Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ82CNM2 - 心理的苦痛
第２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17日



0:05 The Nature of the Mind 【 心の本質 】
0:13 Part Two ～ 第２部 ～
0:15 Psychological Suffering ～ 心理的苦痛 ～
0:23 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 これらの議論の目的は 心についての探求です 心理的無秩序とは何か 心の変容に必要なものとは何か
0:43 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
0:57 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. デイビッド・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 倫理物理学などに関する本を 多数執筆しています ２人は以前― 様々な対話を行いました
1:14 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
1:32 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
1:41 In the first dialogue the nature of the self was discussed, its relationship to suffering, to society, and to religion. Questions raised were, can one discover or learn about these relationships, and is the need for psychological security the root of the problem? Today's discussion continues with these questions. 第１部では『自我の本質』を取り上げ 苦痛、社会、宗教との関係を議論しました 果たして我々は これらの関係を― 突き止められるか？ 安全を欲する心理が問題の原因なのか？ 引き続きこれらを議論します
2:04 H: We talked yesterday, we started with the question of the origin and nature of psychological disorder, and we suggested that it has its roots in self-centred activity, which is divisive and conflictual in nature, and that biologically such factors as instinctual aggression and dominance drives, the facts of illness and death, all contribute. I wondered if we could start this morning, David, by having you comment on relationship between these biological factors and psychological security. 昨日は 心理的無秩序の― 原因と性質の話をしました 自己中心的な活動の中に心理的無秩序の起源があり― それが分裂と葛藤を生み 攻撃性、支配欲といった生物学的要因や 病、死、すべてが原因の一つとなっています 今朝は手始めに ディビッドから意見を聞きます このような生物学的要因と心理的な安心感の関係について
2:43 B: Yes, well, biologically, if you begin with the animal, you have all sorts of things like fear, and anger, and aggression, and they're fairly simple. They exist for a short period while the fact is there, and then they generally disappear, leaving little trace. There may be a few cases in the higher animals where there's some memory, but it's in man that the memory becomes very significant, remembering all these experiences and anticipating the future, you get a very different sort of behaviour. For example, with an animal, he might have a bad experience with another animal, and shortly afterward he'll be in fairly good state of equilibrium, but, say, we have a quarrel between two groups, as in Northern and Southern Ireland, this has been going on for 350 years, and there is a specific effort to remember it which you can see going on. And I think this is the biggest difference. はい では生物学的に…例えば 動物は― 恐怖、怒り、攻撃性などがすべてで それらは非常に単調で 短い時間しか存続せず― ほとんど痕跡を残さず消え去ります 高等動物には多少記憶が あるかもしれませんが 人にとって記憶は非常に重要で 経験から未来を予想したりします 振る舞いも異なります 例えば 動物なら他の動物と諍いを起こしても― その後しばらくして 平衡状態を取り戻します しかし 人間が二手に分かれて けんかをした場合 それは何百年も続き 何が起きているのか 覚えておくのも大変です それが最大の違いでしょうか
3:48 H: Memory being the... 記憶が…
3:50 B: Yes, the effect of memory, the consequences of memory. You see, memory by itself would obviously not cause any trouble, because it's only a fact, right? But memory has consequences: it may produce fear, it may produce anger; it may produce all sorts of disturbances, to remember what did happen and to anticipate what may happen. ええ 記憶の影響力です でも記憶自体は問題を起こしません 単なる事実ですから けど 記憶には影響力があり恐怖を生み出したり 怒りなどの混乱を引き起こすかもしれない 過去の記憶と未来の予測によって
4:13 S: You mean thinking about it?

B: Yes. Based on memory, right? 		‐考えることによって？‐ええ 記憶を元にね
4:18 S: I mean, obviously the animal that's been attacked by another animal remembers in the sense that when it sees the other animal again, it's afraid. It probably doesn't think about it in between. 動物も攻撃された経験があれば 怖がるでしょうが― 再び遭遇しない限り考えないでしょう
4:28 B: Yes, it can't form an image, I don't believe that most animals can form images of the other animals, and I can base that on experience, that I have seen dogs fighting very hard, and as soon as they turn the corner, the dog sort of forgets what happened. He is disturbed but he doesn't know why he is disturbed. Now, if he could remember the other dog after he turned the corner, he could continue the struggle over territory indefinitely. So, the point about territory is, the animal maintains it in a certain limited context. But man remembers it, and he maintains this territory indefinitely and wants to extend it, and so on, because of his thinking about it. ええ 大抵の動物は― 他の動物のイメージを 作れないと思います以前 犬が― 激しく喧嘩してるのを見ましたが 終わった途端 忘れてるんです 動揺してるが理由はわかってない もし覚えているなら― いつまでも葛藤するはずです つまり 動物が葛藤する時間は― 限られています しかし人間は違い いつまでも覚えていて 考えることによって引き伸ばそうとします
5:13 S: So, are you suggesting that the basis of the specifically human kind of pain and suffering, over and above the kind of suffering we see in the animal kingdom, is this ability to remember, to brood over it, think about this? つまり 動物界に見られる苦痛と 人の苦痛が違うのは 人があれこれ考え 気に病むからだと そう言っているのですか？
5:27 B: Yes, the animal may have some of that. I've seen examples on television of a deer who lost its doe, and it was pining away in the wild, but I think it's limited, that is, there is some suffering of that kind in the animal world, but with man it's enormously expanded, it seems limitless. Yes, I think the major point is that with man the thing can build up like a tremendous explosion that fills his whole mind, and it can become the major motive in life, to remember the insult and to revenge the vendetta, in families over many generations. To remember the bad experience you had with somebody and to be frightened of what's coming like the examination that the child may be frightened of, or something like that. ええ 例えば動物にも 伴侶を亡くしたシカが恋焦がれて 死んだ話がありますが限度があると思います 動物も苦しみますが 人間は無制限に引き伸ばします つまり 人間の場合― 途方もない爆発のように あることが心全体を占め それが人生の動機となって 屈辱を思い出し復讐しようとします 何代にもわたって ある人との苦い経験を 思い出して次に何が起きるか脅えるんです 試験に脅える子供のように
6:20 K: But have you answered his question, sir? それで彼への回答は？
6:22 B: Which is?

K: Which was... 		と言うと？
6:24 H: How does the biological fact of illness, or death, or instinctual drive result in a psychological problem or disorder? 病気、死、本能的衝動といった生物学的事実が― どのように心理的問題や無秩序をもたらすのか？
6:35 B: By thinking about it. I say that the biological fact is not a serious problem, in the long run, but as soon as you begin to think about it, and not merely think about it, but make images about it along with that thought, and to revive the memory and anticipate the feeling of the future, and while you are thinking, then it becomes a very serious problem, because you can't stop it, you see. You will never attain security by thinking about it, but you are constantly seeking security. You see, the purpose of thinking is to give you security in practical affairs, technical affairs. Now, therefore you are doing a similar sort of thinking saying how can I be secure against the possibility of suffering again? And there is no way to do that. You may take technical steps to make it unlikely, but as you think about it, you begin to stir up the whole system and distort the whole mental process. あれこれ考えることによってです長い目で見れば― 生物学的事実は重要な問題ではありません しかし考えるや否や― あれこれ考えるだけでなく それに沿ってイメージを作り記憶をよみがえらせ 未来の感触を予測し そして深刻な問題になります はまり込むからです それでは安心は手に入りませんが 探さずにはいられない 考えることの目的は安心です 日常の安心、技術的な安全のためです ですからこのように考えるのです “再び苦しまないためには一体どうしたらいいのか？” しかし それは無理な話で 対策はあっても 考えるにつれて全機能をかき乱し始め― 全精神機能を歪めます
7:48 H: Well, it seems clear that by thinking about it we stir up the emotions and the associations that are those thoughts, but we're not suggesting we shouldn't think about it, are we? 確かに 私たちは― 考えることによって感情などをかき乱しますが まさか考えない方がいいと言っているのでは― ありませんよね？
8:03 B: Well, it depends on how you think about it. This thinking gets to be directed toward giving you a sense of security, you see, an image of security. 考え方 次第です 我々が このような考え方をするのは 安心感、安全のイメージを得るためです
8:15 H: Right. I get hurt when I'm little, or some time along the line, and it creates a fear in me, and I anticipate that kind of situation. I may not even remember the incident, but I want to avoid it in the future. 子供の頃 ケガをしたんですが― それが恐怖心を生み予測するようになりました その事故を覚えてなくとも 今後は避けたいんです
8:29 B: Yes, and now, the point is this: the mind is always searching for how to avoid it, and searching out thoughts, images, saying, that fellow is the one who did it, I must keep away from him; coming to conclusions, and if any conclusion gives you an image of security, then the mind holds on to it, right? Without actually any basis. つまり心は常に避け方を探していて 思いつきやイメージを探し出し― “アイツがやったんだ”と 彼を避ける結論に達します 安心のイメージを与えてくれるなら どんな結論にもしがみつきます 何の根拠もなしに
8:53 H: Could you elaborate on that a little? もう少し詳しく
8:56 B: Well, if you have had a bad experience with somebody, you may conclude that you should never trust him again, for example. Although that might be quite wrong. But the mind is so anxious to have security that it will jump to the conclusion that it's not safe to trust him. Right?

H: Yes. 		そうですね…誰かが原因で嫌な経験をした場合― “彼を二度と信じない”という結論に 達するかもしれません 安心を得ることに躍起になっていて 信じるべきではないと早合点するのです 違いますか？
9:19 B: Now, if you find somebody else who seems to treat you well, and reassures you, and flatters you, then you may jump to the conclusion you can completely trust him. Now, the mind is now looking for thoughts that will give it good feelings, because the feelings of the memory are so disturbing to the whole system that its first function is to make the mind feel better, rather than find out what is the fact. しかし あなたを大事にしてくれる人なら 完全に信じられると 早合点するかもしれません 心は探しているのです 心地よい考え方を なぜなら記憶にある感情が― 心地よさを最優先する全機能を ひどく妨害するからです
9:45 H: Okay, so you're saying that at this point the mind isn't interested in what's true, it's interested in getting secure. つまり この時点で関心があるのは 真実よりも安心だと？
9:51 B: Yes, it's so disturbed that it wants to come to order first, and it's adopting a wrong way, as I see it. ええ 平安を邪魔されるので 間違った方法を導入したんです
9:58 H: The wrong way being? 間違った方法？
10:00 B: To think about it and try to find thoughts that will make it feel better. 気休めな考えを 見つけることです
10:04 H: So you're saying that thoughts themselves in some sense are taking the place of reality, that the person is trying to get certain thoughts in his head that make him feel better. つまり 思考そのものがある意味で― 現実に取って代わってしまっていると？ 気休めを得るために？
10:16 B: Yes. And that's self-deception. はい つまり自己欺瞞です
10:24 S: What makes you think that the primary drive is for security? なぜ一次的欲求が安心だと？
10:28 B: Oh, we discussed that yesterday, of course, but I wouldn't be sure that's the only primary drive, but it's obvious, for the animal it's a very important drive to want security, right? We also want pleasure, I think that's another drive, which are closely related. それが唯一の一次的欲求かわかりませんが 明らかに 動物にとっては― 安全は重要な欲求でしょう？ また快楽もその一つで 大いに関係してます
10:47 S: But to come back to this question of security, in its limited forms security is clearly one goal that we have. People like to have houses and have them secure, and cars, and possessions, and bank balances, and that kind of thing. But there's this factor that comes in, when you've got that, there are two things, actually, that come in, one is maybe the fear that you'll lose it, but the other is boredom with the whole thing and the craving for excitement and thrill. And this doesn't seem to fit within this model of this primary and central craving for security. 問題の要点を『安心』に絞りましょう 確かにそれは目標の一つで 人は家や車を確保したいと思います 財産、銀行の残高などを しかし手に入れるとある要因が生じます 一つは失うことへの恐れ もう一つは退屈です 興奮やスリルに対する… そして この場合安心が一次的欲求とは 思えません
11:19 B: Well, that's why I said it's only one of the drives, right? That there's also the drive toward pleasure, as an example, much of what you said is included in the drive toward pleasure, right? ですから欲求の一つに過ぎません 例えば あなたの話には 快楽の欲求も含まれてます
11:29 S: I'm not so sure. どうでしょう…
11:30 B: Excitement is pleasurable, and people hope for pleasure and excitement rather than pain, as a rule. 興奮は快感ですし 苦痛よりも快楽や興奮を望むでしょう
11:37 S: But don't you think there's a pleasure in itself in curiosity, and there's a sense of freedom in discovery that you can get from certain kinds of exploration, which is neither just straightforward pleasure, it's not a repetitive kind of pleasure, nor is it security. しかし好奇心にも快楽があり 発見にともなう解放感は 単純な快楽でも 反復的な快楽でも 安心感でもありません
11:50 B: Yes, well, I didn't want to say that all our drives are caught in this thing, I said that if you think about them and base them on memory, then they are going to get caught in this problem. Now, there may be a natural, free interest in things which could be enjoyable, and that need not be a problem, right? But if you were to become dependent on it, and think about it, and say, 'If I don't have it I become very unhappy,' then it would be a similar problem. 我々のあらゆる欲求が― 安心に関与しているとは言ってません 私が言っているのは 全く別なことです 例えば 自然で自由な好奇心は― 楽しいことでこの欲求に問題はありません しかし それに依存して あれこれ思い悩むなら それは問題になります
12:17 K: But could we go into the question, what is security? What does that word convey? Apart from physical security. それにしても安心とは何なのでしょうか？ 何を意味するのか？ 物理的な安全以外に
12:34 S: I would have said invulnerability. 傷つかないことでは？
12:38 K: Not to be hurt. 傷つかないこと…
12:40 S: Not to be hurt at all, not to be able to be hurt. 全く傷つけられないことです
12:43 K: Not to be able to be hurt and not to hurt. Physically we are all hurt one way or another - operations, illness, and so on, so on. When you talk about being hurt are you talking about psychological hurts? 傷つけられないし 傷つけないこと 我々は皆 肉体的に傷つきます 手術、病気などによって あなたが言うのは 心理的な傷のことですか？
13:05 H: Yes, I'm wondering how it is that when a person comes into my office, his complaint is his psychological hurts. はい 疑問があるのですが… 来院する患者は― 心理的な痛みを訴えます
13:18 K: How do you deal with it?

H: I try and... 		それにどう対処されますか？
13:21 K: Suppose, I come to you. I am hurt from childhood. 例えば 子供の頃の傷に
13:24 H: Yes.

K: I am hurt by the parents, school, college, university. 		‐ええ…‐私は傷ついてます 両親によって学校、カレッジ、大学での出来事によって
13:34 H: Yes. ええ
13:36 K: When I get married she says something, I am hurt. So, this whole living process seems to be a series of hurts. 結婚した妻によって 人生の全過程がまるで痛みの連続のようです
13:44 H: It seems to build up a structure of self that is hurt, and a perception of reality that is inflicting hurt. 自己を成立すること、現実を認識することが まるで苦痛のように見えます
13:52 K: Yes. Now, how do you deal with it? ええ それでどう対処を？
14:03 H: I try to help you see how you're doing it. 自分のことを自覚させます
14:07 K: What do you mean, how I'm doing it? と言いますと？
14:09 H: Well, for example, if you have built up in you the notion that you're one down, or that you're the victim, then you perceive yourself to be victimised, and you perceive the world to be a victimiser. And I help you realise that that's what you're doing. 例えば 自分の中で作り上げてきた観念があるでしょう “私は劣っている”とか― “私は被害者だ”とか そうして 世界を加害者だと 見なしているわけです 私は それを自覚させます
14:35 K: But by showing me that, will I get rid of my hurt? My hurts, very deep unconscious hurts that I have make me do all kinds of peculiar actions, neurotic, isolating myself. しかし それで心の痛みを取り除くことが？ 私は無意識の奥深くに傷を負っていて― それが私を妙な行動に走らせ 神経症にし 孤立させます
14:58 H: Yes. It appears that people get better, that they realise that they are doing it. And in some local area it seems to help. ええ しかし自覚することで― 人々は回復しているようですし ある程度は効いてるようです
15:11 K: No, but aren't you concerned, if I may ask, with not being able to hurt at all? でも このように思いませんか？ “傷つけられないことは可能か？”
15:23 H: Yes. 思います
15:24 B: What do you mean by that, not hurting somebody else or not hurting... not bing hurt inside of you. それは誰か他の人を？ それとも己の気持ちを？
15:29 K: I may hurt others unconsciously, unwillingly, but I wouldn't hurt voluntarily somebody. 私は不本意に人を傷つけることはあるかもしれませんが 故意には傷つけません
15:37 B: Yes, you really don't intend to hurt anybody. ええ そんな気はない
15:39 K: Yes. I wouldn't. はい ありません
15:42 S: Well, maybe not, but I don't see the connection between not hurting other people and not being hurt oneself. At least I'm sure there must be one, but it's not obvious. And most people's view of the best way not to be hurt would be to be in such a position that you can hurt others so much they'd never dare. This is the principle of nuclear retaliation, and this is a very common principle. そうかもしれませんが 他人を傷つけないことと― 傷つけられないことに関連が？ 傷つけられない最善の方法は― 傷つける側になることです これが核報復の原理であり 一般的な原則です
16:04 K: Yes, of course. ええ 確かに
16:06 S: So it's not obvious that not hurting others is related to not being hurt oneself. In fact, usually it's taken to be the reverse. It's usually assumed that if you're in a position to hurt others very much you'll be very secure. 故に 傷つけないことと 傷つけられないことの 関連性がわかりません 大抵 傷つける側に回って 安全を得ようとします
16:18 K: Of course, I mean if you're a king, or a sannyasi, or one of those people who have built a wall round themselves... 確かに 王であれサニヤシであれ　 己の周りに壁を築いた者であれば―
16:25 S: Yes. ええ
16:26 K: ...naturally you can never hurt them. 傷つけられません
16:28 S: Yes. ええ
16:30 K: But when they were children they were hurt. でも子供の頃に傷つき―
16:32 S: Yes. ええ
16:34 K: That hurt remains. It may remain superficially or in the deep recesses of one's own mind. Now, how do you, as a psychologist, psychotherapist, help another, who is deeply hurt and is unaware of it, and to see if it is possible not to be hurt at all? その傷は残ります表面的に残るかもしれないし 心の奥に残るかもしれない さて 心理療法士としてどのように他を救いますか？ 彼らは深く傷ついていて 無知で― まったく傷つかない術を探しています
16:59 H: I don't address the question about is it possible to not be hurt at all. That doesn't come up. その問題には取り組みません あり得ません
17:04 K: Why? Wouldn't that be a reasonable question? なぜですか？ 合理的な質問だと思いませんか？
17:12 H: Well, it seems to be what we are asking here. It is the essence of the question that we're asking. We ask it in terms of particulars only in therapy, and you're asking it more generally, is it possible to end this hurt, period. Not just a particular hurt that I happen to have. 今あがっている質問は 問題の核心となる部分です あなたの質問は心理療法というより もっと広いものです “完全に終止符を打てるのか？” “特定の心の痛みだけでなく”
17:32 K: So, how should we proceed? では どう進めましょう？
17:35 H: Well, it would seem that the structure that makes hurt possible is what we have to get at. What makes hurt possible in the first place, not this hurt or that hurt. 痛みが起こる仕組みを突き止めましょう そもそも なぜ傷つくのか 最初の段階で
17:46 K: I think that's fairly simple. Why am I hurt? Because you say something to me which is not pleasant. その答えは非常に簡単です 気に障ることを言われるからです
17:57 H: Well, why should that hurt you? なぜ気に障るんです？
18:00 K: Because I have an image about myself as being a great man. You come along and tell me, don't be an ass. And I get hurt. 例えば 自分を偉大だと思っていて― なのに“まぬけ”と言われれば傷つきます
18:10 H: What is it that's being hurt there? 何が傷つくのでしょう？
18:13 K: There, the image which I have about myself. I am a great cook, a great scientist, a great carpenter, whatever you will. I have got that picture in myself, and you come along and put a pin into it. And that gets hurt. The image gets hurt. The image is me. 自己イメージです “私は最高の料理人だ” “偉大な科学者、最高の大工”何であれ― 私には自己イメージがあり それに水を差されるから― 傷つくのです イメージが傷つくのですイメージは私です
18:37 B: I feel that that will not be terribly clear to many people. How can I be an image, many people will ask. How can an image get hurt, because if an image is nothing at all, why does it hurt? 多くの人は理解できないでしょう なぜ私がイメージなんです？ イメージが傷つくとは？ 存在しないものが傷つくのですか？
18:49 K: Because I have invested into that image a lot of feeling. イメージに多くの感情を注いできたからです
18:53 B: Yes. ええ…
18:55 K: A lot of ideas, emotions, reactions - all that is me, that is my image. 多くの観念、気持ち、反応を… それが私、イメージなのです
19:03 H: It doesn't look like an image to me though, it looks like something real. イメージに見えません 現実みたいです
19:08 K: Ah, of course, for most people it's very real. 大抵の人にとっては非常にリアルで―
19:12 H: Yes. ええ
19:13 K: But that is me, the reality of that image is me. そのイメージという現実が私なのです
19:17 H: Yes. Well, can we get clear that it's an image and not real? ええ そのイメージは現実ですか？
19:24 K: Image is never real; symbol is never real. イメージや象徴は現実ではありません
19:28 H: You're saying that I'm just a symbol. 私は象徴に過ぎない？
19:31 K: Perhaps.

H: That's a big step. 		‐恐らく…‐思い切りましたね
19:43 K: From that arises the question whether it's possible not to have images at all. 疑問が生じたのですが イメージを持たずにいれるでしょうか？
19:54 S: Well, wait a minute. I don't think we've clearly established that I am an image. 待ってください先程の話が― まだ終わっていません
20:00 K: Ah, let's go into it. では それを論じましょう
20:03 S: I mean, it's not entirely clear. I mean, it's obvious that to some extent one is an image, that when I have a feeling about myself, and so on. It's not entirely clear that this is entirely unjustified. You see, certain aspects of it may be exaggerated, certain aspects may be unrealistic, but, one approach would be, we've got to remove, shave off these unrealistic aspects, pare it down to sort of reasonable size. And then that which remains would be the real thing. 確かに 自分のことを― 考えているときなど ある程度はイメージでしょうが それが理に適っているかはわかりません イメージは誇張されたり 非現実だったりするかもしれません しかし こういった部分を 取り除いて妥当な大きさにすれば 残ったものが本物では？
20:33 K: So, sir, are you raising the question, what am I? “己とは何か”と聞いているんですか？
20:37 S: Well, I suppose so, yes. そうだと思います
20:39 K: Yes, basically. What are you? What is each one of us? What is a human being? That's the question that's involved. 簡単に言えば あなたとは何か我々一人一人が 人間とは何なのか 不可欠な質問です
20:51 S: Yes, that seems unavoidable. はい 避けれない質問です
20:53 K: Yes. What am I? I am the form, the physical form, the name, the result of all education.

H: Your experience. 		で 『私』とは何でしょう？ 私には物理的な形があり名前があります ‐私はあらゆる教育の結果です‐経験も…
21:09 K: My experiences, my beliefs, my ideals, principles, the incidents that have marked me. 私の経験、私の信仰― 私の理想、信条― 私に傷を残した出来事…
21:22 H: The structures you've built up that are how you function. 築いてきたことの結果です
21:24 K: Yes.

H: Your skills. 		あなたが得た技能
21:26 K: My fears, my activities, whether they are limited or my so-called affection, my gods, my country, my language, fears, pleasures, suffering - all that is me. 私の恐怖、私の活動― いわゆる愛情と呼ばれるもの、私の神― 私の国、私の言葉― 恐怖、快楽、苦痛―すべてが私です
21:43 H: Yes. はい
21:45 K: That's my consciousness. 私の意識なのです
21:48 H: And your unconscious.

K: That's my whole content of me. 		‐あなたの無意識も…‐それが私の全内容なのです
21:53 H: Okay. なるほど
21:56 B: But there's still that feeling of actuality that me is there. I mean, you may say, you could reasonably argue that that's all there is to me, but when something happens there's the feeling of its actual presence, at that moment. それでもやはり自分がいる感覚があります 反対されるでしょうが 何かが起こっているとき― 実際にそれがあると感じます
22:11 K: I don't quite follow you there. どういうことです？
22:15 B: If somebody reacts to being hurt or angry, he feels at that moment that there's more than that, that there is something deep inside which has been hurt, right? 傷ついたり怒ったりするとき イメージ以上のものを感じるんです 心の奥深くが傷つけられたような…
22:29 K: I don't quite see. My image can be such a deep... That's my image, at all levels. よくわかりませんが イメージはそのような… それは私のイメージなのです
22:45 B: Yes, but how... ええ しかし…
22:47 K: Wait, sir, I have an image of myself, suppose, that I am a great poet, or a great painter, or a great writer. Apart from that image as a writer, I have other images about myself. I have an image about my wife, and she has an image about me, and there are so many images I've built around myself; and the image about myself also. So, I may gather a bundle of images.

B: Yes, I understand. 		自己イメージがあるとします “私は偉大な詩人だ、大工だ” “最高の作家だ” それ以外にも― 他のイメージがあります 妻に対するイメージ 妻の私に対するイメージ 周りには多くのイメージがあります 自分に対するイメージに加えて つまりイメージの束を蓄積しているのかも…
23:25 K: Partial.

B: Yes, you are saying that there is nothing but this bundle of images. 		ええ つまり― あるのはイメージだけだと
23:30 K: Of course!

B: But the question is how are we to see this as an actual fact? 		‐その通り‐しかし― 事実はあるんですか？
23:34 K: Ah.

S: But wait a minute, there is something but this bundle of images. I mean, I'm sitting right here, now, seeing you, and all the rest of it. Now, I have the feeling there's a centre of action or centre of consciousness, which is within my body and associated with it, which has a centre, and it's not you, and it's not you, and it's not David, it's me. And associated with this centre of action, my body, sitting here, is a whole lot of memories and experiences, and without those memories I wouldn't be able to speak, to talk, to recognise anything.

K: Of course, of course. 		待ってください 事実もあります 例えば いま私は― 座って皆を見ていますいま私には― 中心がある感覚があり それは肉体と関連しています それには中心があり 私以外の誰でもありません そして活動の中心である肉体と関係があるのは 多くの記憶と経験です 話したり 認識するには それらは不可欠です
24:09 S: So, there seems to be some substance to this image of myself. There may be false images associated with it, but there seems to be a reality which I feel as I sit here. So it's not entirely illusory. つまりイメージにも実体があるのでは？ 誤ったイメージもあるが 事実もあるように思えます すべてが錯覚ではなく…
24:21 K: Sir, are you saying that you are totally, basically different from the three of us? つまり あなたは― 我々３人とは全く違うと？
24:27 S: Well, I'm in a different place and I have a different body. 居る場所も 肉体も違います
24:30 K: Of course.

S: And in that sense I'm different. 		そういう意味で違います
24:32 K: Of course, I admit that, I mean, you're tall, I'm short, I'm brown, you're...

S: Yes. 		確かに背丈も違います 肌の色も 茶色やら
24:36 K: ...black, or you're white, or you're pink, or whatever it is. 黒、白、ピンク、様々です
24:39 S: Now, at another level I'm not basically different in the sense that we can all speak the same language and communicate, so there's something in common. And at a purely physical level all of us have a lot in common with each other, the same kinds of enzymes, chemicals, and so on. And those indeed - hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms - we have in common with everything else. しかし 他の面においては― 同じ言葉でやりとりし そこには共通点が見られます 身体的レベルでも 酸素、化学物質― 水素原子、酸素原子など 共通点が多々あります
24:58 K: Yes. Now, is your consciousness different from the rest? Consciousness, not bodily responses, bodily reactions, bodily conditioning, is your consciousness, that is your beliefs, your fears, your anxieties, depressions, faith - all that? では あなたの意識は我々の意識とは異なりますか？ 意識です体の反応などではなく… 体の条件付けではなく… あなたの信念― あなたの恐れ、不安― 絶望 そういったもの全ては？
25:26 S: Well, I would say that many of the contents of my consciousness or many of the beliefs, desires, etc. I have, other people also have. But I would say the particular combination of experiences, memories, desires, etc. I have, are unique, because I've had a particular set of experiences, as you have and as everyone has, which makes a unique combination of these different elements. 私の意識の中身― 信念、欲望などは他の人々も持っています しかし 私が持っている経験― 記憶、欲望の組み合わせは 唯一のものですなぜなら― 様々な要素が入っているからです
25:46 K: So, is mine unique?

S: Yes. 		私のも唯一のものですか？
25:48 K: So is his?

S: Exactly. 		‐彼のも？‐その通り
25:50 K: The uniqueness makes it all common. It's no longer unique. 共通しているならもはや唯一のものではありません
25:56 S: That's a paradox. It's not immediately clear. それは矛盾してますね返答できません
26:01 B: Why isn't it clear? Everybody's unique, right? なぜ？誰もが唯一無二では？
26:04 S: Yes, we're all unique.

K: I question that. 		唯一無二であると同時に
26:06 S: We're not unique in the same way. Otherwise the word 'unique' becomes meaningless. If we're unique, each of us is unique, we have a unique set of experiences, environmental factors, memories, etc. 唯一無二ではないのです でないと意味がなくなります 人は誰しも唯一無二で 独自の経験、環境要因、記憶などを持っています
26:22 K: That's what you just now said, that's common lot to all of us. それは皆に共通してます
26:24 S: Yes, we all have it, but what we have is different. ええ けど持ってるものは異なります
26:28 K: Yes, you brought up in England, and perhaps another brought up in America, another brought up in Chile, we all have different experiences, different country, different views, different mountains, and so on. ええ あなたは英国育ちで 他の方はアメリカやチリで育ちました 私たちは皆違う経験があり 違う国があり― 景色や山々なども違います
26:44 S: Yes. ええ
26:47 K: But apart from the physical environment, linguistic differences, and accidents of experience, basically, fundamentally, deep down, we suffer, we are frightened to death, we are anxious, we have agony about something or other, and conflict - that's the ground on which we all stand. しかし 物理的な環境の違いや― 言語の違いや― 経験の違いを別にすれば― 基本的に 根本的に 元来― 我々は苦しみ死におびえ 不安を抱き― あれこれ苦痛や葛藤を抱えていて― それは皆同じなのです
27:17 S: But that doesn't seem a very startling conclusion. それはそうでしょうね
27:20 K: No, it is not. ええ 確かに
27:22 B: But I think, what you are saying really implies that what we have in common is essential and fundamental rather than just superficial. And now, I've talked with people about this, and they say, everybody agrees, we all have these things in common, but sorrow, suffering, and so on, are not so important; the really important point are the higher achievements of culture and things like that, as an example. つまり 我々の共通点とは― 表面的なことではなく― むしろ根本的なことだと そして共通点のうちでも 悲しみ、苦しみなどは それほど重要ではなく 本当に重要なのはより高い文明を― 築くことだと思います
27:48 H: Maybe the distinction is between the form and the content. Our contents are all different, and they have similarities and differences, but maybe the form is the same, the structure. 違いは形態と中身にあるのでは？ 我々の中身は皆違います しかし その形態、構造は恐らく同じでしょう
27:59 K: I would say contents are the same for all human beings. 同じなのは中身だと思います
28:03 S: But you see, I can recognise that there is such a thing as common humanity, but I would regard that quite possibly as an abstraction or a projection rather than a reality. How do I know that is not an abstraction? 共通の人間性というものが あることは認めますが― それが抽象概念や投影ではなく なぜ実際にあると？
28:17 K: Because you go around the world, you see people suffer, you see human beings in agony, despair, depression, loneliness, lack of affection, lack of care, attention, that's the basic human reactions, that is part of our consciousness. なぜなら世界中を回ってみれば人々が苦しみ― 苦悩し絶望しているのを目にするからです 孤独で 愛情に飢え思いやりに餓えているのを それが基本的な人間の反応であり― 我々の意識の一部なのです
28:47 S: Yes. ええ
28:49 K: So, you are not basically different from me. You may be tall, you may be born in England, I may be born in Africa, I have a dark skin, but deep down the river the content of the river is the water. The river is not Asiatic river, or European river, it is a river. つまり あなたは私と何も違いません あなたは背が高く生まれた国も違うかもしれません 私は浅黒い肌をしてますしかし川の底は― 川の中身は水です その川はアジアの川でもヨーロッパの川でもなく ただの川です
29:21 S: Yes, well that is clearly true at some level. But I am not quite sure at what level, you see. ある程度はそうなんでしょうが どの程度そうなんでしょう？
29:26 K: I am talking basically, deeply. 根本的に 完全にです
29:31 S: But you see, it seems to me, why stop there? I can see something in common with all other human beings, but I can also by looking at animals see something in common with them. We have a great deal in common with the animals. しかし なぜ人間だけなんです？ 全ての人間に共通点がありますが 動物ともまた― 共通点が見られます 多くの共通点が
29:45 K: Surely, surely.

S: So why stop at human beings? 		なぜ人間に留まるんです？
29:47 K: I don't.

S: Why not say... 		留まっていません
29:49 K: Because I say if I feel... I don't like the word 'common.' One feels that is the ground on which all human beings stand. Their relationship with nature, animals, and so on, and the content of our consciousness is, again, the ground of humanity. Love is not English, American, or Indian. Hate is not, agony is not yours or mine, it is agony. But we identify ourselves with agony, it is my agony, which is not yours. なぜなら私は… 『共通』という言葉は好みません 我々はそれを全人類の基盤だと感じています 人間と自然や動物などとの関係 そして我々の意識の中身が― 人間性の基盤なのです 愛は英国的でも米国的でもありません 憎しみも同様です 苦痛は苦痛に過ぎません だが我々は苦痛と同化します “これは私の苦痛である”と。
30:46 S: We might go through it in very different ways though. 人と違う体験をするからでは？
30:50 K: Different expressions, different reactions, but basically it is agony. Not German agony and Asiatic agony. It's not what is happening - British and Argentine, it is human conflict. Why do we separate ourselves from all this? The British, the Argentine, the Jew, the Arab, the Hindu, the Muslim. You follow? Which all seems so nonsensical, tribal. The worship of a nation is tribalism. So, why can't we wipe out all that? 表現や反応は違ってもそれは基本的に苦痛です ドイツ的でもアジア的でもなく 英国的でもアルゼンチン的でもなく それは人間の葛藤です なぜ我々は自らを切り離すのでしょうか？ 英国人、アルゼンチン人、ユダヤ人 アラブ人、ヒンズー教徒、イスラム教徒 わかりますか？ 非常にばかげていて部族的です 国家崇拝は部族主義です なぜ終わらせないのでしょうか？
31:37 S: I don't know. You tell me, why can't we? さあ なぜでしょう？
31:40 K: Because, again, we have come back to the question: I identify with my nation, because that gives me a certain strength, certain standard, certain status, certain security. When I say, 'I am British'... So, this division is one of the reasons of war, not only economic, social, and all the rest of it. Nationalism, which is really glorified tribalism, is the cause of war. Why can't we wipe that out? It seems so reasonable. なぜなら…元の問題に戻ってきましたが 国家に自分を重ね合わせているからです それが ある種の強さ、基準、安心を与えてくれます 例えば英国人なら？ つまり この分裂が戦争の理由の一つです 経済や社交だけでなく 国家主義は実際には 部族主義であり戦争の原因です 終わらせたほうが合理的ではありませんか？
32:28 H: It seems reasonable on a level like nationalism; people don't think they are England. 国家主義のような話では合理的でしょう 人は国ではありません
32:35 K: Start from there.

H: Okay. But then I have a patient, and he does think that he is married and that it is his wife.

K: Yes. Of course, it is his wife. 		そこから話をしましょう しかし ある患者は結婚してると思っていて― 自分の妻であると… もちろん それは彼の妻です
32:50 H: Well, isn't that the same action that you are talking about? そういう話をしてるのでは？
32:53 K: No, no. Sir, just let's go into it slowly. いえ いえ ゆっくりいきましょう
32:59 H: Okay. はい
33:02 K: Why do I want to identify myself with something greater? Like nationalism, like god. なぜ より大きなものと自分を同一化したいのでしょう？ 国家や神などと…
33:14 H: Because I don't feel sufficient.

K: Which means what? 		‐欠乏感があるからです‐というと？
33:18 H: Insecure. 不安がある
33:19 K: Insecure, insufficient, lonely, isolated. I have built a wall round myself.

H: Yes. 		不安、欠乏、孤独、分離 私は自分の周りに壁を築いたので―
33:31 K: So, all this is making me desperately lonely. And out of that conscious or unconscious loneliness I identify with god, with the nation, with Mussolini - it doesn't matter - Hitler, or any religious teacher. こういった全てが私を非常に孤独にしています そして その孤独から抜け出すために 同一化するのです神、国家、ムッソリーニと ヒトラーだろうが宗教の師だろうが構いません
33:52 H: Okay. Or I get married, I have a job, I make a place for myself. では 結婚、仕事、家を持つことも―
33:56 K: Yes.

H: And that's all also identification. 		すべて同一化です
33:59 K: Yes. Why do we want to identify with something? No, the basic question is too, why do we want roots? なぜ我々は何かと同一化したがるのか？ いえ 根本的な問題はなぜ所属したがるのか？
34:10 H: To belong.

K: To belong, which is also implied to become.

H: Yes. 		‐所属ですか？‐所属です または『成る』という意味です
34:21 K: So, this whole process of becoming, from childhood, I am asked to become, become, become. From the priest to the bishop, the bishop to the cardinal, the cardinal to the pope. And in the business world it is the same. In the spiritual world it is the same. I am this, but I must become that. つまり 子供の頃からの― 全過程です 私は『成る』ように言われます 司祭から司教に 司教から枢機卿に 枢機卿から教皇に ビジネス界でも同じです 精神世界でも同じです “私はあれに成らなければ”
34:48 H: Okay, what I am is not sufficient. それで なぜ欠乏感が？
34:50 K: Why do we want to become? What is it that is becoming? なぜ成りたいのか？『成る』とは何か？
35:01 S: Any obvious reason for wanting to become is a feeling of insufficiency, inadequacy, in the state that we are. And one of the reasons for this is that we live in an imperfect world, our relations with other people are imperfect. We are not content for a variety of reasons with the way we are. So the way out of that seems to become something else. その理由は明らかに 不全感でしょう 不十分な状態です この理由の一つは我々が不完全な世界に住んでいて 人間関係も不完全だからです 様々な理由から満足していません 何かになれば解決できる気が…
35:24 K: Yes. That means escaping from 'what is.' つまり『あるがままのもの』から逃避しているのです
35:30 S: Yes. But it may seem 'what is' is something we have a need to escape from, because there is something wrong with it. しかし『あるがままのもの』が 逃避の理由なのです それに何か問題が…
35:36 K: All right. Take the usual experience. I am violent, and I have invented non-violence. Right? And I am trying to become that. I'll take years to become that. In the meantime I am violent. So, I have never escaped from violence. It is just an invention. では 例えば私が暴力的だとします それで非暴力を考え出しました 私はそれになろうとしています その間 私は暴力的なままです つまり私は暴力を免れたことはないのです
36:00 S: Well, you are trying to escape from it. You may escape in the end. でも努力はしています 最後には免れるかも
36:06 K: No, I don't want to escape. I want to understand the nature of violence, what is implied in it, whether it is possible to live a life without any sense of violence. 免れるのではなく私は理解したいのです 暴力の本質とその意味を いかなる暴力もなしに 人生を送るのは可能か否か
36:19 S: But what you are suggesting is a more effective method of escaping. You are not suggesting an abandoning the idea of escaping. You are suggesting that the normal way of escaping, trying to become nonviolent, is one way of doing it which doesn't work. Whereas if you do another method, where you actually look at the violence in a different way, you can become non-violent.

K: I am not escaping. 		しかしそれはより有効な逃避の手段で 逃避の放棄ではありません あなたが示唆してるのは 通常の逃避では 成功しないので 異なる方法で 非暴力的になろうと… 私は逃避していません
36:40 S: Well, you are changing then. 変わろうとしている？
36:42 K: No. I am violent.

S: Yes. 		いいえ 私は暴力的です
36:45 K: I want to see what is the nature of violence, how it arises. 私は暴力の本質を見たいのですどう生じたのかを
36:50 S: But for what purpose? 何のために？
36:51 K: To see whether it is possible to be free of it completely. 完全に自由になれるか見るためです
36:55 S: But isn't that a kind of escape from it? それは逃避では？
36:57 K: No.

S: Being free of something... 		何かから自由になろうと…
36:59 K: ...is not an escape.

S: Why not? 		逃避ではありません
37:01 K: Avoidance, running away, fly away from 'what is' is an escape, but to say, look, this is what I am, let's look at it, let's observe what its content is. That is not escape! 『あるがまま』から回避、逃走、逃げることが逃避です しかし“これが私だ 調べてみよう” そう言うならそれは逃避ではありません
37:16 S: Oh, I see, the distinction you are making is that if you run away, and escape in a normal sense is running away from something, like escaping from prison, or one's parents, or whatever, but they still remain there. What you are saying is that rather than escaping from violence, which leaves violence intact and still there, and you try and distance yourself from it, you try to dissolve violence, or abolish it. なるほど つまり逃避とは― 通常 何かから逃げることです 例えば 刑務所や両親などから けど それらは残存したままです あなたが言っているのは 暴力から逃避して 距離を置くのではなく 暴力を解明、撤廃することです
37:39 K: Dissolve.

S: Yes. 		解明です
37:41 K: Not abolish it, dissolve.

S: All right. So this is different from escape, because you are trying to dissolve the thing rather than run away from it. 		撤廃ではなく 解明です つまり これは逃避とは異なるわけで 逃げているのではないと
37:51 K: Running away is... Everybody runs away. 逃げるというのは…誰もが逃げます
37:57 S: Well, it usually works, to a limited extent. 限られた範囲では有効です
37:59 K: No. It's like running away from my agony by going to football. I come back home, it is there! I don't want to go to watch football, but I want to see what violence is and see if it is possible to be completely free of it. いいえ… いわば逃避してサッカー観戦に行くようなものです 家に帰れば逆戻り 私が見たいのは サッカーではなく暴力とは何か― 完全に暴力から自由になれるかどうかです
38:24 S: If I am in a very unpleasant society and I can escape from it by defecting, or leaving it and going to another one. And this does in fact mean I escape to some extent. 例えば 私がとても悪い社会にいて 他の社会へ亡命するとしたら ある意味 それは逃避です
38:34 K: Of course. もちろん
38:36 S: So these are always partial answers and they are partially effective. それなら逃避はある程度は有効では？
38:41 K: I don't want to be partially violent. Or partially free from it. I want to find out if it is possible to totally end it. That's not an escape, that's putting my teeth into it. ある程度の非暴力… ある程度の解放… 私は完全に終止符を打てるか知りたいのです それは逃避ではなく全力をかけることです
38:56 S: Yes. But you have to believe it is possible in order to put your teeth into it. しかし できると信じなければ― 全力はかけれません
39:03 K: I don't know, I am going to investigate. I said, for me, I know one can live without violence. But that may be a freak, that may be a biological freak, and so on. But to discuss together, the four of us and see if we could be free of violence completely, means not escaping, not suppressing, not transcending it, and see what is violence. Violence is part of imitation, conformity. Right? Apart from physical hurts, I am not talking about that. So, psychologically there is this constant comparing, that is part of hurt, part of violence. So, can I live without comparison, when from childhood I have been trained to compare myself with somebody? I am talking comparison, not good cloth and bad cloth. 私がするのは調査です 私は 人が暴力なしに暮らせることを知っています それは生物学的に極めて珍しいことかもしれませんが ともかく私たち４人で話し合って― 完全に暴力から自由になれるかを確かめるのです 回避、抑圧、超越するのではなく 暴力とは何なのか 暴力とは模範、順応の一端です 違いますか？ 肉体的な苦痛のことはさておき… そこには常に心理的な比較があるのです それは苦痛、暴力の一端です 比較せずに暮らせますか？ 幼い頃から競わされてきました 自分と誰かを これは善悪の話でなく比較の話です
40:16 H: Right. Talking about comparing myself. 自分と他人を比較します
40:19 K: Myself with you who are bright, who are clever, who have got publicity. When you say a word the whole world listens. And I can shout, nobody cares. So, I want to be like you. So, I am comparing constantly myself with something I think is greater. あなたは機転が利き頭も良く― 知名度もあり― 世界中が耳を傾けます 私が叫んでも誰も気にしません 私はあなたの様になりたい つまり常に比較しているのです自分より偉大なものと
40:42 H: So, this is where becoming comes from, this comparison. だから何かになりたがる
40:45 K: That's just it. So, can I live without comparison? その通り　それで比較せずに生きられるのか？
40:50 H: Doesn't that leave me in an insufficient state? それでは物足りないのでは？
40:53 K: No. To live without comparison? No. まさか！比較せずに生きるのに？
40:57 H: Here I start off insufficient... 例えば私が―
41:00 K: You understand, sir? Am I dull because I compare myself with you, who are bright?

H: Yes. Yes, you are dull because you compare yourself. 		わかりますか？私が鈍感な理由は― 比較するからです ええ わかります
41:10 K: By comparing myself with you, who are bright, who are clever, I become dull. I think I am dull.

H: Yes. 		有能なあなたと自分を比較することによって 私は鈍感になります
41:17 K: But if I don't compare I am what I am. しかし比較しなければ私は私です
41:20 S: Well, you may not compare but I may compare. I may say, 'You are dull'. しかし他人から鈍感だと言われるかも…
41:25 K: All right. I say, 'All right'. You say I am dull. I say, 'Am I?' I want to know what does it mean. Does it mean he is comparing himself with me, who is... - you follow? the reverse of it! なるほど人から言われて私は自問します どういう意味なのか？ 彼は私と比較しているのか？ わかりますか？ 正反対であると
41:39 S: Very frustrating, that. Yes. I mean, if one compared oneself with somebody and said, 'You are dull', and then they said, 'What does dullness mean?' それはじれったいですね誰かと比べられ― 鈍感だと指摘されて “鈍感とはどういう意味？”
41:53 K: The other day, after one of the talks in England a man came up to me and said, 'Sir, you are a beautiful old man, but you are stuck in a rut'. I said, 'Well, sir, perhaps, sir, I don't know, we'll go into it'. So I went up to my room and said, 'Am I?' Because I don't want to be stuck in a rut. I may be. So, I went into it very, very carefully, step by step, and found what does a rut mean - to stick in a groove along a particular line. Maybe, so I watch it. So, observation of a fact is entirely different from the escaping or the suppression of it. 先日 英国である男性にこう言われました “あなたは素晴らしい老人ですが―” “型にはまっておられる” そこで私は― “さあ どうでしょう” 私は自問しました 型にはまっていたくはないので そこで私は非常に慎重に一歩一歩調べて― 『型にはまる』という意味を探って それを観察しました つまり事実を観察するということは― 回避や抑圧とは異なります
42:45 H: So, he says you are stuck in a rut, and you observe it, you don't compare. つまり あなたは― 比較せず 観察した
42:50 K: I don't. Am I in a rut? I look. I may be stuck in a rut, because I speak English. I speak Italian and French. All right. And that's not… Am I psychologically, inwardly, caught in a groove, like a tram car? はい 型にはまっているのか？私はそれを観察します 私は英語を話します イタリア語― フランス語を話しますが 路面電車のように 心理的に型にはまっているのでしょうか？
43:16 H: Just motivated by something and not understanding it. 意味を理解していないので…
43:19 K: No, am I? I don't know, I am going to find out. I am going to watch. I am going to be terribly attentive, sensitive, alert. いえ 型にはまっているのかそれを確かめるんです とても注意深く 敏感に 用心深く
43:32 H: Now, this requires that you are not reacting in the first place by saying 'No, that's horrible, I couldn't possibly be stuck in a rut'. ここで重要なのは言われたことに対して 反発しないことですね
43:39 K: I wouldn't. You may be telling the truth. 反発しません真実かもしれませんから
43:50 H: To not have that reaction you can't have that self there that says, 'I am not the type of person that is stuck in ruts'. そのためにはそこに自我があっては いけないわけですね
43:56 K: I don't know. Sir, is there a learning about oneself, which is not... - this leads to something else, I mustn't go into it - which is not constant accumulation about myself? I don't know if I am making myself clear. どうでしょう… では そこには― 自分についての学びがありますか？ 予定外の話ですが… 自分についての絶え間ない蓄積ではない学びが。 わかりますか？
44:25 H: Yes. はい
44:28 K: I observe myself.

H: Yes. 		私は自分を観察します
44:31 K: And I have learnt from that observation something. And that something is being accumulated all the time by watching. I think that is not learning about yourself. そして その観察から何かを学びます その何かは 観察によって― 常に蓄積されますが それは学びでないと思います
44:44 H: Yes. It's being concerned with what you think about yourself. ええ それは自分に対する考えです
44:48 K: Yes, what you think about yourself, what you have gathered about yourself. 自分に対して思っていること― 集積したことです
44:53 H: Yes. ええ
44:57 K: Like a river that is flowing, you have to follow it. That leads somewhere else. Let's get back. 川の流れのようについて行かなければ では元の話に戻りましょう
45:06 H: Maybe this is part of the question we are asking, because we start with how does this disorder occur.

K: Yes, sir, let's stick to that. 		これも関係があるのでは？ そもそもの問題は 無秩序の起源についてですから…
45:15 H: It occurs because I have the image of myself of someone who knows he is not stuck in a rut. I don't like to think that I am stuck in a rut, and somebody says, 'Yes, you are.' 無秩序が生じる原因は― 他人が私に指摘することが 自己イメージと合わないからです
45:25 K: But you may be. 相手が正しいかも
45:27 H: Yes. I have to be open to looking, to see. ええ 率直に見る必要があります
45:30 K: Yes, to observe. その通りです
45:32 S: But then what about this approach: somebody says I am stuck in a rut, I look at myself and think, 'Yes, I am stuck in a rut' and then I can respond by thinking, what's wrong with that? Everyone is stuck in a rut.

K: Sir, that's just blind. 		これはどうですか？ 誰かに指摘されて こう反応します“確かにその通りだが―” “だから何だ？”と。 それは単なる盲従です
45:47 S: No, you accept the fact, but then you think, 'Why should I do anything about it?' What's wrong with that as an approach? いいえ 事実を受け入れたうえで “構うものか” 何が悪いんです？
45:55 K: Like a man stuck as a Hindu, he is stuck. He is then contributing to war. 例えばヒンズー教にはまっているなら 戦争に貢献しています
46:03 S: I may say, well, I am stuck in a rut, but so is everybody, it is the nature of humanity to be stuck in ruts. しかし誰もが型にはまっています それが人間の性質では？
46:10 K: You see, that's it, you go off, that is the nature of humanity. But I question that. If you say that is the nature of humanity, let's change it, for god's sake! ほら まさしくそこです“人間の性質” 疑問に思います それが人間の性質なら もう変えてしまいましょう！
46:22 S: But you may believe it is unchangeable. What reason have I for believing that we can change it? I may think that I am stuck in a rut, so are you, so is everybody else. And anyone who thinks they are not is deceiving themselves. しかしそれが可能だと― どうやって信じたら？ 型にはまってないと 信じている人は 己を欺いているのでは？
46:34 K: It's cheating themselves. I may cheat, so I begin to enquire - am I cheating myself? I want to be very honest about it. I don't want to cheat, I don't want to be a hypocrite. 己を欺く？では私は自問します 私は自分を欺いているのだろうか？ 偽善者になりたくありません
46:46 S: You may not be a hypocrite, you may think, 'I am stuck in a rut', and you may be a pessimist. The alternative to being a hypocrite is a pessimist. 偽善者ではなく悲観論者かも 偽善者に代わるもの それは悲観論者です
46:54 K: No, I am neither a pessimist nor an optimist. I say, 'Look, am I stuck in a rut?' I watch all day. 私はどちらでもありません “私は型にはまっているだろうか？” 一日中 観察します
47:04 S: And you perhaps conclude, 'Yes'. But then you can take the pessimistic cause and say, 'Yes, I am, but so what?' でも もし結果が“イエス”なら それを受け入れ“構わない”という手もある
47:14 K: If you prefer that way of living, go ahead. But I don't want to live that way. それがお望みでしたら どうぞ でも私は望みません
47:22 H: Well, the person who comes into therapy usually comes with both sides going on at the same time. He says that I have this problem which I want to be free of, I don't want to be stuck in a rut; on the other hand, when it gets down to really looking at that, he doesn't want to look at it either, because it becomes uncomfortable. 心理治療に来る患者にも 同様のことが起きています 患者は悩みから解放されることを望んでいて “抜け出したい”と言います その一方 不安になるので 問題を直視するのを嫌がります
47:43 K: Of course. So, to come back to your original question, the world is in disorder, human beings are in disorder, and we described what is disorder. And is there a possibility to live free from disorder? That is the real basic question. We said as long as there is this divisive process of life - I am a Hindu, you are an Arab, I am a Buddhist, you are a Muslim, I am British, you are an Argentine - there must be conflict, war. My son is going to be killed, for what? なるほど…では 最初の問題に戻りますが― この世は無秩序であり人間も無秩序に陥っていて そのことを話してきました 無秩序から解放された人生を送ることは可能でしょうか？ それが根本的な問題です 人生において分裂を生じさせる行為がある限り― 例えば ヒンズー教、アラブ人― 仏教徒、イスラム教徒― 英国人、アルゼンチン人― 対立、戦争が生じます 息子が殺されます何のために？
48:39 H: For as long as I identify on a personal level with my job, or with my family, and so on, there will be pain. 仲間や職業などと同一化する限り 苦痛が伴うということですね
48:46 K: Of course.

H: It is the same process. 		その通りです
48:48 K: So, is it possible to have, without identification, responsibility? では 同一化せずに責任を持つことはできますか？
48:56 H: If I am not identified will I even go to work? その場合 仕事に行くでしょうか？
48:59 K: But I am responsible for the lady whom I am married. Responsible in the sense that I have to look after her, care for her, and she has to care for me. Responsibility means order. But we have become totally irresponsible by isolating ourselves - British, French. しかし妻に対して責任があります 彼女の世話をし彼女を思いやる責任があり― 彼女は夫を思いやります責任とは秩序です しかし我々は孤立することによって 完全に無責任になりました
49:27 H: We handle the problem of responsibility by developing a rut that we can work in.

K: Yes. That's it. 		我々は 決まりきった型を持つことで 責任問題に対処し―
49:33 H: And staying inside that. その中に留まります
49:40 K: If I see the fact that responsibility is order - I am responsible to keep this house clean - but as we all live on this earth, it is our earth, not British earth, and French earth, and German earth, it is our earth to live on. And we have divided ourselves, because in this division we think there is security. 責任とは秩序であるという事実を理解すれば― 家を清潔に保つ責任があります 我々は皆この地球に住んでいます 英国の地球でも フランスやドイツの地球でもありません だが我々は分裂しました それが安全だと思ったからです
50:14 H: There is stability and security. 安定と安全があると。
50:16 K: Security. Which is no security at all. まったく安全ではありません
50:21 H: Well, it isn't clear, we have got to go slow, because I think that my job is security, I think that my family is security. よくわからないのですが― 仕事や家族は安全を保障してくれるものでは？
50:29 K: You may lose it. 失うかも
50:31 H: That problem keeps coming up. 問題が尽きませんね
50:32 K: There is great unemployment in America and in England, three million people unemployed in England. 多くの失業者が存在します 英国では300万人です
50:39 H: Or maybe I could get by without my job, but I need to think that I have some self respect. 仕事がなくても生きられますが 自尊心を持つ必要が…
50:45 K: What do you mean, self respect? 自尊心とは？
50:47 H: What I am trying to say is that there is some place at which I put an identification. つまり同一化する場所が どこかに必要なのです
50:52 K: Why should I want to identify with anything, sir? That makes immediate isolation. なぜ何かと同一化したいと思う必要が？ それはすぐに分離を生みます
51:04 H: For stability's sake. 安定を得るためです
51:08 K: Does isolation bring about stability? 分離が安定をもたらしますか？
51:12 H: It gives one a sense of something hard and firm. 安心感を与えてくれます
51:15 K: Does it? Has it? We have had for the last five thousand years nearly five thousands wars. Is that stability? 本当にそうですか？ 我々は過去５千年間に渡り戦争をしてきました 約５千回もですそれが安定ですか？
51:34 H: No. いいえ
51:35 K: Why don't we accept... I won't go into all that. What is wrong with us? 一体 我々は… 何が悪いのでしょうか？
51:41 H: Well, why don't we see this thing? You are saying that the root of the problem is that I continue to identify with one thing after another, if one doesn't work I just find something else. I don't stop identifying. では このことを調べてみましょう この問題の原因は― 何かに同一化することです 次から次へと
51:52 K: Yes, sir, which breeds isolation. その通りそれは分離を生み出します
51:56 H: But in your example about the person that is stuck in a rut, you say, 'I don't have to identify, I can just step back and look at this thing, and see if it is true'. しかし 型にはまっている人物の話では 同一化せずに事実かどうか観察すると あなたは言いました
52:07 K: Yes. その通り
52:08 H: So, you are suggesting that there is something that is not identified, something that is free to look. つまり同一化されずに 自由に観察できる何かがあるのです
52:15 K: No. This leads to something else. Why do I want to identify myself? Probably, basically, the desire to be secure, to be safe, to be protected. And that sense gives me strength. 論点がずれてきています なぜ同一化したいのでしょう？ 恐らく 安全を望んでいるからです 安心、保護を その感覚が強さを与えてくれます
52:37 H: Strength, and purpose, direction. 強さ、目的、方針を
52:40 K: It gives me strength.

H: Yes. 		強さをくれます
52:43 S: But this is a biological fact. It is not merely an illusion. And if we again, to come back to the animal kingdom, we see it there - deer go round in flocks, birds have flocks, bees have hives and they are identified with the hive in which they work. しかし同一化は錯覚ではありません 動物界を見れば生物学的な事実です シカも鳥もハチも群れを成していて 巣と同一化しています
52:58 K: But bees don't kill themselves, species don't kill themselves. しかしハチは自殺しません動物は自殺しません
53:04 S: Well, they kill other, they kill other bees that invade their hive. They don't commit suicide. They kill others. でも他のハチを殺しますよ 自殺はしませんが…
53:10 K: But we are! 人間は自殺します
53:12 S: Yes and no, bees do fight other bees that come into the hive. とにかくハチは他のハチと戦います
53:16 K: Of course. Yes, I know, I've raised bees, I know. もちろん知っています
53:19 S: So, we see even in the animal kingdom this identification with the group, in the social animals, and many social animals, and we are social animals. つまり動物界であっても社会生活を営む動物は 群れと同一化します それは我々も同じです
53:29 K: Just a minute. Agree. Are we by identifying ourselves with India, or China, or Germany, is that giving us security? 待ってください 我々は国と同一化します インド― 中国、ドイツ…それは我々に安全をくれますか？
53:43 S: To a limited extent it is.

K: A limited extent. 		ある程度はくれます
53:45 S: And by identifying ourselves with our families does, because this whole question of responsibility seems closely linked to it. If I identify myself with my family, feel duties towards them, protect - if my sister's insulted, I rush to her defence, and make a big fuss about it, and threaten, if not actually kill, the people who insulted her. そして家族と同一化することは 責任についてのあらゆる問題と 関係があります 家族と同一化するなら 家族に対して義務感を抱き― 妹が侮辱されていれば駆けつけて 侮辱した奴を脅します
54:07 K: We have no sisters.

S: Yes, fortunately not. 		幸運にも妹はいません
54:13 S: So, if I protect members of my family and defend, rush to their defence, so an insult to them or an attack on them is an insult to me, so I rush to their defence. つまり もし自分の家族を守るなら― 家族への侮辱は― 自分への侮辱です
54:24 K: Of course. もちろん
54:25 S: There is a reciprocal obligation on their part, if I fall ill or sick they'll feed me and look after me, if I get arrested by the police they will try and get me out of prison, and so on. So, it does give me a kind of security, it actually works. そこには相互義務があり 私が病気なら 家族が世話をし 警察に逮捕されても 救ってくれます 安全を与えてくれます
54:37 K: Of course. 確かに
54:39 S: And that is a very good reason for doing it, for most people. だから同一化するのでは？
54:41 K: But stretch it further from the family, to the community, from the community to the nation, and so on, that is a vast process of isolating. You are English, I am German, and we are at each other's throat. And I say, for god's sake, this is so damn stupid! しかし 家族からさらに地域へと拡大して 地域から国家となると それは分裂への大きな過程です 英国人、ドイツ人…そしてお互いに争います まったく本当にばからしい！
55:04 S: Well, it is not entirely stupid because it works to a certain extent.

K: This is most impractical. It may work, but it's impractical, it is killing each other. 		いえ そんなことは… ある程度は有効で… それは無益な殺し合いです
55:14 S: But we haven't killed each other yet, there are more human beings than there have ever been before. So the system so far has gone to the point where we are far from killing each other, we have actually got to the point where we have got a bigger population than the world has ever seen. So, the system works only too well, for some reason. まだ殺し合ってはいませんし かつてないほど人間がいることから その方法は 殺し合いとは 無縁という段階まで やってきました 実際にかつてない程の人口を抱えてます
55:33 K: So, you propose war to kill them off? だから戦争をして一掃しろと？
55:37 S: No! But there is some aspect of it that does work, and some security that is genuine that these things confer. まさか ともかく有効である局面があり ある程度の安全もある
55:46 K: Yes, sir. At a certain level, identification has a certain importance. Right? But at a higher level, if you can call it higher, it becomes dangerous. That's all we are saying. Of course, if you are my brother you look after me. ええ あるレベルにおいて同一化は― ある程度 重要です しかし高いレベルでは それは危険なことなのです 皆が言うように 兄弟がいれば世話を焼きますが…
56:08 B: It is very hard to draw the line, you see, that starts spreading out. 次第に拡大するので 境界線が難しいですね
56:13 K: That's right, spreading out.

B: You know, it slips. 		‐その通りです‐足を滑らせます
56:16 K: That's is what I am so objecting to. だから反対しているのです
56:19 S: But you see, the question is where do you draw the line, because if you are my brother, then you have the tribal, the clan, or in India, the caste. では どこで線を引きますか？ 兄弟がいれば 同族がいて 一族や階級があります
56:26 K: That's it. Extend it. And then we say, 'I am Argentine, you are British, he's French', economically, socially, culturally, we are murdering each other. And I say, that is so insane! そうです！拡大して！ そして“私はアルゼンチン人だ” “英国人だ、フランス人だ”と言って 経済的に 社会的に 文化的に殺し合うのです 非常にばかげています！
56:44 S: But where do you draw the line? If you say the nation state is wrong, then what is wrong with the tribe or the caste, then you have got conflict between those. We've got conflict between families.

K: I wouldn't draw the line. I say, I am responsible as a human being for what is happening in the world, because I am a human. And so what is happening in the world is this terrible division, and I won't be a Hindu, I won't be a Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist - nothing. If there were a hundred people or a thousand people like that they would begin to do something. 		では どこに一線を？ もし国民国家が間違いなら 部族、階級、家族に対して 矛盾が生じます 我々は人間として― 世界に責任があります 人間ですから そして世界ではひどい分裂が起きています 私はヒンズー教徒にも キリスト教徒にも仏教徒にもなりません 多くの人がそうなれば 何かが始まるはずです
57:26 H: So you are saying that the problem comes up, because I mistake my local security, I think that it rests in some local identification. つまり問題が起きるのは 自衛の方法を間違えて 同一化するからだと？
57:35 K: Yes, sir, which is isolation. And therefore in isolation there is no security. And therefore there is no order. ええ それは分離です そこに安全はありません 故に無秩序なのです