Krishnamurti Subtitles home


UN85T - 人类为什么不能和平地生活在地球上?
美国,纽约,1985 - 联合国公开演讲



2:00 Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Marc Roy, I am the president of the Pacem in Terris Society. I welcome you to today's lecture. I want to introduce to you the honoured guests: On my extreme right, Ambassador Barish from Costa Rica, Mr Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary General for the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the United Nations, and of course, we all know our honoured guest. Today, we are also celebrating the 22nd anniversary of the Pacem in Terris encyclical letter which was issued by Pope John XXIII on 11 April 1963. So, we have a double occasion to celebrate. Not only of the Pacem in Terris encyclical, but also we have with us our honoured guest, the World Teacher. We all know Mr Krishnamurti, and I don't need any introduction for him. It is with great pleasure I present to you Mr Krishnamurti. 主席:先生们女士们,我是马克·罗伊。 作为世界和平协会的主席, 欢迎各位参加今天的演讲。 我很荣幸向各位介绍今天的来宾: 在我最右边的是来自哥斯达黎加的大使巴里什, 副秘书长罗伯特·穆勒先生。 感谢两位出席了这次的联合国成立40周年纪念仪式。 当然,我们都知道还有一位尊贵的嘉宾。 今天我们还要庆祝世界和平通谕 颁布22周年, 这个通谕是教皇约翰二十三世于1963年4月11日签署的。 所以今天可以说是双喜临门, 不仅为了世界和平通谕, 还因为我们很荣幸的请到了“世界导师” 举世闻名的克里希那穆提先生。 我想就不用多介绍他了。 很荣幸能有机会和克里希那穆提先生同席。
3:16 Krishnamurti: I am supposed to talk on World Peace beyond the 40th anniversary of the United Nations. 克里希那穆提(以下简称 K):在这联合国成立40周年庆祝之际, 我被邀请来讨论世界和平。
3:36 Mankind, man, has lived on this earth over fifty thousand years, and perhaps much longer or for less duration. During all this long evolution man has not found peace on earth. Pacem in Terris has been preached long before Christianity, by the ancient Hindus and the Buddhists. And during all this time man has lived in conflict, not only conflict with his neighbour but with people of his own community, of his own society, with his own family, he has fought, struggled against man for the last five thousand years and perhaps more. Historically there have been wars practically every year. And we are still at war. I believe there are forty wars going on at the present time. And the religious hierarchy, not only the Catholics but the other groups have talked about Pacem in Terris, peace on earth, goodwill among men. It has never come about – to have peace on earth. And they have talked about peace, when you die you go to heaven and you have peace there. 人类已经在地球上 生活了5万年, 也许更长或者稍短些。 在这漫长的进化过程中, 人类并没有在地球上实现和平。 世界和平远在基督教之前就被人提出过, 被古代印度教徒和佛教徒提到过。 然而在这漫长的时间里,人类一直生活在冲突中。 不仅有和邻居的冲突, 还有和自己社区的人、 自己社会的人、 自己家人的冲突。 人不断地和他人争斗, 过去5千年甚至更久 的历史里充满了战争, 几乎每年一次, 我们现在还身陷战争, 我相信眼下有四十场战争正在进行。 所有的宗教组织, 不只是天主教还有其他宗教, 都在谈论世界和平, 世界和平和人类之间的善意。 然而至今也没有实现。 我们讨论和平,但也许只有死后上了天堂, 我们才能拥有和平吧。
6:06 One wonders, if one is at all serious, why man kills another human being – in the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of some ideology, or for his country – whatever that may mean – or for the king and the queen, and all the rest of that business. Probably we all know this: that man has never lived on this earth, which is being slowly destroyed, why man cannot live at peace with another human being. Why there are separate nations, which is after all a glorified tribalism. And religions, whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism, they are also at war with each other. Nations are at war, groups are at war, ideologies, whether it is the Russian or the American, or any other category of ideologies, they are all at war with each other, conflict. And after living on this earth for so many centuries, why is it man cannot live peacefully on this marvellous earth? This question has been asked over and over again. An organisation like this has been formed around that. What is the future of this particular organisation? After the 40th year what lies beyond? 如果一个人足够严肃,他会想, 为什么一个人会去杀死另一个人? 以上帝之名, 以和平之名, 以某种意识形态之名, 或者为了自己的国家——不管这个“国家”到底是什么意思—— 或者以国王或女王之名,等等这类东西。 也许我们都知道, 人类从没有在 这个被日渐破坏的地球上真正生活过。 为什么人类不能和他人和平共处? 为什么有这么多彼此分离的国家? 毕竟这些国家就是美化后的部落主义。 而宗教,无论是基督教、 印度教还是佛教, 他们也都彼此为战。 国家彼此为战。 各种团体也彼此为战。意识形态, 无论是俄罗斯人的,美国人的, 还是其他类别的意识形态, 他们都彼此为战,互相冲突。 在地球上生存了无数个世纪之后, 为什么人类还是无法和平地生活在这个不可思议的地球上? 这个问题被问了一遍又一遍。 许多类似联合国的组织因此成立。 这个组织的未来是怎样的? 成立40周年之后还能有什么进展?
8:59 Time is a strange factor in life. Time is very important for all of us. And the future is what is present. The future is now, because the present, which is also the past, modifying itself now, becomes the future. This has been the cycle of time, the path of time. Now – not out of 40 years of this organisation – but now, at the present time if there is no radical change, fundamental mutation, the future is what is now. And that has been historically proved, and we can prove it in our daily lives. 时间是生命中一个很奇怪的因素。 时间对我们所有人都很关键。 而现在怎样,未来就会怎样。 未来就是现在, 因为现在——也就是过去, 在当下调整自己,然后变成了未来。 这就是时间的循环, 时间的轨迹。 现在——不是这个组织成立40年之后—— 就在现在,在当下。 如果当下没有彻底的改变, 根本性的突变, 未来还会和现在一样。 历史已经证明了这一点。 我们也可以在日常生活中证明这一点。
10:31 So the question really is: whether human beings, you and us, sitting on the platform – I am sorry to be sitting up here – we are human beings. And as long as we, with each other or with man and woman, are in perpetual conflict there will be no peace on this earth. One may talk about it endlessly. The Roman Catholic hierarchy talks about Pacem in Terris, and they have been also responsible for appalling wars in the past. A hundred years of war, torture, all kinds of horrible things they have done to man. These are all facts, actualities, not the speaker’s wish. And religions, including Islam, Hindus, Buddhists and so on, they have had their own kind of war. And the future beyond the 40th anniversary is what is going on now. 所以问题其实是: 人类能否, 你们和我们,我这个坐在讲台上的人 ——我很抱歉正坐在这里—— 我们都是人类, 只要我们彼此之间,或者说男人和女人之间, 总是存在冲突, 这个地球上就不会有和平。 人类可以无止境地谈论世界和平。 罗马天主教会谈论世界和平, 但他们也对过去骇人的战争负有责任, 长达一百年的战争、折磨, 他们对人类做了无数骇人的事情, 这些都是事实,真实的事情, 而不是演讲者的一厢情愿。 所有宗教,无论是伊斯兰教、 印度教,还是佛教等等, 他们都发动过自己的战争。 未来,也就是40周年纪念日之后会发生的, 就是今天正在发生的事。
12:32 One wonders if one realises that. The present is not only the past, but also contains the future; the past modifying itself constantly through the present and projecting the future. If we don’t stop quarrels, struggles, antagonism, hate, now, it will be like that tomorrow. You can stretch out that tomorrow for a thousand years, it will be still tomorrow. 某人想知道,一个人是否认识到, 当下不只是过去, 它也包含了未来, 过去调整它自己, 不断地穿过当下, 然后投射出未来, 如果我们现在不停止争吵、 斗争、敌意、仇恨, 明天这一切还会继续。 你可以展望明天展望个一千年, 但它依然会是明天。
13:34 So, it behoves us to ask ourselves whether we, as human beings, single or a community or in a family, whether we can live peacefully with each other. Organisations have not solved this problem. You can reorganise but war still goes on. So organisations, whether it is world organisation or a particular kind of organisation to bring about peace, such organisations will never succeed because human beings individually, collectively, nationally, are in conflict. Strong nations, like America or Russia, are at war with each other, economically, ideologically, and actually – not bloodshed yet. So, peace cannot possibly exist on this earth if there are nationalities, which, as we said, is a glorified tribalism. Nationalities give certain security. Man needs security and he invests in nationalism, or in a particular ideology or belief. Beliefs, ideologies and so on, have separated man. And organisations cannot possibly bring about peace between man and man because he believes in something, he believes in certain ideologies, he believes in God and others don’t. 所以我们应当 问问自己,作为人类的一员, 无论是独身一人,还是生活在一个社群里,或者生活在家庭之中, 我们能否和他人和平相处? 各类机构组织并没有解决这个问题。 你可以改组整顿它,但战争仍然在继续。 所以组织机构,无论是世界性的组织, 或者某种特殊的组织, 都不能为人类带来和平。 因为人类自身, 无论是个体、集体还是国家, 都处在冲突之中。 强大的国家,像美国和苏联, 在彼此为战, 在经济上,意识形态上,以及现实中,都在彼此为战 虽然还没有发生流血冲突。 所以和平不可能出现在这个地球上, 只要还有国家主义, 我们说过,国家主义就是美化过的部落主义。 国家主义给人一定的安全感, 而人类需要安全,所以他寄希望于国家主义, 或者某种特殊的意识形态或信仰。 信仰、意识形态等等分裂了人类。 而组织机构不可能 带来人与人之间的和平, 因为他有某种信仰, 他相信某种意识形态, 他相信上帝,而其他人不相信。
16:11 I wonder if one has ever considered: religions based on a book, whether the Koran or the Bible, become very bigoted, narrow and fundamentalist. And religions like the Hindu and the Buddhist, they have many books, all considered sacred, real, straight from God’s mouth! So they are not so bigoted, they are tolerant, they absorb. So there is this conflict going on: those who rely, put their faith in books, and those who do not put their faith in any book. So, conflict between the book and those who accept multiple books. I wonder if one is aware of all this. 我好奇一个人是否想过, 基于书籍的宗教, 无论是《古兰经》还是《圣经》, 会非常偏执,狭隘,原教旨主义, 而像印度教佛教这类的宗教, 他们有很多经书, 都被认为是神圣的真实的,是神亲口所言! 所以他们不会那么偏执, 他们会容忍,吸收, 所以这之中会有冲突发生, 那些依赖、信仰经书的人, 和不信仰经书的人之间的冲突。 所以,不同经书之间有冲突, 在那些接受不同经书的人之间也有冲突。 我很好奇一个人是否认识到了这一切。
17:40 And we are asking deeply, if you are serious at all, whether you and I, and those of us who are involved in organisations, can live at peace with each other. Peace requires a great deal of intelligence, not just demonstrations against a particular form of war, against a nuclear or atom bomb and so on. Those are the products of minds, brains that are entrenched in nationalism, in some particular form of belief, ideology. So they are supplying armaments – the powerful ones, whether it be Russia, America, or England or France – armaments to the rest of the world, and they also talk about peace, supplying at the same time armaments. 如果你们足够严肃,我们能不能深入地质询, 你和我,我们大家, 属于不同组织的人们, 能否和平地生活在一起? 和平需要巨大的智慧, 不只是针对于某一类战争的反战游行, 反对核武器或原子弹等等。 这些都是心智、头脑的产物, 他们扎根于国家主义之中, 扎根于某种特定的信仰,意识形态之中, 所以他们都在扩充军备——那些强大的国家, 无论是俄罗斯、美国或者英国、法国, 都在针对别的国家扩充军备, 他们都在谈论着和平, 同时又在扩充军备。
19:09 It is a vast cynical world, and cynicism can never tolerate affection, care, love. I think we have lost that quality, quality of compassion. Not analyse what is compassion, it can be analysed very easily. You cannot analyse love. Love is not within the limits of the brain, because the brain is the instrument of sensation, it is the centre of all reaction and action, and we try to find peace, love, within this limited area. Which means, thought is not love because thought is based on experience, which is limited, and on knowledge, which is always limited, whether now or in the future. So knowledge is always limited. And having knowledge, which is contained in the brain as memory, from that memory springs thought. This can be observed very simply and easily if one examines oneself, if one looks at one’s own activity of thought, experience, knowledge. You don’t have to read any book, or become a specialist to understand your own way of thinking, living. 这是一个充满愤世嫉俗的世界, 但愤世嫉俗永远不会带来宽恕,体贴,关心和爱。 我认为我们已经失去了那种品质, 那种同情的品质。 不是去分析“同情”是什么, 那很容易, 你不能去分析“爱”, 爱不在头脑的有限范围之内, 因为头脑只是感觉的工具, 是反应和行动的中心。 但我们却尝试着这个有限的区域内找到爱与和平。 这意味着,思想不是爱, 因为思想是基于经验的, 而经验是受限的。 思想是基于知识的, 知识总是受限的——无论是现在的思想还是未来的思想。 所以知识永远是受限的。 知识,它作为记忆而包含在大脑中, 从这种记忆中产生出了思想, 观察到这一点是很容易、很简单的, 如果一个人去检查一下自己, 如果一个人观察自己思想、经验和知识的活动, 你不必读任何书, 也不用去变成一个了解你自身思维方式和生活方式的专家,
21:48 So thought is always limited, whether it is now or in the future. And we try to solve all our problems, both technological, religious, and personal, through the activity of thought. Surely thought is not love, love is not sensation or pleasure, it is not the result of desire. It is something entirely different. To come upon that love, which is compassion, with its own intelligence, one has to understand oneself, what we are – not through analysts, but understanding our own sorrows, our own pleasures, our own beliefs. 所以思想永远是受限的, 无论是现在的思想还是未来的思想。 而对于我们所有的问题 ——无论是技术上的问题,宗教的问题,还是个人的问题—— 我们试图通过思想的活动来解决它们。 很显然,思想不是爱, 爱不是感官感觉或者快感, 它并不是欲望的产物, 它是完全不同的事。 要发现这种爱,也就是同情、 以及智慧本身, 人需要去了解他自己,了解我们是什么 ——不是通过分析, 而是去了解我们自己的痛苦、 快乐和信仰。
23:11 You know, wherever you go, all over the world, mankind, human beings, suffer, for various reasons. It might be petty or some very deep incident that has caused pain, sorrow. And every human being on this earth goes through that on a minor scale or a tremendous incident, as death. And sorrow is shared by all mankind, it is not your sorrow or mine, it is mankind’s sorrow, mankind’s anxiety, pain, loneliness, despair, aggressiveness. So you, and we, are the rest of humanity, we are not separate human beings psychologically. You may be a woman, I may be a man, you may be tall, dark, short and so on, but inwardly, psychologically, which is far more important, we are the rest of mankind. You are the rest of mankind, and so if you kill another, if you are in conflict with another, you are destroying yourself. You can observe this very carefully if you look at yourself without any distortion. 你知道,无论你走到世界的哪个角落都会发现 人类总在受苦, 出于各种各样的原因, 也许是因为很琐碎的事, 又或者有更深刻的事件造成了痛苦和悲伤。 地球上的每一个人都经历过这些, 小的事情,或者巨大的意外, 比如死亡。 痛苦被全人类所共享。 不存在你的痛苦或我的痛苦, 这是全人类的苦。 人类的焦虑、痛苦、 孤独、绝望、侵略性。 所以你和我们就是全人类, 心理上,我们不是分离的个体, 你也许是女人,我是一个男人, 你也许很高,也许是黑皮肤,又或者很矮,等等, 但是内在,心理上, ——这也是远远更为重要的—— 我们就是全人类, 你就是全人类。 所以如果你杀害他人, 如果你和他人发生冲突,你就是在摧毁自己。 你可以非常仔细小心地去观察到这一点 ——如果你能观察自己,而没有任何扭曲的话。
25:16 So there can only be peace when mankind, when you and I, have no conflict in ourselves. And you might say, ‘If one achieves, or comes to an end of all conflict within oneself, how will it affect the rest of mankind?’ This is a very old question. This has been put thousands of years before Christ – if he ever existed. And we have to ask whether in ourselves sorrow, pain and anxiety and all that, can ever end. If one applies, looks, observes with great attention, as you look with considerable attention when you are combing your hair, or shaving, with that quality of attention, heightened, you can observe yourself – all the nuances, subtleties. And the mirror is your relationship between human beings. In that mirror you can see yourself exactly as you are. But most of us are frightened to see what we are, and so we gradually develop resistance, guilt, and all the rest of that business. So we never ask for total freedom – not to do what you like, but to be free from choice. Where there are multiple choices there are multiple confusions. 所以和平只可能在 全人类,也就是你和我, 不再有冲突时,和平它才会存在。 你也许会说, “如果一个人成功了,或者说结束了内在的所有冲突, 这又能以何种方式来影响全世界其他的人呢?” 这是一个非常非常古老的问题, 这个问题在基督诞生数千年前 就被提出了 ——如果基督真的存在的话。 我们必须要问, 我们心中的悲伤、 痛苦、焦虑等等这一切能结束吗? 如果一个人带着极大的关注去运用、审视和观察, 就像你在 梳头或刮胡子时会聚精会神地观察自己一样, 带着那种高度集中的注意力, 你可以去观察自己——观察所有的细微差别和微妙之处。 你与他人的关系就是一面镜子, 通过这面镜子,你能清楚地观察到自己是什么。 但是我们大部分人都害怕看到自己真实的模样, 所以我们逐渐发展出抵抗、内疚, 还有其他的一切。 我们从不要求彻底的自由, 不是随心所欲想干什么就干什么, 而是从选择中解脱出来, 当有了很多选择,就会有很多困惑。
27:44 So, can we live on this earth, Pacem in Terris, with great understanding of mankind, which is to understand yourself so profoundly, not according to some psychologist, analyst. They too have to be analysed. So we can, without turning to the professionals, as simple laymen, we can observe our own idiosyncrasies, tendencies. Our brain – the speaker is not a specialist about brain matter – our brain has been conditioned to war, to hate, to conflict. It is conditioned through this long period of evolution, whether that brain with its cells, which contain all the memories, whether that brain can free itself from its own conditioning. You know, it is very simple to answer such a question. If you have been going north all the days of your life – as humanity has been going in a particular direction, which is conflict – and somebody comes along and says, ‘That leads nowhere’. And he is serious, and perhaps you are serious. Then he says, ‘Go south, go east, any other direction but that’. And when you actually move away from that direction there is a mutation in the very brain cells themselves because you have broken the pattern. And that pattern must be broken now, not forty years or a hundred years later. 所以我们能否生活在这个地球上, 和平地生活在这里, 带着对人类的深刻了解, 也就是非常彻底地了解你自己, 不是依据某些心理学家或者分析师, 他们也需要被分析, 所以我们可以不求助专家, 作为一个纯粹的门外汉, 我们可以去观察自身的特性、倾向, 我们的大脑——演讲者并不是一个研究大脑的专家—— 我们的大脑一直被 战争、仇恨和冲突所制约。 他被漫长的进化过程所制约, 大脑和所有的脑细胞, 也就是所有记忆的容器, 能否实现自由, 也就是从自身的制约中解脱出来。 你看,这个问题回答起来其实很容易。 假设你一生都在向北走 ——因为人类总是朝着某个特定方向前进, 而这就是冲突—— 某个人走过来,然后对你说,“这是条死路” 他很严肃,也许你也很严肃, 然后他又说“往南走,往东走,或者其他方向,总之不要再往北走了!‘ 如果你真的掉转了方向, 这就是突变,脑细胞本身的突变, 因为你已经打破了这个模式。 这个模式必须在当下被打破, 不是40年或100年以后。
30:18 And can human beings have the vitality, the energy, to transform themselves into civilised human beings, not killing each other? 人类能否拥有活力与能量 来转变自身,从而真正变得文明, 不再彼此杀戮?
30:50 C: May we ask questions? 主席:我们能问些问题吗?
30:52 K: Oh yes, ask any questions. Delighted! K:当然,什么问题都可以。我很乐意回答。
31:12 C: We will have some time for questions and Mr Krishnamurti has kindly agreed to answer any questions you may ask. When you ask a question please raise your hand so that the sound will be connected. Thank you. 主席:接下来是提问时间, 克里希那穆提先生很乐意 回答你问的任何问题。 当你提问时请举起手, 这样可以把话筒给你连接上。谢谢。
31:32 QUESTION: I am asking a question in regards to wanting a spiritual expression that I feel linked up with. Am I being heard? I don’t think so. Yes? I feel there is a disconnecting sense that is being communicated to me. I would look forward to a spiritual connection, to myself and the fellow people in this group, that would be an elevating sense. That is what I would look forward to, experiencing at this lecture, a more uplifting spiritual sense of oneness, rather than an intellectual expression. 提问者:我想问一个问题:那就是我想要 一种我感觉能与之连接的灵性表达。 你能听到我吗?我觉得不行吧,可以吗? 有一种失去连接的感觉 出现在我心里, 我想和自己以及这个团体里的成员 有一种灵性上的连接,这将是一种很让人振奋的感觉。 这就是我想在这个讲座中体验到的 它是一种更加令人振奋的、合而为一的灵性感受, 而不是智力上的收获。
32:46 K: First of all, I don’t understand the word ‘spiritual’. Is it emotional, romantic, ideological, or something vague in the air, or facing actuality, what is going on now, both in ourselves and in the world? Because you are the world, you are not separate from the world. We have created this society, and we are that society. And whatever experiences one has, so-called religious and spiritual, one must doubt those very experiences, one must question, be sceptical. I wonder if you realise that the word ‘scepticism’, questioning, enquiring, is not advocated in the Christian world. Whereas in Buddhism, and Hinduism, that is one of the essential things. You must question, everything, until you discover or come upon that truth, which is not yours, or any others, it is truth. K:首先,我不太明白“灵性”这个词是什么意思? 这是一种情感吗?某种浪漫化的东西?意识形态的事物? 又或者是什么流传中的模糊的东西, 或者说,它是去面对此刻正在发生的事实 ——我们内心正在发生的事实,以及这个世界正在发生的事实? 因为你就是世界,世界和你并不是分离的, 我们创造了这个社会, 我们就是这个社会。 无论一个人有了什么样的经验, 哪怕是所谓宗教的或者灵性的经验, 我们都必须去质疑这些经验。 我们要去质疑,保持一种怀疑的态度, 不知道你们发现没, 怀疑、 质疑、探究 这些词语在基督教世界是不被提倡的, 然而在佛教和印度教里 这是最关键的事情之一, 你必须去质疑,一切事物, 直到你发现真理或者邂逅真理为止。 真理不是你的或者其他人的,真理就是真理。
34:45 And this enquiry is not intellectual. Intellect is only a part of the whole human structure. One must look at the world and oneself as a holistic being. And truth is not something to be experienced. If one may point out, who is the experiencer apart from experience? Is not the experiencer part of the experience? Otherwise he wouldn’t know what experience he has had. So, the experiencer is the experience; the thinker is the thought; the observer, in its psychological sense, is the observed. There is no difference. And where there is difference, separation, there comes conflict. With the end of conflict there is freedom, and only then truth can come into being. All this is not intellectual, for god’s sake. This is something that one lives, finds out. 这种探询不是智力上的, 毕竟智力只是人类整个存在结构的一部分而已, 一个人必须把世界和自身看作是一个整体的存在。 真理不能被经验, 如果可以指出的话, 谁是那个与经验分离的经验者? 难道经验者不是经验的一部分吗? 否则他不会知道他有过怎样的经验。 所以经验者就是经验本身, 思考者就是思想, 观察者,从心理学的意义上讲,就是被观察之物, 二者没有不同, 而当有了区分,有了分离,就会有冲突了。 伴随着冲突的结束,自由就会产生, 只有那时真理才会出现。 这一切不是智力游戏,看在上帝的份上, 这是一个人要亲自去体验和找寻的东西。
36:40 Q: You laid a great deal of stress on enquiry and scepticism. I wonder if you could tell me if faith plays a role in there too? You have mentioned scepticism and enquiry, and I wonder if the word 'faith' also plays a role in your exercises? 提问者:你十分强调询问和质疑, 我想知道你能否告诉我,信仰是否也在其中发挥了作用? 你提到了质疑和询问, 我想知道是否“信仰”这个词也在你的练习中发挥了某种作用?
37:16 K: What is faith? What do you put your faith in? One has faith in some experience, one has faith in some belief, or in a symbol, and so on. Why does one have faith? Is it out of fear, out of uncertainty, out of a sense of insecurity? When you have faith – for instance as a Hindu in some symbol – and you hold on to that faith, or to that symbol, then you are at war with the rest of the world. But to enquire gently, hesitantly, questioning, asking yourself, then out of that comes clarity. And there must be clarity to understand that which is eternal. K:什么是信仰? 你信仰的是什么? 我们深信某种经验,我们有着某种信仰, 或者信仰某个象征符号,等等。 人为什么有信仰? 是因为恐惧吗?是因为不确定感吗? 是因为不安全感吗? 当你有信仰的时候——例如印度教徒会信仰一些象征符号—— 你就会执着于这种信仰或者这个符号, 然后你就会和这世界上其他人发生战争, 但如果你是温和地、踌躇地去探询、 质疑和询问自己的话, 那么从中就会产生清明感。 而你必须要有清明感,才能去了解那永恒之物。
38:54 Q: At the end you said that we need to break the pattern of conflict in man between man. My question to you is, do you see that as something, as an evolutionary process that will inevitably happen? Or do you see it as something that we all have to work very hard to achieve? And, there is an expression that goes something like this: in times of darkness the eye begins to see. And, why I'm throwing that at you is because in a sense either it's going to happen or it's not going to happen, but how do you see it happening? 提问者:最后你说到,我们需要打破这个模式, 这个存在于人与人之间的冲突模式。 我要问你的是,你是否将它(打破模式)视为 一种必然会发生的进化的过程? 还是说,你将它视为某种 我们必须要作出极大的努力才能实现的事情? 有这样一种说法, “在黑暗的时刻,眼睛才会开始看见。” 我之所以问你这个,是因为从某种意义上说 它要么会发生,要么不会发生, 但是你觉得这个过程会怎么发生?
39:36 K: I don’t quite understand your question, sir. K:先生,我没明白你要问什么。
39:39 Q: All right. You talk about breaking the pattern, man has a pattern, the brain has a pattern, and that pattern has to be broken in order for there to be peace in the world. 提问者:好吧。你说我们要打破模式, 人类有一种模式,大脑也有一种模式, 这个模式必须被打破, 只有打破它,才会有世界和平。
39:51 K: Of course. K:当然。
39:52 Q: Now, do you see that the breaking of that pattern being an active movement, or a natural progression in the evolution of man? 提问者:那么,你是将打破模式视为 一种积极主动的活动,还是一种人类进化过程中自然发生的进步过程?
40:04 K: Sir, have we evolved at all? K:先生,我们是否真的进化了?
40:10 Q: I think we are continuously evolving. 提问者:我认为我们在持续地进化。
40:12 K: So you accept evolution – psychological evolution, we are not talking about biological or technical evolution – psychological evolution. After a million years, or fifty thousand years, have we changed deeply? Aren’t we very primitive, barbarous? So, I am asking, if you will consider whether there is psychological evolution at all? I question it. Personally, to the speaker, there is no psychological evolution, there is only the ending: of sorrow, of pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair and all that. Man has lived with it for a million years. And if we rely on time, which is thought – time and thought go together – if we rely on evolution then another thousand years or more, and we will still be barbarous. K:所以你接受进化的观点——心理领域的进化, 我们不是在讨论生物学上或技术上的进化—— 而是心理上的进化。 经过100万年或者5万年后, 我们真的有深层次的改变吗? 我们不还是很原始很野蛮吗? 所以,我想问,你是否考虑过, 心理上的进化真的存在吗? 我质疑这一点。 对于演讲者个人来说, 并不存在什么心理上的进化, 存在的只有终结: 终结悲伤、痛苦、焦虑、孤独、绝望,等等这一切。 人类已经与之共存100万年了, 而如果我们依赖时间——也就是思想, 时间和思想是如影随形的, 如果我们依赖进化, 那么再过1000年甚至更久, 我们还是会如此野蛮。
42:00 C: Will you please identify your name and organisation before asking a question. 主席:在你们问问题之前, 请先确认一下你的名字和所属的组织。
42:15 Q: My question is: what would have to happen for there to begin to be psychological evolution as the speaker understands it? 提问者:我想问,要发生什么样的事情, 才会开始有心理上的进化 ——那种演讲者所认为的心理进化?
42:39 C: Will you please repeat your question? 主席:你能重复一遍问题吗?
42:45 Q: What will have to happen within man's mind for there to begin to be psychological evolution as the speaker understands it? 提问者:人类的内心要发生怎样的事情 才会开始产生心理上的进化 ——那种演讲者所认为的心理进化?
43:07 K: What about psychological evolution? I don’t quite understand the question. K:心理上的进化? 我不太明白这个问题。
43:13 Q: You have said that you do not think there has been psychological evolution. My question is: what can happen so that there will be, so that there can be, psychological evolution. 提问者:你说你认为并没有 心理上的进化。 我想问, 那么要发生什么样的事情,才会有 才可能会有心理上的进化。
43:34 K: Madam, I am afraid we haven’t understood each other. We have lived on this earth from the historical, as well as ancient enquiry, on this earth for fifty thousand years or more, or less. And during that long period of evolution, psychologically, inwardly, subjectively, we have remained more or less barbarous – hating each other, killing each other. And time is not going to solve that problem, which is evolution. And is it possible – we are asking – for each human being, who is the rest of the world, whether that psychological movement can stop and see something afresh? K:这位女士,我恐怕我们并没有理解彼此。 我们在这个地球上 ——从历史学以及考古学来看—— 我们在这个地球上已经生存了五万年,或者更多时间,或者少一些时间。 在这漫长的进化中, 心理上,内在,主观上, 我们或多或少依然是野蛮的—— 彼此仇恨,彼此杀戮。 而时间并没有解决这个问题,也就是你们所说的进化。 而我们在问:每一个人 ——他就是世界上其他所有的人——是否可能 让这种心理的运动停止, 然后重新去观察事物?
45:09 Q: I wanted to ask you the same question phrased in a different way: what should we do in order to effect this resistance towards evolution. I just want to say one more thing. There was a Dr Bohm last month, he said the same thing which you are saying in a different way, he is a scientist, he was explaining the same problem. I wonder what do you think we could do, as a matter of fact, what could we do right now in order to effect this? 提问者:我想用一种不同的方式来问下同样的这个问题: 我们要做些什么,才能影响改变那些阻碍进化的事物? 我想再说一件事,博姆博士上个月 也说过和你所说的一样的话——只不过是用不同的方式, 他是个科学家,他也解释过了同样的问题, 我想知道你认为我们能够做些什么?就实际情况来说, 我们此刻能做些什么才能影响改变那些阻碍物?
45:40 K: Alright sir, I've got it. What could you do right now? Right? Change completely – both psychologically and outwardly. First the psychological revolution, not evolution, but revolution, change completely. That is the real action of humankind, not trying to fiddle around on the periphery. K:好的,先生,我明白了。 你现在能做什么?对吗? 彻底改变 ——不管是内心还是外在。 首先是心理上的革命,不是进化, 而是革命,彻底改变, 这才是人类应该有的真正的行动, 而不是在外围瞎转悠。
46:35 Q: You stated that an important condition for understanding humankind is beginning to understand ourselves clearly. Do you see that in these rooms within the next forty years, at the United Nations, that this understanding of humankind through understanding ourselves will become a part of global decision making? 提问者:你说要了解人类,一个很重要的条件 就是要开始清楚地了解我们自己。 你认为在接下来的40年中,在这些议事厅里, 在联合国里, 通过了解自己来理解人类 会成为全球性事务决策中的组成部分吗?
46:58 K: I couldn’t answer that question because I don’t belong to the organisation. Ask the bosses. K:我无法回答这个问题, 因为我不是这个组织的成员, 去问那些领导吧。
47:16 Q: I am the UN representative for the World Citizens Assembly and co-chair of the communications co-ordination committee for the UN and I’d like to, for the record, state that Mr Marcel Boe who asked this very significant question before is also a member of that group and I trust that you and he will have a chance to talk a bit later because many of his writings seem to be highly related to your conclusions. But I would like to add another note, perhaps a note of greater encouragement in my question. You indicated that organisations may not provide the answer, and you also indicated that the history of humanity would incline you to pessimism about the future or salvation. I think it depends upon the nature of the organisations and whether these are serving the interests of humanity and prepared to evolve, as the UN and many other groups evolve, and as humans evolve. For the record let me just read a sentence from Dr Louis Thomas. You probably know him as a fellow author and scientist, also Chancellor of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Centre. He states, ‘We can build structures for human society never seen before, thoughts never thought before, music never heard before, provided we do not kill ourselves off and provided we can connect ourselves by the affection and respect for which our genes are also coded. There is no end to what we might do on or off this planet’. And the implication there, which I share, is that we have evolved because we have the capacity for love and co-operation, and that we are not doomed because we manifest hate and fear and greed, and have succumbed in the past to iniquities like that. But by the very existence of the United Nations we have an illustration of man’s capacity for growth and shared goals. And I think that the present does contain the future and we by acting energetically in the present can affect our future and our survival. Therefore I ask, what is the answer to the question you raised about when one achieves peace within oneself, how will it affect the rest of humanity, given the time limits? 提问者:我是世界公民大会的联合国代表, 也是联合国沟通协调委员会的联合主席, 我想要郑重指出, 那就是马塞尔·博先生之前也问过这个极其重要的问题, 他也是这个团体的成员之一, 我相信之后你会有机会和他聊一下的, 因为他的很多文章 似乎与你的结论是高度相关的。 我想再补充几句, 或许我问题中的这几句话能带来更大的鼓舞。 你说组织不能提供答案, 你还说人类的历史, 让你倾向于对人类的未来或救赎感到悲观。 我认为这依赖于这些组织的本质, 以及它们是否在为人类谋福利, 并且准备好不断地发展进化, 就像联合国和许多其他团体会发展进化,就像人类也会发展进化一样。 为郑重起见,让我读一句路易斯·托马斯博士的话吧。 你可能也知道他,他是一个作家,也是科学家, 还是斯隆凯特林纪念中心的馆长。 他说:“我们能建立起从未见过的人类社会结构, 从未想过的思想,从未听过的音乐。 如果我们不扼杀自己的话, 如果我们能通过爱和尊敬,将我们自己连接起来的话 ——我们的基因里也有爱和尊敬的编码。 我们在这个星球或这个星球之外可能做的事情是永无止境的”。 而我所分享的这些东西的含义, 也就是我们已经进化了, 因为我们有合作和爱的能力, 我们没有注定的命运,我们表现出了仇恨,恐惧和贪婪, 我们在过去屈服于邪恶。 但联合国的存在, 说明了人类的能力, 我们有能力成长,可以有共同的目标。 我认为现在并不包含未来, 只要我们在此刻努力行动, 我们就能影响我们的未来和我们的存活。 因此我想问,对于你所提出的那个问题,它的答案是什么? 你问:如果一个人拥有了内心的和平, 那么考虑到时间的局限性,它要如何影响其他人呢?
50:14 K: What is the question, sir? K:先生,你的问题是什么?
50:15 Q: The question was: when one achieves peace within oneself how will it affect the rest of humanity without organisational structures? 提问者:我的问题是:如果一个人达到了内心的和平, 他如何去影响其他人呢, 如果没有组织机构的话?
50:25 K: I explained that, forgive me, sir. I explained it. To say, if I change how will it affect mankind, the rest of the world? That is the question, isn’t it? K:我会解释这一点,原谅我,先生。我会解释它。 你说,如果我改变了,这如何影响人类整体, 也就是除你之外的其他人? 就是这个问题,对吗?
50:41 K: Wait a minute.

Q: That is the question.
K:等一下。提问者:就是这个问题。
50:44 K: I think if I may most respectfully point out, that is a wrong question. Change and you will see what happens. This is really a very important thing. We have to put aside all the side issues. Please do realise something tremendous: that you are the rest of mankind psychologically. You are mankind, whether you live in India, Russia, China or in America, or Europe, you are the rest of mankind, because you suffer, and everyone on this earth suffers in his own way. We share that suffering, it is not my suffering. So when you ask a question: what difference will it make if I or you change, if I may most humbly point out, it is a wrong question. You are avoiding the central issue. And we never seem to face the central issue, the central challenge that demands that we live totally differently, not as Americans, Russians, Indians, or Buddhists or Christians. K:我认为如果我能尊敬地指出来的话, 这是个错误的问题。 去改变,然后你就会看到会发生些什么。 这是至关重要的事, 我们要把所有次要问题放在一边。 请务必意识到这个惊人的事实: 即心理上你就是全人类。 你就是人类, 无论你是生活在印度、俄罗斯、中国、美国还是欧洲, 你就是全人类,因为你在受苦, 而这个地球上的每一个人也都有他自己的苦。 我们共享这种痛苦,它不只是我的痛苦。 所以当你问: 如果我或者你改变了它会带来什么影响? 如果我能恭敬的指出来,这是个错误的问题。 你在回避核心问题, 我们从不面对核心问题, 面对核心的挑战, 这要求我们有一种全然不同的生活方式, 不是作为一个美国人、俄罗斯人印度人,或者佛教徒、基督教徒。
52:36 I wonder if you have realised, Christians have been responsible for killing humans far more than any other religious group. Don’t get angry, please! Then Islam, the Muslim world, then the Hindus and the Buddhists come much later. So if the so-called Christians, the Catholics included, about eight hundred million people, if they said, ‘No more war!’ you will have peace on this earth. But they won’t say that. It is only Buddhism and Hinduism, say, ‘Don’t kill. If you kill’, – they believe in reincarnation – ‘you will pay next life. Therefore don’t kill the least little thing, except what you have to eat, vegetables and so on. But don’t kill’. We as Brahmins were brought up that way, not to kill a fly, not to kill animals for your food. But all that is gone. So please, we are suggesting that the central issue is: to stop wars you must stop your own antagonisms, your own conflicts, your own misery and suffering. 我好奇你们是否意识到, 对于杀戮人类,基督徒所负的责任 要远远多于其他任何宗教团体。 请不要生气! 之后是伊斯兰教,穆斯林世界, 印度教徒和佛教徒则是很久之后的事了。 因此,如果所谓的基督徒,包括天主教徒, ——他们有接近8亿人, 如果他们说“我们不再打仗了!”, 这个地球上就会有和平, 但他们不会这么说, 只有佛教和印度教会这么说, “不要杀戮,如果你杀戮其他生命“——他们相信轮回—— ”你就会在下一辈子付出代价。所以即使是小生命也不能杀害他们, 除了你必须吃的那些东西,蔬菜,等等。 但是不要杀戮。” 我们作为婆罗门就是这样被教育长大的, 不要杀小飞虫, 不要杀戮动物,然后以它为食, 但这些都已经是过去式了。 所以, 我们说,那个核心问题就是: 要停止战争,你就必须停止你自己的敌意和冲突, 停止你自己的不幸和苦难。
54:41 Q: We have a written question here for Mr Krishnamurti. Do you believe in the so-called realised soul? 提问者:我们这里有一个写好的问题,要问下克里希那穆提先生。 你相信所谓的开悟的灵魂吗?
54:54 K: Do you believe in so-called realised souls? I don’t know what it means. Just a minute, sir. K:你相信所谓的开悟的灵魂吗? 我不知道那是什么意思。 这位先生,请稍等。
55:09 Q: Sir, you're talking right now from a public forum and once this lecture is over probably you will return to a privacy that probably you cherish greatly. So there is for most human beings in this world a division between public life and private life. Could you comment on this division? Do you feel it leads to conflict, is it necessary? 提问者:先生,您现在在公开演讲, 等这次演讲结束,也许您就会回到私人生活了, 而那也许是您无比珍视的。 对这个世界上的大部分人来说, 公共生活和私人生活之间存在着一种分裂。 您能评论一下这种分裂吗? 您认为它会导致冲突吗?它是必要的吗?
55:35 K: Between public life and private life? Is that the question? K:公共生活和私人生活之间的分裂?是这个问题吗?
55:40 Q: Yes, thank you. 提问者:是的,谢谢。
55:42 K: Why do you separate this? Why do we separate public life as though something outside, and private life? If one lived correctly, precisely, not intellectually, but holistically, then there is no outward life and private life. Holistically, that is to live as a whole human being, not as a sectarian, not as an individual, not as petty little minds, brains active in our self-interest. Sorry if I am emphatic. Is that finished, sir? K:你为什么要分裂它们? 我们为什么要把公共生活 ——仿佛它是某种外在的东西——和私人生活分开? 如果一个人过着正确和恰当的生活,不是依靠智力而活,而是整体地去生活, 那就不存在什么外在生活和私人生活了。 整体地去生活,也就是作为一个完整的人去生活, 不是作为某个宗派的人,不是作为一个个体, 不是作为那个忙于自我利益的卑微琐碎的心灵和头脑。 抱歉,我语气或许有点激烈。 结束了吗,先生?
56:39 C: There are two more questions.

K: I don’t mind.
主席:还有两个问题K:好,我不介意。
56:48 Q: If you are living peacefully and the tyrant attacks, do you not defend? 提问者:如果你正和平地生活着,但暴君向你袭来, 难道你不会进行防御吗?
56:56 K: What will you do then? If you live peacefully and a tyrant or a robber attacks you, what will you do? That is the question. Do you live peacefully for a day or two? Or you’ve lived peacefully all your life? If you have lived peacefully for many years then you will do the right thing when you are attacked. K:那时你会怎么做? 如果你在和平地生活, 某个暴君或者强盗攻击你你会怎么做? 就是这个问题。 你是和平地生活了一两天, 还是终生如此? 如果你已经和平地生活了许多年, 你就能在遭受攻击时作出正确的反应。
57:39 Sirs, the speaker has been at this, talking for the last sixty years, and more – all over the world except behind the Iron Curtain. Before the war he was all over Europe – and these questions have been put to the speaker for sixty years. The same pattern is being repeated by the young generation, by a civilisation that is recent, like America, the same questions, with the same intention, to trap the speaker, or to really understand the speaker, or to understand themselves. And if you have the misfortune or the fortune to have talked for sixty years you know all the answers and all the questions. There is no difference between question and answer. If you understand the question really deeply the answer is in the question. 先生们,演讲者已经这样 讲了六十年,甚至更久了。 ——他走遍了全世界,除了铁幕后的那些国家。 在战前,他走遍了欧洲, 这些问题人们已经问演讲者问了有六十年了, 然而同样模式的问题还是被一遍遍地重复,年轻一代在重复它, 像美国这样新建立的文明也在重复它, 同样的问题, 带着同样的目的,无论是想难住演讲者, 还是真的想了解演讲者, 又或者是为了了解他们自己, 而如果你不幸,或者有幸像这样讲了六十年, 你会知道所有的答案和所有的问题。 答案和问题没什么不同, 如果你真的深入理解了问题, 答案就在问题之中。
59:16 C: Mr Robert Muller would like to ask a question. 主席:罗伯特·穆勒先生想问一个问题。
59:22 Q: Well, it is not to ask a question, it is just to congratulate you for your statement. And to confirm that having lived in this organisation for almost forty years and having lived more than sixty years, I have come to the same conclusion as you. We are all being programmed, we are being programmed into a nation, into an ideology, into a religion. And all these are fragmented human beings. It took me forty years to be in this house to be de-programmed from the two or three nationalities which were imposed on me, each time I got also a gun to shoot at the other direction. And it is here after having seen the world in its totality and humanity in its totality that I have come to the conclusion that it is more important to be a human being than to be a Jew, or a Catholic or a Frenchman, or a Russian, or a white, or a black. And in my book I will not kill under any reason, and for any nation, or for any religion, or for any ideology. This is the conclusion which is also yours. 罗伯特·穆勒:哦,我不是要问问题, 我只是想祝贺您此次的演讲。 可以确定的是,我在这个组织 工作了接近四十年了, 我也活了六十多年了, 我和你有同样的结论, 我们都是程序化的, 我们被程序化为属于某个国家、 某种意识形态,某个宗教, 而这一切分裂了人类。 在这里,我花了四十年的时间来摆脱程序化的状态, 也就是摆脱强加于我的那两三个国籍, 以前我每次也是拿枪射向对方。 在这里,在完整地看过这个世界, 完整地看过人类以后, 我得出了这样一个结论, 即更重要的是,要成为人类的一员,而不是成为一个犹太人、 天主教徒、法国人、 俄罗斯人、白人或者黑人。 在我的书里,我说我不会出于任何理由去杀戮, 不会为了任何国家、任何宗教,或者任何意识形态而去杀戮。 这也是你的结论。
1:00:57 K: Is it a conclusion, sir? Or an actuality? K:先生,这是一个结论吗? 还是你的现状?
1:01:05 Q: That is my actuality.

K: That’s better. Not a conclusion.
罗伯特·穆勒:这就是我的现状。K: 很好,它不是一个结论。
1:01:15 C: Ambassador Barish would like to comment. 主席:大使巴里什想做一个评论。
1:01:18 Q: It’s not a comment, it’s a question. I am not arguing about religions but I will remind that, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is not exactly a Christian precept. On the contrary, Christ thought the peaceful way is: care for your fellow human beings, have compassion and love for one another. But I would like to know how to break this pattern of confrontation among human beings. I am not talking about States because States are formed by human beings and governments too, they are human beings that rule the countries. How could we break this pattern? How is it that mankind has not been able to practise such glowing thoughts as those that Christ wrote to us and that were written also by all religions as Hinduism and Buddhism. I would like very much to see if we could find a formula, a solution to break that terrible pattern of confrontation, and hate even between families, as Mr Krishnamurti has pointed out because it is not just war among nations, there is always a confrontation, duality even among children, you see one is with Mama and the other one wants... That pattern, how could we break it? Thank you. 巴里什:这不是个评论这是个问题。 我不是在争论宗教的事,但我想提醒一点, “以牙还牙,以眼还眼”, 绝不是基督徒的格言, 正相反, 基督认为和平的方式应该是:关爱其他人类同胞, 怀着彼此之间的爱和同情。 但是我想知道,如何才能打破这种模式 这种导致人与人对抗的模式, 我指的并不是国家, 因为国家也是人类和政府所建立的, 国家也是人来统治管理的。 我们要如何才能打破这个模式? 人类为何一直无法去实践 基督所写给我们的如此光辉的思想? 以及所有其他宗教所写下的思想 ——比如印度教和佛教。 我非常想知道,我们能否找到一种公式, 一种解决方案来打破这造成对抗的模式? 来解决这种甚至是家庭间的仇恨?——就如克里希那穆提先生所指出的那样, 因为不仅国家之间有战争, 对抗和二元性总是存在着——甚至存在于孩子之中, 你看到,一个孩子和妈妈在一起,而另一个孩子想要 那么我们要如何打破这个模式呢?谢谢。
1:03:01 K: May I answer your question? We are programmed, like computers – we are Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists and so on. As Mr Muller pointed out, we are conditioned. Do we realise or see actually, actually, not theoretically, or ideologically, but actually see that we are programmed? Or is it just a casual statement? If you are actually programmed and you realise the consequences of being programmed. One of the consequences has been hating, or war, or separating yourself from others. If one realises that you are being programmed, pressurised, preached at, and if one really sees that, you abandon it, you don’t want a formula for it. The moment you have a formula then you are caught in it. Then you become programmed again because you have your programme and the other fellow brings you another programme. So, what is important is to realise the actuality of being programmed, not intellectually, with all your blood and energy. K:我可以回答你的问题了吗? 我们就像计算机一样程序化, 我们成了一个天主教徒、新教徒、佛教徒等等, 就像穆勒先生所指出的,我们都深受制约, 我们真的意识到或者看到这一点了吗? 是真的看到,不是理论上,或者思想观念上, 而是真正地看到自己被程序化了? 还是说,它只是我们随口说说而已? 如果你真的被程序化了, 你意识到了程序化的后果, 其中的一些后果就是导致了仇恨、战争、 或者你和他人之间的割裂。 如果你意识到自己被程序化了,被施加了压力,被宣传洗脑了 如果你真的看到了这些,你就会抛弃它了, 你不会想要一个解决它的公式。 一旦你有了一个公式,你就会陷入其中了, 那时你又会再次被程序化,因为你有了你自己的程序, 或者其他家伙带给了你另一个程序。 所以重要的是,要去意识到被程序化的事实, 不是智力上意识到,而是以你全部的热血和能量意识到它。
1:05:10 C: Because of the time element we will not be able to entertain any more questions. On behalf of the Pacem in Terris Society and the movement for a better world, we would like to thank our honoured guest-speaker and Robert Muller and Ambassador Barish who are the honorary presidents of the society, and all of you who came to attend the lecture today. 主席:因为时间所限, 我们不能再问更多的问题了。 我们代表世界和平协会, 以及“让世界更美好”运动,感谢 我们的尊贵的客人——演讲者,罗伯特·穆勒和大使巴里什 巴里什也是协会的名誉会长, 也要感谢今天前来聆听演讲的诸位来宾。
1:05:35 I have a very simple ceremony before you leave. Mr Krishnamurti was here last year on the 17th of April, just around the time we had the Pacem in Terris day. And this year we were very fortunate to have on the 22nd anniversary of the Pacem in Terris, and you've already heard about it. On behalf of the Pacem in Terris Society at the United Nations, we have the honour of presenting you, Mr Krishnamurti, the World Teacher, with the United Nations 1984 Peace Medal. 在诸位离开前,我这里有一个非常简单的仪式, 克里希那穆提先生去年4月17日来过这里, 差不多也是世界和平通谕颁布纪念日的时候, 而今年我们非常荣幸地迎来了 世界和平通谕颁布22周年纪念, 我想诸位也都已经听说了。 我们代表联合国世界和平协会, 很荣幸地授予您——克里希那穆提先生, 世界导师—— 联合国1984年和平奖章。