Krishnamurti Subtitles home


OJ82CNM4 - 健全な心とは
第4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18日



0:10 The Nature of the Mind 【 心の本質 】
0:23 Part Four ~ 第4部 ~
0:25 What is a Healthy Mind? ~ 健全な心とは? ~
0:37 This is one of a series of dialogues between J Krishnamurti, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and John Hidley. The purpose of these discussions is to explore essential questions about the mind, what is psychological disorder, and what is required for fundamental psychological change. これはJ.クリシュナムルティと― その他の人々による一連の対話です これらの議論の目的は心の探究です 心理的無秩序とは何か? 心の変容に必要なものとは何か?
0:57 J Krishnamurti is a religious philosopher, author, and educator, who has written and given lectures on these subjects for many years. He has founded elementary and secondary schools in the United States, England, and India. クリシュナムルティ氏は宗教哲学者として この問題に長年携わってきました 米国、英国、インドでは 小中学校を設立しました
1:11 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
1:28 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 本の中で発表しました 現在 インドの国際作物研究所に― 植物生理学者の意見を 求めています
1:46 John Hidley is a psychiatrist in private practice, who has been associated with the Krishnamurti school in Ojai, California for the past six years. ジョン・ヒドレー氏は精神科医 クリシュナムルティ学校に 過去6年間携わってきました
1:57 The first three dialogues have focused on various processes of self-identification and their effects. The need for psychological security has been discussed as growing out of a basic division, in which the contents of consciousness appear to be separate from consciousness itself. Today's discussion begins with the importance of attention. 最初の3部では自己同一化の過程と その影響に焦点を当てました 安心感への欲求が基本的な分裂から生まれ その分裂の中で 意識の中身が― 意識そのものから分離します 今回は まず注意の重要性からです
2:21 K: What is analysis? And what is observation? In analysis there is the analyser and the analysed. And so there is always that difference maintained. Where there is difference there must be conflict, division, and that's one of the factors that really is very destructive to the whole psychological freedom, this conflict, this division. And analysis maintains this division. Whereas if one observes closely - I'm not correcting you, sir, I'm just enquiring - the analyser is the analysed. Again the same problem: thought has divided the analyser and the analysed. The analyser is the past, who has acquired a lot of knowledge, information, separated himself, and is either correcting the observed, the analysed, make him conform - he is acting upon it. Whereas the analyser is the analysed. I think if that is really understood very deeply, the conflict, psychological conflict ends, because in that there is no division between the analyser and the analysed, there is only observation. Which Dr. Bohm and we discussed at considerable length last year. So, if that is clearly understood - I am not laying down the law, but I am just… as I have observed, as one has observed this whole business of conflict, whether one can live the whole of one's life without conflict. That means the controller is absent, which is a very dangerous question. I feel where there is inattention, lack of attention, is really the whole process of conflict. 分析とは何でしょうか? 観察とは何でしょうか? そこには分析者と分析されるものがいます よって常に不和が持続されます ゆえに葛藤が生じます 分裂が。 それが心理的自由に― 破滅をもたらす原因の一つです この葛藤、分裂が。 分析は この分裂を持続させます だが よく観察してみれば― 調べてみれば― 分析者は分析されるものです また同じ問題です 思考が分析者と分析されるものを分離したのです 分析者とは過去であり― 多くの知識と情報を習得し 分析されるものの誤りを訂正して― 同調させますが― 彼が分析されるものなのです このことを深く理解するならば― 心理的葛藤は終焉します なぜなら そのとき分析者と分析されるものの間に 境界はないからです あるのは観察のみです それが ボーム博士と私が去年 長らく話し合ったことです それを明確に理解したなら… 命令ではありません これまで観察してきました 葛藤というものをこれまで観察してきました 葛藤なしに人生を生きることができるかどうかを つまり支配者の不在です それは非常に危うい質問です 不注意、注意の欠如があるところに 葛藤の全過程が生じるのです
5:09 S: Yes, I can see that if both sides saw this with the utmost clarity... ええ わかります もし双方が最大の明晰さを持っているなら…
5:15 K: Yes. That means they are giving intelligence to the whole problem. ええ 問題に英知を与えることになります
5:20 S: What happens if only one party in a conflict sees it with that utmost clarity?

K: What happens? One gives complete attention in one's relationship between man and woman; let's begin with that. You have given complete attention. When she insults you, when she flatters you, when she bullies you, or when she is attached to you, all that is the lack of attention. If you give complete attention, and the wife doesn't, then what happens? That is the same problem. Either you try to explain, day after day, go into it with her patiently. After all, attention implies also great deal of care, affection, love. It's not just mental attention. It's attention with all your being. Then either she moves along with you, comes over to your side, as it were, or she holds on to her separative contradictory state. Then what happens? One is stupid, the other is intelligent.
片方だけが明晰な場合は どうなるのですか? では 男女の関係を例にして― これを見てみましょう あなたは完全に注意を払っています 彼女があなたを侮辱するとき お世辞を言うとき 執着するとき それらはすべて注意の欠如です あなたが注意深くとも妻がそうでないなら どうなるでしょう?また同じ問題です 来る日も来る日も辛抱強く 彼女に説明して 共に調べるのか… 結局のところ 注意とは多大な配慮、愛情を意味します 単なる内的な注意でなく 全身全霊の注意です その結果 彼女はあなたと共に歩むことにし― 言わば あなた側に来るのか それとも 自分にしがみつくのか 分裂し矛盾した状態に それで どうなるのか? 1人は愚かで 片方は賢明です
6:58 S: But the conflict...

K: So there is always the battle between the stupid and the ignorant. I mean between the ignorant, the stupid, and the intelligent.
つまり常にそこには 対立が生じます 愚かな者と賢明な者の間で
7:09 H: A thing that seems to happen in that situation is that the one's intelligence makes room, in which the other person, who is caught in some attachment, may have freedom to look at it. そこでは賢明な方が― 愚かな者に余地を与えているのでは? 自由に調べることができるように
7:24 K: But if the other refuses to look at it, then what is the relationship between the two people? しかし片方がそれを拒絶したら 関係はどうなりますか?
7:31 H: There is none.

K: That's all. You see tribalism is deadly, destructive. You see it basically, fundamentally, and I don't. You have seen it probably immediately, and I'll take many years, a long time to come to that. Will you have the... - I won't use the word patience - will you have the care, affection, love, so that you understand my stupidity? I may rebel against you. I may divorce you. I may run away from you. But you have sown the seed somewhere in me. But that does happen, doesn't it, really, in life?
‐なくなります‐それまでです 部族主義は根本的にひどく有害なものです あなたはそれを理解しています あなたは即座に理解したかもしれませんが 私はそこに至るのに何年も掛かるとします あなたは辛抱強く― いえ… あなたは配慮、親愛、愛を持てますか? 私の愚かさを理解するために 私は反発するかも 離婚するかもしれません 逃げ出すかもしれませんが あなたは私に種をまいたのです こういうことは実際にあり得るのでは?
8:43 S: Yes. はい
8:45 H: You said something that interests me here, you said that if you have seen it immediately and the other person may take a long time to come to seeing it. And it seems like in this attention that you're talking about perception is immediate.

K: Of course.
興味深い話ですね 片方は即座に理解し― もう片方は時間が掛かる この注意の中での理解とは 即座のものですよね?
8:59 H: It isn't built up out of...

K: Oh, no, then it's not perception.
‐蓄積したものでなく…‐それは理解とは違います
9:04 H: That may be part of the reason the other person is having difficulty seeing it, is that they want it to be proved to them. だから もう片方は 理解できないのかも
9:09 K: You see conditioning is destructive, and I don't.

H: Yes.
あなたは理解していて― 私が理解していないとき
9:16 K: What is our relationship between us two? It's very difficult to communicate with each other... 2人の関係はどんなでしょう? 意思の疎通ができません
9:23 H: Yes. ええ
9:25 K: ...verbally or with care, it's very difficult, because... 言葉の上でも配慮を持っても 大変難しい
9:29 H: You won't know what I'm talking about. 話が通じない
9:31 K: No, and also I'm resisting you all the time. I'm defending myself. 私は常に反発し自分を正当化します
9:36 H: You're defending what you think you see. 自分の考えを…
9:38 K: What I think is right. I have been brought up as a Hindu, or a British, or a German, or a Russian, whatever it is, and I see the danger of letting that go. I might lose my job. People will say I'm little-minded. People might say I depend on public opinion, so I'm frightened to let go. So, I stick to it. Then what is your relationship with me? Have you any relationship?

H: No.
自分が正しいと思っていることを 自分が生まれ育った国の考えを― それを手放すのは危険だと思うのです 人に心が狭いと言われるかも 世論に頼っていると言われるかも 手放すのが怖いのです だから固執します そのとき2人の関係とは? ‐関係がありますか?‐いいえ
10:17 K: No, I question whether you have no relationship. 本当にそうでしょうか?
10:20 H: I can tell you what I see. 伝えることはできます
10:22 K: Yes. But if you have love for me, real, not just attachment, and sex, and all that business, if you really care for me, you cannot lose that relationship. I may run away, but you have the feeling of relationship. I don't know if I am conveying what I mean. ええ そして執着や性的な理由からではなく あなたが本当に私のことを愛しているなら 関係を失う訳にはいきません 私が逃げたとしても 結び付きを感じるはずです 伝わったでしょうか?
10:45 H: In other words, I don't just say, well, I see it and you don't, and if you're not going to listen, the heck with you. つまり相手が拒絶しても 放り出すべきではないと?
10:50 K: No. But, sir, you have established a kind of relationship, perhaps very profound, when there is love. I may reject you, but you have that responsibility of love. Not only to the particular person, but to the whole of humanity. What do you say, sir, about all this? ええ そして― 愛があるとき非常に深い関係を― あなたは築いているのです 私が拒んでもあなたには愛の責任があります 特定の人物だけにではなく 人類全体に対して どう思いますか?
11:25 B: Well, I can't say a great deal more. I think that this care and attention are the essential points. And, for example, in the question of the observer and the observed, or the analyser and the analysed, the reason why that separation occurs is because there has not been enough attention. これ以上言うことはあまりありませんが 配慮や注意は重要な点だと思います 例えば 観察者と観察されるものや― 分析者の話では 注意の欠如によって 分離が生じます
11:44 K: Attention, that's what I'm saying. その通りです
11:46 B: So that one has to have that same attitude even in looking at one's own psychological problems. ですから心理的な問題を調べるときも それと同じ姿勢でのぞむべきです
11:56 H: An attitude of care? 配慮の姿勢ですか?
11:58 B: Care and attention to what's going on. One starts to analyse by habit, and one might condemn that, for example, that would not be the right attitude. But one has to give care and attention to exactly what is happening in that, just as in relationship with people. And it's because that there was no attention or not the right kind of attention, that that division arose in the first place, and was sustained, right? 今への配慮と注意です いつもの癖で分析してしまい それを非難するとします “正しい姿勢ではない”と。 しかし まさに今そこで起きていることに対して 我々は配慮と注意を払わなければならないのです そこに注意がなかったり 正しい注意でなければ 最初の段階で分裂が生じ 持続されるわけですから
12:35 S: But it's possible to have perhaps this kind of attention towards people that we know: wives, children, friends, etc., but what about people we don't know? I mean, most of us have never met any Russians, for example, and we feel, many of us, there's this terrible fear of Russia, and Russian nuclear weapons, and the Russian threat, and all the rest of it. And so it's very easy to think, 'We've got to have all these bombs, and so on, because the Russians are so terrible'. We can think all these things about Russians; we've never met them. So, how do we have attention to enemies, or imagined enemies, that we don't know?

K: What is an enemy? Is there such thing as an enemy?
しかし家族や友人に対しては そのような注意を払えるとしても― 見ず知らずの人に対しては? 大抵の人はロシア人に会ったことがなく ロシアの核兵器や脅威などに対して 恐怖を抱いています そして 我々も核爆弾を― 持とうとするわけです “ロシア人は恐ろしい”と。 つまり 面識がない敵に対しては ‐どうしたら?‐敵とは何ですか? 敵などいるのでしょうか?
13:24 S: Well, there are enemies in the sense that there are people who... ええ 例えば―
13:27 K: ...who disagree with you. あなたに賛同しない者?
13:29 S: Not only disagree…

K: Who have definite idealistic, ideological differences.
決定的に 観念や― イデオロギーが異なる者?
13:36 S: Well, they're usually people who are afraid of us, I mean, the Russians are afraid of us, and we're afraid of them, and because they're afraid of us, they're in a position of being our enemies. 大抵 ロシア人は我々を恐れ 我々はロシア人を恐れます それが原因で― 敵の立場にあるのです
13:46 K: Because we are still thinking in terms of tribalism. 我々は依然として部族主義です
13:50 S: Yes, certainly. ええ 確実に
13:53 K: Supposing you and I move out of that. I'm Russian, you are English, or British, or German, or French. I move, I despise this sense of tribalism. What's my relationship then with you? そこから抜け出しましょう 私がロシア人であなたはそれ以外の出身だとします 私が この手の部族主義を軽蔑しているとして そのとき2人の関係とは?
14:12 H: Well, we...

K: I'm not Russian then.
私はロシア人ではなく―
14:14 S: No.

K: I'm a human being with all my psychological problems, and you are another human being with all your psychological problems. We are human beings, not labels.
1人の人間です 多くの悩みを抱えています そして あなたもまた 悩みを抱えた人間です ラベルではなく人間なのです
14:31 B: Of course, the Russians may reject this, you see. Suppose, we're in this situation...

K: We are in that.
しかし ロシア人は― このことを認めないかもしれません
14:37 B: ...and the Russians will reject us, right? Then we have to… then what's the next step, right? ロシア人が我々を拒絶したら どうするんですか?
14:43 K: So what shall we do? You see, I represent all humanity. I am all humanity. I feel that way. To me it's an actuality, not just an emotional explosion, emotional, romantic idea. I feel I am the rest of mankind; I am mankind. Because I suffer, or I enjoy, I go through all the tortures, and so do you, so do you. So, you are the rest of mankind. And therefore you have terrible responsibility for that, in that. So when you meet a Russian, or a German, or a British, or Argentine, you treat them as human beings, not labels. どうしましょう? いいですか 私は全人類の代表です 私が全人類なのです 実際に 私はそのように感じます ただの感情の爆発でもロマンチックな着想でもなく 私は全人類だと感じているのです 私は苦しみ 楽しみあらゆる苦痛を経験します あなた方もそうです つまり あなたが全人類なのです 故に 多大な責任があるのです そこで ロシア人、ドイツ人、英国人、アルゼンチン人に会うとき あなたは人間と接するのです
15:49 S: Then does this simply mean that in this largely tribal society, with governments, and bombs, and weapons of war, there'll just be a few individual scattered here and there, who've dissolved tribalism in themselves? つまり 大多数が部族社会で政府や爆弾を備え 戦争兵器を持っている中で 散在する少数の個人が 部族主義を解消できると?
16:03 K: Yes. If a hundred of us all over the world really had a non-tribalistic attitude towards life, we would be acting like a... I don't know - like a light in the midst of darkness. But we don't. This just becomes an idealistic romantic idea, and you drop it, because each pursues his own way. もし世界中のあちこちにいる100人の人間が― 実際に非部族的な姿勢を示せば それはまるで― 暗闇の中の光となるでしょう 我々はそうしません ただの理想主義的な着想に過ぎないと 断念します皆 我を通すからです
16:35 S: Yes. ええ
16:37 K: Sir, I think we ought to differentiate between attention and concentration. Concentration is focusing your energy on a certain point. And attention - there is no focusing on a certain point. It's attention. ここで注意と集中の違いを 見極めておきましょう 集中とは 一つの事柄に焦点を合わせることです そして注意とは― 一つの事柄に焦点がないことです それが注意です
17:12 H: Concentration seems to have a goal in mind. 集中には目標があります
17:15 K: A goal, motive. It's a restrictive process. I concentrate on a page, but my thoughts... I am looking out of the window, and I'll pull it back, and keep on this business. Whereas if I gave complete attention to what I am looking out of the window - that lizard which is going along the wall - and with that same attention I can look at my book, look what I am doing. 目標、動機―それは限定的な行為です 私は本に集中しますが― 思考が窓の外に奪われ 何度も本に引き戻します 一方 もし完全な注意を 窓から見えるものに払うなら その同じ注意をもって― 私は本を読むことができます 己の現状が見れます
17:47 H: Concentration presupposes that there's a controller in there pulling it back.

K: That's just it.
集中には支配者がいて 思考を引き戻します
17:58 S: But then, if there's no controller of the attention, the attention is simply a response to whatever the present circumstances are. 注意には支配者がいないなら それは単なる反応なのでは? 何であれ現状に対する…
18:06 K: You insult me - I'm attentive. There is no recording that insult. 注意を払うなら 侮辱されても その屈辱を記録することはありません
18:20 B: Yes, I said. その通りです
18:23 K: You flatter me - a marvellous talk you gave the other day. I've heard this so often repeated. And I'm bored with it, so - I'm not only bored - I see, what? You follow, sir? Is it possible - really, that's the much more difficult question - is it possible not to record except where it is necessary? It's necessary to record when you are driving. To learn how to drive. Record when you do your business, and all the rest of it. But psychologically, what is the need to record? あなたは私にお世辞を言います “先日の講演は素晴らしかったです” だから何だと言うんでしょう? わかりますか? これは更に難しい質問です 記録せずにいられますか? 必要な場合以外に 運転には記録が必要です 運転の仕方を習うために 仕事をするときなども記録は必要です しかし 心理的に記録する必要が?
19:07 S: Isn't it inevitable? Doesn't our memory work automatically? 勝手に記憶されるのでは?
19:11 K: Memory is rather selective. 記憶は選択的なものです
19:15 H: We seem to remember things that are important to us... 我々が記憶するものは
19:18 S: Yes.

H: ...have some... connect in with who we think we are and what our goals are.
自分にとって― 重要なことのように思えます
19:24 B: But it seems to me that when there is paying attention then in general attention determines what is to be recorded and what is not, that is, it is not automatic anymore. しかし通常 注意を払っている中で― 何を記録し何を記録しないか決めるなら 無意識とは言えないのでは?
19:35 K: It's not automatic any more. Quite right. もっともです
19:37 B: If it comes from the past, from the concentration, or from the analysis, then it will be automatic. 過去、集中、分析が原因なら― 無意識のものでしょうが…
19:46 K: Another problem which we ought to discuss - we said yesterday we would - religion, meditation, and if there is something sacred. We said we would talk about that. Is there anything sacred in life? Not thought creating something sacred and then worshipping that sacred, which is absurd. The symbols in all the Indian temples, they're images, like in the Christian church, or the Muslim in the mosque, there is this marvellous writing, it's the same. And we worship that. 議論すべき問題がもう一つ 昨日 我々が言ったことですが宗教、瞑想― 神聖なものについて 話し合うと言いました 神聖なものがあるのか? 思考によって神聖なものを創り出し 崇拝するのではなく…それは ばかげたことです インドの寺院の象徴などは彼らのイメージです キリスト教の教会のように イスラム教の寺院には 素晴らしい文字がありそれもまた同じことです それを崇拝するのです
20:48 H: That's idolatry.

K: No. Thought has created this. The thought has created the image and then it worships it. I don't know if you see the absurdity of it.
‐偶像崇拝ですね‐いえ 思考がこれを創り出したのです 思考がイメージを創り それを崇拝するのです 何とばからしいことか
21:06 H: Yes. ええ
21:07 S: Well, that's manifestly absurd, but the more sophisticated members of different religions would say that it's not the thought, the image that's created by thought that's being worshipped, but the image points to something beyond thought which is being worshipped.

K: Wait a minute, let's look at it. That is, the symbol, we know symbol is not the real, but why do we create the symbol? Please answer it. If there is something beyond, why do we create the intermediary?
確かにそうですが さらに洗練された信者なら 崇拝しているのは 思考のイメージではなく それが指し示すものだと 言うのではありませんか? 象徴とは― 現実のものではありません では なぜ象徴を創り出したのか? 答えてください 超越したものがあるとしてなぜ仲介物を創ったのか?
21:47 S: Well, I think that this is a question which in certain religions has been central to them. The Jews who were against all idolatry for exactly this reason, and the Muslims, who don't have images in the mosques. これは特定の宗教の人々にとって 中核をなしてきた問題で ユダヤ人は偶像崇拝に反対しています イスラム教も偶像がありません
22:00 K: No, but they have these scripts.

S: They have writing.
‐けど彼らには…‐文字はあります
22:03 K: Of course. その通り
22:05 S: Well, they think writing is what tells them about what lies beyond all symbols.

K: Yes.
文字は象徴の向こうにあるものを 教えてくれるものです
22:11 S: Now, you could say the writing simply becomes a symbol, but I mean, these are words, and words can help us. We're having a discussion, and these words that we're having, your words may help me, for example, if they're written down, then they're written words like Muslim words. 単なる象徴ではなく それは我々を支えてくれる言葉です 例えば あなたの言葉が 私を救ってくれるかもしれません それを書き出せば同じことです
22:27 K: So, why do I have to have an intermediary at all? それで なぜ仲介するものが必要なのでしょう?
22:38 H: Because I think I'm here, and it's over there, and I don't have it. I need some way to get there. 私はここに居て神聖なものは― 向こうにあるからですか?
22:44 K: No, you're not answering my question. Is it that you, the intermediary, understand, or realised, or follow truth, or whatever it is, and therefore you are telling me about it? 質問に答えていません 仲介者が真実を理解していて― それで私にそれを― 伝えているのでしょうか?
23:03 H: Maybe I've seen something and I want to tell you about it. 見たことを伝えたいのかも
23:06 K: Yes, tell me about it, but why do you make yourself interpreter? Why do you become the intermediary between that - I don't know what that is - and me, who is ignorant, who is suffering? Why don't you deal with my suffering rather than with that? ええ でもなぜ通訳の役を買って出るのか? なぜ仲介者になるのか? 『それ』と私の間の。 私は無知で苦しんでいます 『それ』より悩みに対処しては?
23:26 H: I think that that will deal with your suffering. If I can get you to... 『それ』が悩みを解決するのです 仲介することで…
23:31 K: That has been, sir, that has been the old trick of all the priests in the world. We have had priests from time immemorial, right?

H: Yes.
その手口が世界中の聖職者によって 使われてきたのです 聖職者は 太古の時代から 存在しますが
23:48 K: But you haven't released my sorrow. I am still suffering after a million years. What for? Help me to get rid of that. Help me to be free, without fear, then I'll find out. Is it that you want position, power, status, like the rest of the world. Now, this is really quite serious. 人は悲しみから解放されてません 百万年たっても苦しんでいます 何のために? 解放してください 恐怖から解放してください 身分、権力、地位が欲しいのでしょうか? 他の人々と同じように だとしたら かなり深刻です
24:27 B: I think, if we try to give the priests the most favourable interpretation, that they may have considered, at least the best among them, that there's a kind of poetic imagery that people may use to point to something beyond that - right? - in a communication, they are trying to point to this sacred which we were talking about. That's perhaps the way they would look at it. Now, would you say that that would make no sense, you know, to have a poetic image to point to the sacred. もし聖職者を 好意的に解釈するなら 彼らの中で最良の者が 詩的なイメージによって超越したものを表せると 考えたのかもしれません それによって 彼らは神聖なものを 指し示めそうとしているのです 恐らくは。 さて あなたはこのことを 無意味だと言うのですか?
24:57 K: But, sir, why don't you help me to see what is happening to me? しかし なぜ現状を理解する手助けをしないのですか?
25:04 B: Yes, that's your point, don't point to the sacred right away, but look at this first. 神聖なものを示すより まず現状を見ろと?
25:08 K: Help me to be free of it, then I'll walk. 解放しなさい!
25:10 B: Yes, I understand that. ええ わかります
25:14 K: We have never talked - nobody has gone into this like that. Always God, some saviour, some Brahma, and so on, so on. And this is what we call religion. All the rituals are invented by thought, marvellous architecture - by thought, all the things inside the churches, temples, mosques, created by thought. And having thought create it, then thought worships it. But thought is not sacred. 誰も深く調べようとしないのです 常に 神や救済者、ブラフマンといった話ばかりです これがいわゆる宗教です 儀式は思考の産物です 素晴らしい建築物も思考の産物です 教会、寺院の中にあるものも すべて思考の産物です そして それを思考が崇拝するのです 思考は神聖ではありません
25:59 H: Yes, I see that. So you are saying, is it possible to put a stop to thought? つまり思考を― 停止できるかと?
26:03 K: Thought. Is it possible? できますか?
26:05 H: And thought is the thing that gets in the way by creating the images...

K: Of course.
思考は― イメージを創り
26:09 H: ...which we take for something really valuable. 我々を妨げます
26:11 K: I start out looking for something sacred. You come along and say, 'I'll tell you all about it'. Then you begin to organise it. It's all gone by then, it's finished. 私が神聖なものを探していると あなたが来て こう言います “全部教えるからそれを構築しなさい” そして全て見失います
26:28 H: Then I just stay within thought, that's all I have. 思考の中に留まるわけですね
26:30 K: So, if we reject, or understand, that thought is not sacred, there's nothing holy about thought, but thought thinks that what it has created is holy. Right, sir?

B: Right. Would you also add that, just for the sake of… that time is not sacred?

K: Time, of course, not.
つまり 思考は神聖なものではありません 神聖なところなどありません ただ思考が己の創造物を崇めているのです ええ それでは時間は 神聖ですか?
26:55 B: Nothing in time, people would say that. もちろん―
26:57 K: Tomorrow is not sacred! 神聖ではありません
26:58 B: They always say, only the eternal is sacred. 永遠なものは神聖では?
27:01 K: But to find out what is eternity, time must stop. 永遠なものを知るには時間を止めなくては!
27:07 H: But we get into a real subtle place here, because you have said things like absolute attention dissolves the self. Then absolute attention can become a thought. それにしても微妙な問題です 完全な注意が自我を消滅した結果― 注意が思考になるかもしれません
27:17 K: Idea of it, yes.

H: Yes, the idea of it. So we may go the route of creating the idea. That seems to always be the danger.

K: Sir, you make a statement...
観念の上ではあり得ます 観念を創り上げる可能性がある ‐危険ですね‐あなたがこう言います
27:27 H: Yes. ええ
27:29 K: ...'absolute attention'. I don't capture the depth of your meaning, what is implied. You have gone into it, and you can say that - absolute attention. I hear it and make it into an idea. And then I pursue the idea. “完全な注意”と。 その意味の深さを私は把握していません あなたは調べたので言うことができます 私はそれを聞き 観念化して その観念を追いかけます
27:50 H: That seems to be the process.

K: That's what we do all the time.
我々はいつもこの調子です
27:53 S: Yes. ええ
27:54 K: So - gone. Idea is not what you've said. What you said had depth in it, had some... だから見失うのですあなたが言ったことは― 観念ではなく…
28:02 H: But we don't know that we're pursuing an idea. We don't realise at the time that we're pursuing an idea. しかし我々は― 観念を追っていると思ってません
28:08 K: Of course not, because I am used to this reducing everything to abstract ideas. So, could we try to find out, or realise, that anything thought does is not sacred? もちろんです 我々は何でも抽象観念に変換することに 慣れていますから 従って 理解することはできますか? 思考が行うことは何であれ神聖ではないことを
28:40 S: That seems self-evident to me. 自明の理です
28:43 K: All right. That's self-evident. In all the religions as they are now - there is nothing sacred. Right? はい 自明の理です このような宗教に神聖なものは何もありません そうでしょう?
28:54 S: No, there's nothing sacred in itself in the words, or the buildings, or the… and so on. But in a sense all these religions are supposed to point beyond themselves. いえ 言葉や建物自体は 神聖ではないですがそれらを超越したものを 宗教は示しているはずです
29:06 K: Yes. And to help me to go beyond all this, I must start with my being free from my agony, understand my relationship with people. If there is confusion here, in my heart and my mind, what's the good of the other? I am not materialistic. I am not anti… the other. But I say, 'Look, I must start where I am'. To go very far, I must start very near. I am very near. So I must understand myself. I'm the rest of humanity. I am not an individual. So, there is the book of humanity in me. I am that book. If I know how to read it, from the beginning to the end, then I can go... then I will find if there is a possibility... if there is really something that is immense, sacred. But if you are all the time saying, 'Look, there is that, that will help you', I say, 'It hasn't helped me'. We have had these religions for millions of years. That hasn't - on the contrary, you have distracted from 'what is'. So, if I want to find out if there is anything sacred, I must start very near. The very near is me. And can I free myself from fear, agony, sorrow, despair - all that? When there is freedom I can move, I can climb mountains. ええ しかし それらを超越するためには― まず 己を苦悩から解放し― 人間関係を理解しなければなりません もし 心の中に混乱があれば― 何の意味もありません 私は物質主義でも 他者を排除しているわけでもありません ただ 非常に遠くに行くためには 身近な所から始めなくてはなりません 自分は大変 身近です つまり己を理解することです 私は全人類です 私は個人ではありません 私の中に人類の本があり 私がその本なのです もし それを読むことができれば そのとき私は― 確かめることができるでしょう 本当に計り知れない神聖なものがあるかどうかを 単に『それ』があると言われても― それは私を救ってくれません 宗教は長年存在してきましたが― 救ってくれないどころか あなたを現状から遠ざけます 従って もし神聖なものがあるかどうかを確かめたいなら 身近から始めることです 非常に身近なのは己です そして己を恐怖から解放できるでしょうか? 苦悩、悲しみ、絶望などから 自由があれば山に登ることができます
31:36 S: Sir, are you saying that the sacred would become apparent if we dissolved fear and all these other things. つまり 恐怖などを解消すれば 神聖なものが明らかになると?
31:42 K: Obviously, sir. That's real meditation, you see. もちろんですそれが本当の瞑想です
31:51 S: Through attention to what is really happening in us. 我々の中で起きていること―
31:54 K: Happening, yes, that's it. ええ
31:56 S: And what is really happening between us and other people, and all the rest of it.

K: Between our relationships.
人間関係で起きていること― あなたと人々の間で
32:01 S: Yes. Through attention to this, this action... それらに注意を払うことによって…
32:05 K: Attention, and we have discussed, too, with Dr. Bohm, some time ago, having an insight into the whole movement of the self, which is not a remembrance. Insight is total perception of what you are, without analysis, without investigation - all that. Total immediate perception of the whole content of your consciousness, not take bit, by bit, by bit - that's endless. それから以前ボーム博士と話し合ったことですが― 自我の運動全体を洞察することです それは回想ではありません 洞察とは己を完全に理解することです 分析したり審査したりすることなく― 完全に あなたの意識の中身すべてを― 即座に理解するのです 少しずつでは きりがありません
32:54 H: Oh, we're broken up, so we look at each little piece. 分裂した断片ではなく
32:56 K: Yes. And because we are broken up, we can never see the whole. Obviously, that seems so logical!

H: Okay.
分裂しているから全体が見えないのです 言うまでもありません
33:06 K: So, is it possible not to be broken up? What is to be broken up? This confusion, this mess in consciousness, which we talked about yesterday. You see, nobody wants to go so deeply into all this. Right, sir? First of all, one hasn't the time, one is committed to one's job, to one's profession, or to one's science, to one's whatever one is doing. And you say, 'Please, this is too difficult, or too abstract, not practical' - that's the word they all use. As though all this, what you are doing and all is terribly practical. Armaments - is it practical? Tribalism, is... oh, well, you know all about it. So, sir, let's move from there. Is silence of the mind a state of attention? Or is it beyond attention? I don't know if I'm… では 分裂せずにいられるでしょうか? 何が分裂するのか? この意識の混乱について― 昨日お話したわけですが… ご覧なさい誰もそれほど深く調べたくはないのです まず 時間がありません己の仕事に専念しています 己の職業、己の学問― 何であれ己がしていることに そして誰もが“難しすぎる 難解すぎる―” “実用的でない”と言うのです 己がしていることは実用的であるかのように 軍備は実用的なことですか?部族主義は― お分かりでしょう? では そこから前進しましょう 心の静寂とは注意を払っている状態のことですか? あるいは 注意を超えたものですか?
34:38 B: What would you mean by 'beyond attention'? Let's try to get into that. “注意を超えたもの”とは? 説明してください
34:48 K: In attention is there… Is attention an act of will? I will attend. 注意とは― 意志による行為ですか? “注意を払おう”
34:58 H: No, we said that's concentration. いえ それは集中です
35:01 K: Sir, I am asking you, where there is attention, is there any kind of effort? Struggle? 'I must attend'. What is attention? Let's go into it a little bit. What is attention? The word 'diligent' is implied in attention. To be diligent. Not negligent. では お聞きしますそこに注意があるとき― 何らかの努力がありますか? 奮闘が?“注意しなければ” もう少し踏み込みましょう 注意とは何でしょう? 『勤勉』という言葉は注意の中に含まれます 勤勉になることです怠慢ではなく
35:48 S: What does diligent mean? Careful? You mean careful? 油断がないという意味ですか?
35:52 K: Yes. Care. To be very precise. Diligent. ええ 油断がなく非常に的確であることです
35:58 B: The literal meaning is 'taking pains'. 本来の意味は『骨を折る』です
36:00 K: Pains, that's right. Taking pain. Which is to care, to have affection, to do everything correctly, orderly. Not repetitive. Does attention demand the action of thought? その通り 『骨を折る』つまり 配慮をすること― 愛情を持つこと すべてを的確に秩序立てて行なうことです 反復的にではなく 注意は 思考の行為を必要としますか?
36:33 S: Well, it doesn't demand the action of analysis, in the way you've explained it.

K: No, certainly.
分析者の行為は― 必要としません
36:37 S: And insofar as thought is analytical, it doesn't demand that. And it doesn't demand the action of will, insofar as will involves a separation, an attempt to, by one part of the mind, force another part to do something else. And it doesn't imply any sense of going anywhere or becoming anything, because becoming leads one out of the present. 故に 思考を必要としません そして意志の行為も必要としません 意志が 心の中の分離や努力に― 関与している限り 注意は『何かに成る』という意味を 含みません『成る』は― 人を現在から遠ざけるからです
37:03 K: That's right. You can't become attentive. 注意深くなることはできません
37:07 S: But in the act of attention...

K: Just see what is implied in it. You can't become attentive. That means in attention there is no time. Becoming implies time.

S: Yes.
それが何を意味するか見てみましょう 注意深くはなれません 注意の中には時間がないからです 『成る』とは時間を意味します
37:22 K: In attention there is no time. Therefore it is not the result of thought. 注意中 時間は生じません 故に 注意は思考の産物ではありません
37:29 S: Yes. ええ
37:39 K: Now, is that attention silence of the mind? Which is a healthy, sane mind, uncluttered, unattached unanchored, free mind, which is the healthiest mind. Therefore I am asking, out of that… in that attention, is the mind silent? There is no movement of thought. その注意とは心の静寂のことでしょうか? それは健全で分別のある心― 整頓されていて執着がなく 自由な心、最も健全な心のことです そこでお尋ねしますが その注意の中にあるとき心は静寂でしょうか? 思考の動きはないですか?
38:30 S: Well, it sounds like it, yes. It sounds like a state of being rather than a state of becoming, because it's not going anywhere or coming from anywhere.

K: Again, when you say 'being' what does that mean? Being what?
ないと思います それはどちらかと言うと 存在している状態です 『存在している』とは? それはどういう意味ですか?
38:50 S: Well, being what it is. It's not being something else. 『あるがまま』に在ることです
38:53 K: No, what does that mean, 'being'? Are you putting 'being' as an opposite to becoming? 『在る』とはどんな意味ですか? 『成る』の反対の表現ですか?
39:02 S: Yes.

K: Ah, then... the opposite has its own opposite.
‐そうです‐それなら― それは反対語ではありません
39:09 S: Well, by 'being' I simply mean a state which is not in a process of going somewhere else in time. 『存在している』とはやがて別のところへ行く過程の中には― ない状態という意味です
39:19 K: Which means non-movement. つまり 運動がない状態ですか?
39:26 S: I suppose so.

B: You could say that, yes.
そうだと思います
39:30 K: Non-movement. 運動がない状態
39:31 B: If you say what you mean by movement, that it doesn't mean it's static, to say it's non-movement. つまり それは― 静的な状態ですか?
39:35 K: No, it's dynamic, of course. いえ 動的な状態です
39:37 B: Dynamic, but it's a little difficult. 少し分かりにくいです
39:39 K: There is no moving from here to there. ここからそこへと動きません
39:42 B: But there is another kind of movement, perhaps. 別の種類の運動であると?
39:45 K: That's what I want to go into. If we use the word 'being', without movement, it is without thought, without time, which is the movement which we know. But the other has its own dynamism, its own movement, but not this movement, the time movement, the thought movement. Is that what you call 'being'? それを論じましょう 『存在している』とは― そこに運動がない状態でつまり思考や― 時間といった運動が ない状態のことだとして― しかし一方 独自の活力があり 時間や思考ではない独自の運動が あるものだとして それが『存在』ですか?
40:31 S: I suppose it is. そうだと思います
40:39 K: Is that 'being' silent? You follow, sir? We have various forms of silence. Right?

S: Yes. It may not be silent in the sense of soundless.
それは静かなものですか? どうですか? 静寂には様々な形態があります そうでしょう? 無音ではないかもしれませんが
41:01 K: I am using the word 'silence' in the sense, without a single movement of thought. ここで言う“静寂”とは 思考の動きが全くないことです
41:09 S: Well, in that sense it must be silent, almost by definition. それなら確かに静寂です
41:12 K: Yes. So, has my mind, the mind, has it stopped thinking? Has - not stopped thinking - has thought found its own place and therefore it's no longer moving, chattering, pushing around? Because there is no controller. You follow? Because when there is a great silence then that which is eternal is. You don't have to enquire about it. It's not a process. It isn't something you achieve, my god! By fasting, by rituals, by all these absurdities. Sir, you hear that.

H: Yes.
ええ つまり心が考えることをやめたのでしょうか? というより 思考が自分の居場所を見つけたので それが故に― もはや運動、おしゃべり、指図をしないのでしょうか? なぜなら支配者がいないからです もし そこに卓越した静寂があるなら― それが永遠なるものです 探す必要はありません それは作業でも 成し遂げるものでもありません 断食や儀式といったばかばかしいことによって さて あなたはこれを聞いて―
42:29 K: You hear X saying that. What value has it? Value in the sense - what do you do with it? Has it any importance or none at all? Because you are going your way. You are a psychologist, you'll go your way, I'll go my way, because I have said what I have to say, and there it ends. Then what? Somebody comes along and says, 'I'll tell you what he means'. You haven't the time. He has a little time, he says, 'I'll tell you all about it'. And you are caught. This is what is happening. From the ancient of times, the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians - they have played this. And we are doing still the same kind of nonsense. And I say, what has religion done to man? It hasn't helped him. It has given him romantic illusory comfort. Actually look what - we're killing each other - I won't go into that. So, sir, let's begin. What is a healthy mind? ある人からこれを聞いて― そこに どんな価値が? それで どうするのですか? 何か意義があるのでしょうか? 皆 自分の道を進みます あなたは精神分析医で私は私の道を進みます 言うべきことを言ってそこで終わりです 次に何が? 誰かが現れて通訳を申し出るのです あなたは時間がないので彼がすべてを 通訳するわけです そして術中に陥ります 常にこうです 太古の時代から 彼らは― これを演じてきたのです そして依然として同じままです 宗教は人類に何かしたでしょうか? 救っていません 非現実な架空の慰めを与えました 実際に起きているのは殺し合いです そんなわけで 始めましょう 健全な心とは何でしょう?
44:28 H: It's a mind that's not caught so in this... 囚われがなく…
44:31 K: A mind that's whole, healthy, sane, holy - H-O-L-Y - holy. All that means a healthy mind. That's what we started discussing. What is a healthy mind? The world is so neurotic. How are we going to tell you, as an analyst, as a psychologist, how are you going to tell people what is a healthy mind, nobody's going to pay attention to it. They'll listen to the tape, to television, they'll agree, but they'll go on their own way. So what do we do? How do we… First of all, do I have a healthy mind? Or is it just a lot of pictures, words, images? A mind that's totally unattached to my country, to my ideas, all totally dispassionately unattached. 無傷な心 健全な心― 分別がある心 神聖な心 全て健全な心を意味します それを議論しましょう 健全な心とは何でしょう? 世界は非常に神経症的です 精神分析医として健全な心とは何かを どう伝えますか? 誰も気にかけません 彼らはテープやテレビに耳を傾け 賛同はしますが我が道を行きます では どうしましょう? 第一 私は健全な心を持っているのでしょうか? それとも ただの想像でしょうか? まったく執着がない心 自分の国、自分の観念に すべてにおいて完全に冷静で執着がない心
45:58 H: Are you suggesting that only then am I in a position to talk to anybody?

K: Obviously. Obviously. I may be married, I may, but why should I be attached to my wife?
つまり患者と話す立場なら まず健全な心が必要だと? もちろんです 私が結婚しているとして 妻に執着する必要が?
46:14 H: Then it's an idea of marriage, it's not a marriage. それが結婚というものです
46:17 K: But love is not attachment. So, have I realised that in my life? A healthy mind that says, 'I love, therefore there is no attachment'. Is that possible? 愛は執着ではありません 私は理解したのでしょうか? 健全な心は愛してるが故に執着しないことを それは可能でしょうか?
46:35 S: Sir, you make it sound so easy and so difficult at the same time, because...

K: I don't see why it's difficult.
とても簡単そうに言いますが非常に難しいことに思えます どこが難しいのですか?
46:43 S: Because, you see, I hear what you say, I think this is absolutely wonderful stuff. I want to have a healthy mind, I want to be in a state of being, and then I realise that it's back into this, that I can't become in a state of having a healthy mind, and I can't move by an act of will or desire into this state. It has to happen. And it can't happen through any act of my will. なぜなら あなたの話を聞いて これは大変素晴らしいと 健全な心を持ちたいと思います なのにその後 健全な心の状態には なれないことに気付くんです 意志の行為や欲望ではこの状態に入れないことを。 それは生じるもので意志では起こせません
47:08 K: No. So… その通り
47:10 S: So I have to let it happen in some sense. なら生じさせなくては
47:12 K: So we begin to enquire. You begin to say, now, why? Why am I not healthy? Am I attached to my house? I need a house, why should I be attached to it? A wife, relationship, I can't exist without relationship, life is relationship. But why should I be attached to a person? Or to an idea, to a faith, to a symbol - you follow? - the whole cycle of it: to a nation, to my guru, to my god. You follow? Attached means attached right through. A mind can be free of all that. Of course it can. では 調べてみましょう あなたは尋ねます なぜ健全ではないのか? なぜ家に執着するのか? 妻、人間関係―人間関係なしに生きることはできません 人生とは人間関係です しかし人に執着する必要が? 観念、信仰、象徴―わかりますか? 執着の連鎖です 私の国、私の教祖、私の神 これらの一貫した執着から 自由になることが?もちろんなれます
47:58 S: But not just by wanting to be free of it. しかし欲するだけでは…
48:00 K: No. But seeing the consequences of it, seeing what is involved in it, the pain, the pleasure, the agony, the fear - you follow? - all of that is involved in it. Such a mind is an unhealthy mind. いえ 執着の結果を見るのです それに関与していることを 苦痛、快楽、苦悩、恐怖― 関与する全てを見るのです そんな心は不健全であると!
48:26 S: Yes, but one can even agree with that, one can even see it, one can even see the movements of one's attachments, one can even see the destructive consequences of all this. But that doesn't in itself seem automatically to dissolve it. ええ 人はそれに賛同することも 己の執着を知ることも― 有害な結果を見ることもできます けど本質的には解放されません
48:39 K: Of course not. So, it brings in quite a different question. Which is, sir, do you hear it merely with your sensory ears, or do you really hear it? You understand my question?

S: Yes.
もちろんですそこで全く違う質問が生じます あなたは単に耳の感覚器を使って聞いているのか それとも実際に聞いてるのか 質問がわかりますか?
48:59 K: Is it just casual, verbal, sensory hearing, or hearing at depth? If you hear it at the greatest depth, then it's part of you. I don't know if... 文字通り ただ聞いているだけなのかそれとも 心から聞いているのか? 非常に深く聞くならそれは あなたの一部になります どうでしょう
49:23 B: I think that generally one doesn't hear at the greatest depth, and something is stopping it, you see. All the conditioning. 通常そこまで深くは聞きません 条件付けによって阻止されます
49:31 K: And also, probably we don't want to hear it. または聞きたくないのかも
49:34 B: But the conditioning makes us not want to hear it. それもまた条件付けです
49:36 K: Of course, of course. 確かに
49:38 B: We're unwilling to do so. 不本意なことです
49:40 K: How can I say to my wife, 'I love you but I am not attached'? She'll say, 'What the hell are you talking about?' But if one sees the absolute necessity to have a healthy mind, and the demand for it, not only in myself, but in my children, my society. 妻に“愛してるが執着はない”と言えば “寝ぼけるな”と言われるでしょう しかし もし健全な心を持つことの絶対的な必要性を― 理解するなら― そして それを求めるなら…自分にだけでなく― 自分の子供、自分の社会にも…
50:23 H: But you don't mean by that going around demanding of myself and other people that they become healthy. まさか それを人々に 説いて回れと?
50:27 K: No, no. I demand in myself. I ask why is not my mind healthy? Why is it neurotic? Then I begin to enquire. I watch, I attend, I am diligent in what I am doing. いえ 自分に求めるのです なぜ自分の心は健全ではないのか? なぜ神経過敏なのか? そして調べ始めます 熱心に観察し 注意を払うのです
50:53 B: It seems to me that you said that we must have to see the absolute necessity of a healthy mind, but I think, we've been conditioned to the absolute necessity of maintaining attachment. And that's what we hear, right? 健全な心の絶対的必要性を 理解するにしても― 執着を持続することが 絶対的に必要であると 我々は条件付けられてます
51:10 S: Well, we haven't necessarily, there are many people, who've seen that there's all these problems, there's something wrong with the mind, they feel that something to be done about it, and all that, and then take up some kind of spiritual practice, meditation, whatnot. Now, you're saying that all these kinds of meditation, concentrating on chakras, and whatnot, are all just the same kind of thing. 一概にそうとは言えません 心に問題があることを 多くの人が認識していて 変えたいと思っています そして瞑想などの精神修行を 始めるわけです しかし あなたは― 瞑想やチャクラなどは すべて同じ類のものだと?
51:34 K: I have played that trick long ago. ずっと前にやったことがあります
51:37 S: Yes. ええ
51:40 K: And I see the absurdity of all that. That is not going to stop thought. それらは ばからしいことです それでは思考は止まりません
51:48 S: Well, some of these methods are supposed to. I don't know if they do or not. They've never done it for me, or... but I don't know if that's because I haven't done them enough. 止めるものもあるのでは? 私には効果がありませんでしたが… 修行が足りないのかも…
52:00 K: So, instead of going through all that business why don't you find out, let's find out what is thought, whether it can end, what is implied. You follow? Dig! Sir, at the end of these four discussions have you got healthy minds? Have you got a mind that is not confused, groping, floundering, demanding, asking? You follow, sir? What a business! It's like seeing a rattler and say, 'Yes, that's a rattler, I won't go near it'. Finished! では そうする代わりに 調べてみては?思考とは何なのか 終焉できるかどうかを わかりますか?探究なさい! これら4回にわたる議論の末― 健全な心を得ましたか? 混乱のない心を得ましたか? もはや模索していない― 求めていない心を どうですか? なんと厄介な! それはヘビを見て― 近づかないことと同じです
53:01 H: It looks from the inside like this is a tremendous deep problem, that's very difficult to solve, and you're saying from the outside, that it's just like seeing a rattler, and you don't go near it, there's nothing to it. 内側から見れば途方もなく深く― 困難な問題ですが 外側から見れば ヘビの話と同じくらい 単純なことであると?
53:13 K: It is like that with me.

H: Yes.
私にはそう思えます
53:16 K: Because I don't want to achieve nirvana, or heaven, or anything. I say, 'Look' - you follow? 涅槃や天国など要らないからです 観察するだけです
53:23 H: Well, I think it's interesting, why it looks so deep when in fact it isn't. なぜ事実と違って― 深く見えるのですか?
53:30 K: No, sir, we are all so very superficial. Right? And that seems to satisfy us. That's our... good house, good wife, good job, good relationship - don't disturb anything. I'll go to church, you go to the mosque, I'll go to the temple - keep things as they are. 我々は皆 非常に浅薄なのです でしょう? それで満足すると思うのです 良い家、良い妻― 良い仕事、良い人間関係―何も打破しません それぞれが教会、モスク― 寺院に行き現状を維持するのです
53:59 H: Then you're saying, we don't even want to look at it. つまり目を背けていると?
54:01 K: Of course not.

H: But say, we come with a problem...
もちろんです
54:04 K: If Mrs. Thatcher and the gentleman in Argentina looked at it, how tribalistic they are - they would stop it. But they don't, because the public doesn't want it. British - you follow? We are educated to be cruel to each other. I won't go into all that. So, a healthy mind is that, sir. A healthy mind is without any conflict. Then it is a holistic mind. And then there's a possibility of that which is sacred to be. Otherwise all this is so childish. もし自らの部族主義に目を向けていれば 戦争をやめたはずです しかし皆 目を向けたくないのです わかりますか? 非情になるよう教育されます 詳しくは言いません つまり 健全な心とは― いかなる葛藤もない心です つまり全体観的な心です そこに神聖なものとなる可能性があるのです でなければ子供じみたことです