Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SA85Q3 - 公開問答（三）
1985年7月25日 瑞士 沙南



1:08 There are too many questions to answer all of them, Some of the questions have been chosen. The speaker has not seen them. 還有太多問題有待回答 我們從中選擇了一些問題 說者沒有看過
1:26 Before we go into those questions may I comment on something? People have been talking a great deal about what is art. I believe the root meaning of that word is to put everything in its proper place. Can we talk a little bit about that first? 在回答問題以前 我可以做一些評論嗎？ 人們談論了很多關於藝術的東西什麼是藝術 我相信這個字根的意義 是指讓每一件事各歸其位 我們可以先談一點嗎？
2:15 What do you think is the greatest art, the supreme art? Is it the art of listening, the art of seeing, observing, perceiving and so on, and the art of learning? 你們認為最偉大的至高無上的藝術是什麼？ 是聽的藝術嗎 看的藝術嗎 觀察或感知的藝術等 或是學習的藝術？
2:49 The art of hearing, the art of seeing, the art of learning. And what do we mean by seeing, observing, perceiving? I am asking. Please, together we are investigating into these questions, not that the speaker is talking to himself. We are talking over together these questions, these issues that are confronting almost everywhere you go. We will have to wait. 聽、看和學習的藝術 我們說的看、觀察、感知是什麼意思？ 我在問你們 請跟我一起探查這些問題 說者不是自言自語 我們一起討論這些問題 幾乎你走到任何地方都會碰到這些議題 我們得等一下
4:08 So let us begin with the art of hearing. We not only hear with the ears, words conveyed, vibrated and so on, to the brain, and surely it is much more than that. The art of hearing something. Like a child who listens to a very good story, he is consumed by the story, he is completely involved with the hero, or the heroine, he is excited, he is listening. Do we ever listen? We can’t do anything I’m afraid. Do we ever listen to anybody? Do you listen to your wife or husband, or your girlfriend, really listen to what they are conveying, trying to say something? Or do we translate what is being said into our own terminology, comparing it with what we already know, judging, evaluating, agreeing, disagreeing, the whole movement that goes on when you listen to another? Is that listening? The speaker is talking now – unfortunately – and are we listening, actually paying attention, to the words, to the meaning of words, to the content of words, not translating, comparing, judging, agreeing, disagreeing – just listening? Are we doing that now? And isn’t that one of the most important things? How, in what manner, we listen to another. The other may be wearing too strong a perfume and you are repelled by it, or you like it, and this like and dislike of a perfume, or other factors, may prevent one from listening, listening to what the other person has to say. 讓我們從聽的藝術開始 我們不只用耳朵聽 傳送或波動到大腦裡的言說 當然它涵蓋的不只這些 聽某些東西的藝術 像孩子聽一個很好的故事一樣 他會對那個故事著迷 完全投入故事裡的男、女英雄 他會興奮，他在傾聽 我們傾聽過嗎？ 對這些噪音，恐怕我們無能為力 我們傾聽過任何人嗎？ 你傾聽過妻子、丈夫或女朋友嗎？ 真正地傾聽他們要傳達的訊息 他們想說的話嗎？ 或者我們會把他們的話 轉譯成自己的術語 與自己已知的做比較 判斷、評估、同意或不同意 當你聽別人說話時在進行的整個活動？ 這叫傾聽嗎？ 說者現在講話，很不幸 我們有傾聽，實際地付出注意 給他的話語、話語的意義話語的內容 不加轉譯、比較、判斷 同意或不同意，只是傾聽嗎？ 我們現在有這麼做嗎？ 這難道不是最重要的一件事嗎？ 我們要如何，或以什麼態度去傾聽別人？ 對方也許擦了很濃的香水 讓你反感，或者你喜歡 這種對香水的愛惡，或其他因素 也許會阻止你傾聽 傾聽對方想說的話
7:36 If you have gone into this question rather deeply you will find it is one of the most difficult things to listen to another, completely. Are we doing it now? Or, we are fidgety, and so on? 如果你很深入地探究這個問題 你會發現完全傾聽別人講話 是最困難的事情之一 我們現在有這麼做嗎？ 或者坐立不安之類的？
8:02 So there is an art to listening. And there is an art... to learn – no, the art of seeing. The art of hearing, the art of seeing, seeing things as they are. When you look at a tree, do you translate it immediately into words and say, ‘Tree’? Or do you look at it, perceive it, see the shape of it, see the beauty of the light on a leaf, see the quality of the tree. It is not man-made fortunately, it is there. So do we see ourselves as we are, without condemnation, without judgement, evaluation and so on, just to see what we are, our reactions and responses, our prejudices, opinions, just to see them, that we indulge ourselves in opinions. Not to do anything about it but just to observe it. Right? Can we do it? 所以有這種聽的藝術，對嗎？ 還有一種學習的藝術 不，看的藝術 聽的藝術、看的藝術 如實地看事物的本然 當你看一棵樹時 你會立刻把它轉譯成「樹」這個字嗎？ 或者你會注視它 感知它，看它的造型 看樹葉上的陽光之美 看樹的品質 幸好它不是人造的，它在那裡 我們會如實地看自己嗎？不帶譴責 批判、評估等 單純地看我們的本然或反應和回應 我們的偏見、觀點 單純地看它們看到我們沉溺在觀點裡 不做任何改變只是單純地觀察 對嗎？我們能做到嗎？
9:49 So there is an art of seeing things as they are, without naming, without being caught in the network of words, the whole operation of thinking interfering with perception. That’s a great art. 這就是如實看事物的藝術 不命名、不困在文字障裡 思考的整個運作會干擾知覺的作用 這是一門偉大的藝術
10:15 And also there is an art of learning. Isn’t there? And what do we mean by learning? Generally it is understood that learning means memorising, accumulating, storing up, to use what you have stored up skilfully or not. That is generally called learning, memorising. School, college, university, or some technological subject, or learning a language, reading, writing, communicating and so on. The modern computers can do all that better than we can. They are extraordinarily rapid. Right? So what is the difference between us and the computer? I am asking you. That is learning, being programmed. We have also been programmed in various ways: tradition, so-called culture, knowledge. We have also been programmed to be Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Tibetan, Communist and so on. Is learning that’s all? Just memorising, repeating – is that learning? We are questioning. We are not saying that it is not. It is necessary to learn how to drive a car. It is necessary to learn a language, if you are interested in languages. And we are asking: is all that learning? Or is learning something much more? Are we together in this? Don’t just look at me, please. Tell me. The person is not very interesting. We are asking something, that is: is learning merely memorising? And if that is all, then the computer can do better than us. And isn’t learning something much more? Learning means constantly learning, not accumulating, not gathering in what one has seen... what one has observed, heard, learnt and storing it up. 還有一種學習的藝術 不是嗎？ 我們說的學習是什麼意思？ 照一般的了解，學習是記誦 累積、儲存 熟练或不熟练地使用你儲存的知識 一般人把這些稱為學習、記誦 小學、學院、大學或某些技術類的學科 或學語言、閱讀、寫作、溝通等 這些事情，現代的電腦可以比我們做得更好 電腦的速度超快，對嗎？ 那麼我們和電腦的差別何在？ 我在問你們 這就是學習，即被程式設定 我們也以各種方式被設定了 傳統，所謂的文化、知識 我們也被設定為印度教徒、佛教徒 基督徒、西藏人、共產黨等 學習只是這些嗎？ 只記誦、重覆算是學習嗎？ 我們在質問，並非說這不是 學開車需要記誦 學語言需要記誦 如果你對語言等有興趣的話 我們要問的是這些就是學習嗎？ 或者學習有更多的內涵？ 我們有交會嗎？ 不要只是看我，請告訴我 我這個人並不是很有趣 我們在問一件事，也就是說 學習只是記誦嗎？ 如果是的話那麼電腦會比我們做得更好 學習是否還有更多內涵？ 學習意味著持續學習，不是累積 不是收集你看過的東西 你觀察過、聽過、學過或儲存過的東西
14:12 Learning means, to the speaker, a constant observation, listening, moving, never taking a stand, never taking a position, never going back to memory and let memory act. That is a great art. 學習意味著，對說者而言是持續地觀察 傾聽、活動，永遠不採取立場 永遠沒有定位 永遠不回到記憶裡讓記憶行動，對嗎？ 這是一門偉大的藝術
14:42 And the art of discipline. That word means to learn. It comes from the root ‘disciple’, one who learns from someone else. Not necessarily from the teacher, from the guru, – they are generally rather stupid. But to discipline oneself according to a pattern, like a soldier, like a monk, like a person who wants to be very austere, disciplines his body – you understand? – the whole process of control, direction, obedience, subservience and train yourself. That is generally understood to be discipline. To me discipline, to the speaker, is a terrible thing. Because if you know how to... if there is acute hearing, not only by the ear, but also deeply listening to yourself, to everything that is happening around you, to listen to the birds, to the river, to the forest, to the mountain, you follow? Listening. And observing, the minutest insect on the floor, if you can see it, if you have got good eyes. And learning. All that constitutes a form of living which in itself becomes the discipline, not that there is a person who disciplines himself – you understand? – but a constant movement. This is the art of living, in which there is no conflict whatsoever. Where there is conflict, that conflict... numbs the brain, destroys the brain. By this great art of living it is free, and in that freedom you don’t need discipline, there is constantly movement – right? 還有紀律（discipline）的藝術 這個字意味著學習 它的字根是學徒（disciple） 一個跟著別人學習的人 不一定是跟老師或上師學習 這些人通常很愚蠢 而是依照一個模式訓練自己 像士兵或僧侶 像一個想要極度簡樸苦行的人 訓練他的身體一樣，了解嗎？ 整個控制、指揮 服從、恭順 與訓練自己的過程 這就是一般人了解的紀律 對我，說者來說紀律是一件可怕的事 因為如果你知道如何去……如果有一種敏銳的傾聽 不只是用耳朵聽 也要深度地傾聽自己 傾聽身邊發生的每一件事 傾聽小鳥、河流、樹林 山脈，你們懂嗎？傾聽 和觀察 地板上一隻渺小的昆蟲 如果你能看見如果你眼力好的話 以及學習 這一切都構成了一種生活形式 生活方式本身就變成紀律 並非有一個人在訓練自己 了解嗎？而是一種持續的活動 這就是生活的藝術 這種藝術中沒有任何衝突 有衝突的地方那個衝突就會讓頭腦痲痺 摧毀頭腦 這種偉大的生活藝術就是自由 在那個自由裡不需要紀律 自由裡有持續的活動，對嗎？
18:08 Let's go back to the questions. Pretty hot here! We have had most marvellous days, three weeks of it, lovely mornings, beautiful evenings, long shadows and the deep blue valleys and the clear blue sky and the snows. We have had a marvellous three weeks. The speaker has been here for twenty eight years. A whole summer has never been like this. So the mountains, the valleys, the trees and the river, tell us goodbye. Can we go on with our questions? 讓我們再回到問題上 這裡相當熱 我們有過很美的日子三個星期 可愛的早晨、美麗的夜晚 遠長的陰影和深藍的山谷 晴朗的藍天和白雪 我們度過了美好的三周時間 說者在這裡28年了 整個夏季都沒出現過這種天氣 山脈、山谷、樹木與河流 都在跟我們道別 可以繼續回答問題嗎？
19:16 First question: 'I see that thought is responsible for my confusion. Yet in going into it... going into it more more thought is generated and there is no end to it. Please comment'. （第一個問題）我了解念頭 是造成我混亂的肇因 然而我深入探索…繼續深入後 就會產生更多的念頭沒完沒了的念頭 請你評論
19:43 'I see that thought is responsible for my confusion. And yet, in going into it, more thought is generated and there is no end to it. Please comment on this'. 我了解念頭 是造成我混亂的肇因 然而，在深入探索之後又會產生更多的念頭 沒完沒了的念頭 請你做個評論
20:17 Thought is associated with other thoughts. Right? There is no single thought. It is a series of movements which we call thinking, right? I think about my shoes, then how to keep them clean. I polish them – which I do. I look after things and so on. So thought by itself cannot exist – by itself, without all the associations in connection with that one thought. And thought is a movement on which we live. It is the very life of us, thinking, right? It is so obvious. You couldn’t be there and the speaker couldn’t be here if we hadn’t thought about it. We have thought about it because there have been associations previous, reputation, books and all the blah, and you come and the speaker comes. So there is no single thought by itself. This is important to uncover this. It’s always in relation to something else. And in pursuing one thought other thoughts arise. The speaker is polishing his shoes and looks out of the window and he sees those mountains and he is off! And he has to come back and polish his shoes. So that goes on all the time. I want to concentrate on something and the thought shoots off in another direction. I pull it back and try to concentrate. This goes on all the time from childhood till we die. 念頭會與其他念頭聯結，對嗎？ 沒有單一的念頭 它是一系列的活動我們稱之為思考，對嗎？ 我思考我的鞋子如何讓鞋子保持乾淨 我擦拭它們，我有 我照料一些事物等 因此念頭本身無法存在，對嗎？ 無法沒有聯想 與其他的念頭聯結 思想是生活仰賴的活動 思考就是我們的生活，對嗎？ 這很明顯 如果沒有思考過 你們和說者都不會在這裡 我們思考過，因為有先前的聯想 名聲、書和諸如此類的東西 你們來，說者也來 因此沒有一個單獨存在的念頭 揭示出這一點很重要 念頭始終與其他事物有關 在追逐一個念頭時其他的念頭也會生起 說者在擦皮鞋，望著窗外 他看到那些山脈，走了出去 他必須回來擦皮鞋 這種事一直持續地發生，對嗎？ 我想專心做一件事 念頭就飛到另一個方向 我把它拉回來，試著專心 這種事從小時候開始一直到我們死為止
23:24 And the more I think about thought, the more thought there is. You understand? I shouldn’t think along those lines, I must think rightly, is there right thinking, is there wrong thinking, is there purposeful thinking, what is the purpose of my life, and so on – the whole process of thinking begins. And there is no end to it. It has done the most extraordinary things. Technologically it has done the most appalling things, terrifying things. It has built all the rituals of every religion, and it has tortured human beings, It has expelled people from one part of the world to another, and so on and so on. Thought, whether Eastern or Western thinking, is still thinking. It is not Eastern thinking and Western thinking, two separate things. Because thought is the thread. Right? We are together, I hope. 我越思考念頭 就會有越多念頭出現，了解嗎？ 我不該往這個路線思考我必須做正確的思考 有正確的思考嗎？有錯誤的思考嗎？ 有刻意的思考嗎？ 我生命的目的是什麼等 整個思考的過程就開始了 而且沒完沒了 思想成就過最非凡的事情 在科技上做出最令人驚懼的事 可怕的事 建立了每一個宗教的整套儀式 折磨過人類，對嗎？ 把人們從一個地方驅逐到另一個地方 諸如此類的事 思想，無論東方或西方的思考仍然是思考 東方思考與西方思考 不是兩種不同的事因為思想是一條線 對嗎？希望我們有交會
25:01 So the question is: is there an end to thought? Not your way of thinking or my way of thinking, or saying we are all thinking together, we are all moving in the same direction. So we are asking whether thought can ever stop. Which is, is there an end to time? Thinking is the result of knowledge, memory. To acquire knowledge one needs time. Even the computer which is so extraordinary, the modern computer, you have to give it a split second before it trots, gallops out what it wants to say. So thought is time – right? So when we are asking whether thought can ever end, we are also asking at the same time whether there is a stop to time. It is rather an interesting question if you go into it. 因此，問題在於 思想有結束的時候嗎？ 不是你的思考方式或我的思考方式 或者說我們都在一起思考 都朝同一個方向思考 我們在問思想是否可能停止？ 換言之，時間有終點嗎？ 思考是知識、記憶的結果 人需要時間才能獲得知識 即使最非凡的現代電腦 也要給它一秒時間才能運作 說出它想說的話 因此思想就是時間，對嗎？ 當我們問思想是否有終點的時候 我們同時也就是在問 時間是否會停止？了解嗎？ 如果你深入的話這是個相當有趣的問題
26:36 That is, the movement of time. Time, what does that mean to us? Not only psychologically but outwardly – sunset, sunrise, learning a language and so on. You need time to go from here to there. Even the most fastest train needs time to get from here to there, or aeroplane and so on. So as long – it’s rather interesting, please follow this – as long as there is a distance between as long as there is a distance between ‘what is’ and ‘what might be’, ‘what I am’, ‘what I will be’, that is a distance. It may be a very short distance, or centuries of distance. That distance can only be covered by time. So time implies evolution. You plant a seed in the earth, it takes a whole season to mature, grow, or a thousand years to become a tree and be full. Everything that grows, becomes, needs time. Everything. So time and thought, they are not two separate movements, they are one solid movement. And we are asking whether thought and time have an end, a stop. You understand? I said I wouldn’t say it, I won’t say it. How will you find out? This has been one of the problems confronting man from the beginning of man. He has asked this question, can thought, time come to an end? He has asked it because, this movement of time, it is a circle, right? Time is a bondage. The hope, I hope, that involves time. So man has asked this question. Not if there is timelessness but rather if there is an end to time – you understand the difference? Shall we cry together? 換言之，時間的活動 時間對我們的意義是什麼？ 不只是心理上的意義還有外在的 日落日出、學語言等 你需要時間才能從這裡去到那裡 即使最快的火車也需要時間才能從這裡到那裡 飛機等也一樣 因此，只要… 這個問題相當有趣，請跟上來 只要有距離存在... 只要「實然」和「或然」之間 有距離存在 「現在的我」和「未來的我」之間有距離 也許是很短的距離或相隔幾個世紀 這個距離只能用時間來跨越 因此，時間就隱含著演化，對嗎？ 你在土裡種了一顆種子 需要整個季節才能成熟、成長 或一千年才能變成一棵枝繁葉茂的大樹 所有事物的成長、變化都需要時間，對嗎？ 所有事物 因此時間和思想 不是兩種分離的活動 它們是一整個紮實的活動 我們要問的是：思想和時間是否有終點和停止？ 了解嗎？ 我說過我不會說這句話，也不想說 你要如何找出來？ 這是一直困惑著人類的問題之一對嗎？ 自從有人類開始 他在問這個問題 思想、時間能終止嗎？ 他這麼問是因為時間的運動 是一個循環，對嗎？ 時間是束縛 希望，我希望，涉及了時間 因此人一直在問這個問題 不是問是否有無時間的狀態 而是問時間是否有終點 了解其中的差別嗎？對嗎？ 我們要一起哭嗎？
30:42 So this is really a very serious question. Poor mother! We are not enquiring into the timeless. We are enquiring whether time has a stop, which is thought. Now how will you discover that? Through analysis? Through so-called intuition? That word 'intuition' may be most dangerous, it may be my desire. We were saying, that word 'intuition' may be the most dangerous word, that word has been used so much. There are so many valleys in Switzerland, why this one specially? 這是一個非常嚴肅的問題 可憐的媽媽 我們不是參問無時間的狀態 我們參問的是時間也就是思想，是否會停止？ 你要如何發現答案？ 透過分析嗎？ 透過所謂的直覺嗎？ 直覺也許是最危險的一個詞 它也許是我的欲望 我們在說直覺這個詞 也許是最危險的一個詞 這個詞被人濫用了 瑞士有這麼多山谷 為什麼特別選上這個山谷？
33:36 The speaker once saw, in California, ten aeroplanes – the sun had set – ten aeroplanes coming over the hills, with their exhaust – whatever they call it, I have forgotten the name of it for the moment – lit by the setting sun. It was the most beautiful sight. The whole sky was lit up. There wasn’t noise, they were just coming over the mountain. We were saying that the word 'intuition' is rather a risky word because it may be our hidden desire, it may be our unconscious, deeply rooted motive of which we are not aware, it may be the prompting of our own tendency, our own idiosyncrasy, it may be our own particular accumulation of knowledge. So we are asking, if you put all that aside, has time a stop? And we asked, how will you find out? You, not the speaker or anybody else, because what others say has no importance. You may like the sound of the words, you may like the person, or you may say, ‘Well, a whole group of us are together’, all that is rather infantile. But when you put this question to yourself, in what manner do you come to find out? 說者在加州看過十架飛機 太陽已經下山 十架飛機掠過山丘 飛機的排氣管，他們怎麼稱呼它的 我一時忘記了 被落日照亮 那是最美的景色 把整個天空都點亮了 沒有噪音，只是從山頭掠過 我們剛才說...直覺 是一個相當有風險的詞 因為它也許是我們隱藏著的欲望 也許是我們的無意識 根深柢固、不為我們覺察的動機 也許是個人傾向的衝動 我們的習性 也許是我們累積的特定知識 因此我們要問，如果你放下這一切 時間會停止嗎？ 我們問過，你要如何找到答案？ 是你，不是說者或別人 因為別人說什麼並不重要 你也許喜歡對方說這些話的聲音 你也許喜歡那個人 你也許會說 嗯，我們一群人都在一起 講這些相當幼稚的話 但當你問自己這個問題時 你要用什麼態度找答案？
36:03 So we have to enquire very, very deeply into the nature of time, which we did during the last few talks. And also we went very deeply into the nature of thinking. So can all that come to an end? Or is it a gradual process? You understand? If it is a gradual process, the very gradualness is time. So it cannot be gradual, It cannot be 'eventually'. It cannot be next second either! You understand? It cannot be next weekend or tomorrow, or a few minutes later. All that allows time. If one really grasps all that, deeply comprehends the nature of thought, the nature of time, discipline, the art of living and so on, to stay with it quietly, not cover it up by all kinds of movements, but stay with it, then there is a glimpse of it, an insight into it, which is not related to memory, nothing. Right? Find out! The speaker can easily say, yes there is. That would be too childish. But for the brain to understand its own movement... Unless we experiment – you understand, not just say yes, yes, or agree – unless we actually investigate, experiment, push it, go into it deeply, unless you do that you can’t... come upon a strange sense of timelessness. Right. I hope they will go to lunch! The second question says: 因此我們必須非常非常深入地參問 時間的本質 我們在前幾次談話時參問過 我們也非常深入地探究了思考的本質這個問題 這些能終止嗎？ 或這是一個漸進的過程？了解嗎？ 如果是一個漸進的過程這種漸進本身就是時間 因此它不可能是漸進的，對嗎？不可能是最終的 也不可能在下一刻 了解嗎？ 不可能在下個週末或明天 或幾分鐘以後這些都需要時間 如果你真的掌握了這一切 對思想的本質有深度的理解 時間、紀律的本質生活的藝術等 安靜地與它同在 不是用各種活動掩飾它 而是與它同在 那時候…那時候你就會瞥見它 洞見它 這與記憶或任何事無關 對嗎？找出來 說者可以輕易地說是的，有終點 這麼說未免太幼稚 但要讓頭腦了解自己的活動 除非我們做試驗，了解嗎？ 不只是說：是的，是的或同意 除非我們實際地探查試驗、推進 深入它 不這麼做，你就無法… 突然產生一種奇怪的無時間感 好了 希望他們去吃午餐 第二個問題說
41:58 'Please speak further about time and death.' 請進一步談談時間和死亡
42:05 We have talked a great deal about time, thought, and what relationship has time to death. What relationship has thought, thinking, with this extraordinary thing called death. If one is frightened of death, then one will never see the dignity, the beauty and the depth of death. If you are frightened. Fear is caused by thought and time. We have been into that very carefully. Fear doesn’t exist by itself. Fear exists where there is a demand for security, not only biological, physical security but much more psychologically. Human beings insist, demand, require apparently to be psychologically secure. One noise stops the other begins! 我們談過許多關於時間和思想的內容 也談過時間和死亡的關係 思想或思考 與這個稱為死亡的非凡東西有什麼關係？ 如果你害怕死亡 那你就永遠看不到 死亡的莊嚴、美和深度 如果你害怕的話 恐懼的肇因是思想和時間 我們很仔細地深入過 恐懼不會單獨存在 有要求安全感的地方恐懼才會存在 不只是生物學上的，生理上的安全感 更多的是心理上的安全感 顯然人會堅持 要求、需求 心理上的安全感 一個噪音剛停，另一個又開始了
43:48 So we have not only to enquire into security, that is being safe, protected. When there is security one is clear. Security means protection – right? I have to protect that which gives me security, whether it is security of position, security of power, security of a great many possessions, right? Security – the feeling that one is secure. To have plenty, millions in the bank, gives you great sense of security. To possess a good chalet gives you security. Security also implies having a companion who will stand by you – right? Who will help you, who will comfort you, who will give you what you want and what she wants. So in the family we seek security. In the community we seek it. In the nation, in tribalism, we seek it and that very tribalism, nationalism prevents that security because there is war, one tribe killing another tribe, one group destroying the other group. So physically it is becoming more and more difficult to be secure. The terrorists might come into this tent and blow us all up. I would ask them, 'Wait a minute, let’s all finish it, do it outside.' 我們不僅要參問安全感 也就是有安全、被保護 有安全感的時候，人就會清明 安全感意味著保護，對嗎？ 我必須保護那個帶給我安全感的東西 無論是地位的安全感 權力的安全感 擁有許多財物的安全感，對嗎？ 一種穩固無憂的感覺 銀行有幾百萬存款 帶給你很大的安全感 擁有一棟好農舍給你安全感 安全感也隱含著有伴侶 他會支持你，對嗎？ 他會幫助你、安慰你 給你或她想要的東西 我們在家裡尋求安全感 也在社區裡尋求它 在國家、部落主義中尋求它 那個部落主義、國族主義本身 就會阻礙這種安全感因為它會引起戰爭 一個部落屠殺另一個部落 一個群體摧毀另一個群體 因此身體的安全感 變得越來越困難 恐怖份子或許會進入帳篷把我們全部炸死 我會要求他們等一下先讓我們講完，再去外面炸
46:18 So we not only need physical security but also psychological security. Psychological security is the greatest demand, not only the physical, right? So we are asking: is there psychological security at all? Please ask yourself this really very serious question: is there inwardly, subjectively, inside the skin as it were, psychologically, is there security at all? I can rely on you as an audience and you can rely on me as the speaker. If the speaker sought security in you and he has nobody to talk to, then he feels terribly insecure. So is there psychological security at all? If there is no psychological security then what is physical security? 我們不僅需要身體的安全感 也需要心理的安全感. 需求最大的是心理上的安全感 不只是身體上的，對嗎？ 因此我們要問 真的有心理的安全感嗎？ 請自問這個非常非常嚴肅的問題 有內在的、主觀的 也就是在皮囊之內的 心理上的安全感嗎？真的有這種安全感嗎？ 我把你們當做聽眾依賴 你們把我當做說者依賴 如果說者在你們身上尋求安全感 如果他沒有談話的對象 就會感到非常不安全 真的有心理上的安全感嗎？ 如果沒有心理上的安全感 那麼身體上的安全感又是什麼？對嗎？
48:02 The world is changing constantly, from day to day, it is a tremendous flux. It is so obvious. And physically also one needs a little security to sit here, talk together, but that is gradually being restricted. You cannot do this in Communist countries. So if one recognises the fact that psychologically there is no security. Right? That is the truth, there is no psychological security. I can believe, I can have faith but you come along and tear it to pieces. You can, if I am willing to listen. So the more I strengthen myself in belief the more I am capable of that belief being torn to pieces – right? I may have faith in something, in a symbol, in a person. By argument, logic, sanity, that can be pulled to pieces. So there is no psychological security at all. Though we have sought it, though we have tried to fulfil ourselves in it, all the things we have done, psychologically, to be secure. At the end of it there is death. Right? There is death. And death is the most extraordinary thing. Putting an end to a long continuity. In that continuity we hope to find security – see the whole process of it. Because the brain can only function excellently when it is completely secure. Right? Secure in terrorism, as a terrorist, secure in my belief, secure in my knowledge and so on. All that comes to an end when there is death. Right? I may hope next life and all that kind of stuff, but it is really the ending of a long continuity. I have identified myself with that continuity, that continuity is me. And death says, ‘Sorry, old boy, that is the end’. Right? And one is not frightened of death, really not frightened. That means you are living constantly with death, that is constantly ending. Not continuing and ending, but ending every day that which you have gathered, that which you have memorised, that which you have experienced. 世界日復一日不斷地改變 這是一個龐大的流變事實如此明顯 人也需要一點身體的安全感 才能坐在這裡一起談話 但這也逐漸受到了限制，對嗎？ 你無法在共產主義國家去獲得它 因此，如果你認清 沒有心理安全感這個事實 對嗎？ 這就是真相，沒有心理的安全感 我能相信，我能有信仰 但你卻過來把它撕成碎片 只要我願意聽你的話你就能做到 我越強化自己的信念 那個信念越可能被撕碎，對嗎？ 我也許信仰某個事物、象徵、人 論證、邏輯、理智會把那個信仰撕成碎片 因此根本沒有心理的安全感 縱使我們追求過它 縱使我們試著從中獲得自我實現 我們做過的一切想獲得心理上的安全感 在一切的終點還有死亡 對嗎？還有死亡 死亡是最不尋常的一件事 它為漫長的連續體劃下句點 我們希望在那個連續體中找到安全感 看這整個過程 因為有了十足的感全感 頭腦才能卓越地運作 對嗎？ 恐怖份子在恐怖主義中感到安全 在我的信仰裡獲得安全，對嗎？ 在我的知識等等之中獲得安全 這一切都在死亡來到時結束對嗎？ 我也許希望來世等這一類的玩意 但這其實是一個漫長連續體的結束 我與那個連續體認同 那個連續體就是我 死亡說，抱歉，老兄終點站到了 對嗎？ 你卻不怕死亡，真的不怕 這意味著你不斷地與死亡共存 也就是持續不斷地終結，對嗎？ 不是先持續再終結 而是每一天都把你收集的東西終結掉 你所記憶的東西 經驗過的東西
52:12 So to live every day with that feeling of ending, not merely intellectual ending, but actually ending psychologically. That is, time gives us the hope, thought gives us comfort, thought assures us a continuity, and you say, ‘Well, next life’. I will be as silly as I am now, next life, if I don’t end this silliness now. The stupidity, the illusions, and all the rest of it, if I don’t end it now, I'll be there next life – if there is a next life. 每一天都帶著這個終結感過生活 不只是知性上的終結 而是實際的、心理上的終結 換言之，時間給我們希望 思想給我們慰藉 思想確保了生命的延續 你說，好吧，等來生吧 我還是會像今生一樣愚蠢 如果我現在不終結這種愚蠢的話 愚昧、妄想等諸如此類的東西 如果我現在不終結它來生的我還是那個樣子 如果有來生的話
53:19 So time, thought, which gives continuity, and we cling to that continuity and therefore there is fear. And fear destroys love – right? So love, compassion and death. They are not separate movements. 因此，時間、思想帶給你連續感 我們就執著於那個連續感並因此有了恐懼 恐懼會摧毀愛，對嗎？ 因此，愛、慈悲與死亡它們不是分離的活動
53:55 So we are asking: can one live with death, and thought and time have a stop? They are all related. Don’t separate time, thought and death – it is all one thing. 我們要問的是人能與死亡共存嗎？ 思想和時間會停止嗎？ 它們都有關係 不要分開時間、思想和死亡它們是同一個東西
54:33 Third question: 'Is it not violence and corruption to have physical security while others are starving?' （第三個問題）暴力和腐敗是不是 在別人挨餓的時候你還去擁有身體的安全感？
54:43 'Is it not violence and corruption to have physical security while others are starving?' Who is asking this question? Please, the speaker is asking you: who has asked this question? The man who has physical security and considering the poor, the starving, or the starving are asking this question? You understand my question? If you and I are comfortable, then we can ask this question. If you and I are really very poor, would we ask this question? You see, there are so many social reformers in the world, the do-gooders. I won’t go into it now because we haven’t time for it. If you look at it carefully, are they fulfilling themselves in social work? Doing something for the poor? This question has been put to the speaker when he is in India: what are you doing for the poor? They are starving, you seem to be well-fed, what do you do? You understand these questions? So I am asking: who puts this question? We are not avoiding or evading this question. We have been brought up – the speaker – in poverty. Is that speaker, when he was a young living in poverty, asking this question? 暴力和腐敗是不是 在別人挨餓的時候你還去擁有身體的安全感？ 問這個問題的人是誰？ 請聽好，說者在問你 是誰在問這個問題？ 是一個有身體安全感的人 在關心貧窮、挨餓的人嗎？ 或者是一個挨餓的人在問這個問題？ 了解我的問題嗎？ 如果你我生活舒適我們就會問這個問題 如果你、我一貧如洗 我們會問這個問題嗎？ 世界上有太多社會改革家 那些空想社會改良家 我現在不詳談這個因為沒有時間了 如果你仔細地看 他們是不是在社會工作中滿足自己？ 為窮人服務，對嗎？ 說者在印度時就有人問過這個問題 你為窮人做了些什麼？ 他們在挨餓你似乎吃得很好 你做了些什麼？ 你了解這些問題嗎？ 因此我要問的是提出這個問題的人是誰？ 我們不是迴避或逃避這個問題 我們，說者是在貧苦的環境裡長大的 年輕時在貧窮裡生活的說者 在問這個問題嗎？
57:31 So there is poverty in the world, slums, appalling conditions. There are no slums in Switzerland apparently. Thank God! There are slums, ghettos, the very, very poor, one meal a day and all that. What do we do about it? That is really the question, isn’t it? You may be well-fed, I may not be so well-fed, but the question is: what do we, human beings, seeing all this, what is our responsibility? Are we concerned – please, we are not avoiding the question – are we concerned with poverty? Poverty. What does that mean? Where? Physical poverty? Or psychological poverty? You understand? Psychological poverty, psychologically being poor, in the sense you may have a lot of knowledge about the psyche but you are still poor. The analyst, he is a poor poor, and he is trying to correct the other person who is also poor. 這個世界有貧窮 貧民窟，令人驚懼的情況 顯然瑞士沒有貧民窟 感謝上帝！ 有貧民窟、黑人區非常、非常窮的人 日食一餐之類的 我們要怎麼做？ 這才是真正的問題，對嗎？ 你也許吃得很好我也許三餐不繼 但問題在於 身為人類的我們 看到這一切我們的責任是什麼？ 我們是否關心… 請聽好，我們不是在迴避問題 我們會關心貧窮嗎？貧窮 貧窮是什麼意思？在哪裡？ 身體的貧窮嗎？或心理的貧窮？ 了解嗎？ 心理的貧窮，心理上的貧乏 意思是你也許有豐富的心理知識 但你仍然是窮人 分析家，他是窮人中的窮人 他想糾正另一個窮人
59:11 So what is poverty? To be poor, not to be sophisticated, ignorant. You understand? So what is ignorance? Is it the lack of reading a book, writing, having one meal a day, one cloth? Or poverty begins first psychologically and then you can crack everything outside, you understand? If I am rich inwardly, I can do something. If I myself am poor inwardly, poverty means nothing outside. Then I want to help. 那麼，什麼是貧窮？什麼是變成一個窮人？ 不是那種老練、無知的人 了解嗎？ 無知是什麼？ 是指沒讀過書，不會寫字 一天只吃一餐、只穿一件衣服的人嗎？ 或者貧窮先從心理開始 然後你就能破解外在的一切了了解嗎？ 如果我的內在富有我就能做一些事 如果我的內在貧窮 外在的貧窮就了無意義我就會想幫助別人
1:00:14 So we have not only to understand what is poverty, the poor, sympathy, generosity, all that is involved in this. If you have one shirt, you give it. Once the speaker was walking in the rain in India and a little boy came up and said, ‘Sir, give me some money.' The speaker had no money. So then he said, ‘Give me your shirt’. I said, ‘All right’. It was pouring. So I gave it to him. Then he said, ‘Give me your undershirt’. I said, ‘Just a minute. Come with me to the house. You can have anything you like: food, clothes, anything you like, within limits, of course.' So he came with me, holding my hand, he was very poor, dirty. We walked together to the house. The speaker left him and went upstairs to get some clothes for the boy. And the boy went round the house, looking into every cupboard, all over the place. The person with whom the speaker was staying caught him and said, ‘What are you doing in this part of the house?’ ‘Oh, he said, he asked me to come in.' ‘But he didn’t ask you to come upstairs and look into all this. So why are you doing it?’ And the boy got rather frightened and said, ‘My father is a robber'. He was casing the house. You understand that phrase? 我們不僅要了解貧窮是什麼 窮人、同情、慷慨 這些都牽涉在裡面 即使只有一件襯衫你也會送給別人 說者有一次在印度的雨中散步 一個小男孩走過來說 先生，給我一點錢 說者沒帶錢 他接著說，襯衫給我我說，好吧！ 當時下著傾盆大雨所以我把襯衫送給他 接著他說，你的內衣給我 我說，等一下 跟我一起到屋子裡 你要什麼都可以 食物、衣服，任何你喜歡的東西 當然是在有限範圍之內 因此他握著我的手，跟我一起走他非常窮，又骯髒 我們一起走進屋子 說者離開他 上樓去給他找些衣服 男孩在屋子裡逛 看櫥櫃裡的東西，滿屋子逛 跟說者一起住的人抓到他 問他，你來這裡幹什麼？ 噢，他說，他要我進來的 但他沒有要你到樓上來看這些東西 你為什麼跑上來？ 男孩很害怕他說，我爸爸是竊盜 他正在刺探內情懂這句話的意思嗎？
1:02:16 So we have not only to deal with poverty externally, but also inwardly. Probably there would be no poverty in the world if all the scientists, of all the nations got together and said we must solve this problem. They could. But nationalities divide them, communities divide them, religious beliefs divide them – right? And nepotism, 'I know somebody, I’ll help you.' So the whole world is opposed to this kind of action, that is to put aside all our nationalities, beliefs, religion and help, really work all together to solve this problem of external poverty. But nobody will do this – right? We have talked to politicians, to higher people, but they are not interested. So begin with ourselves first. 因此，我們不僅要處理外在的貧窮 也要處理內在的 如果全世界的科學家聚在一起 說我們必須解決這個問題 或許就沒有貧窮的問題了 他們能解決 但國籍和社區把他們分裂了 宗教信仰把他們分裂了，對嗎？ 裙帶關係，我認識某某人我會幫助你 全世界都反對這種行為，對嗎？ 也就是說，放下國籍、信仰、宗教 幫助，真正地一起合作 解決外在的貧窮問題 但沒有人會這麼做，對嗎？ 我們跟政客、高層人士談過 但他們沒興趣，對嗎？ 因此我們要先從自己開始
1:04:03 Forth question: 'How can our limited brain grasp the unlimited, which is beauty and truth? What is the ground of compassion and intelligence and can it really be and can it really become... or be upon each one of us?' （第四個問題）我們有限的頭腦 如何理解無限的境界 也就是美和真理？ 慈悲與智慧的基礎是什麼？ 它真的能… 它真的能變成…或發生在每個人身上嗎？
1:04:39 'How can our limited brain grasp the unlimited, which is beauty, love and truth? What is the ground of compassion and intelligence? And can it really come upon each one of us?' Right? Question clear? 有限的頭腦如何理解無限的境界 也就是美、愛和真理？ 慈悲與智慧的基礎是什麼？ 它真的能發生在每個人身上嗎？ 對嗎？問題清楚嗎？
1:05:11 How can our limited brain grasp the unlimited? It cannot, because it is limited. Once we grasp the significance, the depth of the quality of the brain and recognise the fact, the fact, not the idea, the fact that our brains are limited by knowledge, by specialities, by particular discipline, by belonging to a group, nationalism, and all the rest of it, which is the basic, which is self-interest, camouflaged, hidden, in all kinds of things – robes, crowns, rituals. Essentially, this limitation comes into being when there is self-interest. That is so obvious. When I am concerned with my own happiness, with my own fulfilment, with my own success that very self-interest limits the quality of the brain and the energy of the brain. Right? 有限的頭腦如何理解無限的領域？ 不能 因為它是有限的 一旦我們理解了頭腦品質的意義 和深度 並認清事實，事實，不是觀念 頭腦有侷限的事實 透過知識、專業 特殊的訓練 通過屬於某個團體、國族主義 以及其他的東西它們都是基礎 這個基礎就是自利、欺騙、隱藏 隱藏在袍子、皇冠、儀式等所有事物背後的 實質上，有自利的時候 這個侷限就會存在這是如此明顯的事 當我關心自己的快樂時 自己的實現、自己的成功等 那個自利就會限制頭腦的品質 與頭腦的能量 對嗎？
1:06:40 And, as we explained, not that the speaker is a specialist in brain though he has talked to several people about it, professional, but it is still the brain, not their brain, but still yours and mine. That brain, through millennia, million years, has evolved in time, death and thought. It has evolved. Evolution means, does it not, a whole series of time events. We have been the ape, now we are – that has taken two and a half million years, or more, or less. To put all the religious rituals together needs time. So the brain has been conditioned, limited by its own volition, seeking its own security, keeping to its own backyard, say, ‘I believe’, ‘I don’t believe’, ‘I agree’, ‘I don’t agree’, ‘This is my opinion’, ‘This is my judgement’ – self-interest. Whether it is in the high hierarchy of religion, among the very noted politicians who are talking about goodness, peace and all the rest of it, it is part of self-interest. The man who seeks power through money – self-interest. And the professor with his tremendous scholastic knowledge, and so on and so on, and essentially the gurus. Face all this. 而且，我們說明過說者不是腦科專家 不過他跟幾位專家談過 但它仍然是頭腦不是他們的頭腦 仍然是你、我的頭腦 那個頭腦經過幾百萬年 在時間、死亡和思想中演化 它演化了 演化難道不是意味著 一整個系列的時間事件嗎？ 我們曾經從猿人演化到現在的樣子 250萬年了，或多或少 建立一整套宗教儀式需要時間 因此頭腦已經被制約了 被自己的意志所限制去尋求它自身的安全感 關在自家的後院裡 說，我相信，我不相信我同意，我不同意 這是我的意見，這是我的判斷 自利 無論是宗教的高階層 那些非常有名的政客談論的 善、和平和其他的東西 都是自利的一部分 那個透過金錢尋求權力的人也是自利 學術知識淵博的教授 等等之類的 本質上來說，還有那些上師們 面對這一切
1:09:00 So our brain has become very, very small. Not in the shape of it, in the size of it, but we have reduced the quality of the brain which has immense capacity. Immense. Technological world has improved and also it has got immense capacity to go inwardly, very, very deeply. But self-interest limits the brain. To discover for oneself where self-interest is hidden. It is very subtle. It may lie, hide behind an illusion, in neuroticism, in make-belief, in some family name and all the rest of it. To uncover every stone, every blade of grass to find out. Either you take time to find out, which again becomes a bondage, or you see the thing, grasp it, have an insight into it instantly. When you have a complete insight it covers the whole field. Right? 我們的頭腦已經變得非常非常渺小 不只是形狀和面積的小 我們也降低了頭腦的品質 具有龐大能力的頭腦，對嗎？龐大的 科技界已經發展了 它也具有進入內在的龐大能力 非常、非常地深入 但自利限制了頭腦 你們要親自發現自利隱藏在哪裡 它非常隱微，對嗎？ 它也許會躲在…隱藏在一個錯覺背後 在神經質、欺騙的背後 在某個家族姓氏背後之類的 掀開每一塊石頭 撥開每一根草葉找到它 一則，你會花時間去找出來 而這會再次變成束縛 或者你憑著洞見 即時地看見了它、理解了它 當你有完整的洞見時它就能涵蓋整個領域 對嗎？
1:10:55 So the questioner says, how can the brain which is conditioned grasp the unlimited, which is beauty, love and truth? What is the ground of compassion and intelligence, and can it come upon us – upon each one of us? Are you inviting compassion? Are you inviting intelligence? Are you inviting beauty, love and truth? Are you trying to grasp it? I am asking you. Are you trying to grasp what is the quality of intelligence, compassion, the immense sense of beauty, the perfume of love and that truth which has no path to it? Is that what you are grasping? Wanting to find out the ground upon which it dwells? Can the limited brain grasp this? You understand my question? You cannot possibly grasp it, hold it. You can do all kinds of meditation, fast, torture yourself. This has all been done. Become terribly austere, having one cloth, or one robe. During the Franciscan days, that is during the days of Florence, they dressed most elegantly, beautifully. And Assisi, St. Francis of Assisi, said, ‘No’ and put on a brown cloth with a white cord. Haven’t you noticed all that? There it is. The rich cannot come to the truth, neither the poor. Nor the people who have taken a vow of celibacy, of silence, of austerity and so on, neither can they. It is all determined by thought, all put together sequentially 'in order to'. This is all the cultivation of deliberate thought, of deliberate intent. As a person said to the speaker, ‘Give me twelve years, I’ll make you see God’. 提問者說 一個受了制約的頭腦 如何理解無限的境界 也就是美、愛和真理？ 慈悲和智慧的基礎是什麼？ 它會發生在我們 每一個人的身上嗎？ 你是在邀請慈悲嗎？ 你在邀請智慧嗎？ 你在邀請美、愛和真理嗎？ 你試圖理解它嗎？ 我在問你，你試圖理解 智慧、慈悲的品質 美的浩瀚感 愛的芬芳 以及無路可循的真理嗎？ 你想理解的是那個嗎？ 想找出它存在的基礎嗎？ 有限的頭腦能理解它嗎？ 了解我的問題嗎？ 你無法理解它、抓住它 你大可做所有類型的冥想 禁食、自我折磨這些都有人做過 卻變成了可怕的苦行 圍著一塊布、或穿一件袍子 在聖方濟節 也就是佛羅倫斯日 他們會打扮得很優雅、美麗 亞西西…聖方濟亞西西說 不！然後圍一塊棕色的布和一條白腰帶 你們有注意過這些嗎？ 答案就在這裡 富人找不到真理窮人也找不到 守獨身誓的人也找不到 守禁語誓和苦行誓的人也一樣 他們也找不到，對嗎？這些都由思想決定 在「有所得」的目的下依序排列出來的 這些都是蓄意的思想和意圖 培養出來的 正如一個人對說者說過 給我12年，我會讓你看見上帝
1:14:27 So as the brain is limited, do whatever you will, sit cross-legged, Lotus posture, go off into a trance, meditate, stand on your head, or one leg, or whatever you do, you will never come upon it. Compassion doesn’t come to you. 由於頭腦受了限制無論你做什麼事 盤腿、蓮花式、入定 冥想、倒立、金雞獨立或任何修持 你永遠都無法遇到它 慈悲不會來到你身上
1:14:58 Therefore one must understand what is love. Love is not sensation. Love is not pleasure, desire, fulfilment. Love is not jealousy, hatred. Love has sympathy, generosity, tact and so on. All the qualities are not love. To understand that, to come to that requires a great sense of the appreciation of beauty. Not the beauty of a woman or a man, or the cinema star with all the rest of it. Beauty is not in the mountain, in the skies, in the valleys, or in the flowing river. Beauty exists where the self is not. You can see the great old trees of three to five thousand years old in California, and see the majesty of that tree and say, ‘How marvellous’ but the self hides behind that tree – right? So beauty exists only where there is love. And beauty, love is compassion. There is no ground for compassion, it doesn’t stay at your convenience. And that beauty, love, truth is the highest form of intelligence. When there is that intelligence there is action, clarity, tremendous sense of dignity. It is something unimaginable. And that which is not to be imagined, or the unlimited, cannot be put into words. It can be described, philosophers have described it but the philosophers who have described it are not that which they have described. 因此你必須了解愛是什麼 愛不是覺受 愛不是享樂、欲望、實現 愛不是嫉妒、憎恨 愛裡有悲憫、慷慨、圓融等 所有那些品質都不是愛 要了解那個，要找到那個 需要對美有相當程度的欣賞力 不是一個男人或女人的美 或電影名星之類的美 美不在山脈、天空、山谷 或流動的河裡 美存在於沒有自我的地方 你可以看看加州那些年老的大樹 有三到五千年之久 看那棵樹的莊嚴 說，好神奇啊！ 但自我卻躲在那棵樹後，對嗎？ 因此美只存在於有愛的地方 美、愛就是慈悲 慈悲沒有基礎 它不會在…你方便的時候留下 美、愛、真理 是最高形式的智慧 有這種智慧的時候 就有行動、清明 龐大的尊貴感 這是一種難以想像的東西 一個不是想像出來的 或無限的 無法言傳的 它可以被描述，哲學家描述過它 但描述它的哲學家 並不是他們所描述的那個東西
1:18:17 So to come upon this great sense there must be the absence of the ‘me’, the ego, egocentric activity, the becoming. There must be the great silence in one. Silence means emptiness of everything. In that there is vast space. Where there is vast space there is immense energy, not self-interested energy, unlimited energy. 因此要偶遇這種偉大感 就必須沒有我、我執 自我中心的活動、變為 人的內在必須有巨大的靜默 靜默意味著空無一切 那個靜默裡就有浩瀚的空間 有廣大空間的地方就有龐大的能量 不是自利的能量 是無限的能量
1:19:17 May we get up? 我們可以站起來了嗎？