Krishnamurti Subtitles
SM72T3 - V slobode je poriadok
3.Verejné vystúpenie
Santa Monica, USA
25 marec1972
| 0:38 | Krishnamurti: We were talking at the last two meetings that we have had here, that one must be a light to oneself, and not depend on anybody for guidance, for understanding psychologically, and to find out for oneself a way of living in which every form of conflict, within and without, comes to an end. | Krishnamurti: Na poslednэch dvoch stretnutiach ktorй sme tu mali sme sa rozprбvali o tom, ћe иlovek musн byќ svetlom sebe samйmu, a nemб byќ na nikom zбvislэ. Aby sme sa toho drћali a aby sme to psychologicky pochopili, a aby sme si sami naљli cestu ћivotom v ktorom kaћdэ spфsob konfliktu, vonkajљн aj vnъtornэ, zanikne. |
| 1:20 | Most of us have accepted life as a conflict, a way of life in which there is constant battle, struggle, suffering, pain, disorder. That has been the norm of our life. And the more one lives and observes what is happening in the world and also within ourselves, one sees that freedom has been so totally misunderstood, and what that freedom has brought about in this world – you are free to destroy other human beings, in the name of patriotism, for your country, for your God. In the name of freedom you have destroyed the country, nature, you have polluted the air. And there are those scientists who are saying we have very little chance to survive. The expanding technology, production, overpopulation, and the economic division of the world is going to destroy human beings. And this is what freedom has brought, freedom in our particular individual lives to do what we like, to pursue our own particular form of pleasure, in the name of God, in the name of religion, in the name of truth, in the name of country, economically and socially. And we have created values in this freedom that are so appalling, that have no meaning whatsoever, that are totally immoral: to destroy another human being, to kill the animals for our food, to pollute the air, nature. This has been brought about because we think we are free to do what we like, individually, collectively. And when one observes this, not only in this country but in India and in Europe, and where freedom is denied, like in Russia or in China, where tyranny in the name of social reform and social unity, and the unity of a nation, what does freedom mean? | Vдиљina z nбs prijala ћivot ako konflikt, spфsob ћivota v ktorom je neustбly boj, zбpas, utrpenie, bolesќ, ќaћkosti. To je norma nбљho ћivota. A инm dlhљie иlovek ћije, tэm viac si vљнma, иo sa deje vo svete a tieћ vo vnъtri v nбs. Иlovek vidн, ћe sloboda zostala totбlne nepochopenб, a vidн, иo tб sloboda spфsobila vo svete. Mфћete slobodne niиiќ inй ѕudskй bytosti, v mene patriotizmu, kvфli vaљej zemi, kvфli Bohu. V mene slobody ste zniиili zem, prнrodu, zneиistili ste vzduch. A sъ tu tн vedci, ktorн hovoria, ћe mбme len veѕmi malъ љancu preћiќ. Expandujъca technolуgia, vэroba, preѕudnenie, a ekonomickй rozdelenie sveta, zniин ѕudskй bytosti. To je to, иo sloboda priniesla. Slobodu v naљich konkrйtnych ћivotoch robiќ si иo chceme, nahбтaќ sa za vlastnэm poteљenнm, v mene Boha, v mene nбboћenstva, v mene pravdy, v mene krajiny, ekonomicky a spoloиensky. A v tejto slobode sme vytvorili hodnoty ktorй sъ takй otrasnй, ћe nemajъ vфbec ћiadny vэznam, ktorй sъ ъplne amorбlne: ktorй niиia druhъ ѕudskъ bytosќ, ktorй zabнjajъ zvieratб kvфli jedlu, ktorй niиia vzduch, prнrodu. Vzniklo to, pretoћe si myslнme ћe sme slobodnн, a ћe si mфћeme robiќ иo chceme. Individuбlne, kolektнvne. A keп to иlovek pozoruje, nie len v tejto zemi, ale aj v Indii a v Eurуpe, alebo tam kde je sloboda popieranб, ako v Rusku alebo v Инne, kde tyrania v mene sociбlnej reformy a sociбlnej jednoty, a jednoty nбroda, иo znamenб sloboda...? |
| 5:15 | And yet human beings cannot live without freedom, they demand it, it is necessary. But the freedom that one wants and the freedom that one pursues is totally egotistic, selfish, and that has produced a totally unbalanced world, an insane world. And so it is important to find out for ourselves what is freedom. | A napriek tomu ѕudskй bytosti nemфћu ћiќ bez slobody. Vyћadajъ si ju, je potrebnб. Ale sloboda ktorъ иlovek chce a sloboda za ktorou sa ћenie je ъplne egoistickб, sebeckб, a vytvorila totбlne nevyvбћenэ svet. Љialenэ svet. A preto sami musнme prнsќ nato, иo je to sloboda. |
| 6:10 | Freedom surely, in freedom there is order, otherwise it is not freedom – whether that order is within and without. And it means also, doesn't it, where there is freedom there must be discipline. Order and discipline have specific meaning, not only according to the dictionary but also what we, in our conditioned responses, think what freedom is, and order is, and what discipline is. I think one has to give new significance to freedom, to order, to discipline. And that is what we are going to talk over together this morning. | Sloboda, iste! V slobode je poriadok, inak to nie je sloboda, - иi uћ je to poriadok vonkajљн, alebo nъtornэ. A tieћ to samozrejme znamenб, ћe tam kde je sloboda, tam musн byќ aj disciplнna. Poriadok v disciplнne mб љpecifickэ vэznam, nie len podѕa slovnнka, ale aj podѕa toho иo si my, v naљom podmienenom konanн myslнme, иo je to sloboda, иo je to poriadok, a иo je to diciplнna. Myslнm si, ћe иlovek musн daќ slobode novэ vэznam, poriadku, disciplнne. To je to, o иom sa ideme dnes rбno rozprбvaќ. |
| 7:24 | It is a lovely morning. I don't know if you were on the beach, if you looked out this morning and saw the sun on the sea, what a lovely thing it is in a beautiful country like this to look at the mountains, the hills and the rippling waters, and to enjoy the beauty of life, the quietness of a still morning, to hear the birds. And to be totally good, totally one with nature. And that is also freedom, to observe, not from any centre, not from any particular desire, but to observe. So we have to give a different meaning, significance, to freedom, order and discipline. Because order has its own law and its own way of living, without any enforcement, without any struggle, without any conflict. So we are going together, if we may this morning, find out for ourselves, because we have to be a light to ourselves, what this order means, how does this order come about in our life? Is it the result of thought, thought being remembrance, imagination, contriving. Can we contrive together, remembering our past, and bring about through mentation, order? You understand my question? Thought has made this world, the world in which we live, however utterly chaotic, miserable, insane it is, it is the product of calculated thinking. And it has brought about a certain superficial order, with disorder. So, we are asking whether thought can bring about order. | Je prekrбsne rбno. Neviem, иi ste boli na plбћi. Ak ste sa dnes rбno pozreli von a uvideli ste slnko nad morom, akб milб vec to je v takej peknej krajine ako je tбto pozeraќ sa na hory, kopce a vlniace sa vody, a uћнvaќ si krбsu ћivota, pokoj tichйho rбna, poиъvanie vtбиikov. A boli ste ъplne v pohode, ъplne v jednote s prнrodou. To je tieћ sloboda, mфcќ pozorovaќ, bez nejakйho stredu, nie kvфli nejakej tъћbe, len tak pozorovaќ. Takћe musнme daќ inэ vэznam dфleћitosti, slobode, poriadku, disciplнne. Pretoћe poriadok mб svoje vlastnй pravidlб, a svoj vlastnэ ћivot, bez nejakйho vynucovania, bez boja, bez konfliktu. Takћe spolu ideme, ak mфћeme, dnes rбno sami zistiќ, pretoћe musнme byќ svetlom sebe samйmu, иo tento poriadok znamenб, ako tento poriadok zapadб do nбљho ћivota. Je to vэsledok myslenia, myљlienky ktorб je spomienkou, predstavivosќou, hъtanнm? Mфћeme vymэљѕaќ spoloиne, spomнnaќ na minulosќ, a cez rozjнmanie priniesќ poriadok? Rozumiete mojej otбzke? Myseѕ vytvorila tento svet, svet v ktorom ћijeme. Akokoѕvek chaotickэ, mizernэ, љialenэ je, je produktom kalkulujъcej mysle. To prinieslo urиitэ povrchnэ poriadok, spolu s neporiadkom. Takћe sa pэtame, иi mфћe myseѕ spфsobiќ poriadok? |
| 10:54 | Thought being the response of accumulated memory, whether that memory is collective, individual, or the result of various forms of environmental influence. We have accumulated sufficient knowledge, which is memory through experience, which is the past, and according to that response which is thought, can order be brought about? That is, order, which is essentially disorder in this world, has been put together by thought. The division amongst people is a deliberate pursuit of individual and selective groups and their security. Thought has contrived to bring this about. Nations, governments, religious divisions, are the result of calculated thought. I don't think anybody can deny that, it is a fact, both psychologically as well as outwardly. And that thought has brought about great suffering, great disorder. And we want to produce order, to bring about order through the same process, which is using thought. We say we must have order, we must have law. The more and more there is disorder, both politically, socially, economically, the demand is for order. The disorder that exists in the world is the result of thought. Right? Are we meeting each other? Shall I go on? We are sharing this problem together? Now, can thought bring about order? | Myseѕ, ktorб je vэsledkom zloћenej pamдte, иi uћ je to pamдќ kolektнvna, individuбlna, alebo je vэsledkom rфznych foriem prostredia. Tak sme zнskali dostatoиnй vedomosti, иo je pamдќ na zбklade skъsenostн, иo je minulosќ, a podѕa tejto odpovede, иo je myљlienka, mфћe vzniknъќ poriadok? To znamenб ћe poriadok, ktorэ je v podstate neporiadkom v tomto svete, bol vytvorenэ mysѕou. Rozdelenie medzi ѕuпmi je zбmernй prenasledovanie jednotlivca i selektнvnej skupiny a ich bezpeиnosti. Vymyslela to naљa myseѕ. Nбrody, vlбdy, nбboћenskй rozdelenia, sъ vэsledkami vypoинtavej mysle. Nemyslнm si, ћe to niekto mфћe poprieќ. Je to fakt. Aj psychologicky aj navonok. Myseѕ priniesla veѕkй utrpenie, veѕkэ neporiadok. A my chceme urobiќ poriadok, spraviќ poriadok cez rovnakэ proces, ktorэ pouћнva myseѕ. Hovorнme, ћe musнme maќ poriadok, ћe musнme maќ zбkony. Инm je viacej a viacej zmдtku, aj politickйho, sociбlneho, ekonomickйho, tэm viacej poriadku si vyћadujeme. Zmдtok ktorэ existuje vo svete je vэsledkom mysle. Ћe? Rozumieme si? Mбm pokraиovaќ? Rozoberбme si tento problйm spoloиne? Takћe: Mфћe myseѕ spфsobiќ zmenu? |
| 14:02 | And what do we mean by order, outwardly as well as inwardly? Can – knowing there is disorder, confusion, conflict in oneself – can that conflict, that struggle, which is disorder, confusion, can that end by thought? Or is there a different approach to this problem? I see human beings in themselves, when one observes fairly objectively, one sees human beings live in disorder in themselves, and therefore, that disorder projected outwardly. | Иo myslнme tэm poriadkom, ako navonok tak ako aj vnъtorne? Mфћe - vediac ћe tam je neporiadok, zmдtok, konflikt v nej samotnej - mфћe ten konflikt, ten boj, иo je neporiadok, zmдtok, mфћe byќ ukonиenэ mysѕou? Alebo existuje inй rieљenie tohto problйmu? Vidнm, ћe samotnй ѕudskй bytosti - keп to иlovek pozoruje dosќ objektнvne - vidн, ћe ѕudskй bytosti ћijъ v neporiadku, vo svojom vnъtri, a ten neporiadok sa prejavuje aj navonok. |
| 15:24 | And that disorder in oneself has been brought about by thought seeking its own individual security, amusement, pleasure, its own determined pursuit of a particular action, and so on. Now, can that very thought which has brought about disorder in ourselves, can that thought be used to bring about order? Order being, not a conformity to a pattern, order is not an imitation to a particular morality, order is not acceptance of authority, order is not imitation, conformity. If there is conformity, imitation, comparison, it must produce disorder. Are we all moving together or is this too much? Never mind, I'll go on. | A ћe ten neporiadok vo vnъtri spфsobila myseѕ ktorб hѕadб svoju vlastnъ individuбlnu bezpeиnosќ, zбbavu, poteљenie, Teda, vie tб istб myseѕ ktorб v nбs spфsobila neporiadok, mфћe nбm tб myseѕ priniesќ poriadok? Poriadnu bytosќ, nie prispфsobenie sa vzoru! Poriadok nie je napodobтovanie urиitej morбlky, poriadok nie je akceptovanie autority, poriadok nie je napodobтovanie, prispфsobovanie sa. Ak tam je prispфsobovanie sa, napodobтovanie, porovnбvanie, musн to spфsobiќ neporiadok. Chбpeme sa, alebo je to prнliљ? Nevadн, pфjdem пalej! |
| 17:12 | You see, when you compare yourself with somebody else, you are not only denying your own light, you are trying to imitate, conform to the light of another. That is fairly simple. Conformity, morally, is immoral, because conformity implies comparison, it implies a continued approximation to a symbol, to an idea, to a person, so that in conforming there is always a struggle, a conflict with 'what is' and with 'what should be'. 'Should be' may be your own projection or established by tradition. So conformity is a form of disorder. So we are investigating what brings about disorder, and in the understanding of that, of the causes of disorder, basically, we will bring about order, naturally. Right? I see conformity, comparison, brings disorder in one's life, because when I compare myself with somebody, always superior, always better, nobler, more intelligent, I feel inferior, smaller, and out of that feeling, aggression grows, competitiveness, conformity. That act of conformity is one of the causes of disorder in one's life. This is a fact, this is so. | Vidнte, ћe keп sa porovnбvate s niekэm inэm, nielenћe zavrhujete svoje vlastnй svetlo, ale snaћнte sa ho napodobniќ, prispфsobiќ sa svetlu inйho иloveka. Je to pomerne jednoduchй... Prispфsobivosќ, morбlne, je nemorбlna, pretoћe prispфsobivosќ znamenб porovnбvanie, to znamenб postupnй pribliћovanie sa k priemeru, k symbolu, idei, k иloveku, takћe v prispфsobovanн sa je vћdy boj, konflikt s tэm "иo je" a akй "by to malo byќ." "Malo by byќ" mфћe byќ vaљa vlastnб predstava, alebo nieиo zdedenй cez tradнcie. Takћe prispфsobivosќ je forma neporiadku. a v pochopenн toho, v chбpanн toho, v prниinбch poruchy, v podstate vnбљame poriadok prirodzenou cestou. Ћe? Vidнm ћe prispфsobivosќ, porovnбvanie, vnбљa do nбљho ћivota neporiadok, pretoћe keп sa s niekэm porovnбvam, vћdy s nadradenэm, vћdy s lepљнm, nуblesnejљнm, inteligentnejљнm, cнtim sa podradnэm, menљнm, a z toho pocitu vzrastб agresia, sъќaћivosќ, prispфsobovanie sa. Tento akt prispфsobovania sa je jednou z prниin neporiadku v naљom ћivote. To je fakt, tak to je! |
| 20:21 | And I see where there is any form of imitation, conformity, comparison, in which is implied every form of suppression, there must be in my life disorder. So, in enquiring into this you have to see for yourself if you are comparing, imitating, conforming, and when you see that – not verbally only, because the word is not the thing, the description is not the described – when you see that, that is, non-verbally, actually, directly, then out of that perception there is order, which is totally different from the order brought about by thought. Are we meeting? | A ja vidнm, ћe tam, kde je akбkoѕvek forma napodobтovania, prispфsobovania sa, porovnбvania sa, v иom je obsiahnutб kaћdб forma potlбиania, tak potom tam v mojom ћivote musн byќ zmдtok. Takћe skъmanнm tohto musнte sami vidieќ, ћe ak porovnбvate, napodobтujete, prispфsobujete sa, a keп to vidнte - nielen verbбlne. pretoћe slovo nie ja tб istб vec, opis nie je to opisovanй, keп to vidнte, to znamenб, nie verbбlne, ale v skutoиnosti, priamo, potom z toho vnнmania vznikne poriadok, ktorэ je ъple inэ ako ten, ktorэ pochбdza z mysle. Rozumieme si? |
| 21:58 | And I see also, thought invariably conditions, thought invariably divides – the 'me' and the 'not me', we and they, both nationally, religiously, individually. So thought, which is the response of memory, accumulated by the race, through culture, through the individual and so on, that memory is in the brain cells themselves, and according to that the response – which is thought – conditions. Are you all going to sleep? Right. So thought divides. Thought divides not only outwardly but inwardly. That is, thought says, I must control. 'I' being different from that which is controlled. So in that division, inwardly, there is conflict. I must become better, I must follow the ideal. So thought divides. And this division is one of the major causes of conflict, both outward and inward – which is so simple, isn't it? When you call yourself an American, with certain standards, certain ideas and beliefs and conduct, and some other country has its own beliefs, conducts and rituals, ceremonies, there is a division. You are the Muslim, the Hindu, the Christian, the Protestant, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russian, all that, all the product of thought. So thought not only pursues conformity, comparison, but also thought conditions the mind not only outwardly but inwardly. And that very conditioning is division and therefore conflict. So I have discovered – you are discovering this, not me, we are sharing this thing together – so we have discovered for ourselves that any form of psychological conformity, comparison, must produce conflict. | A tieћ vidнm, ћe je to aj cez rфzne podmienenia, cez rфzne rozdelenia, - 'Ja' a 'nie Ja', 'my' a 'oni', aj nбrodnostne, nбboћensky, individuбlne. Takћe myseѕ, ktorб je reakciou pamдte, zahltenб sъќaћenнm, kultъrou, jednotlivcom atп., tб pamдќ je v samotnэch mozgovэch bunkбch, a vпaka tomu tб odpoveп - ktorб je mysѕou - podmieтuje. Vљetci zaspбvate? Ћe? Takћe myseѕ rozdeѕuje. Myseѕ nerozdeѕuje len navonok ale aj dovnъtra. To znamenб, ћe myseѕ hovorн: Musнm kontrolovaќ! Som inб neћ to, иo musнm kontrolovaќ. Takћe v tom rozdelenн, vo vnъtri, nastбva konflikt. Musнm byќ lepљнm, musнm nasledovaќ svoj ideбl. Takћe myseѕ rozdeѕuje. A toto rozdeѕovanie je jednou z hlavnэch prниin konfliktu, aj navonok aj vnъtorne - иo je takй jednoduchй. Vљakћe? Keп sa nazэvate Ameriиanom, s istэmi љtandartami, urиitэmi predstavami, presvedиeniami a sprбvanнm, a nejakб inб krajina mб inй presvedиenia, sprбvanie a rituбly, ceremуnie, je tam rozdelenie. Ste moslimovia, hinduisti, kresќania, protestanti, Japonci, Интania, Rusi...to vљetko, vљetko je produktom mysle! Takћe nielenћe sa myseѕ nahбтa za prispфsobovanнm sa, porovnбvanнm, ale myseѕ podmieтuje aj mozog. Nie len navonok ale aj vnъtorne. A to istй podmienenie je rozdelenie, a preto je to konflikt. Takћe som priљiel na to, - vy ste priљli na to, zdieѕame tъto vec spoloиne - takћe sme priљli na to, ћa hociakб forma psychologickйho prispфsobovania sa, porovnбvania sa, musн vyprodukovaќ konflikt. |
| 26:00 | We also see that any form of conditioning – which is the result of thought or culture – is division and therefore further conflict, further confusion. We have found that out for ourselves, we are a light to ourselves. So we are enquiring into what brings about disorder, not what order is, but what is disorder, how it comes into our life, into our human structure and nature. | A tieћ vidнme, ћe hocijakб forma prispфsobovania sa, - ktorб je vэsledkom myslenia alebo kultъry - je rozdelenнm, a preto aj пalљнm konfliktom, пalљнm zmдtkom. Priљli sme na to sami, sme svetlom sebe samэm. Takћe skъmame, иo prinбљa neporiadok, nie to, иo je to poriadok. Ale иo je to neporiadok, ako vstupuje do nбљho ћivota, do naљej ѕudskej љtruktъry a povahy? |
| 27:02 | And thought creates beliefs, hoping to be secure in an uncertain world, inventing all the innumerable gods, saviours, and the potty little gurus all over the world, with their particular systems, philosophies, disciplines – it is all the result of thought, the 'I' thinking that I will attain enlightenment through somebody, which is thought contriving. And yet thought has produced a marvellous world, a world of technology, a world where we can live comparatively safely, but also thought has divided man: you and me, you and your wife, you and your friend, and so there is a battle going on inwardly and outwardly, there is confusion. And out of this confusion we are trying to create order, both politically, legally, morally. So, can thought bring about order, which is not conformity, which is not acceptance of a particular pattern of behaviour? So can thought ever produce order? Or will thought always bring about disorder? Now what do you find out for yourself? Because order, as we said, implies discipline. That is an unfortunate word, because discipline implies conformity, discipline implies drill, discipline implies constant adjustment to a pattern. And this constant approximation to an idea and the conformity to that idea is what is called discipline. The word discipline means to learn – to learn, not to conform, not to suppress, not to control – to learn. And you cannot learn if you are not free. Freedom isn't to do what you like, your individual idiosyncrasies rampant. And that is what you have done in this world, you have let your particular idiosyncrasies, aggressiveness, your demand for pleasure and pursuit of it, has produced this world. And you think you are free. And therefore, psychologists are saying that you must be conditioned, otherwise your behaviour produces a monstrous world. And their conditioning is through reward. Before you were conditioned through punishment and perhaps occasional reward, now there are proposing that you will be rewarded, not punished. And that is also going to condition, beautifully. And then some other philosopher, psychologist will come along and say no, no, you are wrong, you must be unconditioned in a different way – and be conditioned. This game goes on. Fortunately, in America, you are always experimenting, so the latest guru is thrown over for a newer guru. The latest psychologist with all his authoritarian enquiry and assertion, through torturing animals or birds or whatever it is, and he comes to a certain conclusion and he himself is conditioned and therefore his assertions must be conditioned, and we fall into that trap, until somebody comes along and releases us, and fall into his trap. This is going on. And this falling from trap to trap, into one, into another, is called freedom. | Myslenie prinбљa presvedиenia, dъfajъc, ћe bude v bezpeин v neistom svete. Vymэљѕa si vљetkэch tэch nespoиetnэch bohov, spasiteѕov, a malэch guruov po celom svete, kde ich konkrйte systйmy, filozofie, disciplнny - to vљetko je vэsledkom mysle. To: "Myslнm si ћe dosiahnem osvetlenie skrz niekoho", to spфsobuje myseѕ. A napriek tomu myseѕ vytvorila ъћasnэ svet, svet technolуgie, svet, v ktorom mфћeme ћiќ pomerne bezpeиne, ale myseѕ tieћ rozdelila иloveka: Ja a ty, ja a tvoja ћena, ty a tvoj priateѕ. a tak vojna pokraиuje vovnъtri aj navonok. Je tu zmдtok. A z tohto zmдtku sa snaћнme vytvoriќ poriadok, aj politicky, legбlne, morбlne. Takћe, mфћe myseѕ vytvoriќ poriadok, ktorэm nebude prispфsobovanie sa, ktorэ nebude akceptovanнm konkrйtneho vzorca sprбvania sa? Takћe vie vфbe myseѕ spraviќ poriadok? Alebo bude myseѕ stбle spфsobovaќ neporiadok? Tak? Na иo ste teraz priљli? Pretoћe poriadok, ako sme si povedali, si vyћaduje disciplнnu. To je neљќastnй slovo, pretoћe disciplнna si vyћaduje prispфsobovanie sa, vyћaduje si prax, disciplнna si vyћaduje neustбle sa prispфsobovanie vzoru. A toto neustбle pribliћovanie sa k idei, a prispфsobovaie sa k tej myљlienke je to, иomu sa hovorн disciplнna. Slovo "disciplнna" znamenб "uиiќ sa." Uиiќ sa! Nie prispфsobiќ sa, nie potlaиiќ, nie kontrolovaќ - uиiќ sa! A nemфћete sa uиiќ, ak nie ste slobodnн. Sloboda neznamenб robiќ si иo chcete, vaљe individuбlne nekontrolovateѕnй vэstrednosti. A to je to, иo ste spravili s tэmto svetom! Dovolili ste vaљej zvlбљtnej vэstrednosti, agresivite, vaљej potrebe pre poteљenie a snahu oт, vytvoriќ tento svet. A vy si myslнte, ћe ste slobodnн. A preto, psycholуgovia hovoria ћe musнte byќ vychovбvanн, inak vaљe sprбvanie vytvбra straљnэ svet. A ich vэchova sa deje skrz odmenu. Predtэm, neћ vбs podmieтovali trestom a moћno prнleћitostnou odmenou, teraz navrhnujъ, aby ste boli odmeтovanн, nie trestanн. A to sa tieћ podmieтuje. Krбsne! A potom prichбdza пalљн filozof, psycholуg a hovorн: Nie, nie! Mэlite sa! Musнte byќ slobodnн jednэm spфsobom - a aj byќ podmienenн. Tбto hra pokraиuje. Naљќastie, v Amerike vћdy experimentujete, takћe poslednэ guru je zvrhnutэ novэm guru. Najmodernejљн psycholуg so vљetkэm jeho autoritatнvnym skъmanнm a tvrdeniami, tэm ћe muин zvieratб alebo vtбky alebo hociиo, teraz prichбdza k istйmu zбveru, hoci on sбm je podmienenэ a preto aj jeho vэroky musia byќ podmienenй, a my padбme do tejto pasce pokiaѕ niekto neprнde a neoslobodн nбs, a nespadne do tej istej pasce. Toto sa stбle opakuje. A toto padanie z pasce do pase, z jednej do druhej, sa volб sloboda. |
| 33:51 | No, don't laugh, please, this isn't funny, this is appalling, what is taking place. This breeds sorrow, because we are at war with each other. And when you see this, when you see what discipline has done, what conformity has done, the acceptance of the latest psychologist, guru, what it has produced, those groups that want to study this particular teacher, or another group, another teacher, the division, when you see all this appalling mess, confusion, misery, you must find a different approach to all this. | Nie, nesmejte sa, prosнm, toto nie je sranda, je to alarmujъce, иo sa deje. Vnбљa to smъtok, pretoћe sme vo vojne jeden s druhэm. A keп to vidнte, keп vidнte, иo disciplнna spravila, иo spravilo prispфsobovanie sa, akceptбcia najnovљieho guru, иo vytvoril, tie skupiny, ktorй chcъ nasledovaќ toho konkrйtneho uиiteѕa, alebo inъ skupinu, inйho uиiteѕa, to rozdelenie, keп vidнte celэ tento straљnэ neporiadok, zmдtok, neљќastie, musнte nбjsќ k tomu inэ prнstup. |
| 34:58 | So, when you discover for yourself what is disorder, what brings about this chaos in oneself and therefore outwardly, out of this disorder, the understanding of that disorder, comes order, naturally, with its own law, with its own beauty of discipline, with its own order. So, with that clarity let us look at what we call living, and what we call love, and what we call death, because these are the three most important things in our life – the living, the dying and what we call love. | Takћe, keп sami zistнte akэ je to zmдtok, akэ v иloveku spфsobuje chaos, a preto navonok, mimo tohto neporiadku, samotnй pochopenie tohto neporiadku, prichбdza poriadok- prirodzenэm spфsobom, s jeho vlastnэmi zбkonmi, s jeho vlastnou krбsou disciplнny, s jeho vlastnэm poriadkom. Takћe s touto jasnosќou pozrime sa na to, иomu hovorнme ћitie, иomu hovorнme lбska a иomu hovorнme smrќ, pretoћe tieto tri veci, sъ najdфleћitejљie veci v naљom ћivote. Ћitie, zomieranie a to, иomu hovorнme lбska. |
| 36:06 | Questioner: Before we go on, could you go into thought and why we desire to separate, to divide ourselves from one another? | Otбzka: Neћ budeme pokraиovaќ, mohli by ste hovoriќ o mysli, a preиo sa tъћime separovaќ, oddeliќ sa jeden od druhйho? |
| 36:15 | K: Why do we separate and divide ourselves from one another. Oh, it is fairly simple, isn't it? Why are you American and me a Hindu? We are brought up in a different culture, with a different tradition, with different myths. America has no particular myth – Europe has and Asia has. This division is the assertion of the ego, the me. The me with all its desires, pleasures, fears, accumulation of what it calls pleasure, happiness. You know, the symbol of the cross, do you know what it means? Wipe out the 'I'. Right? You understand what I am saying? No? Oh Lord. You have seen the symbol of the cross, haven't you? The I – wipe it out, because the I separates. The me that is constantly asserting, the me that says, I must have this, I will be that, the me that is competitive, aggressive, the me that is comparing, wanting to be something greater, nobler, wiser, more enlightened, and that me is the cause of all this unfortunate disorderdly division in the world. Therefore you say, how can I live in this world without the me? We are going to find that out. We are going to find that out by understanding what living is, and what actually it is. We are going to find out how to live in this world without the me, when we understand what dying is and what love is. Without the understanding of that, merely to indulge in a theoretical pursuit of whether we can live in this world without the I, that has no meaning. You know, they have tried to live in this world without the me, by going to the monasteries, by assuming a different name or number, by withdrawing into small groups, communes or communities. There have been ten different ways or a thousand different ways to get rid of the me: through meditation, through control, through suppression, through identifying oneself with the greater, with God. We have tried every way possible and we have not succeeded because we have not faced the fact, actually what is. We want to destroy what is without understanding what is, without facing what is. And that is what we are going to do this morning, a little bit, to look at our living, your living, not the living according to some psychologist or according to the speaker – he has no pattern, thank God. | K: Preиo sa vzпaѕujeme a rozdeѕujeme? To je predsa jednoduchй, nie? Preиo ste vy Ameriиan a ja Hind? Sme vychovбvanн v inej kultъre, s inou tradнciou, s rфznymi mэtmi. Amerika nemб zvlбљtny mэtus - Eurуpa mб a Бzia mб. Toto rozdelenie je tvrdenie ega, mтa. Ja, so vљetkэmi mojimi tъћbami, radosќami, obavami, hromadenie toho иo sa nazэva radosќ, љќastie. Viete, symbol krнћa, viete иo znamenб? Vymaћte "I" ( "I" v angl. znamenб ja) Ћe? Rozumiete иo hovorнm? Nie? Boћe! Uћ ste videli symbol krнћa, nie? To JA - vymaћte, pretoћe to JA separuje. To JA, ktorй sa neustбle presadzuje, to JA, ktorй hovorн: Musнm maќ toto, budem tэmto, to JA, ktorй je sъќaћivй, agresнvne, to JA, ktorй sa porovnбva, chtiac byќ nieинm vдиљнm, noblesnejљнm, mudrejљнm, osvietenejљнm, a toto JA, je zdrojom vљetkйho tohto neљќastnйho zmдtenйho rozdelenia vo svete. Preto hovorнte: Ako mфћem ћiќ v tomto svete bez JA? Ideme sa na to pozrieќ. Prнdeme na to tak, keп pochopнme иo je to ћitie, a иo sa v skutoиnosti deje. Ideme zistiќ ako ћiќ vo svete bez JA, keп pochopнme иo je to zomieranie a иo je to lбska. Bez pochopenia tohto, nie v teoretickej rovine, иi mфћeme ћiќ v tomto svete bez JA, nemб zmysel. Viete, ѕudia skъљali ћiќ vo svete bez JA, tэm ћe iљli do klбљtorov, prijali inй meno alebo инslo, tэm, ћe sa utiahli do malэch skupнn, komъn a komunнt. Existuje desaќ spфsobov, alebo 1000 rфznych spфsobov, ako sa zbaviќ JA. Skrz meditбciu, skrz kontrolu, skrz potlбиanie, skrz identifikбcie seba s tэm vyљљнm - s Bohom. Vyskъљali sme uћ vљetko a neuspeli sme, lebo sme neиelili faktu, tomu, иo sa v skutoиnosti deje. Chceme zniиiќ to иo je, bez toho, aby sme pochopili иo to je, bez toho aby sme tomu иelili. A to je to, иo dnes rбno ideme troљku spraviќ, pozrieme sa na nбљ ћivot, vбљ ћivot, nie na ћivot podѕa nejakйho psycholуga, alebo podѕa reиnнka - on nemб vzor. Vпaka Bohu! |
| 40:56 | Look at it – the living, your daily life. Is there any order in it? The going to the office day after day, earning a livelihood, spending forty, fifty years, the monotony, the boredom, the conformity, the responsibility. You know, freedom has its own responsibility, not this responsibility of duty, of conformity. Look at your own life and you will see that there is fear, there is agony, there is sorrow, guilt, the constant demand to be something different from what is, the battle inwardly. That is what we call living, isn't it? No? With occasional joy, with an occasional outing, look at the sun, if there is a sun, to go out whenever you can, to kill animals and birds, which is called sport. This constant competition between each other, the lying, the hypocrisy. And that is what we call living, isn't it? And in that there is disorder. Without understanding that and bringing order in that, we want to produce order outwardly, more laws, more legislation, preventing corruption, outwardly, and inwardly we are corrupt, polluted. And all this inward confusion has been brought about by the me, which is the very essence of thought, as the me. No? Oh Lord, come on, sirs. You won’t face this, will you? | Pozrite sa na to - - na ћitie, na vбљ dennэ ћivot. Je v тom nejakэ poriadok? Chodenie do kancelбrie deт za dтom, zarбbanie si na ћivobytie, trбviќ 40, 50 rokov v monotуnnosti, nude, prispфsobivosti, zodpovednosti. Viete, sloboda mб svoju vlastnъ ъlohu, nie tъto ъlohu povinnostн, prispфsobovania sa. Pozrite sa na svoj ћivot a uvidнte, ћe v je v тom strach. Je tu agуnia, bolesќ, vina, neustбle nutkanie byќ nieиim inэm neћ ste, vnъtornэ boj. To je to, иo nazэvame ћitнm, ћe? Nie? S obиasnou radosќou, s prнleћitostnэm vэletom, pozriete sa na slnko, ak je slnko, idete von kedykoѕvek keп mфћete, zabнjate zvieratб a vtбky, иomu hovorнte "љport." Je tu stбla sъќaћivosќ medzi sebou, lћi, pokrytectvo. A to je to, иo nazэvame ћivotom, vљak? A je v tom neporiadok. Bez toho, aby sme toto pochopili a vniesli do toho poriadok, chceme navonok vytvoriќ poriadok. Viac zбkonov, viac prбvnych predpisov, predchбdzanie korupcii, navonok, a vo vnъtri sme skorumpovanн, skazenн. A vљetok tento vnъtornэ zmдtok bol spфsobenэ mnou, иo je pravб podstata mysle ako JA. Nie? Boћe, no tak pбni! Nechcete to vidieќ, ћe? |
| 43:59 | So living is a process of fear, basically, deep down, which again is the result of thought. And when you look at that living then what is dying? Again, one is terribly frightened of dying. You avoid it, you never think about it. Old age, accident, disease, the fear of all that, and the inevitable postponement of death. And all the pretensions that go on, the trying to be young, all the old ladies dressing as though they were young girls, and old men playing golf for the rest of – you know what is taking place in this world. So that is what you call living, a terrible mess, confusion, disorder. And you are frightened to let that go, which is to die. And therefore out of that fear you have every form of belief, survival. And we haven't time to go into all that because, you know, the whole culture, Asiatic culture is based on this idea of a future life, and you have your own, Christians have their own form of a future life, resurrection, and so on. And you never question either those who believe in reincarnation or those who believe that they will sit next to God in Heaven, never question what it is that survives. There is a physical ending, but what is it that survives, which will reincarnate or live in a different world? | Takћe ћitie je proces strachu, v zбklade, hlboko vo vnъtri, иo je zase vэsledkom myslenia. A keп sa pozriete na to ћitie, tak potom иo je to smrќ? Znova, иlovek sa veѕmi bojн smrti. Vyhэbate sa tomu, nemyslнte na to. Vysokэ vek, nehoda, choroba, strach z toho vљetkйho, A neodvratnй odkladanie smrti. A vљetko to predstieranie ktorй sa deje, snaha byќ stбle mladэ, vљetky tie starй dбmy ktorй sa obliekajъ ako mladй dievиatб, a starн muћi ktorн hrajъ golf kvфli - veп viete, to sa deje vo svete. Takћe to je to, иomu hovorнte ћivot. Straљnэ neporiadok, zmдtok, neporiadok. A vy sa to bojнte opustiќ, иo znamenб - zomrieќ. A preto z toho strachu mбte rфzne formy viery, preћitia. A nemбme иas sa na to pozrieќ, lebo, viete, celб kultъra, бzijskб kultъra je zaloћenб na myљlienke budъceho ћivota, a mбte svojich kresќanov a vlastnъ formu budъceho ћivota, vzkriesenie, atп. A vy nikdy nespochybтujete tэch ktorн veria v reinkarnбciu alebo tэch, ktorн veria, ћe budъ sedieќ vedѕa Boha v nebi, nikdy sa nepэtate иo je to, to "TO", ktorй pretrvб. Existuje fyzickэ koniec, ale иo je to, to "TO" иo preћije, иo sa reinkarnuje alebo bude ћiќ v inom svete? |
| 47:07 | When you believe in reincarnation it means that there is a permanent me, a permanent entity which – don't let's call it permanent – which is, there is an entity which continues until it is completely worn out, through experience, through good behaviour, pain, suffering, through good acts, the me comes to an end eventually, after ten lives or a hundred lives in the future. And you aren't burdened with that kind of fear, because if you believe in a particular saviour, in a particular belief, idea, you will be cleansed, because someone else suffers for you. And you believe that and you are happy in that. Look at it all, the whole pattern, not just your particular little pattern. And all this breeds disorder in one's life. And in that disorder you are trying to bring about order. | Keп verнte v reinkarnбciu znamenб to, ћe existuje stбle JA, trvalб entita, ktorб - nevolajme to trvalэm - иo znamenб, ћe existuje entita, ktorб pokraиuje kэm nie je ъplne opotrebovanб - vпaka skъsenostiam, vпaka dobrйmu sprбvaniu, bolesti, utrpeniu, vпaka dobrэm иinom? JA prichбdza nakoniec ku koncu po desiatkach ћivotoch alebo sto ћivotoch v budъcnosti. A nie ste zaќaћenэ s tэmto druhom strachu, pretoћe ak verнte v istъ spбsu, v konkrйtnu vieru, myљlienku, budete oиistenэ, pretoћe niekto inэ trpн pre vбs. A vy tomu verнte a ste v tom љќastnн. Pozrite sa na to vљetko! Na celэ vzorec, nielen vбљ konkrйtny maliиkэ vzorec. Toto vљeto vnбљa zmдtok do nбљho ћivota. A do tohto zmдtku sa snaћнte vniesќ poriadok. |
| 48:42 | And the living is called also a life in which there is love. What does that word mean, bearing in mind that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described? The word is never the thing. So what does that mean, that word mean to us? To you, not to some philosopher but actually to you, what does it mean? Love, as we know it, is pleasure, pain, jealousy, anxiety, anger, hurt, you know, the things that we go through life. And not being satisfied with that, we will call it the love of the country, the love of God, love of books, you know, all the rest of it. That is our life. Throw in a few gods, saviours, gurus into that mess, and we will continue day after day until we accidentally, or through disease, die – old age. | A ћitiu sa tieћ hovorн - ћivot v ktorom je lбska. Иo to slovo znamenб, majъc na pamдti, ћe slovo nie je tб vec, opis nie je to opisovanй. Slovo nikdy nie je tб vec. Takћe иo to znamenб, иo to slovo znamenб pre nбs? Pre vбs, nie pre nejakйho filozofa ale pre vбs, иo to znamenб? Lбska, ako ju poznбme, je poteљenie, zraniteѕnosќ, ћiarlivosќ, ъzkosќ, hnev, bolesќ - viete, tie veci ktorй v ћivote zaћнvame. A pretoћe s tэm nie sme spokojnн, volбme to lбska ku krajine, lбska k Bohu, lбska ku knihбm - viete, to vљetko. To je nбљ ћivot. Pridajme niekoѕko bohov, spasiteѕov, guruov do toho neporiadku, a mфћme v tom pokraиovaќ deт po dni, kэm nбhodou, alebo chorobou nezomrieme - na starobu. |
| 50:41 | So is there a different way of living so that we live without confusion, without fear? Because to die is to live more, is to live totally. So we must find out. And thought cannot produce order, thought will not bring you understanding, it can only bring division. So, what will bring about total order? A life in which there is real compassion? You understand what that word means? Passion for all, love without jealousy, without anger, without bitterness, without pain, sorrow – a living daily in which there is no conflict whatsoever. To live that way demands tremendous energy, and you dissipate that energy when there is conflict – it is a wastage. | Takћe existuje aj nejakэ inэ spфsob ћivota? Takэ, aby sme ћili bez zmдtku, bez strachu? Pretoћe zomrieќ znamenб ћiќ viac, ћiќ ъplne. Takћe to musнme zistiќ. Myseѕ nemфћe vyprodukovaќ poriadok! Myseѕ vбm neprinesie porozumenie, ona mфћe priniesќ len rozdelenie. Takћe, иo spфsobн ъplnэ poriadok, ћivot, v ktorom je skutoиnэ sъcit? Rozumiete иo to slovo znamenб? Vбљeт pre vљeto, lбska bez ћiarlivosti, bez hnevu, bez horkosti, bez bolesti, smъtku - kaћdodennэ ћivot v ktorom nie je nijakэ konflikt. Ћiќ takэmto spфsobom si vyћaduje obrovskъ energiu, a vy plytvбte touto energiou. Vtedy keп nastбva konflikt - - je to plytvanie. |
| 52:19 | So, what we have done through freedom, so-called freedom, is to bring about disorder both outwardly and inwardly. Now, seeing all this brings order. So how do you see? You understand my question? How do you see all this? As something separate from you? As something out there? Or as something in which the observer has not divided himself from the thing he sees. He is that. You understand? When you see, you are seeing not only visually, seeing not only verbally, but seeing without words, without concepts, without formulas – to see. Which means to see without an image. Now, when you can see without a formula, without concepts, which are verbal images put together by thought, when you can see without formula, concept, image, this whole movement of what is called living: fear, pain, anxiety, great sorrow, killing each other, when you see that very clearly, that very perception brings order. Now, do you see this? And this is really important, this is the only thing that matters, whether you, as a human being, living in this monstrous, stupid, insane world, whether you see this whole thing as a whole. Whether you live here or in India or in Russia or in China or Timbuktu, it is a human problem. And you have to see this clearly. When you see this thing without image, conclusion, without prejudice, without any concept, then you will see that very perception is order. And that order has its own law, not imposed, not conforming, not pursing a particular ideal it is itself order. | Takћe to, иo sme urobili skrz slobodu, tzv. slobodu, je, ћe sme spфsobili zmдtok, aj navonok aj vnъtorne. Keп to vљetko teraz vidнme, prinбљa to poriadok. Tak ako to vidнte? Rozumiete mojej otбzke? Ako to celй vidнte? Ako nieиo, иo je mimo vбs? Ako nieиo, иo je tam vonku? Alebo ako nieиo, v ktorom pozorovateѕ neoddelil seba od toho, иo vidн? On je tэm. Rozumiete? Keп sa pozerбte, nepozerбte sa len vizuбlne, vidiac len verbбlne, ale pozerбte sa bez slov, bez koncepciн, bez vzorcov – pozerбte sa. Иo znamnenб, pozerбte sa bez predstбv. Teraz, keп sa pozerбte bez vzorcov, bez konceptov, ktorэmi sъ verbбlne predstavy, poskladanй mysѕou, keп sa viete pozeraќ bez formulбcie, konceptu, obrazu, celэ tento pohyb ktorэ sa nazэva ћivot: strach, bolesќ, ъzkosќ, veѕkэ smъtok, zabнjanie jeden druhйho, keп to veѕmi jasne vidнte to samй vnнmanie prinбљa poriadok. A teraz, vidнte to? A toto je veѕmi dфleћitй, to je jedinб vec na ktorej zбleћн, иi vy, ako ѕudskб bytosќ, ћijъca v tomto monљtruуznom, hlъpom, љialenom svete, иi vidнte tъto vec ako celok. Иi uћ ћijete tu, v Indii, v Rusku alebo v Инne, alebo v Timbuktu, je to problйm ѕudstva. A musнte to vidieќ jasne. Keп vidнte tъto vec bez predstavy, zбveru, bez predsudku, bez nejakйho konceptu, potom budete ten poriadok vnнmaќ. A ten poriadok mб svoje vlastnй zбkony, nevynъtenй, neprispфsobujъce sa, nepresadzujъci nejakэ ideбl, je to poriadok sбm o sebe. |
| 56:21 | Are we sharing this thing together? Or are you merely listening to a series of words and holding on to your concepts, to your beliefs, to your conclusions, to your particular images, and therefore continuing in your own disorder, and therefore contributing to the world's disorder? You know, a new race must come into being, a new people, a new group not the long-haired ones or the short-haired ones, not the people who take drugs and don't take drugs, square and circle, whatever it is – a new group of people. Do you know, the Aryans came, I believe, historically, from Sumeria. One group went east and they entered India from the north west. And they found in that country quite a different people – brutal, whatever they were, they were quite different people. And these new people that came into it had to live amongst them. So those who have listened to these talks, who really live it, are the new people living in a world of darkness. That is why it is so immensely important to listen, to find out, and to be a light to yourself, not dependant on anybody, on any psychologist, on any guru, on any speaker. Then, when we are a light to ourselves, then we will come together. I don't know what time it is. Just a minute, sir. | Rozumieme si? Alebo len poиъvate nejakй slovб a drћнte sa svojich konceptov, presvedиenн, svojich zбverov, vaљich konkrйtnych predstбv, a preto pokraиujete vo vlastnom neporiadku, a tak prispievate k svetovйmu chaosu?! Viete, musн vzniknъќ novб rasa, novн ѕudia, novб skupina. Nie dlhovlasн, nie krбtkovlasн, nie ѕudia ktorн berъ drogy a neberъ drogy, kockatн, guѕatн иi akн? Novб skupina ѕudн! Viete ћe Бrijci priљli, verнm tomu, historicky, zo Sumйrie? Jedna skupina iљla na vэchod, a vstъpili do Indie zo severozбpadu. A v tej krajine naљli celkom odliљnэch ѕudн. Brutбlnych! Bez ohѕadu na to, boli to ъplne odliљnн ѕudia. A tнto novн ѕudia ktorй do nej vstъpili museli ћiќ medzi nimi. Takћe tн, ktorн poиъvali tэmto rozhovorom, ktorн ich preћнvali, sъ novн ѕudia ћijъci vo svete temnoty. Preto je to tak veѕmi dфleћitй poиъvaќ, zistiќ, a byќ svetlom sebe samйmu. Nebyќ na nikom zбvislн, na ћiadnom psycholуgovi, ћiadnom guru, na reиnнkovi! Keп sme svetlom sebe samйmu, potom sa spojнme. Neviem, koѕko je hodнn. Minъtku, pane. |
| 59:21 |
Q: Sir? K: Wait, just a minute. Take your time, we have got plenty of time. You know, we are not doing propaganda. I am not doing any propaganda for anything. If you repeat what has been said, it becomes a lie. But if you see it for yourself, totally, for yourself, you are a light for yourself and therefore, when you say things it will be yours, and therefore no hypocrisy. Truth is not something in the distance but to see what actually is. And the perception of what actually is, is truth. To see that when you lie, to see that. The perception of a lie in yourself is the truth. So, we are not doing any propaganda or propagating an idea. Therefore it is a marvellous thing to be free to observe, to see things clearly for yourself. And you cannot see things as they are if you have images, conclusions, prejudices, authoritarian beliefs and tradition. Just to look with clear eyes at yourself. And then you don't have to go to any class, to any group to understand yourself, it is all there. You don't have to read books to find out about yourself, or go to Africa to study animals in order to understand, through animals, yourself. You are both the African animal and the civilised American. Right? Only you do not know how to look. And how to look is in your own hands, not the means but the actuality of looking. Right, sir. |
O: Pane? K: Poиkajte minъtku. Neponбhѕajte sa! Mбme kopec иasu. Viete, nerobнme propagandu. Niиomu nerobнm propagandu. Ak budete opakovaќ, иo bolo povedanй, stane sa z toho loћ. Ale ak to pochopнte sami, ъplne, sami, ste svetlom sebe samйmu, a preto keп budete o tom hovoriќ, budete to vy, a preto nie pokrytectvo. Pravda nie je niekde пaleko, ale je to to, иo v skutoиnosti je! A vnнmanie toho, иo v skutoиnosti je, je pravda. Vidieќ, ћe keп klamete, vidнte to! Vnнmanie klamstva v sebe je pravda. Takћe nerobнme ћiadnu propagandu alebo propagбciu idei. Preto je to ъћasnб vec, ћe mфћeme slobodne pozorovaќ, sami vidieќ veci jasne. A vy nemфћete vidieќ ako sa veci majъ, ak mбte predstavy, zбvery, predsudky, autoritбrske presvedиenia a tradнcie. Staин sa pozeraќ na seba s otvorenэmi oиami a potom nemusнte chodiќ do ћiadnej љkoly, do ћiadnej skupiny, aby ste porozumeli sami sebe. Vљetko je tam! Na to aby ste sa naљli, nemusнte инtaќ knihy, alebo нsќ do Afriky pozorovaќ zvieratб, aby ste pochopili skrz zvieratб - seba. Ste oboje. Aj africkй zviera aj civilizovanэ Ameriиan. Ћe? Len neviete, ako sa pozeraќ. A ako sa pozeraќ, to je vo vaљich rukбch. Nie ako prostriedok, ale naozaj sa pozeraќ. Vљak, pane? |
| 1:02:32 | Q: Can you describe the states of being which does and does not, or do and do not permit the new to enter. May we know from whence the new comes from? | Obecenstvo: Mфћete opнsaќ stavy ktorй dovolia alebo nedovolia vstъpiќ tej novosti? Mфћeme vedieќ odkiaѕ pochбdza to novй? |
| 1:02:48 | K: May we know from where comes the new? Do you know from where comes the new? First of all, sir... | K: Mфћeme vedieќ odkiaѕ prichбdza novй? Viete odkiaѕ prichбdza novй? Tak za prvй, pane... |
| 1:03:15 | Q: Do you hear what he said? I can't hear what you are saying. I didn't hear what the question was and I didn't understand what you said just now. | O: Poиujete, иo povedal? Nepoиujem, иo hovorнte. Nepoиul som otбzku a nerozumel som иo ste prбve povedal. |
| 1:03:27 |
Q: We can't hear. K: Can't hear. Oh, that is very simple. The gentleman asks: from where does the new come, the new invention, the new perception. You know, I have been told, these inventors come upon something new, when they have put aside – if they are really great inventors, not just footling little bathtubs and so on. The great inventors, the great people who have seen something new, they must not only have knowledge of the old, as you, but also there must be an interval – listen to this carefully – an interval, not only of time but of space between the old and the new. Which means the old must be in abeyance completely. That is, the old knowledge of the piston, or of whatever it is, that must be totally in abeyance, set aside. And then perhaps, because your mind is so sharp, clear, sensitive, then the new takes place. The new is not born of the old. How can it? The old must be quiet. Now wait a minute, I haven't finished yet. Just a minute, sir, just a minute. When you say 'the new', what do you mean by that word? You sit on the banks of a river. The river has a name. Is the name the river? Is the water that you are watching, is it new water or a constant movement of water? |
O: Nepoиujeme! K: Nepoиujete? У, je to jednoduchй. Pбn sa pэta: odkiaѕ prichбdza to novй, kreativita, novй vnнmanie. Viete, povedali mi, ћe tнto objavitelia priљli na nieиo novй, keп nieиo odloћili. - Pokiaѕ to vфbec sъ objavitelia, nie ћe sa snaћia zaplбtaќ dieru. Ъћasnн vynбlezcovia, ъћasnн ѕudia, ktorн uvideli nieиo novй, musia maќ nielen poznanie zo starйho, ako vy, ale tieћ tam musн byќ aj interval, - a teraz poиъvajte pozorne - interval, nielen иasu ale aj miesta, medzi starэm a novэm. Иo znamenб, ћe to starй musн ъplne prestaќ. To znamenб, starй poznanie piestu, alebo иohokoѕvek, musн ъplne prestaќ, daќ to bokom. A potom moћno, pretoћe vaљa myseѕ je tak ostrб, jasnб, citlivб, prichбdza to novй. Novй sa nezrodн zo starйho. Akoby aj mohlo? To starй musн byќ ticho. Poиkajte minъtku! Eљte som neskonиil. Len minъtku, pane. Len minъtku. Keп hovorнte "to novй", иo si predstavujete pod tэm slovom? Sedнte na brehu rieky. Rieka mб meno. Je to meno riekou? Je voda, ktorъ pozorujete novб voda alebo neustбly pohyb vody? |
| 1:06:41 | And we are always, as human beings, wanting to find something new, not only in the technological world but also in ourselves, something new. Why? I can understand in the technological world but why do you want to find something new in yourself. If you find it, is the new the me? You understand? If I find something new and I have at the same time the me that exists, then the me uses the new. Right? And in using that, it becomes powerful, it seeks position, fame, notoriety, you know, all the rest of the nonsense that goes with the discovery of something new. So then, the me that discovers the new becomes the most mischievous entity. So you have to find out for yourself what is new. Is there such thing as the new? The new being totally different from the past, it has no relationship to the future, that is not contained within the space of consciousness something totally new. To find that out the self must be totally absent. The new is the total goodness. | Sme my, ako ѕudskй bytosti, stбle sa snaћiace nбjsќ nieиo novй, nielen vo svete techniky, ale aj v nбs? Nieиo novй? Preиo? Chбpem to, иo sa tэka techniky, ale preиo chceme nбjsќ nieиo novй v sebe? Ak to nбjdete, je to novй JA? Rozumiete? Ak nбjdem nieиo novй a v rovnakm иase Ja, ktorй existuje, tak potom JA pouћнva to novй. Ћe? A v tom novom sa stбva mocnй, hѕadб postavenie, slбvu, pozornosќ, viete, celэ ten nonsens, ktorэ prichбdza s objavenнm nieиoho novйho. Takћe potom, JA, ktorй objavн novй, sa stбva tou najnebezpeиnejљou entitou. Takћe sami musнte prнsќ na to, иo je to, to Novй. Иi existuje takб vec ako novй. Novб bytosќ ъplne odliљnб od minulosti, ktorб nemб ћiadnu spojitosќ s budъcnosќou ktorб nie je obsiahnutб v priestore vedomia. Niиo ъplne novй. Aby sme na to priљli, to JA tam vфbec nesmie byќ. To novй je ъplnй dobro. |
| 1:09:03 | Q: Sir, I have followed very intensely. It has been a most extraordinary kind of experience to follow thought, to observe myself following the thought. And I felt, after you left the question of dying and entered into the question of becoming new – are you following? | O: Pane, Poиъval som veѕmi intenzнvne. Bolo to najmimoriadnejљн zбћitok sledovaќ myseѕ, skъmaќ sa, pozorujъc myseѕ. A cнtil som, potom иo ste prestali hovoriќ o umieranн a zaиali ste hovoriќ o novom, - sledujete? |
| 1:09:40 | K: Yes, what is the question? I understand. | K: Бno, akб otбzka? Rozumiem. |
| 1:09:44 | Q: I felt derailed, sort of, because in seeing the old, the thought, in being aware of the subtleties of the me, the thought, that self-knowledge that you speak of, that is what I was waiting for you to delve into, and reading and rereading and finally slowing thought down to where I can watch the thought. | O: Tak trochu som bol vykolajenэ, pretoћe vidiac to starй, myseѕ, vedomэ si jemnэch detajlov, tej mysle, to poznanie seba samйho o ktorom hovorнte, to je to, na иo som иakal, aby ste o tom zaиali hovoriќ, a инtanнm a opдtovnэm инtanнm nakoniec spomaliќ myslenie, kde mфћem pozorovaќ myseѕ. |
| 1:10:36 | K: I understand. | K: Rozumiem. |
| 1:10:42 |
Q: In that awareness,
thought disperses, in a sense.
Are you following? K: I understand, sir. |
O: V tej pozornosti
myslenie sa v urиitom zmysle rozptэli.
Sledujete? K: Rozumiem, pane. |
| 1:10:55 | Q: But it is extraordinarily difficult to get even to the point of following one's own thought. The interval between the thought, for it to come in, one must first follow the thought, and it must end, and then the interval, the immensity, the new... | O: Ale je to nesmierne ќaћkй dostaќ sa do bodu, kde mфћete pozorovaќ vlastnъ myseѕ. Tб medzera medzi rozmэљѕanнm, aby sa tam иlovek dostal, иlovek musн sledovaќ myslenie a to musн skonиiќ, a potom tб medzera, nezmyselnosќ, to novй ... |
| 1:11:22 | K: I understand. What is the question, sir? | K: Rozumiem. Akб je otбzka, pane? |
| 1:11:29 | Q: Well, for me, this entering, coming close to this interval is a very frightening kind of experience. Would it be all right to continue or is it too far already? | O: Teda, pre mтa toto vstupovanie, dostaќ sa do tej medzeri, je veѕmi straљidelnэ druh zбћitku. Bolo by dobrй pokraиovaќ alebo som zaљiel uћ prнliљ пaleko? |
| 1:12:03 | K: I follow. I have understood, sir. Aren't you saying this, that: I have followed what you have said, read what you have written, and the more I delve into myself, the knowing of myself, is rather frightening. And also in that delving I see there is an interval between two thoughts, between perception and action – all this is rather frightening. And are you asking, how can one – not how – is it possible to go beyond all this, this fear, this constant searching, constant enquiry, constant uncertainty – is that what you are asking, sir? | K: Vidнm. Porozumel som. Nehovorнte ћe?...: Sledoval som to, иo ste povedali, preинtal, иo ste napнsali, a o to viacej sa vnбram do JA. Poznбvaќ sбm seba je dosќ straљidelnй. A tieћ v tom vnorenн vidнm, ћe medzera medzi myљlienkami, medzi vnнmanнm a konanнm - to vљetko je dosќ desivй. A vy sa pэtate, ako иlovek mфћe - nie ako to urobiќ- je moћnй sa dostaќ za to, za tento strach, toto neustбle hѕadanie, neustбle pэtanie sa, neustбlu neistotu, - na to sa pэtate, pane? |
| 1:13:32 | Q: Not exactly. I am following you and those things build the me. Once, or in the past, on drugs, entering into this realm, without seeing the self, it was most terrifying. | O: Nie presne. Sledujem vбs a to ma formuje. Raz, v minulosti, keп som bol na drogбch, keп som sa dostal do tejto rнљe, bez videnia seba, to bolo to najdesivejљie. |
| 1:13:56 | K: Sir, I understand, it is fairly clear. There are other people asking questions, sir. Wait a minute, sir, the gentleman asked something. You see, most of us are frightened of the unknown. After all, death is the unknown. The tomorrow is basically the unknown. Therefore tomorrow, death, or ten years later, is something we must know in order to be free of any form of fear. So we are always carrying with us the knowledge of yesterday. And the knowledge of yesterday prevents us the understanding of the unknown. The freedom from the known is the new. Yes, sir? | K: Pane, chбpem, je to dosќ jasnй. Inн ѕudia sa tieћ chcъ nieиo spэtaќ, pane. Poиkajte minъtku, pane. Ten dћentlmen sa nieиo pэtal. Vidнte, vдиљina z nбs sa bojн nieиoho neznбmeho. Koniec koncov, smrќ je nieиo neznбme. Zajtrajљok je v skutoиnosti nieиo neznбme. Preto zajtrajљok, smrќ, alebo o desaќ rokov neskфr, je nieиo иo musнme vedieќ, aby sme sa nebбli hociakej formy strachu. Takћe vћdy nosнme so sebou poznanie zo vиerajљka. A to poznanie zo vиerajљka nбm brбni porozumieќ tomu neznбmemu. Oslobodenie sa od poznanйho je tэm novэm. Бno, pane? |
| 1:15:12 | Q: Sir, the observer and the observed – I have read what you have said about the observer and the observed. Sometimes by the observed you are talking about inwardly, aren't you? | O: Pane, byќ pozorovateѕom a tэm pozorovanэm - инtal som, иo ste povedal o pozorovateѕovi a pozorovanom., Niekedy ako o pozorovanom hovorнte o vnъtornom, nie? |
| 1:15:23 | K: Why the observer? | K: Preиo pozorovateѕ? |
| 1:15:25 | Q: The observer and the observed. Sometimes when you are talking about the observed, you were talking about a flower, I believe, and sometimes you were talking about something inside you as the observed, are you not? | O: Pozorovateѕ a pozorovanй. Niekedy, keп hovorнte o pozorovanom, hovorili ste o kvete. Verнm, a niekedy ste hovorii o nieиom vo vaљom vnъtri, ako o pozorovanom, nie? |
| 1:15:38 | K: No, it is fairly simple. When you look at somebody, now you are sitting there and I am sitting here, the speaker is here and you are there. You are the observer and the speaker is the observed. Right? How do you look at the speaker? You are the observer. What are you observing? The form of the speaker, the language you hear of the speaker, the gestures, the features, the form, the name? Is that what you are observing? Or you have an image of the speaker, haven't you? So what are you observing? You are observing your own image that you have built about the speaker. Right? Now, can you look at the speaker without any image? Which means then you are really looking, aren't you, then you are really listening. Not listening to your image, your preconceived ideas, but actually putting all that aside you are listening, you are looking. Now, can you look at yourself similarly? Because when you look at yourself you have an image of yourself, what you should be, what you should not be. Right? You have an idea, which is again an image that you must succeed, you must be good, you must achieve, you know, you have images, not only about yourself, you have images about others and the world. So you are always looking through an image, through a formula, in a sense. Now, can you look without the image, without the formula? The image, the formula, is the me. It is very simple, sir, to look at a tree, the cloud, the bird, your neighbour, your wife or your girl, whatever it is, to look without a single image. Then you are related, then the bird, you look, without the me without the word, then you will never kill anything in your life. | K: Nie, je to celkom jednoduchй. Keп sa na niekoho pozerбte, ja sedнm tu, vy tam, reиnнk je tu, vy ste tam. Vy ste pozorovateѕ, reиnнk je pozorovanэ. Ћe? Ako sa pozerбte na reиnнka? Vy ste pozorovateѕ. Иo pozorujete? Formu pozorovateѕa, jazyk akэm hovorн, gestб, иrty, formu, meno? To je to иo pozorujete? Alebo mбte predstavu o reиnнkovi, vљak? Takћe иo pozorujete? Pozorujete svoju vlastnъ predstavu o reиnнkovi, ktorъ ste si vybudovali. Ћe? Teraz, viete sa pozrieќ na reиnнka bez akejkoѕvek predstavy? Иo znamenб, ћe sa naozaj pozerбte, ћe? Ћe naozaj poиъvate. Teraz, tэm ћe poиъvate vlastnъ predstavu, vaљe prednastavenй myљlienky, ale v skutoиnosti to vљetko dбte bokom, poиъvate, pozerбte sa. Teraz, viete sa na seba pozrieќ podobnэm spфsobom? Pretoћe, keп sa pozerбte na seba, mбte o sebe predstavu, akэ by ste mali byќ, akэ by ste nemali byќ. Ћe? Mбte ideu, ktorб je zase predstava, ћe musнte uspieќ, musнte byќ dobrэ, musнte nieиo dosiahnuќ. Viete, mбte predstavy, nie len o sebe, mбte predstavy o sebe a o svete. Takћe vћdy sa pozerбte cez predstavu, prostrednнctvom vzorca, v urиitom zmysle. Teraz - viete sa pozeraќ bez predstavy? Bez vzorca? Tб predstava, ten vzorec som JA. Je to veѕmi jednoduchй pane. Keп sa pozerбte na strom, oblak, vtбka, svojho suseda, svoju ћenu, alebo svoje dievиa, na hociиo, pozerajte sa bez predstavy. Potom ste spriaznenн, potom ten vtбk, na ktorйho sa pozerбte bez Ja, bez toho slova, potom nikdy niи v ћivote nezabijete. |
| 1:19:02 |
Q: Sir? K: Wait a minute, sir. Yes, sir? |
O: Pane? K: Poиkajte minъtku. Бno, pane? |
| 1:19:08 | Q: Before when you were speaking of how we move from one trap to another trap, and to another trap after that, and many in the audience laughed. You said: please do not laugh, this is very serious. Is not that conception of how serious or not serious to take the whole matter? | O: Predtэm, neћ ste hovorili ako padneme z jednej pasce do druhej, a potom do пalљej, veѕa ѕudн v obecenstve sa smialo. Povedali ste: Prosнm, nesmejte sa! Je to vбћne! Nie je to koncepcia toho ako vбћne alebo ako nie, braќ celъ zбleћitosќ? |
| 1:19:28 | K: Not at all, sir. Right, I'll show you, I'll show you. When you are serious and you begin to laugh about something, I know why you laugh, it is a release. Laughing, a kind of a pent up feeling which you have built up during the talks suddenly releases. Laughter is good, laughter has its place and occasion. One must laugh, one must smile, there is beauty in laughter. But there are also occasions when laughter has no place. When one is deeply concerned, deeply trying to find out about oneself, the understanding of sorrow. And somebody suddenly laughs, it rather jars, doesn't one? It isn't that you mustn't laugh but it isn't appropriate, it isn't the right moment, that is all. Yes, sir? | K: Vфbec nie, pane. Dobre, ukбћem vбm to, ukбћem vбm to! Keп ste vбћni, a zaиnete sa nieиom smiaќ, viem preиo sa smejete. Je to uvoѕnenie. Smiech, akэsi vzruљujъci pocit, ktorэ ste si vytvorili poиas rozhovorov sa nбhle uvoѕnenн. Smiech je dobrэ, smiech mб svoje miesto a prнleћitosќ. Иlovek sa musн smiaќ, musн sa usmievaќ. V smiechu je krбsa . Ale sъ tu aj prнleћitosti kde smiech nemб miesto. Keп je иlovek hlboko znepokojenэ, zanietene sa snaћн zistiќ spoznaќ sбm seba, pochopiќ smъtok. A niekto sa nбhle zasmeje, otrasie to vami, nie? Nie je to to, ћe sa nesmiete smiaќ, ale je to nevhodnй. Nie je ten pravэ иas, to je vљetko. Бno, pane? |
| 1:20:39 | Q: It seems to me that to be free one must be able to see what actually is. And yet, to see what actually is, it seems that one must be free. | O: Zdб sa mi, ћe aby bol иlovek slobodnэ, musн vidieќ иo sa v skutoиnosti deje. A predsa, vidieќ to иo je, иlovek musнm byќ slobodnэ. |
| 1:20:48 |
Q: Is that not a paradox? K: That is good, sir. It is not a contradiction. First, to investigate anything, especially into oneself, there must not only be great sensitivity but freedom – freedom from your prejudices about yourself, how beautiful you are or how good you are or how ugly you are – freedom to look. That is all. Listen to this. So, the first step is the last step. The first step, which is to look at myself without any prejudice, without any conditioning, just to see actually what is. That is the first step and the last step. There is no contradiction. To see clearly into myself and the world there must be no me who says, I am right, you are wrong, my opinion is this, I am this, you know. Which doesn't mean you become vague, indifferent or casual, you know, whatever it is. But when you see, to see there must be absolute clarity. And you cannot have clarity if there is no freedom. So, when you look at yourself you will see that you are looking at yourself with a formula, with an image. So, what is important, not what you will see but to be free of your image. Free of your image, why you have images. Which is, you have images because you protect yourself, you resist, you think you are better than what you are, or inferior than what you are. So all these images are a form of resistance, a form of defence, which prevent the actual looking. So, your first concern is not what you find but whether you can look without prejudice. And therefore that is the first step and therefore it is the last step. Yes, sir? |
O: Nie je to paradox? K: To je dobre, pane. Nie je to protireиenie. Najprv, aby sme mohli иokoѕvek skъmaќ, najmд v sebe samom, musн v tom byќ nielen veѕkэ zmysel pre cit, ale aj sloboda. Sloboda bez predsudkov o sebe, o tom akэ ste peknэ, alebo akэ ste dobrэ, alebo akэ ste љkaredэ. Sloboda pozeraќ sa. To je vљetko. Poиъvajte toto! Takћe prvэ krok je poslednэ krok. Prvэ krok, иo je pozrieќ sa na seba bez hociakэch predsudkov, bez akejkoѕvek podmienenia, len aby som videl skutoиnosќ. To je prvэ aj poslednэ krok. Nie je v tom ћiadny rozpor. Aby som videl jasne seba a svet, nesmie tam byќ ћiadne JA, ktorй hovorн: Mбm pravdu, ty sa mэliљ, toto je mфj nбzor, ja som takэto, viete? Иo neznamenб, ћe sa stanete vбgny, ѕahostajnэ alebo obyиajnэ, Viete, hociakэ. Ale keп vidнte, na to, aby ste videli, tam musн byќ absolъtna jasnosќ. A vy nemфћete vidieќ jasne, ak tam nie je sloboda. Takћe, ak sa pozriete na seba, uvidнte, ћe sa pozerбte na seba cez vzorec, cez predstavu. Takћe, nie je dфleћitй иo vidнte, ale to, aby ste sa pozerali bez predstбv. Bez predstбv! Preиo mбte predstavy? To znamenб, mбte prestavy, lebo sa chrбnite, odmietate, myslнte si ћe ste lepљн ako v skutoиnosti ste, alebo sa chovбte podradnejљie ako v skutoиnosti ste. Takћe vљetky tieto predstavy sъ formou odporu, forma obrany, ktorй brбnia skutoиnйmu vhѕadu. Takћe, vaљa prvб starosќ nie je to иo nбjdete, ale иi sa viete pozeraќ bez predsudkov. A preto je to aj prvэm aj poslednэm krokom. Бno, pane? |
| 1:23:58 | Q: Could you discuss loneliness, how it drives us in different directions? | O: Mohli by ste hovoriќ o osamelosti, ako nбs to posъva rфznymi smermi? |
| 1:24:05 |
Q: Did you hear the question, sir? K: I can't hear. |
O: Poиul ste otбzku, pane? K: Nepoиujem. |
| 1:24:08 | Q: Will you take up the matter of loneliness and how it drives us in different directions in our lives? | O: Иi budete hovoriќ o osamelosti a ako nбs to posъva rфznymi smermi v ћivote? |
| 1:24:15 |
Q: Loneliness. K: Loneliness. Yes, I understand. Does loneliness drive us in different directions? Now, let's look into it, please, let's go into this quietly. Because most of us are lonely people. We may have children, grandmother, you may be surrounded by a crowd, you may go to the temple, to the church, you may read a great many books, write, philosophise, but when you wake up in the dark, in the middle of the night, you suddenly feel completely lonely. You may be sleeping next to your wife, you may be walking with your friends and companions, you feel deeply, suddenly, this sense of not being related to anything, desperately lonely. Don't you know this? Don't you? If you do, then what do you do? Just go step by step into it. What do you do? You try to escape from it, don't you? Radio, television, books, images, imagine the days that you are not lonely, and fight it, try to escape from it, try to rationalise your loneliness, try to resist it, avoid it. Don't you do all those things? But you never face it, you never come directly into contact with it. Like sorrow, you never come immediately into its total contact. |
O: Osamelosќ. K: Osamelosќ. Rozumiem. Иi nбs osamelosќ posъva rфznymi smermi? Pozrime sa na to, prosнm, poпme na to pomaly. Pretoћe mnohн z nбs sъ osamelн. Mфћeme maќ deti, starъ mamu, mфћete byќ obklopenн zбstupom ѕudн, mфћete chodiќ do chrбmu, kostola, mфћete инtaќ kopec ъћasnэch knнh, pнsaќ, filozofovaќ, ale keп sa zobudнte v tme, uprostred noci, nбhle sa cнtite ъpne osamelн. Mфћete spaќ vedѕa svojej ћeny, mфћete sa prechбdzaќ s priateѕmi a znбmymi, v hеbke zrazu cнtite, tento pocit, ћe nie ste s niинm spojenн. Zъfalo sami. Poznбte to? Бno? Ak бno, иo robнte? Prejdime si to krok za krokom. Иo robнte? Snaћнte sa z toho utiecќ, nie? Rбdio, televнzia, knihy, predstavy, predstavujete si dni, keп nie ste sami, a bojujete s tэm, snaћнte sa od toho utiecќ, snaћte sa racionalizovaќ svoju osamelosќ, snaћнte sa jej odolaќ, vyhnъќ sa jej. Nerobнte to vљetko? Ale nikdy sa tomu nepostavнte, nikdy s tэm neprнdete priamo do kontaktu. Ako smъtok, nikdy s nнm okamћite neprнdete do priameho kontaktu. |
| 1:26:56 | So you look at this loneliness as an observer, as an outsider, who says, I don't know what it is, I am frightened, I don't like it. I will get drunk, I will take drugs, anything to avoid this terrible thing. So when you escape from it, the loneliness and the fear of it increases, it is always there. You may run away a thousand miles, it is always there. You may place, in that loneliness, your gods, your saviours, your gurus, your idea of enlightenment – it is always there, like your shadow. So knowing, seeing clearly, that any form of escape, however subtle or however stupid, however brutal, doesn't answer this question of loneliness. So when you see the truth of that, then you are that loneliness. Not you are different from that loneliness, you are that loneliness. Aren't you? You, married, wife, children, you are struggling, you are self-assertive, you have your own problems, you are working for yourself, in the name of your family, you are working for yourself, isolating yourself all day long, aren't you? So this daily isolating process, through aggression, through assertion, through the dominance, me and not me, all that process, that movement of the me, is loneliness, isolation. And from that sense of isolation you want to assert, you become aggressive, brutal, violent, angry. So, all those are forms of an escape from the fact of what is. Now can you look at that loneliness without any conclusion, without wanting to go beyond it, wanting to overcome it? The wanting to overcome it is another form of escape, but just to look at it. Then you will see, because you are no longer escaping and therefore wasting your energy, then you can look. And when you observe totally, the thing is not. Right? You have understood this? Yes? | Takћe sa pozerбte na tъto osamelosќ ako pozorovateѕ, ako outsider, ktorэ hovorн: Bojнm sa, nepбиi sa mi to. Opijem sa, dбm si drogy, hociиo, len aby som sa vyhol tejto straљnej veci. Takћe keп od toho uteиiete, osamelosќ alebo strach z toho narastб, a vћdy tam je. Mфћete utiecќ tisнc mнѕ, vћdy je tam. Mфћete do tej osamelosti vloћiќ svojich bohov, spasiteѕov, guruov, svoju myљlienku na osvietenie - vћdy tam je, - ako vбљ tieт. Takћe vediac, jasne vidieќ, ћe akбkoѕvek forma ъteku, иi uћ malб alebo aj hlъpa, hociako brutбlna, nie je odpoveпou na otбzku osamelosti. Takћe keп sa na to pozriete pravdivo, tak potom vy ste tб osamelosќ. Nie ћe vy ste niekto inн ako tб osamelosќ. "VY" ste tб osamelosќ. Иi nie? Vy, ћenatэ, manћelka, deti, bojujete, ste priebojnэ, mбte svoje vlastnй problйmy, pracujete pre seba, pre svoju rodinu, pracujete pre seba, celэ deт sa izoloujete, nie? Takћe tento kaћdodennэ proces izolбcie, prostrednнctvom agresie, prostrednнctvom presvedиenia, cez dominбciu, JA a nie JA, celэ ten proces, ten pohyb mтa, je osamelosќ, izolбcia. A z toho pocitu izolбcie si chcete robiќ nбroky: stбvate sa agresнvnymi, brutбlnymi, nбsilnэmi, nahnevanэmi. Takћe to vљetko sъ formy ъniku z toho, иo sa deje. Viete sa teraz pozrieќ na osamelosќ bez nejakэch zбverov, bez toho ћe chcete нsќ za to, prekonaќ to? Chcenie prekonaќ to, je пalљou formou ъteku, tak sa na to len pozerajte. Potom uvidнte, pretoћe uћ neutekбte a preto nestrбcate svoju energiu, keп sa viete na to pozrieќ. A keп to riadne sledujete, tб vec zmizne. Ћe? Pochopili ste to? Бno? |
| 1:30:48 | Q: I thank you for giving me new freedom, and if I must be led, I wish we could have a president like you. | O: Пakujem, ћe ste mi dali novъ slobodu, a ak ma musia viesќ, ћelal by som si prezidenta ako ste vy. |
| 1:31:04 | Q: If I am looking at you, the speaker, and these images that you are talking about that I would bring in between what I am seeing and what you really are, is that thought, isn't that thought? | O: Ak sa na vбs pozerбm, na reиnнka, a tieto predstavy o ktorэch hovorнte ћe by som vniesol medzi to иo vidнm, a to, kэm v skutoиnosti ste, je to myslenie? Nie je to myslenie? |
| 1:31:15 | K: No, just look, sir. You have a friend, haven't you, or a wife, or a girl? How do you look at that person? Do you see her or him without any image? When you say: I know somebody, what do you mean by that – I know somebody? You have met him half a dozen times or talked to him a great deal, you say, I do know that person. What do you mean by that? You know him from what you have observed, experienced, known his idiosyncrasies, you know him. Which is, you know him according to the image that you have built, which is the past. Right? Isn't that so? You all look so mystified. Therefore it is the most dangerous thing to say: I know somebody. You only know him from your past knowledge. He may have changed, he may be different now, but you say: I know him. Either contemptuously or in a friendly way. Which is, always according to the past knowledge, disregarding what he actually is. So, when you look at your wife, husband, or whatever your relationship, intimate relationships are with another, with your neighbour who may be a thousand miles or ten thousand miles away, or next door, you have an image about him, and that image is the division, and that image is the source of conflict. To look at another without an image is a blessing. | K: Nie, len sa pozerajte, pane. Mбte priateѕa, vљakћe? Alebo manћelku иi dievиa? Ako sa pozerбte na tъ osobu? Vidнte ju иi jeho bez akojkoѕvek predstavy? Keп hovorнte: Poznбm niekoho, иo myslнzte tэm: Poznбm niekoho? Stretli ste ho stotkrбt alebo s nнm veѕakrбt hovorili, a hovorнte: Poznбm tъ osobu. Иo tэm myslнte? Poznбte ho z toho, иo ste pozorovali, zaћili, spoznali jeho vэstrednosti, poznбte ho. Иo znamenб, poznбte ho podѕa predstavy, ktorъ ste si vytvorili. Иo je minulosќ. Ћe? Nie je to tak? Vљetci vyzerбte zmдtene. Preto to najnebezpeиnejљie, иo mфћete povedaќ je: Poznбm ho! Poznбte ho len z vaљich predchбdzajъcich poznatkov. Mohol sa zmeniќ, teraz mфћe byќ inэ, ale vy hovorнte: Poznбm ho! Buп opovrћlivэm alebo priateѕskэm spфsobom, иo znamenб: vћdy na zбklade predchбdzajъcej vedomosti, prehliadate to, akэ v skutoиnosti je. Takћe keп sa pozriete na svoju manћelku, manћela, alebo akйkoѕvek vaљe vzќahy, blнzke vzќahy sъ, s inэm, s blнћnym, ktorэ mфћe byќ tisнc kilometrov alebo desaќ tisнc mнѕ пaleko, alebo bэvaќ vedѕa, mбte o тom predstavu, a tбto predstava je rozdelenie, a tб predstava je zdrojom konfliktu. Pozeraќ sa na druhйho bez predstбv je poћehnanie. |
| 1:33:47 | Q: Is not wanting the new an escape? | O: Nie je to chcenie nieиoho novйho ъnikom? |
| 1:33:52 | K: Absolutely. Wanting the new is an escape, obviously. | K: Absolъtne. Chcieќ novй je ъnik, samozrejme. |
| 1:33:57 | Q: Is there not knowing the knower, knowing the seer... | O: Nie je to nepoznanie poznanйho, pznanie vid... |
| 1:34:03 | K: Please, just a minute. Oh Lord. Look, sir, when you love somebody – love, not desire, not pleasure – when you love somebody, because love is not pleasure, love is not desire. When it is desire then it becomes pleasure. Then it is no longer love. When you love somebody, is there a me? Is there the entity that says, I must find new love? There is no me because love then is always new. Pleasure is always old, because it is the product of thought. So a mind that is really observing, aware, to that mind there is always something new going on. | K: Poиkajte minъtku. Boћe! Pozrite pane! Keп niekoho milujete - milujete! - nie tъћite po тom, nie poteљenie - keп niekoho milujete...lebo lбska nie je poteљenie, lбska nie je tъћba. Keп je to tъћba, stбva sa to poteљenнm. To potom uћ nie je lбska. Keп niekoho milujete, je tam JA? Existuje entita, ktorэ hovorн: Musнm nбjsќ novъ lбsku? Nie je tam ћiadne JA, pretoћe lбska je vћdy novб. Poteљenie je vћdy starй, Pretoћe je to produkt mysle. - Untranslated subtitle - Takћe myseѕ, ktorб to skutoиne pozoruje, uvedomuje si to, - Untranslated subtitle - - Untranslated subtitle - - v takej myseli sa vћdy deje nieиo novй. |