Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ82CNM1 - 心理的無秩序の根源
第１部 ボーム博士、ヒドレー博士、シェルドレイク博士との対話
カリフォルニア州オーハイ
1982年4月16日



0:05 The Nature of the Mind 【 心の本質 】
0:19 Part One ～ 第１部 ～
0:23 The Roots of Psychological Disorder ～ 心理的無秩序の根源 ～
0:37 This is one of a series of dialogues between J Krishnamurti, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and John Hidley. The purpose of these discussions is to explore essential questions about the mind, what is psychological disorder, and what is required for fundamental psychological change? これは Ｊ.クリシュナムルティと― その他の人々による一連の対話です これから行われるのは心の探究です 心理的無秩序とは何か 心理的変容に必要なものとは何か
0:57 J Krishnamurti is a religious philosopher, author, and educator, who has written and given lectures on these subjects for many years. He has founded elementary and secondary schools in the United States, England, and India. クリシュナムルティ氏は宗教哲学者として この問題に長年携わってきました 米国、英国、インドでは 小中学校を設立しました
1:10 David Bohm is professor of theoretical physics at Birkbeck College, London University in England. He has written numerous books concerning theoretical physics and the nature of consciousness. Professor Bohm and Mr. Krishnamurti have held previous dialogues on many subjects. デイビット・ボーム氏は倫理物理学者 英国のロンドン大学の教授です 倫理物理学や― 意識の本質に関する本を執筆しています ２人は以前― 様々な対話を行いました
1:27 Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist, whose recently published book proposes that learning in some members of a species affects the species as a whole. Dr. Sheldrake is presently consulting plant physiologist to the International Crops Research Institute in Hyderabad, India. ルパート・シェルドレイク氏は生物学者 彼は最近『形態形成場』という仮説を 本の中で提示しました 現在 インドの国際作物研究所に― 植物生理学者の意見を求めています
1:46 John Hidley is a psychiatrist in private practice, who has been associated with the Krishnamurti school in Ojai, California, for the past six years. ジョン・ヒドレー氏は精神科医 クリシュナムルティ学校に― 過去６年間 携わってきました
1:55 In the culture there are conflicting points of view about the proper approach to dealing with one's own or others' psychological problems. And the underlying principles from which these approaches are drawn are in even greater conflict. Without invoking a narrow or specialised point of view, can the mind, the nature of consciousness, its relationship to human suffering, and the potential for change be understood? These are the issues to be explored in these dialogues. 心理的問題を扱う上で どのように対処するかは 意見が分かれるところです 対処法の基本原則もまた 大きく食い違います 心は 苦痛や変容と関係しています 偏狭で特殊な視点を持たずに 意識の本質、つまり心を 理解することはできるのか？ これらの問題を探究していきます
2:28 K: Is disorder the very nature of the self? 自我の本質とは無秩序でしょうか？
2:40 H: Why do you say that? Why do you ask that, if it is the nature of the self? 仮にそうだとして なぜそう思うんですか？
2:44 K: Isn't the self, the me, the ego, whatever word we like to use, isn't that divisive? Isn't that exclusive, isolating process, the self-centred activity, which causes so much disorder in the world, isn't that the origin, the beginning of all disorder? 自我、私、エゴ… それは不和を生むものではありませんか？ それは排他的、孤立的ではありませんか？ 多くの無秩序を世界中にもたらす自己中心的な活動 それが あらゆる無秩序の原因では？
3:10 H: The origin being selfish activity. 利己的な活動が原因だと…
3:13 K: Yes, self-centred activity, at all levels of life. ええ 人生全般において
3:17 H: Yes, and certainly that's the way, in which the patient comes in, he's concerned about his depression. 確かに それが患者が来院する理由です 自分のうつ病―
3:22 K: Yes.

H: Or his fear. 		自分の恐れ―
3:24 K: His fulfilment, his joy, his suffering, his agony, and so on, it's all self-centred. 自分の充足感、満足、悩み、苦しみ― これらは皆自己中心的なものです
3:31 H: Yes.

K: So, I am asking, if I may, is not the self the beginning of all disorder? The self - I mean the egotistic attitude towards life, the sense of individual, emphasis on the individual, his salvation, his fulfilment, his happiness, his anxiety, and so on. 		つまり― 自我が あらゆる無秩序の原因ではないでしょうか？ その利己的な生活態度が無秩序の原因では？ その個人的な意識、個人に重点を置くことが… 自分の救済、自分の満足 自分の幸福、自分の心配事などが…
4:01 H: Well, I don't know that it's the source of the thing. It's certainly the way he experiences it and presents it. He presents it as his. それが原因かどうかはわかりませんが 患者は必ずそう表現します 自分のものとして
4:11 K: Yes, but I mean, if you go all over the world, it is the same expression, it is the same way of living. They are all living their own personal lives, unrelated to another, though they may be married, they may do all kinds of things, but they're really functioning from an isolated centre. ええ しかし世界中どこに行っても― 表現は同じですし生き方も同じです 皆 個人的な生活を送っています 他と関係することなく 結婚していようが何だろうが 実際には 孤立した中心から機能しているのです
4:39 H: And that centre, that self, is the source of the difficulty in the relationship? そして その中心、自我が― 問題の原因であり
4:46 K: In relationship. 人間関係において
4:47 H: And the difficulty that creates the symptoms. 苦しみを引き起こす、と。
4:52 K: And I wonder, if the psychologists have tackled that problem, that the self is the origin, the beginning of all contradiction, divisive activity, self-centred activity, and so on. 心理学者はその問題に取り組みましたか？ 自我は あらゆる矛盾の起源であり― 分裂的な活動、利己的な活動の始まりです
5:11 H: No. I think that the way psychiatrists and psychologists look at this is that the problem is to have an adequate self. いいえ 精神科医や心理学者は― 適切な自我を持つことが課題だと考えています
5:21 K: Adequate self.

H: Yes. 		適切な自我？
5:23 K: Which means what? と言うと？
5:26 H: Defining normality... 正常な自我…
5:28 K: The self that is functioning...

H: Sufficiently. 		十分に能率的に機能する―
5:31 K: ...efficiently.

H: Yes. 		そういった自我？
5:33 K: Which means furthering more misery. それは 更なる苦難を意味します
5:41 B: Well, I don't feel that the psychiatrists would necessarily agree with you on that last point, they might feel that a proper, or properly organised self could get together with other properly organised selves and make an orderly society.

K: Yes. 		いや 精神科医が― それに同意するとは思えません 適切に構成された自我が― 別の適切な自我と会えば 秩序ある社会を築ける
5:54 B: And you are saying, as I understand it, something quite different.

K: Yes. 		だが あなたの意見は― まるで違う
5:58 B: Which is that no self can do it. No structure of the self can make order. つまり どんな自我の構造も― 秩序を作り出せないと？
6:04 K: That's right. The very nature of the self must intrinsically bring disorder. その通りですまさにその自我の性質が― 本質的に無秩序をもたらすのです
6:15 B: Yes, but I'm not sure this will be clear. How can that be made clear, evident? なるほど　しかし― それを どう明らかにするんです？
6:27 S: Sorry, it seems to me that the context is even broader than that of psychology, because in the world we have all sorts of things, which are not human beings with selves, there are animals, and plants, and all the forces of nature, and all the stars, and so on. Now, we see disorder in nature too. It may not be consciously experienced - and a cat that's suffering, or a lion that is suffering, or a mouse, or even an earthworm that's suffering may not come into a psychiatrist's office and say so, but the fact is that there seems to be disorder and conflict within nature. There are conflicts between forces of nature, inanimate things, earthquakes and so on; there are conflicts within the animal world, there are even conflicts within the plant world. Plants compete for light, and bigger ones get higher up in the forest, and the smaller ones get shaded out and die. There's conflict between predators and prey - all animals live on other plants or animals. There's every kind of conflict, there's disease, there's suffering, there's parasites - all these things occur in the natural world. So, is the context of psychological suffering and disorder something that's merely something to do with the mind, or is it something to do with the whole of nature, the fact that the world is full of separate things, and that if we have a world which is full of separate things, and these separate things are all interacting with each other, that there's always going to be conflict in such a world. これは心理学というよりも― 更に広範囲な話です 世界にはあらゆる種が存在します 人間だけでなく 動物や植物、あらゆる自然の猛威― 星などが存在します 自然にも無秩序はあります 自覚はないにしろ 苦しんでいる猫、ライオン ネズミ、ミミズ― 彼らは精神科医を訪れませんが 自然にも無秩序があり 対立があるのでは？ 自然の猛威と無生物の対立― 例えば地震などそして動物界の対立 植物界の対立― 光を求めて競争し 成長するものもあれば 枯れてしまうものもある 捕食者と被食者の対立 動物は他の命を食べて生きる あらゆる種類の対立、病気― 苦痛、パラサイトなどが 自然界にもある つまり これは心の苦痛、無秩序といった― 単に心理的な話なのか 又は 自然全体の話なのか 実際 世界はバラバラです そして バラバラのものが― 互いに影響し合っている そして そこには常に対立がある
7:57 B: So, I'm wondering, is it clear that there is that disorder in nature. Would we say that disorder is only in human consciousness? しかし あなたは― 人の意識の中だけに 無秩序があると思われている？
8:06 K: Yes. その通り
8:07 B: That is, the phenomena that you have described, are they actually disorder? That's a question we have to go into. Or what is the difference between the disorder in consciousness and whatever is going on in nature? それは本当に― 無秩序なんでしょうか？ 自然界で起きていることと― 意識の無秩序の違いとは？
8:18 K: I saw the other night on the television a cheetah chasing a deer, killing it. Would you consider that disorder? 先日 テレビを見ました チーターがシカを襲っていました それは無秩序ですか
8:28 S: Well, I would consider that it involves suffering. 苦痛は伴いますね
8:30 K: Suffering, yes. So, are we saying that it is natural in nature and in human beings to suffer, to go through agonies, to live in disorder?

S: Yes. 		苦痛…なるほど つまり 自然界でも人間社会でも苦しみや無秩序が当たり前だと― そう言っているのですか？ その通りです
8:49 K: So, what do you say to that, sir? なぜ そう思うのですか？
8:51 H: Well, I think that's the way it's looked at by the therapist. To some degree it's felt that this arises in the course of development, and that some people have it more than others - suffering - some people are more fortunate in their upbringing, for example, in their heredity. But it isn't questioned that that may not be necessary in any absolute sense. セラピストはそのように思うものでしょう それらはある程度 生じるものです 成長の過程において うんと苦しむ人もいれば 生い立ちからして幸福な人もいる 遺伝などでね 必然ではないかもしれませんが― それは問題ではありません
9:18 T:Well, that's what we're questioning. それが問題なんです
9:20 K: That's what I would like to question too. 私もお聞きしたい
9:22 H: Yes. ええ
9:24 K: Dr. Sheldrake says it is accepted. It's like that. Human condition is to suffer, to struggle, to have anxiety, pain, disorder. シェルドレイク博士は言いました 人間とは苦しみ もがくものであり 不安、苦痛、無秩序を持つものであると…
9:36 H: Well, it's certainly...

K: It's human condition. 		確かに―
9:38 H: It's certainly necessary to have physical suffering. People get sick, they die, and we're wondering whether or not psychological suffering is analogous to that, or whether there's something intrinsically different about it. 身体的苦痛は必然的なものです 人は病気になり 死にますそこで疑問なのが― 心理的苦痛も似たものなのか それとも違うのかという点です
9:52 K: No, sir. I do question, seriously, whether human beings must inevitably live in this state, everlastingly suffering, everlastingly going through this agony of life. Is that necessary, is it right that they should? いいえ そうではなく私が本当にお聞きしたいのは― 苦しみの必然性です 人はこの様な状態の中で― 永遠に人生の苦悩を味わなくてはならないのか それは必然でそうあるべきなのか？
10:19 H: It's certainly not desirable that they should. 望みはしませんね
10:21 K: No, no. If we accept that it's inevitable, as many people do, then there is no answer to it.

H: Yes. 		そうではなく― もし それを必然的なものとして受け入れるなら― 結論は出ないでしょう
10:35 K: But is it inevitable? 本当に必然なのか？
10:39 H: Well, physical suffering is inevitable. 身体の苦痛は必然ですよ
10:42 K: Yes.

H: Illness, death. 		病気、死―
10:43 K: Yes, sir, physical sufferings, old age, accidents, disease. ええ　例えば老化、事故、病気などがあります
10:49 H: Maybe we increase the physical suffering because of our psychological problems. 身体的苦痛の増大は― 心の問題が原因かも
10:53 K: That's it. That's it. Sir, a mother bearing babies, she goes through a terrible time delivering them. Strangely, she forgets that pain. She has the next baby, another baby. In India, as you know, mothers have about seven or eight children. If they remembered the first agony of it, they would never have children. I have talked to several mothers about it. They seem to totally forget it. It's a blank after suffering. So, is there an activity in the psyche that helps the suffering to be wiped away? Recently, personally, I have had an operation, a minor operation, there was plenty of pain; quite a lot. And it went on considerably. It's out of my mind, completely gone. So, is it the psychological nourishing of a remembrance of pain - you follow? - which gives us a sense of continuity in pain? それです！母親は子供を生みます 出産のためにつらい経験をしますが 不思議なことに― 痛みを忘れて次々と子供を生みます ご存知の通り インドでは７、８人も子供を生みます 最初の苦痛を覚えているなら― もう生みません 母親たちと話しましたが どうも すっかり苦痛を忘れてしまったようなのです つまり そこには心理的な働きがあるのでしょうか 苦しみを拭い去るような… 最近 私自身ちょっとした手術を受けたんですが かなり痛かったです　本当に 長らく痛みましたが 今や忘れてしまいました ということは 我々に― 断続的な苦痛を 与えているのは 心理的な苦痛の記憶なのでしょうか？
12:31 H: So you are saying that perhaps the physical suffering in the world is not the source of the psychological suffering, but that the psychological suffering is an action of its own. つまり この世の身体的苦痛は― 心理的苦痛が原因ではなく 心理的苦痛はそれ独自の働きであると？
12:43 K: Yes. Right. You have had toothache, I'm sure. その通りです 歯痛の経験が？
12:49 S: Yes. I've forgotten it.

K: You have forgotten it. Why? If we accept pain is inevitable, suffering is inevitable, you must continue with it. You must sustain it. 		‐ええ でも…‐忘れてしまった なぜですか？ もし痛みが必然なものなら― 苦痛が必然なら― あなたはそれを断続しているはずです
13:12 S: No, we have to accept that it's inevitable, as it happens sometimes. But we can forget physical pain; can we forget the kind of psychological pain that's caused by natural things like loss, death of people? いえ 時々起こるものとして 必然なのです けれど体の痛みは忘れられます 心の苦痛はどうでしょうか 誰かを死で失ったり…
13:26 K: Yes, we'll come to that. I come to you. I've a problem with my wife, if I'm married. I am not, but suppose I am married. I come because I can't get on with her. それは また後で 例えば― 結婚生活に問題があります 仮定の話ですが… 妻と折り合えない
13:40 H: Yes. ええ
13:43 K: And she can't get on with me. And we have a problem in relationship. I come to you. How will you help me? This is a problem that everybody's facing. 互いに折り合えない そういった問題があるとき― どのようにあなたは手引きしますか？ 誰もが直面する問題です
13:57 H: Yes. ええ
14:03 K: Either divorce. 離婚するか
14:05 H: Yes.

K: Or adjustment. And is that possible when each one wants to fulfil, wants to go his own way, pursue his own desires, his own ambitions, and so on? 		順応するか しかし 順応できるでしょうか？ お互いがしたいようにするなら お互いがそれぞれの欲望を追うなら
14:25 H: You are saying that the problem arises out of the fact that they each have their own interests at heart. つまり 問題が生じるのは― お互いの関心事が違うからだと？
14:32 K: No, it's not interest, it's like... Sir, we are all terribly individualistic. いや 関心事の問題ではなく… 我々は皆ひどく利己主義です
14:41 H: Yes. ええ
14:43 K: I want my way, and my wife wants her way. Deeply. 皆 自分のやり方を通したがる 徹底的に
14:49 H: And we see that our needs are in conflict for some reason. そして欲求が対立します
14:52 K: Yes, that's all. Right away you begin. After the first few days or few months of relationship, pleasure and all that, that soon wears off and we are stuck. ええ すぐにそうなります 関係を結んだ数日後、あるいは数ヵ月後には― 快楽が薄れて 行き詰まります
15:05 H: Okay, that's the same problem then with the mother raising this child and making it her toy. Her needs are in conflict with the needs of the child. 母子関係もそうです 子供を玩具にする母親なんかは― 子供の欲求と対立します
15:16 K: Please, perhaps you'll go on, sir. The mother, her mother was also like that. どうぞ 何かありますか その母親の母親もそうだったのです
15:26 H: Yes. ええ
15:28 K: And the whole world is like that, sir. It's not the mother. 母親だけでなく世界全体がそうなのです
15:32 H: Yes. ええ
15:37 K: So, when I come to you with my problem, you say it's the mother. なのに あなたは母親が原因だと？
15:42 H: No, I wouldn't say it's...

K: I object to that. 		賛成できません
15:44 H: I wouldn't say it's the mother.

K: Ah, no, I'm pushing it. 		‐そうは言ってません‐これは失礼
15:50 H: You are saying that it's a much broader problem. もっと広範な問題です
15:53 K: Much deeper problem than the mother; didn't put the baby on the right pot, or something. もっと深い問題です　母親が― 子供のおまるを間違えた話よりも…
16:05 H: Right. Then it appears that the needs are in conflict. そうですね つまり問題は欲求の対立だと？
16:14 K: No, I wouldn't say needs are in conflict. Basically, they are divisive; self-centred activity. That inevitably must bring contradiction, you know, the whole business of relationship and conflict. いえ 欲求の対立だとは言ってません 彼らは基本的に分裂的で利己的なのです だから必然的に矛盾が持ち上がるのです 大体想像はつくでしょう
16:32 H: Yes. ええ
16:40 K: Because each one wants his pleasure. 皆が快楽を求めているのですから
16:45 H: There's self-centred activity on the part of the person who's raising the child or on the part of the person who is in the relationship, married. The child is the victim of that. 子育てにおいても― 結婚においても― 利己的な活動があり… 子供が被害を受けます
16:59 K: The child...

H: The child is the victim of that. 		子供は被害者です
17:01 K: Of course. 確かに
17:03 H: And then grows up to perpetuate it. そして そのまま大人になる
17:06 K: And the mother's father and mother's fathers were like that too. 誰もが代々そのようにしてきたわけです
17:11 H: Yes. Now, why does it have to happen that way? Are we saying that's the way it is in nature? Or are we saying that... ええ でも なぜそうなのか？ 必然的なものなのか あるいは…
17:18 K: Oh, no. いやはや
17:21 S: Well, I mean, there are certain conflicts in nature. For example, among troops of gorillas or baboons - take baboons or even chimpanzees - there's a conflict among the males. Often the strongest male...

K: Yes, quite. 		まあ ある程度の対立は本来あるものでしょう 例えば ゴリラやヒヒの群れの中には… ヒヒにしろチンパンジーにしろ― オス同士が対立し 一番強いオスが―
17:45 S: ...wishes to monopolise all the attractive females. Now, some of the younger males want to get in on the act as well. They try going off with these females and this younger male will fight and beat them off. So they'll be kept out of this. This selfish activity of this one male keeps most of the females to himself. The same occurs in red deer, where the stag will monopolise the females. Now, these are examples of conflict in the animal kingdom which are quite needless. There would be enough food for these hens without pecking each other. Now, these are not exceptions, we can find this kind of thing throughout the animal kingdom. So, I don't think that the origin of this kind of selfish conflict is something just to do with human societies and the way they are structured. I think we can see in biological nature this kind of thing. 魅力的なメスを独占しようとします 若いオスは分け前にあずかりたいと思います メスを奪うために― トップのオスを撃退します メスの独占という― この利己的な活動は― アカシカにも見られ雄ジカはメスを独占します これは動物の例ですが― 不要な対立です メスのエサは十分ある 例外に漏れず― 動物界にも対立はあります つまり この手の利己的な対立は― 人間社会やその構造に― 限ったものではなく 生物学的本質でしょう
18:36 K: Are you saying that, as we are the result of the animal, as we human beings evolved from the animal, we have inherited all those pecking order? つまり 我々は動物から進化したもので 動物から― 序列を受け継いだ、と そう言っているのですか？
18:48 S: Yes, I think we've inherited a lot of animal tendencies from our animal forbearers.

K: Oh, yes, obviously. 		ええ 多くの性質を― 動物から受け継ぎました
18:54 S: And I think that many of these show up in these psychological problems. それは心理的問題にも現れます
18:58 K: Yes, but is it necessary that we should continue that way? ええ しかし我々はこのままであるべきなのでしょうか？
19:05 S: Ah. ああ！
19:06 K: We are thoughtful, we are ingenious in our inventions, extraordinarily capable in certain directions, why should we not also say, 'We won't have this, the way we live, let's change it.' 我々は思慮深くて発明の才に優れています 特定の方面において非常に有能です ならば なぜ― こう言わないのか？ “生き方を変えよう”と
19:27 S: Well, we can say that; many people have said it. 多くの人が言ったでしょう
19:30 K: I know, many people have said it. そうでしょうね
19:32 S: But without very much effect. ただ効果がない
19:35 K: Why? なぜ？
19:37 S: Well, that indeed is a question. Is it that we're so completely trapped in the ancestry of the past? それが問題です 我々は完全に血脈の罠に陥っているのかも
19:43 K: Or so heavily conditioned that it's impossible to be free. あるいはひどく条件付けられている
19:50 S: Well, there are two possible kinds of conditioning: one is the genuine biological conditioning that comes from our animal heritage, which means that we inherit all these tendencies. 条件付けは二種類あります 一つは生物学的なもの 我々は動物の性向を― 受け継いでいます
19:59 K: Let's accept that. 認めましょう
20:00 S: Now, that is undoubtedly extremely strong. It goes right back into our animal past. それは非常に強く― 動物に直結しています
20:05 K: Right. ええ
20:06 S: The other kind of conditioning is the kind of argument that I'm putting forward, perhaps, the argument: this has always been so; human nature is like this, there have always been wars and conflicts, and all that kind of thing, and therefore there always will be, that the most we can do is try to minimise these, and that there'll always be psychological conflicts within families and between people, and that the most we can do is try and minimise these or at least make them liveable with. もう一つの条件付けは― 議論中のものですが 人間の性質であるという説です ゆえに戦争や対立は― 今後もあり続けるでしょう 最小限に抑えるしかありません 人間関係において― 常に葛藤はあり 最小限に抑えるか― 適応するかです
20:32 K: So, accept the conditioning, modify it, but you cannot fundamentally change it. 要するに― 根本的に変えられないと？
20:37 S: Yes. I'm saying this is a possible kind of conditioning, the belief that we can't really change it radically is another kind of conditioning. I'm a victim of it myself. So, I don't know if it's possible to get out of it. ええ 根本的に変えられないと 我々はそう信じていて 私は その条件付けの被害者なんです 果たして逃げ道が？
20:52 K: That is what I want to discuss. Whether it's possible to change the human conditioning. And not accept it, say, as most philosophers, the existentialists and others say, your human nature is conditioned. You cannot change. You can modify it, you can be less selfish, less painful psychological problems, bear up with pain, this is natural, we have inherited from the animals. We'll go on like this for the rest of our lives and for the lives to come. Not reincarnation, other people's lives. It'll be our conditioning, human conditioning. Do we accept that? Or should we enquire into whether it's possible to change this conditioning? このことを議論しましょう 人間の条件付けは変えられるか？ 受容するのではなく 哲学者や実存主義者は言います “人間の性質は条件付けられている” “変えることはできないが―” “利己心を和らげ―” “心の問題のつらさを和らげ堪えることはできる” “これは動物から継いだ性質である” 我々は未来永劫このように― 生きていくわけです 次世代の人々もそうです 我々はこの条件付けを受容するのでしょうか？ または 変えられるかどうか 調べてみるべきでしょうか この条件付けを
21:59 S: Yes. I think we should enquire into that. 調べるべきでしょう
22:02 K: If you say it cannot be changed, then the argument is over. “変えられない”と言えばそれまでです
22:06 S: All right, so I'll say...

K: No, I'm not saying... 		‐わかりました では…‐いえ 私は別に…
22:10 S: I'd like it to be changed, I deeply want it to be changed. So I think that this question of enquiring into the possibility is extremely important. But one of my points, to go back to the conditioning point, is that a lot of this conditioning is deep in our biological nature, and people who wish to change it merely by changing the structures of society... 変えたいです本当にそう思ってます その可能性を調べることは― 非常に重要だと思います ただ私が言いたいのは― 多くの条件付けが 我々の生体に刻まれていて 変えたくとも 表面的にしか…
22:35 K: Oh, I'm not talking about that, of course. 変化していませんね
22:37 S: ...are operating at too superficial a level. 社会構造を変えたり…
22:39 K: Like the Communists want to change it. 共産主義者のように
22:41 S: But the idea that you can do it by just changing the environment is what the Communists thought and still think, and in a sense the experiment has been tried, and we can see the results in various communist countries. And of course, believers in that would say, well, they haven't tried properly, or they betrayed the revolution, and so on. But nevertheless, the basis of that belief is that the source of all the evils and problems is in society, and by changing society man is perfectible. 環境を変えるだけなら それは共産主義のやり方です いくつかの共産諸国から 結果を見ることができます もちろん信奉者は― その失敗を― 認めないでしょうが その信念の基盤はこうです “社会が悪の根源である” “社会を変えなくては！”
23:07 K: But society is formed by us.

S: Yes. 		しかし社会は我々が作ったものです
23:11 K: And by us it is going to be changed. So we haven't changed ourselves. We depend on society to change us. And society is what we have made it; so we are caught in that trap. 変えるのも我々です なのに我々は自分を変えず 社会を当てにしているのです つまり 我々は罠に陥っているのです
23:26 S: Yes. Exactly; and if we start off with a heritage, which is built into us, inherited, which comes from our biological past, and if we start with that, and we start with these societies that also have bad effects, some of them, and to varying degrees, and we just try to change the society, the other part, the inherited part, is still there. ええ その通り　ですから我々に― 植え付けられている遺伝 生物学的に過去から来たもの そこから話を始めるとして 社会にもまた様々な弊害があるからと 社会を変えても 遺伝が残っています
23:51 K: Oh, yes, but cannot those also be transformed? そうですね しかしそれらもまた変容できるのでは？
23:57 S: I really... どうでしょう…
23:59 K: I may have inherited - what? - violence from the apes and so on, so on. Can't I change that? The inherited biological...

B: Drives. 		類人猿から受け継いだと思われるもの… 例えば暴力などは…変えられないものですか？ ‐生物学的に受け継がれた…‐欲求？
24:16 K: ...conditioning. Surely that can be transformed. 条件付け！それは間違いなく変容できます
24:21 S: Well, all societies surely seek to transform these biological drives we have, and all processes of bringing children up in all societies seek to bring these drives within the control of the society. Otherwise you would have complete anarchy. However, these drives are always brought within certain social forms, and individual aggression is obviously discouraged in most societies. But is it really transformed? Doesn't it just come out again in the aggression of the society as a whole - war, and so on. So, we can see that these things are transformed by society, these basic drives that we inherit. まあ あらゆる社会が― 生物学的欲求を変えようと 制御しようとしているのは確かです 子供の育成において 混乱を避けるために だが常にそれらは 社会や個人の中に持ち込まれます もちろん それは社会では奨励されません しかし実際に変わるものなのか？ 戦争などとなって現れているのでは？ つまり社会によって本能的欲求は 姿を変えます
25:03 K: But why do we… sorry, what were you… しかし… 失礼 続けて下さい
25:05 B: I was going to say they really haven't been transformed, but I think you're meaning by transformed a fundamental change and not just a superficial change or a transfer of the object of aggression from other individuals to other groups. So, if you talk of transformation, you would say really that they would benefit, more or less go away, right? That's as I understand it. 実際には変わってませんが あなたが言う変容とは根本的なものであって 単なる表面的な変化や 攻撃の対象を転換することではないはずです つまり あなたが言う変容とは 欲求が消えるものでは？ 違いますか？
25:29 S: Well, they'd be changed from one form to another. いえ 別の形に…
25:31 B: But I meant...

S: That's what I mean. 		しかし―
25:32 B: I don't think that's the meaning which Krishnaji is using for the word 'transform' but essentially can't we be free of them. 今ここで― 我々がしてるのは 本質的な解放の話です
25:38 K: Yes. That's right. Sir, why do you divide, if I may ask, society and me? As though society were something outside, which is influencing me, conditioning me, but my parents, grandparents, so on, past generations, have created that society, so I am part of that society. I am society. ええ その通りですさて なぜ我々は― 社会と自分を分けるのか？ まるで外から自分に影響を与えるもののように 自分を条件付けるもののように…しかし社会とは― 我々が代々 作ってきたものです つまり自分が社会なのです
26:05 S: Well, yes.

K: Why do we separate it? 		なぜ我々は分けるのか？
26:08 S: I think the reason why we separate it is that there are different kinds of society. If I'd been born in India instead of in England, I would have grown up in a very different way... それは 様々な社会が― 存在するからでは？ 仮に私がインド生まれなら― 育ち方も言動も―
26:19 K: Of course.

S: ...with different set of attitudes. 		今とは違います
26:21 S: And because we can think of ourselves growing up in different kinds of societies - and we'd be different if we had - that's why in thought, I think, we have the idea that society and me are not exactly the same. We'd always be in one society or another, so society as a whole, all societies taken together, we would only exist within society, but any particular society is in a sense an accident of our birth or upbringing. 違う社会で育つ可能性があったことを 我々は想像することができます それで社会と己は別物だと思うのでは？ いずれにせよ 我々は常に 社会の中にいて社会の中でのみ― 存在するわけで― どの社会に生まれるかは 廻り合わせによるものです
26:49 K: But even that society is part of us. しかし どの社会であろうと我々の一部です
26:53 S: Oh, yes. I mean through growing up in it, it becomes part of us, and we become part of it. ええ 成長の過程で― 我々の一部となります
26:57 K: But, I want to abolish this idea, in discussion, this separation from me and society. I am society, I am the world! I am the result of all these influences, conditionings, whether in the East or in the West, or in South, or North, it's all part of conditioning.

S: Yes. 		“社会と私は別のものである”というこの観念を この議論で 打破したいと思います 私が社会、世界なのです 私は影響や条件付けの産物です どこで生まれようと― 我々は条件付けられます
27:21 K: So, we are attacking the conditioning, not where you are born, or East, or West. それなら取り組むのは 出身地ではなく条件付けです
27:27 S: Oh, yes. The problem would be conditioning of every kind, our biological conditioning, our conditioning from society. ええ 問題は条件付けです 生物的なもの、社会的なもの
27:33 K: That's right.

S: Yes. 		その通りです
27:35 K: So, personally, I don't separate myself from society, I am society. I have created society through my anxiety, through my desire for security, through my desire to have power, and so on, so on, so on. Like the animal. It's all biologically inherited. And also, my own individualistic activity has created this society. So, I am asking, I am conditioned in that way - is it not possible to be free of it? Free of my conditioning. If you say it's not possible, then it's finished. ゆえに 私は自分を社会から分離しません 私が社会です 私が社会を作ったのです 己の不安によって 己の欲望などによって… 動物と同じようにすべてが生物学的に受け継がれ また 己の個人的な活動によって作り上げてきたのです この社会を… そこでお聞きしますが― 条件付けから自由になるのは可能ではありませんか？ もし不可能だと言うならそれまでですが…
28:21 S: Well, I would say first that it's not possible to be free of all of the conditioning. I mean, certain of it is necessary biologically, the conditioning that makes my heart beat... 全てから解放されるのは― 無理でしょう　例えば― 心臓をバクバクさせたり
28:30 K: Ah, well...

S: ...my lungs operate, and all that. 		肺を機能させたり…
28:32 K: I admit all that. それは無理です
28:34 S: Now, then, the question is, how far can you take that? The necessary conditioning. どこで線引きをすべきでしょう？ 必然的な条件付けを
28:39 K: Dr. Hidley was saying - that's his whole point - I am conditioned to suffer, psychologically. Right, sir? ヒドレー博士の主張はこうです “私は苦しむように心理的に条件付けられてる”
28:48 H: Yes. その通りです
28:49 K: Or I am conditioned to go through great conflict in my relationship with my wife, or father, whatever it is. And you are saying, either we investigate into that and free ourselves from that, or accept it and modify it. “人間関係で対立を経験するように条件付けられている” “私の妻と、父と…” そして こう言っています“それを調べて解放されるか―” “受容して緩和するかのどちらかである”
29:10 H: That's right. その通りです
29:12 K: Now, which is it? That's what I want - which is it, as a psychologist, you maintain? If I may put such a question to you. どちらですか？ 心理学者としてどちらを支持しますか もし問われたら…
29:23 H: Yes. Well, I think generally the approach is to attempt to modify it, to help the patient to make it work more effectively. そうですね… 通常 緩和しようとすると思います 患者がうまく進めるように
29:36 K: Why? I hope you don't mind my asking these questions. 理由は？ お答え願えますか
29:45 H: No. I think that part of the reason for that is that it's seen as biological and therefore fixed. A person is born with a certain temperament. His drives are the drives of the animal, and I think also, because it isn't clear to the therapists, that the problem can be dealt with as a whole, it is clear that it can be dealt with as particulars. 思うに それは条件付けが― 生物学的に不変なものに見えるからです 人は気質を持って生まれます 動物から受け継いだ欲求を持っています それから セラピストには不明瞭なのでしょう… この問題に全体的に対処できるかどうか 個別に対処することはできますが
30:29 K: Is it... I am not asking an impudent question, I hope. 厚かましい質問ですが…
30:32 H: Okay. どうぞ
30:35 K: Is it the psychologists don't think holistically? Our only concern is solving individual problems. 心理学者は全体的に考えないのでしょうか？ 人の唯一の関心事は個人の問題解決です
30:52 H: Yes, they are concerned with solving individual problems. ええ それが彼らの関心事です
30:55 K: So, therefore they are not thinking of human suffering as a whole. 人間の苦悩を全体から考えていないと？
30:59 H: Right. その通りです
31:01 K: A particular suffering of X who is very depressed. 関心事は ある特定の人物の特定の苦痛だけだと？
31:07 H: Right. For particular reasons. はい 特定の理由で
31:09 K: For particular reasons. We don't enquire into what is depression, why human beings all over the world are depressed. 我々は絶望とは何かを追究しません なぜ世界中の人間が絶望しているのか？
31:21 H: Or we don't try and tackle that as a single problem. We try and tackle it with this particular individual who comes in. 我々は それを一つの問題として対処せず 特定の個人と一緒に取り組みます
31:29 K: Therefore you are still really, if I may point out - I may be wrong… ですから あなたは依然として―
31:33 H: Yes. ええ
31:35 K: You are emphasising his particular suffering, and so sustaining it. 特定の苦悩を重要視し持続させているのです
31:42 H: Now, can we get clear on that? と言いますと？
31:45 K: I come to you.

H: Yes. 		例えば―
31:47 K: I am depressed.

H: Yes. 		私は絶望しています
31:50 K: For various reasons which you know. 様々な理由により
31:53 H: Yes. ええ
31:54 K: And you tell me, by talking to me, etc. - you know, the whole business of coming to you, and all that - you tell me my depression is the depression of the world. そして 私はあなたに相談します ご存知の通り 厄介な話を あなたは私に言います“あなたの絶望は世界の絶望である”
32:13 H: Yes, I don't tell you that. I tell you that your depression… いいえ 私はそうは言いません
32:17 K: When you tell me that, are you not helping me to carry on with this individualistic depression? And therefore my depression, not your depression. ということは個人的な絶望を持続させる手助けを― していることになりませんか？ 故に あなたの絶望ではなく私の絶望であり
32:33 H: Yes. ええ
32:35 K: It's my depression, which I either cherish or want to dissolve. 胸に秘めておくにしろ解決しようとするにしろ―
32:41 H: Yes. ええ
32:42 K: Which means I am only concerned with myself. 関心があるのは己のことだけです
32:45 H: Yes.

K: Myself - I come back to that. 		そこに戻ってくるのです
32:48 H: Yes, it's within the context of yourself. ええ 己の枠組みの中に
32:50 K: Self.

H: Yes. 		ええ
32:53 K: So you are helping me to be more selfish, if I may... つまり あなたは私を更に利己的にしています
32:58 H: Yes. ええ
32:59 K: More self-concerned, more self-committed. 更に自分の心配をするように仕向けています
33:06 H: It is approached within the context of the self, but I would think that I am helping you to be less self-concerned, because when you are not depressed, then you don't have to be self-concerned. You feel better and you're able to relate to people more. 自分の中での取り組みですが― 利己的になるようには 仕向けてません 立ち直れば 自分の心配をせずに 人と関係を結ぶことができます
33:22 K: But again, on a very superficial level. しかし それは表面的な話です
33:26 H: Meaning that I leave the self intact. つまり自我が手付かずであると？
33:30 K: Intact.

H: Yes. 		ええ
33:32 B: Yes, well, I feel that people generally wouldn't accept this that the self is not there, which is what you're implying that the self is rather unimportant. But rather the assumption is that the self is really there, and it has to be improved, and if you say... これは通常受容できることではありません 自我はあまり重要でないと 言ってるんですから しかし果たして自我は本当に存在し― 改善の必要があるのか…
33:48 K: That's it, that's it. まさにそこです！
33:49 B: A certain amount of self-centredness people would say is normal.

K: Yes, sir. 		ある程度の利己心は 適度な範囲内なら
33:53 B: It's only to keep it within reason, right? 正常だと思われてますが…
33:55 H: Right. ええ
33:57 K: Modify selfishness, right? Continue with selfishness, but go slow. Piano. つまり利己心の緩和ですね 控えめに利己的であり続けるわけです
34:05 B: But I think, you're saying something which is very radical then, because very few people have entertained the notion of no self-centredness. しかし 非常に極端な話では？ 自我がないという観念は 受け入れ難いでしょう
34:15 K: That's it. その通り
34:19 H: That's right; it isn't entertained. 受け入れ難いですね
34:22 B: Maybe a few, but...

H: Yes. For biological reasons and because of the universality of the phenomenon? Because it isn't even seen as relevant, really. 		大抵の人にとって… 受け入れる人もいるでしょうが ほとんどの人は思いもつかないでしょう
34:34 B: I think most people feel that's the way things are, it's the only way.

H: Yes. 		大抵の人にとっては これが現状でしょう
34:39 K: That means status quo, modified status quo. つまり 現状の緩和ですか？
34:42 B: Yes.

S: Yes. 		ええ
34:45 K: To me that seems so irrational. 私には非常にばかげたことに思えます
34:50 B: But you must feel that it's possible to be different, you see, at least, more than feel, but in some sense there must be some reason why you say this. しかし そう思うのでしたら 少なくとも 何かしら 理由があるのでしょう？
34:58 K: I'll tell you…What? それはですね…
35:01 B: Why you feel so different from other people about it. なぜそのように思うんです？
35:04 K: It seems so practical, first of all. The way we live is so impractical. The wars, the accumulation of armaments, is totally impractical. まず 非常に実用的に思えるからです 我々の生き方は非実用的です 戦争、軍備の蓄積―全く非実用的です
35:17 B: But that wouldn't be an argument, because people say, 'We all understand that, but since that's the way we are, nothing else is possible.' You see, you really are challenging the notion that that is the way we are, or we have to be. しかし人は言うでしょう “それが人間なんだから―” “仕方がない” あなたは人間のあり方に 実際に挑んでいるのです
35:30 K: I don't quite follow this. We are what we are. 仰ることがよくわかりません
35:33 B: People say, we are individual, separate, and we'll just have to fight and make the best of it. But you are saying something different, you're not accepting that. 我々は個別の存在として― 争い ベストを尽くします しかし あなたは― 異論を唱えている
35:45 K: All right. Don't accept it, but will you listen? Will the people who don't accept it, will they give their minds to find out? Right?

H: Right. 		わかりましたでは聞くことはできますか？ 私の話を受容せずとも 探究することはできますか？ どうですか？
36:00 K: Or say, 'Please, we don't want to listen to you.' This is what we think - buzz off. That's what most people do. または こう言いますか？ “聞きたくない 消え失せろ” 大抵の人はそうです
36:11 H: Well, this question isn't even raised usually. 普通 考えもしませんね
36:13 K: Of course. 確かに
36:20 H: Now why do you think that the self, this selfish activity, isn't necessary? さて なぜあなたは― 利己的な活動を無益だと思うのでしょうか
36:29 K: No, sir, first of all, do we accept the condition that we are in? Do we accept it, and say, 'Please, we can only modify it, and it can never be changed'. One can never be free from this anxiety, deep depression; modify it, always, from agony of life. You follow? This process of going through tortures in oneself. That's normal, accepted. Modify it, live little more quietly, and so on, so on. If you accept that, there is no communication between us. But if you say, I know my conditioning, I may perhaps, I may... tell me, let's just talk about whether one can be free from it. Then we have a relationship, then we can communicate with each other. But you say, sorry, shut the door in my face, and it's finished. それよりも まず― 我々はこの現状を受容するのでしょうか？ “我々にできるのは緩和だけで―” “変えることはできない”と。 この不安から決して解放されることなく できるのは深い絶望を緩和することだけ 理解できますか拷問のようなこの過程を “それが普通だ 受容しよう” “絶望を緩和して少し静かに暮らそう” もしそう受容するなら私たちは通じ合っていません しかし 条件付けのことを承知していながら それでも探究してみる気があるなら 我々は繋がってます 互いに交流しています しかし 鼻先でドアを閉めてしまうなら それまでです
37:41 S: So, there are some people who accept it, say, 'We can't change it'. But there are other people, and I would say, some of the most inspiring leaders of the different religions of the world are among them, who have said we can change it; there is a way beyond this. つまり 現状を甘受し変えれないと言う人もいれば そうでない人もいて 例えば 宗教のリーダーなど “我々は変えることができる” と言う人もいるわけです
37:56 K: Yes. その通り
37:58 S: Now, since religions have wide followings, and since their doctrines are widely dispersed, there are in fact large numbers of people in our society, and in every society, who do think it can be changed. Because all religions hold out the prospect of change and of going beyond this conditioning. そして 宗教には多くの追随者がいて 広く分散していることから 実際には 我々の社会にも どの社会にも変容を信じる人はいます 全ての宗教が変容の可能性を 掲げているからです
38:17 K: Yes. But I would like to know, when you use the word 'religion', is it the organised religion, is it the authoritarian religion, is it the religion of belief, dogma, rituals, all that? ええ ところであなたが言う『宗教』とは― 組織宗教のことですか？ 権威主義的宗教で― 信仰や教義、儀式がある宗教のことですか？
38:36 S: Well...

K: Or religion in the sense: the accumulation of energy to find whether it is possible to be free. You understand my question? 		それとも― 自由の可能性を探るエネルギー という意味ですか？ どちらですか？
38:55 S: Yes. Well, I think the second, but I think that, if we look into the history of the organised religions and people within them, we see that much of the inspiration for them was in fact that second kind of religion, which still within that framework, still survives, I think. But it's also something which has often been corrupted, and debased, and turned into yet another set of dogmas, conditioning, and so on. But I think within all religious traditions this second kind of religion you talk about has been kept alive, and I think that the impetus in all the great religions of the world has been that vision, it's then been debased and degraded in various ways. But this vision has never left any of these religions, there are still people within them, I think, who still have it. And this is the inner light that keeps them going, over and above the simple political part, and all the rest of it.

K: I know, I know. But suppose, a man like me rejects tradition. Rejects anything that has been said about truth, about god, whatever it is, the other side. I don't know; the other people say, 'Yes, we have this and that'. So, how am I, as a human being who has really rejected all this - tradition, the people who have said there is, and the people who have said that's all nonsense, people who have said we have found that it is, and so on, so on. If you wipe all that out and say, 'Look, I must find out - not as an individual - can this truth, or this bliss, this illumination, an come without depending on all that?' You see, if I am anchored, for example, in Hinduism, with all the... - not the superficiality of it, not all the rituals and all the superstitions, if I am anchored in the religious belief of a Hindu, of a real Brahmin, I am always anchored, and I may go very far, but I am anchored there. That is not freedom. Because there must be freedom to discover this, or come upon this. 		そうですね 後者だと思いますしかし組織宗教の歴史や― その信者のことを調べるなら 彼らを奮い立たせたのは 後者の理由からでありそれは今も― 生きていると思います　しかし― それが しばしば腐敗、劣化し 新手の教義になったりもします とはいえ 全ての宗教の中に この後者の宗旨が生きているのでは？ それが全ての大宗教の推進力なのでは？ その後 様々な形で劣化したり 堕落するにしても この構想はどの宗教にもあり 信者も持ち続けています この内なる光によって 人は進んでくわけです 確かに 確かに しかし 例えば私のような人間は伝承を拒絶します 真理について言われている全てを拒絶するとします 神のこと どんなことであれ しかし 他の人々はあれこれ信じているわけです つまり 人間は実際にこういった全てを拒絶したり― 伝承を本当のことだと信じたり― それを非難したり― “確証がある”と言ったりしてきましたが こういった全てを拭い去って 探究してみては？ 個人としてでなく そのとき その真理、その至福、その啓発は― 信仰に左右されずとも生じるでしょうか？ 例えば ヒンズー教に縛られているとします 表面的にではなく… 儀式や迷信などにでなく もしヒンズー教の宗教的信念に縛られているとしたら 非常に遠くへ行ける可能性があるにも関わらず― 繋ぎ止められますそれは自由ではありません 真理を見つけるには自由でなくてはなりません
41:43 S: Yes. ええ…
41:44 K: Sir, we are going little bit too far? 話が行き過ぎましたか？
41:47 S: No, but I would then go back and say, well, you put forward the question of a man who rejects all his traditions. You said, let us suppose that I am a man who has rejected all these traditions. I would then say, well, what reason do you have for rejecting all these traditions in such a way? いえ ただ話を少し戻したいのですが… 伝承を否定する者の話をされましたね 例えば あなたが その者であるとして なぜ 全ての伝承を 拒絶するのでしょうか？
42:07 H: Well, that seems to be part of the problem that we've arrived at. We have said that man is conditioned biologically and socially by his family. The tradition is part of that. We've said that that's the problem that we're up against now. Is it possible for him to change his nature, or do we have to deal with each of these problems particularly as they come up? それは議論中の問題の一環では？ 人は遺伝、社会、家族によって 条件付けられています伝承もその一つで― それが今 議論中の問題です 人の性質は変えられるのか？ あるいはそれぞれの問題を個別に 対処すべきなのか？
42:30 S: Well, what I was saying is that the inner core of all the great religions of the world is a vision of this possibility of a transformation, whether it's called salvation, or liberation, or nirvana, or what. There's this vision. Now, there have always been people within those religions, who've had this vision and lived this vision; now... いえ 私が言ってるのは あらゆる大宗教の中心核が 変容であるということです 救済、解放、解脱―何と呼ばれていようと この構想がある それで それらの宗教内では常に― この構想を実践してきた人々がいて…
42:54 K: Ah! Sorry. Go on, I'm sorry. ああ…！失礼 続けて下さい
42:58 S: Perhaps part of your radical rejection of all religions involves denying that. But if so, I would say, why? Why should we be so radical as to deny... 恐らく あなたはそれも含めて 徹底的に拒絶しているのでしょうが なぜ それほど拒絶を…
43:07 K: I question whether they really - I may be sacrilegious, may be an infidel, non-believer - I wonder, if I am anchored to a certain organised belief, whether I can ever find the other. If I am a Buddhist, for example, I believe that the Buddha is my saviour. Suppose, I believe that, and that has been told to me from childhood, my parents have been Buddhists, and so on, so on, so on. And as long as I have found that security in that idea, or in that belief, in that person, there is no freedom. お聞きしますが…私は罰当たりかもしれないし― 不信心者かもしれませんが もし私が組織的な信仰に繋ぎ止められているとしたら― 他のものを見いだすことが？ 例えば 私が仏教徒だとして 仏陀が救世主であると信じています そう仮定しましょう 子供のときからそう教わり 私の両親も仏教徒だとします そして 私がその観念の中に― その信念の中に その人物の中に 安全を見いだしている限り 自由はありません
44:10 S: No, but it's possible that you can move beyond that framework, starting from within it, you can move beyond it. しかし そこから始めたとしても 先へは進めます
44:16 K: That means I wipe out everything. だから全て拭い去るのです
44:20 S: It means you wipe it out, but there's a difference between an approach where you wipe it out from the beginning... 拭い去ると言っても最初から― 拭い去るのか…
44:26 K: From the beginning, I am talking. 最初からです
44:28 S: ...and an approach where you start within it and go beyond it. 又は 信仰から始めてそれを超えるのか…
44:33 K: You see - wait, wait. Yes, I know, it's the well-worn argument. Which is important, breaking down all the barriers at the beginning, not at the end. I am a Hindu, I see what Hinduism is - a lot of superstition, you know, all the rest of it - and why should I go through number of years to end it, why can't I finish it the first day? 待ってくださいこれはお決まりの議論です 大切なのは最初に全ての障害を取り除くことです 最後にではなく 私はヒンズー教がどんなものなのか多くの迷信を知っています それを終わらすために なぜ何年もかける必要があるでしょうか 初日に終わらせては？
45:15 S: Because I think you'd have to reinvent and rediscover for yourself a great many things that you would be able to get through more quickly if you didn't. しかし それでは― 多くのことを再考察、再発見することが できません
45:25 K: No. His question is... I am a living human being in relationship with him or with her. In that relationship I am in conflict. He says, don't go about religion and illumination, and nirvana, and all the rest of it. Transform this, live rightly here, then the door is open. いえ そうではなく… 私は人との関係の中で生きています その中で私は対立します 彼は言います“宗教や解脱などに―” “取り組んだりせずに” “正しく生きることに転換すれば扉は開かれます”
45:53 S: Yes, but surely, isn't that easier said than done? 口で言うだけなら簡単です
45:59 K: I know! I know it's easier said than done, therefore let's find out. Let me find out with him, or with you, or with her, how to live in this world without conflict. Right, sir? 確かにそうですですから突き止めましょう 皆で一緒に見いだしましょう この世で対立することなく生きる方法を いかがですか？
46:18 H: That's what we're asking. そうしましょう
46:20 K: Can I find out, or is that impossible? しかし 見いだせるでしょうか？
46:24 H: We don't know. わかりません
46:26 K: No. Therefore we start - we don't know. そこが始まりです
46:27 H: Okay. わかりました
46:29 K: So let's enquire into that. Because if my relationship with life is not right - right in quotes for the moment - how can I find out something that's immensely beyond all this? Beyond time, beyond thought, beyond measure. I can't. Until we have established right relationship between us, which is order, how can I find that which is supreme order? So I must begin with you, not with that. I don't know if you are meeting me. 調べてみましょう もし私が自分の人生と正しい関係を結んでいなかったら― 『正しい』関係を どうして広大なものを見つけることができるでしょう 時間、思考、尺度を越えたものを できません 我々が正しい関係を築かない限り― 究極の秩序を見つけることはできません まず 我々から始めなくては わかりますか
47:15 S: No, I would have thought that you could easily argue the other way around.

K: Of course, of course! 		しかし逆に言うことも -できるのでは？‐確かに
47:20 S: Until you have that, you can't get this right, because the whole history of man shows that starting just from... “あれを得ない限り―” “これを正すことはできない”と。
47:25 K: Ah! Therefore you invent that. You invent something illogical, may not be true; may be just invention of thought, and you imagine that to be order and hope that order will filter into you. And it seems so illogical, irrational, whereas this is so rational. 故に 人は考え出すのです 非論理的なことを考え出すのです 真実ではなく単なる思考の作り事であることを そして それが秩序であると思い込み その秩序が浸透することを望むのです それは非常にばかげていて不合理なことあって 合理的なのはその逆です
47:57 S: But is it possible?

K: That is it! Let's find out. 		‐しかし可能ですか‐調べてみましょう
48:05 S: But you've now completely reversed your argument to start with. He started with the patient coming to the psychiatrist's office, who wants to get his relationships right, get the human relationships out of this state of disorder and conflict into something that's more tolerable. しかし 今や議論は反転しています そもそも彼の出発点は患者の人間関係を 混乱と対立の状態から― もっとマシなものにしたい というものでしたが…
48:21 K: I'm not sure this way - forgive me, Doctor, if I'm blundering into where the angels fear to tread, I question whether they are doing right. お許しください 博士…私は もしかしたら― 天使も恐れる領域に踏み込んでいるかも… それは正しい方法でしょうか
48:36 S: But they're doing just what you said now starting with the relationship, not going into these bigger questions. しかし彼らの方法は 人間関係から始まっています
48:41 K: But I question whether they are really concerned with bringing about a right relationship between human beings, fundamentally, not superficially, just to adjust themselves for the day. しかし 彼らは本当に人間の間に 正しい関係をもたらしているでしょうか？ 上辺でなく 根本から その場限りの順応ではなく
48:57 H: I don't think that you're denying that larger questions are involved in that, you are just saying that we shouldn't have... invent ideas about what a solution would be like. つまり 解決策がどんなものなのか 概念をでっち上げるべきではないと 言っているのですよね
49:07 K: Yes. I come to you with my problem : I cannot get on with somebody, or I am terribly depressed, or something dishonest in me, I pretend. I come to you. You are concerned to tell me 'Become more honest.' ええ 例えば 悩んでいてあなたを訪れるとします 他人と馴染めない または ひどく絶望している または 自分を偽っている… 仮の話ですが あなたは私に― こう言います“もっと自分に正直になりなさい”
49:36 H: Yes. ええ
49:37 K: But not find out what is real honesty. しかし 本当の正直さとは何でしょうか？
49:44 H: Don't we get into the problem of creating the idea of real honesty at this point? その概念について― 今 定義しますか？
49:48 K: No. It's not an idea. I am dishonest. いえ 私は不正直です
49:51 H: Yes. ええ
49:52 K: You enquire, why are you dishonest?

H: Yes. 		なぜ不正直なのか？
49:54 K: Go... penetrate into it, disturb me. Don't pacify me. なだめたりせず入り込んで邪魔しなさい
49:59 H: Yes. ええ
50:01 K: Don't help me to say, well, be a little more honest, and a little more this or that, but shake me so that I find out what is real honesty! 正直になるよう助言したりせず 私を揺さぶってください 本当の正直さを見つけられるように
50:14 H: Okay, that's... わかりました…
50:16 K: I may break away from my conditioning, from my wife, from my parents - anything. You don't disturb me. 条件付けから離脱できるかもしれません 妻から、両親から あなたはそうしません
50:26 H: No, that's...

K: That's just my point. 		‐いえ…‐それが私の見解です
50:29 H: I do disturb you.

K: Partially. 		‐そうしてますよ‐不十分です
50:31 H: Well, what... それは…
50:33 K: You disturb me not to conform to little adjustments. あなたは問題の解決を邪魔しているのです
50:37 H: Well, let's look at that.

K: Sorry. 		‐では 確かめてみましょう‐失礼
50:43 H: I disturb you to conform to little adjustments. 私は あなたが順応できるように介入します
50:47 K: Yes. ええ
50:49 K: You don't say to me, 'Look, you are dishonest, let's go into it.' “それについて調べよう”とは言いません
50:53 H: I do say that. 言いますよ
50:55 K: No, but go into it, so that he is totally honest. 本当に正直になるまで入り込むのです
50:59 H: Well, how deeply do I need to go into it, so that I have disturbed you totally? 完全に目覚めさせるには どこまで入り込んだら？
51:03 K: Yes. So you tell me. Do it now, sir. では 実際にやってみてください
51:08 H: Okay. You come in, and in our talks we notice that the thing that you are up to is that you are always trying to find some other person to make your life be whole. では あなたが来院してきて私たちは話をします あなたは常に誰かを探しています 自分の人生を完全にしてくれる誰かを
51:22 K: Yes. I depend on somebody.

H: Yes, deeply. 		‐ええ 依存している‐ええ とても
51:26 K: Deeply.

H: And you don't even know that. 		しかし自覚してません
51:28 K: Yes. ええ
51:30 H: So I disturb you. I tell you that that's what's going on, and I show you you're doing it with me. そこで それを示し 自覚させます
51:34 K: Yes. ええ
51:35 H: I show you you're doing it with your husband. 依存していることを
51:37 K: Yes. ええ
51:38 H: Now, is that sufficiently deep?

K: No. 		‐十分ですか？‐いいえ
51:41 H: Why? なぜですか
51:44 K: What have you shown me? A verbal picture... 何を示したのです？ 言葉による説明…？
51:51 H: No, not verbal. Not verbal.

K: Wait, wait. 		‐いえ 言葉では…‐待ちなさい
51:53 H: Okay. はい
51:55 K: Verbal picture, an argument, a thing which tells me that I am dishonest. Or whatever you tell me. That leaves me where? 言葉による説明などによって 私が不正直だと言って それが私に何を与えてくれるのですか？
52:07 H: If it's verbal it just gives you more knowledge about yourself. 自分についての知識です
52:09 K: That's all. Knowledge about myself. それだけです！自分についての知識…
52:13 H: Yes.

K: Will knowledge transform me? 		知識は私を変えますか？
52:16 H: No.

K: No. Be careful, sir, careful. Then why do I come to you? 		‐いいえ…‐いえ どうか慎重に… では なぜ来院の必要が？
52:27 H: Well, not so that I can give you knowledge. You come thinking that maybe somehow I have some answers, because other people, because the society is set up... 知識の為でないなら… あなたは私から答えがもらえることを 期待していて…
52:38 K: Why don't you tell me, 'Old boy, do it yourself, don't depend on me.' Go into it. Find out, stir. なぜ“自分でやれ、依存するな”と言わないのですか “探究しなさい 見いだしなさい”と。
52:48 H: Okay, I tell you that. I tell you, 'Go into it yourself'. And you say to me...

K: I can't do it. 		では 言います“自分で探究しなさい” そして あなたは言います
52:55 H: I don't know what you're talking about. “できません”と。
52:56 K: That's just it.

H: Yes. 		‐その通り！‐ええ
52:58 K: So, how will you help me to go into myself and not depend on you? You understand my question?

H: Yes. 		では 依存せずに探究するのを どう手助けしますか？ どうでしょう？
53:08 K: Please, I'm not on the stage, the only actor. Sir, this is really a serious question. How will you help me to go into myself so deeply, that I understand and go beyond. You know what I mean? どうか参加して…私の一人舞台ではないのですから これは非常に重要な問題です どのように手助けしますか私が深く自分の中に入り込み― 理解し 超越するのを…わかりますか？
53:39 H: No, I don't follow what you mean. I understand how to help you go into it without depending on me. いえ わかりません その方法は理解できますが…
53:45 K: I don't want to depend on you. I don't want to depend on anybody. 私は誰にも依存したくありません
53:48 H: Okay. I can help you do that. We can discover together that you are depending on me, but I don't know how deeply this has to go. では 実際には依存しているという事実を 共に発掘しましょう しかし どれほど深く？
53:59 K: So you have to enquire into dependence. では 依存について調べます
54:02 H: Okay.

K: Why am I depending? Security.

H: Yes. 		‐どうぞ‐なぜ依存するのか？ ‐安全のためですか？‐はい
54:08 K: Where is security? Is there such thing as security? 安全などというものがあるのでしょうか？
54:15 H: Well, I have these experiences as I grew up that taught me what security is. 成長する過程で 何が安全か 経験から学習しました
54:21 K: Yes, which is what? A projected idea. それは投影された観念では？
54:24 H: Yes.

K: A principle. 		原則―
54:26 H: Yes.

K: A belief, a faith, a dogma, or an ideal, which are all projected by me, or by you, and I accept those. But they're unreal. 		信仰、信念― 教義、理念―これらは全て自分が投影したものです あるいは あなたの投影であり現実ではありません
54:41 H: Okay.

K: So, can I push those away? 		では それらを押しのけられますか？
54:47 H: Yes. And then you are not depressed. ええ そうすれば絶望しません
54:50 K: Ah! I am dependent and therefore I get angry, jealousy, all the rest of it. That dependence makes me attached, and in that attachment there is more fear, there is more anxiety, there is more... - you follow?

H: Yes. 		ああ！私は依存しているからこそ腹を立てたり― 嫉妬したりするのですその依存が執着を生み― 更なる恐怖、不安を生むのです わかりますか？
55:09 K: So, can you help me to be free or find out what is true security? Is there a deep abiding security? Not in furniture, not in a house, not in my wife, or in some idea - find deeply if there is such thing as complete security. Sorry, I'm taking all this… では 本当の安全とは何か見つけるのを手伝ってください 深く不変の安全はあるでしょうか？ 家具や家の中ではなく 妻や観念の中ではなく 完全な安全というものがあるかどうか深く探るのです 失礼しました…
55:44 H: So you're suggesting that if I simply work on this with you, and you come to understand that you're dependent, that that's not sufficient, because you won't have discovered any abiding security. つまり 依存を自覚するだけでは 不十分で― 不変の安全を 見つけるべきだと？
55:55 K: No. Because that's all I want. I've sought security in this house, and it doesn't, there's no security. I've sought security in my wife, there isn't any; I change to another woman, but there isn't any either. Then I find security in a church, in a god, in a belief, in a faith, in some other symbol. You see what is happening? You are all externalising, if I can use that word, giving me security in things in which there is no security - in nations, all the rest of it. Could you help us to find out if there is complete security which is unshakeable? 私が欲しいのはそれだけです 家の中に安全を求めます しかし ありません 妻に安全を求めますが 得られないので 妻を代えます しかし ここでも得られないので 教会、神、信仰、信念、象徴に安全を見いだすのです 私たちは外部に求めているのです とどのつまり そこに安全はありません 国にも その他のものにも 探すのを手伝っていただけないでしょうか？ もし揺るぐことのない完全な安全があるなら
56:47 S: Are you suggesting that this is one of our most fundamental needs, driving activities?

K: I should think so. 		安全が最も基本的なニーズだと？ そうでしょうね
56:58 S: So indeed it's a fundamental question as to whether this sense of abiding unshakeable security is possible.

K: Yes. Yes. Because if once you have that there is no problem any more. 		それなら確かに 揺るぎない安心感を得れるか否かは 根本的な問題ですね 一旦 手に入れば問題がなくなるわけですから
57:15 H: But this isn't clear, because then is it the individual that has that? つまり個人がそれを得れるということですか？
57:22 K: No. Individual can never have that security. Because he is in himself divisive. いいえ 個人はその安全を得ることはできません なぜなら分裂しているからです