Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ82CNM3 - 安心の必要性
第３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 】
0:16 Part Three ～ 第３部 ～
0:19 The Need for Security ～ 安心の必要性 ～
0:29 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？
0:49 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 これら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
1:02 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. ディビッド・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
1:20 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
1:38 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
1:47 In the first two dialogues consideration has been given to the process of self identification. A range of subjects has been related to this process including the problem of suffering, the role of thinking and memory, images, and the uniqueness or commonality of consciousness. Can these processes be observed, and what is the relationship of observation to order, responsibility and change? Today's discussion focuses on the question: is there such a thing as absolute psychological security? 最初の２回の対話では― 次のことを考察しました 自己同一化の過程― 苦痛の問題― 思考と記憶の役割 イメージ そして意識の唯一性と共通性 これらの過程を観察できるのか？ 観察と秩序、責任、変容との関係とは？ 今回 重点的に取り組むのは 絶対的な安心感の有無についてです
2:21 H: We would like to talk about the question of whether there is a deep security, whether the self can be dissolved. You have suggested that if that's possible, then the problems that the individual brings to the office, the problems... 揺るぎない安心感はあるのでしょうか？ 自我をなくすことは可能でしょうか？ あなたは言いました もしそれが可能なら そのとき問題が…
2:41 K: Sir, why do we seek security, apart from physical? Apart from terrestrial security, why do we want security? なぜ安心感を求めるのです？身体の安全以外に 地球の安全以外に… なぜ安心を求めるのか
2:55 H: Well, we know moments of peace and happiness, and we want to stabilise that and hold that. 平穏な瞬間を知っていて それを確かなものにしたいのです
3:02 K: Then that becomes a memory. すぐ それは記憶になります
3:05 H: Yes.

K: Not actual security. A memory that one day you were happy, and I wish one could go back to it. Or you project an idea and a hope someday to achieve it. But why is it that human beings, probably throughout the world, seek security? What is the raison d'être, if I may put it, the demand for security? What makes people ask for security, psychologically? 		真の安心ではありません 幸せだったときの記憶があり その時に戻りたいと思います または観念を投影しいつか得たいと思います しかし なぜ恐らく世界中の人間が― 安心を求めているのか？その理由とは？ なぜ安心を必要とするのか？ なぜ心理的な安全を求めるのか？
3:44 H: Well, they're occupied, they're filled with their problems. There's the feeling that if I can solve the problem, if I can find out what the right answer is, if... 問題に占領されているからです もし問題を解決できれば もし答えが見つかれば…
3:58 K: That's not security, surely. There is great uncertainty, great sense of emptiness in oneself, loneliness. Really, loneliness - let's take that for an example. それは安心ではありません そこには大きな不確実性があり― 大きな虚無感、孤独感があります 本当の孤独…例を挙げてみましょう
4:21 H: OK. はい
4:23 K: I may be married, I may have children, and all the rest of it, but I still feel isolated, lonely. And it's frightening, depressing, and I realise it is isolating. After all, loneliness is the essence of isolation, in which I have no relationship with anybody. Is that one of the reasons why human beings seek security, this desire for security?

H: Yes, to fill that up. 		例えば 結婚して子供がいても― 依然として疎外感を抱き 孤独を感じます それは恐ろしく 憂鬱なことです そして私は孤立していることを実感します 結局 孤独とは分離の本質で 誰とも関係してないのです それが安心を求める理由の一つですか？ はい それを埋めるためです
5:01 K: Or much deeper than that. To be secure in my fulfilment, to be free of fear, free of my agony. I want to be free of all those, so that I can be completely secure, in peace and happiness. Is that what we want? もっと深い理由かも 自分の満足感を確保するため… 自分の恐怖、苦痛から解放されるため それらから解放されて完全な平穏と幸福を― 確保したいのです違いますか？
5:30 H: Yes.

K: Is that the reason why we seek? 		だから安心を求めるのでは？
5:33 H: And we want that to be stable over time. 長期にわたった安定を
5:37 K: Stable, permanent - if there is anything permanent. Is that the reason why we crave this, demand, crave for security? 変わらない安定…そんなものがあるとして― それが安心を切望する理由ですか？
5:50 H: Yes. はい
5:56 K: That means to be free from fear, and then I am totally secure. つまり 恐怖から解放されれば完全な安心感が得られるわけです
6:04 H: It feels like I have to be that way in order to function adequately. 適切に機能するために？
6:11 K: Function adequately comes later. 適切な機能は後で生じます
6:14 H: What do you mean? と言いますと？
6:16 K: If I am secure, I'll function.

H: Yes. 		安心なら 私は機能します
6:20 K: If I am very anchored in something which I think is false or true, I'll act according to those two principles. But is it that human beings are incapable of solving this deep-rooted fear - for example, I am taking fear - and they have not been able to solve it. 仮に 何が真で何が偽か強い固定観念を持っていれば― 私はその原則に従って行動します しかし 人間はこの根深い恐怖を 解決することができずにいて― 未だに解決していません
6:46 H: Yes, that's right.

K: Psychological fears. 		‐その通りです‐心理的な恐怖を
6:50 K: And to be free from that is to be so marvellously secure. なら それから解放されれば素晴らしく安心なはずです
6:59 H: You are saying that if we can solve these problems at a fundamental level. つまり 根本的に― 解決できるなら？
7:04 K: Otherwise what's the point, how can I be totally secure? でなければ完全な安心は得れません
7:07 H: Yes. はい…
7:12 K: So, is it the physical security, of bread, of shelter, food and clothes, spilling over to the psychological field? You understand what I mean? では 身体的な安全…衣食住といったものは― 心理的な領域に影響を及ぼしますか？ どうですか？
7:30 H: Do you mean, is that where the psychological feeling of the need for security comes from?

K: Yes, partly. One must have food, and clothes, and shelter. That's absolutely essential, otherwise you four wouldn't be sitting here.

H: Yes. 		つまり ある程度の安心感の欲求は そこからやって来ると？ 人は衣食住を必要とします それは不可欠なものです 絶対的に
7:48 K: In the search of that, psychologically also, I want to be equally secure. 衣食住を求めるうちに心理的にも同等の安全を― 欲するのでしょうか？
8:00 H: They seem to be equated. 結び付きがありそうです
8:02 K: Yes, I'm questioning whether it is so. ええ 実際にそうなのか？
8:06 H: Yes. ええ…
8:07 K: Or the psychological desire to be secure prevents physical security. あるいは安心感への欲求が身体的安全を妨げているのでしょうか？
8:24 H: It seems like the psychological desire to be secure arises out of the necessity to function in reality. 安心感への欲求は― 現実の中で機能するために生じるのでは？
8:32 K: I want to be psychologically secure. 私は心理的な安心感を得たいと思います
8:37 H: Yes. はい
8:39 K: So, I am attached to a group, a community, a nation. それで団体、社会、国家に所属します
8:43 H: Yes. はい
8:44 K: Which then prevents me from being secure. Security means long-lasting security. But if I identify myself, in my search for psychological security, and attach myself to a nation, that very isolation is going to destroy me.

H: Yes. 		そして それが安全を妨げるのです 『安全』とは長期的に持続する安全です しかし心理的な安心感の探求の中で― もし国と同一化するならばまさにその分離が― 私を破壊するのです
9:13 K: So, why do we seek this? なのに なぜ安心を求めるのか？
9:18 H: OK, then you're saying that there is a mistake, which is that we identify ourselves, attach ourselves to something and seek security in that, and that that's fundamentally wrong. つまり同一化や所属は 間違いであって そこに安心感を求めることは― 根本的に間違っていると…
9:30 K: Yes. No, not fundamentally. I won't say right or wrong. いえ 正しいとか間違っているとかでなく
9:34 H: OK.

K: I am asking why? Why do human beings do this? A fact which is right through the world, it's not just for certain communities - all human beings want to be so... unshakeable security. 		尋ねているのです 人間がそうする理由を 特定の地域だけでなく― 全世界がです 全人類が欲しているのです 揺るぎない安心を
9:56 H: Yes.

K: Why? 		なぜでしょう？
10:03 B: Well, I think that people have some answers. You see, if you say, there's a young child, or a baby, now, he feels the need to be loved by his parents, and it seems that at a certain stage the infant has the need for a kind of psychological security, which he should grow out of, perhaps, but since he isn't properly taken care of by his parents very often, he begins to feel lost, as you say, alone, isolated, and there arises the demand that he become inwardly secure. 理由はいくつかあります 例えば 幼い子供や幼児は― 両親に愛される必要性を感じていて― ある段階になると― ある種の安心感を必要とするようです しかし両親にあまり面倒を見てもらえなかったせいで 喪失感、孤立、分離を感じるようになり― そして 安心感への欲求が生じます
10:39 K: A baby must be secure. 幼児には安全が必要です
10:42 B: Yes, psychologically as well as physically, would you say? はい 心理的にも身体的にも
10:46 K: Yes, there must be. ええ 必要です
10:48 B: Now, at some stage you would say, that it would change. しかし成長とともに
10:51 K: Yes.

B: I don't know what age. 		それは変わります
10:53 K: Why… No, a certain age, a small baby, or a young child, it must be protected. 小さな幼児や幼い子供などは― 保護されなければなりません
11:01 B: In every way, psychologically.

K: Yes, psychologically... 		あらゆる点において
11:03 B: It must not be shocked psychologically. 心理的に
11:05 K: You protect it with affection, taking it in your lap, cuddling him or her, and holding his hand, you make him feel that he is loved, that he is cared for. That gives him a feeling - here is somebody, who is looking after me, and there is security here. 愛情を注ぎ 膝に乗せたり 抱きしめたり 手を握ることで 幼児は愛されていると感じます 面倒をみてくれる人がいて 安心だと感じるのです
11:22 B: Yes, and then I suppose, he will grow up not requiring that security. そして成長すると必要としなくなる
11:26 K: That's it. I am questioning, as he grows up, and as he faces the world, why does he crave for security? そうですなのに成長するにつれて― 世界に向き合うにつれてなぜ安心を切望するのか？
11:36 B: Well, I think very few children ever have that love to begin with. 最初に愛を得れなかったからでは？
11:40 K: Oh, that's it. So is that the problem? その通りですつまりそれが問題だと？
11:46 B: Well, I don't know, but that's one factor in there. まあ原因の一つでしょう
11:49 K: That we really don't love? And if one loves, there is no need for security. You don't even think about security. If I love you, not intellectually, not because you give me comfort, sex, or this, or that, if I really have this deep sense of love for another, what is the need for security? It's my responsibility to see that you are secure. But you don't demand it.

H: Yes. 		実際には愛がないから？ 本当に愛があれば 安心の必要性はありません 考えもしないでしょう 私が本当にあなたを愛していれば… 利己的な理由からではなく… 本当に深い愛情を誰かに持っているなら 安心が必要でしょうか？ 私の責任はあなたの安心を考えることで 求めたりしないはずです
12:42 K: But human beings do. And does that mean we don't love another? しかし人間は求めますということは― 他を愛していないのか？
12:53 H: Yes, it means that what we love is the... つまり我々が愛しているのは…
13:00 K: I love you because you give me something. 愛する理由は打算です
13:02 H: Yes. You make me feel like I'm going to get that security which I crave. はい 安心感を与えてくれるからだと
13:07 K: Yes. So, no, we are skirting around this. Why? Why do I want security, so that I feel completely content, without fear, without anxiety, without agony, and so on? Is fear the root of all this? そうです それで…率直に言って なぜなのでしょう？ なぜ安心を欲するのでしょう？十分な満足を感じるために 恐怖、不安、苦痛などを感じないように 恐怖が原因なのでしょうか？
13:37 H: Oh, we seem to have mentioned already several things that are the root of it. As the baby grows up and isn't loved, he feels the need for that, he remembers that, he tries to return to that, or get that as an adult, he's afraid because he's not protected, and as an adult he tries to get that protection. 既に言及された通り 成長過程で愛されなかった幼児は 安心感を必要としそれを覚えていて 大人になってから得ようとします 保護されなかったので 恐怖感があるからです
13:56 K: Or, sir, is it unconsciously we know that the self, the me, the ego is really totally unstable. もしくは無意識に― 知っているからでしょうか？自我、エゴとは― 非常に不安定なものであることを
14:14 H: You are saying that in its nature it's totally unstable? 本質的に不安定だと？
14:16 K: In its nature, unstable. And therefore, there is this anxiety for security, outside or inside. 本質的に不安定なので― それ故に 内にも外にも安全に対する不安があるのです
14:28 H: Why do you say it's totally unstable? なぜ非常に不安定だと？
14:30 K: Isn't it? Isn't our consciousness unstable? 違いますか？ 我々の意識は不安的ではありませんか？
14:38 H: It seems to have two sides to it. One side says that if I could just get such and such, I would be stable. しかし もし何かが手に入れば― 安定するかもしれません
14:46 K: Yes. And there is a contradiction to that. I may not be. そして そこには矛盾があります 安定しないかも
14:52 H: I may not be.

K: Yes, of course. 		安定しないかも？
14:54 H: I'm not yet, but I will be.

K: Will be. 		でも いずれ安定します
14:56 H: Yes. いいえ
14:58 K: No, much more fundamentally, is not this... the self itself in a state of movement, uncertainty, attached, fear in attachment - all that? That's a state of lack of stability. Therefore, I am asking, is that the reason that human beings unconsciously, knowing the instability of the self, want security - God, the saviour? もっと根本的に見て― この自我そのものが変動の状態にあるのではありませんか？ 不確実性、執着、執着することへの恐れ― それは安定が欠如した状態です ですから― 人間は無意識のうちに― 自我の不安定さを知っていて 安心を求めるのでしょうか？神や救世主などを…
15:43 H: Wanting something absolute. 絶対的なものを
15:45 K: Yes, completely... that'll give complete contentment. Because our consciousness is its content. Right?

H: Yes. 		ええ 完全な満足感を与えてくれるものを… 我々の意識とはその中身そのものです 違いますか？
16:09 K: And the content is always in contradiction. I believe...

H: That's right. 		そして その中身は常に矛盾しています 何かを信じる一方
16:14 K: ...and yet I'm frightened of not believing. 信じるのが怖いのです
16:19 H: That's why you're saying it's in essence unstable. だから不安定だと？
16:21 K: Obviously, it is unstable. So clearly unstable. I want this thing, and some other desire comes along and says, 'Don't have that, for god's sake'. There is this contradiction, there is duality, all that exists in our consciousness: fear, pleasure, fear of death, you know all the content of our consciousness - all that. So that is unstable. どう見ても不安定です明らかに不安定です 何かを欲しても反対の願望が現れて 矛盾を引き起こすのです そこには二重性、恐怖、快楽、死への恐怖があります 意識の中にある全てのものが… 我々の意識の中身はご存知でしょう だから不安定なのです
16:54 H: Now, sensing all of that, people generally say, 'This problem is too deep, or too complex, there's no way to solve it, we can maybe just make some adjustments'. それをわかっているから人はこう言うのです “この問題は複雑すぎて―” “手に負えない” “順応するしかない”と。
17:06 K: Yes, yes. And in that adjustment also there is lack of stability. So, unconsciously there must be craving for security. So, we invent God. しかし その順応の中にもまた安定の欠如があります だから無意識に安心を切望していて― 神を創り出したのです
17:22 H: We keep inventing lots of different things we hope will give us that security. 安心を与えてくれると― 思うものを…
17:26 K: We create God, he's our creation. We are not the creation of God, I wish we were. We would be totally different. So, there is this illusory desire for security. 神は我々の創造物です 神が我々を創ったのではなく… 逆なら良かったのですが… だから 安心への空虚な欲望があるのです
17:46 H: Wait a minute, why do you say that it's illusory? 空虚な欲望？
17:48 K: Because they invent something, in which they hope they'll be secure. 安心を求めて創作するからです
17:51 H: Oh, I see. Yes. なるほど
17:57 K: So, if the content of our consciousness can be changed - quotes, changed - would there be need for security? では もし意識の中身を変えることができるなら― 安心を必要とするでしょうか？
18:11 H: If we could eliminate all these contradictions? もし矛盾がなくなれば？
18:13 K: Yes, contradictions. ええ 矛盾がなければ…
18:15 H: Then maybe we would have the security, because our consciousness would be stable. 精神が安定して 安心が得れるかも
18:18 K: So that maybe… We may not call it security. To be secure, which is a really disgusting desire, sorry. To be secure in what? About what? Personally, I never thought about security. You might say, well, 'You are looked after, you are cared for by others', and all the rest of it, therefore there is no need for you to think about security, but I never - I don't want security. I need, of course, I need food, clothes and shelter, that's understood, somebody to... なら 安心を求めないかも 失礼ですが安心感とは実に嫌な欲望です 何に対して安心するというのでしょう？ 個人的に私は安心を求めたことがありません 安心を求める必要がない理由は 私の世話を周りの人が してくれるからではなく必要としないからです もちろん衣食住などは 必要ですが…
19:07 H: But we're talking about psychological security. 心理的な話をされている
19:09 K: Yes, I'm talking of much deeper issue. ええ より深い話です
19:13 H: And you're saying that that occurs because the contents of consciousness are no longer contradictory. 意識の矛盾がなくなれば 安心を求めなくなると？
19:19 K: Is there a consciousness... It may not be what we know as consciousness, it may be something totally different. All that we know is fear, reward and pleasure, and death, and constant conflict in relationship - I love you, but... その意識は― 我々が知っているものとは 全く違うものかもしれません 我々が知っているものと言えば恐怖、報酬、快楽― そして死― 人間関係の対立です“愛してる”とは言うものの…
19:46 H: Within limits.

K: Within limits. I don't know if that's called love. So, the content of consciousness is all that, which is me. My consciousness is me. In this complex, contradictory, dualistic existence, that very fact creates the demand for security. 		制限がある… それが愛と言えるのか… つまり意識の中身はそんな具合です それが私ですその意識が私自身なのです この複雑で矛盾していて二面性がある存在… まさにその現実が安心への要求を引き起こすのです
20:19 H: Yes. ええ
20:22 K: So, can we eliminate the self? では 自我を消せるでしょうか？
20:28 H: But we haven't - have we got into the self? It seems like there's somebody in there, in here, who's going to juggle all these things and get rid of the contradictions. 自我ですか？ まるで内側に誰かが居て何とか矛盾を― 消そうとしてるみたいです
20:37 K: But that means you are different from this, from consciousness. それは あなたが意識とは別物であるという意味です
20:44 H: Right. ええ…
20:46 K: But you are that! You are pleasure, you are fear, you are all belief - all that you are. I think we… don't please agree with what we are talking about, what I'm saying. It may be all tommyrot. しかし あなたが意識なのですあなたが恐怖、快楽― 信念でありすべてがあなたなのです どうか― 私の考えに同調しないでください すべて たわ言かも
21:09 H: I think there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree with that. I think that they would say that... ほとんどの人は 同調しないでしょう
21:13 K: I know there're a lot of people who wouldn't agree, because they haven't gone into it. They just want to brush all this aside. そうでしょうね 大抵の人は― 見向きもしません
21:18 H: Let's look at this. Is there a self that's separate, that's going to be able to somehow iron out these contradictions? つまり 別の自我があって それが矛盾を解消するのですか？
21:24 K: No! まさか！
21:26 S: But how do you know? I mean, it seems to me that there is a... at least, it may be illusory, but it's very easy to think that one is separate from some of these problems, and that there's something inside one which can make decisions. しかし 錯覚かもしれませんが― 我々は問題とは別の存在で 自分の中の何かが 決断をしているように感じます
21:42 K: Doctor, am I separate from my fear? Am I separate from the agony I go through? The depression? 私は自分の恐怖と別物ですか？ 私は自分の苦痛、絶望から切り離された存在ですか？
21:53 S: Well, I think that there's something within one, which can examine these things, and that's why it indicates there is some kind of separation. 自分の中の何かが それらを観察できることが 別物である証拠です
22:00 K: Because there is the observer separate from the observed. つまり観察者は観察されるものとは別の存在だと？
22:07 S: Yes.

K: Is that so? 		‐はい‐そうでしょうか？
22:10 S: Well, it seems to be so.

K: It seems to be so! 		しかし そう思えます
22:12 S: Now, this seems to be the problem, that it does seem to be so. I mean, in my own experience, of course, and many other people's, it does indeed seem that there is an observer observing things like fear and one's own reactions. And it comes out most clearly, I find, in insomnia, if one's trying to sleep, there's one part of one which, say, is just going on with silly worries and ridiculous thoughts, round and round', there's another part of one that says, 'I really want to sleep, I wish I could stop all these silly thoughts'. And there one has this actual experience of an apparent separation.

K: Yes. Of course, of course. 		そう思えるから問題なのです 私の実体験や他の人の体験によると― 実際に観察者がいるみたいに 自分の恐怖や反応などを観察しているんです 例えば 不眠症者の場合― 自分の中の一部分が グルグルと考え事をしていて 他の一部分は― 寝たがっているんです ですから我々は実際に 分離を体験しています
22:48 S: So, this isn't just a theory, it's an actual fact of experience that there is this kind of separation. つまり これは持論などではなく― 事実です
22:54 K: I agree, I agree. But why does that division exist? 同感です だが なぜ分裂が存在するのか？
23:05 S: Well, this is a good...

K: Who created the division? 		誰が生み出したのか？
23:11 S: It may just be a fact. 事実である可能性も…
23:14 K: What may? 何です？
23:16 S: It may just be a fact.

K: Is that so? I want to examine it. 		‐事実かも…‐では確かめましょう
23:19 S: Yes, so do I. I mean, is it indeed a fact that consciousness, as it were, has levels, some of which can examine others, one at a time? ええ つまり意識にレベルがあって― あるレベルが 他のレベルを 観察してるんですか？
23:29 K: No. Would you kindly consider, is fear different from me? I may act upon fear, I may say, 'I must suppress it, I may rationalise it, I might transcend it', but the fear is me. 考えて下さい恐怖と私は別のものですか？ 私は恐怖に取り組み恐怖を抑圧し 合理化し乗り越えるかもしれませんが恐怖は私なのです
23:46 S: Well, we often...

K: I only invent the separation where I want to act upon it. But otherwise I am fear. 		恐怖に取り組もうとするときのみ 分裂を生み出すのです しかし私が恐怖なのです
24:01 S: The common and ordinary way of analysing it would be to say 'I feel afraid' as if the afraidness was separate from the I. I want to get out of this state of feeling afraid, so I want to escape from it, leaving the fear behind, and the I will pass beyond it and somehow escape it. This is the normal way we think.

K: I know. 		普通に分析すれば― 恐怖とは感じるもので自分とは別のものです 恐怖を感じたくないので そこから抜け出そうとし 何とか乗り越えて逃れるものです これが普通の考え方です
24:20 S: So, what's wrong with that? その何が悪いのです？
24:23 K: You keep up this conflict. 葛藤を持続させます
24:26 B: But I think, he is saying it may be inevitable. 彼はそれが必然だと言ってるんです
24:29 S: It may be inevitable, you see.

K: I question it. 		‐必然かもしれません‐本当に？
24:32 B: Well... How do you propose to show it's not inevitable? では なぜ必然ではないと思うのですか？
24:38 K: First of all, when there is anger, at the moment of anger there is no separation. Right? まず第一に 怒りがあるとき怒りの瞬間は― 分裂がありません 違いますか？
24:50 S: When you're very angry...

K: Of course. 		非常に怒っているときは
24:53 S: ...what we normally say is you lose control of yourself, and the separation disappears, you become the anger, yes. 我を忘れてしまい 怒りそのものになります
24:59 K: At the moment when you are really angry, there is no separation. The separation only takes place after. 'I have been angry'. Right? Now, why? Why does this separation take place? その瞬間 そこに分裂はありません 分裂は後から生じます “私は腹を立てている”と。 さて なぜこの分裂は起こるのか？
25:19 S: Through memory. 記憶によって
25:21 K: Through memory, right. Because I have been angry before. So, the past is evaluating, the past is recognising it. So, the past is the observer. ええ 以前怒ったことがあるからです つまり 過去が審査をしていて― 過去が認識するのです つまり過去が観察者なのです
25:40 B: That may not be obvious. For example, I may have physical reactions that go out of control, like sometimes the hand or the body, and I say, 'I am observing those physical reactions going out of control and I'd like to bring them back in'. I think somebody might feel the same way, that his mental reactions are going out of control, and that they have momentarily escaped his control, and he's trying to bring them back in. Now, that's the way it may look or feel to many people. 明白でないかもしれません 例えば 制御できない体の反応があり 手や体などの… 私はそういった身体反応を見て 元に戻したいと思います それと同じように― 心の反応が制御不能になり 一瞬 制御から外れてしまい 元に戻そうとするのです 多くの人にはそう映っているかもしれないのです
26:14 K: So what? それで…？
26:17 B: Well, then it is not clear. Have we made it clear that that is not the case? ですから明白ではありません この場合はどうなんですか？
26:23 K: Sir, I am trying to point out, and I don't know if I made myself clear: when one is frightened, actually, there's no me separate from fear. 私が指摘してることが 明白でないようですが 人が本当に驚いたとき― 自己は恐怖から分離しません
26:43 K: When there is a time interval, there is the division. And time interval, time is thought. And when thought comes in, then begins the division. Because thought is memory, the past. 時間の隔たりがあるとき分裂が生じるのです 時間の隔たりとは思考です 思考が入り込むとき 分裂が始まるのです なぜなら思考は記憶であり― 過去だからです
27:13 S: Thought involves memory - yes. 思考は記憶を伴います
27:15 K: Yes, involves memory, and so on. So, thought, memory, knowledge, is the past. So, the past is the observer who says, 'I am different from fear, I must control it'. ええ その他のものも つまり思考、記憶、知識とは過去のものです したがって過去が観察者なのです それが分裂を生み 制御するのです
27:39 H: Let's go through this very slowly, because it's seems like the experience is that the observer is the present. It seems like he's saying, 'I'm here now, and what am I going to do about this the next time it comes up'. ゆっくり行きましょう 観察者とは現在であるように思えます 過去から未来を予測し 今ここで心配しているのでは？
27:52 K: Yes. But the 'what am I going to do about it' is the response of the past, because you have already had that kind of experience. Sir, haven't you had fear?

H: Surely. 		しかし その心配は過去からの反応です そんな経験を以前したことがあるからです ‐恐怖を感じたことがありますか？‐もちろん
28:12 K: Deep, you know, something, a fear that has really shaken… 本当に身震いするような衝撃的な恐怖を―
28:17 H: Yes.

K: ...devastating one. 		体験したことが？
28:20 H: Yes. はい
28:21 K: And at that second there is no division, you are entirely consumed by that. そして その瞬間 そこに分裂はなく― あなたは恐怖で一杯になります
28:30 H: Yes. はい
28:33 K: Right?

H: Right. 		その通りです
28:35 K: Now, then thought comes along and says, 'I've been afraid because of this and because of that, now I must defend myself, rationalise fear' and so on, so on, so on. It's so obvious. What are we discussing?

H: OK. 		それから思考がやって来て“私は怖がっている―” “これこれの理由で…私は己を守らなければ” と言って恐怖を合理化するのです 議論するまでもありません
28:54 B: I think, coming back again to the physical reaction, which can also consume you, and at the next moment you say, 'I didn't notice it at the time' thought comes in and says, 'That's a physical reaction'. 体の反応の話に戻りますが それもまた あなたを圧倒しますそして次の瞬間― 思考がやって来て “これは体の反応だ”
29:06 K: Yes.

B: Now I know it, what is the difference of these two cases, that in the second case it would make sense to say, 'I know that I have reacted this way before', right? I can take such and such an action. 		と気づくわけです 心の反応と同じことが この場合も言えるのでは？ 以前 同じ反応をしたので 対策が取れるわけです
29:22 K: I don't quite follow this. 何の話かわかりません
29:24 B: Somebody can feel that it's true, I get overwhelmed by a reaction, and thought comes in. But in many areas that's the normal procedure for thought to come in. If something shattering happens, and then a moment later you think, what was it? Right?

K: Yes. In some cases that would be correct, right? 		反応に圧倒されてから思考が入り込むわけですが さまざまな面において それは正常な流れです 衝撃的なことが起きて少ししてから― “何だろう”と思うわけです 場合によっては
29:45 K: Quite right. そうです
29:47 B: Now, why is it in this case it is not? なら 体の反応も同じでは？
29:49 K: Ah, I see what you mean. Answer it, sir, you are… Answer it. You meet a rattler on a walk.

B: Yes. 		なるほど！ どなたか回答を… 散歩中にガラガラヘビに出くわしたとします
30:08 K: Which I have done very often. You meet a rattler, it rattles, and you jump. That is physical, self-protective intelligent response. That's not fear. あなたはガラガラヘビを見て― 飛び上がります それは身体の自己防衛であり― 理にかなった反応です 恐怖ではありません
30:35 B: Right. Not psychological fear.

K: What? 		心理的な恐怖ではないと？
30:39 B: It has been called a kind of fear. それも恐怖では？
30:41 K: I know, I don't call that psychological fear. 恐怖ではありません
30:43 B: No, it's not psychological fear, it's a simple physical reaction... 単なる身体の反応に過ぎないと？
30:47 K: Physical reaction...

B: ...of danger. 		身体の反応であり―
30:49 K: ...which is an intelligent reaction not to be bitten by the rattler. ヘビに噛まれないための理にかなった反応です
30:55 B: Yes, but a moment later I can say, 'I know that's rattler' or it's not a rattler, I may discover it's not a rattler, it's another snake which is not so dangerous. しかし数秒後に そのヘビの正体が ガラガラヘビではないと 気づくかもしれません
31:03 K: No, not so dangerous, then I pass it by. それなら そのまま通り過ぎます
31:07 B: But then thought comes in and it's perfectly all right. 思考がやって来ても問題ないと？
31:10 K: Yes.

B: Right? 		ええ
31:12 K: Yes. ええ
31:14 B: But here, when I am angry or frightened... しかし怒ったり怖がる場合は―
31:17 K: Then thought comes in.

B: And it's not all right. 		思考が入り込むことは―
31:20 K: It's not all right.

B: Yes. 		問題です
31:22 K: Oh, I see what you are trying to get at. Why do I say it is not all right? Because fear is devastating, it blocks one's mind, thought, and all the rest of it, one shrinks in that fear. やっと質問がわかりました なぜ問題なのか？ なぜなら恐怖は破壊的です 心や思考などを制約します 我々を萎縮させます
31:44 B: Yes, I think I see that. You mean that possibly that when thought comes in, it cannot possibly come in rationally in the midst of fear, right?

K: Yes. 		ええ わかります 恐怖の真っただ中では― 合理的に考えられません
31:53 B: Is that what you mean?

K: That's what I'm trying to say. 		そうですよね？
31:55 B: So, in the case of physical danger, it could still come in rationally. 身の危険の場合は合理的です
31:58 K: Yes. Here it becomes irrational.

B: Yes. 		恐怖の中では不合理になります
32:01 K: Why, I am asking, why? Why doesn't one clear up all this awful mess? お聞きしますが― なぜ我々はこのひどい混乱を解消しないのか？
32:17 H: Well, it isn't clear. いや それは…
32:19 K: Look, sir, it is a messy consciousness. いいですか我々の意識は混乱しています
32:24 H: Yes, it's a messy consciousness. ええ 混乱してます
32:25 K: Messy consciousness, contradicting... 混乱し 矛盾してます
32:28 H: Yes. ええ
32:29 K: …frightened, so many fears, and so on, it's a messy consciousness. Now, why can't we clear it up? 多くの恐怖を抱いて混乱しています なぜこれを解消しないのか？
32:39 H: Well, it seems we are always trying to clear it up after the fact. 常にしようとはしています
32:42 K: No, I think the difficulty lies, we don't recognise deeply this messy consciousness is me. And if it is me, I can't do anything! I don't know if you get the point. いえ 問題があるのです我々は心から認識しません “この混乱した意識が私である”と。 それが私なら私は何もできません お分かりになりますか？
33:05 S: You mean we think that there's a me separate from this messy consciousness. つまり自分と意識を 別物だと思っていると？
33:10 K: We think we are separate. And therefore we are accustomed, it is our conditioning, to act upon it. But I can't very well do that with all this messy consciousness which is me. So, the problem then arises, what is action? We are accustomed to act upon the messy consciousness. When there is realisation of the fact that I can't act, because I am that. 別物だと思っているからこそ― 常にそれに取り組むのです しかし解消できないのは 混乱した意識が私だからです では どうすればいいのか？ 我々は常に取り組みます 混乱した意識に。 自分が意識だと理解すれば 取り組むことはできません
33:53 H: Then what is action?

K: That is non-action. 		‐では どうすれば？‐何もしない事です
33:58 H: OK. なるほど
34:00 K: Ah, that's not OK, that is the total difference. それが まったく違う点です
34:04 H: Yes, I think I understand. On the one hand there's the action of consciousness on itself which just perpetuates things. And seeing that, then it ceases to act. ええ 意識そのものに対する― 意識の取り組みが問題であることを 理解すれば それは止みます
34:19 K: It's not non-violence. Sorry. それは非暴力とは違います
34:22 S: Sorry, sir, you're saying that normally we have the idea that there's a self which is somehow separate from some of the contents of our messy consciousness. 失礼します つまり我々はこの混乱した意識とは 別個の存在であると 考えていますが―
34:31 K: That's right, that's right, sir. その通り
34:32 S: If someone tells us we're wonderful, we don't want to be separate from that, but if we feel afraid and if somebody tells we're awful, we do want to be separate from that. 称賛されるときは 分離しません しかし― 悪口を言われると 切り離そうとします
34:40 K: Quite. つまり―
34:41 S: So, it's rather selective. But nevertheless we do feel there's something in us which is separate from the contents of this messy consciousness. We normally act in such a way as to change either the contents of the consciousness, or our relation to them, or our relation to the world, and so on. But we don't normally examine this apparent separation between the self, the me, and the contents of the messy consciousness. That's something we don't challenge. Now, you're suggesting that in fact, this separation, which we can actually experience and do, most of us do experience, is in fact something we ought to challenge and look at, and we ought to face the idea that we actually are the messy consciousness and nothing other.

K: Of course. It's so obvious. 		かなり選択的であるに関わらず 混乱した意識とは別の何かが― 自分の中にあると感じていて― 我々は普通意識の内容を変えようとするか 人や世界との関係を変えようとします けど 分離のことは調べません 自我と意識の間にあるこの分裂… 我々はそれに疑問を持ちません さて 我々が実際に経験するこの分離… 大抵の人は経験するわけですが 実は それが疑問を持つべきことで 混乱した意識が自分だと 我々は直視するべきなのです 明白なことです！
35:32 S: Well, it isn't obvious, it's very non-obvious, and it's a very difficult thing to realise, because one's very much in the habit of thinking one is separate from it. 明白ではありませんし 自覚しにくいことです 普通 そのようには考えません
35:39 K: So, it's our conditioning, can we move away from our conditioning? Our conditioning is me. And then I act upon that conditioning, separating myself. But if I am that... no action, which is the most positive action. では― その条件付けから脱皮できるでしょうか？ その条件付けが私なのです 分離し その条件付けに取り組みます しかし それが私なら― 取り組まないことが最も建設的です
36:07 H: The way that that would be heard, I'm afraid, is that if I don't act on it it's just going to stay the way it is. 条件付けに取り組まないなら― 何も変わらないのでは？
36:13 K: Ah! ああ！
36:16 S: You're suggesting that by recognising this, there's a sort of the process of recognising it, facing up to... つまり それを認めることによって 向き合うことが…
36:23 K: It's not facing up. Who is to face up? Not recognise. Who is to recognise it? You see, we are always thinking in those terms. I am that, full stop. We never come to that realisation, totally. There is some part of me which is clear, and that clarity is going to act upon that which is not clear. Always this goes on. 向き合う？誰が向き合うのです？認める？ 誰が認めるのです？我々の観点は常にこうです “私はそれである” 我々は決して理解しないのです 完全に “私の中に明晰な部分がありそれが明晰でない部分に―” “取り組もうとしている” 常にこの調子です
37:02 S: Yes.

K: I am saying, the whole content of one's consciousness is unclear, messy. There is no part of it that's clear. We think there is a part, which is the observer, separating himself from the mess. So, the observer is the observed. Gurus, and all that. 		‐ええ‐しかし実際には― 我々の意識の中身すべてが曖昧で混乱していて 澄んでいる部分がないのです 我々はあると思っている 混乱していない観察者である部分が。 観察者が観察されるものなのです 教祖なども…
37:38 B: You were raising the question of action. If that is the case, how is action to take place? もしそうだとしたら どのように取り組むのですか？
37:53 K: When there is perception of that which is true, that very truth is sufficient, it is finished. 事実を理解するなら― まさにその事実で十分です
38:00 B: Yes. You have said also, for example, that that mess itself realises its own messiness, right?

K: Yes. Messiness, it's finished. 		その混乱したものが― 自分の混乱を理解すれば… ええ それで片付きます
38:13 S: Sir, are you suggesting, the realisation of the messiness itself in some way dissolves the messiness? 混乱したものが己の混乱を理解すれば 混乱を解消できると？
38:19 K: Yes. Not a separative realisation that I am messy. The fact is consciousness is messy, full stop. And I can't act upon it. Because previously acting upon it was a wastage of energy. Because I never solved it. I have struggled, I have taken vows, I have done all kinds of things to resolve this messy stuff. And it has never been cleared. It may partially, occasionally... ええ “私は混乱している”といった分離性の理解ではありません 意識が混乱しているのです 取り組むことはできません 混乱した意識に取り組むのはエネルギーの浪費です それでは解消されません この混乱をなくすために 必死に努力し修道会にさえ入りました けど解消されてません ある程度しか…
39:04 H: Well, I think that's another aspect of this. In therapy, or in our own lives, we seem to have insights that are partial, that we clear up a particular problem and gain some clarity and order for a time. And then the thing returns in some other form or...

K: Yes, yes. 		それがもう一つの側面だと思います どうやら我々にはある程度の知恵があるようで 特定の問題を解決し明晰さと秩序を得ます しかし しばらくすると― 問題は形を変えて 戻ってきます
39:26 H: ...the same form. You're suggesting that the thing needs to be done across the board in some way.

K: You see, sir, before, the observer acted upon it, upon the messy consciousness. Right?

H: Yes. 		または同じ形で つまり全体的に― 何とかしなければ… 観察者が混乱した意識に― 取り組む前にです はい
39:44 K: Saying, 'I'll clear this up, give me time', all the rest of it. And that's a wastage of energy.

H: Right. 		“時間があればいずれ解決するだろう” それはエネルギーの浪費です
39:55 K: When the fact that you are that - you are not wasting energy. Which is attention. I don't know if you want to go into this. 事実を理解するときエネルギーの浪費は起こりません つまり注意を払うことです
40:09 S: No, this is very interesting. Please do. 非常に興味深い話です
40:16 K: Would we agree that acting upon it is a wastage of energy? 混乱した意識に取り組むことはエネルギーの浪費だと思いませんか？
40:25 H: Yes. This creates more disorder. ええ さらに無秩序を生み出します
40:29 K: No. It creates more disorder, and there is this constant conflict between me and the not me. The me who is the observer, and I battle with it, control it, suppress it, anxious, worry, you follow? Which is all essentially wastage of energy. Whereas, this messy consciousness is me. I have come to realise that through attention. Not 'I have come to realise', sorry.

B: Would you say that the consciousness itself has come to realise it? 		さらに無秩序を生んで 私と私でないものの間に対立を引き起こします “私”とは観察者です 私は 混乱した意識と戦い制御し抑圧し 不安になり心配します 本質的にすべてエネルギーの浪費です ところが この混乱した意識が私自身なのです 注意を払うことで私は理解に至ります ‐“私”ではなく… ‐つまり意識自体が― 理解に至るということですか？
41:17 K: Yes.

B: I mean, it's not me, right? 		“私”ではなく
41:19 K: Yes. Which is total attention I am giving to this consciousness, not 'I am' - there is attention and inattention. Inattention is wastage of energy. Attention is energy. When there is observation that consciousness is messy, that fact can only exist when there is total attention. And when there is total attention, it doesn't exist any more confusion. It's only inattention that creates the problems. Refute it! その通り つまり完全な注意を意識に払うことです “私が”ではなく…注意と不注意があります 不注意はエネルギーの浪費です 注意はエネルギーです 意識が混乱していることの観察があるとき― 完全な注意があるときのみその事実が現れるのです そして完全な注意があるときもう混乱は存在しません 不注意が問題を生み出すのです 反論してください
42:15 S: But, sir, I didn't understand entirely... This total attention that you're talking about would only be able to have this effect if it somehow was something completely in the present and devoid of memory. よくわかりません つまり完全な注意とは 今この瞬間にあって 全く回想しない― ということですか？
42:27 K: Of course, of course, attention is that. If I attend to what you have said just now, - devoid of memory, which is attention - I listen to you not only with the sensual ear, but with the other ear, which is: I am giving my whole attention to find out what you are saying, which is actually in the present. In attention there is no centre. 注意とはそういうものです 私があなたに注意を払うならば― 回想することなく… 感覚器である耳を使って聞くだけでなく 別の耳をもって聞きますつまり― あなたが言っていることにすべての注意を向けます 実際に この瞬間に そこに中心はありません
43:14 S: Because the attention and the thing attended to become one, you mean. You mean there's no centre in the attention, because the attention is all there is, the thing attended to and the attention is all there is. 注意と注意されるものが 一つになるからですか？ 注意の中に中心がない理由は そこにあるものが― 注意だけだからですか？
43:27 K: Ah, no, no. There is messiness, because I have been inattentive. Right?

S: Yes. 		いいえ 混乱がある理由は私が不注意だからです そうでしょう？
43:38 K: When there is the observation of the fact that the observer is the observed, and that state of observation, in which there is no observer as the past, that is attention. Sir, I don't know if you have gone into the question of meditation here. That's another subject. “観察者は観察されるものである”という事実― その観察があるとき― その状態の中に 観察者は存在しませんそれが注意です ところで瞑想について 論じたことはありますか？
44:08 H: That may be a relevant subject. It seems that what you're talking about may happen partially. 関連がありそうですね あなたが言っている事はある程度起こり得ると思います
44:16 K: Ah! It can't happen, then you keep partial mess and partial not mess. We're back again to the same position. 起き得ません　ある程度の混乱と非混乱を保持するなら― 同じ状況に逆戻りです
44:26 H: Yes. なるほど
44:28 S: But do you think this kind of attention you're talking about is the sort of thing that many people experience occasionally in moments of great beauty, or occasionally a piece of music they're really enjoying, they lose themselves, and so on? Do you think that many of us have glimpses of this in these kinds of experiences? しかし あなたが言う注意とは 素晴らしい美しさや音楽の中で 多くの人が時々経験するもので 我を忘れてしまうようなことでは？ このような経験の中で― 垣間見るものでは？
44:46 K: That's it. That's it. When I see a mountain, the majesty, the dignity and the depth of it drives away myself. A child with a toy, the toy absorbs him. The mountain has absorbed me, toy has absorbed the child. I say, that means there is something outside, which will absorb me, which will make me peaceful. Which means an outside agency that'll keep me quiet - God, prayer, looking up to something or other. If I reject an outside agency completely, nothing can absorb me. Let's say, if you absorb me, when you are gone I am back to myself. その通りです例えば 山を見るとき― その威厳、その深みが我を忘れさせます おもちゃは子供を没頭させます 山は私を没頭させ おもちゃは子供を没頭させました つまり外側に何かがあるということです 我を忘れさせるものが 私を穏やかにするものが つまり外部の媒体が私を静寂にするのです 神や祈りの言葉、崇拝している物事などが もし私が外部の媒体を完全に拒絶するならば 何にも没頭されなければ… 例えば 何かに没頭してもそれが消えれば 我に返ります
45:50 H: Yes. ええ
45:52 K: So, I discard any sense of external agency which will absorb me. So I am left with myself, that's my point. つまり 私を没頭させる外部の媒体を 捨ててしまえば 元の自分に戻ってしまうのです
46:02 H: I see. So you're suggesting that when this happens partially it's because we're depending on something. なるほど つまりある程度しか起こらないのは 依存してるからだと…
46:08 K: Yes, of course.

H: I see. 		その通りです
46:11 K: It's like my depending on my wife.

H: Or my therapist, or my problem. 		‐妻に依存するように‐またはセラピーなどに…
46:16 K: Something or other.

H: Yes. 		様々なものに
46:17 K: Like a Hindu, Catholic, or anybody, they depend on something. Therefore dependence demands attachment. ヒンズー教やカトリックなどに依存します ゆえに依存が執着を求めるのです
46:29 H: Now, it's possible to listen to you say this, and have the idea of what you are talking about, and try and do that. これでやっとあなたが言ってることを 実践できます
46:36 K: Ah, you can't do it! That means you are acting again. You want something out of it. In exchange, I'll give you this, you give me that. That's just a trade. Here it's not like that, you are enquiring into something which demands a great deal of thought, great deal of intelligence, and attention that says, 'Look, why is there this division, this mess in the world?' Because our consciousness is messy and so the world is messy. So, from that arises, is it possible to be free of the self? Consciousness, the messy consciousness, is the self. できませんあなたはまた行為してます そこから何かを得ることを期待しています それではただの取り引きに過ぎません そうではなくあなたが調べていることは 多大な考察を必要とし 多大な知力と注意力を 必要とすることなのです なぜ世界は分裂、混乱してるのか それは我々の意識が混乱しているからです そこで質問が生じます自我をなくすことは可能でしょうか？ この混乱した意識を
47:38 S: It is not possible to be free from the contents of consciousness, different experiences, as long as my eyes are open, I'm looking, I see all sorts of different things. Now, what you were saying about the attention, when one's looking at a mountain, for example, are you suggesting that if I have that same kind of attention to everything I experience, that then this is the... 意識の中身、さまざまな経験を なくすことはできません 私の目が開いている限り それで先程 注意についての話で 人が山を見るときの話が出ましたが もし同じような注意を― 私が経験する全てのことに向けるなら…
48:03 K: You see, again, you experience. ほら また！“私が経験する”
48:06 S: Yes, well, all right, but...

K: But you are the experience. 		‐ええ でも…‐あなたがその経験なのです
48:11 S: Yes. はい…
48:13 K: Right? That means, there is no experience. そうでしょう？つまり そこに経験はありません
48:21 S: There's just attention, you mean. あるのは注意だけだと？
48:28 K: Experience involves remembrance, time, which is the past. Therefore the experiencer is the experienced. If I seek illumination, enlightenment, or whatever you might like to call it, I am then trying to do all kinds of things to achieve that. But I don't know what illumination is. I don't know. Not because you said it, or Buddha said it, or somebody else said it, I don't know. But I am going to find out. Which means the mind must be totally free - from prejudice, from fear, all the rest of that messy business. So, my concern is not illumination, but whether the content of my consciousness can be cleansed - whatever word you use. That's my concern - not concern, that's my enquiry. And as long as I am separate from my consciousness I can experience it, I can analyse it, I can tear it to pieces, act upon it, which means perpetual conflict between me and my consciousness. I wonder why we accept all this. Why do I accept that I am a Hindu? Why do I accept that I am a Catholic? You follow?

S: Yes. 		経験は記憶をともないます 時間も…つまり過去です 故に経験者が経験されるものなのです もし啓発を求めているなら もし悟りを求めているなら― あらゆることをして得ようとするでしょう しかし悟りがどんなものか知りません 悟りについて話を聞いたことはあっても 知らないものを探しているのです ならば 心は完全に自由でなくてはなりません 先入観、恐怖、混乱などから ですから私の関心事は悟りではなく 意識の中身を― 取り除くことです それが私の探求すべきことです 自分と意識を分離している限り 私はそれを経験し 分析し 取り組みます それは私と意識の絶え間ない葛藤を意味します なぜ これらを受容しているのでしょう？ なぜ ヒンズー教徒であることを カトリックであることを 受容するのか？
50:26 K: Why do we accept what other people say? なぜ人が言う事を受容するのか？
50:30 H: We say it ourselves. 自分でも言います
50:33 K: Yes. No, not only we say it ourselves, but it's encouraged, sustained, nourished by people outside. Why? Why do we accept? He is a professor and he is teaching me, I accept that. Because he knows biology much more than I do, I go to his class, and I am being informed by what he says. But he's not my guru, he's not my behaviour guide. He is giving me information about biology, and I am interested in it. I want to study it, I want to go out into the field and do all kinds of stuff. But why do we accept authority, psychological authority, spiritual - quote spiritual - authority? Again, we come back to security. I don't know what to do, but you know better than I do; you are my guru. I refuse that position. いえ 自分で言うだけでなく 外部の人々によって 助長し 断続するです なぜ受容するのでしょう？ 生物学の勉強であれば私は教授を受容します 私よりも知識があるので授業に行き 彼の話に耳を傾けます しかし彼は私の教祖でも指導者でもありません 彼は生物学に関する情報を与えてくれ 私は勉強し 現場に出て したいことがあるのです しかし なぜ我々は― 精神的な権威を― 霊的な権威を受容するのか？ またしても安心の問題です どうするべきか分からないので 教祖に頼るのです 私はその立場を拒絶します
51:44 S: But don't we arrive at the same set of problems, if we start not from authority but from responsibility; say, I'm a father, I have this child, we've agreed some time ago... しかし それが権威ではなく 責任だとしても同じ問題に辿り着くのでは？ 例えば私が父親で― 子供がいるなら…
51:57 K: You have to instruct it, of course. 指導が必要です
51:59 S: You have to look after this baby.

K: Of course, of course. 		世話が必要ですよね
52:01 S: Fine. But now, in order to feed the baby you become preoccupied with security, job, tenure, you know, house... そして安全のことで頭が一杯になります 子供を養うために…
52:08 K: Of course, of course.

S: ...protecting the house against marauders, and so on.

K: Of course, of course. 		仕事のことや 家のことなどで
52:12 S: Then you get into the same lot of things about preoccupation with security, starting not from authority but from responsibility for others, for children, for example. その結果 権威からでなく 責任から 安全などに執着します 他人や子供のために
52:21 K: Of course. 確かに
52:23 S: So, then what is the answer to that? It's easy to say you should reject responsibility. では どうなんですか？ 責任を拒絶しろと？
52:28 K: Of course, I have money, if I earn money, job, so on, I have to look after myself. If I have servants, I have to look after servants, my children, perhaps their children too. I am responsible for all that.

S: Yes. 		もし私がお金を稼いでいるなら― 自分自身の面倒や 使用人や子供の面倒 恐らく彼らの子供のことも 私には責任があります
52:44 K: Physically I am responsible. To give them food, to give them the right amount of money, allow their children go to a proper school, like my children - I am responsible for all that. 物理的な責任があります 食事や賃金を与え 子供をきちんとした学校に行かせたり すべて私の責任です
52:59 S: But isn't that going to bring you back to the same position of insecurity, and so on, that you were trying to dissolve by this rejection of authority? でも それでは不安定な状況に 引き戻されてしまうのでは？ あなたは権威を拒絶していたはずです
53:14 K: I don't see why I need spiritual or psychological authority. Because if I know how to read myself, I don't need anybody to tell me. But we have never attempted deeply to read the book of myself. I come to you and say, 'Please, help me to read.' And then the whole thing is lost. なぜ霊的、精神的な権威が必要なのか理解できません もし自分で文字が読めれば 誰の助けもいりません しかし『自分』という本を本当に読もうとしたことがないので 誰かに助けを請うのです そして全てを見失います
53:43 H: But I think what Rupert is asking is that if we start by assuming responsibility for other people, that entails...

K: What? My earning capacity? 		しかし彼が聞いているのは もし他の人々に対して責任を負うのであれば― ‐それに必要なのは…‐収益力ですか？
53:59 H: Which must be secure.

K: Yes, secure as much as possible. Not in countries where there's tremendous unemployment. 		‐つまり安全です‐ええ 可能な限り 失業者が多くてはいけません
54:08 H: So, you're saying that that doesn't entail any psychological insecurity. 責任があれば不安になるのでは？
54:11 K: No, of course not. But when I say, 'He's my servant, I'm going to keep him in that place,' you follow? なりませんしかし もし私が使用人に 身の程をわきまえさせるなら―
54:19 H: No. Tell me more.

K: I mean, I treat him as a servant. 		使用人としてあしらうなら―
54:23 H: Yes. ええ
54:25 K: Which becomes irresponsible - I don't know… naturally. それは無責任なことになります
54:31 H: But if it's a servant, he can come and go. But if it's a child, he can't come and go.

K: Ah! He's part of my family. 		しかし使用人は去りますが子供は去りません 家族ですからね
54:39 B: I think the question is something like this: suppose, you are responsible for a family and the conditions are difficult, you may not have a job, and you may start to worry about, and become insecure psychologically. つまり こういう質問です 家族への責任があるにも関わらず 仕事が得れず 心配し始め 不安になる可能性も
54:49 K: Yes.

B: Right? 		あるでしょう？
54:51 K: I don't worry about it, there it is, I have no more money. So, my friend, I have no more money, if you want to stay, share the little food I have, we'll share it. 私は心配しません賃金を― 払えなくとも使用人が残りたいなら 食物を分け与えます
55:02 B: You're saying that even if you are unemployed and you are responsible for a family, it will not disturb the order of the mind, right? 家族への責任があるにも関わらず 失業しても心を乱されないと？
55:09 K: Of course, not. 乱されません
55:10 B: You will find an intelligent way to solve it. 知的な解決方法が？
55:12 K: Deal with it.

B: Yes. 		対処するのです
55:15 S: But this kind of worry as a result of responsibility is relative. 責任があるから心配するのです
55:18 K: I don't call it worry. I am responsible. それは心配とは言いません私は責任がある
55:22 S: Yes. ええ
55:24 K: And therefore I look after as much as I can. 故に できる限り面倒をみます
55:27 S: And if you can't?

K: Sorry? 		もし できなければ？
55:31 S: If you can't?

K: I can't. Why should I worry and bother - I can't, it's a fact. 		‐そのときは？‐できません なぜ心配する必要が？“できない”それが事実です
55:40 B: You're saying that it's possible to be completely free of worry, for example, in the face of great difficulties. 大きな困難を目の前にして 心配事から完全に免れると？
55:46 K: Yes. There is no… You see, that's what I am saying. Where there is attention, there is no need to… there is no worry, because there is no centre from which you are attending. ええ それが私の言っていることです 注意があるところに心配事はありません そこには中心がないからです
56:02 S: There are still problems, and there may still be responsibilities that one has. 依然として問題はあり 責任もあります
56:06 K: Of course, I have problems, so I resolve them. ですから解決するだけです
56:09 S: But if you can't resolve them. もしできないなら？
56:11 K: Then I can't.

S: If your family is starving. 		なら できません
56:13 K: I can't. Why should I worry about it? I can't be Queen of England. なぜ心配する必要が？英国の女王になれますか？
56:17 S: No. なれません
56:18 K: No. So, why should I worry about it? では心配の必要が？
56:20 S: But if you're a poor Indian, unemployed, your family is starving, there's nothing you can… You've tried everything, you've failed. You don't worry. Actually, surprisingly enough, a lot of poor Indians in just that situation don't worry - that's the most amazing thing about India. But then, of course, people coming along looking from outside say, 'Well, this is fatalism'.

K: Yes, that's right. 		例えば あるインド人が 家族は餓えているのに 仕事が見つからず でも心配しないんです 驚くことに多くのインド人が 実際に心配しないんです しかし外部の人間から見れば それは運命論です
56:40 S: And it's often regarded as the disease of India, the very fact that so many people manage not to worry in those circumstances, to the degree that we would expect. それはインドの病と見なされる程 実際に彼らはそんな状況の中で 心配しないんです
56:48 K: I'd like to ask you a question. You've listened to all this - messy consciousness - does one realise it, and empty the content, fear, you know, the whole business? Does it interest you?

H: Yes. 		質問がありますこのような話― 意識が混乱していること それを理解し意識の中身を空にすること― 恐怖…こういった話に― ‐興味はありますか？‐はい
57:11 K: Totally?

H: Yes. 		‐本当に？‐はい
57:13 K: That means what? それなら何を？
57:16 H: It means you just listen. ただ耳を傾けます
57:18 K: No, it means a conversation, dialogue between us. Penetrating deeper, and deeper, and deeper. Which means you must be free to examine. Free from your prejudice, from your previous experience. Of course, otherwise you can't examine. You can't investigate. 'Investigare' means explore, you know, push it, push it, push it further and further. Now, are you, are we willing to do that, so that actually the self is not? But when the self is not, it doesn't mean you neglect your wife, your children - you follow? That becomes so silly, it's like becoming a sannyasi, going off to the mountains, a monk going off into a monastery. That's an extraordinary escape. The fact is I have to deal with my wife and children, and if I have, a servant. Can I be so totally without the self that I can intelligently deal with these problems? いえ ここで対話をするのです 深く深く 調べるのです つまり自由でなければなりません 己の先入観から己の過去の経験から… でなければ調べられません これは探求なのですから さらに深く踏み込むのです それをやる意志がありますか？ 実際に自我をなくすことが？ だからと言って妻や子供をおざなりにする― という意味ではありません それは非常に愚かなことです苦行者のように― 山中に入ったり― 修道院に入ったり それは極端な逃避です 実際にすべきことは 家族と向き合うことです 自我を完全になくすことは可能でしょうか？ 知的に 問題に対処するために