Krishnamurti - Buổi Hỏi & Đáp thứ 1

Krishnamurti Subtitles

OJ80Q1 - Buổi Hỏi & Đáp thứ 1
Ojai, USA
6 tháng Năm 1980

0:32	This is a question and answer meeting. About fifty questions and more have been given and we cannot possibly answer all of them. But we have chosen perhaps what might be representative of all these questions.	Đây là buổi hỏi và đáp. Khoảng năm mươi câu hỏi được đưa đến và chúng ta không thể trả lời hết. Nhưng có lẽ sẽ chọn những câu tiêu biểu trong số đó.
1:07	We have been talking over together why human beings who have lived apparently for millions and millions of years have not been able to solve their conflicts both outwardly and inwardly, why they are destroying the earth, polluting the air, why human beings are becoming more and more cruel, violent. And apparently none of these questions have been resolved. We are supposed to be highly civilised human beings and one begins to doubt whether we are. And these questions that we have been put perhaps by answering them we might begin to understand a way of living which might be totally different.	Chúng ta đã cùng thảo luận tại sao con người hình như đã sống qua hàng triệu triệu năm mà không thể giải quyết xung đột cả bên trong lẫn bên ngoài, tại sao họ huỷ hoại trái đất, nhiễm ô không khí, tại sao con người ngày càng hung tợn, bạo hành. Và hình như không vấn đề nào được giải quyết. Chúng ta tự cho là người văn minh cao và bạn nên bắt đầu hỏi lại xem. Và các vấn đề được hỏi đây có lẽ khi trả lời chúng chúng ta sẽ bắt đầu hiểu một lối sống có thể hoàn toàn khác.
2:41	First question: 'What is the significance of history in the education of the young?'	Câu thứ nhất: 'Ý nghĩa lịch sử là gì trong giáo dục lớp trẻ?'
2:48	'What is the significance of history in the education of the young?'	'Ý nghĩa lịch sử là gì trong giáo dục lớp trẻ?
3:03	I think, if one has read history books, it's fairly clear that man has struggled against nature, conquered it, destroying it, polluting everything that he touches. There have been wars, kings, Renaissance, industrialisation, and man's struggle to be free, and yet he becomes a slave to institutions, organisations, and he tries to break away from them but again forms another series of institutions, another series of organisations. So this everlasting struggle to be free. That probably is the history of mankind, according to books. And also the tribal wars, the feudal wars, the baronial wars, the wars of the kings, nations, it is still going on. This tribal mind which has become national, sophisticated mind but it is still the tribal mind.	Tôi nghĩ, nếu bạn đọc sách lịch sử, rõ ràng con người đấu tranh với tự nhiên, thắng nó, phá huỷ nó, nhiễm ô mọi vật hắn chạm đến. Có chiến tranh, vua chúa, Phục hưng, kỹ nghệ hóa, và con người đấu tranh để tự do, rồi trở thành nô lệ cho học viện, tổ chức, và lại cố thoát khỏi chúng nhưng rồi lại lập học viện khác, tổ chức khác. Vậy là đấu tranh mãi cho tự do. Đó có lẽ là lịch sử nhân loại, theo sách vỡ. Và cũng chiến tranh bộ lạc, chiến tranh phong kiến, nam tước, chiến tranh vua chúa, quốc gia, đang tiếp diễn. Trí óc bộ lạc ấy trở thành trí óc quốc gia, trí thức nhưng vẫn là trí óc bộ lạc.
4:54	And that's what more or less - perhaps we are rather simplifying - the history, with the culture music, painting, you know, the whole thing. How is all that to be taught to the young? Surely history is the story of mankind. Mankind, the human being who has gone through all kinds of suffering, through various diseases through wars, through religious beliefs and dogmas, persecution, inquisition, torture, in the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of ideals. And how is all that to be taught to the young? That is the question.	Và đó là điều ít nhiều - có lẽ chúng ta đơn giản đôi chút - lịch sử, với văn hóa âm nhạc, tranh ảnh, bạn biết đó, mọi thứ. Làm sao mọi cái đó được dạy cho lớp trẻ? Dĩ nhiên lịch sử là chuyện về con người. Loài người, con người trải qua mọi thứ đau khổ, nhiều loại bịnh tật chiến tranh, niềm tin và giáo điều tôn giáo, hành hạ, điều tra, tra tấn, nhân danh Thượng đế, nhân danh hoà bình, nhân danh ý hệ. Và làm sao mọi thứ đó được dạy cho lớp trẻ? Đó là vấn đề.
6:10	If it is the story of mankind, the story of human beings, then both the educator and the young are the human beings. It is their story! ?ot the story of kings and wars, it is their story. That is, the story of themselves! Right? Now can the educator help the student to understand the story of himself? I don't know if you are following all this. The story, the past of which he is the result. Right? So can the educator help the student to understand himself because he is the story. That is the problem. Would you agree to that?	Nếu đó là câu chuyện loài người, chuyện con người, mà cả nhà giáo dục và lớp trẻ là con người. Là chuyện của họ! Không phải về vua và chiến tranh, chuyện của họ. Tức, chuyện về chính họ! Phải không? Vậy nhà giáo dục có thể giúp học sinh hiểu chuyện về chính chúng? Không biết bạn có theo kịp không. Câu chuyện, quá khứ mà kết quả là hắn. Phải không? Vậy nhà giáo có thể giúp học sinh hiểu chính mình bởi chúng là câu chuyện. Đó là vấn đề. Bạn đồng ý chứ?
7:33	That is, if you are the educator and I am the student, how would you help me as a young student understand the whole nature and structure of myself? Myself being the whole of humanity. My brain is the result of many million years. How would you help me to understand myself, the story, the past - which is all in me - the violence, the competition the aggressiveness, the brutality, the violence, the cruelty, the fear, the pleasure, occasional joy and that slight perfume of love. How will you help me to understand all this? Which means the educator must also understand this. He is also understanding himself - right? And so helping me, the student, to understand myself. So it is a communication between the teacher and myself and, in that process of communication, he is understanding himself and helping me to understand myself. I wonder if you see. It's not that the teacher or the educator must first understand himself and then teach - that would take the rest of his life, perhaps - but in the relationship between the educator and the person to be educated there is a relationship of mutual investigation. Can this be done with the young child, with the young student? And in what manner would you set about it? That's the question, right?	Tức, nếu bạn là nhà giáo và tôi là học sinh, làm sao bạn giúp tôi, học sinh trẻ, hiểu toàn bộ bản chất và cấu trúc chính tôi? Chính tôi là toàn thể nhân loại. Não tôi là kết quả của nhiều triệu năm. Làm sao bạn giúp tôi hiểu chính tôi, câu chuyện, quá khứ - toàn bộ trong tôi - bạo lực, tranh đua hung hăng, bạo tàn, bạo lực, độc ác, sợ hãi, thú vui, niềm vui hiếm hoi và thoáng hương yêu thương. Làm sao bạn giúp tôi hiểu hết? Nghĩa là nhà giáo dục cũng phải hiểu nó. Anh ta cũng hiểu chính mình - phải không? Và giúp tôi, học sinh, hiểu chính tôi. Vậy đó là trao đổi giữa thầy giáo và tôi và, trong tiến trình trao đổi ấy, anh ta hiểu chính mình và giúp tôi hiểu chính tôi. Bạn có thấy vậy không. Không phải thầy giáo hay nhà giáo dục phải hiểu mình trước rồi dạy lại - đó có lẽ mất cả đời anh ta - mà trong quan hệ giữa nhà giáo dục và người được dạy có sự quan hệ về tìm tòi hỗ tương. Đó có thể được làm với trẻ, với học sinh trẻ? Và cách nào bạn bắt đầu? Đó là vấn đề, phải không?
10:29	Are you interested in this? Q: Yes.	Bạn thích chứ? Q: Vâng.
10:33	K: How would you, as a parent, go into this? How would you help your child, your boy or a girl, to understand the whole nature and structure of his mind, of his desires, of his fears - you follow? - the whole momentum of life? Don't look at me! (Laughter) How would you deal with it? Don't say immediately we must have love and all that kind of stuff. But it is a great problem and are we prepared as parents and teachers to bring about a new generation of people? That's what is implied. A totally different generation of people, totally different mind and heart. Are we prepared for that? If you are a parent would you give up, for the sake of your daughter and son, drink, cigarettes, pot - you know, the whole drug culture - and see that both the parent and the child are good human beings?	K: Bạn, bậc cha mẹ, làm sao đi sâu? Làm sao bạn giúp đỡ con cái, trai hay gái, hiểu toàn bộ bản chất và cấu trúc của trí óc, của dục vọng, sợ hãi - kịp không? - cả quán tính của đời sống? Đừng nhìn tôi! (Cười) Làm sao bạn xử sự với nó? Đừng vội nói chúng ta phải yêu thương và mọi thứ lộn xộn. Nhưng đó là vấn đề lớn và chúng ta, như cha mẹ và thầy giáo có sửa soạn tạo ra thế hệ con người mới? Đó là việc hàm ý. Một thế hệ con người hoàn toàn khác, trí óc tâm hồn hoàn toàn khác. Chúng ta có sửa soạn cho việc ấy? Nếu là cha mẹ, vì lợi ích con cái, bạn có từ bỏ rượu, thuốc lá, cần sa - toàn bộ con đường ma tuý - và nhìn thấy cả cha mẹ lẫn con cái đều là người tốt?
12:33	The word 'good' means well-fitting, psychologically without any friction, well-fitting like a good door. You understand? Like a good motor. But also good means whole, not broken up, not fragmented. So are we, the elder people, prepared to bring about through education a good human being, a human being who is not afraid. Afraid of his neighbour, afraid of the future, afraid of so many, many things, disease, poverty - fear. And also are we prepared, in the search of the good or in establishing the good, prepared or help the child and ourselves to be... integral. Integrity. The word 'integrity' means to be whole. And integrity also means to say what you mean and hold it, not say one thing and do something else. Integrity implies honesty. And are we prepared for that? Can we be honest if we have got any illusions, any romantic, speculative ideas, or ideals. If we have strong beliefs, can we be honest? You may be honest to the belief but that doesn't imply integrity. Are we prepared for all this? Or we bring children into the world, spoil them till they are 2 or 3 and then throw them to the wolves. Right? Prepare them for war - you know what is happening in the world.	Chữ 'tốt' trong nghĩa đúng đắn, về tâm lý, không va chạm, đúng đắn như cánh cửa tốt. Hiểu không? Như máy móc tốt. Nhưng tốt cũng nghĩa toàn thể, không vỡ vụn, không manh mún. Vậy, người lớn chúng ta có sửa soạn qua giáo dục, tạo ra con người tốt, người không sợ hãi. Sợ hãi láng giềng, sợ tương lai, sợ quá nhiều thứ, bịnh, nghèo - sợ hãi. Và chúng ta có sửa soạn, khi tìm cái tốt hay xây dựng cái tốt, có sửa soạn hay giúp trẻ và chính mình thành...toàn thể. Toàn thể. Chữ 'toàn thể' là toàn bộ. Và toàn thể cũng nghĩa bạn nói và giữ lời, không nói này mà làm nọ. Toàn thể hàm ý chân thành. Và chúng ta có sửa soạn việc đó? Có thể chân thành không khi có ảo tưởng, ý niệm huyền hoặc hay lý tưởng. Nếu có niềm tin mạnh mẽ, có thể chân thành? Bạn có thể chân thật với niềm tin nhưng đó không hàm ý toàn thể. Có sửa soạn cho mọi cái đó? Hay đem con cái vào đời, làm hỏng chúng đến tuổi 2 hay 3 và rồi ném chúng cho chó sói. Phải không? Chuẩn bị chúng cho chiến tranh - bạn biết việc xảy ra trên đời.
16:11	That's why history has not taught human beings. How many mothers must have cried, their sons being killed in wars - you understand? And yet we are incapable of stopping this monstrous movement of killing each other.	Đó là lý do lịch sử không dạy con người. Bao nhiêu bà mẹ phải kêu gào, con họ bị giết trong chiến tranh - hiểu không? Và vậy mà chúng ta không thể dừng vận hành khủng khiếp giết chóc nhau ấy.
16:41	So if you are to teach the young one must have in oneself this sense of... the demand of the good. Good is not an ideal, you understand? If we translate the good, which is to be whole, to have integrity, to have no fear, not to be confused. These are not ideals, they are facts. You understand? So can we be factual! And so bring about a good human being through education. If we say, yes, then what will the parent - and you - do about it? You understand? What is your responsibility? Because probably you have children. If you have, then what? You understand the problem?	Vậy nếu phải dạy cho lớp trẻ bạn phải có trong chính mình cảm giác... đòi hỏi cái tốt. Tốt không phải lý tưởng, hiểu không? Nếu diễn giải cái tốt, nó là toàn thể, là tổng thể, không sợ hãi, không rối loạn. Đó không phải lý tưởng, là thực tế. Hiểu không? Vậy chúng ta có thể thực tế! Và vậy tạo ra con người tốt qua giáo dục. Nếu nói, vâng, thì bậc cha mẹ - và bạn - sẽ làm gì? Bạn hiểu không? Bạn trách nhiệm gì? Bởi có thể bạn có con cái. Nếu có thì gì nào? Bạn hiểu vấn đề không?
18:15	So one asks, do we really want a different culture, a different human being with a mind that is not confused, that has no fear, that has this quality of integrity? I hope I have answered that question.	Vậy hỏi, chúng ta có thực sự muốn văn hóa khác, con người khác với trí óc không rối loạn, không sợ hãi, có đặc tính toàn thể? Hy vọng tôi đã trả lời câu hỏi.
18:52	Second question: 'Why is knowledge always incomplete? When one is observing, is one aware that one is observing or only aware of the thing being observed? Does awareness lead to analysis? What is psychological knowledge?'	Câu thứ hai: 'Tại sao kiến thức luôn bất toàn? Khi quan sát, bạn có biết mình đang quan sát hay chỉ biết vật được quan sát? Nhận biết đưa đến phân tích? Kiến thức tâm lý là gì?'
19:27	I'll read it again. 'Why is knowledge - as you said - always incomplete? When one is observing, is one aware that one is observing or only aware of the thing being observed? Does awareness lead to analysis? What is psychological knowledge?'	Tôi sẽ đọc lại. 'Tại sao kiến thức - bạn nói - luôn bất toàn? Khi quan sát, bạn có biết mình đang quan sát hay chỉ biết vật được quan sát? Nhận biết đưa đến phân tích? Kiến thức tâm lý là gì?'
20:06	Whom do you expect to answer these questions? (Laughter) The Delphic Oracle (laughter), the highly elevated priests, the astrologers, the soothsayers, the reading of tea leaves! (Laughter) Whom do you expect to answer this question? But if you are not expecting anyone to answer this question, since you have put this question, can we talk it over together? You understand? Talk it over together, not that the speaker will answer it and then you accept it or deny it and go home dissatisfied, saying, 'I have wasted my morning'. But if we could, seriously, talk over these questions so that we both penetrate into the problem. Then it will be your own answer. Not the answer of someone who has answered these questions and you have heard, it is not yours then. You understand? Like a man having cancer. You can talk about cancer - who hasn't got it. But if you have got it you are involved in it, there is pain, there is anxiety, there is fear.	Bạn mong ai trả lời mấy câu này? (Cười) Tiên tri Delphy (cười), thầy tu cao cấp nhất, chiêm tinh gia, thầy bói, đọc lá trà! (Cười) Bạn mong ai trả lời câu này? Nhưng nếu bạn không mong ai trả lời câu này, bởi bạn đặt câu hỏi, thì chúng ta có thể thảo luận chứ? Bạn hiểu không? Cùng thảo luận, không phải người nói trả lời và rồi bạn chấp nhận hay không rồi về nhà không hài lòng, nói 'tôi đã phí buổi sáng'. Nhưng nếu có thể nghiêm túc thảo luận câu hỏi để chúng ta cùng đào sâu vấn đề. Rồi sẽ là lời đáp của bạn. Không phải lời đáp của ai đã trả lời câu hỏi và bạn nghe, nên không phải của bạn. Hiểu không? Như người có ung thư. Bạn có thể nói về ung thư - bạn không bị. Nhưng nếu bạn bị, bạn dính trong đó, có đau đớn, lo âu, sợ hãi.
22:25	So can we talk over these questions, all of them, not just this one but also the previous question. 'Why is knowledge always incomplete, as you said?' What is knowledge? What do we mean when we say, 'I know'? Please go into it with me, together, slowly. When I say, 'I know mathematics' or 'I know medicine, surgery', and also I know... through experience, gathered some facts. So when we say, I know, we know, what do we mean by that? You are following my question? To know. You may say I know my wife or my husband or my girl, girlfriend, or boy. Do you really know them? Can you ever know them? Please follow this step by step. Or you have, as we said the other day, an image about them. Is the image the fact? You understand what I am saying? Are we meeting each other? So the word 'know' is very, very limited. Right? And the knowledge that has been acquired through science not only the technological side of it but also scientists are trying to find out through matter what is beyond, what is the origin of all this. And they have accumulated great deal of knowledge and what is beyond they have never been able to find out so far. So knowledge, according to science, is limited, is narrow, therefore there is knowledge and ignorance always going together. The ignorance which is, not knowing, and the knowing, they both go together always. Right? I think that is fairly clear.	Vậy có thể thảo luận mấy câu hỏi, tất cả, không chỉ câu này mà cả câu trước. 'Tại sao kiến thức luôn bất toàn, bạn nói?' Kiến thức là gì? Ý chúng ta là gì khi nói, 'tôi biết'? Hãy cùng tìm hiểu với tôi, chầm chậm. Khi nói, 'tôi biết toán' hay 'tôi biết y học, giải phẫu'. và cũng biết... qua kinh nghiệm, gom lại vài sự kiện. Vậy khi nói, tôi biết, chúng ta biết, là ý gì? Bạn theo kịp câu hỏi không? Biết. Bạn có thể nói tôi biết vợ hay chồng tôi hay bạn gái, hoặc bạn trai. Thực bạn biết họ không? Bạn có thể biết họ ư? Hãy theo dõi từng bước. Hay bạn có, như đã nói hôm nọ, hình ảnh về họ. Hình ảnh là thực tế? Bạn hiểu lời tôi không? Chúng ta hiểu nhau chứ? Vậy chữ 'biết' rất giới hạn. Phải không? Và kiến thức đạt được qua khoa học chỉ là về mặt kỹ thuật nhưng nhà khoa học cũng cố tìm tòi qua vật chất cái thế giới khác, nguồn gốc mọi thứ là gì. Và họ tích luỹ vô số kiến thức và đến nay họ chưa hề tìm ra thế giới khác ấy. Vậy kiến thức, theo khoa học, là giới hạn, hạn hẹp, vì vậy kiến thức và dốt nát luôn đi chung. Dốt nát, là không biết, và biết, chúng luôn đi cùng nhau. Phải không? Tôi nghĩ vậy là khá rõ.
25:50	But to answer a little bit more further, which is: scientists say through matter they will find that which may be beyond. We, human beings, are matter. You understand? Why don't we go through this rather than through that? You understand what I am saying? You follow what I am saying? Are we talking together? Because if the mind can go through itself, the possibility of coming upon that which is the origin of all things is much more likely than the other. So to know oneself is always limited. I don't know if you follow this. If I say, I must know myself, I can study psychology, I can discuss with the psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, psycho-biologists and so on, so on, so on. But it is always limited. Whereas if I understand myself, penetrate into this entity called myself there is the possibility of going infinitely beyond which we are going to discuss and perhaps we may be able to go beyond during the next talks because it is a very important thing. Because otherwise life has very little meaning - you understand? - naturally. Our life is pleasure, pain, you know the whole cycle of it, reward and punishment, that's the pattern in which we live. And that pattern has created the knowledge which psychologically we have acquired. That knowledge which we have acquired created the pattern in which we are caught. Right? So knowledge, whether it is biological, medicine, science, must always be limited. That's simple. Right?	Nhưng để trả lời thêm chút nữa, tức là: nhà khoa học nói qua vật chất họ sẽ tìm ra cái có thể là thế giới khác. Con người là vật chất. Bạn hiểu không? Tại sao không vượt qua này hơn là vượt qua kia? Bạn hiểu lời tôi nói chứ? Bạn theo kịp lời tôi không? Chúng ta cùng nói chuyện chứ? Bởi nếu trí óc có thể vượt qua chính nó, khả năng nắm bắt nguồn cội của mọi vật có lẽ nhiều hơn việc khác. Tôi không biết... Vậy biết mình luôn giới hạn. Không biết bạn theo kịp không. Nếu nói, tôi phải biết tôi, tôi có thể nghiên cứu tâm học, tôi có thể thảo luận với nhà tâm lý học, phân tích tâm lý, nhà tâm lý trị liệu, tâm lý sinh học, v.v.. Nhưng vẫn giới hạn. Trong khi nếu tôi hiểu tôi, đào sâu thực thể gọi là tôi thì có khả năng vô tận vào thế giới khác mà chúng ta sẽ thảo luận và có thể chúng ta vào thế giới khác trong buổi tới bởi đó là điều rất quan trọng. Bởi ngược lại đời sống quá ít ý nghĩa - hiểu không? - tự nhiên thôi. Cuộc đời là thú vui, đau khổ, bạn biết vòng lẩn quẩn, thưởng và phạt, đó là khuôn mẫu chúng ta sống. Và khuôn mẫu ấy tạo kiến thức chúng ta nắm nó về tâm lý. Kiến thức chúng ta nắm ấy tạo khuôn mẫu chúng ta kẹt trong đó. Phải không? Vậy kiến thức, dù là sinh học, y học, khoa học, luôn phải giới hạn. Đơn giản. Phải không?
28:47	'When one is observing, is one aware that one is observing or only aware of the thing being observed? Does the awareness lead to analysis?' First of all let us talk over together what do we mean by observing. There is visual observation - the tree - the hearing not only hearing with the ear but also hearing inwardly. You follow? You know this. So when we observe do we really observe at all? Or we observe with the word. You understand? Are you following this? That is, I observe that thing and I say, 'tree' so I observe with the word. I don't know if you are following this. Right, sir? There is an observation with the word. So can we find out to observe without the word? You understand what I'm saying? Right? Are we proceeding together? So the word has become all important rather than the seeing. Right? We observe, if we have a wife or a husband, with all the memory, pictures, sensations, the irritations and so on, of each other, so we never observe!	'Khi quan sát, bạn có biết mình đang quan sát hay chỉ biết vật được quan sát? Nhận biết đưa đến phân tích?' Trước hết hãy cùng thảo luận ý chúng ta quan sát là gì. Có quan sát thị giác - cây cối - nghe không chỉ nghe bằng tai mà nghe cả bên trong. Kịp không? Bạn biết mà. Vậy khi quan sát chúng ta có thực sự quan sát? Hay chúng ta quan sát với từ ngữ. Bạn hiểu không? Theo kịp không? Tức là, tôi quan sát vật này và nói, 'cây' vậy tôi quan sát với từ ngữ. Không biết bạn theo kịp không. Phải không? Có sự quan sát với từ ngữ. Vậy có thể tìm ra quan sát không từ ngữ? Bạn hiểu tôi nói gì không? Phải không? Cùng tiếp tục chứ? Vậy từ ngữ thành ra quá quan trọng hơn nhìn. Phải không? Chúng ta quan sát, nếu có vợ hay chồng, với mọi ký ức, hình ảnh, cảm giác, nổi giận v.v.., của mỗi người, nên không hề quan sát!
31:18	So, next step is: can we observe a person with whom we have lived, without the image, without the picture, without the idea? Can you do it? Perhaps we are able to perceive that thing which we call the tree without the word, that's fairly easy. If you have gone into it, that's fairly easy. But to observe a person with whom you have lived and observe without the accumulation of memory about that person. If you have gone into it, if you are interested in it... No, first of all, this observation through the image, through the picture, through the sensations and all the rest of it, through this accumulated memory, is no relationship at all. It is a relationship of one picture with another picture and that's what we call relationship. But when you examine it closely it is not relationship. It is my idea and your idea.	Vậy, bước tiếp là: có thể quan sát người mà chúng ta cùng sống mà không có hình, không ảnh, không ý niệm? Bạn có thể làm? Có lẽ chúng ta có thể nhận biết vật chúng ta gọi là cây mà không từ ngữ, đó khá dễ. Nếu bạn tìm hiểu, đó khá dễ. Nhưng quan sát một người chúng ta cùng sống và quan sát không có tích chứa ký ức về người đó. Nếu bạn tìm hiểu, nếu bạn thích thú... Không, trước hết, quan sát qua hình, qua ảnh, qua cảm giác, v.v.. qua ký ức tích chứa, là không quan hệ gì hết. Đó là quan hệ của hình này với ảnh kia và chúng ta gọi đó là quan hệ. Nhưng khi bạn xem xét kỹ đó không phải quan hệ. Đó là ý niệm của bạn và của tôi.
33:15	So can we, in the observation, not make an abstraction of what we observe as an idea? You are following all this? Don't be puzzled, sirs. You are not used to all this, are you? So this is what we mean by psychological knowledge. That is, I have built up psychologically great deal of information about my wife if I have a wife, or a girlfriend. I have built up this knowledge about her, correctly or incorrectly, depending on my sensitivity, depending on my ambition, greed, envy and all that, depending on my self-centred activity. You are following all this? So that knowledge is preventing actual observation of the person which is a living thing. Right? So I never want to meet that living thing because I am afraid. It is much safer to have an image about that person rather than to see the living thing. Right? You are following this?	Vậy có thể, khi quan sát, không làm trừu tượng vật quan sát như ý niệm? Bạn theo kịp không? Đừng bối rối. Bạn không quen việc này, phải không? Vậy đây là cái chúng ta nói kiến thức tâm lý. Tức là, tôi dựng lên về tâm lý quá nhiều thông tin về vợ nếu tôi có vợ, hay bạn gái. Tôi dựng lên kiến thức về cô ta, đúng hay sai, tuỳ theo cảm xúc tôi, tuỳ theo tham vọng, tham lam, ghen tị, v.v.. tuỳ theo hoạt động vị ngã của tôi. Bạn theo kịp không? Vậy là kiến thức ngăn cản quan sát thực tế về con người là vật sống động. Phải không? Vậy tôi không hề muốn gặp vật sống động bởi tôi sợ. Quá an toàn có hình ảnh về người đó hơn là nhìn vật sống. Phải không? Bạn theo kịp không?
35:13	So my psychological knowledge is going to prevent pure observation. So can one be free of that? You follow? Can the machinery that builds these images come to an end? You understand my question? Then you will say, 'How am I to end it?' Right? 'I have got an image about my friend - or whatever it is - and it is there, like a tremendous fact, like a stone round my neck. How am I to throw it away?' Right? Is the stone - the image - (laughs) round one's neck different from the observer? I am going slowly into this. Is that image, that weight round your neck, is that different from the observer who says, 'I have an image'? I wonder if you catch. You understand my question, sir? Meet me, sir, let's talk together, move.	Vậy kiến thức tâm lý sẽ ngăn cản thuần quan sát. Vậy bạn có thể bỏ nó? Kịp không? Máy xây dựng hình ảnh có thể dừng lại? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Rồi bạn sẽ nói,'Làm sao dừng?' Phải không? 'Tôi có hình ảnh về bạn bè - hay gì gì - và nó đó, như một thực tế dữ dội, như hòn đá đeo cổ. Làm sao tôi quăng đi?' Phải không? Hòn đá - hình ảnh - (cười) đeo cổ bạn có khác với người quan sát? Tôi sẽ từ từ đến đó. Hình ảnh, vật nặng đeo cổ bạn, có khác với người quan sát nói, 'tôi có hình ảnh'? Không biết bạn hiểu không. Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Nào, cùng thảo luận đi.
37:14	Is the observer who says, 'I have the image' and says, 'How am I to get rid of it?' is that observer different from the thing he has observed? You follow? Obviously not. Right? So the observer is the image-maker. I wonder if you see that. Right? Do you meet this?	Người quan sát nói, 'tôi có hình ảnh' và nói, 'Làm sao bỏ nó?' người quan sát có khác với vật hắn quan sát? Kịp không? Dĩ nhiên không. Phải không? Vậy người quan sát là kẻ tạo hình ảnh. Không biết bạn có thấy vậy. Phải không? Bạn hiểu không?
38:00	So what is the observer? Who is this observer that is making the image and then separating himself from the image and then saying, 'What am I to do about it?' You understand? That is the way we live. That's the pattern of our action and that's our conditioning to which we are so accustomed, we so naturally accept. So we are saying something entirely different which is: the observer is the observed. Let me go into it a little more. I observe the tree but I am not the tree - thank God! That would be too stupid to say, 'I am the tree' or I have identified myself with the tree, and so on, so on. All this process of identification is still the observer trying to be something, or become something. So we have to enquire into what is the observer, who is the observer. The observer is the result of all the past knowledge. Right? His experience, his knowledge, his memories, his fears, his anxieties - the past. So the observer is always living in the past. If you have noticed, you can watch it in yourself. And he is modifying himself all the time, meeting the present but still rooted in the past. Right? So there is this movement of time, which is the past modifying itself in the present, going on to the future. This is the momentum or the movement of time. I won't go into that for the moment.	Vậy người quan sát là gì? Ai là người quan sát tạo hình ảnh và phân chia hắn với hình ảnh rồi nói, 'Tôi phải làm gì đây?' Hiểu không? Chúng ta sống vậy đó. Đó là khuôn chúng ta hành động và là qui định chúng ta quen thuộc, chấp nhận quá tự nhiên. Đây chúng ta nói điều hoàn toàn khác biệt là: người quan sát là vật quan quan sát. Hãy để tôi đi sâu một chút. Tôi quan sát cây nhưng tôi không là cây - lạy Trời! Thật quá ngốc khi nói, 'tôi là cây' hay đồng hóa tôi với cây, v.v.. Mọi tiến trình đồng hóa vẫn là người quan sát cố gắng là gì, hay trở thành gì. Vậy phải tìm hiểu người quan sát là gì, ai là người quan sát. Người quan sát là kết quả của kiến thức cũ. Phải không? Kinh nghiệm, kiến thức, ký ức, sợ hãi, lo âu - quá khứ. Vậy người quan sát luôn sống trong quá khứ. Nếu để ý, có thể quan sát nó trong chính bạn. Và hắn luôn tự canh cải, gặp hiện tại nhưng vẫn kẹt quá khứ. Phải không? Vậy, có vận hành của thời gian, là qua khứ tự canh cải ở hiện tại, tiếp tục đến tương lai. Đó là quán tính hay vận hành thời gian. Tôi không đi sâu lúc này.
40:34	So when we observe, we are observing through the image which we have created about that thing, or that person. Can we observe that thing without the word and can we observe the person without the image? That means can the observer be absent in observation. Right? Do you get the point? Are you working with ? When you look at a person - of course, if it is a stranger you have no picture or you say, 'Oh, he is a foreigner, throw him out' (laughter). But when you look at somebody whom you know fairly intimately the more intimately you know them, the more the image. Can you look at that person without the image? Which means, can you look at that person without the observer? You get it? I wonder if you... That is pure observation.	Vậy khi quan sát, chúng ta quan sát qua hình ảnh mà chúng ta đã tạo về vật đó, hay người đó. Có thể quan sát vật mà không từ ngữ và có thể quan sát người mà không hình ảnh? Nghĩa là người quan sát vắng mặt khi quan sát. Phải không? Bạn nắm điểm này không? Bạn đang làm việc chứ? Khi bạn nhìn một người - dĩ nhiên, nếu người lạ bạn không có hình ảnh hay nói, 'Ồ, hắn là người lạ, đuổi hắn đi' (cười). Nhưng khi nhìn ai đó bạn biết khá rõ càng thân thiết hình ảnh càng đậm. Có thể nhìn người ấy mà không hình ảnh? Tức là, có thể nhìn người ấy mà không người quan sát? Bạn hiểu không? Không biết bạn... Đó là thuần quan sát.
42:00	So: 'Does this awareness lead to analysis?'. Obviously not. You understand the question? That is, what do we mean by analysis? Which is to analyse. Who is analysing? You understand? I am analysing myself - right, I'll go into it. I am analysing myself, or the analyst is analysing me. When I analyse myself, who is the analyser? You are following this? Is the analyser different from the thing he is analysing: me, - you understand? - is the analyser different from me? Oh, come on sir. Obviously not. You see... In our talks and in these answers and questions we are eliminating the very structure of conflict -you understand? - between human beings. The structure of conflict exists as long as there is division. The division in myself which creates the division outside. There is a division in myself because I say I am a Hindu and identification with that image of being a Hindu gives me security so I hold on to that. Which is nonsense, there is no security in an image! And the other fellow does the same, he is a Muslim, or an Arab, or a Jew, he does the same. So we are at each other's throats. So the analyser is the analysed, you understand? So what happens then? If, when the observer psychologically is the observed and therefore no conflict - you understand? - because there is no division. If you see this clearly, that is: our minds have been trained, educated to have this division. I and the thing are different. I, with my anger, with my jealousy. Jealousy is different from me therefore I must do something about it, control it, suppress it, go beyond it - I am acting upon it. But when jealousy, anxiety, is me what has happened? You understand my question? There is the elimination of conflict. Then what happens? Go on sir. I don't want... Go on, what happens? If you are actually doing this as we are talking when you end the division between the two, what happens? When anxiety is me, I am anxiety. Obviously. Then what takes place? Don't wait for me to answer it.	Vậy: 'Nhận biết đưa đến phân tích?'. Dĩ nhiên không. Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Tức là, ý bạn phân tích là gì? Tức là phân tích. Ai phân tích? Bạn hiểu không? Tôi phân tích tôi - đúng, tôi sẽ đi sâu. Tôi phân tích tôi, hay người phân tích phân tích tôi. Khi phân tích tôi, ai là người phân tích? Bạn theo kịp không? Người phân tích có khác với vật hắn phân tích: tôi, - hiểu không? - người phân tích có khác tôi? Ồ, nào. Dĩ nhiên không. Bạn xem... Các buổi nói chuyện và hỏi đáp này chúng ta loại bỏ cấu trúc xung đột - hiểu không? - giữa con người. Cấu trúc xung đột hiện diện khi còn phân chia. Phân chia trong tôi tạo ra phân chia bên ngoài. Có phân chia trong tôi bởi tôi nói tôi là Hin đu và đồng hóa với hình ảnh là Hin đu cho tôi an toàn nên tôi ôm giữ nó. Thật vô nghĩa, không có an toàn trong hình ảnh! Và anh kia cũng làm thế, anh ta là Hồi, hay Ả rập, Do thái, cũng làm thế. Nên chúng ta xiết cổ nhau. Vậy người phân tích là vật phân tích, hiểu không? Rồi việc gì xảy ra? Nếu, về tâm lý khi người quan sát là vật quan sát thì không có xung đột - hiểu không? - bởi không có phân chia. Nếu bạn thấy rõ, tức là: trí óc bị rèn luyện, giáo dục để có phân chia ấy. Tôi và vật khác biệt. Tôi, với giận dữ, ghen tị. Ghen tị khác tôi nên tôi phải làm gì đó với nó, kiểm soát, loại bỏ, vượt qua - tôi tác động lên nó. Nhưng khi ghen tị, lo âu, là tôi điều gì xảy ra? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Có xoá sạch xung đột. Rồi gì xảy ra? Tiếp đi. Tôi không muốn... Tiếp, gì xảy ra? Nếu bạn thực sự làm nó khi chúng ta nói khi bạn dứt phân chia hai cái, điều gì xảy ra? Khi lo âu là tôi, tôi là lo âu. Dĩ nhiên. Rồi gì xảy ra? Đừng đợi tôi trả lời.
46:22	First of all - may I go on, because... - first of all, the pattern has been broken. Right? The pattern which is the conditioning of my mind, that pattern has been broken. Right? Which means what? The ending of something, - right? - is the beginning of something else! I wonder if you capture this. If I break the pattern - if the pattern is broken, the ending of the struggle - what then takes place? A new momentum takes place, you follow? A new movement takes place. Right sir? Don't be sceptical. If you do this you will find out. If you apply your mind, your energy, go into this. You can observe the tree and the word 'tree' interferes. The moment you see that, you say: tree, a butterfly, a deer, the mountain, the river - you follow? - immediate reaction. That reaction can be observed and perhaps put aside and just to observe the tree, the beauty, the line of it - you follow? - the grace of it, the quality of it.	Trước hết - tôi xin tiếp tục, bởi... trước hết, khuôn mẫu bị vỡ. Phải không? Khuôn mẫu là qui định của trí óc, khuôn bị vỡ. Phải không? Vậy là sao? Chấm dứt gì đó, - phải không? - là khởi đầu việc gì khác! Không biết bạn hiểu không. Nếu tôi phá vỡ khuôn - nếu khuôn bị vỡ, chấm dứt tranh đấu - thì điều gì xảy ra? Một quán tính mới xảy ra, kịp không? Quán tính mới xảy ra. Phải không? Đừng nghi ngờ. Nếu làm thế bạn sẽ tìm ra. Nếu bạn dùng năng lực, trí óc, đào sâu nó. Bạn có thể quan sát cây cối và chữ 'cây' xen vào. Lúc bạn nhìn nó, bạn nói: cây, bướm, nai, núi, sông - bạn theo kịp không? - phản ứng tức thì. Phản ứng ấy có thể được quan sát và để sang bên và chỉ quan sát cây, vẻ đẹp, đường nét - kịp không? - vẻ duyên dáng, đặc tính.
48:15	Now to do the same with the person with whom you have lived, with whom you have been intimate. Not to have a single image about that person. Then relationship is something extraordinary, isn't it? I wonder if you see.	Giờ cũng làm thế với người bạn cùng sống, với người bạn thân thiết. Không có hình ảnh gì về người ấy. Rồi quan hệ là điều cực kỳ lạ lùng, phải không? Không biết bạn có thấy vậy.
48:39	No? You don't do this, that's why you don't find out. We are so anchored in our own past, in our own conditioning in our own pattern. God only knows how you are going to break it. Right? It has to be broken! It is like a man living in an illusion and calling that reality.	Không à? Bạn không làm, đó là lý do bạn không tìm ra. Chúng ta kẹt cứng trong quá khứ, trong qui định trong khuôn mẫu. Chỉ Trời biết làm sao bạn sẽ phá vỡ. Phải không? Phải bị phá vỡ! Nó như người sống trong ảo tưởng và gọi đó là thực tại.
49:17	Q: Sir, if the observer is the observed how can you ever go beyond that? You can't make yourself step out of that.	Q: Nếu người quan sát là vật quan sát làm sao có thể vượt qua nó? Ngài không thể bắt mình bước ra.
49:35	Q: If the observer is the one observed the one observing is also what is observed. How can you ever get out of that? Because ... (inaudible)	Q: Nếu người quan sát là vật quan sát người đang quan sát cũng là vật được quan sát. Làm sao có thể bước ra? Bởi... (không nghe được)
49:57	K: Sir, just a minute sir. Are you actually - not you personally I am talking, I am not being personal - is one aware of the fact of this, fact, not the idea of it? The fact that the observer has the image about the person whom he is observing, his wife and so on. Is he aware of that fact, of this division? And is he aware that this division is created by the image which he has made about him or her? Right? Are you aware of this fact? Or am I telling you of the fact and therefore you accept it? Therefore it is not actual, it is just an idea. But if you say, yes, this fact is so. That is, there is the image about her or him, I am aware of that image, that picture, that idea, then the next is: is the picture, the image the actual person that is living with you? Obviously not. So who is creating this image? You follow? If you go sequentially the answer is very simple. You understand?	K: Đợi chút đã. Bạn có thực sự - tôi không nói cá nhân bạn, tôi không là cá nhân - bạn có nhận thức thực tế ấy, thực tế, không phải ý niệm? Thực tế rằng người quan sát có hình ảnh về người mà hắn đang quan sát, vợ, v.v.. Hắn có nhận thức thực tế ấy, phân chia ấy? Và hắn có nhận thức rằng phân chia tạo bởi hình ảnh mà hắn đã làm về cô hay anh ấy? Phải không? Bạn có nhận thức thực tế ấy? Hay tôi nói bạn về thực tế ấy và vì vậy bạn chấp nhận? Vậy thì không thực tế, chỉ là ý niệm. Nhưng nếu bạn nói, vâng, thực tế vậy. Tức là, có hình ảnh về cô hay anh ta, Tôi nhận thức hình ảnh ấy, ý niệm ấy, rồi thì kế tiếp: hình ảnh là người thực sống với bạn? Dĩ nhiên không. Vậy ai tạo hình ảnh? Kịp không? Nếu bạn đi từng bước câu trả lời rất đơn giản. Hiểu không?
51:55	So, sir, first observe the tree, see whether you can see it without the word. When you see the thing called rose can you look at that flower without naming it? You understand, sir? Test it out! Then find out if you have an image about a person. Now wait a minute. You have an image about me, haven't you? Because the papers write about it, or some silly book. You follow? You have an image about me. So are you listening through the image, through the picture, through the articles you have read, or the books? Or are you listening directly without the image? You understand? Oh, come on, sir.	Vậy, trước hết, quan sát cây, xem bạn có thể nhìn nó mà không từ ngữ. Khi nhìn vật gọi là hoa hồng bạn có thể nhìn hoa ấy mà không đặt tên? Hiểu không? Thử đi! Rồi tìm xem bạn có chăng hình ảnh về một người. Đợi chút. Bạn có hình ảnh về tôi, phải không? Bởi báo chí viết về đó, hay sách ngớ ngẩn nào. Kịp không? Bạn có hình ảnh về tôi. Vậy bạn có nghe qua hình, qua ảnh ấy, qua cột báo bạn đã đọc, hay sách? Hay bạn nghe trực tiếp không hình ảnh? Hiểu không? Ồ, nào.
53:11	Q: Sir, what happens when the other person behaves to confirm your image?	Q: Điều gì xảy ra khi người khác hành xử để củng cố hình ảnh?
53:29	K: Suppose one's wife has no image about the husband what is the relationship then between the husband and the wife who has no image? You understand the question? That's what you are asking. You understand sir? You are violent and the other person is not violent then what is the relationship? Have you any relationship? - except perhaps sensory, sexual - have you any relationship? Obviously not. But you are living in the same house. (Laughter) So what will you do? Sir, you are all not facing, moving with facts, you see, that's why, you are living with ideas, that's the difficulty in this matter.	K: Giả sử vợ không có hình ảnh về chồng thì quan hệ là gì giữa chồng và người vợ không có hình ảnh? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Bạn hỏi thế. Hiểu không? Bạn bạo lực và người kia thì không rồi thì quan hệ là gì? Bạn có quan hệ chứ? - có lẽ trừ cảm giác, nhục dục - bạn có quan hệ chứ? Dĩ nhiên không. Nhưng bạn sống cùng nhà. (Cười) Vậy bạn sẽ làm gì? Bạn không đối mặt, bỏ đi với thực tế, bạn xem, đó là lý do, bạn sống với ý niệm, đó là khó khăn trong vấn đề này.
54:43	All right, sir, let's go into it. My wife has no image about me. First of all, that's the most extraordinary way of living. You understand? In that perhaps there may be real profound love. She has no image about me but I have an image, pictures, ideas, all that in me, piling up. And we are living in the same house. What takes place? She is free, I am not. And I create the conflict, not she. Right? I want her to have an image about me because I am used to that, so I begin. A most destructive relationship goes on. Right? Till she says, enough. Does she divorce me? Go on sirs, this is your job, face it all. Leave me? Or her having no image of me has brought about a totally different atmosphere in the house. You understand sir? You have never done this, do test it out, sirs! There is a totally different... I am beginning to be aware - because she is immovable, you understand? - and I am moving all around. So I begin to see, when I meet something that is immovable something happens to me. Isn't it happening to you now? Oh, come on, sirs!	Được rồi, hãy tìm hiểu nó. Vợ không có hình ảnh về tôi. Trước hết, đó là lối sống lạ lùng nhất. Bạn hiểu không? Trong đó có thể có tình yêu thực sự sâu thẳm. Cô ấy không có hình ảnh về tôi nhưng tôi có, hình ảnh, ý niệm, mọi cái đầy trong tôi. Và chúng tôi sống chung nhà. Điều gì xảy ra? Cô ta tự do, tôi thì không. Và tôi tạo xung đột, không phải cô ta. Phải không? Tôi muốn cô ta có hình ảnh về tôi bởi tôi quen vậy, nên tôi bắt đầu. Một quan hệ phá hoại nhất xảy ra. Phải không? Đến lúc cô ta nói, đủ rồi. Cô ta ly dị tôi chứ? Tiếp đi, đó là việc bạn, giáp mặt nó. Bỏ tôi ư? Hay không có hình ảnh về tôi tạo ra bầu không khí hoàn toàn khác trong nhà. Bạn hiểu không? Bạn không hề làm thế, hãy thử đi! Có cái hoàn toàn khác... Tôi bắt đầu nhận ra - bởi cô ta không lay động, bạn hiểu không? - và tôi chạy lung tung. Vậy tôi bắt đầu thấy, khi tôi gặp cái không lay động gì đó xảy đến với tôi. Không xảy ra với bạn sao? Ồ, nào!
57:33	Sir, a man goes from one religion to another, one guru to another, one philosophy - you know - plays around, around, around, and another man says, I have been through all that, out, finished. He is immovable. You understand? So what happens? Test it out.	Có người vào đạo này sang đạo kia, thầy này sang thầy nọ, triết học này - bạn biết đó - chơi lòng vòng, và có anh nói, tôi đã trải qua hết rồi, bước ra, xong. Anh ta bất động. Bạn hiểu không? Vậy điều gì xảy ra? Thử xem.
58:04	Q: How to eliminate the image?	Q: Làm sao xóa hình ảnh?
58:11	K: How to eliminate the image. You see, you haven't understood. You can't eliminate the image because you are the image maker. Right? Do you see that? You have to eliminate yourself! (Laughter) Which is, your thought that has built up the image about yourself. I won't enter into the whole movement of thought because that requires a great... you know. There are too many questions, we will go into it when we talk.	K: Làm sao xóa hình ảnh. Bạn xem, bạn không hiểu. Bạn không thể xóa bởi bạn là người tạo hình ảnh. Phải không? Bạn thấy vậy chứ? Bạn phải xóa chính mình! (Cười) Tức là, suy nghĩ bạn dựng lên hình ảnh về chính bạn. Tôi không đi sâu toàn bộ vận hành suy nghĩ bởi đòi hỏi rất... bạn biết đó. Có quá nhiều câu hỏi, chúng ta sẽ đi sâu khi nói chuyện.
59:02	Third question: 'Doesn't thought originate as a defence against pain? The infant begins to think in order to separate itself from physical pain. Which comes first: is thought, which is psychological knowledge, the result of pain, or is pain the result of thought? How does one go beyond the defences developed in childhood?'	Câu thứ ba: 'Suy nghĩ không khởi đầu như rào chắn đau đớn ư? Đứa bé bắt đầu suy nghĩ để phân chia chính nó với đau đớn vật lý. Cái nào đến trước: suy nghĩ, tức kiến thức tâm lý, là kết quả của đau, hay đau là kết quả của suy nghĩ? Làm sao vượt qua rào chắn được phát triển từ bé?'
59:49	'Doesn't thought originate as a defence against pain? The infant begins to think in order to separate itself from physical pain. Which comes first: is thought, which is psychological knowledge, the result of pain, or is pain the result of thought? How does one go beyond the defences developed in childhood?'	'Suy nghĩ không khởi đầu như rào chắn đau đớn ư? Đứa bé bắt đầu suy nghĩ để phân chia chính nó với đau đớn vật lý. Cái nào đến trước: suy nghĩ, tức kiến thức tâm lý, là kết quả của đau, hay đau là kết quả của suy nghĩ? Làm sao vượt qua rào chắn được phát triển từ bé?'
1:00:31	Right? You have understood the question? What is the time, sir?	Phải không? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi chứ? Mấy giờ rồi?
1:00:39	Q: Five thirty. K: Oh Lord! You see sir how long one question, or two questions, take. You know really there is only one question. If you consider all these questions there is only one real question. What is that? Ask it, sir. One, if you had... please, careful, sir, some angel comes along and says you can ask only one question and it must be the real question - not how am I to get rich, who am I to marry, you follow? - but the real deep fundamental question.	Q: 5 giờ 30. K: Chà! Bạn xem một hay hai câu hỏi mất bao lâu. Thực sự bạn biết chỉ có một câu hỏi. Nếu bạn xem xét hết mấy câu ấy chỉ có một câu thực sự. Đó là gì? Hỏi đi. Một, nếu bạn có... này, cẩn thận, một thiên thần đến và nói bạn chỉ có thể hỏi một câu và phải là câu hỏi thực sự - không phải làm sao giàu, tôi sẽ cưới ai, kịp không? - mà là câu cơ bản sâu sắc thực sự.
1:01:48	Q: How to eliminate thought.	Q: Làm sao xóa suy nghĩ.
1:01:57	K: Who is the entity who says, 'How am I to' ... You are not...	K: Thực thể nào nói, 'Làm sao tôi' ... Bạn không...
1:02:04	Q: Who am I?	Q: Tôi là ai?
1:02:06	K: I won't answer that question because you haven't come to it. You'll find out.	K: Tôi không trả lời bởi bạn chưa đến đó. Bạn tìm đi.
1:02:12	Q: Why don't you ask the question?	Q: Tại sao ngài hỏi?
1:02:16	K: I have asked it.	K: Tôi hỏi.
1:02:18	Q: I don't understand it.	Q: Tôi không hiểu.
1:02:25	K: Oh, you are not quick enough. Sir, the question is: does thought create the pain, or pain creates the thought? You understand? You put a pin into this leg, it is communicated to the brain, then the pain, then the anxiety to end that pain. The whole of that is a momentum of thinking, isn't it? The nervous reaction, the identification with that reaction and the identification saying, 'I hope it will end and I mustn't have it in the future'. All that is part of the whole momentum, isn't it, of the whole movement. Why do you separate the two: does thinking come first, or the pain comes first? You understand? 'Who laid the egg' business, you know. Does the chicken come first, or the egg comes first? You are missing the whole point, sir.	K: Ồ, bạn không đủ nhanh. Câu hỏi là: suy nghĩ sinh ra đau, hay đau sinh ra suy nghĩ? Hiểu không? Bạn đâm kim vào chân, nó thông báo lên não, rồi đau, rồi lo âu để chấm dứt đau ấy. Cả cái đó là quán tính của suy nghĩ, phải không? Phản ứng thần kinh, đồng hóa với phản ứng ấy và đồng hóa nói, 'hy vọng nó sẽ dứt và không nên bị trong tương lai'. Tất cả là một phần của quán tính, phải không? của cả vận hành. Tại sao bạn chia hai: suy nghĩ đến trước, hay đau đến trước? Hiểu không? 'Ai đẻ trứng', bạn biết mà. Gà có trước, hay trứng có trước? Bạn vuột mất điểm chính.
1:04:16	It's not the time to go into this. Is fear - which is part of pain - is fear the result of thought? You understand? Is there fear without thought?	Không có thì giờ để tìm hiểu. Sợ hãi - là một phần của đau - là kết quả của suy nghĩ? Hiểu không? Có sợ hãi mà không suy nghĩ?
1:04:47	Q: Is there freedom from fear even with thought?	Q: Có thoát khỏi sợ dù là với suy nghĩ?
1:04:55	K: Sir, the 'me' is put together by thought. Obviously. Successive incidents, successive ideas, and genetic heritage and so on and so on, the 'me' is the result of thought: I am a Hindu, I am a Catholic, I am this, I am that, you follow? I am an American, I am successful, I am a doctor, I am... All that is a bundle put together by thought.	K: Cái 'tôi' do suy nghĩ đặt để. Dĩ nhiên. Việc bất ngờ, ý niệm liên tục, và thừa kế di truyền và v.v.., cái 'tôi' là kết quả của suy nghĩ: tôi là Hin đu, là Cơ đốc, tôi là này, là nọ, kịp không? Tôi người Mỹ, tôi thành công, tôi là bác sỹ, tôi là... Tất cả là gánh nặng do suy nghĩ đặt để.
1:05:40	I am asking, sir, most of us have had pain. Have you ever experimented to disassociate thought from pain? Haven't you? Of course you have done it. To watch the pain. Not identify with it and say, 'Oh, I have pain'. You understand? Sit in the dentist's chair for some time and watch the thing going on, so your mind observes without identifying. You can do this, sir. I sat in the dentist's chair for 4 hours. I can tell you about it. Never a single thought came into my mind. I discovered that after I had sat for four hours.	Tôi hỏi, hầu hết chúng ta có đau đớn. Bạn có kinh nghiệm phân chia suy nghĩ với đau chưa? Chưa à? Dĩ nhiên bạn đã có. Quan sát đau. Không đồng hóa với nó và nói, 'Ồ, tôi có đau'. Hiểu không? Ngồi trên ghế nha khoa đôi lúc và xem sự việc xảy ra, trí óc bạn quan sát mà không đồng hóa. Bạn có thể làm thế. Tôi đã ngồi lên ghế nha khoa 4 giờ. Tôi có thể kể về nó. Không ý nghĩ nào vào trí óc tôi. Tôi khám phá rằng tôi đã ngồi hàng 4 giờ.
1:07:03	How does one go beyond the defences cultivated in childhood? Would you go to a psychoanalyst? Would you? No, wait, don't say no. That's how they exist. (Laughter) They are the modern priests. Now would you go to a psychologist, psychotherapist, psycho... and so on. There are so many varieties of these medicine men. Sorry, I am not being rude to them. I am just asking, would you go to them? That's the easiest way, isn't it? And we think they will answer all the childhood problems. They can't. They may slightly modify it. They themselves say so. So what will you do? There is nobody you can go to. Right? Sir, do you face that? There is nobody! Your guru, God, priest, psychoanalyst, including Krishnamurti, nobody you can go to, what will you do? Have you ever faced that, that fact that you cannot. You can go to a doctor, if you have cancer, that's a different matter. The psychological knowledge that you have developed from childhood, which becomes neurotic, which... most people are neurotic somehow, but... And there is nobody on earth you can go to, or in heaven, what will you do? How would you find out that you are neurotic? Not somebody telling you you are neurotic because most people are neurotic. Somebody tells me I am neurotic, it is the pot calling the kettle black. Right? So how shall I find out I am neurotic? Do I want to find out? If I do, how shall I know, how shall I see it? Have I really eliminated from my thought, from my mind, the idea: somebody is going to help me? You understand, sir? See what I have done. You understand? Going to somebody to help me may be the essence of neuroticism. I wonder if you see this! It doesn't matter.	Làm sao vượt qua rào chắn được rèn luyện từ bé? Bạn đến nhà phân tâm học? Phải không? Không, đợi chút, đừng nói không. Đó là lý do họ có mặt. (Cười) Họ là tu sĩ hiện đại. Giờ bạn đến nhà tâm lý học, tâm lý trị liệu, tâm lý... v.v.. Có quá nhiều loại thầy thuốc này. Xin lỗi, tôi không vô lễ với họ. Tôi chỉ hỏi, bạn có đến họ không? Đó là cách dễ nhất, phải không? Và chúng ta nghĩ họ sẽ trả lời mọi vấn đề thời bé. Họ không thể. Họ có thể sửa đổi chút ít. Chính họ nói thế. Vậy bạn sẽ làm gì? Không ai bạn có thể đến. Phải không? Bạn giáp mặt nó? Không có ai hết! Đạo sư, Thượng đế, tu sĩ, nhà phân tâm học, cả Krishnamurti, không ai bạn có thể đến, bạn sẽ làm gì? Bạn giáp mặt chưa, thực tế rằng bạn không thể. Có thể đến bác sĩ, nếu bạn bị ung thư, đó là vấn đề khác. Kiến thức tâm lý mà bạn đã phát triển từ bé, trở thành loạn thần kinh, cách nào đó đa số loạn thần kinh, nhưng... Và không ai trên mặt đất bạn có thể đến, hay trên trời, bạn sẽ làm gì? Làm sao tìm ra bạn loạn thần kinh? Không ai nói bạn loạn thần kinh bởi hầu hết đều loạn thần kinh. Ai đó bảo tôi loạn thần kinh, lươn ngắn chê chạch dài. Phải không? Vậy làm sao thấy tôi loạn thần kinh? Tôi có muốn tìm không? Nếu muốn, làm sao tôi biết, làm sao thấy? Tôi có thực sự xóa trong suy nghĩ, trí óc ý niệm: ai đó sẽ giúp tôi? Bạn hiểu không? Nhìn việc tôi làm. Bạn hiểu không? Đến ai đó giúp tôi có lẽ là cơ bản loạn thần kinh. Không biết bạn có thấy vậy! Không sao.
1:11:08	So what am I to do? How am I to know, in a world that is almost neurotic, all my friends, my relations, they are all slightly imbalanced. And probably I am also imbalanced. So what shall I do, knowing there is nobody I can go to? No confession, all that business, nobody. So what shall I do? See what has happened, sir, to me? You are not meeting it! As I cannot go to anybody, then what is taking place in my mind when I have depended on others? On books, on psychologists - you follow? - on authority, what has happened to my mind?	Vậy tôi phải làm gì? Làm sao tôi biết, trong thế giới đa số loạn thần kinh, bạn bè, người thân, họ đều hơi mất cân bằng. Và có lẽ tôi cũng mất cân bằng. Vậy tôi sẽ làm gì, biết rằng chẳng có ai để đến? Không xưng tội, mọi việc đó, không ai. Vậy tôi sẽ làm gì? Nhìn việc đã xảy ra với tôi? Bạn không hiểu! Khi không thể đến với ai, rồi việc gì xảy ra trong trí khi tôi lệ thuộc vào người khác? Vào sách vỡ, nhà tâm lý - kịp không? - vào uy quyền, việc gì xảy ra với trí óc tôi?
1:12:29	Q: (Inaudible)	Q: (Không nghe được)
1:12:32	K: Go on sir, what has happened to your mind if you actually realise that you cannot possibly go to anybody?	K: Tiếp tục, điều gì xảy ra với trí óc nếu bạn thực sự thấy rằng không thể đến với ai hết?
1:12:41	Q: You have to do it yourself. K: No, watch it, sir, don't answer - what happens to your mind? Is neuroticism the result of dependence? I depend on my wife, I depend on the doctor, I depend on God, I depend on psychologists, you follow? I have established a series of dependence around me hoping in that dependence I will be secure. Right? And I discover, as I cannot depend on anybody, what happens? Oh, come on, what happens when you don't depend?	Q: Phải tự làm lấy. K: Không, nhìn đi, đừng trả lời - điều gì xảy đến với trí óc? Loạn thần kinh là kết quả của lệ thuộc? Tôi lệ thuộc vợ, lệ thuộc bác sĩ, tôi lệ thuộc Thượng đế, nhà tâm lý, kịp không? Tôi xây lên hàng loạt lệ thuộc quanh mình hy vọng trong lệ thuộc ấy tôi sẽ an toàn. Phải không? Và tôi khám phá, khi không thể lệ thuộc ai, điều gì xảy ra? Ồ, nào, điều gì xảy ra khi bạn không lệ thuộc?
1:13:56	Q: You have to solve the problem.	Q: Ngài phải giải quyết vấn đề.
1:13:58	K: Do it, sir. Do it. You understand, sir? We are bringing about a tremendous revolution, psychological revolution. Right? Right? And you are unwilling to face it. I depend on my wife. She encourages me to be dependent on her or I, etc., both ways. So you tell me: it's part of your neurosis. I don't throw it out, I examine it. I say, you are quite right. I see this. So can I be free, not depending on my wife, psychologically, of course. Will you do it? No, sir, you won't, because you are frightened. You want something from her, sex, or this, or that. Or she encourages you with your ideas, helps you to be dominant, helps you to be ambitious, you follow? Says, 'you are a marvellous philosopher'. (Laughter) So to see that the very state of dependence on another may be the deep psychological neurosis. And when you break that pattern what happens? You are sane. When you are free of the church, the priests, the popes - you follow? - the whole works of all. Then you are...You understand what happens to you, what is the state of your mind? Sir, you must have such a mind to find out what truth is.	K: Làm đi. Làm đi. Bạn hiểu không? Chúng ta tạo ra cuộc cách mạng lớn lao, cách mạng tâm lý. Phải không? Phải không? Và bạn không muốn giáp mặt. Tôi lệ thuộc vợ. Cô ấy cỗ vũ tôi lệ thuộc cô ta hay tôi, v.v.., cả hai đường. Nên bạn nói: đó là một phần loạn thần kinh. Tôi không ném bỏ, tôi xem xét nó. Tôi nói, bạn đúng đó. Tôi thấy rồi. Vậy có thể tôi thoát, không lệ thuộc vợ, tâm lý, dĩ nhiên. Bạn sẽ làm chứ? Không, bạn không làm, bởi bạn sợ. Bạn muốn gì đó từ cô ta, tình dục, này, nọ. Hay cô ta cổ vũ bạn với ý bạn, giúp bạn bị thống trị, giúp bạn tham vọng, kịp không? Nói, 'anh là triết gia tuyệt vời'. (Cười) Vậy thấy rằng trạng thái lệ thuộc người khác có thể là loạn thần kinh tâm lý nặng. Và khi bạn phá vỡ khuôn điều gì xảy ra? Bạn tỉnh táo. Khi bạn thoát khỏi nhà thờ, tu sĩ, giáo trưởng - kịp không? - toàn bộ việc đó. Bạn liền... Bạn hiểu việc gì xảy đến với bạn, trạng thái trí óc bạn thế nào? Bạn phải có trí óc tìm kiếm sự thật là gì.
1:16:48	Dependence has been, from childhood, has been a factor against pain, against hurt, for comfort, for emotional sustenance, for encouragement. And all that has been built in you, you are part of that. If you say, no more authority, religious authority, do you know what happens?	Lệ thuộc, từ bé, là tác nhân chống lại đau đớn, tổn thương, vì dễ chịu, vì nuôi dưỡng cảm xúc, khuyến khích. Và mọi cái đó xây lên trong bạn, bạn là một phần nó. Nếu nói, không còn uy quyền nữa, uy quyền tôn giáo, bạn có biết điều gì xảy ra?
1:17:44	Q: Why did Christ say... K: Oh, sir. You see, it is impossible to discuss with you. Sir, before Christ there was the Buddha, 500 BC, before him there was somebody else, so it isn't just this one person that has suddenly discovered. That's your conditioning of two thousand years, as in India they are conditioned by three thousand years. This conditioned mind can never find out what truth is. You may worship your images, enjoy them, but it is not truth. Don't throw bombs! (Laughter)	Q: Tại sao Ky Tô nói... K: Ồ. Bạn xem, không thể nào thảo luận với bạn. Trước Ky Tô có Phật, 500 trước công nguyên, trước đó có người khác, nên không phải chỉ ông ấy thình lình khám phá. Đó là qui định bạn hai ngàn năm, như ở Ấn độ họ bị qui định ba ngàn năm. Trí óc qui định không thể tìm ra sự thật là gì. Bạn có thể thờ hình ảnh, vui thú, nhưng không phải sự thật. Đừng ném bom! (Cười)
1:18:59	So, sir, that means: not to depend on anything means you are alone. Do you know what that word 'alone' means? All one. That is sanity. That sanity breeds rationality, clarity, integrity.	Vậy, đó nghĩa là: không lệ thuộc gì hết nghĩa là bạn một mình. Bạn biết chữ 'một mình' nghĩa gì không? Toàn thể. Đó là tỉnh táo. Tỉnh táo sinh ra hợp lý, tỏ sáng, toàn thể.
1:19:40	Sorry, sir, not to answer all the other questions.	Xin lỗi, không trả lời hết các câu hỏi.