Krishnamurti - Điều Gì Làm Chúng Ta Thay Đổi?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR79T1 - Điều Gì Làm Chúng Ta Thay Đổi?
Buổi Nói Chuyện thứ 1
Brockwood Park, Anh Quốc
25 tháng tám 1979

0:43	I'm sorry the weather is so foul.	Thứ lỗi vì thời tiết quá xấu.
1:03	I am sure many of you have come with your personal problems and hope by these talks they will be solved, but they can only be solved if we apply self choiceless awareness and a quality of religious wholeness. I mean - we mean by 'religion' - not beliefs, dogmas, rituals and the vast network of superstition, but religion in the deep sense of that word, which only comes into being when there is this self-awareness and meditation. And that is what we are going to talk about during these four talks and two question and answer meetings, as has been explained.	Tôi chắc rằng nhiều bạn đến đây với những vấn đề riêng và mong những buổi nói này sẽ tháo gỡ chúng nhưng chỉ có thể nếu chúng ta áp dụng tự tri không chọn lựa và tính chất trọn vẹn tôn giáo. Ý tôi - chúng ta nói 'tôn giáo' không phải niềm tin, giáo lý, lễ lạy và mạng lưới bao la của mê tín nhưng tôn giáo trong ý nghĩa sâu thẳm của chữ ấy nó chỉ hiện diện khi có tự tri và thiền định. Và đó là điều chúng ta sẽ thảo luận suốt bốn buổi nói chuyện này và hai buổi hỏi và trả lời, như đã giải thích.
2:43	To go into this matter rather deeply, not only to be aware, naturally and easily, with our own particular problems, which are related with the problems of the world, because we human beings are more or less alike throughout the world, psychologically. You may have different colour, different culture, different habits and customs, but in spite of that, all human beings go through a great deal of travail, a great deal of sorrow, great anxieties, loneliness, despairs, depressions. Not being able to solve them, they seek salvation through somebody else, through various forms of beliefs, dogmas and acceptance of authorities.	Để tìm hiểu vấn đề này khá sâu không chỉ nhận thức một cách tự nhiên và dễ dàng những vấn đề riêng chúng liên quan đến cả những vấn đề thế giới bởi con người chúng ta ít hay nhiều trên toàn thế giới đều như nhau về tâm lý. Bạn có thể khác màu da, khác văn hóa khác thói quen, phong tục nhưng dù vậy toàn nhân loại đều trải qua biết bao thống khổ biết bao đau thương bao lo lắng, cô đơn, thối chí, nản lòng. Không thể giải quyết chúng họ tìm cứu rỗi nơi ai khác nơi mọi loại niềm tin, giáo lý và chấp nhận uy quyền.
4:14	So when we are discussing, talking over together these problems, if we merely confine ourselves to our own particular little problem, then that self-centred activity only makes it more narrow, more limited, and therefore it becomes more of a prison. Whereas if we could during these talks and dialogues, or questions and answers, if we could relate ourselves to the whole of humankind, to the whole of humanity. We are part of that humanity. Over in the East they suffer just as much as you do; they have their sorrows, their unhappiness, their utter loneliness, a sense of negligence by the society; there is no security, no certainty; they are confused as much as we are here. So we are essentially, deeply psychologically part of that humanity. I think this must be understood really, not merely verbally, or intellectually, or through reason, but one has to feel this. It is not a sentiment, or a romantic idea, but an actuality, that we are part of this whole of humankind and therefore we have a tremendous responsibility.	Vậy khi chúng ta thảo luận cùng nhau bàn những vấn đề này nếu chúng ta chỉ giới hạn mình ở những vấn đề nhỏ bé riêng tư rồi thì hoạt động vị ngã ấy chỉ làm nó nhỏ hẹp thêm giới hạn thêm và vì thế thành thêm một nhà tù. Trái lại, nếu có thể, suốt những buổi nói chuyện hay hỏi và trả lời này nếu có thể liên hệ mình với toàn thể nhân loại toàn thể loài người. Chúng ta là thành phần nhân loại. Cả phương Đông kia họ cũng vô cùng đớn đau như bạn họ cũng đau khổ bất hạnh hết sức cô đơn cảm giác bị xã hội bỏ quên không có an ninh an toàn họ cũng nhiều rối loạn như chúng ta đây. Thế nên, cơ bản, sâu trong nội tâm, chúng ta là thành phần nhân loại. Tôi nghĩ điều này phải thực sự hiểu không chỉ lời nói hay trí óc hay lý luận mà bạn phải cảm nhận nó. Không phải cảm giác, ý niệm tưởng tượng mà thực tế chúng ta là thành phần của cả nhân loại và vì thế chúng ta có trách nhiệm lớn lao.
6:48	And to bring about a unity of all other human beings, it is only religion can do this, bring us all together. Not politics, not science, not some new philosophy, or some expansive economy, or various organisations - political, religious - none of them are going to bring us together, as a whole. I think this one has to realise very deeply, that no organisation - religious, political, economic, or the various forms of United Nations organisations - will bring man together. It is only religion, in the deep sense of that word, can bring us all together. Religion - we mean by that word not all that is going on in the world, the various superstitions, the make-belief, the hierarchical set-up, the dogmas, the rituals, the beliefs - religion is far beyond all that; it is a way of living, daily. And if we could think over together, think together, not about something, but have the capacity to be able to look, hear and think together. Could we during these talks do that? Not that we must agree with each other, or accept each other's opinions or judgements, but rather putting aside our own particular point of view, our own experience, our own conclusions. If we can set those aside and have the capacity to think together, not about something, which is fairly easy, but to be able to see the same thing together, to hear the same meaning, significance, the depth of a word, to hear the same song, not interpret it according to your like and dislike, but to hear it together. Because I think it is very important to be able to think together, not as a group, having the same thought, the same point of view, the same outlook, but having set aside one's own particular idiosyncrasies, habits of thought, come together in thought. Say, for instance, we can think together about belief. We can argue for it or against it. We can see how important belief is, to have some kind of psychological security. And being desirous of that security, we'll believe in anything. This is happening in the world. Belief in the most ridiculous nonsense, both economically, religiously, and in every way. So we can think about a belief together, agreeing or disagreeing. But we are trying something else, which is not thinking about something, but thinking itself together. I wonder if I am making myself clear.	Và để tạo sự thống nhất cho toàn thể loài người chỉ tôn giáo mới có thể làm thế đem chúng ta lại với nhau. Không phải chính trị không phải khoa học không phải triết lý mới hay kinh tế phát triển hay các tổ chức khác nhau về chính trị, tôn giáo, không ai đem chúng ta lại với nhau thành một toàn thể. Tôi nghĩ bạn phải nhận thức sâu sắc điều này rằng không tổ chức nào về tôn giáo, chính trị, kinh tế hay nhiều kiểu tổ chức Liên Hiệp Quốc khác sẽ đem con người lại nhau. Chỉ có tôn giáo trong ý nghĩa sâu thẳm của từ ấy mới có thể đem chúng ta lại nhau. Tôn giáo - chúng ta nói chữ ấy không phải mọi thứ diễn ra trên đời nhiều loại mê tín, tạo niềm tin phân giai cấp giáo lý, lễ lạy, tin tưởng tôn giáo vượt xa mọi cái đó nó là lối sống hàng ngày. Và nếu chúng ta có thể cùng suy tư, cùng suy nghĩ không phải về điều gì, nhưng có khả năng có thể nhìn, nghe và cùng suy tư. Suốt mấy buổi nói này chúng ta có thể làm thế? Không phải chúng ta phải đồng ý nhau hay chấp nhận ý kiến hay phán đoán của nhau nhưng hơn thế, dẹp sang bên mọi quan điểm riêng kinh nghiệm riêng, kết luận riêng nếu chúng ta có thể dẹp chúng sang bên và có khả năng cùng suy tư không phải về điều gì thế thì khá dễ dàng nhưng có thể cùng nhìn một việc cùng nghe một ý nghĩa chiều sâu từ ngữ nghe cùng bài ca không diễn giải theo cái ghét hay ưa của bạn mà cùng nhau nghe vì tôi nghĩ rất là quan trọng nếu có thể cùng suy tư không phải một nhóm có cùng một ý nghĩ cùng một quan điểm cùng cách nhìn mà là dẹp sang bên tính khí riêng của mình thói quen suy tư cùng bước đi trong suy tư. Ví dụ chúng ta có thể cùng suy tư về niềm tin Chúng ta có thể biện hộ hay chống đối Chúng ta có thể thấy niềm tin quan trọng thế nào cho an toàn tâm lý. Và muốn an toàn ấy nên chúng ta tin tưởng điều gì đó. Điều này xảy ra trên thế gian. Tin vào điều vô nghĩa buồn cười nhất cả về kinh tế, tôn giáo và mọi thứ khác. Nên chúng ta có thể cùng nghĩ về niềm tin, đồng ý hay không. Nhưng chúng ta thử điều gì khác không phải suy tư về điều gì mà cùng suy tư về chính nó. Không biết tôi nói rõ không. Có vẻ không có hai người có thể cùng suy tư
12:33	No two people apparently are capable of thinking together, unless there is some catastrophe, unless there is some great sorrow, a crisis, then people come together and think together, about a war, and so on. It is always thinking together about something. Right? But we are trying something, which is to think together. Which is only possible if we for the moment forget ourselves, our own problems, our own inclinations, our intellectual capacities, and so on, so on, and meet each other. That requires a certain sense of attention, a certain sense of awareness, that each one of us are together in the quality of thinking. I don't know how to express it more than that. Could we do that about all our problems? We can think together about our problems, but to have the capacity to think at the same level, with the same intensity, not about something, but the feeling of thinking together. I wonder if you get it?	trừ khi có thảm họa nào trừ khi có nổi khổ quá lớn khủng hoảng, người ta đến nhau và cùng suy nghĩ về chiến tranh, v.v.. Luôn luôn cùng suy nghĩ về điều gì - phải không? Nhưng chúng ta thử một điều, tức là cùng suy tư. Chỉ có thể nếu lúc ấy chúng ta quên mất mình vấn đề riêng, khuynh hướng riêng khả năng trí óc v.v.., v.v.. và rồi gặp nhau. Việc ấy đòi hỏi cảm giác chú tâm cảm giác nhận thức mà mỗi chúng ta cùng nhau trong đặc tính suy tư. Tôi không biết làm thế nào diễn tả rõ ràng hơn. Chúng ta có thể làm thế với mọi vấn đề? Chúng ta có thể cùng suy tư về những vấn đề nhưng có khả năng suy tư trên cùng mức độ với cùng cường độ không về điều gì, mà là cảm giác cùng nhau suy tư. Không biết bạn hiểu chăng?
14:45	If we could do that, we can go together into many things. That means a certain quality of freedom, a certain sense of detachment, not forced, compelled, driven, but the freedom from our own backyard, and then meet together. Because this becomes very important when you want to create a good society. The philosophers have talked about it, the ancient Greeks, the ancient Hindus, and the Chinese have talked about bringing about a good society. That is, in the future. Some time in the future we will create a good society according to an ideal, a pattern, a certain sense of ideals, and so on. And apparently, throughout the world a good society has never come into being; there are good people, maybe. It is becoming more and more difficult to be good in this world. And we are always looking to the future to bring about this good society, good in the sense where people can live on this earth without wars, peacefully, without slaughtering each other, without competition, in a sense of great freedom, and so on. We are not defining what is good for the moment; the definition of the good doesn't make one good.	Nếu có thể làm thế chúng ta có thể cùng tìm hiểu nhiều điều. Thế nghĩa là đặc tính tự do cảm giác lìa bỏ không áp đặt, thúc ép thôi thúc mà tự do từ cả hậu trường và rồi cùng gặp nhau. Bởi điều này rất quan trọng khi bạn muốn tạo một xã hội tốt đẹp. Các triết gia đã bàn về nó người Hy lạp cổ, Hinđu cổ và người Trung quốc đã nói về xây dựng một xã hội tốt đẹp. Đó là tương lai, lúc nào đó trong tương lai chúng ta sẽ tạo một xã hội tốt theo lý tưởng, mô hình một ý nghĩa của lý tưởng nào, v.v.. Và dường như khắp thế gian một xã hội tốt chưa hề hiện diện có thể có con người tốt. Ngày càng khó tốt đẹp trên thế gian này. Và chúng ta luôn hướng về tương lai để tạo dựng xã hội tốt tốt trong ý nghĩa con người có thể sống trên mặt đất không chiến tranh an bình, không tàn sát lẫn nhau không đua tranh, trong cảm giác tự do bao la, v.v.. Chúng ta không định nghĩa tốt là gì định nghĩa về tốt đẹp không làm ai tốt đẹp.
17:28	So can we together think the absolute need of a good society? The society is what we are. Society doesn't come into being mysteriously, it is not created by God; man has created this society, with all the wars and all that is going on. We don't have to go into all the horrible details of it. And that society is what we are, what each human being is. That is fairly obvious. That is, we create the society with all its divisions, with its conflicts, with its terror, with its inequality, and so on, so on, so on. Because in ourselves we are that, which is in our relationship with each other, we are that. We may be fairly tolerant, fairly affectionate in private relationships - even that's rather doubtful - but with regard to the rest of the human beings we are not. Which is again fairly obvious, when you read the newspapers, magazines and actually see what is going on. So, good society can only come into being not in the future, but now when we human beings have established right relationship between ourselves. Is that possible? Not at some future date, but actually in the present, in our daily life, could we bring about a relationship that is essentially good? Good being without domination, without personal interest, without personal vanity, ambition, and so on. So that there is a relationship between each other which is based essentially on - if I may use the word and I hope you won't mind - love. Is that possible?	Vậy chúng ta có thể cùng suy tư tuyệt đối cần xã hội tốt? Xã hội là chúng ta xã hội không hiện diện cách thần bí không do Thượng đế tạo, con người dựng xã hội với cả chiến tranh và mọi thứ đang xảy ra. Chúng ta không đào sâu từng chi tiết kinh khiếp ấy. Và xã hội ấy là chúng ta, là mỗi con người. Khá hiển nhiên đó. Tức là, chúng ta tạo xã hội với mọi phân chia với xung đột, với khủng bố với bất công và v.v.., v.v.., v.v.. bởi trong chính mình chúng ta là thế nên trong quan hệ lẫn nhau chúng ta là thế. Chúng ta có thể khá khoan dung khá ưu ái trong quan hệ riêng tư tuy không chắc thế nhưng đối với những người khác chúng ta không thế. Lại cũng khá hiển nhiên khi bạn đọc báo, tạp chí và thực sự thấy việc diễn ra. Vậy nên xã hội tốt chỉ có thể có không phải tương lai mà bây giờ khi con người chúng ta xây dựng quan hệ đúng đắn với nhau. Có thể chứ? Không phải ngày nào đó mà thực sự ngay lúc này trong đời sống hàng ngày chúng ta có thể xây dựng quan hệ cơ bản tốt? Tốt là không thống trị không tư lợi không kiêu căng, tham vọng, v.v.. Vậy nên có quan hệ lẫn nhau cơ bản dựa trên yêu thương - nếu được phép dùng chữ ấy và mong bạn không phiền. Có thể chứ?
20:46	Can we, as human beings, living in this terrible world which we have created... Could we bring about a radical change in ourselves? That is the whole point. Some philosophers and others have said human conditioning is impossible radically to change; you can modify it, you can polish it, refine it, but the basic quality of conditioning you cannot alter. There are a great many people who think that, the Existentialists, and so on, so on, so on. Why do we accept such conditioning? You are following, I hope, what we are talking about? Why do we accept our conditioning which has brought about this really mad world, insane world? Where we want peace and we are supplying armaments. Where we want peace and we are nationalistically, economically, socially dividing each other. We want peace and all religions are making us separate, as they are, the organisations. There is such vast contradiction out there as well as in ourselves. I wonder if one is aware of all this, in ourselves, not what is happening out there. Most of us know what is happening out there. You don't have to be very clever to find out, just observe. And that confusion out there is partly responsible for our own conditioning. We are asking: is it possible to bring about in ourselves a radical transformation of this? Because only then we can have a good society where we won't hurt each other, both psychologically as well as physically.	Có thể nào, con người chúng ta sống trên thế giới kinh khiếp chúng ta đã tạo này Chúng ta có thể làm thay đổi chính mình? Đó là toàn bộ vấn đề. Vài triết gia và ai đó đã nói qui định con người không thể thay đổi tận gốc bạn có thể canh cải, có thể đánh bóng, lọc nhưng tính chất cơ bản của qui định không thể biến đổi. Có rất nhiều người nghĩ thế người theo thuyết Hiện sinh, v.v.. Tại sao chúng ta chấp nhận qui định thế? Tôi mong bạn theo kịp điều chúng ta nói. Tại sao chúng ta chấp nhận qui định đã tạo ra thế giới thực là bệnh hoạn điên khùng này? Nơi muốn hòa bình chúng ta lại vũ trang Nơi muốn hoà bình chúng ta lại phân chia nhau về quốc gia, kinh tế, xã hội muốn hòa bình nhưng mọi tôn giáo làm chúng ta chia rẽ họ đó, những tổ chức. Có biết bao là mâu thuẫn bên ngoài cũng như trong chúng ta. Không biết bạn có nhận thức hết trong chúng ta chứ không phải xảy ra bên ngoài. Hầu hết chúng ta biết việc xảy ra bên ngoài bạn không cần quá giỏi để tìm tòi, chỉ quan sát. Và hổn loạn bên ngoài kia là phần trách nhiệm của qui định chúng ta. Chúng ta hỏi: có thể tạo ra trong chúng ta cuộc chuyển hóa tận gốc? Bởi chỉ thế chúng ta mới có xã hội tốt nơi chúng ta sẽ không đánh nhau cả tâm lý lẫn vật lý.
23:47	When one asks this question of ourselves, what is our deep response to that question? One is conditioned, not only as an Englishman, or a German, or Frenchman, and so on, but also one is conditioned by various forms of desires, beliefs, pleasures, and conflicts, psychological conflicts - all that contributes to this conditioning, and more. We will go into it. We are asking ourselves, thinking together - because we are thinking together I hope - can this conditioning, can this human prison with its griefs, loneliness, anxieties, personal assertions, personal demands, fulfilments, and all that - that is our conditioning, that is our consciousness, and our consciousness is its content. And we are asking: can that whole structure be transformed? Otherwise we will never have peace in this world. There will be perhaps little modifications, but man will be fighting, quarrelling, perpetually in conflict within himself and outwardly. So that is our question. Can we think together with regard to this?	Khi bạn đặt câu hỏi về chính mình câu trả lời sâu thẳm nào cho câu hỏi? Bạn bị qui định không chỉ như người Anh, người Đức hay Pháp, v.v.. mà còn bị qui định bởi nhiều kiểu ước muốn niềm tin thú vui và xung đột, xung đột tâm lý mọi cái đó góp phần vào qui định và hơn thế. Chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu. Chúng ta hỏi chính mình cùng suy tư bởi chúng ta cùng suy tư, tôi hy vọng qui định ấy có thể nhà tù nhân loại ấy có thể với khổ đau, cô đơn, lo lắng đòi hỏi cá nhân yêu cầu cá nhân, đáp ứng, và mọi thứ đó là qui định chúng ta đó là ý thức chúng ta và ý thức là tích chứa. Và chúng ta hỏi: cả cấu trúc ấy có thể được chuyển hóa? Nếu không chúng ta sẽ chẳng hề có hoà bình trên thế gian. Có lẽ sẽ có đôi chút canh cải nhưng con người sẽ vẫn đấu đá, cãi nhau xung đột bất tận cả trong lẫn ngoài. Nên đó là vấn đề. Chúng ta có thể cùng suy tư điều ấy?
26:31	Then the question arises: what is one to do? One is aware that one is conditioned, knows, conscious. This conditioning has come into being by one's own desires, self-centred activities, through lack of right relationship with each other, one's own sense of loneliness. One may live among a great many people, have intimate relationships, but there is always this sense of empty whirl within oneself. All that is our conditioning, intellectual, psychological, emotional, and also physical, naturally. Now can this totally be transformed? That I feel is the real revolution. In that there is no violence.	Rồi nảy ra câu hỏi: bạn phải làm gì? Bạn nhận ra mình bị qui định, biết, ý thức. Qui định ấy có mặt bởi ước muốn riêng hoạt động vị ngã do thiếu vắng quan hệ đúng đắn với nhau cảm giác cô đơn Bạn có thể sống giữa biết bao người có thể có quan hệ riêng nhưng luôn có cảm giác cơn lốc trống rỗng bên trong. Mọi cái đó là qui định trí óc, tâm lý, cảm xúc và cả vật lý tự nhiên. Nó có thể hoàn toàn được chuyển hóa? Tôi cảm nhận đó là cách mạng thực. Không có bạo lực trong đó.
28:09	Now can we do it together? Or if you do it, if you understand the conditioning and resolve that conditioning, and another is conditioned, will the man who is conditioned listen to another? You understand? Perhaps you are unconditioned, will I listen to you? And what will make me listen? What pressure, what influence, what reward? What will make me listen to you, with my heart, with my mind, with my whole being? Because if one can listen so completely, perhaps the solution is there. But apparently we don't seem to listen. So we are asking: what will make a human being, knowing his conditioning - most of us do if you are at all intelligently aware - what will make us change? Please put this question to ourselves, each one of us, find out what will make each one of us bring about a change, a freedom from this conditioning? Not to jump into another conditioning: it is like leaving Catholicism and becoming a Buddhist. It is the same pattern. So what will make one, each one of us, who, one is quite sure, is desirous of bringing about a good society, what will make him change? Change has been promised through reward - heaven, a new kind of carrot, a new ideology, a new community, new set of groups, new gurus - a reward. Or a punishment: 'If you don't do this you will go to Hell.' So our whole thinking is based on this principle of reward and punishment. 'I will do this if I can get something out of it.' But that kind of attitude, or that way of thinking, doesn't bring about radical change. And that change is absolutely necessary. I am sure we are all aware of it. So what shall we do?	Chúng ta có thể cùng làm chứ? Hay nếu bạn làm nếu bạn thấu hiểu qui định và giải quyết qui định ấy và người khác bị qui định người bị qui định có lắng nghe kẻ khác? Bạn hiểu không? Có lẽ bạn không bị qui định tôi sẽ lắng nghe bạn? Và cái gì làm tôi lắng nghe? Áp lực nào ảnh hưởng nào phần thưởng gì? Cái gì làm tôi lắng nghe bạn với tâm, với trí, với cả con người? Bởi nếu bạn có thể lắng nghe trọn vẹn có lẽ giải pháp ở đó. Nhưng hình như chúng ta không lắng nghe. Vậy chúng ta hỏi: cái gì làm con người biết qui định họ, đa số chúng ta làm nếu bạn nhận thức thật thông minh cái gì làm chúng ta thay đổi? Hãy đặt câu hỏi ấy với chính mình, mỗi chúng ta tìm xem cái gì sẽ làm mỗi người chúng ta thay đổi, thoát khỏi qui định? Không phải nhảy vào qui định khác: đó giống như bỏ Cơ đốc vào Phật giáo Y vậy thôi. Vậy cái gì làm bạn, mỗi người ai, bạn có chắc bạn muốn tạo dựng một xã hội tốt Cái gì làm họ thay đổi? Thay đổi được hứa phần thưởng Thiên đường, một loại cà rốt mới lý tưởng mới, cộng đồng mới nhóm mới, đạo sư mới, một phần thưởng. Hay một hình phạt 'Nếu không làm điều này bạn sẽ vào Địa ngục'. Vậy toàn bộ suy tư chúng ta dựa trên nguyên tắc thưởng và phạt ấy. 'Tôi sẽ làm nếu tôi có thể được gì đó'. Nhưng thái độ ấy, hay lối suy tư ấy không làm thay đổi tận gốc. Và thay đổi ấy tuyệt đối cần thiết. Tôi chắc chúng ta đều biết thế. Vậy chúng ta sẽ làm gì?
32:10	Some of you have listened to the speaker for a number of years. I wonder why. And having listened, it becomes a new kind of mantram. You know what that word is? It is a Sanskrit word meaning, in its true meaning is not to be self-centred and to ponder over about not becoming. The meaning of that is that - mantram means that. Abolish self-centredness and ponder, meditate, look at yourself so that you don't become something. That is the real meaning of that word which has been ruined by all the transcendental meditation nonsense.	Vài bạn đã lắng nghe người nói qua nhiều năm Tôi hỏi tại sao. Và lắng nghe trở thành một loại thần chú mới Bạn biết chữ ấy là gì không? Đó là chữ Phạn nghĩa, ý nghĩa thực sự là không vị ngã và trầm tư về không trở thành. Ý nghĩa chữ ấy là thế - thần chú là thế. Quét sạch vị ngã và trầm tư, thiền định nhìn chính mình rồi bạn không trở thành gì hết. Đó là ý nghĩa thực của chữ nó bị phá huỷ bởi mọi thứ thiền định mơ hồ vô nghĩa.
33:34	So some of you have listened for many years. And do we listen and therefore bring about a change or you have got used to the words and just carry on? So we are asking: what will make man, a human being who has lived for so many million years, carrying on the same old pattern, inherited the same instincts, self-preservation, fear, security, sense of self-concern which brings about great isolation, what will make that man change? A new God? A new form of entertainment? A new religious football? New kind of circus with all the - you know - with all that stuff? What will make us change? Sorrow apparently has not changed man, because we have suffered a great deal, not only individually, but collectively, as a whole of mankind we have suffered an enormous amount - wars, disease, pain, death. We have suffered enormously, and apparently sorrow has not changed us. Nor fear. That hasn't changed us, because our mind is pursuing constantly, seeking out pleasure, and even that pleasure is the same pleasure in different forms, that hasn't changed us. So what will make us change?	Vài bạn đã lắng nghe qua nhiều năm và có phải chúng ta nghe và thay đổi hay bạn đã quen với chữ nghĩa và cứ tiếp tục? Vậy chúng ta hỏi: điều gì sẽ làm con người sống đã nhiều triệu năm cứ tiếp tục khuôn cũ thừa kế cùng bản năng tự bảo vệ, sợ hãi, an toàn cảm giác tự quan tâm gây ra cô lập cái gì sẽ làm con người ấy thay đổi? Thượng đế mới? Hình thức giải trí mới? Tôn giáo bóng đá mới? Kiểu xiếc mới với mọi - bạn biết đó - mọi vớ vẩn? Cái gì làm chúng ta thay đổi? Đau khổ hình như không thay đổi con người bởi chúng ta đau khổ đã quá nhiều không chỉ cá nhân mà cả tập thể như toàn thể nhân loại, chúng ta đau khổ quá nhiều chiến tranh, bệnh hoạn, đớn đau, chết chóc. Chúng ta quá đau khổ và có vẻ đau khổ không thay đổi chúng ta. Cũng không phải sợ hãi Nó không làm chúng ta thay đổi bởi tâm trí chúng ta luôn chạy theo tìm kiếm thú vui và dù thú vui ấy là cùng thú vui khác hình thức, cũng không thay đổi chúng ta. Vậy điều gì làm chúng ta thay đổi?
36:33	We don't seem to be able to do anything voluntarily. We will do things under pressure. If there was no pressure, no sense of reward or punishment - because reward and punishment are too silly to even think about. If there was no sense of future - I don't know if you have gone into that whole question - of future, that may be our deception, psychologically. We will go into that presently. If you abandon all those, then what is the quality of the mind that faces absolutely the present? Do you understand my question? Are we communicating with each other? Please, say yes or no, I don't know where we are. I hope I'm not talking to myself.	Hình như chúng ta không thể làm điều gì tự nguyện. Chúng ta làm gì đó dưới áp lực. Nếu không có áp lực không có ý nghĩa thưởng phạt bởi thưởng phạt là quá ngốc nghếch ngay cả nghĩ đến nếu không có ý nghĩa tương lai Không biết bạn có tìm hiểu toàn bộ vấn đề tương lai, đó có thể là mánh khóe tâm lý chúng ta. Chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu ngay thôi. Nếu bạn lìa bỏ mọi thứ ấy rồi thì tính chất tâm trí nào giáp mặt trọn vẹn với hiện tại? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Chúng ta đang trao đổi nhau chứ? Hãy nói phải hoặc không, không biết chúng ta đến đâu rồi. Hy vọng tôi không nói với chính mình.
38:01	If one realises that one is in a prison, that prison created by oneself, oneself being the result of the past - parents, grandparents and so on, so on - inherited, acquired, imposed, that is our psychological prison in which we live. And naturally, the instinct is to break through that prison. Now, does one realise, not as an idea, not as a concept, but as an actuality, psychologically a fact? When one faces that fact, why is it even then there is no possibility of change? You understand my question?	Nếu bạn nhận ra bạn trong tù nhà tù ấy do bạn tạo bạn là kết quả của quá khứ cha mẹ, ông bà, và v.v.. thừa kế, đạt được, gánh vác đó là nhà tù tâm lý chúng ta sống. Và tự nhiên bản năng phải phá vở nhà tù ấy. Bạn có nhận ra nó không như ý niệm không như quan niệm, mà là thực tế thực tế tâm lý? Khi bạn giáp mặt thực tế ấy tại sao lại không thể thay đổi? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi chứ?
39:41	This has been a problem, a problem for all serious people, for all people who are concerned with the human tragedy, the human misery, and asking themselves why don't we all bring about a sense of clarity in ourselves, a sense of freedom, a sense of being essentially good? I don't know if you have not noticed, the intellectuals, the literary people, the writers, and the so-called leaders of the world are not talking about bringing about a good society, they have given it up. We were talking the other day to some of these people and they said, 'What nonsense that is, that is old-fashioned, throw it out. There is no such thing as a good society any more. This is Victorian, stupid, nonsensical. We have to accept things as they are and live with them.' And probably for most of us it is like that. So you and I, as two friends talking over this, what shall we do?	Đó là vấn đề vấn đề cho những ai nghiêm túc cho những người quan tâm đến bi kịch nhân loại thống khổ nhân loại và tự hỏi tại sao chúng ta không tạo ra ý thức tỏ sáng trong chính mình? Ý thức tự do ý thức tốt đẹp cơ bản? Không biết bạn có để ý những trí thức kẻ văn chương, viết lách và cái gọi là lãnh đạo thế giới không hề nói về tạo dựng xã hội tốt họ bỏ mặc nó. Hôm nọ chúng ta có nói với vài người và họ nói, 'Vô lý quá lỗi thời rồi, dẹp đi.' 'Không hề có cái gì là xã hội tốt đâu.' 'Đó là thời Victoria, ngu xuẫn, vô nghĩa.' 'Chúng ta phải chấp nhận việc như thế và sống với chúng'. Và có lẽ đa số chúng ta giống như thế. Nên bạn và tôi, như hai người bạn thảo luận việc này, chúng ta sẽ làm gì?
41:30	Authority of another doesn't change, doesn't bring about this change, right? If I accept you as my authority, because I want to bring about a revolution in myself and so perhaps bring about a good society, the very idea of my following you, as you instructing me, that ends good society. I wonder if you see that? I am not good because you tell me to be good, or I accept you as the supreme authority over righteousness, and I follow you. The very acceptance of authority and obedience is the very destruction of a good society. Isn't that so? I wonder if you see this. May we go further into this matter?	Uy quyền kẻ khác không làm thay đổi không gây ra thay đổi - phải không? Nếu tôi chấp nhận bạn như uy quyền vì tôi muốn làm cuộc cách mạng trong tôi và vậy có thể tạo xã hội tốt chính ý niệm tôi đi theo bạn bạn chỉ dạy tôi, chấm dứt xã hội tốt. Không biết bạn hiểu chăng? Không phải tôi tốt vì bạn bảo tôi tốt hay tôi chấp nhận bạn như uy quyền tối cao công bằng siêu tột và tôi theo bạn. Chính chấp nhận uy quyền và vâng lời là phá huỷ xã hội tốt. Phải không? Bạn thấy vậy không? Tôi nên đào sâu vấn đề thêm chứ?
42:48	If I have a guru - thank god I haven't got one - if I have a guru and I follow him, what have I done to myself? What I have done in the world? Nothing. He tells me some nonsense, how to meditate, this or that, and I will get marvellous experience or levitate, and all the rest of that nonsense, and my intention is to bring about a good society where we can be happy, where there is a sense of affection, a relationship, so that there is no barrier, that is my longing. I go to you as my guru and what have I done? I have destroyed the very thing that I wanted Because authority, apart from law and all the rest of that, psychological authority is divisive, is in its very nature separative. You up there and I down below, and so you are always progressing higher and higher, and I am also progressing higher and higher, we never meet! (Laughter) You laugh, I know, but actually this is what we are doing. So, can I realise authority with its implication of organisation will never free me? Authority gives one a sense of security. I don't know, I am confused, you know, or at least I think you know, that's good enough for me. I invest my energy and my demand for security in you, in what you are talking about. And we create an organisation around that, and that very organisation becomes the prison. I don't know if you know all this? That's why one should not belong to any spiritual organisation, however promising, however enticing, however romantic. Can we even accept, see that together? You understand my question? See it together, to be a fact, and therefore when we see that together it is finished. Seeing that the very nature of authority, with its organisation, religious and otherwise, is separative; and obedience, setting up the hierarchical system, which is what is happening in the world and therefore which is part of the destructive nature of the world, seeing the truth of that, throw it out. Can we do that? So that none of us - I am sorry - so that none of us belong to any spiritual organisations. That is, religious organisations, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, none.	Nếu tôi có một đạo sư - ơn trời tôi không có nếu tôi có đạo sư và theo ông ta tôi đã làm gì cho tôi vậy? Tôi đã làm gì trên thế gian? Không gì cả. Ông ta bảo tôi vài điều vô nghĩa thiền định thế nào, này nọ và tôi đạt vài kinh nghiệm lạ lùng hay bay lên và mọi thứ vô nghĩa khác và ý định tôi là tạo một xã hội tốt nơi chúng ta có thể hạnh phúc, nơi có cảm giác mến yêu, quan hệ không có rào cản đó là ước vọng của tôi. Tôi đến bạn như đạo sư của tôi và tôi làm gì? Tôi đã phá huỷ điều tôi muốn bởi uy quyền để sang bên luật pháp v.v.. uy quyền tâm lý là phân chia phân chia trong chính bản chất nó. Bạn trên cao và tôi dưới thấp và bạn luôn tiến ngày càng cao hơn tôi cũng tiến ngày càng cao, chúng ta không hề gặp nhau! (Cười) Bạn cười, tôi biết nhưng thực sự chúng ta làm thế. Vậy tôi có thể nhận ra uy quyền với hàm ý tổ chức, sẽ không hề làm tôi tự do? Uy quyền cho bạn cảm giác an toàn. 'Tôi không biết, tôi rối loạn, bạn biết hay ít ra tôi nghĩ bạn biết vậy là tốt cho tôi rồi Tôi đầu tư năng lực và ước muốn an toàn vào bạn vào những gì bạn nói'. Và chúng ta tạo một tổ chức quanh đó và chính tổ chức đó thành nhà tù. Không biết bạn hiểu hết chăng? Đó là lý do bạn không nên thuộc về tổ chức tâm linh nào dù hứa hẹn, dù lôi kéo, dù lạ lùng cách mấy. Chúng ta có thể chấp nhận, cùng thấy thế? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Cùng thấy, đó là thực tế và vì vậy khi chúng ta cùng thấy thế, nó chấm dứt. Thấy rằng chính bản chất của uy quyền với tổ chức, tôn giáo hay gì khác là phân chia và phục tùng dựng lên hệ thống giai cấp việc ấy xảy ra khắp thế giới và vì vậy là thành phần của bản chất phá hoại thế giới thấy sự thật ấy, ném nó đi. Chúng ta có thể làm? Vậy thì không ai - xin lỗi không ai trong chúng ta thuộc về tổ chức tâm linh nào Tức là các tổ chức tôn giáo Cơ đốc, Tin lành, Hinđu, Phật giáo.
47:12	By belonging to something we feel secure. Right? Obviously. But belonging to something invariably brings about insecurity, because in itself it is separative. You have your guru, your authority, you are a Catholic, Protestant, and somebody else is something else. So they never meet, though all organised religions say, 'We're all working together for truth.' So can we, listening to each other, to this fact, finish from our thinking all sense of acceptance of authority, psychological authority, and therefore all the organisations created round it, then what happens? Have I dropped authority because you have said so and I see the destructive nature of these so-called organisations? And do I see it as a fact and therefore with intelligence? Or just vaguely accept it? I don't know if you are following this? If one sees the fact, the very perception of that fact is intelligence, and in that intelligence there is security, not in some superstitious nonsense. I wonder if you see? Are we meeting each other? I am a bit lost. Would you tell me, are we meeting each other?	Thuộc về gì đó chúng ta cảm thấy an toàn. Phải không? Dĩ nhiên. Nhưng thuộc về gì đó tất nhiên sinh ra bất an bởi chính nó phân chia. Bạn có đạo sư, uy quyền, bạn là Cơ đốc Tin lành, và ai đó là gì khác. Nên họ không hề gặp nhau, dù mọi tôn giáo tổ chức nói chúng ta cùng làm việc cho sự thật. Vậy chúng ta có thể lắng nghe nhau, nghe sự kiện ấy chấm dứt suy nghĩ mọi ý thức chấp nhận uy quyền uy quyền tâm lý và vậy là mọi tổ chức tạo ra quanh nó rồi điều gì xảy ra? Tôi có gạt bỏ uy quyền bởi bạn nói thế và tôi thấy bản chất phá hoại của các tổ chức kia? Và tôi có thấy như một sự kiện và với thông minh? Hay chỉ chấp nhận mơ hồ? Không biết bạn có theo kịp chăng? Nếu bạn thấy sự kiện chính nhận thức sự kiện ấy là thông minh và trong thông minh ấy có an toàn chứ không phải trong mê tín vô nghĩa. Bạn có thấy không? Chúng ta gặp nhau chứ? Tôi hơi lạc lõng. Bạn nói xem, chúng ta gặp nhau chứ?
49:18	Q:Yes.	Khán giả: Vâng. K:Không, không phải lời nói.
49:20	K: No, not verbally, please. That is very easy, because we are all speaking English, or French, or whatever it is. Intellectually, verbally is not meeting together. It is when you see the fact together.	Vậy thì rất dễ bởi chúng ta đều nói tiếng Anh hay Pháp hay gì khác. Bằng trí óc, lời nói là không gặp nhau. Chính là khi bạn cùng thấy sự kiện.
49:48	Now can we... So we are asking can we look at the fact of our conditioning? Not the idea of our conditioning. The fact that we are British, German, American, Russian, or Hindu, or Eastern, or whatever it is, that is one thing. Conditioning brought about through economic reasons, climate, food, clothes, and so on, physical. But also there is a great deal of psychological conditioning. Can we look at that as fact? Like fear. Can you look at that? Or if you can't for the moment, can we look at the hurts that we have received, the wounds, the psychological wounds that we have treasured, the wounds that we have received from childhood. Look at it, not analyse it. The psychotherapists - sorry I hope there aren't any here - the psychotherapists go back, investigate into the past. That is, seek the cause of the wounds that one has received, investigating, analysing the whole movement of the past. That is generally called analysis, psychotherapy. Now, discovering the cause, does that help? And you have taken a lot of time, years perhaps - it is a game that we all play, because we never want to face the fact, but 'Let's investigate how the fact has come into being.' I don't know if you are following all this?	Chúng ta có thể - chúng ta hỏi chúng ta có thể nhìn sự kiện qui định? Không phải ý niệm về qui định. Sự kiện chúng ta là người Anh, Đức, Mỹ, Nga hay Hinđu, Chính thống hay gì gì, đó là một việc. Qui định sinh ra do điều kiện kinh tế khí hậu, thực phẩm, y phục, v.v.., vật lý. Nhưng cũng có vô số qui định tâm lý. Chúng ta có thể nhìn nó như sự kiện? Như sợ hãi. Bạn có thể nhìn nó? Hay nếu lúc này bạn không thể chúng ta có thể nhìn tổn thương mình đã chịu vết thương, vết thương tâm lý chúng ta đã tích lũy vết thương chúng ta đã bị từ thời bé. Nhìn nó, không phân tích. Nhà trị liệu tâm lý xin lỗi, tôi mong không có ai ở đây nhà tâm lý trị liệu đi trở lại, xem xét quá khứ. Tức là, tìm nguyên nhân vết thương bạn đã bị truy tìm, phân tích cả vận hành quá khứ. Nói chung đó gọi là phân tích, tâm lý trị liệu. Khám phá nguyên nhân, giúp ích gì? Và bạn mất nhiều thời gian, có khi cả năm đó là trò chúng ta đều chơi bởi chúng ta không hề muốn giáp mặt sự kiện nhưng 'Hãy tìm xem làm thế nào sự kiện có mặt'. Không biết bạn có theo kịp chăng?
52:32	So you are expending a great deal of energy and probably a great deal of money into proficient investigation into the past, or your own investigation, if you are capable of it. And we are saying, such forms of analysis are not only separative, because the analyser thinks he is different from the thing he is analysing, right? You are following all this? So, he maintains this division through analysis, whereas the obvious fact is the analyser is the analysed. I wonder if you see that? The moment one recognises that the analyser is the analysed, because when you are angry you are that - is this a puzzle? - that the observer is the observed. When there is that actual reality of that, then analysis has no meaning, there is only pure observation of the fact which is happening now. I wonder if you see this? It may be rather difficult because most of us are so conditioned to the analytical process, self-examination, introspective investigation, we are so accustomed to that, we are so conditioned by it, that perhaps if something new is said, you instantly reject, or you withdraw. So please investigate, look at it.	Vậy bạn sử dụng quá nhiều năng lực và có lẽ quá nhiều tiền bạc vào việc khéo tìm kiếm vào quá khứ hay bạn tìm kiếm, nếu bạn có thể. Và chúng ta nói kiểu phân tích ấy không chỉ là phân chia, bởi người phân tích cho rằng hắn khác với vật hắn phân tích - phải không? Bạn theo kịp không? Vậy hắn tiếp tục phân chia qua phân tích trong khi hiển nhiên người phân tích là vật bị phân tích. Bạn có thấy vậy không? Lúc mà bạn nhận ra rằng người phân tích là vật bị phân tích bởi khi bạn nổi giận bạn là nó khó hiểu ư? - người quan sát là vật bị quan sát? Khi có thực tế thực như thế thì phân tích là vô nghĩa chỉ có thuần quan sát về sự kiện đang xảy ra. Bạn thấy vậy chứ? Có lẽ hơi khó bởi đa số chúng ta bị qui định với tiến trình phân tích tự xem xét tìm tòi nội quan chúng ta quen thuộc vậy, chúng ta bị qui định vậy có lẽ điều gì mới nói ra bạn liền từ chối hay thu mình lại. Hãy tìm kiếm đi, nhìn xem.
54:53	We are saying: is it possible to look at the fact as it is happening now - anger, jealousy, violence, pleasure, fear, whatever it is - to look at it, not analyse it, just to look at it, and in that very observation is the observer merely observing the fact as something separate from himself, or he is the fact? I wonder if you get this? Am I making myself clear? You understand the distinction? Most of us are conditioned to the idea that the observer is different from the thing observed. I have been greedy, I have been violent. So at the moment of violence there is no division, it is only later on thought picks it up and separates itself from the fact. So the observer is the past looking at actually what is happening now. I wonder if you get all this? So can you look at the fact - you are angry, misery, loneliness, whatever it is - look at that fact without the observer saying 'I am separate and looking at it differently.' You understand? Or does he recognise the fact is himself, there is no division between the fact and himself? The fact is himself. I wonder if you see. And therefore what takes place when that actuality takes place? You understand what I am saying?	Chúng ta nói: có thể nào nhìn sự kiện như nó đang xảy ra giận, ghen ghét, bạo lực thú vui, sợ hãi, hay gì khác nhìn nó, không phân tích chỉ nhìn thôi và chính sự quan sát ấy người quan sát chỉ quan sát sự kiện như vật gì tách biệt hắn hay hắn là sự kiện? Không biết bạn hiểu chăng? Tôi nói rõ ràng không? Bạn hiểu sự phân biệt chứ? Đa số chúng ta bị qui định với ý niệm rằng người quan sát khác với vật bị quan sát. Tôi đã tham lam, tôi đã bạo lực. Ngay lúc bạo lực không có phân chia chỉ sau đó suy nghĩ mới tóm lấy nó và phân chia thành nó với sự kiện. Vậy người quan sát là quá khứ nhìn việc thực sự đang xảy ra. Không biết bạn hiểu hết chăng? Vậy có thể nào bạn nhìn sự kiện bạn giận, khổ, cô đơn, hay gì khác nhìn sự kiện ấy mà không có người quan sát nói 'tôi khác' và nhìn nó một cách khác biệt. Bạn hiểu không? Hay hắn nhìn sự kiện là chính hắn không có phân chia giữa hắn và sự kiện? Sự kiện là chính hắn. Bạn thấy vậy không. Và vì vậy điều gì xảy ra khi thực tế ấy xảy ra? Bạn hiểu lời tôi không?
57:24	Look, my mind has been conditioned to look at the fact, which is loneliness - let's take that, no, we began with being hurt, from childhood. Let's look at it. I have been accustomed, used to thinking that I am different from the hurt, right? And therefore my action towards that hurt is either suppression, avoidance, or building round my hurt a resistance, so that I don't get hurt any more. Therefore that hurt is making me more and more isolated, more and more afraid. So this division has taken place because I think I am different from the hurt. Right? You are following all this? But the hurt is me. The 'me' is the image that I have created about myself which is hurt. Right? I wonder if you see all this? May I go on? You are following all this?	Xem nào, trí óc tôi bị qui định để nhìn sự kiện là cô đơn, lấy ví dụ không, đã bắt đầu với tổn thương từ bé. Hãy nhìn nó xem. Tôi rất quen thuộc suy nghĩ rằng tôi khác với tổn thương - phải không? Và vì vậy hành động đối với tổn thương là áp chế, hoặc loại trừ hay xây rào quanh tổn thương đối kháng để tôi không bị tổn thương nữa. Vậy là tổn thương ấy làm tôi ngày càng cô lập ngày càng sợ hãi. Nên phân chia xảy ra bởi vì Tôi nghĩ tôi khác với tổn thương - phải không? Bạn theo kịp cả chứ? Nhưng tổn thương là tôi. 'Tôi' là hình ảnh mà tôi đã tạo ra về chính mình bị tổn thương - phải không? Không biết bạn hiểu hết chăng? Tôi tiếp tục nhé? Bạn theo kịp không?
58:48	So, I have created an image through education, through my family, through society, through all the religious ideas of soul, separativeness, individual, all that, I have created an image about myself, and you tread on that image - I get wounded. Then I say that hurt is not me; I must do something about that hurt. So I maintain the division between the hurt and myself. But the fact is the image is me, which has been hurt. Right? So can I look at that fact? Look at the fact that the image is myself, and as long as I have the image about myself somebody is going to tread on it. That's a fact. Can the mind be free of the image? Because one realises as long as that image exists you are going to do something to it, put a pin into it, and therefore there will be hurt with the result of isolation, fear, resistance, building a wall round myself - all that takes place when there is the division between the observer and the observed, which is the hurt. Right? This is not intellectual, please. This is just ordinary observing oneself, which we began by saying 'self-awareness.'	Vậy tôi đã tạo hình ảnh qua giáo dục qua gia đình, qua xã hội qua mọi ý niệm tôn giáo về linh hồn, phân chia cá nhân, mọi thứ, tôi đã tạo hình ảnh về chính mình và bạn giẫm lên hình ảnh ấy, tôi bị tổn thương. Rồi tôi nói tổn thương ấy không phải tôi Tôi phải làm gì đó với tổn thương ấy. Nên tôi cứ giữ sự phân chia tổn thương và tôi. Nhưng thực tế là hình ảnh là tôi bị tổn thương. Phải không? Vậy tôi có thể nhìn sự kiện ấy? Hãy nhìn sự kiện hình ảnh là chính tôi và hễ tôi còn hình ảnh về chính mình ai đó sẽ giẫm lên nó. Đó là sự kiện. Trí óc có thể thoát khỏi hình ảnh? Bởi vì bạn nhận ra hễ hình ảnh còn thì bạn sẽ làm gì đó cho nó, đâm kim vào nó và thế là sẽ có tổn thương với hậu quả cô lập, sợ hãi, chống đối xây tường rào quanh mình mọi cái đó xảy ra khi có phân chia giữa người quan sát và vật bị quan sát, là tổn thương. Phải không? Đây không phải trí óc đâu. Đây chỉ là quan sát mình thông thường mà lúc đầu chúng ta gọi là 'tự tri'.
1:00:58	So, what takes place then, when the observer is the observed - you understand? - the actuality of it, not the idea of it, then what takes place? I have been hurt from childhood, through school, through parents, through other boys and girls - you know - I have been hurt, wounded, psychologically. And I carry that hurt throughout my life, hidden, anxious, frightened, and I know the result of all that. And now I see that hurt exists as long as the image which I have created, which has been brought about together - as long as that exists, there will be hurt. That image is me. Can I look at that fact? Not as an idea looking at it, but the actual fact that the image is hurt, the image is me. I wonder if you see? Right? Could we come together on that one point at least, think together? Then what takes place? Before I tried, the observer tried to do something about it. Here the observer is absent, therefore he can't do anything about it. You get it? You understand what has taken place? Before the observer exerted himself in suppressing it, controlling it, not to be hurt, isolating himself, resisting, and all the rest of it, making a tremendous effort. But whereas when the fact is the observer is the observed, then what takes place? Please do you want me to tell you? Then we are nowhere, then what I tell you will have no meaning. But if we have come together, think together and come to this point, then you will discover for yourself that as long as you make an effort, there is the division. Right? So, in pure observation there is no effort, and therefore the thing which has been put together as image begins to dissolve. That's the whole point.	Vậy, điều gì xảy ra khi người quan sát là vật bị quan sát Bạn hiểu không? - thực tế chứ không phải ý niệm, điều gì xảy ra? Tôi bị tổn thương từ bé do trường học, do cha mẹ do bạn cùng trang lứa, bạn biết đó tôi bị tổn thương, vết thương tâm lý. Và tôi mang tổn thương theo suốt đời dấu kín lo âu, sợ sệt và tôi biết hậu quả mọi thứ ấy. Và giờ tôi thấy tổn thương còn đó hễ bao lâu hình ảnh tôi đã tạo ra nó đã được sinh ra cùng nhau hễ nó còn, thì sẽ có tổn thương. Hình ảnh ấy là tôi. Tôi có thể nhìn sự kiện ấy? Không như ý niệm nhìn nó, mà là sự kiện thực rằng hình ảnh bị tổn thương, hình ảnh là tôi. Không biết bạn thấy chăng? Phải không? Ít nhất chúng ta có thể cùng đến một điểm, cùng suy tư? Rồi điều gì xảy ra? Lúc trước tôi cố gắng, người quan sát cố gắng làm gì đó. Ở đây người quan sát vắng mặt nên hắn không thể làm gì hết. Bạn hiểu không? Bạn hiểu điều gì xảy ra? Lúc trước người quan sát nổ lực loại trừ nó kiểm soát nó, để không tổn thương, cô lập mình chống đối, v.v.., làm một nổ lực lớn lao. Nhưng khi thực tế người quan sát là vật bị quan sát, vậy điều gì xảy ra? Bạn muốn tôi nói cho bạn nghe ư? Khi chúng ta không đi, điều tôi nói bạn nghe là vô nghĩa. Nhưng nếu chúng ta cùng đi cùng suy tư và cùng đến điểm này bạn sẽ khám phá cho chính bạn rằng hễ bạn còn nổ lực thì có phân chia - phải không? Vậy thuần quan sát thì không có nổ lực và vì vậy vật được ráp lại thành hình ảnh bắt đầu vở tan. Đó là toàn bộ vấn đề.
1:04:25	We began by saying 'self-awareness,' and the meditative quality in that awareness brings about a religious sense of unity. And human beings need this enormous sense of unity which cannot be found through nationalities, through all the rest of that business. So can we, as human beings, after listening for perhaps an hour, see at least one fact together? And seeing that fact together resolve it completely, so that we as human beings are never hurt, psychologically. In that thinking together implies that we both of us see the same thing, at the same time, at the same level, which means love. You follow, sirs? I think that's enough for this morning, isn't it? We'll meet again tomorrow morning.	Khởi đầu chúng ta nói 'tự tri' và đặc tính thiền định trong nhận thức ấy sinh ra ý thức tôn giáo thống nhất. Và con người cần thiết ý thức thống nhất lớn lao này thứ không thể tìm qua quốc gia hay qua mọi công việc nào khác. Vậy chúng ta có thể nào sau khi nghe khoảng gần một giờ ít nhất cùng thấy một sự kiện? Và cùng thấy sự kiện ấy giải tan nó hoàn toàn nên chúng ta không hề bị tổn thương tâm lý. Cùng suy tư hàm ý cả chúng ta thấy cùng một việc cùng lúc, cùng mức độ, tức là tình thương. Các bạn theo kịp chứ? Tôi nghĩ sáng nay vậy là đủ, phải không? Sáng mai chúng ta sẽ gặp lại.