Krishnamurti Subtitles home


SD72CES1 - Dobro prekvitá len v slobode
Dialóg 1
San Diego, Kalifornia, USA
17 Február 1972



0:02 Krishnamurti in Dialogue with Father Eugene Schallert. Krishnamurti v dialógu s Otcom Eugenom Schallertom.
0:07 J. Krishnamurti was born in South India and educated in England. For the past 40 years he has been speaking in the United States, Europe, India, Australia and other parts of the world. From the outset of his life's work he repudiated all connections with organised religions and ideologies and said that his only concern was to set man absolutely, unconditionally free. He is the author of many books, among them The Awakening of Intelligence, The Urgency of Change Freedom From the Known, and The Flight of the Eagle. In dialogue with Krishnamurti is the Rev. Eugene J. Schallert of the Society of Jesuits, the Director of the Center for Sociological Research at the University of San Francisco where Father Schallert is an Associate Professor of Sociology. J. Krishnamurti sa narodil v Južnej Indii a bol vzdelaný v Anglicku. Posledných štyridsa rokov rozpráva po Spojených štátoch, v Európe, v Indii, v Austrálii a v ïalších èastiach sveta. Od zaèiatku svojeho životného diela prerušil všetky spojenia s organizovanými náboženstvami a ideológiami a povedal, že jeho jediným záujmom je oslobodi èloveka, úplne, bezpodmieneène. Je autorom mnohých kníh, medzi inými: Prebudenie inteligencie, Naliehavos zmeny, Sloboda od poznaného a Let Orla. V dialógu s Krishnamurtiho je Rev. Eugene J. Schallert zo spoloèenstva jezuitov, riadite¾ Centra pre sociologický výskum na univerzite v San Francisku, kde je otec Schallert docentom sociológie.
1:02 S: I think we should perhaps start by exploring with each other the discovery of that which is most real in the world in which we live and how we learn to see that which is most real. S: Myslím si, že by sme najprv mali zaèa skúmaním èo je najskutoènejšie vo svete, v ktorom žijeme a ako sa nauèi vidie to, èo je skutoèné.
1:24 K: Sir, would you consider that to see very clearly the whole complex human problem not only politically, religiously, socially but also the inward morality, a sense of otherness – if we can use that word – mustn't one have total freedom? K: Pane, povedali by ste, že aby èlovek videl ve¾mi jasne celý problém ¾udsta, nie len politicky, nábožensky, sociálne ale tiež vnútornou morálkou, pocit inakosti - ak môžeme použi toto slovo - musí ma èlovek totálnu slobodu?
2:06 S: Yes, I don't see how one can possibly explore anything of relevance to the world in which we live in the absence of a recognition or an awareness of his own inner freedom. To feel that we are limited, or constricted in our approach to social, economic, political, moral problems – particularly our religious problems – that we can't explore these from some other base than the real base which is the base of being free. S: Neviem, akoby èlovek mohol skúma hocièo relevantné so svetom v ktorom žijeme, bez poznania alebo uvedomovania si svojej vlastnej vnútornej slobody. Ten pocit, že sme obmedzení, alebo lepšie povedané nastavení v našom prístupe k sociálnym, ekonomickým, politickým, morálnym problémom - zvláš v otázke náboženských problémov - že to nemôžeme skúma z nejakého iného základu, ako od skutoèného základu, ktorý je základom toho, že sme vo¾ní.
2:43 K: But most religions and most cultures whether Asiatic, India or Europe and therefore America, they conditioned the mind a great deal. And you notice it, as one travels around, how, in each country, in each culture, they have taken tremendous pain to shape the mind. K: Ale väèšina náboženstiev a väèšina kultúr èi už v Ázii, Indii alebo v Európe a preto aj v Amerike, ovplyvnili myse¾ znaèným spôsobom. A uvedomujete si to, keï cestujete po svete, ako v každej krajine, v každej kultúre, to stálo ve¾a bolesti aby sformovali myse¾.
3:16 S: I suppose this is the function of culture, to shape the mind, – not very effective – but it is the function of culture to provide in a sense a buffer between the overwhelming dimensions of human existence, which then would transcend and encompass all existence, and which becomes an overwhelming experience for a person. Cultures do, in a sense, soften, or attempt to make culture manageable, or doable in some way or another. S: Myslím si, že to je funkcia kultúry, formova myse¾, - nie príliš efektívna - ale je to povinnos kultúry poskytova v istom zmysle zmier medzi drvivými rozmermi ¾udskej existencie, ktoré sa potom zmenia a sprevádzajú celú existenciu, a ktorá sa stane pre èloveka významnou skúsenos ou. Kultúry, v istom zmysle, zjemnòujú, alebo sa ju pokúšajú ovládnu , alebo aby fungovala tak alebo onak.
3:47 K: Yes, but I was thinking really: when one considers how the world is divided politically, religiously, socially, morally, and especially in the religious field which should be the unifying factor of all cultures, there one sees how religions have separated man: the Catholic, the Protestant, the Hindu, the Muslim, and they're all saying, 'We're all seeking one thing.' K: Áno, ale tým myslím že, keï èlovek uváži, ako je svet rozdelený, politicky, nábožensky, sociálne, morálne a zvláš nábožensky, èo by malo by spojovacím faktorom všetkých kultúr, tak potom èlovek vidí, ako náboženstvo rozdelilo èloveka: na katolíkov, protestantov, hindov, moslimov, a všetci hovoria, "H¾adáme jednu vec."
4:28 S: Even within the framework of any given religion there is a great tendency for people to divide one subgroup against another subgroup and this seems to be indigenous to... S: Dokonca aj v rámci akéhoko¾vek daného náboženstva ¾udia majú tendenciu vytvori jednu podskupinu proti inej podskupine, a to sa zdá by pôvodom ...
4:40 K: Therefore freedom is the negation of being conditioned by any culture, by any religious division or political division. K: Preto je sloboda negáciou podmienenia akouko¾vek kultúrou, akýmko¾vek náboženským rozdelením alebo politickým rozdelením.
4:58 S: I would think that ultimate freedom is the negation of such a condition. The struggle for freedom is precisely the attempt to break through or undercut or get at that which underlies these various conditioning processes. The conditioning processes themselves go on in each human being, or in each flower, or in each animal and the task in the pursuit of freedom is precisely to break through to that which is ultimately the real. S: Povedal by som, že koneèná sloboda je negáciou takého stavu. Boj za slobodu je presne snahou prerazi alebo preseka sa, alebo dosta sa k tomu, èo je základom týchto rôznych podmieòovacích procesov. Podmieòovací proces sám osebe prebieha v každej osobe, v každom kvete, v každom zvierati a úlohou tohto naháòania sa za slobodou je presne dosta sa k tomu, èo je v koneènom dôsledku skutoènos ou.
5:34 K: I'm just wondering what we mean by conditioning. K: Premýš¾am, èo rozumieme pod pojmom podmienenie.
5:38 S: Conditioning in cultures, throughout history and across space is quite varied, as you know. Conditioning, for example, in the Western world of today, has been achieved primarily through the process of the enlightenment of rational-logical processes which I suppose are productive. Without rational processes we wouldn't have television cameras to talk on. The same time with television cameras we may not see anything. So I suspect that what we are dealing with, in our world, as a primary conditioning agency, is the whole world of the kinds of thoughts or categories or concepts or constructs – I call them fantasies – that people deal with and somehow they think are real. S: Podmienenie v kultúrach, v celej histórii a naprieè vesmírom je pomerne pestré, ako viete. Napríklad, také podmienenie v dnešnom západnom svete sa dosahuje hlavne cez proces pochopenia racionálno-logických procesov o ktorých sa domnievam, že sú produktívne. Bez racionálneho procesu by sme nemali napríklad televízne kamery. A tak isto bez televíznych kamier by sme niè nevideli. Takže sa nazdávam, že èím sa zaoberáme v našom svete, ako primárne podmienenie je, že celý svet je z rôznych myšlienok, kategórií alebo konceptov, alebo konštrukcií - ja im hovorím"fantázia," s ktorými sa ¾udia zaoberajú a nejako si myslia, že sú skutoèné.
6:31 K: Yes, sir, but don't these conditionings separate man? K: Áno, pane, ale èi toto podmieòovanie nerozde¾uje ¾udí?
6:38 S: Unquestionably yes. They separate man both within himself S: Nepochybne áno! Rozde¾ujú èloveka aj vo svojom vnútri
6:41 K: …and outwardly.

S: Yes. 		K: ... aj navonok.

S: Áno.
6:44 K: So, if we are concerned with peace, with ending war, with living in a world in which this terrible violence, the separation, the brutality etc., is to end, it seems to me that it is the function of any serious religious man because I feel religion is the only factor that unifies man. K: Takže, ak sa obávame o mier, o ukonèenie vojny, vo svete v ktorom je toto hrozné násilie, oddelenie, brutalita atï., ukonèi to, sa mi zdá, že je to úloha akéko¾vek váženého nábožného muža, pretože mám pocit, že náboženstvo je jediným faktorom, ktorý zjednocuje èloveka.
7:20 S: Yes. S: Áno!
7:21 K: Not politics, economics, etc. but the religious factor. And instead of bringing man together, religions have separated man. K: Nie politika, ekonomika, atï. ale náboženský faktor. A namiesto toho, aby sme spojili ¾udí, náboženstvo ho rozde¾uje.
7:37 S: I'm not sure that that's quite right. I think that religion has been defined by cultures as a unifying force between men. There's not an awful lot of evidence in history that it has ever achieved this particular function. This may also be a function of the limiting dimensions of any given religion, or the inability of religious people to transcend their own religious concepts or their own religious legends or myths or dogmas, whatever you want to call them. There is in fact a deeper base for unity. S: Nie som si istý, èi to je celkom tak. Myslím si, že náboženstvo bolo definované kultúrou ako zjednocujúca sila medzi ¾uïmi. V histórii nie je ve¾a dôkazov žeby niekedy dosiahlo túto úlohu. Môže to by aj úloha ktorá je limitovaná daným náboženstvom, alebo neschopnos ou nábožných ¾udí zmeni ich vlastné náboženské koncepcie ich viery, legiend, alebo mýtov alebo dogiem, hociako ich chcete nazýva . V skutoènosti to je hlbší základ jednoty.
8:16 K: One can't get to the deeper unless one is free from the outer. My mind won't go very, very deeply unless there is a freedom from belief, from dogma. K: Èlovek sa nedostanie hlbšie, pokia¾ sa neoslobodí od vonkajšieho. Moja myse¾ nepôjde do håbky, pokia¾ tam nie je oslobodenie od viery, z dogmy.
8:30 S: I think that's true in a sense. There must be within man a sense – consciousness, experience, something – a sense of his inner freedom before he can be appropriately religious, before he can allow religious categories as analytical categories, to have any meaning for him. Somehow he must be human and free before he can ever think of being religious. What has happened is just the opposite. S: Myslím si, že v istom zmysle je to pravda . V èloveku musí existova pocit - vedomie, skúsenos , nieèo - pocit vnútornej slobody predtým než môže by vhodne nábožný, pred tým, než si pripustí nábožné kategórie ako analytické kategórie, aby mali preòho nejaký význam. Nejako musí by èlovekom a by slobodným, predtým než si vôbec môže myslie že je nábožný. Èo sa deje, je pravým opakom.
9:02 K: Yes, yes. Therefore we are saying, seeing what the world is now actually, not conceptually, but the actual fact of separation, wars, the terrible violence that is pervading the world right through, I feel it is the religious mind that can bring real unity to human beings. K: Áno, áno. Preto hovoríme, keï vidíme, èo sa vo svete dnes deje, v skutoènosti, nie koncepène, ale skutoèný fakt rozde¾ovania sa, vojny, strašné násilie, ktoré prestupuje svet skrz naskrz. Cítim, že je to nábožná myse¾ ktorá môže prinies ¾uïom skutoènú jednotu.
9:31 S: I would say rather it's the human mind, or the seeing mind, that may be susceptible to some exhilaration, if you will, not in the sense of stimulus but some exhilaration relative to the phenomenon of being itself, that can bring people together or achieve an end to the conflicts... S: Ja by som skôr povedal, že je to ¾udská myse¾, alebo myse¾ ktorá vidí, ktorá môže by citlivá na urèité nadšenie, ak chcete, nie v zmysle podnetov, ale nejakej rozjarenosti spojenej s fenoménom bytia, ktorá môže spoji ¾udí dokopy, alebo dosiahnu koniec konfliktov ...
9:53 K: Could we approach it by asking what separates man ? What divides human beings? K: Dostaneme sa k tomu tak, že sa spýtame, èo rozde¾uje èloveka? Èo rozde¾uje ¾udské bytosti?
10:05 S: I think ultimately, man-ness.

K: Meanness? 		S: Myslím, že je to urèite, ¾udskos .

K: Podlos ?
10:08 S: Man-ness. S: ¼udskos !
10:09 K: What do you mean by that, man-ness? K: Èo myslíte tou ¾udskos ou?
10:12 S: What I mean by that is our tendency to think about ourselves as men, or human, rather than as being, separates us from the world in which we live – from the tree, the flower, the sunset, the sea, the lake, the river, the animal, the bird, the fish, and each other, ultimately. S: Èo tým chcem poveda je, že máme tendenciu premýš¾a o sebe ako o èloveku alebo o osobe skôr než ako o bytosti, a to nás odde¾uje od sveta v ktorom žijeme. Od stromu, od kvetiny, od západu slnka, od mora, jazera, rieky zviera a, vtáka, ryby a jedného od druhého. Urèite!
10:34 K: That is, from each other.

S: Yes, ultimately from each other. 		K: To znamená, jedného od druhého.

S: Áno! A nakoniec od seba navzájom.
10:37 K: From each other. And that is given strength by, or through, these separative religions. I want to get at something, sir, which is, is reality or truth to be approached through any particular religion or is it approachable or perceivable only when the organized religious belief and propaganda, dogma, and all conceptual way of living, completely goes? K: Od seba navzájom. A je to podporované, alebo sa to deje prostredníctvom týchto rozde¾ujúcich náboženstiev? Chcem sa dosa k nieèomu, pane, èo je: Je to realita, alebo pravda, že sa to dá dosiahnu cez nejaké konkrétne náboženstvo, alebo sa to dá dosiahnu a vníma len cez organizované náboženstvá alebo propagandy èi dogmy a celý koncepèný spôsob života, ktorý sa kompletne deje?
11:27 S: I am not so sure it is appropriate to say that it should completely go for a lot of other reasons that are posterior to the phenomenon of being human in the first place, or being, simply, in the first place. If we're going to get at the question of truth, which is the question of understanding or seeing, we have to first of all get at the question of being, and the whole inner dynamics and evolutionary characters of being. If we can't get at that level, in the beginning, we really won't get at whatever value the 'teachings' of the various religions offer men. If those teachings are not relevant to existence, to being, to seeing, to understanding, to loving, or to an end of conflict, in the negative sense, then those teachings are really not relevant for man, they're unimportant. S: Nie som si tak istý, èi to je vhodné, hovori že by sme sa toho mali zbavi , kvôli mnoho iným dôvodom, ktoré sú v pozadí tohto úkazu by èlovekom, na prvom mieste, alebo jednoducho by na prvom mieste. Ak si preberieme otázku pravdy, èo je otázkou porozumenia alebo videnia, musíme sa v prvom rade dosta k otázke bytia, a celej vnútornej dynamike a evoluèných znakov bytia. Ak sa nám na tejto úrovni nepodarí dosta na zaèiatku, v skutoènosti sa nedostaneme k žiadnej hodnote ktoré uèenie rôznych vier èloveku ponúka. Ak tieto uèenia nie sú relevantné existencii, by , vidie , porozumie , ¾úbi , alebo nevedú ku koncu konfliktu, v negatívnom slova zmysle, potom tie uèenia v skutoènosti nemajú zmysel pre ¾udí. Nie sú nedôležité.
12:28 K: I agree. But the fact remains, sir, just look at it, the fact remains, if one is born a Hindu or a Muslim and he is conditioned by that, in that culture in that behavioural pattern, and conditioned by a series of beliefs, imposed, carefully cultivated by the various religious orders, sanctions, books, etc., and another is conditioned by Christianity, there is no meeting point, except conceptually. K: Súhlasím. Ale faktom zostáva, pane, staèí sa na to pozrie , faktom zostáva, že ak sa èlovek narodí ako hinduista alebo moslim, a je tým podmienený, svojou kultúrou, vzorom správania, a je podmienený sériou presvedèení, zakoreòuje sa to v òom a pestuje sa to rôznymi cirkevnými príkazmi, trestami, knihami a podobne, a iný je podmienený kres anstvom, nemajú niè spoloèné okrem konceptu.
13:15 S: Krishnaji, do you mean that in order for a man to be free, simply, he will have to rid himself of whatever religious – and particularly religious – but also political and cultural and social doctrines or dogmas or myths that he has associated with himself as a religious person? S: Krishnaji, myslíte, že aby bol èlovek slobodný, jednoducho sa bude musi zbavi akéhoko¾vek náboženstva? hocijakého náboženstva, ale aj politických, kultúrnych a sociálnych doktrín a dogiem alebo mýtov, ktoré si prisvojil ako nábožná osoba?
13:38 K: That's right. Because you see, after all, what is important in living is unity, harmony between human beings. That can only come about if there is harmony in each one. And that harmony is not possible if there is any form of division inside and outside – externally or internally. Externally, if there is political division geographical division, national division, obviously there must be conflict. And if there is inward division obviously it must breed a great conflict, which expresses itself in violence, brutality, aggressiveness, etc. So, human beings are brought up in this way. A Hindu, a Muslim are at each other all the time, or the Arab and the Jew, or the American, the Russian – you follow? – this outwardly. K: Presne tak! Pretože, koniec koncov, vidíte, že to, èo je dôležité v živote je jednota, harmónia medzi ¾udskými bytos ami. Tá môže prís jedine vtedy, keï je harmónia v každom z nás. A tá harmónia nie je možná, ak je v nás akáko¾vek forma rozdelenia, vo vnútri èi vonku -- extérne alebo interne. Extérne, ak existuje politické rozdelenie, geografické rozdelenie, národné rozdelenie, tam samozrejme musí by konflikt. A ak existuje vnútorné rozdelenie, musí to prináša ve¾ký konflikt, èo sa prejavuje násilím, brutalitou, agresivitou, atï. Takže, ¾udské bytosti sú takýmto spôsobom vychovávané. Hind a moslim broja proti sebe po celý èas, alebo Arab a žid, alebo Amerièan a Rus... Sledujete? Navonok.
14:49 S: I think what we are dealing with here is not so much the imposition of harmony on the human being from without or the imposition of disharmony on the human being. My hands are perfectly harmonious with each other, fingers move together and my eyes move with my hands. There may be conflict in my mind, or between my mind and my feelings, as insofar I have internalized certain concepts which then are in conflict. S: Myslím si, že s èím tu máme do èinenia , ani nie je vystavenie harmónie ¾udskej bytosti zvonka alebo vystavenie ¾udské bytosti disharmónii. Moje ruky sú dokonale harmonické medzi sebou, prsty sa pohybujú spoloène a moje oèi sa pohybujú spolu s rukami. V mojej mysli môže by konflikt, alebo medzi mojou mys¾ou a mojimi pocitmi, ak som si privlastnil isté koncepty, ktoré sú potom v rozpore.
15:19 K: That's right. K: To je pravda.
15:20 S: What I must discover if I am to be free is that there is in fact harmony within me. And If I am to be one with you I must discover from my hand 'Hand, tell me what it's like to be a part of something.' Because my hand is already harmoniously existing with my arm and with my body, and with you. But then my mind sets up these strange dualities. S: Èo musím zisti , ak mám by slobodný je to, èi je v skutoènosti harmónia vo mne. A ak mám by jedným z vás, musím to zisti z mojej ruky: " Ruka, povedz mi, èo to je, by súèas ou nieèoho? " Pretože moja ruka už harmonicky existuje s mojím ramenom a s mojím telom, a s vami. Ale potom si moja myse¾ nastaví tieto podivné duality.
15:47 K: So, that's the problem, sir. Are these dualities created artificially, first of all – because you are a Protestant, I am a Catholic, or I am a communist and you are a capitalist – are they created artificially because each society has its own vested interest, each group has its own particular form of security? Or is the division created in oneself by the me and the not me? You understand what I mean?

S: I understand what you mean. 		K: Takže to je ten problém, pane. Sú tieto duality umelo vytvorené, v prvom rade - pretože vy ste protestant, ja som katolík, alebo som komunista a vy ste kapitalista - sú vytvorené umelo, pretože každá spoloènos má svoj vlastný hmotný záujem, každá skupina má svoju vlastnú konkrétnu formu bezpeèia? Alebo je rozdelenie vytvorené v sebe, "mnou" a tým "nie mnou"? Rozumiete, èo tým myslím?

S: Chápem, èo máte na mysli.
16:39 K: The me is my ego, my selfishness, my ambitions, greed, envy and that excludes, separates you from entering into that field. K: Je to moje ego, moje sebectvo, moje ambície, chamtivos , závis a to vás vyluèuje, odde¾uje od vstupu do tejto oblasti.
16:54 S: I think that really the more one is conscious of his selfishness, his greed, his ambition, or, on the other side of the fence, his security, or even his peace, in a superficial sense, the more unconscious he is of the inner self who is in fact already one with you – however much I may be unaware of that. S: Myslím si, že èím viac si èlovek uvedomuje svoje sebectvo, svoju nenásytnos , ambíciei, alebo druhú stranu múru, svoju bezpeènos , alebo dokonca mier, v povrchnom slova zmysle, tým viac si uvedomuje svoje vlastné vnútorné ja, ktoré je v skutoènosti vašou súèas ou - hoci si to vôbec neuvedomujeme.
17:18 K: Wait, just a minute, sir, that becomes a dangerous thing. Because the Hindus have maintained, as most religions have, that in you there is harmony, there is God, there is reality. In you. And all that you have to do is peel off the layers of corruption, the layers of hypocrisy, the layers of stupidity, and gradually come to that point where you are established in harmony – because you've already got it. K: Poèkajte na minútku, pane, to zaèína by nebezpeèné. Pretože hinduisti udržiavajú vieru, tak ako mnohé náboženstvá, že vo vás je harmónia. Boh, to je realita. Vo vás. A všetko, èo musíte spravi je odstráni vrtstvy korupcie, pokrytectva, vrstvy hlúposti, a postupne sa dostanete k bodu kde je sídlo harmónie - pretože už ju máte.
17:56 S: The Hindus don't have a monopoly on that particular way of thinking. We Catholics have the same problem.

K: Same problem, of course. 		S: Nemyslím si, že Hindovia majú monopol na tento konkrétny spôsob myslenia. My katolíci máme rovnaký problém.

K: Rovnaký problém, samozrejme.
18:05 S: We are confronted with a discovery with the discovery of seeing, of understanding, of loving, of trusting – all these primary sorts of words we're confronted with the discovering of these things. And peeling back layers, I don't think is the way of discovering them. Whether it be layers of corruption, of goodness or evil, whatever, that is not the way of discovering them. One does not abstract from or pretend away his sense of evil within himself in order to find himself. What is required is a penetrating, empathetic, open, free mind. S: Sme konfrontovaní s objavom, s objavom videnia, chápania, lásky, dôvery - všetkých týchto základných druhov slov, sme konfrontovaní s objavovaním týchto vecí. A nemyslím si, že postupné odstraòovanie týchto vrstiev je spôsob, ako ich objavi . Èi už sú to vrstvy korupcie, dobra alebo zla, èohoko¾vek, nie je to spôsob ich objavovania. Èlovek si nemusí vymýš¾a alebo predstiera zlo vo svojom vnútri aby sa mohol nájs . Èo sa vyžaduje, je prenikajúca, citlivá, otovorená myse¾.
18:47 K: Yes, sir, but how does one come to it? How does one, with all the mischief that one is brought up in or one lives in, is it possible to put all that aside without effort? Because the moment there is effort there is distortion. K: Áno pane. Ale ako sa k tomu èlovek dostane? Ako èlovek, s celou tou neplechou, v ktorej je vychovávaný, alebo v nej žije, to bez námahy odloží bokom? Pretože v tom momente, keï vznike námaha, vzniká aj skreslenie.
19:14 S: I am sure that is true. Without effort, that is, activity, behaviour, too much conversation, but certainly not without the expenditure of enormous amounts of energy. S: Som si istý, že je to pravda. Bez námahy, to znamená èinnosti, správania, príliš ve¾a konverzácie, ale rozhodne nie bez vynaloženia obrovského množstva energie.
19:28 K: Ah! That energy can only come if there is no effort. K: Ah! Táto energia môže prís iba vtedy, ak sa nevyvíja žiadne úsilie.
19:33 S: Precisely... S: Presne tak ...
19:35 K: If there is no friction then you have abundance of energy! K: Ak neexistuje konflikt, tak máte dostatok energie!
19:40 S: Precisely. Friction destroys, it dissipates energy. S: Presne tak. Konflikt nièí, rozpty¾uje energiu.
19:44 K: Friction exists when there is separation between what is right and what is wrong, between what is called evil and what's called good. If I am trying to be good then I create friction. So the problem is, really, how to have this abundance of energy which will come without any conflict? And one needs that tremendous energy to discover what truth is. K: Konflikt existuje tam, kde je rozdelenie medzi tým, èo je správne a èo je zlé, medzi tým, èo sa nazýva zlo a to, èo sa nazýva dobro. Ak sa snažím by dobrým, potom vytváram konflikt. Takže problém je, ako v skutoènosti ma tento nadbytok energie, ktorá príde bez akéhoko¾vek konfliktu? A na to, aby èlovek zistil pravdu, potrebuje obrovskú energiu.
20:23 S: Or goodness is. If we deal with goodness in the sense that you use it there – one tries to be good – we're dealing with codes, with law… S: Alebo dobrotu. Keï si zoberiem dobrotou v tom zmysle, že ju tam použijete: - Èlovek sa snaží by dobrý - má do èinenia s pravidlami, so zákonom...
20:34 K: No, no, I don't mean that!

S: Moral goodness in some sense. 		K: Nie, nie, nemám na mysli toto!

A: Mravná dobrota v nejakom zmysle.
20:37 K: Goodness only flowers in freedom. It doesn't flower within the law of any religious sanctions or any religious beliefs. K: Dobrota prekvitá len na slobode. Nekvitne v medziach zákona akýchko¾vek náboženských sankcií alebo akýchko¾vek náboženských presvedèení.
20:46 S: Or political or economic. There's no question about this. Then if we're going to discover the inner meaning of freedom, and of goodness, and of being, we have to say to ourselves the reason we have not discovered this or one of the reasons why we have not discovered this is because we have within ourselves this strange tendency to start with the surface of things and never to end. We stop there, where we started. S: Alebo politických èi ekonomických. O tom niet pochýb. Ak chceme objavi vnútorný význam slobody, a dobra, a bytia, musíme si poveda dôvod, preèo sme ho neobjavili. Alebo jeden z dôvodov, preèo sme ho neobjavili je, kvôli tomu, že v nás máme tieto podivné tendencie zaèa na povrchu vecí a nikdy neskonèi . Prestaneme tam, kde sme zaèali.
21:19 K: Sir, could we come to this: suppose you and I know nothing, no religion...

S: We have no conception... 		K: Pane, mohli by sme na to prís . Predpokladajme, že vy a ja niè nevieme, nemáme žiadnu vieru ...

S: Nemáme žiadnu predstavu ...
21:34 K: …no conceptual idea at all. I have no belief, no dogma, nothing! And I want to find out how to live rightly, how to be good – not how to be good – be good.

S: Be good. Yes, yes, yes. 		K: ... vôbec žiadnu predstavu. Nemám vieru, nemám dogmu, niè! A chcem zisti , ako ži správne, ako by dobrý - nie ako by dobrý - by dobrý.

S: By dobrý. Áno, áno, áno.
21:57 K: To do that, I have to enquire, I have to observe. Right? I can only observe... observation is only possible when there is no division. K: Aby som tak spravil, musím sa pýta , musím skúma . Správne? Môžem len pozorova ... pozorovanie je možné len vtedy, keï neexistuje rozdelenie.
22:16 S: Observation is that which eliminates the divisions. S: Pozorovanie je to, èo eliminuje rozdelenie.
22:18 K: Yes, when the mind is capable of observing without division then I perceive, then there is perception. K: Áno, keï je myse¾ schopná pozorova bez rozdelenia, vtedy vnímam. Potom tam je vnímanie.
22:29 S: In any seeing that is more than conceptual or categorical seeing, or observing mental constructs, in any seeing that takes place, a truth is encountered. And being and truth and goodness are all the same thing. S: V každom videní, ktoré je viac ako koncepèné alebo kategorické videnie, alebo pozorovaním mentálnej štruktúry, v každom nahliadnutí ktoré sa deje, narazíme na pravdu. A bytie a pravda a dobro, sú tá istá vec.
22:47 K: Of course. K: Samozrejme.
22:48 S: So the question then is: why do I have to think about truth as though it were associated with the logical consistency of categories? Rather than think about truth as though it were associated with my being itself. If I have to always partialize my world – we spoke of the dualities – like we do or did in the Catholic religion, the duality of body and soul.

K: And devil, good and… 		S: Takže otázka potom znie: Preèo musím rozmýš¾a o pravde, akoby to bolo spojené s logickými konzistentnými kategóriami? Radšej než premýš¾a o pravde akoby bola spojená s mojím vlastným bytím. Ak musím vždy deli môj svet na èasti - hovorili sme o dualite - tak ako to aj robíme alebo sme to robili v katolíckom náboženstve, dualitu tela a duše.

K: A zlo, dobro a ...
23:19 S: And good and evil incarnate in one form or another. If we have to always think that way then we shall never find… S: A dobro a zlo stelesnené v tej èi onej forme. Ak budeme vždy rozmýš¾a takýmto spôsobom, tak potom to nikdy nenájdeme ...
23:25 K: Obviously.

S: …what it means to… 		K: Samozrejme.

S: ... èo znamená ...
23:27 K: …be good.

S: To be good, yes, yes, or to be truthful, or to be at all. I think this is the problem, and, as you suggested, there are so many centuries of cultural conditioning from all perspectives, that it is difficult. 		K: ... by dobrý.

S: By dobrý, áno, áno, alebo by pravdivý, alebo vôbec by . Myslím, že to je ten problém, a ako ste naznaèil, existuje to¾ko stároèí kultúrneho podmienenia, zo všetkých h¾adísk, že je to ažké.
23:44 K: I mean, human beings are brought up in this dualistic way of living, obviously. K: Myslím tým, že ¾udské bytosti sú vychovávané týmto duálnym spôsobom života, samozrejme.
23:50 S: Yes, and maybe we could do this better if we could not consider the obvious dualities of good and evil, of the sacred and the profane, of right and wrong, of truth and falsehood, none of these dualities but somehow come to grips with the duality that bedevils us the most: the duality of you and me, of man and woman. S: Áno, a možno by sme urobili lepšie, ak by sme nepovažovali tieto zjavné duality za dobro a zlo, za duchovno a zneuctenie, za správne a zlé, pravdu a lži, ani jednu z týchto daulít, ale nejako sa popasova s touto dualitou, ktorá nás mätie najviac: dualita medzi mnou a tebou, mužom a ženou.
24:22 K: Yes, duality of me and you. Now, what is the root of that? What is the source of this division as me and you, we and they, politically – you follow? K: Áno, dualita medzi mnou a tebou. A teraz, èo to spôsobuje? Èo je zdrojom tohto rozdelenia na mòa a teba, my a oni, politicky - sledujete?
24:37 S: There cannot be any source of this in us because we are one, like the fingers of my hand are one. We aren't aware of it. S: Neexistuje žiadny zdroj tohto v nás, pretože sme jedno, ako prsty na mojej ruke sú jedno. Len si to neuvedomujeme.
24:44 K: Ah, wait. No. When you say 'We are one', that's an assumption. I don't know I am one. Actually, the division exists. Only when the division ceases, then I can say I don't have to say, 'I am one' ! There is a unity. K: Poèkajte! Nie. Keï hovoríte "Sme jedno" to je domienka. Neviem, že som jeden. Delenie v skutoènosti existuje. Len keï to delenie prestane, vtedy môžem poveda Nemusím hovori , 'Som jeden! " Je tam jednota.
25:06 S: When you say, 'I am,' you are saying, 'I am one.' S: Takže keï hovoríte "Ja som" hovoríte "Som jeden."
25:09 K: Ah, no!

S: Adding 'one' is redundant to 'I am' 		K: Ach, nie!

S: Pridáva "jeden" k"Ja som" je zbytoèné .
25:12 K: No, I want to go a little bit into this because there is only – as human beings live – there is me and you, my god and your god, my country and your country, my doctrine, you follow? This me and you, me and you. Now, the me is the conditioned entity. K: Nie, chcem ís trochu do tohto pretože to je len - odkedy ¾udské bytosti žijú - existuje ja a ty, môj boh a tvoj boh, moja krajina a tvoja krajina, moje uèenie - sledujete? Toto "ja a ty", "ty a ja". Teraz to "Ja", je podmienená entita.
25:35 S: Yes. The me is the conditioned entity. S: Áno. "Ja", je podmienená entita.
25:38 K: Let's go step by step. The me is the conditioning, the conditioned entity brought about, nurtured, through the culture, through society, through religion, through conceptual, ideological living. The me that is selfish, the me that gets angry, violent, me that says, 'I love you', 'I don't love' – all that is me. That me is the root of separation. K: Poïme krok za krokom. "Ja" je stav, podmienená entita výchovou, živenou skrz kultúru, skrz spoloènos , skrz náboženstvo, cez koncepciu, ideologické bytie. "Ja", ktoré je sebecké, "Ja", ktoré sa hnevá, je násilné, hovorí: "Milujem a!", "Nemilujem a!" - to všetko som "Ja". To "Ja" je koreòom oddelenia.
26:10 S: Unquestionably. In fact, the very terminology you use betrays the substance of your idea. The word 'me' is an objective pronoun. Once I have made of myself something out there to look at, I shall never see anything which is real because I am not out there to look at. Once I make freedom something out there to pursue, then I shall never achieve freedom. Once I make freedom something out there that someone will give me then I shall never achieve freedom. S: Bezpochyby. V skutoènosti tá istá terminológia ktorú používate zrádza podstatu vašej teórie. Slovo "ja" je osobné zámeno. Potom, èo som urobil zo seba nieèo, na èo sa dá pozera , už nikdy neuvidím niè, èo je reálne, lebo nie som tam vonku, aby som to videl. Keï si pod slobodou predstavým nieèo, za èím sa môžem tam vonku naháòa , potom nikdy nedosiahnem slobodu. Keï si pod slobodou predstavým nieèo, èo mi niekto dá, potom nikdy nedosiahnem slobodu.
26:43 K: No, no. All authority, all that can be pushed aside. There is me and you. As long as this division exists there must be conflict between you and me. K: Nie, nie. Všetka autorita, to všetko sa dá da bokom. Sme tu ja a vy. Kým existuje toto rozdelenie dovtedy medzi nami musí existova konflikt.
26:54 S: Unquestionably. S: Bezpochyby.
26:55 K: And there is not only conflict between you and me but there is conflict within me. K: A nie je to len konflikt medzi mnou a tebou, ale je tu aj konflikt vo mne.
27:01 S: Once you have objectified yourself, there must be conflict within you. S: Akonáhle ste sa konkretizovali, musí existova konflikt vo vašom vnútri.
27:04 K: So, I want to find out whether this me can end, so that Me end! That's good enough to say. Not 'so that'. K: Takže chcem prís na to, èi toto "Ja" môže presta ... Ukonèi "Ja".To sa ¾ahko povie. Ale nie je to tak!
27:21 S: Yes, because there is obviously no 'so that' if the me ends. S: Áno, pretože to zjavne nie je "tak, " ak "Ja" skonèí.
27:26 K: Now, the me. Is it possible to completely empty the mind of the me? Not only at the conscious level but deep, at the deep unconscious roots of one's being. K: Teraz ja! Dá sa úplne vyprázdni myse¾ od "Ja"? Nielen na vedomej úrovni ale hlboko, v najhlbších koreòoch nieèieho bytia?
27:47 S: I think it's not only possible but it's the price that we must pay for being, or being good, or being true or being at all, living. To live, the price we must pay is to rid ourselves of me, me-ness. S: Myslím si, že nielen že je to možné, ale je to cena ktorú musíme plati za bytie, alebo za to by dobrý, alebo by pravdivý, alebo vôbec za to, že sme. Ži , cena, ktorú musíme zaplati je zbavi sa svojho "Ja", jášstva.
28:03 K: Is there a process, a system, a method, to end the me? K: Existuje proces, systém, metóda, ako sa to dá skoèni ?
28:10 S: No, I don't think there is a process or a method. S: Nie, nemyslím si, že existuje proces, alebo metóda.
28:13 K: Therefore there is no process, it must be done instantly! Now, this we must be very clear, because all the religions have maintained processes. The whole evolutionary system, psychologically, is a process. If you say – and to me that is a reality – that it cannot possibly be a process, which means a matter of time, degree, gradualness, then there is only one problem, which is to end it instantly. K: Ak neexistuje proces, musí to by vykonané okamžite! Teraz to musí by ve¾mi jasné, pretože všetky náboženstvá majú na to postupy. Celý evoluèný systém, psychologicky, je proces. Ak poviete - a pre mòa to je realita - že to nemôže by proces, èo znamená záležitos èasu, stupòa, postupu, potom je tam len jeden problém, a to, ukonèi to okamžite.
28:56 S: Yes, to destroy the monster at one step. S: Áno, znièi to monštrum jedným ahom..
28:59 K: Instantly!

S: Yes. Unquestionably that must be done. We must destroy me-ness. 		K: Okamžite!

S: Áno. Bezpochyby to musíme urobi . Musíme znièi "Jášstvo".
29:07 K: No, destroy... I wouldn't use. The ending of the me, with all the accumulation, with all the experiences, what it has accumulated, consciously and unconsciously, can that whole content be thrown out? Not by effort, by me. If I say: 'By me I'll throw it out' it is still the me. K: Nie, znièi ... To by som nepoužíval. Ukonèenie "mòa", so všetkým hromadením so všetkými skúsenos ami, èo som nazhromaždil, vedome i nevedome. Dá sa to všetko zahodi ? Nie námahou, mnou. Keï poviem: "Zahodím to" som to stále ja.
29:30 S: Yes. S: Áno.
29:31 K: Or if I throw it out by exertion of will, it is still the me. The me remains. K: Alebo ak to odhodím silou vôle, je to stále "Ja". "Ja" zostáva.
29:38 S: It is not – clearly in my mind, it is not an act, or an activity of the mind, nor an activity of the will, nor an activity of the feelings, nor an activity of the body, which will help me to see me – no, pardon me – will help me to see.

K: See, yes. 		S: Nie je to - jednoducho v mojej mysli. Nie je to akt, alebo aktivita mysle, ani aktivita vôle, ani aktivita pocitov, ani aktivita tela, ktorá mi pomôže uvidie ma - nie, pardón - pomôže mi vidie . K. Vidie . Áno!
29:59 S: And since we, in this world, are so wrapped up with doing, with having, with acting, we really don't understand reflectively and profoundly what takes place before we act or before we possess. And I think that it is incumbent upon us to reflect backwards and see that there is seeing before seeing takes place – in the two senses of the word seeing – just as there is loving before one becomes aware of loving, and certainly just as there is being before one becomes aware of being. S: A nako¾ko sme, v tomto svete, takí pohltení "robením", nieèo ma , konaním, v skutoènosti nerozumieme zmyslovo a hlboko, èo sa deje predtým, než zaèneme kona predtým než vlastníme. A myslím, že nám prislúcha pozrie sa spä a vidie , že existuje videnie predtým než zaèneme vidie - v oboch zmysloch slova vidie - tak ako existuje láska predtým, než si ju èlovek uvedomí, takisto existuje bytie predtým než si èlovek bytie uvedomí.
30:37 K: Yes, sir, but I… K: Áno pane, ale ja...
30:40 S: Is the question reflecting backwards deep, inwardly, deeply enough? S: Poèúvate poriadne, hlboko, vnútorne dostatoène hlboko?
30:45 K: Now just a minute, sir, that's the difficulty, because the me is at a conscious level and at the deeper levels of consciousness. Can the conscious mind examine the unconscious me and expose it? Or the content of consciousness is the me! K: Teraz na minútku, pane, to je problém, pretože "Ja" existuje na vedomej úrovni a na hlbších úrovniach vedomia. Môže vedomá myse¾ skúma nevedomé "Ja" a odhali ho? Alebo je obsah vedomia "Ja"?
31:18 S: No, the self transcends the content of consciousness. But the me may well be the content of consciousness. But the me is not the I, the me is not the self. S: Nie, "Ja" prevyšuje obsah vedomia. Ale "Ja" môže by obsahom vedomia. Ale to "Ja" nie som ja. To "Ja" nie som "ja" samo o sebe.
31:28 K: Wait, wait. I included in the me, the self, the ego, the whole conceptual ideation about myself, the higher self the lower self, the soul: all that is the content of my consciousness which makes the I, which makes the ego, which is the me. K: Poèkajte, poèkajte. "Ja", zahrnuté vo mne, v sebe, v egu, celá koncepèná predstava o sebe, vyššie ja, nižšie ja, duša: to všetko je obsah môjho vedomia ktoré vytvára "Ja", ktoré vytvára ego, ktorým som "Ja".
31:54 S: It certainly makes the me, yes. I unquestionably agree with that, that it makes that objective self that I can examine and analyze and look at, compare, that I can be violent with others about. It's explanatory, if you will, or the summation of the whole thing which you put in the word 'me', is explanatory of a history of a whole multiplicity of present relationships but it's still not getting at the reality. S: To urèite tvorí moje "Ja", áno. Nesporne s tým súhlasím. To vytvára to samostatné "Ja", ktoré môžem skúma a analyzova a pozera sa, porovnáva , ktoré môže by k druhým násilné. To vysvet¾uje, ak chcete, alebo obsahuje celú vec ktorú ste vložili do slova "ja", vysvet¾uje to históriu mnohých terajších vz ahov, ale stále sa nedostávame k realite.
32:23 K: No, the reality cannot be got at, or it cannot flower if the me is there. K: Nie, k realite sa nedá dosta , alebo nemôže prekvita pokia¾ tam je "Ja".
32:32 S: Whenever, as I said before, whenever I insist upon viewing you as me, then the reality cannot flower and freedom will not be. S: Kedyko¾vek, ako som už povedal, keï vás vidím ako "seba", potom realita nemôže prekvita a nebude tam ani sloboda.
32:43 K: So, can the content of my consciousness, which is the me, which is my ego, myself, my ideations, my thoughts, my ambitions, my greeds – all that is the me – my nation, my desire for security, my desire for pleasure, my desire for sex, my desire to do this and to do that – all that is the content of my consciousness. As long as that content remains, there must be separation between you and me, between good and bad, and the whole division takes place. Now, we're saying, the emptying of that content is not a process of time. K: Takže môže obsah môjho vedomia, ktorým som ja, moje ego, ja sám, moje predstavy, myšlienky, ambície, moja chamtivos - to všetko som ja - môj národ, moja túžba po bezpeènosti, moja túžba po zábave, túžba po sexe, moja túžba robi toto a robi tamto - to všetko je obsah môjho vedomia. Pokia¾ tento obsah zostáva, potia¾ tam musí by oddelenie, medzi mnou a tebou, medzi dobrým a zlým, a celé toto rozdelenie sa deje. Teraz hovoríme, že vyprázdnenie tohto obsahu nie je procesom èasu.
33:32 S: Nor is it subject to methodology. S: Rovnako tak to nie je predmetom metodiky.
33:34 K: Methodology. Then, what is one to do? Let's look at it a little, take time a little bit over this, because this is quite important because most people say: 'You must practice – you follow? – you must strive, you must make a tremendous effort, live disciplined, control, suppress'. K: Metodika. Tak potom, èo má èlovek robi ? Pozrime sa na to trošku. Pozastavme sa nad tým trochu, pretože to je ve¾mi dôležité, pretože väèšina ¾udí hovorí: "Musíte to cvièi ! - Sledujete? - musíte sa o to usilova , musíte si da neskutoènú námahu, ži disciplinovane, kontrolova sa, potlaèi '.
33:59 S: I am very familiar with all of that. S: To všetko dobre poznám.
34:01 K: That's all out! K: To všetko je preè!
34:04 S: That has not been helpful. S: To mi ve¾mi nepomohlo.
34:06 K: Not at all.

S: No, no. 		K: Vôbec nie.

S: Nie, nie.
34:08 K: So, how is the content to be emptied with one stroke, as it were? K: Takže ako mám ten obsah vyprázdni jedným ahom?
34:15 S: I would say – and maybe we could pursue this together – the content cannot be emptied by a negative action of repudiation of the content.

K: No, no. Obviously. 		S: Ja by som povedal - a možno by sme to mohli sledova spoloène - obsah nemôže by vyprázdnený negatívnym pôsobením èi zavrhnutím obsahu.

K: Nie, nie. Oèividne.
34:28 S: So that is a blind alley, we must not approach it that way. S: Takže to je slepá ulièka. Tadeto cesta nevedie.
34:32 K: Obviously. By denying it, you are putting it under the carpet. I mean, it is like locking it up. It is still there. K: Samozrejme. Tým, že to popriete, len to zamietnete pod koberec. Myslím, že to je ako uzamknutie. Stále to tam je.
34:38 S: It's a pretence.

K: That's just it, sir. One has to see this. One has to be tremendously honest in this. Otherwise one plays tricks upon oneself, one deceives oneself. I see clearly, logically, that the me is the mischief in the world. 		S: Je to predstieranie.

K: To je práve ono, pane. Èlovek to musí vidie . Èlovek musí by v tomto ohromne poctivý. V opaènom prípade sa èlovek klame. Klame sám seba. Vidím jasne, logicky, že to "Ja" je zlo vo svete.
35:03 S: Well, I don't see that so logically as simply intuitively. S: Teda, ani to nevidím tak logicky, ako jednoducho intuitívne.
35:07 K: All right. K: V poriadku.
35:09 S: It's not the result of a discursive act. S: To nie je výsledok rozumového aktu.
35:11 K: No, no.

S: It's not a dialectical… 		K: Nie, nie.

S: Nie je to dialektické ...
35:12 K: No, of course not. Not analytical, dialectic – you see it. You see a selfish human being, whether it's politically high or low, you see human beings, selfish, and how destructive they are. Now the question is, can this content be emptied, so that the mind is really empty and active and therefore capable of perception? K: Nie, samozrejme, že nie. Nie je to analytické, dialektické - vidíte? Vidíte sebeckú ¾udskú bytos , èi už politicky vysoko alebo nízko. Vidíte aké sú ¾udské bytosti sebecké, a aké sú deštruktívne. Otázkou je, èi môže by tento obsah vyprázdnený tak, aby myse¾ bola naozaj prázdna a aktívna, a teda schopná vnímania?
35:46 S: Probably the content cannot be simply emptied. I think that the content can be put in a perspective or can be seen for its inadequacy, or its inappropriateness, by a very energetic act of simply seeing. That's what I said in the beginning that so long as I look at the truths of any given religion, I am not finding truth itself. And the way I discover the relative value of the truths of any given religion is precisely by seeing truth itself, in itself, not as an object. S: Možno sa obsah nedá jednoducho vyprázdni . Myslím, že na ten obsah sa dá pozrie rozumne, alebo môžeme vidie jeho nedostatoènos alebo jeho nevhodnos , tým, že sa na to jednoducho pozrieme. To je to, èo som povedal na zaèiatku, že pokia¾ pokladám náboženstvo za pravdu, dovtedy nenájdem svoje skutoèné "Ja". A spôsob akým objavujem relatívnu hodnotu pravdy daného náboženstva je presným videním skutoèného "Ja". Seba, nie ako objektu.
36:26 K: No, I cannot, the mind cannot perceive truth if there is division. That I must stick to. K: Nie, nemôžem, myse¾ nemôže vníma pravdu ak tam je rozdelenie. Toho sa musím drža !
36:35 S: Once you have division of any kind… S: Akonáhle ste rozdelený nejakým spôsobom...
36:37 K: That's finished. K: Tak je koniec.
36:39 S: …then you're in the categorical level, and then you will not see. S: ... a potom ste v kategorickom levely a potom neuvidíte.
36:41 K: Therefore my question is whether the mind can empty its content. This is really – you follow? K: Preto moja otázka znie, èi myse¾ môže vyprázdni jej obsah? To je naozaj - sledujete?
36:51 S: I follow what you are saying and I think you are devising a new methodology. S: Sledujem, èo hovoríte a myslím si, že vyvíjate novú metodiku.
36:55 K: Ah, no, no! I am not devising a methodology. I don't believe in methods. I think they are the most mechanical, destructive things. K: Ach, nie, nie! Nevytváram metodiku. Neverím v metódy. Myslím, že sú najmechanickejšie, najdeštruktívnejšie veci.
37:05 S: But then, after having said that, then you come back and say but if the mind is to… if the self is really to see it must empty itself of content. Isn't this a method? S: Ale potom, èo ste to povedali, idete spä a hovoríte ale ak je myse¾... pripravená naozaj vidie , musí vyprázdni svoj obsah. Nie je to metóda?
37:18 K: No, no.

S: But why, sir, is it not a method? 		K: Nie, nie.

S: Ale preèo to pane, nie je metóda?
37:20 K: I'll show you, sir. It is not a method because we said as long as there is division there must be conflict. That is so, politically, religiously. And we say, division exists because of the me. Me is the content of my consciousness. And that the emptying of the mind brings unity. I see this, not logically but as fact, not conceptually. I see this in the world taking place and I say, 'How absurd, how cruel all this is.' And the perception of that empties the mind. The very perceiving is the act of emptying. K: Ukážem vám to, pane. Nie je to metóda, pretože sme si povedali, že pokia¾ tam je rozdelenie, musí tam by konflikt. Ako politicky, tak aj nábožensky. A my hovoríme, že toto rozdelenie existuje kvôli mne. "Ja" je obsah môjho vedomia. A že vyprázdnenie mysle prináša jednotu. Vidím to, nie logicky ale ako fakt, nie koncepène. Vidím že sa to deje vo svete a hovorím, "Aké absurdné, ako kruté to všetko je! " A vnímanie toho mi vyprázdni myse¾. Práve to vnímanie je akt vyprázdòovania.
38:14 S: What you're suggesting is that the perception of the inappropriateness of the content of consciousness or of the me, the perception of the inadequacy of this or the truthlessness of the me is in itself the discovery of being. S: To, èo naznaèujete je, že samotné vnímanie nevhodnosti obsahu vedomia alebo mòa, vnímanie tejto nedostatoènosti alebo nepravdivosti o mne, je samo osebe objavením bytia?
38:32 K: That's right. That's right.

S: I think we should pursue that. 		K: Tak. Tak.

S: Myslím si, že by sme sa mali toho drža .
38:35 K: We should. K: Mali by sme.
38:37 S: Because I wonder if the perception is in fact that negative or might in fact be very positive. That it's rather in the simple seeing of the being of things, – it wouldn't have to be me or you, in the objective sense, it could be this table or my hand – that I discover the inadequacy of the content of consciousness or of these objective sorts of things like me or you. So it may be a rather profound display of intellectual, or rather, personal energy that simply makes itself by reason of the display visible to me. It's dissipating and at the same time it's easy to deal with concepts – we've agreed on that – it's easy to create concepts. It's easier, I maintain, to see simply. S: Pretože rozmýš¾am, èi je vnímanie v skutoènosti také negatívne, alebo èi v skutoènosti môže by ve¾mi pozitívne. Je to skôr v jednoduchom videní bytostí alebo vecí, - nemusel by som to by ja, alebo vy, v objektívnom zmysle by to mohol by tento stôl alebo moja ruka - aby som zistil nedostatoènos obsahu vedomia alebo týchto objektov ako som ja alebo vy. Tak to môže by pomerne hlboké zobrazenie intelektuálnej, alebo skôr osobnej energie, jednoducho robí zo seba dôvod rozvíja sa. Je to rozpty¾ujúce a zároveò je ¾ahké sa vysporiada s pojmami - na tom sme sa zhodli - je ¾ahké vytvára koncepty. Je to ¾ahšie, udržiavam to aby som to jednoducho videl.
39:39 K: Of course.

S: Prior to concepts. 		K: Samozrejme.

S: Pred konceptmi.
39:41 K: Seeing.

S: Just simply seeing. 		K: Videnie.

S: Jednoducho videnie.
39:44 K: Sir, I cannot… There is no perception if that perception is through an image. K: Pane, pokia¾ sa deje cez predstavu.
39:54 S: There is no perception if the perception is through an image. I think that is very true. S: Neexistuje žiadne vnímanie pokia¾ vnímame prostredníctvom predstavy. Myslím si, že je to naozaj pravda.
39:59 K: Now, the mind has images. K: Takže, myse¾ má predstavy.
40:03 S: The mind is bedevilled with images. S: Myse¾ je zahltená predstavami.
40:05 K: That's just it. It has images. I have an image of you and you have an image of me. These images are built through contact, through relationship, through your saying this, your hurting me, you know, it's built, it is there! Which is memory. The brain cells themselves are the residue of memory which is the image formation. Right? Now, the question then is: memory, which is knowledge, is necessary to function – technically, to walk home, or drive home, I need memory. Therefore memory has a place as knowledge. And knowledge as image has no place in relationship between human beings. K: To je práve ono. Má predstavy. Mám predstavu o vás a vy máte predstavu o mne. Tieto predstavy vznikajú cez kontakt, poèas vz ahu, pretože ja nieèo poviem, vás to zraní. Viete, je to vsadené, je to tam! Èo je pamä . Mozgové bunky samy o sebe tvoria zvyšok pamäte èo tvorí predstavy. Správne? Teda otázkou potom je: pamä , ktorá je poznanie, je nevyhnutná aby fungovala - technicky. Ís domov pešo, alebo ís domov autom, na to musím ma pamä . Preto má pamä svoje miesto ako vedomosti. Znalosti ako predstavy nemajú miesto vo vz ahu medzi ¾uïmi.
41:15 S: I still think that we are avoiding the issue at hand. Because I think what you have said relative to the question of memory is, as you have suggested, terribly important but I don't think that memory, or the repudiation of memory by consciousness, or the repudiation of the content of consciousness is the solution of the problem. I think what we have to do is say how is it, Krishnaji, that you – I'm not talking methodology now – but I know that you have seen. How is it that you saw, or that you see? And don't tell me what you eliminated in order to describe to me how you see. S: Stále si myslím, že sa vyhýbame danému problému. Pretože si myslím, že èo ste povedal, vzh¾adom k otázke pamäti je, ako ste naznaèil, nesmierne dôležité, ale nemyslím si, že pamä , alebo odmietnutie pamäte vedomím, alebo odmietnutie obsahu vedomia je riešenie tohto problému. Myslím, že èo musíme urobi , je poveda , ako to je, Krishnaji, že vy - nehovorím teraz metodicky - ale viem, že ste videli. Ako to, že ste videli, alebo že vidíte? A nehovorte mi èo ste odstránili, aby ste mi popísali ako vidíte.
41:57 K: I'll tell you how I saw. You simply see! K: Poviem, ako som videl. Jednoducho vidíte!
42:00 S: Yes, now, suppose you wanted to say to someone who had no such experience, 'You simply see'. Because I say the same thing myself all the time, 'Well, you simply see' and people say, 'You simply see, how?' And we must, if we are to be teachers, deal with this: 'Let me take you by the hand and I will show you how to see.' S: Áno, predpokladajme, že by ste to niekomu chceli poveda kto nemal také skúsenosti, "Jdnoducho vidíte!" Pretože ja si to hovorím stále, "No, proste vidíte" a ¾udia hovoria, "Vy jednoducho vidíte, ale ako?" A my musíme, ak máme by uèite¾mi, si s tým poradi : "Dovo¾te, aby som vás viedol a ukázal vám, ako vidie . "
42:23 K: I'll show you. I think that's fairly simple. First of all, one has to see what the world is, see what is around you. See. Don't take sides. K: Ukážem vám to. Myslím, že je to dos jednoduché. Po prvé, èlovek musí vidie svet taký aký je, vidie , èo je okolo vás. Vidie . Nenakláòa sa na strany.
42:42 S: Yes. I think our terminology may get in the way here. Suppose rather than say, 'One must start by seeing what the world is' we were able to start by saying, 'One must see the world.' Not concerned with natures or categories. S: Áno. Myslím, že naša terminológia tu môže by . Predpokladajme, èi skôr povedzme: "Èlovek sa musí zaèa pozera na svet taký, aký je." aby sme boli schopní zaèa tým, "Èlovek musí vidie svet." Nezaobera sa s podstatou alebo kategóriami.
42:58 K: No, no. See the world.

S: Yes, no whats. 		K: Nie, nie. Vidie svet

S: Áno. Nie aký je.
43:00 K: See the world.

S: See the world. 		K: Vidie svet.

S: Vidie svet.
43:02 K: Same thing – see the world.

S: Yes. 		K: Rovnaká vec - vidie svet.

S: Áno.
43:03 K: See the world as it is. Don't translate it in terms of your concepts. K: Vidie svet taký, aký je. Nie z h¾adiska vašich konceptov.
43:10 S: Now, again, could I say, 'See the world as it is is-ing?' S: Teda, mohol by som poveda : "Pozrite sa na svet taký, aký je, vidiac ho?"
43:15 K: Yes, put it… K: Áno, dajte to ...
43:17 S: Does that help? I mean, we are trying to… S: Pomôže to? Myslím, že sa snažíme ...
43:19 K: See the world as it is. You cannot see the world as it is if you interpret it in your terminology, in your categories, in your temperament, in your prejudices. See it as it is, violent, brutal, whatever it is.

S: Or good or beautiful. 		K: Vidie svet taký, aký je. Nemôžete vidie svet taký, aký je ak ho interpretujete svojou terminológiou, svojimi kategóriami, svojím temperamentom, svojimi predsudkami. Vidie ho, aký je! Násilný, brutálny, nech je to èoko¾vek.

S: Alebo dobrý alebo krásny.
43:40 K: Whatever it is. Can you look at it that way? Which means can you look at a tree without the image of the tree – botanical and all the naming – just look at the tree? K: Nech je akýko¾vek. Môžete sa naò tak pozera ? Èo znamená, viete sa pozrie na strom bez obrazu stromu - botanických a všetkých tých mien? - Len sa pozera na strom?
43:55 S: And once you have discovered – and it's not easy in our world to discover – the simple experience of seeing the tree without thinking tree-ness, or its nature, or, as you say, its botany and things of that kind, then what would you suggest is the next step in the pursuit of seeing? S: A akonáhle zistíte - a nie je to ¾ahké v našom svete objavova - jednoduchú skúsenos videnie stromu bez premýš¾ania o strome, alebo jeho podstate, alebo, ako hovoríte, botanika a veci tohto druhu, potom to, èo naznaèujete je ïalší krok v snahe vidie ?
44:18 K: Then seeing myself as I am. K: Potom sa vidie , aký som.
44:24 S: Underneath the content of your consciousness. S: Pod obsahom vášho vedomia.
44:26 K: Seeing all, not underneath. I haven't begun yet. I see what I am. Therefore self-knowing. There must be an observation of myself as I am, without saying: how terrible, how ugly, how beautiful, how sentimental. Just to be aware, of all the movement of myself conscious as well as unconscious. I begin with the tree. Not a process. I see that. And also I must see, this way, myself. The hypocrisy, the tricks I play – you follow? – the whole of that. Watchfulness, without any choice – just watch. Know myself. Knowing myself all the time. K: Vidie všetko, nie pod ním. Ešte som nezaèal. Vidím, èo som. Preto sebapoznanie. Musí tam by sebapozorovanie, takého aký som. Bez toho aby som hovoril: aký hrozný, aký škaredý, aký krásny, aký sentimentálny. Len si uvedomova celé hnutie seba samého, vedomé rovnako ako nevedomé. Zaènem so stromom. Nie ako proces. Vidím ho. A takýmto spôsobom, sa musím pozera aj na seba. Pokrytectvo, triky ktoré hrám - sledujete? - To všetko. Ostražitos , bez akéhoko¾vek výberu - len sa pozera . Pozna sám seba. Poznáva sa celý èas.
45:24 S: But in a non-analytical fashion. S: Ale nie - analytickým spôsobom.
45:27 K: Of course. But the mind is trained to be analytical. So I have to pursue that. Why am I analytical? Watch it. See the futility of it. It takes time, analysis, and you can never really analyze, by a professional or by yourself, so see the futility of it, the absurdity of it, the danger of it. So, what are you doing? You are seeing things as they are, actually what is taking place. K: Samozrejme. Ale myse¾ je trénovaná aby bola analytická. Takže to musím sledova . Preèo som analytický? Sledujte to. Pozrite sa na márnos toho. Chce to èas, analýzy, a nikdy to nemôžete naozaj analyzova , odborníkom alebo vami, tak aby ste videli tú márnos , tú absurditu, to nebezpeèenstvo. Takže èo robíte? Vidíte veci také, aké sú, èo sa v skutoènosti deje.
46:07 S: My tendency would be to say that when we discuss this we may use these words like, 'Seeing the self in its fullness with all of its negative and positive polarities.' Seeing the self in its fullness and then realizing the futility of… analytically looking at certain dimensions of the self and then saying, 'But I still must see.' S: Povedal by som, že keï toto prediskutujeme môžeme použi tieto slová ako: "Vidie sa v plnej nahote so všetkými jej negatívnymi a pozitívnymi stránkami." Vidie sa v plnej nahote a uvedomi si svoju márnos ... analyticky sa pozera na isté dimenzie seba samého a potom poveda : "Ale stále musím vidie ."
46:34 K: Of course. K: Samozrejme.
46:35 S: Because at this point I have not yet seen. Because all I have seen are the analytical categories I've used to take myself apart somehow or other, in little pieces. S: Pretože v tomto okamihu som ešte nevidel. Pretože všetko, èo som videl sú analytické kategórie ktoré som použil, aby som sa rozobral tak èi onak, na malé kúsky.
46:44 K: That's why I said – can you look at the tree without the knowledge? K: Preto som povedal - Viete sa pozera na strom bez poznania?
46:48 S: Without the prior conditioning.

K: Prior conditioning. Can you look? Can you look at a flower, and without any word? 		S: Bez predchádzajúceho podmienenia?

K: Predchádzajúceho podmienenia. Viete sa pozrie ? Viete sa pozrie na kvet bez akéko¾vek slova?
46:59 S: I can see how one must be able to look at the self. I must be able to look at you, Krishnamurti, and not use the word 'Krishnamurti'. Otherwise I will not see you.

K: That's right. 		S: Vidím, ako èlovek musí by schopný pozrie sa na seba. Musím by schopný pozera na vás, Krishnamurti, a nepoužil slovo "Krishnamurti". Inak vás nebudem vidie .

K: To je pravda.
47:13 S: This is true. Now, after I have learned, through thinking to say, 'I must see you and not even use the word', then... S: To je pravda. Teraz, keï som sa nauèil, cez myslenie hovori , "Musím a vidie a dokonca pritom nepouži slovo ", potom ...
47:25 K: The word, the form, the image, the content of that image, and all the rest of it. K: Slovo, forma, predstava, obsah tejto predstavy, a celý zvyšok toho.
47:32 S: Yes. Whatever the word denotes, I must not use. S: Áno. Èoko¾vek to slovo znaèí, nesmiem ho použi .
47:34 K: Sir, that requires tremendous watchfulness. K: Pane, to si vyžaduje nesmiernu bdelos .
47:38 S: Yes. It requires… S: Áno. To si vyžaduje ...
47:41 K: Watchfulness in the sense, not correction, not saying, 'I must, I must not' – watching. K: Bdelos v tom zmysle, nie korekciu, nehovoriac, "musím, nesmiem' - pozorova .
47:51 S: When you use the word 'watching' – and again because we are teaching, we must be careful of our words… S: Keï používate slovo "sledujem" - a znova pretože nás uèia, musíme dáva pozor na naše slová ...
47:57 K: Being aware – doesn't matter what word you use. K: By si vedomý - nezáleží na tom, aké slovo použijete.
48:01 S: Watching has the connotation of observation, and observation has the connotation of putting something out there to look at under a microscope, as a scientist would do. And I think this is what we don't want to teach. S: Sledovanie je podobné slovu pozorovanie, a pozorovanie je podobné ako položi nieèo tamto a pozera sa na to pod mikroskopom akoby to robil vedec. A myslím si, že to je to, èo nechceme uèi .
48:13 K: No, of course, of course. K: Nie, samozrejme, samozrejme.
48:15 S: So now, if you could use again, Krishnaji, the word 'watching'… S: Takže teraz, ak by ste ešte raz mohol použi , Krishnaji slovo "pozorova " ...
48:21 K: Instead of watching, being aware, choicelessly aware. K: Namiesto pozorovania, by si vedomý, bez výberu vedomý.
48:25 S: Choicelessly aware. Fine. All right. S: Bez výberu vedomý. Dobre. V poriadku.
48:27 K: That's right.

S: This we must do. 		K: Tak!

S: Toto musíme robi .
48:29 K: Yes. Choicelessly aware of of this dualistic, analytical, conceptual way of living. Be aware of it. Don't correct it, don't say:'This is right' – be aware of it. And, sir, we are aware of this, so intensely, when there is a crisis. K: Áno. Bez výberu si uvedomova tento dvojaký, analytický, koncepèný spôsob života. Uvedomova si ho. Nenapráva ho, Nehovori : "Toto je správne" - uvedomova si ho. A, pane, uvedomujeme si to intenzívne vtedy keï máme krízu.
49:04 S: We have another problem that precedes this one by an inch. I think the other problem is: what kinds of questions can I ask myself in order to be aware of you and not use the categories, or to be aware of the fact that, in being aware of you, I am using the categories and the stereotypes and all these other funny images that I use all the time. Is there some way in which I can address myself to you, using certain kinds of words, not ideas, words that don't relate to ideas at all, using certain kinds of words that don't relate to ideas, that somehow they will teach me – or teach you or whomsoever – that there is something more important, of more significance in you than your name, or your nature, or your content, your consciousness, or your good or your evil? What words would you use if you were to teach a young person, or an old person – we all have the problem – what words would you use in order to make it understandable in a non-rational or, better, in a pre-rational way that you are more than your name connotes? S: Máme ïalší problém ktorý ho prevyšuje o palec. Myslím, že druhý problém je: Aké otázky sa môžem pýta sám seba aby som si vás uvedomoval a nepoužíval kategórie, alebo si uvedomova fakt že tým že si vás uvedomujem, používam kategórie a stereotypy a všetky tieto ïalšie vtipné predstavy ktoré používam po celý èas. Existuje nejaký spôsob, akým sa môžem na vás obráti , použitím urèitých slov, nie myšlienok, slov ktoré nemajú niè spoloèné s predstavami, používa urèité slová, ktoré sa nevz ahujú k predstavám, že ma nejako pouèia - alebo vás alebo kohoko¾vek - že existuje nieèo dôležitejšie, èo je významnejšie vo vás než je vaše meno, alebo vaša podstata, alebo váš obsah, vaše vedomie, alebo vaše dobro alebo zlo? Aké slová by ste použili ak by ste mali uèi mladého èloveka, alebo starého èloveka - všetci máme problém - aké slová by ste použili, aby to pochopil nie-neracionálnym alebo lepšie povedané, pred-racionálnym spôsobom, že ste viac než Vaše meno znamená?
50:25 K: I would use that word, I think: be choicelessly aware. K: Ja by som použi slovo, myslím: by si vedomý bez výberu.
50:30 S: Choiceless. S: Bez výberu.
50:31 K: To be choicelessly aware. Because to choose, as we do, is one of our great conflicts. K: By výberu si by vedomý. Pretože, vybera si, tak ako to aj robíme, je jedným z našich najväèších konfliktov.
50:42 S: And we, for some strange reason, associate choice with freedom which is the antithesis of freedom. S: A z nejakého prapodivného dôvodu si spájame vo¾bu so slobodou èo je protiklad slobody.
50:48 K: It's absurd, of course!

S: It's absurd, yes. But now, so then to be freely aware. 		K: To je absurdné, samozrejme!

S: Je to absurdné, áno. Takže teraz, by si vo¾ne vedomý.
50:55 K: Yes. Freely, choicelessly. K: Áno. Slobodne, bez výberu.
50:57 S: In the sense of choicelessness, freely aware. S: V zmysle bez výberu, by si vo¾ne vedomí.
51:00 S: Now, suppose that someone would want to say 'But, sir, I don't understand completely what you mean by choicelessly aware, can you show me what you mean?' S: Teraz predpokladajme, že niekto by chcel poveda , "Ale, pane, nerozumiem úplne to, èo máte na mysli z vlastnej vôle plne vedomý. Môžete mi ukáza , èo máte na mysli? "
51:13 K: I'll show you. First of all, choice implies duality. K: Ukážem vám to. Po prvé, vo¾ba znamená dualitu.
51:23 S: Choice implies duality, yes. S: Vo¾ba znamená dualitu, áno.
51:25 K: But there is choice: I choose that carpet better than the other carpet. At that level choice must exist. But when there is an awareness of yourself, choice implies duality, choice implies effort. K: Ale tu je vo¾ba: Vybral som si, že koberec lepší než ten koberec. Na tej úrovni vo¾ba musí by . Ale v prípade, že je vo vás, vo¾ba znamená dualitu, vo¾ba znamená námahu.
51:46 S: Choice implies a highly developed consciousness of limitation. S: Vo¾ba znamená vysoko rozvinuté vedomie obmedzenia.
51:51 K: Yes, yes. Choice implies also conformity. K: Áno, áno. Vo¾ba znamená aj prispôsobivos .
51:57 S: Choice implies conformity – cultural conditioning. S: Vo¾ba znamená prispôsobivos - kultúrne podmienenie.
52:01 K: Conformity. Conformity means imitation. K: Prispôsobenie. Prispôsobenie sa zamená napodobòovanie.
52:03 S: Yes. S: Áno.
52:04 K: Imitation means more conflict, trying to live up to something. So there must be an understanding of that word, not only verbally but inwardly, the meaning of it, the significance of it. That is, I understand the full significance of choice, the entire choice. K: Napodobòovanie znamená viacej konfliktu, plni oèakávania. Takže tam musí by pochopenie toho slova, a to nielen verbálne, ale vnútorne, jeho význam, jeho dôležitos . To znamená, že rozumiem plnému význam vo¾by, celej vo¾by.
52:26 S: May I attempt to translate this now? S: Môžem sa to teraz pokúsi preloži ?
52:28 K: Yes.

S: Would you say that choiceless awareness means that I am somehow or other conscious of your presence to the within of me and I don't need the choice? The choice is irrelevant, the choice is abstract, the choice has to do with the categories when I don't feel, having seen you, that I must choose you, or choose to like you, or choose to love you, that no choice is involved. Then would you say I have choiceless awareness of you? 		K: Áno.

S: Povedali by ste, že vo¾ba bez výberu znamená že som si tak èi onak vedomý vašej prítomnosti v mojom vnútri a nepotrebujem vo¾bu? Vo¾ba je irelevantná, vo¾ba je abstraktná, vo¾ba má nieèo do èinenia s kategóriami keï necítim, popritom že vás vidím, že si vás musím vybra , alebo si vybra , že sa mi páèite, alebo že vás mám rád, že sa nejedná o vo¾bu. Potom by ste povedali, že vás vnímam bez výberu?
53:02 K: Yes, but you see, sir, Is there in love, choice? I love. Is there choice? K: Áno, ale vidíte, pane. Existuje, v láske, vo¾ba? Milujem. Je to vo¾ba?
53:17 S: There is no choice in love. S: V láske neexistuje žiadny výber.
53:19 K: No, that's just it. Choice is a process of the intellect. I explain this as much as we can, discuss it, go into it, but I see the significance of it. Now, to be aware. What does that mean, to be aware? To be aware of things about you, outwardly, and also to be aware inwardly, what is happening, your motives. – to be aware, again choicelessly: watch, look, listen, so that you are watching without any movement of thought. The thought is the image, thought is the word. To watch without without thought coming and pushing you in any direction. Just to watch. K: No, to je práve ono. Vo¾ba je proces intelektu. Vysvet¾ujem to najlepšie ako viem, diskutujúc, vysvet¾ujúc, vidím aké je to dôležité. Teraz, uvedomova si. Èo to znamená, uvedomova si? Ak si chcete uvedomova veci o sebe navonok, a tiež si uvedomova vnútorne, èo sa deje, vaše motívy. uvedomova si, opä bez posudzovania: pozorova , pozera sa, poèúva , takže sa pozeráte bez akéhoko¾vek pohybu mysle. Myšlienka je predstava, myšlienka je slovo. Pozorova bez bez myšlienky ktorá prichádza a tlaèí vás rôznymi smermi. Len sa pozera .
54:19 S: I think you used a better word before, when you said… S: Myslím, že ste predtým použili lepšie slovo, keï ste povedali ...
54:22 K: Aware.

S: To be aware. 		K: Uvedomova si.

S: By si vedomý.
54:24 K: Yes, sir.

S: Because it is an act of existence rather than an act of the mind or the feeling.

K: Of course, of course. 		K: Áno, pane.

S: Pretože to je skôr akt existencie než akt mysle alebo pocitu.

K: Samozrejme, samozrejme.
54:30 S: So then we have to… I have to somehow or other become eventually, and therefore be aware, in a pre-cognitive sense of your presence.

K: Be aware. That's right. 		S: Tak potom musíme ... Tak alebo tak musím nakoniec sa sta , a preto si by vedomý, v tom zmysle, jasnozrivý vašej prítomnosti.

K: Uvedomova si. To je správne.
54:43 S: And this antecedes choice.

K: Yes. 		S: A táto predchádzajúca vo¾ba.

K: Áno.
54:45 S: And it makes choice unnecessary. S: A preto je vo¾ba zbytoèná.
54:48 K: There is no choice – be aware. There is no choice. K: To je vo¾ba - by si vedomý. Nie je v tom žiadna vo¾ba.
54:50 S: Be aware. Choiceless awareness. S: Uvedomujte si. Výber bez vo¾by.
54:52 K: Now, from there, there is an awareness of the me. Awareness, how hypocritical – you know – the whole of the movement of the me and the you. K: Teraz, odtia¾, je uvedomovanie si mòa. Uvedomovanie, aké pokrytecké - viete - celý ten pohyb mòa a teba.
55:11 S: Sir, you're moving backwards now, we've already… S: Pane, teraz idete naspä teraz sme to už ...
55:14 K: Purposely. I know. I moved so that we relate it to. So that there is this quality of mind that is free from the me and therefore no separation. I don't say, 'We are one' but we discover the unity as a living thing, not a conceptual thing, when there is this sense of choiceless attention. K: Zámerne. Viem. Chcem to spoji . Takže je tu úroveò mysli, v ktorej nie je Ja, a preto žiadna separácia. Nehovorím, 'Sme jedno' ale objavujeme jednotu ako žijúci vec, nie nejakú koncepciu, v prípade, že je tu ten pocit pozornosti bez výberu.
55:44 S: Yes. S: Áno.