Krishnamurti - Buổi Hỏi & Đáp thứ nhất

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR82Q1 - Buổi Hỏi & Đáp thứ nhất
Brockwood Park, Anh Quốc
31 tháng Tám 1982

0:42	Krishnamurti: There are several questions that have been handed in. You can't probe into all those questions, and we have chosen some of the more representative of those questions.	Có vài câu hỏi được đưa đến. Bạn không thể xem xét hết nên chúng ta sẽ chọn những câu tiêu biểu nhất.
1:03	Do questions need answers? Or there are only questions?	Hỏi cần trả lời không? Hay chỉ có câu hỏi.
1:16	Questions are like a challenge, and what is important is how one meets the challenge. Not what is the answer to the question, but what is one's response to a challenge, to a question, to a demand. I think that is far more important than to ask a question, and wait for somebody to answer it, including myself. So let us first find out how to probe a question. Not – if one may remind oneself – not search for an answer, investigate into the outcome of the answer, but rather the cause, and one's response to the question. So how does one approach a question?	Hỏi như một thách thức và quan trọng là làm sao ứng đáp với thách thức, không phải trả lời câu hỏi mà là ứng đáp với thách thức, với câu hỏi hay yêu cầu. Tôi cho rằng điều ấy quan trọng hơn là đặt câu hỏi và chờ đợi người khác trả lời, kể cả tôi. Trước hết chúng ta coi làm sao xem xét câu hỏi. Tự nhắc mình là không phải tìm kiếm câu trả lời hay tìm kết quả câu trả lời mà xa hơn như nguyên nhân và ứng đáp với câu hỏi. Vậy tiếp cận câu hỏi cách nào?
2:50	Suppose I have a question, that is, I question the whole of modern civilisation. Not one particular part of that civilisation, whether it is the Christian or the Hindu, or the Muslim or the Buddhist, but I want to question the whole cultural development of man. I can study all the various historians, that would take too long and I haven't got the time, nor am I interested in finding out what others say about history. History is the story of man, which is the story of myself. So how do I approach a question of that kind? I see a whole culture, of India, for example, the Brahmanical culture which has lasted between 3 to 5,000 years, completely disappear overnight. I don't know if you are aware of all that, it doesn't matter, just to inform. It has disappeared overnight. So what is culture? Is it just a coating? However deep that coating may be, it may have different layers of coating but it is still a coating. Because deep down, man is more or less the same as he has always been: violent, and all the rest of it. So how does one approach a question of this kind? The approach matters far more than the question, doesn't it? Please, we are talking over together, I am not laying down any dogmatic statements, or asking you to accept what the speaker is saying. But how does one approach any problem, any question? What is my motive in my approach to the question? What is the problem and the cause of that problem? And one's approach to the investigation, to the probing of that cause and the problem? Do I come to it with a motive, with a desire to get rid of it, or go beyond it, suppress it, and so on? What is my inward reaction to it? If I am not very clear on that, and I am only seeking an answer, somehow to resolve the problem, I am not really concerned with the issue at all. I am only concerned with going beyond it, somehow. And so, the escape from the problem creates more problems.	Giả sử tôi có một vấn đề. Tôi đặt vấn đề với toàn bộ văn minh hiện đại không phải một phần riêng nào không phải là Ky tô, hay Ấn, hoặc Hồi, hay Phật giáo mà về toàn thể sự phát triển văn hóa con người. Tôi có thể nghiên cứu các nhà sử học chắc là cần thời gian mà tôi lại không có thì giờ và cũng chẳng thích xem người khác nói gì về lịch sử. Lịch sử là câu chuyện con người, là chính tôi. Vậy làm sao tiếp cận vấn đề loại này đây? Ví dụ, tôi xem xét văn hóa Ấn độ văn hóa Bà la môn tồn tại khoảng ba hay năm ngàn năm, rồi hoàn toàn biến mất qua một đêm. Không biết bạn có thấy thế không không sao, chỉ nói thế - nó đã biến mất qua một đêm. Văn hóa là gì? Chỉ là vỏ bọc phải không? Dù dầy bao nhiêu, hay có nhiều lớp khác nhau... vẫn là vỏ bọc, bởi trong sâu thẳm, ít nhiều con người cũng vẫn y như thế - bạo lực này nọ v.v.. Vậy làm sao chúng ta tiếp cận vấn đề loại này đây? Tiếp cận còn quan trọng hơn cả vấn đề, phải không? Chúng ta cùng bàn bạc xem không phải tôi đặt ra giáo lý hay ép bạn chấp nhận lời người nói, nhưng làm sao bạn tiếp cận vấn đề, câu hỏi? Điều gì thôi thúc tôi tiếp cận vấn đề? Vấn đề là gì và nguyên nhân của vấn đề là gì, và tiếp cận với tìm hiểu, với xem xét nguyên nhân và vấn đề là gì? Có phải tôi tiếp cận vì động cơ nào với ước muốn lìa bỏ nó, vượt qua nó, hay loại trừ nó v.v..? Phản ứng trong tôi với nó là gì? Nếu chưa hiểu rõ, cách nào đó tôi chỉ tìm kiếm câu trả lời để giải quyết vấn đề, chứ không thực sự quan tâm vấn đề. Tôi chỉ quan tâm tìm cách vượt qua. Và chạy trốn vấn đề là tạo thêm vấn đề. Phải không?
6:57	So it matters a great deal, one feels, if one may point out, how one approaches a problem, a question. Is the mind or the brain seeking an answer? Then, we are not investigating the problem, the issue, the challenge, the question, but merely trying to find an answer which is immediately satisfactory. So I think it matters very much, if one may again point out, how one comes to a problem, how close one gets to it. 'Approach it' means to come near. How close, how near does one get to the problem? Or the problem is out there, and I am approaching it. You understand? Or the problem is me, not somewhere in the periphery of me – the trap is me. So how do I go into all this? Just superficially, casually? Or with great hesitation, sensitivity, not coming to any conclusion, probe into it deeper and deeper? Is the brain capable of doing this? Or we are so terribly conditioned that we say, for God's sake, let's get rid of the problem. You understand all this? We are going to investigate, probe into the question, not find an answer to it. The answer is in the question, not away from the question. And who is to answer the question? Some leader, some prophet, some politician, some guru, some priest? Which means we are always seeking an answer from somebody else. And please don't put the speaker in that position because he is not going to answer. We are going, together, to investigate the question, which is much more intelligent than say, if one answers, you say, well, that is not good enough, or that is all right, that is satisfactory, or you begin to discuss the answer. But if we begin to look, probe, you know, play with it, it reveals a tremendous lot.	Vậy là khá nghiêm trọng, liệu có thể tìm cách nào bạn tiếp cận vấn đề, câu hỏi. Tâm hay trí tìm kiếm câu trả lời? Chúng ta không xem xét vấn đề thách thức, câu hỏi, mà chỉ cố gắng tìm kiếm câu trả lời để thỏa mãn tức thì. Nên tôi cho là nghiêm trọng lắm, nếu bạn có thể tìm ra làm sao đến với vấn đề, bao xa để chạm vào. Tiếp cận nghĩa là đến gần. Bao xa để mình chạm nó đây? Hay vấn đề đằng kia và tôi bước đến? Bạn hiểu chứ? Hay vấn đề là tôi, không phải đâu đó bên ngoài - cạm bẫy là tôi. Vậy làm sao tìm hiểu đây? Chỉ hời hợt, tình cờ? Hay hết sức cẩn thận, nhanh nhạy không kết luận gì hết, xem xét sâu vào, kỹ vào. Trí óc có thể làm không? Hay chúng ta quá sức qui định nên nói 'Lạy trời, hãy gỡ rối dùm con'. Bạn hiểu chứ? Nào, chúng ta sẽ xem xét tìm hiểu vấn đề, không tìm câu trả lời. Trả lời nằm trong câu hỏi, không phải bên ngoài. Và ai trả lời đây? Lãnh đạo, tiên tri, nhà chính trị, đạo sư, thầy tu? nghĩa là chúng ta luôn tìm câu trả lời từ ai đó. Và xin đừng đặt người nói vào chỗ đó vì anh ta sẽ không trả lời, chúng ta sẽ cùng tìm hiểu câu hỏi nó thông minh hơn là đáp lời người khác khi nói 'Ồ, không hay lắm', hoặc 'Đúng thế thoả đáng lắm', hay bạn bắt đầu thảo luận câu trả lời. Nhưng nếu chúng ta bắt đầu xem xét, tìm hiểu chơi đùa với nó, nó sẽ hiển lộ nhiều điều. Phải không?
11:00	There are several questions here.	Đây có vài câu hỏi.
11:14	1st question: You have said that there is a group consciousness. What is the relationship between the group consciousness and the individual consciousness? How can human beings undergo a total psychological change while the group consciousness has not changed totally?	Câu thứ nhất: ngài bảo rằng có nhận thức chung. Có liên quan gì giữa nhận thức chung và nhận thức riêng? Làm sao con người có thể thay đổi tâm lý toàn diện trong khi nhận thức chung không thay đổi gì hết?
11:43	May I read it once more? You have said that there is a group consciousness. What is the relationship between the group consciousness and the individual consciousness? How can a human being undergo a total psychological revolution or transformation while the group consciousness has not changed totally?	Tôi đọc lại lần nữa chứ? Ngài bảo rằng có nhận thức chung. Có liên quan gì giữa nhận thức chung và nhận thức riêng? Làm sao con người có thể thay đổi tâm lý toàn diện trong khi nhận thức chung không thay đổi gì hết.
12:16	K: We are going to investigate the question. There is no answer, but when one investigates this really important question, it reveals so much.	Chúng ta sẽ đào sâu vấn đề. Không trả lời, mà chỉ tìm kiếm vấn đề thực sự quan trọng, nó sẽ hiển lộ nhiều điều.
12:36	First of all, is there a group consciousness? Some scientists are experimenting, I have been told by one of them, that certain species of animals are undergoing certain experiments and achieving a certain result, these results are communicated to the whole group: rats, wolves, and so on. So they are trying to establish a consciousness of a group which is affected by a few individuals who learn something very quickly. They are doing this. Perhaps some of you have heard about it or read about it. And if this is so, then is human consciousness different from the individual consciousness? And is the group consciousness like the British – it is a group: British consciousness, French consciousness, German, American. Now, take a group of British, the British group consciousness: traditional, very proud of their past empire, ready to kill – the British probably have the greatest number of wars to their record – and so on. They have a certain consciousness – the group. And in that group, there is the individual consciousness. That is what the questioner is asking. What is the relationship between the group consciousness and the one who lives in that group, who is separate from the group? Right? Are we following each other? Need I repeat that again? Yes? All right. There is the Indian consciousness. British consciousness – you may object to it, so let's go for the... There is the Indian or Japanese consciousness, as a group. And in that group, I live with my consciousness. The questioner asks, is that group consciousness separate from my consciousness, or is my consciousness similar to the group? That is the question, we are investigating it, we are not trying to find an answer.	Trước hết, có nhận thức chung không? Vài nhà khoa học đang thí nghiệm, tôi nghe kể là một vài loài động vật trải qua thí nghiệm và đạt kết quả nào đó, kết quả ấy được thông báo cho cả nhóm - chuột, chó sói v.v.. Chúng cố gắng thiết lập nhận thức cả nhóm bị ảnh hưởng bởi vài cá nhân học được điều gì đó mau lẹ. Chúng làm vậy đó. Có lẽ trong số các bạn đã nghe hoặc đọc điều ấy. Và nếu thế thì, nhận thức con người có khác trong từng cá nhân không? Và nhận thức chung - như người Anh, là một nhóm nhận thức Anh, nhận thức Pháp, Đức, Mỹ. Thử lấy nhóm người Anh, nhận thức nhóm Anh: bảo thủ, tự hào vương triều xưa, sẳn sàng giết có lẽ người Anh có rất nhiều chiến tranh trong kho tư liệu v.v..- họ có nhận thức như thế, một nhóm. Và trong nhóm ấy có nhận thức cá nhân. Người hỏi hỏi thế. Có liên quan gì trong nhận thức chung - phải không? với cá nhân sống riêng rẽ trong nhóm ấy? Đúng không? Chúng ta theo kịp nhau chứ? Cần lặp lại không? Có à? Tốt thôi. Có nhận thức Ấn độ... tôi sẽ không nhận thức Anh, bạn có thể phê phán nó, nào hãy đi... (cười) Nhận thức Ấn, hay nhận thức Nhật như một nhóm và trong nhóm ấy tôi sống với nhận thức của tôi. Người hỏi hỏi nhận thức chung có khác với nhận thức của tôi? Hay nhận thức tôi giống họ? Đúng không? Đấy là vấn đề. Chúng ta tìm hiểu nó. Chứ không cố tìm câu trả lời.
16:30	In that group consciousness of India, there are various levels of consciousness: the Brahmanical, and so on. And if you are born amongst one of those separate little groups contained in India, what is the relationship of that individual to that group? It may be a limited group, but it is the whole of Indian consciousness. You understand? You have to think with me a little bit. Now, the relationship is, surely there is a coating of group consciousness, a level of it, layers of it, and within those layers, the individual consciousness. The individual being his sorrows, his anxieties, etc. The group says, 'you are an idealist' – if they say so. And you, within that group, also have learned the importance or unimportance of an ideal. So what is the relationship of one who believes or doesn't believe in idealism, and to the group that believes? If he has no belief whatsoever in idealism then he is totally out of that group. But if he believes in idealism, he belongs to that group.	Trong nhóm nhận thức Ấn độ có nhiều mức độ nhận thức khác nhau - như Bà la môn v.v.. Và nếu bạn sinh ra trong nhóm nhỏ kia ở Ấn độ, có liên hệ gì giữa cá nhân và nhóm ấy? Có thể nhóm giới hạn nhưng là toàn thể nhận thức Ấn độ. Bạn hiểu chứ? Phải cùng suy tư với tôi. Nào, liên hệ là vỏ bọc của nhận thức chung, mức độ lớp, và trong lớp ấy là nhận thức cá nhân. Cá nhân với đau khổ, lo âu của hắn v.v.. Nhóm bảo bạn là nhà lý tưởng, và bạn, trong nhóm ấy cũng học về sự quan trọng hay không quan trọng của lý tưởng. Vậy thì liên quan gì giữa kẻ tin hay không tin vào chủ nghĩa lý tưởng với nhóm tin ấy? Bạn theo kịp chứ? Nếu hắn chẳng tin gì cả vào chủ nghĩa lý tưởng hắn đã hoàn toàn rời khỏi nhóm. Phải không? Nhưng nếu hắn tin, hắn thuộc nhóm ấy.
18:33	Now, the questioner asks, How can a human being undergo a total psychological change while the group consciousness has not changed at all? I am also reading the question for the first time.	Người hỏi hỏi: làm sao một người trải qua thay đổi tâm lý toàn diện trong khi nhận thức chung không thay đổi gì. Tôi cũng đọc câu hỏi này lần đầu tiên. Chà!
19:19	First of all, is the group consciousness separate from me, from the individual consciousness? That we have to establish completely. Are you, an individual, different from the group consciousness of the British, or the French, or the Dutch, or whatever it is? Are you different radically, from the country, the culture, the economic condition, the cultural education, all that, are you different from the rest of the group? Are you, are we, each one of us? Or are we the result of all that? You understand? Am I the result of all of India, of Europe, of America, because one has lived in these parts for most of one's life, am I the result of all that? You are following all this? Are we moving together? Or am I totally different from all that? Are you totally different from your culture, from your environment from your heredity, from your thousand years of evolution, wars, and so on? Are you not the result of all that? You are, obviously. Now, if you are the result of all that, another group is also the result of all that too. Right? You may call yourself British, I may call myself Dutch, you may call yourself French, but we are the result of all that, though linguistically we may be different. So go a little further.	Trước hết, có phải nhận thức chung khác tôi khác nhận thức cá nhân? Chúng ta phải xác minh lại đã. Cá nhân bạn có khác với nhận thức chung của người Anh hay Anh, Pháp, Đức, hay gì gì khác...? Bạn có hoàn toàn khác với đất nước, văn hóa điều kiện kinh tế, văn hóa giáo dục, mọi cái bạn có khác với số còn lại của nhóm? Thế nào? Mỗi người? Hay chúng ta là kết quả của mọi cái? Bạn hiểu chứ? Có phải tôi là kết quả của tất cả Ấn, Âu, Mỹ, bởi vì đã sống quá lâu ở đó, tôi là kết quả của mọi cái đó? Bạn theo kịp không? Chúng ta cùng bước chứ? Hay tôi hoàn toàn khác với mọi cái ấy? Bạn có hoàn toàn khác với văn hóa bạn, môi trường bạn với di truyền, với mấy ngàn năm tiến hóa, chiến tranh v.v.., bạn không phải là kết quả của mọi thứ đó sao? Thế nào? Dĩ nhiên, bạn là mọi cái đó. Vậy nếu bạn là kết quả của mọi cái đó nhóm khác cũng là kết quả của mọi cái đó. Phải không? Theo kịp chứ? Bạn có thể gọi bạn là người Anh, tôi bảo tôi người Đức bạn người Pháp, nhưng đều là kết quả của mọi cái kia dầu về ngôn ngữ chúng ta có thể khác. Nào, hãy đi xa hơn một chút.
22:20	Is our consciousness, which is our entire being, with its beliefs, with its faith, with its dogmas, fears, superstitions, and longings, and anxieties, and loneliness, and all that, is that not common to all mankind? Right? You will not accept the next step if you don't understand this. Are we not, each human being, the representative, or are the rest of humanity, psychologically? What do you say? Obviously. You suffer, the man in Japan suffers. Though he may be, technologically, terribly advanced, highly disciplined, industrious, keeping his place, it is part of the Confucian education, culture, but inwardly, he is just like you and me.	Phải chăng nhận thức, là cả con người với niềm tin tín ngưỡng, với giáo điều, sợ hãi, mê tín, tham vọng và lo âu, cô đơn, và mọi thứ, điều đó không chung nhân loại sao? Đúng không? Vậy đó...bạn sẽ không chấp nhận điều tiếp theo nếu bạn không hiểu điều này. Không phải chúng ta, mỗi người về tâm lý, là đại diện cho toàn nhân loại sao? Bạn nghĩ gì nào? Dĩ nhiên thôi. Bạn đau khổ, người Nhật đau khổ dù kỹ thuật họ tiến bộ khá nhanh, kỷ luật cao siêng năng, giữ địa vị, đó là một phần của Nho giáo văn hóa, nhưng bên trong họ cũng như bạn và tôi. Nếu con người về tâm lý là đại biểu cho cả nhân loại
23:55	So if the human being – who is the rest of mankind, psychologically – if he changes completely, is he not adding, helping, increasing a totally different kind of mind to it? Are you following this? All right, suppose I change radically, belonging, recognising that I am the rest of mankind. And personally, I mean it, it is not just intellectual assumption. I am the rest of mankind, psychologically. I may be darker skinned than you are, but you suffer, and so on, and I am the rest of mankind. If I change radically, am I not bringing into the consciousness of humanity – which I am – am I not bringing to it something which is totally different? And if all of us were changing rapidly, and adding to that, the content of human consciousness will also be affected. You are following all this? Right? Are we together in this?	nếu hắn thay đổi toàn diện, không phải hắn dự phần làm gia tăng một thứ tâm thức hoàn toàn khác sao? Bạn theo kịp chứ? Nào, giả như tôi thay đổi toàn diện và hiểu rằng tôi là cả nhân loại, tôi không nói điều ấy bằng trí tôi là cả nhân loại, về tâm lý. Có thể da tôi sậm hơn bạn, nhưng bạn đau khổ đớn đau v.v.. , và tôi là cả nhân loại. Nếu thay đổi thực sự, không phải tôi đem vào nhận thức không phải tôi đem vào ấy điều gì hoàn toàn khác sao? Nếu chúng ta thay đổi nhanh chóng và dự phần vào đấy toàn thể nhận thức nhân loại cũng chịu ảnh hưởng. Bạn theo kịp không ? Sao? Chúng ta cùng đến chỗ này chứ? Vậy, phải chăng con người dù sống ở đâu họ
25:58	So, is it possible for human beings, living wherever they are, assessing that our consciousness is similar to the rest of mankind, but clothed in different garments, when there is a radical change, it does affect the whole. Like Hitler affected the whole of human consciousness. Like the war that is going on, it is affecting the whole of mankind.	cũng đánh giá rằng nhận thức con người đều như nhau tuy vẻ ngoài có khác khi có thay đổi tận căn, nó liền tác động đến toàn thể. Như Hitler ảnh hưởng cả nhận thức nhân loại như chiến tranh xảy ra ảnh hưởng hết mọi người. Phải không? Xem xét phần tiếp theo: tại sao bạn không thay đổi?
26:54	So the next investigation into this question is: Why don't you change? That is what is implied in this question. Why is it, human beings who have lived on this marvellous, beautiful earth – which they are trying to destroy – why have they not, after so many centuries upon centuries of civilization, experience, sorrow, tears, joy, etc., why are they like this? Always waiting for somebody to lead them, always waiting to be told what to do. And even when they are told what to do, they don't do it.	Đó là phần ẩn ý trong câu hỏi. Tại sao con người sống trên quả đất diệu kỳ, đẹp đẻ này lại đang cố hủy hoại, tại sao họ không sau hàng bao nhiêu thế kỷ văn minh, kinh nghiệm khổ đau, nước mắt, đùa vui, v.v .., sao họ lại thế? Luôn chờ kẻ khác dẫn dắt, luôn mong ai đó chỉ điều phải làm. Và thậm chí khi được chỉ bảo, họ lại không làm!
28:02	Now, why? Please answer this question, not for me to answer it, question it. Why is it, human beings: affluent, well-to-do, fairly well-placed, having to struggle endlessly for food, like in Asia, certain parts of Asia, why is it they don't see the extraordinary importance, the urgency of all this? Why don't they move? Is it they need more suffering? – which would be too callous. You understand? Suffering has not changed man. Reward has not changed man, nor punishment. Those are the two principles upon which we act: reward and punishment. Neither of those two principles have helped man. Nor externalizing some agency, like God, worshipping him. Which is, thought has invented it, then thought worships him. Crazy business. And that too has not helped man. So, what? Please ask these questions yourself. We have looked to leaders, we have looked to outside agency, some great influence, some pressure, none of these things have helped man. So what will he do? Go on, answer this question. Go off into communes, and little this and little that? Or see the great danger of what is going on? See the utter lack of love in all this, utter callousness of human beings: killing for some piece of land, for some honour, a whole group of human beings. You understand? So what will you all do? Go back to our daily routine, to our jobs? You can't help that. We have responsibilities, so we have to do all that. So what shall we do apart from all that? Is it that our brains have become so utterly mechanical that any new challenge is immediately translated into the old pattern, and go on with the old pattern? Please investigate all this.	Tại sao thế? Hãy trả lời, đừng đợi tôi. Hãy đào sâu. Tại sao con người, giàu có, giỏi dang, địa vị tranh đấu tìm từng miếng ăn, như một vài nơi ở châu Á sao họ không thấy điều cực kỳ quan trọng điều khẩn thiết này? Sao họ không cựa quậy? Họ cần đau khổ hơn sao? - chắc là quá chai lì. Bạn hiểu chứ? Đau khổ chẳng thay đổi con người. Thưởng phạt cũng không thay đổi họ. Đó là hai nguyên tắc chúng ta hành xử: thưởng và phạt. Cả hai cũng không giúp ích gì. Tác nhân bên ngoài như Thượng đế, thờ lạy, cũng không tư tưởng tạo ra Thượng đế rồi thờ phụng. Thiệt là kì quặc! Và rồi cũng chẳng ích chi. Sao vậy? Hãy tự hỏi xem. Chúng ta hướng theo lãnh đạo. Chạy theo tác nhân bên ngoài, vài ảnh hưởng lớn sức ép - tất cả đều không giúp được con người. Vậy hắn sẽ làm gì đây? Tiếp tục, trả lời xem. Bỏ đi tu hay làm gì khác? Hay nhìn rõ nguy hiểm đang xảy ra, thấy rất thiếu yêu thương trong đó, lòng người cứng cỏi, giết chóc vì vài mảnh đất, vì danh dự, cả một nhóm người. Bạn hiểu chứ? Vậy bạn sẽ làm gì? Trở lại với công việc hàng ngày ư? Bạn chẳng thể giúp gì. Bạn có trách nhiệm, nên bạn phải làm gì đó. Chúng ta phải làm gì đây? Phải chăng trí óc chúng ta trở nên quá máy móc nên mọi thách thức mới liền đi vào khuôn cũ và đi tiếp với cái cũ? Hãy xem xét tất cả.
32:24	2nd question: Can right action ever encompass violence?	Câu hỏi 2: Hành động đúng có thể có bạo lực không?
32:31	Can 'right action' ever encompass violence?	'Hành động đúng' có thể có bạo lực không?
32:41	K: Now we are probing into the question. What is right action? Right action must be right under all circumstances not depending on pressure, on climate, or one's prejudices, conclusions, ideals. But when it is right action, it must be right under all circumstances. So what is right action? What is right? Which means: correct, precise, actual, objective, non-personal. Right? All that is implied in that word: right. Right is not opposed to wrong. If right is opposed to wrong then the right has its roots also in the wrong. This needs a little bit of enquiry.	Chúng ta hãy xem xét câu hỏi. Hành động đúng là gì? Hành động đúng phải đúng với mọi trường hợp không lệ thuộc sức ép, hoàn cảnh, định kiến, kết luận lý tưởng, nhưng đúng là phải đúng trong mọi trường hợp. Phải không? Vậy hành động đúng là gì? Thế nào là đúng? Là phải, chính xác, thực tế, khách quan, vô tư - phải không? tất cả chúng nằm trong từ 'đúng'. Đúng không đối nghịch với sai. Đúng nếu đúng nghịch với sai thì gốc của nó cũng nằm trong sai. Phải không? Điều này đòi hỏi một chút tìm tòi.
34:13	Is goodness totally separate from that which is bad? We are using the words good and bad in the ordinary sense of the word. Is it separate, totally separate, or is goodness born out of badness? You understand? I am bad – whatever that may mean – and I am trying to be good. That goodness is the opposite of what I am. I am bad, I am saying I must be good. So it is an opposite, and the opposite is created by thought which says, this is bad and I must be good. You are following all this? So, is right the opposite of the wrong? If it is the opposite, there must be conflict between the two, and therefore, the right is not right. Where there is a conflict between good and bad, that conflict is wrong. Therefore, we are asking, is right totally independent, totally divorced, has no relationship to the bad? Then it is right under all circumstances. But if it is the outcome of the bad, that is, I want to be good, creating the opposite of the bad, and then fighting for that, then that which I call right is wrong. I wonder if you have understood this, if we have understood each other, this.	Phải chăng tốt hoàn toàn tách rời với xấu chúng ta dùng từ 'tốt' và 'xấu' trong ý nghĩa thông thường là chúng hoàn toàn khác biệt? Hay tốt sinh ra từ xấu? Bạn hiểu chứ? Tôi xấu - trong mọi ý nghĩa. Và tôi cố gắng trở thành tốt. Tốt ấy đối nghịch với tôi. Tôi xấu, tôi bảo rằng tôi phải tốt. Vậy là đối nghịch, và đối nghịch do tư tưởng tạo ra nó bảo thế này là xấu, và tôi phải tốt. Đúng không? Bạn theo kịp chứ? Vậy là tốt đối với xấu sao? Nếu đối nghịch tức phải có xung đột giữa chúng, nên tốt không phải là tốt. Nơi đâu có xung đột giữa tốt xấu, xung đột ấy là sai nên chúng ta hỏi: phải chăng tốt hoàn toàn độc lập hoàn toàn tách biệt, không liên quan gì với xấu? Đúng là đúng trong mọi trường hợp. Nhưng nếu nó là kết quả của sai, tức là muốn tốt là tạo đối nghịch với xấu, và đấu tranh vì nó - phải không? - vậy cái gọi là đúng tức là sai. Nếu bạn hiểu điều này, nếu chúng ta hiểu nhau điều này... Vậy, chúng ta có thể đi xa hơn, nhưng phải tìm hiểu hành động.
36:47	So, we more or less can go much more into it, but we must also go into action. What is action? Any movement is action. Going from here to your house, sitting here, listening. Action: the doing, not 'having done', or 'will do'. That means acting: present participle. So, acting.	Hành động là gì? Chuyển động là hành động. Phải không? Đi từ đây về nhà, ngồi đây lắng nghe hành động, đang làm, không phải đã hay sẽ làm. Nghĩa đang hành động, hiện tại phân từ.(cười) Tức đang làm.
37:33	Now, what is the root of that acting, the cause of that acting? Has acting a cause? Please, this is very interesting if you go into it. This is not intellectual assessment, intellectual entertainment, but if you go into it very deeply, it brings out something extraordinary. Our present action is based on past memories, or on a future principle. The idea: according to a pattern, I am going to live. And act according to that pattern. That pattern is established by thought, from what I have learned or imitated, and I copy that pattern, and I call that action. Which is, I am acting according to a principle which is rewarding, which will be pleasurable, and I act according to that. All the ideologists do this. All the theoreticians, whether the capitalist theoretician, or the totalitarian theoreticians act upon this, establish theories, and act according to those theories, hypothesis. So our action is either based on a reward or punishment – obviously. So action has a motive. That is, I am acting according to my desire, my pleasure, my past memories, or I am acting according to some principle, some ideal. But I am not acting, I am acting according to something. Do we understand this? So can the mind be free of the past and the future, and act? It is really very interesting to go into this. Can my brain, which has evolved in time, and so it functions in time, time being past rewards, past memories, past accomplishments, and so on, and the future, with all its rewards, etc. So my brain has been conditioned to that, as most brains are. And it is acting according to the past or to the future, and that is its conditioning. Now, we are asking that brain, is it possible to act without the whole burden of the past and the future business? You understand the question? We will come back to that.	Đang hành động gốc nó là ...gốc đang làm là nguyên nhân đang làm là gì? Đang làm có nguyên nhân không? Điều này rất thú vị nếu bạn tìm hiểu đây không phải đánh giá bằng trí óc hay giải trí đâu nhưng nếu bạn tìm hiểu kỹ nó sẽ hiển lộ điều diệu kỳ. Hành động hiện tại dựa trên ký ức cũ hay nguyên tắc mới một lý tưởng theo khuôn mẫu tôi sẽ sống và hành động theo khuôn ấy. Khuôn ấy do tư tưởng dựng lên từ điều đã học hay bắt chước, rồi sao y lại khuôn ấy và gọi là hành động. Đúng không? Tức là tôi hành động theo nguyên tắc thưởng phạt điều ấy dễ chịu nên tôi làm theo. Mọi nhà lý luận làm thế. Mọi lý thuyết gia dù lý thuyết gia tư bản hay lý thuyết gia độc tài đều làm vậy tạo lý thuyết rồi hành động theo lý thuyết, giả thuyết ấy. Đúng không? Vậy đương nhiên hành động chúng ta dựa trên thưởng phạt. Hành động có mục đích. Tức là tôi làm theo ước muốn, khoái cảm theo ghi nhớ cũ, hay tôi làm theo nguyên tắc, lý tưởng nhưng tôi không hành động, mà tôi làm theo điều gì đó. Chúng ta có hiểu việc này không? Tâm trí có thể lìa bỏ quá khứ tương lai và hành động chứ? Thật là... rất thú vị khi tìm hiểu điều này. Trí óc tiến hóa trong thời gian và hành xử trong thời gian thời gian là phần thưởng cũ, ghi nhớ cũ, thành tựu cũ và v.v.., và tương lai cũng với mọi phần thưởng ấy, v.v.. Trí óc tôi bị qui định thế đó - như mọi trí óc khác. Và nó hành động theo quá khứ hay tương lai và đó là qui định. Chúng ta xem trí óc có thể hành động mà không có gánh nặng của quá khứ tương lai không? Bạn hiểu vấn đề chứ? Chúng ta sẽ trở lại sau.
41:49	And the questioner asks, violence, he uses the word violence. What is violence? Physical violence? Killing each other, hurting each other, maiming each other, physically, by a word, by a gesture, by a look. We hurt each other. That is also part of violence: the word, the gesture, the blow, the bayonet, the bomb. And also, is there not violence when we imitate people? Is there not violence when we are caught in a movement of comparison? I am comparing myself with you: clever brat, and so on, or I want to be somebody – that is also part of violence. Conformity, comparison, following, obeying – all that is part of violence. We are not saying, going against the law. We must be careful here, otherwise, the policeman will be after us. Realising this is violence, then we proceed to create a state, or a principle called non-violence – quite the opposite of what I am, what we are. Then what takes place? I have created the idea of non-violence because I am violent. This is a fact, and that is non-fact, and I pursue the non-fact. I don't know if you realise all this: that then, it leads to all kinds of illusions. Whereas, there is only the fact: violence. There is no other fact. Now, to understand the nature of violence, to go into it, to encompass the whole content of that word, and not move away from it. Which is not to escape, not to submerge it, not to suppress it, not to go beyond it.	Và người hỏi hỏi: bạo lực. Anh ta dùng từ 'bạo lực'. Bạo lực là gì? Bạo lực vật lý? - giết hại lẫn nhau, tổn thương nhau làm bị thương, vật lý, bởi lời nói bằng cử chỉ, cái nhìn - phải không? - xúc chạm nhau. Và điều này...cũng là một phần bạo lực: từ ngữ, cử chỉ, tát tai, dao găm, bom đạn. Và cũng không phải bạo lực khi chúng ta bắt chước sao? Không phải bạo lực khi chúng ta kẹt trong hành động so sánh? So sánh tôi với bạn - một gã khéo tay, v.v.. Hay tôi muốn là ai đó. Đó cũng là một phần bạo lực. Đúng không? Y cứ, so đo, chạy theo, vâng lời - đều là một phần bạo lực. Chúng ta không nói chống lại luật pháp. Phải cẩn thận, nếu không cảnh sát sẽ theo chúng ta. Khi hiểu đây là bạo lực chúng ta liền tạo ra trạng thái hay nguyên tắc không bạo lực, hoàn toàn ngược với tôi hiện là. Rồi điều gì xảy ra? Tôi tạo ra ý niệm không bạo lực bởi tôi bạo lực, thực tế đây, và phi thực tế kia, và tôi đuổi theo phi thực tế. Không biết bạn có hiểu hết không? Rồi việc ấy sẽ dẫn đến mọi ảo tưởng trong khi thực tế là bạo lực, chẳng có thực tế nào khác. Để hiểu rõ bản chất bạo lực, tìm hiểu nó bao hàm cả nội dung từ ấy chứ không lìa bỏ nó không chạy trốn, không nhận chìm nó không loại trừ, không bỏ qua,...
45:27	So, what is right action which will encompass the whole movement of violence? What is right action? Which is non-action. I don't know if you follow this. Any action born of violence, is violence. One country is aggressive, and you respond with aggressiveness to that country. This is what has happened. That is positive action, which is considered positive action. You hit me, I hit you back. But seeing the whole nature of violence, observing it closely, there is only a state which is non-action. I wonder if you understand this? What is considered positive action with regard to violence in the ordinary, accepted, traditional sense, is to retaliate. This has been our tradition. We own that particular piece of land miles away, and if anybody is aggressive, enters into that land, I will send all my warships to it. This is what is happening all the world over, meet aggression by aggression. And that is considered positive, realistic action. And this has been the history of mankind for thousands of years. So, when one investigates into this whole problem of violence, any movement from violence is still violence. Right? If one understands this. Therefore, when there is violence: no response to violence. Which is the most positive action. Right?	Vậy, hành động đúng đắn gồm cả hành động bạo lực là gì? Sao? Hành động đúng là gì? Nào? Là không hành động. Bạn có theo kịp không? Hành độnh nào sinh từ bạo lực là bạo lực. Một nước gây hấn và bạn đáp lại bằng gây hấn. Việc xảy ra vậy đó. Và...đó là hành động tích cực, việc làm tích cực. Bạn đánh tôi, tôi đánh lại. Nhưng nhìn toàn thể bản chất bạo lực, quan sát thật gần chỉ có trạng thái không hành động. Bạn có hiểu không? Điều được coi là hành động tích cực với bạo lực trong ý nghĩa thông thường quen chấp nhận là trả thù. Đúng không? Đó là truyền thống. Tôi...chúng ta sở hữu mảnh đất nào đó ngoài kia, và nếu có ai xâm lấn, tôi sẽ cho cả một đội tàu chiến đến đó. Điều này xảy ra khắp thế giới, đối đầu gây hấn bằng gây hấn và nó được xem như một hành động tích cực, thực tế. Và đó là lịch sử loài người mấy ngàn năm nay. Khi xem xét toàn thể vấn đề bạo lực, điều gì từ bạo lực cũng là bạo lực - phải không? - nếu bạn hiểu. Thế nên, khi có bạo lực không đáp ứng gì hết, chính là hành động tích cực nhất. Đúng không?
48:30	3rd question: You speak of compassion, but claim that action should have no cause. In what way does compassion act without being a cause of action?	Câu 3: Ngài nói về tình thương nhưng bảo hành động không lý do. Làm sao tình thương hành động mà không có nguyên do?
48:51	You speak of compassion – well, I'll go into it. You speak of compassion, but claim that action should have no cause. In what way does compassion act without having a cause?	Ngài nói về tình thương - nào, tôi sẽ tìm hiểu ngài nói về tình thương nhưng đòi hỏi hành động không lý do. Làm sao tình thương hành động mà không có nguyên do?
49:23	K: The questioner says, 'You speak of compassion, and you claim'. Please, the speaker doesn't claim anything. Then you can kick him around if he claimed. But as he doesn't claim anything, and he doesn't speak of compassion as though something extraordinary that human beings have lost, or not found. So we have to go into this question together.	Người hỏi nói, ngài nói về tình thương và đòi hỏi ồ, tôi không...người nói chẳng đòi hỏi gì hết. Nếu đòi hỏi bạn có thể xử tệ hắn, nhưng hắn đâu có đòi gì và cũng không nói về tình thương như điều gì kỳ đặc mà con người lạc mất hay không tìm ra chúng ta nên cùng tìm hiểu vấn đề.
50:06	What is compassion? What is love? As it is generally understood, love is sensory, sensuous, sexy. Love is understood as pleasure, as some form of self-fulfilment. I am just stating what is commonly understood. So we have to enquire, probe into this word, the content of the word, the depth of the word, the real quality of that word. That word has been ruined, spat upon, trodden down, vulgarised, any other word you like to use. So pushing all that aside, what is love? If it has a cause: 'I love you because...' then obviously, it is not love. Let's be clear on that. Right? 'I love God because I hope some day he will help me.' 'I love my wife because...' etc. I don't have to go into all that. Or my girlfriend. So, if we are very clear that love has no cause – it hasn't. If it has, then it is not love, it is a convenience, self-satisfaction, it is gratification, companionship, escape from loneliness, and all that kind of stuff. But if it is real, it has no cause. I don't love you because you are an audience which helps me to fulfil myself, which is too silly.	Tình thương là gì? Yêu thương là gì? Như thường hiểu, tình thương là cảm giác, nhục dục. Tình thương được hiểu như khoái lạc, hình thức tự thỏa mãn. Phải không? Tôi chỉ nói điều được hiểu chung chung. Chúng ta phải tìm hiểu, xem xét từ ngữ, nội dung nó chiều sâu, phẩm chất thật sự của từ ngữ. Từ ấy đã hỏng, bị nhổ nước bọt, giẫm lên tục tằn, một từ nào khác có lẽ bạn thích hơn. Nào, bỏ hết sang bên, tình thương là gì? Nếu có nguyên do,'tôi yêu bạn vì...' đó không phải yêu thương. Hãy hiểu rõ điều này. Được chứ? 'Tôi yêu Thượng đế bởi mong có ngày ông sẽ giúp tôi'. 'Tôi thương vợ vì...'- không cần tìm hiểu hết đâu. Nếu bạn hiểu yêu thương không nguyên nhân - nó không có nếu có, không phải yêu thương, chỉ là tiện nghi, thỏa mãn là hài lòng, kết bạn, chạy trốn cô đơn, và mọi thứ lộn xộn, nhưng nếu yêu thương thực thì không có nguyên nhân. Tôi không yêu bạn vì bạn là người nghe người giúp tôi thỏa nguyện, tôi quá ngớ ngẩn.
53:02	So, love has no cause. Right? This is not a verbal assessment, a verbal, intellectual agreement. It is a deep truth. When one perceives that truth, then the cause which we have had, disappears altogether. And is love different from compassion? Or it is the furthering of the same thing? Can there be compassion, that sense of enormity of it, the beauty of it, the quality, the depth of that word, can that compassion exist where there is sorrow? I may be suffering because I have lost this, and I am suffering from loneliness. I am suffering, and out of that suffering I attach myself to certain ideological principles. I become a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Christian. I anchor my being in there, and then go out to help you because I think I am compassionate. Is that compassion? Are we together in this? We are investigating, we are not asking that you should agree. If I am attached to some principle, to some belief, to some faith, and that is my strength, my anchor, and then I talk about compassion, go to the world, go to China and help there, or India – the poor people. Is that compassion? Or is it pity, sympathy, kindliness, generosity, which I call compassion? Or compassion cannot possibly exist when there is any kind of anchorage, when I am no longer a Hindu, a Buddhist, Catholic, and so on. Which is, compassion has its own intelligence. It is unintelligent to have an anchorage of security in some deity, some symbol, some faith. That indicates a lack of intelligence. But when there is compassion, it has its own intelligence. So intelligence has no cause. Because if it has a cause – I am intelligent because: I have read books, I have clever arguments, and so on. that is not intelligence, that is cleverness, erudition, professional activity. So compassion, love, have no cause and therefore, as intelligence has no cause, love, compassion, intelligence go together.	Vậy, yêu thương không có nguyên nhân. Phải không? Đây không phải lời đánh giá lời thỏa thuận trí óc, mà là sự thật sâu sắc. Khi bạn thấy sự thực ấy nguyên nhân trong chúng ta biến mất hoàn toàn. Phải không? Và yêu có khác với thương không? Hay cũng chỉ là một thứ thôi? Có thể có tình thương với ý nghĩa bao la với vẻ đẹp, phẩm chất, chiều sâu của từ ấy tình thương có thể hiện diện nơi có khổ đau? Có thể tôi khổ đau vì mất vật này, và tôi đau khổ vì cô đơn. Tôi đau khổ, và vì đau khổ ấy tôi bám vào một nguyên tắc lý tưởng nào. Tôi trở thành Hinđu, Phật tử hay theo Cơ đốc. Tôi cột tôi vào đó rồi ra ngoài cứu giúp bạn vì tôi tin tôi có tình thương. Đó là tình thương? Bạn theo kịp chứ? Chúng ta cùng ở đây? Chúng ta cùng tìm hiểu, chứ không bảo bạn đồng ý. Nếu tôi bám vào nguyên tắc, niềm tin, tín ngưỡng nào và đó là sức mạnh, bám víu, rồi tôi nói về tình thương ra giúp đỡ thế giới, Trung quốc hay Ấn độ, người nghèo... Đó là tình thương? Hay trắc ẩn, cảm tình, lòng tốt, mà tôi gọi là tình thương? Hay tình thương không thể hiện diện khi có loại bám víu nào. Khi tôi không còn là Hinđu, Phật tử, Cơ đốc, v.v.. Bạn theo kịp chứ? Tình thương tức có thông minh. Mất thông minh khi bám vào an ninh nơi thần thánh biểu tượng, niềm tin. Đó là kém thông minh. Nhưng khi có tình thương tức có thông minh. Thông minh không có nguyên nhân. Phải không? Bởi nếu có nguyên nhân - tôi thông minh vì tôi đọc sách giỏi tranh luận v.v..- đó chẳng phải thông minh. Đó là khéo léo, thông thái, hoạt động chuyên nghiệp. Tình thương chẳng có nguyên nhân, và khi thông minh cũng không có nguyên nhân, tình thương, thông minh đi với nhau.
58:12	Then the questioner asks, when there is that compassion, what is action? You understand the question? I haven't got it, but tell me about it. I don't know what love is, but what is the action of that love? We are back into theories, hypotheses and idealisms. Tell me what it is to live with love though in my heart, I don't know what that flame is. And it would be foolish to talk about what that is when one hasn't got the flame. So the question then arises, Why is it human beings, who have undergone such tremendous agonies, dreadful wars, shedding tears beyond all the rivers, and yet, they are going on the same way: killing each other, all the rest of it. Where there is compassion and intelligence, that very intelligence is action. But I haven't got it. It sounds good in this tent, but when I leave it, it is gone. I have been stimulated by the speaker or by somebody else, and it is not there. And that is a tragedy. So again, what am I to do? How am I to capture that flame? You see, love is not an experience. All experiences are sensual, reactions. As love is not desire, pleasure, reward, escape from one's own misery – if one sees that, observes it, then out of that observation, the thing may flower.	Người hỏi hỏi: khi có tình thương, hành động là gì? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Tôi chưa có, nhưng hãy nói tôi nghe. Tôi không biết yêu thương là gì, hành động yêu thương là sao? Chúng ta trở lại với lý thuyết, giả thuyết, lý tưởng. Nói tôi nghe sống với yêu thương là sao dù trong lòng tôi không biết gì ngọn lửa ấy. Và chắc là điên khùng lắm khi nói về điều ấy mà không có ngọn lửa trong lòng. Vậy có câu hỏi: tại sao con người đã trải qua thống khổ triền miên, chiến tranh khủng khiếp nước mắt chảy ngập các dòng sông mà họ vẫn đi một con đường, giết hại lẫn nhau, và bao điều tệ khác. Nơi đâu có tình thương và thông minh thông minh ấy là hành động. Nhưng tôi chưa có nó. Ở đây có vẻ tốt, nhưng khi đi khỏi thì lại hoàn không. Tôi bị kích thích bởi người nói hay bởi ai khác, và ngoài kia thì không. Và đó là bi kịch. Vậy, tôi phải làm gì? Làm sao có ngọn lửa kia? Thế đó, yêu thương không phải kinh nghiệm. Mọi kinh nghiệm là nhục dục, phản ứng. Yêu thương không phải dục vọng, khoái lạc, phần thưởng hay trốn chạy khổ đau, nếu bạn nhìn ngắm nó quan sát nó, rồi từ quan sát đó sự việc có thể nở hoa.
1:01:44	Shall we go on to the next question? It seems a pity, doesn't it?	Chúng ta tiếp câu hỏi kế chứ? Người hỏi: vâng. Krishnamurti: Hình như trắc ẩn phải không.
1:01:59	4th question: To exist, I have to perform daily, mechanical tasks without any meaning. This lack of meaning leads to a feeling of destructiveness and inner rage. I see this clearly in myself, and the same process growing in the rise of terrorism, crime and delinquency. There is the feeling that nothing can be done about this rising chaos. That society is destined to collapse. How does one approach this tremendous chaos both without and within oneself?	Câu hỏi 4: Để tồn tại tôi phải hoàn thành... những công việc máy móc vô nghĩa hàng ngày. Việc vô nghĩa ấy dẫn đến cảm giác phá hoại, phẩn nộ bên trong. Tôi thấy rõ điều ấy trong tôi và diễn tiến ấy lớn lên thành chủ nghĩa khủng bố, tội ác và tội phạm. Một cảm giác chẳng thể làm gì về sự rối loạn đang lớn ấy xã hội sẽ đi đến sụp đổ. Làm thế nào tiếp cận rối loạn to lớn kia, cả trong lẫn ngoài?
1:03:01	To exist, I have to perform daily, mechanical tasks without much meaning. This lack of meaning leads to a feeling of destructiveness and inner rage. I see this clearly in myself, and the same process growing in the rise of terrorism, crime and delinquency. There is the feeling that nothing can be done about this increasing chaos, that society is destined to collapse. How does one approach this tremendous chaos both without and within oneself?	Để tồn tại tôi phải làm những việc vô vị máy móc hàng ngày. Việc vô vị ấy dẫn đến cảm giác phá hoại, phẩn nộ bên trong. Tôi thấy rõ điều ấy trong tôi và diễn tiến ấy lớn lên thành chủ nghĩa khủng bố, tội ác và tội phạm. Một cảm giác chẳng thể làm gì về sự rối loạn ấy rối loạn đang lớn, xã hội tất sẽ xụp đổ. Làm sao tiếp cận rối loạn lớn lao ấy, cả trong lẫn ngoài?
1:04:01	K: I wonder how many of us are aware of this fact. Economically, socially, morally, the structure of society as we have known is gradually collapsing, imperceptibly, or very, very quickly. How many of us are aware of this? Or we just live from day to day and forget the whole bally show? Please enquire in oneself, if one is really aware of this? Not in the newspapers, not in the magazines, not in the editorials, not in any book, but this is actually going on. Are we aware of it? Are we sensitive to all that is happening? What the scientists are doing? Because they also want to fulfil. Russia invents something, and the other scientists invent something more, greater, and so they keep this up.	Không biết bao nhiêu người thấy rõ thực tế này. Kinh tế, xã hội, đạo đức, cơ cấu xã hội như chúng ta biết đang đổ vỡ dần, khó thấy hay rất nhanh chóng. Bao nhiêu người thấy việc này? Hay chúng ta chỉ sống qua ngày và quên đi cảnh chết tiệt ấy? Hãy tìm kiếm trong chính mình nếu thực sự thấy nó không phải trên nhật báo, tạp chí xã luận, sách vở, mà thực sự điều ấy đang xảy ra. Chúng ta có thấy, có cảm nhận mọi điều xảy ra không? Các nhà khoa học đang làm gì? Họ cũng muốn hoàn thành. Nga chế tạo thứ gì, những nhà khoa học khác chế tạo cái lớn hơn, và họ cứ như thế.
1:05:38	If one is aware of the chaos, the catastrophe – I wonder if one is really aware of it. It is really very important to question this, whether one is really, deeply aware of this, sensitively. Not just what is happening in one's own country, but in the world: poverty in certain areas is increasing, overpopulation, total indifference, callousness. If one is aware of it, why does one have rage, anger about it? Or be depressed by it? This is a fact. Right? The thing is collapsing. Why should one get angry about it? Have a tremendous anxiety, rage about it? Why? Why don't we look at the fact, and see what we can do? If you get depressed, full of anxiety, rage, and say my God, what is going to happen to my family, this and that, you are lost. But if one acknowledges the real fact of this, not verbally, but inside yourself, deeply, in your heart. Then the questioner says, what is one to do?	Nếu bạn thấy rõ rối loạn, thảm họa không biết bạn có thực sự thấy, đó là điều tôi muốn... Thực sự rất quan trọng khi hỏi, xem bạn có thấy thật cảm nhận điều này, không chỉ điều đang xảy ra không chỉ một nước mà cả thế giới, nghèo đói khắp nơi đang gia tăng, dân số quá đông, tính thờ ơ, lãnh đạm. Bạn có thấy chăng tại sao bạn phẩn nộ, nổi giận hay chán nản nó? Đó là thực tế. Phải không? Tình hình đang sụp đổ. Tại sao bạn nổi giận, quá lo âu, hay nổi khùng về nó - tại sao? Tại sao chúng ta không nhìn thực tế và xem có thể làm gì? Nếu bạn chán nản, quá lo âu, nổi giận, và nói 'Trời, gì sẽ xảy ra cho gia đình tôi', này nọ, bạn lạc lối. Nhưng nếu bạn chấp nhận thực tế ấy, không phải bằng lời mà thực sự trong tận đáy lòng rồi người hỏi hỏi, bạn phải làm gì đây?
1:08:07	Where would you begin to understand this chaos? The house is burning. We are not saying something that is not actual. The speaker is not pessimistic or optimistic, just facing things as they are. Where would you begin to bring about order out of this chaos? More leaders? Better prime ministers? Better labour leaders? Better police order, suppressing crimes? Not that there shouldn't be all that, but where will you begin? Please ask the question, where will you begin? Out there, or in here? Who has created the outward chaos in this world? We human beings have created it, each one of us. Right? Obviously. Our grandparents, or great-great-great-grandparents, and we have inherited what they have done, and we are contributing to it. This is a fact. So where shall I begin, realising the outward chaos? I realise that we human beings have created it, and as a human being who is the rest of mankind, I must begin with myself. Which is not a selfish movement. I have contributed, caused, brought about this chaos. Each one of us has brought about this chaos, the collapse, or the impending collapse. And I must begin with myself, because I – please, this is really important – I am the mankind, not just a verbal statement. it is in my blood: I am the rest of mankind. I must begin to bring about order in myself because I have lived, and I still live in chaos, inwardly. Chaos being disorder, conflict, struggle. Now, can there be order in all this? Can order be created out of disorder? Please, I am the result of disorder. I am disorder. I am not saying, disorder is out there, and I am looking at it – I am disorder. There is no part of me which is not in disorder. I may invent a part, I may think there is a part of me which is completely orderly, beautifully orderly. The rest of me is chaos. So if I assert that, then I am pursuing something which I have invented: that there is some pure order. Which is, out of disorder I have created order, hoping that the order is real. I see the fallacy of it, so I say to myself, I am the cause and the trap of disorder, and can I clear up this disorder? Not search for order. You understand this? How can my mind which is disorderly chaotic, how can such a mind, brain, create order? It can't. All it can do is to understand the nature of disorder, the structure, the movement, the quality of disorder. The essence of disorder is conflict. When you have no conflict, there is order. So what is the cause of conflict? I hope you are thinking, you are investigating with the speaker otherwise you are just listening to a lot of ideas, they will have no meaning whatsoever. He will become another stupid leader. And please, I beg of you, don't put the speaker in that position.	Bạn bắt đầu hiểu rối loạn chỗ nào? Nhà đang cháy. Chúng ta không nói điều gì không thực tế...Người nói không bi quan hay lạc quan, chỉ đối mặt sự việc y như thế. Trong rối loạn, bắt đầu chỗ nào bạn đem trật tự đến? Thêm lãnh đạo ư? Thủ tướng tốt hơn? Lãnh đạo công nhân tốt hơn? Trật tự an ninh tốt hơn, trấn áp tội phạm chẳng phải không có mọi cái ấy, nhưng bạn bắt đầu chỗ nào? Hãy tự hỏi xem bạn bắt đầu chỗ nào? Ngoài kia, hay ở đây? Ai tạo ra rối loạn thế giới bên ngoài? Con người tạo ra nó, mỗi cá nhân chúng ta. Phải không? Dĩ nhiên rồi. Ông bà chúng ta, tổ tông chúng ta, và rồi chúng ta thừa hưởng điều họ đã làm, và lại phụ thêm vào. Đó là thực tế. Vậy tôi bắt đầu từ đâu, khi nhận ra rối loạn ấy? Tôi hiểu rằng con người đã tạo ra nó và mỗi con người là cả nhân loại phải bắt đầu chính tôi, không phải hành động vị kỷ. Tôi đã góp phần gây nên rối loạn ấy. Mỗi người chúng ta gây ra rối loạn sụp đổ hay sắp sửa sụp đổ. Và phải bắt đầu nơi tôi, bởi tôi - điều này quan trọng lắm tôi là nhân loại, không phải chỉ là lời nói nó nằm trong máu, tôi là nhân loại. Phải tạo trật tự trong chính tôi bởi tôi đã sống, đang sống trong rối loạn, trong tôi. Rối loạn là vô trật tự, xung đột, đấu tranh. Có thể có trật tự trong mọi cái này? Có thể tạo ra trật tự từ rối loạn? Tôi là kết quả của vô trật tự, tôi lộn xộn. Tôi không nói lộn xộn ngoài kia và tôi nhìn nó - tôi lộn xộn. Chẳng có chỗ nào trong tôi mà không lộn xộn. Tôi có thể tạo ra một phần. Và tôi cho rằng phần ấy trong tôi hoàn toàn trật tự trật tự tuyệt vời. Phần còn lại thì lộn xộn. Vậy, nếu tôi tuyên bố tôi đang theo đuổi điều gì thuần trật tự mà tôi đã tạo ra. Nghĩa là, từ lộn xộn tôi tạo trật tự - phải không? hy vọng trật tự ấy thật. Tôi thấy có sai lầm. Tôi tự bảo tôi là nguyên nhân và cạm bẫy của lộn xộn tôi có thể quét sạch lộn xộn? - không tìm trật tự. Bạn hiểu không? Làm sao trí óc rối rắm lộn xộn bằng cách nào trí óc ấy tạo ra trật tự? Không thể nào. Điều duy nhất có thể làm là hiểu rõ bản chất cơ cấu, hành động, phẩm chất của rối loạn. Bản chất của rối loạn là xung đột. Đúng không? Khi bạn không xung đột liền có trật tự. Vậy nguyên nhân xung đột là gì? Tiếp tục. Hy vọng bạn suy tư, tìm tòi cùng với người nói, nếu không... ..chỉ là lắng nghe một mớ ý kiến, và chẳng có ý nghĩa gì. Hắn sẽ thành lãnh đạo ngốc khác. Xin bạn đừng đặt người nói vào vị trí ấy. Vậy có thể phá tan rối loạn không?
1:14:54	So, can there be dissolution of disorder? We are not seeking order. The order, like the universe, will be when there is no disorder. So what are the contributory causes that bring about disorder? Are you tired? Shall I finish this? You are not tired? I am sorry. What are the many causes that bring about disorder? Or is there only one cause? We like to think there are many causes because then it gives us time to play around, investigating the very many causes. That is part of the psychological game which human beings play. But looking at it all, perhaps, there is only one cause. Or shall we investigate various other causes? Which is a waste of time, obviously. What is the one cause that is bringing about this great disorder out there and in oneself? Is it the 'me', the self, with all its conflicts, desires, hopes, fears, past memories? The self-centred entity who is concerned with himself, isolating himself, holding on, clinging to that which thought has invented as the me. Go on, look at it. And if that self-centred entity, the me, the form, the name, all the accumulated memories, which is the me, which is in essence, isolation. The me is always in isolation. I may be related to you, but 'I' am related to 'you'. I am the principal, and you are the second. I, though I am related to you intimately, I am pursuing my own desires, ambitions, fulfilment. And you are also doing the same, like two parallel railway lines never meeting. That is, the me, with all this sense of isolation that is the root cause of this chaos out there and in me. And do I realise this? Or this verbal accumulation which I have gathered, and I am living with the words? I say yes, that is me, what am I to do about it? If I realise that is me, I can't do anything. You understand? I can't do anything because the doer is still the me. So there is only a state of pure observation of the fact. And that observation, with its intense attention, brings out its own action, which is intelligence.	Chúng ta không tìm trật tự. Trật tự, cũng như vũ trụ, hiện diện khi không có rối loạn. Vậy nguyên nhân phụ nào sinh ra rối loạn vậy? Các bạn mệt ư? Tôi ngừng ở đây nhé? Ồ không à, xin lỗi. Nhiều nguyên nhân gì sinh ra rối loạn? Hay chỉ có một nguyên nhân? Chúng ta thích nghĩ có nhiều nguyên nhân vì nó cho thời gian để chơi lòng vòng, đi tìm kiếm nhiều nguyên nhân. Đó là một phần trò chơi tâm lý mà con người đùa vui. Nhưng nếu nhìn kỹ toàn bộ, có thể chỉ có một nguyên nhân. Tiếp tục suy tư đi. Hay chúng ta cùng tìm kiếm những nguyên nhân khác? Dĩ nhiên mất thì giờ. Nguyên nhân duy nhất sinh ra hỗn loạn to lớn, cả trong lẫn ngoài là gì? Có phải cái tôi, ngã? - với xung đột, ước muốn, hy vọng sợ hãi, ghi nhớ cũ, thực thể vị kỷ kẻ chỉ biết có mình, tự cô lập mình ôm chặt, bám víu vào cái tôi do tư tưởng tạo ra. Tiếp tục, nhìn nó đi. Và nếu thực thể vị kỷ ấy, cái tôi, hình thể, tên gọi mọi tích chứa ký ức ấy là cái tôi là bản chất cô lập - cái tôi luôn cô lập - đúng không? có thể tôi liên hệ với bạn, nhưng 'tôi' liên hệ với 'bạn'. Phải không? Tôi là chính và bạn là phụ. Tôi, dù liên hệ mật thiết với bạn, đang theo đuổi ước muốn tham vọng, thành tựu riêng, và bạn cũng làm thế như hai đường sắt song song chẳng hề gặp nhau. Nghĩa là cái tôi với mọi cảm giác cô độc chính là gốc rễ của rối loạn trong tôi và ngoài kia. Và tôi có thấy thế không? Hay đây chỉ là lời góp nhặt đây kia và tôi sống với từ ngữ. Tôi bảo,'Vâng, tôi thế đó, tôi phải làm gì đây?' Nếu hiểu đó là tôi, tôi chẳng thể làm gì. Bạn hiểu chứ? Tôi không thể làm gì bởi người làm cũng là cái tôi. Vậy thì...chỉ có trạng thái thuần quan sát thực tế và quan sát ấy với chú tâm mạnh mẽ đem đến hành động của riêng nó, tức thông minh.
1:20:23	Right, sir. Finished for today.	Đúng vậy. Hôm nay xong nhé.