什么我们要接受教育？ 数学、生物学、科学、化学、历史 ——所有那些我们必须要去学习的东西？ 完成大学或学院的学业，拿到学位，然后找个好工作 ——至少我们希望能够如此， 但不是在这个人口疯狂增长， 到处都是失业的世界中。 所以如果你有一个儿子或女儿， 如果演讲者有儿子和女儿的话， 他们将会遭遇什么？ 他们会去学校，在那里他们必须要学习如何读书和写字， 去死记硬背所有那些科目， 于是这些科目就变成了一个很大的难题——你们理解了吗？ 你必须要通过数学考试， 尽管你不喜欢它，但如果你想要成为一名优秀的工程师，你就必须这么做。 因此它就变成了一个问题。 而这个社会说， ‘去成为一名工程师吧，我们将会给你更高的报酬。’ 你们理解了吗？
59:08 So we have to find out what do we mean by the word 'education'. And is it merely to learn the technique of living, acquiring a skill in a particular discipline? You understand? To become a doctor you have to work, study for ten or fifteen years. To become an excellent surgeon - you follow? - it takes time. And so on and so on. Is this what we are educating our children for? Though it is necessary - you understand? And is education also... does it not mean educating the human being - you understand? - not acquiring mere techniques, a skill, but educating a human being to live with great art? That means not only technological knowledge - right? - but also the immense limitless field of the psyche, going beyond it, that is a holistic education - you understand? 所以我们必须要去搞清楚 我们所说的‘教育’这个词是什么意思？ 它仅仅是去学会一项谋生的本领， 去掌握某个学科的特定技能吗？ 你明白了吗？ 要成为一名医生，你就必须努力，必须学习十年或十五年的时间。 要成为一名出色的外科医生——你跟上了吗？——这需要花费时间。 等等，等等。 这就是我们教育孩子的目的吗？ 尽管这些事情也是必要的——你们明白了吗？ 还是说，教育同样也 它难道不是意味着要去教育人类——你理解了吗？—— 不仅仅是获得某种技术、某种技能， 也要教育一个人拥有那种伟大的生活的艺术？ 那不仅仅意味着技术上的知识——对吧？—— 同样意味着那巨大无限的心智领域，以及超越它之外的事物， 这才是完整的教育——你明白了吗？
1:01:07 So all this implies the educator needs education. The parents need education, not just the children. And if the parents love their children, love, not hold them as toys and, you know, all that kind of stuff. If they really loved them, would they allow their children to be killed, or to kill? You understand, sirs? Governments demand, perhaps not in America or in England, but in this country, in France, in Europe, you have to go into the army for two years, how to carry a gun, how to shoot, how to kill another human being. And this, the mothers, the fathers, accept this, and they say, 'We can't do anything, the governments demand this', please, I am not advocating that you revolt against the government, it's up to you. 因此所有这一切都意味着教育者需要接受教育。 父母需要接受教育，而不只是孩子们。 如果父母爱他们的孩子， 是爱他们，不是把他们当成好玩的玩具，你知道的，所有这类事情。 如果父母真的爱他们的话， 他们还会允许自己的孩子被杀死，或者去杀人吗？ 你们理解了吗？先生们。 这是政府的要求， 也许美国或英国政府没这种要求， 但是在这个国家，在法国，在欧洲， 你必须要去参军两年， 学习如何持枪，如何射击，如何杀死另一个人。 而父亲和母亲则接受了这些， 他们说，‘我们也无能为力， 这是政府的要求’， 请注意，我并不是在提倡你们去反抗政府， 这取决于你们自己。
1:02:49 So education means a holistic approach to life, cultivating the brain technologically - you understand? - and also cultivating the brain to be free of its own petty little self. That requires teachers who understand this, who are committed, who are responsible. And the parents, they must love their children. Now what happens - they cuddle them, they hold them on their lap, they kiss them till they are two, five, and after that they throw them to the wolves - right? And this is called education. How can there be intelligence when your brain is being conditioned - you understand? Conditioned by knowledge, on one side, conditioned by your own fears, anxieties, loneliness, despair, all the rest of the ugliness of human beings. And then on top of that, there are the temples, churches, mosques. So religion is something entirely different, away, which has nothing to do with your life, and committed entirely to earning a livelihood. This is becoming more and more serious, this dichotomy, this separation. And education is something where there must be respect, love, affection in all this. 所以，教育意味着一种完整的处理对待生活的方式， 除了培养头脑技术方面的能力——你理解了吗？—— 也要培养头脑去摆脱掉它自身卑微渺小的自我。 这需要有一些能理解这一点的老师们， 他们愿意全心投入，他们愿意负责。 而父母，他们必须爱他们的孩子。 然而现在发生了什么呢？他们亲热地拥抱孩子，他们把孩子放在他们的膝盖上， 他们亲吻孩子，直到他们两岁或五岁为止， 在这之后，他们便将孩子送入了虎口——不是吗？ 而这就被称为‘教育’。 当你的头脑被局限时， 又怎么可能会有智慧呢？——你明白了吗？ 一方面被知识所局限， 另一方面则被你自身的恐惧、焦虑、孤独、绝望 和人类所有其他的丑陋所局限。 而除此之外， 我们也有着那些寺庙、教堂、清真寺。 所以宗教是某种完全不同的事物， 它远离我们，和你的生活没有任何关系， 而你只是完全致力于去谋生。 这个问题正在变得越来越严重 ——这种分裂，这种分离。 然而教育中 必须要有尊敬、爱和情感。
1:05:22 So will the parents, the teachers and the students agree to all this? You are responsible for this. You are responsible, if you are a parent, what your children are going to be. One heard a parent saying 'Must I sacrifice my life, which is drinking, taking drugs, sleeping with women and so on, for my stupid little children?' You understand what I am saying? And so the world goes on this way, and it has been going on for millennia, because we as parents, as human beings, do not want to live a holistic, a complete life. We are fragmented, therefore we accept that fragmentation. In that fragmentation, there is no intelligence, there is no compassion, there is no freedom. 所以父母、老师 和学生们是否都同意这一点？ 你们对此负有责任。 如果你是一位父亲或母亲的话，你对自己孩子未来的样子 是负有责任的。 某人曾经听到有父母说‘我必须牺牲我的生活吗 ——也就是酗酒、吸毒、和女人们上床等等—— 为了我那愚蠢的小孩子而牺牲我的生活吗？’ 你们明白我在说的东西吗？ 因此，这个世界就这样子继续运转下去， 它已经这样运转了有几千年了， 因为我们作为父母，作为人类， 并不想要去过一种整体性的、完整的生活。 我们是支离破碎的，因此我们接受了那种分裂。 然而那种分裂中没有智慧， 没有慈悲，也没有自由。
1:07:00 The last question. What is your relationship to us? 最后一个问题。 你和我们的关系是什么？
1:07:17 What is your relationship to us? Will you answer that question? What is your relationship with the speaker? If you have put that question, and the speaker is putting you that question: what is your relationship with the speaker, not what is my relationship with you. You understand? I am reversing the question. I will answer the question after: what is the speaker's relationship with you, it will be answered a little later, but you have to ask first what is your relationship with the speaker? That means, why are you here? What is your intention? What is it you want? Are you here to be stimulated? To identify with a large group? To find out the truth of what the speaker is saying? Or just accept it, casually for an hour or so, and then go on in your ways as before? Or you are attracted, physically, to the speaker? And the speaker has been saying this is not a personality cult at all, the person doesn't matter. What matters is what he is saying: doubt, question, ask. 你和我们的关系是什么？ 你们能回答这个问题吗？ 你们和演讲者的关系是什么？ 如果你提出了这个问题， 那么演讲者也向你提出一个问题： 你和演讲者的关系是什么？ 而不是我和你的关系是什么？ 你们明白吗？我把这个问题反过来问你一下。 你的问题我随后会来回答的： 演讲者和你们的关系是什么？ 这个问题随后将会回答， 但你首先必须问一下：你和演讲者的关系是什么？ 它的意思就是，为什么你会在这里？ 你的目的是什么？ 你想要的是什么？ 你在这里是为了获得一些刺激吗？ 为了把自己认同于一个大的群体？ 是为了去发现演讲者话语中的真相？ 或者只是接受它，随意消遣一个小时左右的时间， 然后继续自己的老样子？ 或者你是外在上被演讲者所吸引？ 演讲者曾经说过 这绝不是一次个人崇拜， 讲话的人一点也不重要。 重要的是他所说的东西： 要去怀疑、去质疑、去询问。
1:09:57 So what is your relationship with the speaker? 所以，你和演讲者的关系是什么呢？
1:10:02 To put the question differently, what is the relationship between light and darkness? What is the relationship between conflict and no conflict? What is the relationship between peace and war? You understand this question? That means, what is the relationship between the good and the bad? Is the good the outcome of the bad? Please we are working together. Is the good the outcome of the bad? Or is the good totally divorced from the bad? If the bad is related to the good, then it is not good - right? If it is related, if good has its roots in the bad, then it's partially good, therefore it is not good. Right? So one has to discover for oneself - the good is totally free from the bad, totally divorced, nothing to do with each other. Violence and to be free of violence. Human beings are violent, unfortunately. One can biologically trace it to the origin of violence, derived from the animals and so on, we won't go into all that. That is, human beings are violent and they have thought out not to be violent - right? So they are violent, they have created the opposite which they call non-violence, so the non-violence is related to violence, therefore it is not free from violence - you understand? Are we working together? So the good is totally unrelated to the bad. Love and hate, if one knows hate, antagonism, like, dislike, jealousy - right? - and then says, 'I love' - right? - then that love is still related to hate - right? - still related to like and dislike and antagonism and all the rest of it. 换一种问法的话就是： 光明与黑暗是什么关系？ 冲突和无冲突是什么关系？ 和平与战争又是什么关系？ 你理解这个问题吗？ 它的意思就是， 善与恶之间有什么关系？ 善难道是恶的产物吗？ 请注意，我们是在一起工作。 善难道是恶的产物吗？ 还是说，善是完全脱离于恶的？ 如果恶与善是有关系的，那它就不是善了——对吧？ 如果它们是相关的，如果善的根源是在恶之中的， 那它就只是部分的善，因此它就不是善了。 对吗？ 所以，我们必须要亲自去发现它 ——善是完全摆脱了恶的， 完全脱离的，两者之间没有任何关系。 暴力和摆脱暴力。 很遗憾，人类是暴力的。 我们可以从生物学上追溯暴力的源头， 它来源于动物，等等，我们就不探讨所有这些了。 也就是说，人类是暴力的， 然后他们在想着不要暴力——对吗？ 因此他们是暴力的， 然后他们创造出了那个对立面，他们把它称为‘非暴力’， 所以，‘非暴力’和暴力是相关的， 因此它并没有摆脱掉暴力——你们理解了吗？ 我们是在一起努力思考它吗？ 所以善和恶完全没有任何关系。 爱和恨， 如果一个人有了仇恨、敌意、喜欢、厌恶和嫉妒——对吧？—— 然后他说，‘我有爱’——对吗？—— 那么，这种爱仍旧是和恨相关联的 ——不是吗？—— 它仍旧是和喜欢、厌恶、 敌意、等等这些有所联系的。
1:14:31 So we are asking ourselves what is our relationship with each other. What is the relationship of a man who is free and the man who lives in a prison. You understand? We live in prison, not actual prisons with guards and you know, all that, but we have our own prisons, we make our own prisons and we live in them - right? And someone who is outside that, what is the man who lives in the prison to the man who is outside it? You understand my question? Has he any relationship to you, to the man in prison? Or the man in prison - you understand what the speaker means by prison? - our fears, our anxieties, our thought, our loneliness - all the things that human beings have, that is our prison, our gods, our faith, our dogmatic or superficial opinions and so on, that is our prison. And the man is not in that prison, what is the relationship with the man in that prison, and the man who is outside the prison? Has the man in the prison any relationship with the man outside it? Naturally not. But the man outside it has a relationship with the man in prison. Have you understood? 所以我们问自己： 我们彼此之间的关系是什么？ 那个自由的人 和那个生活在监狱里的人是什么关系？ 你理解了吗？ 我们生活在监狱里， 不是那种有守卫的现实中的监狱，你知道的，所有这类东西， 而是我们都关在自身的监狱里， 我们建造了我们自身的监狱，然后我们生活在其中——对吗？ 然后有某个人，他是在监狱之外的， 那么那个生活在监狱中的人 和那个监狱之外的人有什么关系呢？ 你明白我的问题吗？ 他和你——和你这个狱中之人——有任何关系吗？ 或者说狱中之人 ——你明白演讲者所说的监狱的意思吧？—— 它就是我们的恐惧、我们的焦虑、我们的思想、我们的孤独—— 所有那些人类所拥有的东西， 那就是我们的监狱。我们的神明、我们的信仰、 我们教条化或肤浅的观点，等等，这就是我们的监狱。 而那个没有在监狱里的人， 那个在监狱之外的人， 他和那个在监狱里的人有什么关系呢？ 那个监狱里的人 和监狱之外的人有任何关系吗？ 很显然没有什么关系。 然而那个监狱之外的人 和那个狱中之人却是有关系的。 你明白了吗？
1:16:42 I am in prison, suppose. And you are outside the prison. I have no relationship to you. I would like to have a relationship, but I am still encaged. But you have a relationship to me - right? Because you are intelligent and all the rest of it. You love, compassion, you are intelligent, you are utterly responsible out there. 我关在监狱里——假如我在监狱里。 而你是监狱外的人。 那么我和你其实并没有关系。 我想要和你有关系，但我仍旧还在牢笼里。 但是你和我是有一种关系的——对吧？ 因为你是智慧的，等等这些。 你有爱，有慈悲，你是智慧的， 你在监狱之外，你有强烈的责任感。
1:17:24 So, you understand? First we create god by thought - omnipotent, all merciful, all powerful, all seeing, all bla bla bla. And we say there is that and I will pray to be part of it. You understand? The same business - I am in prison, there you are free. And I pray. See the tricks I am playing, I am praying to something I have created. I have put together, not created, sorry. Put together by thought, the image, the structure, the symbol, the saviour, the guru, all the rest of it. You understand? And so on. We always want relationship with something totally outside of us - right? Something immense. And the immensity has relation to us, but we have no relationship to that. If we recognise that, see the truth of it, then we will break the prison, at any cost. If we see that, our brain becomes subtle, quick, we are really caught in a prison. And a man in prison is suffocating, crying, hoping, trying to get at that, to be free. And he prays to that being in prison. What value has it? You understand? It is like those people, monks and nuns the world over, praying for peace - right? And the other side, the world is preparing, gathering armaments. Yes, sir, you understand the absurdity of all this? 所以，你明白了吗？ 首先，我们通过思想创造出了上帝 ——那个无所不能的、无限仁慈的、 全能的，能够看见一切的上帝，等等，等等。 我们说存在着那个东西， 而我将会去祈求成为它的一部分。 你明白了吗？这是同一回事——我在监狱里，而你在那里是自由的。 于是我祈祷。请看到我所玩的这些把戏， 我正在向某个我所创造的东西祈祷。 是我所拼凑起来的东西，而不是创造，对不起。 由思想所拼凑起来的东西 ——某个意象、结构、象征符号、 救世主、古鲁、等等这些。 你们明白了吗？等等。 我们总是想要和 某种完全超脱于我们的事物产生关系 ——对吧？ 某种巨大无限的东西。 那个巨大无限之物和我们有关系， 但是我们和那个事物却没有关系。 如果我们认识到这一点，看到了这其中的真相， 那么我们就会逃离那个监狱，不惜一切代价逃离它。 如果我们看到了这一点，我们的头脑就会变得敏感、迅捷， 我们其实都被囚禁在监狱里。 在监狱里的人会感到窒息，他会哭喊，他会有所期望， 试图去达到那个东西，达到自由。 于是他在监狱里祈求获得它。 这又有什么价值呢？你们明白了吗？ 这就像是那些人一样——全世界的僧侣和修女们， 他们会祈求和平——对吧？ 而另一方面， 这个世界却在准备和积聚着各类武器。 是的，先生，你明白这一切的荒谬了吧？
1:20:04 So there is a relationship with another only when both of us are free - right? But one is in prison and the other is not, then we are in trouble. Then we waste our energy, trying to be related to that. Either one is free or one is not. And to recognise the depth of that freedom, the beauty of it, to see the immensity of that freedom, there must be no self, no ego hiding in different spaces, different parts of the recesses of one's brain. Right? 因此，只有当我们两人都自由时， 我们彼此之间才会有关系——不是吗？ 但如果一个人在监狱里，而另一个人不在监狱里的话， 那么我们就会陷入于麻烦中。 那时我们就会浪费自己的能量，试图去产生关系。 一个人要么是自由的，要么就是不自由的。 而要认识到那种自由的深度，认识到它的美， 去看到那种自由的巨大无限， 就必须没有自我， 没有一个‘我’藏匿在我们头脑深处的不同区域 和不同部分中。 对吗？
1:21:09 We have finished for this morning. May we get up please? 今天早上的演讲就到此为止吧。 我们可以起身了吗？