Krishnamurti - Buổi Hỏi & Đáp thứ 4

Krishnamurti Subtitles

OJ80Q4 - Buổi Hỏi & Đáp thứ 4
Ojai, USA
15 tháng Năm 1980

0:24	In talking over together these questions we are sharing not only with the question but also with the answers with the exploration of the answer. So it is not just I answer and you listen and you all agree or disagree, but together we are trying to find the right answer to these questions.	Cùng thảo luận những câu hỏi này chúng ta không chỉ chia sẻ câu hỏi mà cả với câu trả lời với thám hiểm câu trả lời. Vậy không chỉ tôi trả lời và bạn lắng nghe và bạn đồng ý hay không, mà cùng nhau cố tìm ra câu trả lời đúng cho các câu hỏi này.
1:04	First question: 'I am not asking how fear arises, that you have already explained. Rather, what is the actual substance of fear? What is fear itself? Is it a pattern of physiologic reactions and sensations, tightening of muscles, surge of adrenaline and so forth or is something more? What am I to look at whenI look at fear itself? Can this looking take place when fear is not immediately present?'	Câu một: 'Tôi không hỏi làm sao sợ nổi lên, mà ngài đã giải thích. Mà hơn thế, thực chất của sợ là gì? Chính sợ hãi là gì? Có phải là khuôn phản ứng sinh học và cảm giác, co cứng bắp thịt, tràn adrenalin, v.v.. hay gì đó hơn nữa? Tôi phải nhìn gì khi tôi nhìn chính nổi sợ? Cái nhìn ấy có thể xảy ra khi sợ hãi không có?'
1:58	'I am not asking how fear arises, that you have already explained. Rather, what is the actual substance of fear? What is fear itself? Is it a pattern of physiologic reactions and sensations, tightening of muscles, surge of adrenaline and so forth or is something more? What am I to look at when I look at fear itself? Can this looking take place when fear is not immediately present?'	'Tôi không hỏi làm sao sợ nổi lên, mà ngài đã giải thích. Mà hơn thế, thực chất của sợ là gì? Chính sợ hãi là gì? Có phải là khuôn phản ứng sinh học và cảm giác, co cứng bắp thịt, tràn adrenalin, v.v.. hay gì đó hơn nữa? Tôi phải nhìn gì khi tôi nhìn chính nổi sợ? Cái nhìn ấy có thể xảy ra khi sợ hãi không có?'
2:48	Rather a long question. The questioner, as far as I can make out from this question, wants to know what is the substance of fear, what is actual fear and how can one observe fear present or past. Right? That's the question. Do we understand the question?	Câu hỏi khá dài. Anh bạn hỏi, như tôi có thể hiểu từ câu hỏi này, muốn biết thực chất sợ hãi là gì, sợ thực sự là gì và làm sao có thể quan sát sợ hiện tại hay quá khứ. Phải không? Đó là câu hỏi. Chúng ta hiểu câu hỏi chứ?
3:30	What is fear itself, apart from the physiologic reactions, tightening and so on, what is the actual moment of fear? What is the nature, the inward structure of fear, the substance? Right? Can we go on with that? We have all understood this rather long question? What is fear itself? We are generally afraid of something. Right? Or a remembrance of something that has happened or a projection of the reaction into the future. Right? But that is not what the questioner asks, only. He asks also what is the actual nature of fear. I really don't know, we'regoing to find out.	Sợ hãi là gì, bỏ qua phản ứng sinh học, căng bắp thịt, v.v.., ngay lúc sợ là gì? Bản chất, cơ cấu bên trong của sợ, chất liệu là gì? Phải không? Có thể tiếp tục chứ? Chúng ta đều hiểu câu hỏi khá dài này? Chính sợ hãi là gì? Nói chung chúng ta sợ gì đó. Phải không? Hay nhớ lại điều đã xảy ra hay dự phóng phản ứng trong tương lai. Phải không? Nhưng anh bạn không chỉ hỏi thế. Anh cũng hỏi bản chất thực của sợ. Tôi thực không biết, chúng ta sẽ tìm ra.
5:12	When one is afraid both physiologically as well as psychologically it is, is it not, something that one has a feeling of danger. A feeling of total isolation called loneliness, deep, abiding, lasting loneliness. Those are all reactions to something: one is afraid of the snake or one has had pain and is afraid of that pain and so on. So it is either a remembrance and therefore something that has happened in the past and recalled when any dangerous moment arrives, the remembrance of the past identifying, and say, that is fear. The questioners says - and I think there is something which we have to go into it together - which is: apart from all this physical, psychological reactions which we know as fear, apart from it, is there fear in itself, not fear of something? You understand? Am I making it clear? Is there fear per se? Or we only know fear in relation to something else. If it is not in relation to something else, is it fear? We only know fear in relation to something, from something or towards something. But if you eliminate all that, is there actual fear? Which you can examine? You understand my question? Or is fear, deep-rooted fear, in the mind which has always wanted total security and, not finding it, it's afraid? You understand?	Khi bạn sợ hãi cả sinh học lẫn tâm lý nó là, phải không, điều gì bạn cảm thấy nguy hiểm. Một cảm nhận hoàn toàn cô lập gọi là cô đơn, sâu thẳm, dai dẳng cô đơn. Đều là phản ứng với việc gì: bạn sợ con rắn hay bạn đã bị đau và sợ nỗi đau ấy, v.v.. Vậy là nhớ lại và vậy là việc đã xảy ra trong quá khứ và gợi nhớ khi giây phút nguy hiểm đến, nhớ lại đồng hóa cũ, và nói, đó là sợ. Anh bạn hỏi - và tôi nghĩ có gì đó mà chúng ta phải cùng tìm hiểu - tức là: bỏ qua mọi phản ứng vật lý, tâm lý mà chúng ta biết là sợ, bỏ qua, có chăng sợ chính nó, không phải sợ cái gì? Hiểu không? Tôi nói rõ không? Có chăng bản chất sợ? Hay chúng ta chỉ biết sợ liên quan với gì khác. Nếu không liên quan với gì khác, nó phải là sợ? Chúng ta chỉ biết sợ liên quan với gì đó, từ việc gì hay đến gì đó. Nhưng nếu xóa bỏ hết, có sợ thực sự? Có thể xem xét cái nào? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Hay sợ, nổi sợ sâu thẳm, trong trí óc nó luôn muốn an ổn hoàn toàn và, không tìm ra nó, đó là sợ? Hiểu không?
8:37	Please, we are examining it together, you are not just playing games with me. The ball is not in your court or in my court. We are looking at it together. The mind, the brain needs complete security to function well, healthily, sanely. Not finding it in anything, in a relationship, in an idea in a belief, in an image, an intelligent mind rejects all that. But yet it must have complete security. And lacking that, fear comes into being. Right? That is, is there something totally, completely secure, certain? Not the certainty of belief, dogma, rituals and ideas which can be abolished and new ideas, dogmas, theories can replace them, but if we put aside all that, is the mind, the brain, seeking a security that is imperishable? And not finding it it has deep-rooted fear. I don't know if you... Are we meeting together?	Nào, chúng ta cùng xem xét nó, bạn không chỉ chơi với tôi. Banh không phải ở sân bạn hay sân tôi. Chúng ta cùng nhìn nó. Trí óc, não cần an ổn hoàn toàn để hoạt động tốt, khoẻ, tỉnh táo. Không tìm nó trong gì, trong quan hệ, trong ý niệm trong niềm tin, hình ảnh, trí óc thông minh loại bỏ hết. Nhưng nó phải có an ổn hoàn toàn. Và thiếu nó, sợ hãi có mặt. Phải không? Nghĩa là, có chăng gì đó hoàn toàn an toàn, an ổn? Không phải an ổn của niềm tin, giáo điều, lễ lạy, ý niệm nó có thể bị xóa bởi ý niệm mới, giáo điều, lý thuyết có thể thay thế, nhưng nếu chúng ta dẹp hết, trí óc, não, có đi tìm an toàn trường cửu? Và không tìm ra nó, nó có nổi sợ sâu thẳm. Không biết bạn có... Chúng ta gặp nhau chứ?
10:41	So I am asking, one is asking oneself: apart from the ordinary kind of fears, is the mind, brain, creating the fear itself? You follow? Because there is nothing valid nothing that is whole and is that the substance of fear? That is, can the brain - and the mind includes the brain, reactions and all that - can that total mind have complete security, certainty not about something - you understand what I'm saying? Not about God, belief, all that, but in itself completely whole? Right? Am I conveying something? That is, can the mind in itself have no fear? Am I conveying something, are we meeting each other? Thought, which is part of the mind and brain, desiring security, has created various illusions, philosophical and so on, theological, and not finding it there it either creates something beyond itself in which it can find total security, or the mind is so totally complete it has no need for fear. Are we meeting? This is rather difficult.	Vậy tôi hỏi, bạn tự hỏi: bỏ qua loại sợ hãi thông thường, có phải trí óc, não, tự tạo ra sợ hãi? Kịp không? Bởi trống không ngự trị trống không bao trùm và đó là thực chất của sợ hãi? Tức là, não có thể - và trí óc gồm cả não, phản ứng và mọi thứ - toàn bộ trí óc ấy có thể hoàn toàn an toàn, an ổn không phải về cái gì - bạn hiểu lời tôi không? Không về Thượng đế, niềm tin, mọi thứ, mà toàn thể tự nó? Phải không? Tôi chuyển tải gì chứ? Tức là, trí óc chính nó có thể không sợ hãi? Tôi chuyển tải gì đó, chúng ta gặp nhau chứ? Suy nghĩ, là một phần của trí óc và não, muốn an toàn, đã tạo ra nhiều ảo tưởng, về triết học, v.v.., thần học, và không tìm ra nó đó dù nó tạo ra gì đó vượt lên chính nó nơi nó có thể tìm an ổn hoàn toàn, hay trí óc quá hoàn toàn nên nó không cần sợ hãi. Chúng ta gặp nhau chứ? Việc này khá khó.
13:38	We are not talking of getting rid of fear, or suppressing fear, what is the cause of fear - we went into all that the other day - but we are asking something totally different, which is: can the mind in itself have no cause or substance or reaction which brings fear? Sir, please, this is rather a difficult question to find this out, that is, can the mind... can it ever be in a state... - again that word 'state' implies static, I don't mean that. Can it ever be in a quality, in a state where it has no movement reaching out or going - you follow? Completely whole in itself?	Chúng ta không nói về từ bỏ sợ, hay loại bỏ sợ, nguyên nhân sợ là gì - chúng ta đã đi sâu hôm nọ - mà chúng ta hỏi một việc hoàn toàn khác, tức là: trí óc có thể không có nguyên do hay chất liệu hay phản ứng tạo ra sợ? Nào, đây là vấn đề khá khó để tìm ra, tức là, trí óc có thể... nó có thể trong trạng thái... - chữ 'trạng thái' hàm ý tĩnh, tôi không có ý thế. Nó có thể ở đặc tính, trạng thái nơi không có chuyển động đưa ra hay đi - kịp không? Toàn thể trong chính nó?
15:18	You see this implies going into understanding what is meditation, if you are interested in it. Meditation isn't all this nonsense that is going on but to be free from fear - you follow? - both physiological as well as psychological, be free from it. Otherwise one can't love there is no love, there is no compassion, you know? As long as there is fear the other cannot exist. And to meditate, not to reach something, to understand the nature of fear, and to go beyond it which is to find out whether the mind has no memory or remembrance of something which has caused fear so that it is completely whole.	Bạn thấy nó hàm ý đi sâu tìm hiểu thiền định là gì, nếu bạn thích thú. Thiền định không phải mọi vô nghĩa xảy ra này mà là lìa sợ hãi - kịp không? - cả sinh học cũng như tâm lý, lìa nó. Ngược lại bạn không thể yêu thương không có yêu thương, tình thương, hiểu không? Hễ còn sợ hãi thì cái kia không thể có mặt. Và thiền định, không phải đạt gì, thấu hiểu bản chất sợ hãi, và vượt qua nó là để tìm xem trí óc không có ký ức hay nhớ lại điều gì gây sợ hãi hay không để nó toàn thể hoàn toàn.
16:49	I think I have more or less answered that question. Oh yes, except: 'Can this looking take place when fear is not immediately present?' One can recall fear, can't one? And the recalling of that fear can be observed, can't it? You are sitting here quietly, probably you have no fear now. But you have had fear in the past and you can summon it, but it is not actually the same. Right? Because, at the moment when there is... No. Fear exists a moment after, not at the actual moment. I don't know if you... You have given it a name, a reaction and so on and that you call fear. But at the actual moment of great danger the moment of facing something that may cause fear, at that second there is no fear, there is nothing. Then there is a recollection of the past and then the naming of it and you say, 'By Jove, I am afraid'. All the tightening of the muscles, the adrenaline and so on and so on. So one can, I think, recall the past fears and look at them. The observing of that fear is important because either you put it outside of you or you say, 'I am that fear'. There is not you observing that fear, you are that reaction. Then when there is no division as you and fear but only the state of that reaction, if you have noticed it, something entirely new takes place. Right?	Tôi nghĩ ít nhiều tôi đã trả lời câu hỏi. Ồ vâng, còn câu: 'Có thể nhìn ấy xảy ra khi sợ hãi không có?' Bạn có thể nhớ lại sợ, phải không? Và nhớ lại sợ ấy có thể được quan sát, phải không? Bạn ngồi đây im lặng, có thể bạn không có sợ. Nhưng bạn đã sợ trong quá khứ và bạn có thể gợi lại, nhưng nó thực không y vậy. Phải không? Bởi, lúc mà, khi có... Không. Sợ hãi có mặt một giây sau, không ngay lúc đó. Không biết bạn... Bạn đặt tên nó, phản ứng, v.v.. và gọi nó là sợ. Nhưng thực sự lúc nguy hiểm lớn lao ngay lúc đối diện điều gì có thể gây sợ, giây phút ấy không có sợ, không có gì. Rồi hồi tưởng quá khứ và cho nó cái tên, và nói, 'Trời, tôi sợ'. Mọi cái co cứng cơ bắp, adrenalin, v.v.. Nên, tôi nghĩ, bạn có thể nhớ lại sợ cũ và nhìn nó. Quan sát sợ ấy là quan trọng bởi bạn có thể đặt nó bên ngoài bạn hay bạn nói, 'tôi là sợ ấy'. Không có bạn quan sát sợ ấy, bạn là phản ứng ấy. Rồi thì không có phân chia bạn và sợ mà chỉ là trạng thái phản ứng, nếu bạn để ý, điều gì hoàn toàn mới xảy ra. Phải không?
19:49	Second question: 'When one sees in the world about us no demonstrable universal principle of justice, I feel no compelling reason to change myself or the chaotic society outside. I see no rational criteria by which to measure the consequences of action and their accountability. Can you share your perception on this matter with us?'	Câu thứ hai: 'Khi nhìn thế giới quanh mình không có nguyên tắc chung chứng minh công bằng, tôi thấy không có lý do ép thay đổi mình hay xã hội rối loạn bên ngoài. Tôi thấy không có tiêu chuẩn để đo lường hậu quả của hành động và trách nhiệm giải trình. Ngài có thể chia sẻ nhận thức về vấn đề này?'
20:29	'When one sees in the world about us one cannot demonstrate universal principle of justice, I feel no compelling reason to change myself or the chaotic society outside. I see no rational criteria by which to measure the consequences of action and their accountability. Can you share your perception on this matter with us?'	'Khi nhìn thế giới quanh mình, bạn không thể chứng minh nguyên tắc chung về công bằng, tôi không thấy lý do ép thay đổi mình hay xã hội rối loạn bên ngoài. Tôi thấy không có tiêu chuẩn để đo lường hậu quả của hành động và trách nhiệm giải trình. Ngài có thể chia sẻ nhận thức về vấn đề này?'
21:07	Is there justice in the world? This has been a question which all the philosophers have gone into, spinning a lot of words about it. Now is there justice in the world, rational, sane, justice? You are clever, I am not. Right? You have money, I have not. You have capacity and another has not. You have talent, you can enjoy all that, another is born poor. One has crippling disease and the other has not. The criminal, what we call criminal, he is judged and sent to prison, or whatever takes place. So we consider that there must be justice. Right? Seeing all this we say, 'There must be somewhere justice'. So we move from lack of justice to an idea of justice. I don't know if you are following this? God is just and so on. But the fact remains that there is terrible injustice in the world. Right? And the questioner wants to know: If there is no justice why should I change? You understand? There is no point in it. Why should I change this chaotic world where the dictators are so supreme. Their very life is injustice, terrorising millions of people. And seeing all that there is no rational cause for me to change. I think that is a rather... not rational question - if I may say so. Do you change for some cause, because you are under pressure? Or you are rewarded? You follow? Is change brought about by reward and punishment? Or you see human beings are so irrational right through the world and all the things they have made are also irrational, and you, as a human being, you as a human are the rest of humanity. I don't know if you see that Right? We went into it the other day. And if you are the rest of mankind, you are responsible! Not because you find you are rewarded or you see so much injustice in the world, how the crooks get away with everything, they build marvellous churches and all the rest, a lot of money and there are millions and millions and millions starving.	Có công bình trên thế gian? Đây là câu hỏi mà mọi triết gia tìm tòi, thiêu dệt bao từ ngữ về nó. Trên thế gian có công bình, hợp lý, tỉnh táo, công bình? Bạn khéo, tôi không. Phải không? Bạn có tiền, tôi không. Bạn có khả năng và người khác không. Bạn có tài, có thể hưởng mọi thứ, người khác sinh ra nghèo. Bạn bị chứng què quặt, người khác không. Tội phạm, chúng ta gọi tội phạm, hắn bị xét xử và cho vào tù, hay gì đó xảy ra. Vậy xem ra phải có công bình. Phải không? Nhìn mọi cái đó chúng ta nói, 'Đâu đó phải có công bình'. Vậy là đi từ thiếu công bình đến ý niệm công bình. Không biết bạn có theo kịp không? Thượng đế công bình, v.v.. Nhưng thực tế còn bất công khủng khiếp trên thế gian. Phải không? Và anh bạn muốn biết: Nếu không công bình tại sao tôi thay đổi? Hiểu không? Không có vấn đề ở đó. Tại sao tôi thay đổi thế gian rối loạn này nơi những kẻ độc tài là tối cao. Cuộc sống họ là bất công, khủng bố hàng triệu người. Và nhìn mọi việc ấy không lý do hợp lý để tôi thay đổi. Tôi nghĩ đó là câu hỏi... khá phi lý - xin được nói thế. Bạn thay đổi vì lý do nào, bởi bạn bị áp lực ư? Hay vì phần thưởng? Kịp không? Phải chăng thay đổi là do thưởng phạt? Hay bạn thấy con người quá phi lý khắp thế giới và mọi việc họ làm cũng quá phi lý, và bạn, một con người, bạn là cả nhân loại. Không biết bạn có thấy vậy Phải không? Chúng ta đã tìm hiểu hôm nọ. Và nếu bạn là cả nhân loại, bạn trách nhiệm! Không phải bởi thấy bạn được thưởng hay bạn thấy quá nhiều bất công thế gian, bao kẻ lừa đảo cứ an nhiên, họ xây nhà thờ tuyệt vời, v.v.., bao tiền của và hàng triệu triệu người đói.
26:09	So change is not brought about through compulsion, through reward or punishment. The mind itself sees the absurdity of all this and says: I will... You follow? It's per se, it sees the necessity of change in itself not because you tell me to change or God or the priest or somebody tells me to change. I see the chaos around me and that chaos has been created by human beings and I am that human being, and I have to act, it is my responsibility, a global responsibility!	Vậy thay đổi không do thôi thúc gì, thưởng phạt gì. Trí óc tự thấy vô lý của mọi thứ ấy và nói: tôi sẽ... Kịp không? Tự nó, nó thấy cần thiết thay đổi chính nó không bởi bạn bảo tôi thay đổi hay Thượng đế, giáo sĩ hay ai bảo tôi thay đổi. Tôi thấy rối loạn quanh mình và rối loạn ấy tạo ra do con người và tôi là con người, tôi phải hành động, là trách nhiệm tôi, trách nhiệm toàn cầu!
27:19	Third question: 'Can we die psychologically to the self? To find out is a process of choiceless awareness' - I wish you wouldn't quote me - (Laughter) 'However in order to observe choicelessly it seems we must have ended, or died to the ego, 'me'. So my question is, how can I observe in my current state of fragmentation? Is it like the 'eye' trying to see the 'I'?	Câu ba: 'Có thể chúng ta chết tâm lý cái ngã? Tìm hiểu là tiến trình nhận thức không chọn lựa' - mong ngài không đóng ngoặc tôi - (Cười) 'Cách nào đó để quan sát không chọn lựa hình như chúng ta phải chấm dứt, hay chết bản ngã, 'tôi'. Nên câu hỏi là, làm sao tôi có thể quan sát trong hiện trạng manh mún? Có giống như 'mắt' cố nhìn 'tôi'?
28:00	As you have said, we must be free of fear in order to observe fear. This is an impossible paradox. It is driving me mad. (Laughter) Please clarify this issue'.	Như ngài có nói, chúng ta phải lìa sợ để quan sát sợ. Đây là nghịch lý không thể được. Nó làm tôi điên. (Cười) Mong làm sáng tỏ vấn đề'.
28:18	I will clarify the issue: don't quote me. Or anybody, because then it is not yours, you become second-hand human beings, which we are. So please, that is the first thing to do because that distorts our thinking. You understand? We are the result of a million years of pressure of other people's thinking, propaganda, all that. And if one is not free of all that you can never find out the origin of all things. You understand?	Tôi sẽ làm sáng tỏ vấn đề: đừng đóng ngoặc tôi. Hay ai khác, bởi không phải của bạn, bạn thành con người cũ, là chúng ta đó. Nên đó là việc đầu tiên phải làm bởi nó bóp méo suy nghĩ. Hiểu không? Chúng ta là kết quả hàng triệu năm áp lực suy tư của kẻ khác, tuyên truyền, mọi thứ. Và nếu bạn không lìa bỏ hết bạn không thể tìm ra nguồn gốc mọi việc. Hiểu không?
29:30	So my question is: how can I observe in my current state of fragmentation? You cannot. Right? But you can observe your fragmentation. I don't know if you follow this. I am observing myself. In observing I discover that I am looking at myself with certain prejudice so I forget looking at myself, I go into the question of prejudice. I am aware, I become aware of my prejudice and can I look at it without any sense of distortion, without choice, and all the rest of it, just to observe the prejudice I have. Let the story of prejudice tell me not I tell the story about prejudice but let prejudice unroll itself. You understand what I am saying? What is the cause of prejudice: the image, conclusions, opinions - you follow?	Nên câu hỏi là: làm sao tôi có thể quan sát trong hiện trạng manh mún? Bạn không thể. Phải không? Nhưng bạn có thể quan sát manh mún. Không biết bạn có theo kịp. Tôi quan sát tôi. Khi quan sát tôi khám phá rằng tôi nhìn mình với định kiến nào đó nên tôi quên nhìn tôi, tôi đi vào vấn đề định kiến. Tôi ý thức, tôi nhận thức định kiến và tôi có thể nhìn nó không cảm giác bóp méo, không chọn lựa, và v.v.., chỉ quan sát định kiến tôi có. Để câu chuyện định kiến nói với tôi không phải tôi kể chuyện định kiến mà để định kiện tự mở ra. Bạn hiểu lời tôi không? Nguyên nhân định kiến là gì: hình ảnh, kết luận, quan niệm - kịp không?
30:56	So I begin to discover, one begins to discover, in looking at fear I realise that I am fragmented, that fragmentation is brought about by thought - naturally - and therefore I begin to be aware of the movement of thought. So what is important is not: observe fear when my mind itself is clouded, confused, so I enquire into my confusion. Why are human beings confused? Why are you all confused? If you are very clear you wouldn't be here and I wouldn't be here - thank God! Because we are confused, our question is, what is this confusion, who has created this confusion, in us and outside of us? Right? So in enquiring, or observing confusion the movement is to be aware of the movement of thought, the contradictory nature of thought. You follow? The whole thing unrolls itself if you watch. The story is there, but we don't read the story. We are telling the book what it should say. You understand? We are not saying yes, there is the history of myself, the history of mankind is myself. So in enquiring into, reading that book, I read the book, chapter by chapter, or I understand the whole book instantly. That implies one has to have a deep insight, I don't want to enter into all that. I don't know if you want me to go on into that.	Vậy tôi bắt đầu khám phá, bạn bắt đầu khám phá, khi nhìn vào sợ tôi nhận ra tôi bị manh mún, manh mún ấy được sinh ra do suy nghĩ - tự nhiên vậy - và vậy tôi bắt đầu nhận thức chuyển động của suy nghĩ. Vậy quan trọng không phải: quan sát sợ khi trí óc bị mây mờ, rối loạn, thì tôi tìm hiểu rối loạn. Tại sao con người rối loạn? Tại sao bạn đều rối loạn? Nếu thực sáng suốt bạn không ở đây và tôi không ở đây - ơn Chúa! Bởi chúng ta rối loạn, vấn đề là, rối loạn là gì, ai tạo ra rối loạn, trong và ngoài chúng ta? Phải không? Vậy khi tìm hiểu, hay quan sát rối loạn chuyển động phải được ý thức là chuyển động suy nghĩ, bản chất mâu thuẫn của suy nghĩ. Kịp không? Cả sự việc tự phơi bày nếu bạn quan sát. Câu chuyện đó, nhưng chúng ta không đọc nó. Chúng ta bảo cuốn sách phải nói gì. Bạn hiểu không? Chúng ta không nói vâng, có lịch sử về chính tôi, lịch sử nhân loại là chính tôi. Vậy khi tìm hiểu, đọc cuốn sách ấy, tôi đọc sách, từng chương, hay tôi đọc cả cuốn sách tức thì. Đó hàm ý bạn phải tỏ suốt sâu sắc, tôi không muốn đi sâu hết. Không biết bạn có muốn tôi đi sâu.
33:57	Sir, look: there is confusion in all of us and if we say, 'I am not confused', that would be too silly. Or, 'I have perfect relationship with another' that's equally silly. So one is confused. Now either you analyse it, the cause of it, - you understand, please follow this a little bit. The cause of it, which is thought, thought in its very nature contradictory, thought in its movement is divisive, as national... - divisive - thought in itself must be limited because it is based on knowledge and knowledge can never be complete. Never! Right? So that is the way we go into analytically or let thought move in a particular direction to examine, which means he remembrance, the memory, the experience is observing. Right? You are following all this? No? All right.	Nào: có rối loạn trong tất cả chúng ta và nếu nói, 'tôi không rối loạn', thì quá ngớ ngẩn. Hay, 'tôi có quan hệ hoàn hảo với người khác' cũng ngớ ngẩn y vậy. Vậy bạn rối loạn. Giờ bạn phân tích nó, nguyên nhân, - bạn biết đó, hãy theo dõi từng chút. Nguyên nhân nó, là suy nghĩ, suy nghĩ, bản chất là mâu thuẫn, suy nghĩ, chuyển động là phân chia, như quốc gia... - phân chia - suy nghĩ phải là giới hạn bởi nó dựa trên kiến thức và kiến thức không hề hoàn hảo. Không hề! Phải không? Phân tích, là lối chúng ta tìm hiểu hay để suy nghĩ đi theo hướng nào đó để xem xét, tức là nhớ lại, ký ức, kinh nghiệm đang quan sát. Phải không? Bạn theo kịp hết chứ? Không à? Được rồi.
35:45	When you observe somebody, your friend or whoever it is, you are observing what? Not the face, not the figure, not how she looks, or he looks, long hair, short hair, you are observing the image that you have built about her, or him. So we are saying all that is a movement of thought based on remembrances, conclusions, ideas. All that is a movement of thought. I mean this is an obvious fact. You don't have to prove it to anybody that thought in itself is divisive, fragmentary, partial. It can never be complete therefore it must create confusion. Now, I have explained it. Now can you look at this sense of confusion in oneself - please follow this a little bit - without going through all that process? You understand? Without explanation, without remembrance, just to look at it and see, to have an insight into it, then you can explain it. Vous avez compris? I mean, have I explained it? I'll get it, I'll get it. Have I explained this? Insight, the very word means to have sight in the thing - insight. But you cannot have insight if it is merely the response of memory. Look sir, organised religion is not religion - right? - with all the nonsense that goes on with it: rituals, dogmas, theories, theologians spinning out new theories about - and so on, so on, so on, so on. That is not religion! Now what makes you say, that is not religion? Is it merely a thoughtful examination of all the religions, their dogmas, their superstitions, their ignorance, their rituals, and saying at the end of it, 'This is nonsense'? Or you see immediately that any form of propaganda, pressure, and so on, that is never religion? Either you see it immediately and therefore you are out of it. I don't know if you see. But if you are merely examining various religions and then coming to a conclusion then that conclusion will be limited, can be broken down by argument, by superior knowledge and so on. But if you get an insight into the nature of this religious structure which man has invented, the mind is immediately free of it. I don't know if you are following all this. It's like - I'll take another example. If you understand the tyranny of one guru - right? Tyranny. They are tyrants because they want power position and all the rest of it, they know, others don't know. So if you see the tyranny of one guru you have seen the tyranny of all gurus. You understand? So you don't go from one guru to another. I am afraid you are doing that. (Laughter)	Khi bạn quan sát ai đó, bè bạn hay bất kỳ ai, bạn quan sát gì? Không phải gương mặt, hình ảnh, không phải cách cô hay anh ta nhìn, tóc dài, ngắn, bạn quan sát hình ảnh bạn đã xây dựng về cô hay anh ta. Vậy chúng ta nói mọi cái đó là chuyển động suy nghĩ dựa trên nhớ lại, kết luận, ý niệm. Thảy là chuyển động suy nghĩ. Tôi nói nó là thực tế hiển nhiên. Bạn không cần chứng minh với ai rằng suy nghĩ là phân chia, manh mún, thành phần. Nó không hề hoàn toàn vì vậy tất phải tạo rối loạn. Giờ, tôi giải thích. Bạn có thể nhìn cảm giác rối loạn trong mình - hãy theo dõi từng chút - mà không trải qua hết tiến trình ấy? Hiểu không? Không giải thích, không nhớ lại, chỉ nhìn nó và xem, tỏ suốt nó, rồi bạn có thể giải thích nó. Bạn hiểu không? Tôi nói, đã giải thích chưa? Tôi sẽ nắm, sẽ nắm nó. Tôi đã giải thích chưa? Tỏ suốt, nghĩa là thấy bên trong sự việc - tỏ suốt. Nhưng bạn không thể tỏ suốt nếu chỉ là đáp ứng của ký ức. Tôn giáo có tổ chức không phải tôn giáo - phải không? - với mọi tầm phào xảy ra với nó: lễ lạy, giáo điều, lý thuyết, thần học nặn ra lý thuyết mới loanh quanh - và v.v.., v.v.. Đó không phải tôn giáo! Cái gì làm bạn nói, đó không phải tôn giáo? Có phải chỉ là xem xét có ý thức mọi tôn giáo, giáo lý, mê tín, ngu dốt, lễ lạy, và sau cùng nói, 'Vô nghĩa'? Hay bạn thấy tức thì rằng kiểu tuyên truyền, áp lực, v.v.., đó không hề là tôn giáo? Nói tóm, bạn thấy ngay và thế là bạn ra khỏi nó. Không biết bạn có thấy vậy. Nhưng nếu bạn chỉ xem xét nhiều tôn giáo và rồi đến kết luận thì kết luận ấy sẽ là giới hạn, có thể bị bẻ gãy bởi tranh luận, bởi kiến thức cao, v.v.. Nhưng nếu bạn tỏ suốt bản chất của cấu trúc tôn giáo mà con người tạo ra, tức thì trí óc thoát khỏi nó. Không biết bạn có theo kịp hết. Nó như - lấy ví dụ khác. Nếu hiểu sự tàn bạo của đạo sư - phải không? Tàn bạo. Họ là bạo chúa bởi họ muốn uy quyền địa vị, và v.v.. họ biết, người khác thì không. Vậy nếu thấy tàn bạo của một đạo sư bạn đã thấy tàn bạo của mọi đạo sư. Hiểu không? Nên bạn không đi từ vị này đến vị nọ. E là bạn làm thế. (Cười)
41:07	Fourth question: 'In observation without the observer is there a transformation from staying with the fact that leads to an increase of attention? Does the energy created have a direction?' - Good lord! I don't know what's all this - 'What is the relationship of attention to thought, to the centre, the self? Is there a gap between attention and thought that leads to freedom?'	Câu bốn: 'Khi quan sát mà không người quan sát có chăng sự chuyển hóa do ở lại với thực tế đưa đến gia tăng chú tâm? Năng lực được tạo ra có hướng không?' - Chúa ơi! Tôi không hiểu gì hết - 'Quan hệ của chú tâm với suy nghĩ, với trung tâm, cái ngã là gì? Có chăng khoảng giữa chú tâm và suy nghĩ đưa đến tự do?'
41:41	Look sir, these questions unfortunately don't relate to your actual life. Right? I am not saying you should not put these questions but I am only asking you most respectfully all these questions, actually, have not touched the living, daily life. You understand? Right? Is that so, or not? So all these questions become theoretical, something abstract, something that you have heard and you then say well, who is the observer and the observer is the observed and so on. But if you say, look, my life is this. Let us find out why I live this way. You understand, sir? Why I am worried, why my mind is eternally chattering, why I have no right relationship with another, why am I cruel. You understand? Why is my mind so narrow? Why am I neurotic? A neurotic person never says, 'I am neurotic'. But one can observe the person who is neurotic it may be my wife, or my husband who is neurotic, but we never apparently deal with questions that affect our daily existence. I wonder why. You understand my question?	Nào, các câu hỏi này đáng tiếc không liên quan đời sống thực. Phải không? Tôi không nói bạn đừng nên đặt câu hỏi mà với lòng kính trọng chỉ hỏi bạn các câu hỏi này, thực tế, không chạm đến cuộc sống hàng ngày. Hiểu không? Phải không? Là vậy, hay không phải? Các câu hỏi này thành ra lý thuyết, gì đó trừu tượng, gì đó bạn nghe và rồi bạn nói à, ai là người quan sát và người quan sát là vật bị quan sát, v.v.. Nhưng nếu bạn nói, này, đời tôi vầy. Hãy tìm xem tại sao tôi sống vầy. Hiểu không? Tại sao tôi lo âu, tại sao trí óc tôi cứ lắm chuyện, tại sao không có quan hệ đúng với ai khác, tại sao tôi độc ác. Hiểu không? Tại sao trí óc tôi cạn cợt? Tại sao tôi loạn thần kinh? Loạn thần kinh không hề nói, 'tôi loạn thần kinh'. Nhưng có thể quan sát người loạn thần kinh có thể là vợ, hay chồng loạn thần kinh, nhưng có vẻ chúng ta không hề quan tâm vấn đề tác động đến đời sống hàng ngày. Tôi tự hỏi tại sao. Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không?
44:06	All these questions are that. I think there are about 250 questions, we went through them. Please, I am not scolding, or impatient, or preaching but I am just asking myself after reading all those questions I say, why isn't there one question that affects psychologically the inward - you understand? Why I am unhappy, why am I in conflict with my neighbour, with my husband? You follow? So why is this happening? I will answer these questions, if I must, but why are we so timid, or so enclosed, or we are afraid to expose ourselves to another which doesn't mean that you must expose. If we ask a really, a genuine, a question that affects deeply our life it has much more vitality than this. Right?	Mọi câu hỏi là thế. Tôi nghĩ khoảng 250 câu, chúng ta đã trải qua hết. Nào, tôi không la rầy, mất kiên nhẫn, hay thuyết giáo mà chỉ tự hỏi sau khi đọc hết các câu hỏi này tôi nói, tại sao không có một câu nó tác động bên trong, về tâm lý - hiểu không? Tại sao tôi bất hạnh, xung đột với hàng xóm, với chồng? Kịp không? Vậy tại sao việc này xảy ra? Tôi sẽ trả lời các câu hỏi, nếu phải vậy, nhưng tại sao chúng ta quá rụt rè, đóng kín, hay chúng ta sợ phơi bày mình ra trước ai khác không nghĩa bạn phải phơi bày. Nếu chúng ta hỏi câu thực sự, xác thực tác động sâu sắc đời sống nó có nhiều sức sống trong đó hơn. Phải không?
45:48	So I'll ask the question. (Laughter) Why do we, each one of us, live the way we are doing? Taking drugs, pot, drinking, smoking, pursuing pleasure and aggression, why? You understand? Why? Why are we like this? Please sir, go into it with me. Why are we aggressive? The whole society in which we live, in this society of the West, aggression is one of the most important things. And competition, they both go together. Why? You can see in the animals how aggressive they are in mating, in a certain season. They don't compete, do they? You know when a lion has killed a zebra, other lions share it. You have seen this on television and so on. But apparently with us aggression is the most deep-rooted thing and competition. Why are we like this? Is it the fault of the society? Our education? But the society is what we have made of it. So don't say, 'society', blame the society for this or some education but apparently we are deeply aggressive and competitive. And if you are not competitive, if you are not aggressive in this society you are trodden down. Right? You are discarded, you are looked down upon. Why are we aggressive? Go on sir, examine it. Is it that this emphasis on individual freedom - you understand? - individual freedom and that freedom demands that he must express himself at any cost? Is that it? Especially in this country, in the West this sense of freedom, you know. If you have an instinct to do something, if you want to do something, do it. Don't restrain, don't examine it, it doesn't matter, if you have this feeling, act.	Vậy tôi sẽ hỏi. (Cười) Tại sao chúng ta, mỗi người, sống lối đang sống? Dùng ma tuý, cần sa, rượu, thuốc lá, chạy theo thú vui và hung hãn, tại sao? Hiểu không? Tại sao? Tại sao chúng ta như thế? Nào, hãy cùng tôi tìm hiểu. Tại sao chúng ta hung hãn? Cả xã hội chúng ta đang sống, trong xã hội phương Tây này, hung hãn là một việc quan trọng nhất. Và đua tranh, chúng đi cùng. Tại sao? Bạn có thể thấy thú vật hung hãn biết bao trong mùa giao phối. Chúng không đua tranh, phải không? Bạn biết khi sư tử giết ngựa vằn, sư tử khác chia sẻ. Bạn đã xem trên TV, v.v.. Nhưng có vẻ với chúng ta hung hãn là việc sâu thẳm nhất và tranh đua. Tại sao chúng ta như thế? Là lỗi xã hội ư? Giáo dục? Nhưng xã hội là chúng ta tạo nên. Vậy đừng nói, 'xã hội', kết án xã hội hay giáo dục nhưng hình như sâu thẳm chúng ta hung hãn và tranh đua. Và nếu bạn không tranh đua, nếu bạn không hung hãn trong xã hội bạn bị chà đạp. Phải không? Bạn bị loại bỏ, bị khinh rẻ. Tại sao chúng ta hung hãn? Tiếp tục xem xét đi. Có phải nó nhấn mạnh vào tự do cá nhân - hiểu không? - tự do cá nhân và tự do ấy đòi hỏi hắn phải tự biểu lộ bằng mọi giá? Phải vậy không? Đặc biệt ở xứ này, phương Tây ý nghĩa tự do này, bạn biết đó. Nếu bạn có năng khiếu làm gì đó, nếu bạn muốn làm gì đó, làm đi. Đừng ngăn trở, đừng xem xét, không sao, nếu bạn có cảm giác đó, hành động.
50:02	Q: Is there no difference between aggression and competition?	Q: Có gì khác nhau giữa hung hãn và tranh đua?
50:06	K: Madame, please, I'll go into it, don't bother about that.	K: À, thưa, tôi sẽ đi sâu, đừng bận tâm.
50:11	Q: They look different to me right now.	Q: Chúng có vẻ khác, với tôi hiện giờ.
50:16	K: Either you write the questions, I'll answer them, or let me talk a little about this.	K: Hoặc là bạn viết ra câu hỏi, tôi sẽ trả lời, hoặc để tôi nói một chút.
50:27	You can see what aggression does. Right? You are aggressive, I am aggressive for the same job, for the same this, that, the other. And so we are fighting each other all along the way - right? Both psychologically and physically. And we carry on. That's part of our pattern, part of our social education, and to break that pattern we say we must exercise our will. Right? Which is another aggression. I don't know if you follow this. Right? Right? Are you following this, sir? When I exercise my will, will is another form of 'I must' - you understand - that's another form of aggression. So can you have an insight into aggression? You have understood my question, or is it too difficult? You understand my question, sir? That is, I am aggressive - thank God I am not I have never been, I don't want to be. (laughs) Suppose I am aggressive and that's the pattern from childhood that is the education, the mother, the father and the society, the boys around me, are all aggressive and I see, and I like that, it gives me pleasure. And I accept it and I also become aggressive. Right? Then as I grow up somebody shows me the nature of aggression, what it does in society, how competition is destroying human beings. It is not only the speaker is saying this, scientists are beginning to say this so perhaps you will accept the scientists. So you explain it very carefully, all the reason, the cause and the destructive nature of competition which is to compare, always comparing. You understand?	Bạn có thể thấy hung hãn làm gì. Phải không? Bạn hung hãn, tôi hung hãn vì cùng nghề, vì cùng này, nọ, kia. Và vậy chúng ta đánh đấm nhau suốt - phải không? Cả tâm lý và vật lý. Và chúng ta tiếp tục. Đó là một phần của khuôn khổ, của giáo dục xã hội, và phá vỡ khuôn khổ ấy chúng ta nói phải thực thi ý chí. Phải không? Lại là hung hãn khác. Không biết bạn có theo kịp. Phải không? Phải không? Bạn theo kịp chứ? Khi thực thi ý chí, ý chí là kiểu khác của 'tôi phải' - hiểu không? - đó là hình thức khác của hung hãn. Vậy bạn có thể tỏ suốt hung hãn? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không, hay là quá khó? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi chứ? Nghĩa là, tôi hung hãn - lạy Trời tôi không tôi không hề, tôi không muốn thế. (cười) Giả sử tôi hung hãn và đó là khuôn mẫu từ bé là giáo dục, mẹ, cha và xã hội, các bé trai quanh tôi, đều hung hãn và tôi thấy, và tôi như thế, nó cho tôi thú vui. Và chấp nhận và tôi cũng thành hung hãn. Phải không? Rồi khi lớn lên ai đó chỉ tôi bản chất hung hãn, nó làm gì trong xã hội, tranh đua phá huỷ con người thế nào. Không chỉ người nói nói việc này, các nhà khoa học bắt đầu nói thế vậy có lẽ bạn sẽ chấp nhận họ. Vậy bạn giải thích thật kỹ, mọi lý do, nguyên nhân và bản chất phá hoại của tranh đua là phải so sánh, luôn so sánh. Hiểu không?
53:36	Now a mind that doesn't compare at all - you understand? - is a totally different kind of mind. It has got much more vitality. So one explains all this, and yet we go on being aggressive, competitive, comparing ourselves with somebody, always something much greater, not with the poorer, but always something greater. So there is this pattern established, this cadre, this framework and in which the mind is caught. And listening to it you say, 'I must get out of it I must do something about it', which is what? Another form of aggression. You understand? I wonder if you see that. So can you, can we have an insight into aggression? You follow? Not explanations, not the remembrance of all the implications of it and so on and so on, which is constant examination, then coming to a conclusion and acting according to that conclusion. That's not insight. Whereas if you have immediate insight into it - you understand? - then you have broken the whole pattern of aggression.	Một trí óc không so sánh gì cả - hiểu không? - là loại trí óc hoàn toàn khác. Nó tràn đầy sức sống. Vậy bạn giải thích hết, nhưng chúng ta cứ hung hãn, tranh đua, so sánh mình với ai khác, luôn gì đó lớn hơn, không với cái tệ hơn, mà luôn với cái tốt hơn. Vậy có khuôn mẫu được xây lên, khung ấy, khuôn ấy và trong đó trí óc bị kẹt. Và nghe thế bạn nói, 'tôi phải bước ra tôi phải làm gì đó', nó là gì? Hình thức hung hãn khác. Hiểu không? Không biết bạn có hiểu. Vậy có thể, chúng ta có thể tỏ suốt hung hãn? Kịp không? Không giải thích, không nhớ lại mọi liên quan của nó, v.v.. tức là cứ xem xét, rồi đi đến kết luận và hành động theo kết luận ấy. Đó không phải tỏ suốt. Ngược lại nếu bạn tỏ suốt nó ngay - hiểu không? - bạn liền phá vỡ toàn bộ khuôn mẫu của hung hãn.
55:26	That is, sir, we compare - don't we? - both physically Or psychologically, there is constant comparison. Which means what? I don't know if you have gone into this. To compare oneself with somebody else, greater, more intelligent, bright, and so on, is to what? Deny what you are and change what you are. I wonder if you understand this. Am I making this clear? Look, I compare myself with you and I say you are awfully clever, all that, and in that comparison I say, by Jove, I realise I am very dull. Right? You are following this? But if I have no comparison, am I dull? I begin then to discover the thing is 'as is'. I wonder if you see.	Tức là, chúng ta so sánh - phải không? - cả vật lý bạn... tôi muốn tôi có thể trông đẹp như bạn. Hay tâm lý, có so sánh triền miên. Vậy nghĩa gì? Không biết bạn có tìm hiểu nó. So sánh mình với ai khác, lớn hơn, thông minh, sáng chói hơn, v.v.., để làm gì? Chối bỏ bạn hiện là và thay đổi bạn hiện là. Không biết bạn có hiểu. Tôi nói rõ không? Nào, tôi so sánh với bạn và tôi nói bạn quá khéo, mọi thứ, và trong so sánh tôi nói, Trời ạ, tôi thấy tôi đần quá. Phải không? Bạn theo kịp không? Nhưng nếu không so sánh, tôi có đần? Tôi liền bắt đầu khám phá sự vật 'y vậy'. Không biết bạn có hiểu.
56:57	So what shall we do with the way we are living? Sorry to bring it home. What shall we do? You will attend meetings, other forms of other kinds of meetings, discussions, philosophers explaining their philosophy, the latest psychologist non-Freudian, non-this, and non-that but the latest, he will explain to you. You understand? We are doing this all the time, moving from one thing to another and that's called an open mind. But we never say look, this is so, I am like this, let me find out why am I like this. Why I have wounds, psychological bruises - you understand? - why? Why do I live with them? I don't know if you are following all this. But reading somebody like... books of... or attending Krishnamurti's talks, and then quoting back, 'It is so, I know all this by heart!' (Laughter) I have been at this for sixty years and more so you don't have to quote to me. But if you don't quote, and find out for yourself - you understand, sir? - there is greater energy, more fun, more alive, you become much more alive.	Vậy chúng ta sẽ làm gì với lối đang sống? Xin lỗi để mang về nhà. Chúng ta sẽ làm gì? Bạn sẽ dự hội nghị, hội nghị kiểu này kiểu nọ, thảo luận, triết gia giải thích triết thuyết họ, nhà tâm lý mới nhất không Freud, không này không nọ nhưng mới nhất, hắn sẽ giải thích cho bạn. Hiểu không? Chúng ta luôn làm thế, đi từ việc này đến việc kia và đó gọi là đầu óc rộng rãi. Nhưng không hề nói nào, cái này vầy, tôi vầy, để tôi tìm xem tại sao tôi như thế. Tại sao bị thương, bầm tím tâm lý - hiểu không? - tại sao? Tại sao tôi sống với chúng? Không biết bạn có theo kịp. Nhưng đọc ai đó như... sách của... hay dự các buổi Krishnamurti nói chuyện rồi trích lại, 'Nó vậy, tôi biết hết, nằm lòng!' (Cười) Tôi đã dự sáu mươi năm hay hơn nên bạn không cần trích dẫn đâu. Nhưng nếu không trích dẫn, và tự tìm cho mình - hiểu không? - có năng lực lớn hơn, vui, sống động hơn bạn trở nên vô cùng sống động.
59:27	'What is the relationship of attention to thought? Is there a gap between attention and thought?' Right?	'Chú tâm liên quan gì với suy nghĩ? Có chăng khoảng giữa chú tâm và suy nghĩ?' Phải không?
59:40	This is a good question because it affects us. That is, what is attention. What is the relationship of thought to attention. Is there, in attention, freedom? Right? Is this a question that affects us? That is, we know what concentration is. Right? Most of us do; from childhood we are trained to concentrate and the implications of that concentration is narrowing down all energy to a particular point, and holding to that point. Right? A boy in a school is looking out of the window, looking at all the birds and the trees and the movement of the leaves or the squirrel climbing up the tree and the educator says 'Look, you are not paying attention, concentrate on the book.' Right? 'Listen to what I am saying', and so on and so on. Which is what? Go into it, sir. Which is what? You are making concentration far more important than attention. That is, if the boy is looking out of the window watching that squirrel, I would help him to watch - if I am the educator - I would help him to watch that squirrel completely. You follow? Watch it. Watch the movement of the tail, the mouth, the nozzle, how its claws are, everything, watch it. Then if he learns to watch that attentively he will pay attention to the beastly book! (Laughter) You follow what I am saying? So there is no contradiction.	Đây là câu hay bởi nó tác động chúng ta. Tức là, chú tâm là gì. Liên quan gì giữa suy nghĩ và chú tâm. Trong chú tâm, có tự do không? Phải không? Câu hỏi này có tác động chúng ta? Tức, chúng ta biết tập trung là gì. Phải không? Đa số biết; từ bé chúng ta được rèn tập trung và hàm ý tập trung ấy là thu hẹp mọi năng lực vào một điểm nào, và giữ ở đó. Phải không? Bé trai ở trường nhìn ra cửa sổ, ngắm mấy chú chim và cây cối và chuyển động của lá hay chú sóc đang trèo cây và thầy giáo bảo 'Này, trò không để ý, tập trung vào sách đi.' Phải không? 'Nghe lời tôi nói đây', và v.v.. Vậy nghĩa gì? Tiếp tục đi. Nghĩa gì? Bạn làm tập trung quá quan trọng hơn chú tâm. Tức là, nếu chú bé nhìn ra cửa sổ ngắm chú sóc kia, tôi sẽ giúp bé quan sát - nếu là thầy giáo - tôi sẽ giúp bé quan sát chú sóc trọn vẹn. Kịp không? Quan sát nó. Xem chuyển động của đuôi, miệng, mũi, móng nó thế nào, mọi thứ, quan sát nó. Rồi nếu bé học quan sát nó chăm chú bé sẽ để tâm vào cuốn sách đáng ghét! (Cười) Bạn theo kịp lời tôi không? Vậy không có mâu thuẫn.
1:02:02	So attention is a state of mind in which there is no contradiction. Right? There is no entity, or a centre, or a point which says, 'I must attend'. In that state there is no wastage of energy. Whereas in concentration there is always the controlling process going on: I want to concentrate on that page but thought wanders off and then you pull it back, the constant battle going on. Whereas in attention, if you go into it, it is very simple really. When somebody says, 'I love you' and he means it, you are attending! You don't say, do you love me because I look nice or I have money, or sexual, or this or that. You follow what I am saying? So attention is something totally different from concentration.	Vậy chú tâm là trạng thái trí óc trong đó không có mâu thuẫn. Phải không? Không có thực thể, trung tâm, hay điểm nói, 'tôi phải chú tâm'. Trong trạng thái ấy không có phí năng lực. Ngược lại tập trung luôn có tiến trình kiểm soát diễn ra: Muốn tập trung vào trang ấy nhưng suy nghĩ cứ lãng đi và rồi bạn kéo nó lại, cứ chiến đấu mãi. Trong khi chú tâm, nếu bạn tìm hiểu, thực rất đơn giản. Khi ai đó nói, 'tôi yêu anh' và ý anh ta thế, bạn chú tâm! Bạn không nói, bạn có yêu tôi vì dễ nhìn hay tôi có tiền, hay tình dục, hay này nọ. Bạn theo kịp không? Nên chú tâm là gì đó hoàn toàn khác với tập trung.
1:03:33	And this attention, the questioner asks, what is the relationship of this attention to thought? Right? None, obviously. I don't know if you follow this. Concentration has a relationship to thought because thought directs: 'I must learn, I must concentrate in order to control myself'. Right? Thought then gives a direction from one point to another point. Whereas in attention thought has no place - you attend.	Và chú tâm, anh bạn hỏi, chú tâm liên quan gì với suy nghĩ? Phải không? Không gì, hiển nhiên. Không biết bạn có theo kịp. Tập trung có liên hệ với suy nghĩ bởi suy nghĩ hướng: 'tôi phải học, phải tập trung để kiểm soát mình'. Phải không? Suy nghĩ định hướng từ điểm này đến điểm nọ. Trong khi chú tâm không có suy nghĩ - bạn chú tâm.
1:04:37	'And is there a gap between attention and thought?' Good Lord. Sir, as we explained the other day if you once understand if one once has a grasp of the whole movement of thought you wouldn't put this question. You understand sir? I am not... - I'll answer it but first, one has to understand what thought is. You understand? Not somebody telling you what thought is. But to see what thought is, how it comes into being. And if you will go... I will do it again, we will go into it.	'Và có chăng khoảng giữa chú tâm và suy nghĩ?' Trời ạ. Như chúng ta giải thích hôm nọ nếu bạn hiểu nếu bạn nắm toàn bộ chuyển động của suy nghĩ bạn không đặt câu hỏi này. Hiểu không? Tôi không... - tôi sẽ trả lời nhưng trước hết, bạn phải hiểu suy nghĩ là gì. Hiểu không? Không ai bảo bạn suy nghĩ là gì. Nhưng để hiểu suy nghĩ là gì, nó có mặt thế nào. Và nếu bạn sẽ... tôi sẽ, chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu lại.
1:05:34	There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But unfortunately, or fortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking - right? So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life. So what is thinking, what is thought? How does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is: you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as pain, which has become knowledge and that knowledge, experience, is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.	Không thể có suy nghĩ nếu quên hoàn toàn. Phải không? Nhưng bất hạnh thay, hay hữu hạnh chúng ta không ở trạng thái quên. Và bạn muốn tìm ra suy nghĩ là gì nó có vị trí gì trong đời. Hiểu không? Vậy bắt đầu xem xét suy nghĩ - phải không? Vậy suy nghĩ là gì? Suy nghĩ xảy ra như phản ứng với ký ức. Hiển nhiên. Ký ức đáp ứng với thách thức, vấn đề, hành động, hay đáp ứng khi quan hệ với gì đó hay với ý niệm, với người. Phải không? Bạn thấy mọi cái đó trong đời. Vậy suy tư là gì, suy nghĩ là gì? Làm sao suy nghĩ hiện ra trong trí? Rồi bạn hỏi, ký ức là gì? Hiểu không? Ký ức là gì? Ký ức: bạn giẫm lên côn trùng nào nó cắn bạn. Ký ức ấy, đau ấy được ghi và lưu trong não, đau ấy, trở thành ký ức, nó không là đau thực. Đau ấy qua rồi nhưng ký ức còn lại. Nên lần tới bạn cẩn thận. Vậy có kinh nghiệm đau, trở thành kiến thức và kiến thức, kinh nghiệm, là ký ức, ký ức đáp ứng như suy nghĩ. Phải không? Ký ức ấy là suy nghĩ. Và kiến thức, dù rộng, dù sâu, vươn dài bao nhiêu, vẫn phải giới hạn. Phải không? Không có kiến thức hoàn toàn. Không biết bạn có theo kịp hết.
1:08:25	So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete. In itself it can never be complete, it can think about completeness. - you understand? - it can think about totality, whole, but it's not... thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational. And if one understands the nature of thought and understands what concentration is then thought cannot attend, because attention is: giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, 'Well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.	Vậy suy nghĩ luôn thành phần, giới hạn, phân chia bởi chính nó không hoàn toàn. Chính nó không hề hoàn toàn, nó có thể nghĩ về hoàn toàn. - hiểu không? - có thể nghĩ về trọn vẹn, hoàn toàn, nhưng không... chính suy nghĩ không hoàn toàn. Nên dù nó tạo ra gì, về triết học, tôn giáo, vẫn là thành phần, giới hạn, manh mún bởi kiến thức là thành phần của ngu dốt. Hiểu không? Không biết bạn có hiểu không. Khi kiến thức không hề trọn vẹn nó phải luôn đi chung với ngu dốt. Phải không? Đó hợp lý. Và nếu bạn hiểu bản chất của suy nghĩ và hiểu tập trung là gì thì suy nghĩ không thể chú tâm, bởi chú tâm là: đem toàn bộ năng lực - hiểu không? - không có cản trở gì. Không biết bạn hiểu không. Nếu bạn đang lắng nghe, hy vọng thế, nếu bạn đang nghe và chú tâm, điều gì xảy ra? Không có 'bạn' chú tâm. Phải không? Không có trung tâm nói, 'tôi phải chú tâm'. Bạn chú tâm bởi đó là đời bạn, bạn thích. Nếu bạn không thích, nằm phơi nắng, nói, 'À, tôi sẽ nghe một tí, đó là việc khác. Nhưng nếu bạn nghiêm túc và để tâm bạn sẽ sớm tìm ra mọi vấn đề, mọi thứ đi qua - ít nhất lúc này.
1:10:54	So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)	Vậy để giải quyết vấn đề là phải chú tâm. Không biết bạn có hiểu. Bạn hiểu chứ? không phải trò đùa đâu! (Cười)
1:11:17	What time is it sir?	Mấy giờ rồi?
1:11:21	Q: Seventeen minutes to one.	Q: Một giờ kém mười bảy phút.
1:11:24	K: I am so sorry, it is 17 minutes to one.	K: Tôi xin lỗi, một giờ kém 17 phút.
1:11:35	So sir, other questions are of the same kind. As this is the last question and answer meeting we shall perhaps some of us meet again on Saturday and Sunday and after that we close the shop! (Laughter)	Vậy, các câu hỏi khác là cùng loại. Đây là câu hỏi cuối của buổi hỏi đáp có lẽ chúng ta sẽ gặp lại vào thứ Bảy và Chủ nhật và sau đó sẽ đóng cửa tiệm! (Cười)
1:11:54	So all these questions, 250 questions of them and more are always somehow not dealing with the facts of oneself. You understand sir?	Vậy thảy các câu hỏi này, 250 câu hay hơn cũng không liên hệ với thực tế chính bạn. Hiểu không?
1:12:17	Why is my mind chattering, so restless? You follow?	Tại sao trí óc cứ huyên thuyên? Kịp không?
1:12:23	You don't ask such a question! Have you ever asked that question to yourself, why are you so restless, specially in this country, the mind so chattering, restless, moving, going from one thing to another, constant entertainment. Right? Why is your mind chattering? And what will you do about it. Right? Your immediate response is to control it. Right? Say, 'I must not chatter' which means what? The very controller is chattering. I don't know if you see that. Do you see that? There is a controller who says, 'I mustn't chatter' is in himself part of chattering. See the beauty of it? So what will you do? Go on sir.	Bạn không hỏi câu như thế! Có bao giờ bạn hỏi chính mình câu ấy, tại sao bạn không yên, đặc biệt ở xứ này, trí óc cứ huyên thuyên, động đậy, chạy từ việc này đến việc nọ, giải trí triền miên. Phải không? Tại sao trí óc bạn huyên thuyên? Và bạn sẽ làm gì nó. Phải không? Trả lời ngay là kiểm soát nó. Phải không? Bảo, 'tôi phải ngừng huyên thuyên' nghĩa là gì? Người kiểm soát đang huyên thuyên. Không biết bạn có thấy vậy. Bạn có thấy thế? Người kiểm soát nói, 'tôi không nên huyên thuyên' là một phần huyên thuyên trong hắn. Có thấy cái đẹp ấy? Vậy bạn sẽ làm gì? Tiếp tục nào.
1:13:58	Q: Watch it.	Q: Quan sát nó.
1:14:00	K: If you observe it, if you say, look, my mind is chattering and I can examine the causes of chattering because chattering is part of the mind being occupied. Right? I don't know if you have noticed, the mind, the whole structure of the brain must be occupied with something. Right? With sex, with problems, with television, with going to football, going to church - it must be occupied. Right? Why? Why must it be occupied? If it is not occupied, aren't you rather uncertain, won't you fear not being occupied? You follow? You feel empty, don't you?	K: Nếu quan sát nó, nếu nói, nào, trí óc huyên thuyên và tôi có thể xem xét nguyên do huyên thuyên bởi huyên thuyên là một phần trí óc bận rộn. Phải không? Không biết bạn có để ý, trí óc, cả cấu trúc của não phải bận rộn việc gì. Phải không? Với tình dục, với vấn đề, với TV, với xem bóng đá, đến nhà thờ - nó phải bận rộn. Phải không? Tại sao? Tại sao nó phải bận rộn? Nếu nó không bận rộn, không phải bạn hơi bất an, không phải bạn sợ không bận rộn? Kịp không? Bạn thấy trống vắng, phải không?
1:15:07	No? You feel lost. You feel - then you begin to realise what you are, that there is tremendous loneliness inside. Right? And so to avoid that deep loneliness with all its agony, the mind chatters, is occupied about everything else except that. And then that becomes the occupation. You follow? If I am not occupied with all the outward things, like cooking, washing up, cleaning the house, and so on then it says, I am lonely, that's my concern. You follow? How am I to get over it, let me talk about it, how miserable I am - back to chattering. But if you say, 'Why is the mind chattering?' Ask the question sir, go on with me. Why is your mind chattering? Never a moment it is quiet - you understand? - never a moment when there is complete freedom from any problem. Right?	Không à? Bạn thấy lạc lõng. Bạn thấy - rồi bạn bắt đầu nhận ra bạn là gì, rằng có cô đơn khủng khiếp bên trong. Phải không? Và để loại bỏ cô đơn sâu thẳm ấy với mọi nổi đau, trí óc huyên thuyên, bận rộn về gì khác trừ cái đó. Và rồi nó thành bận rộn. Theo kịp không? Nếu tôi không bận rộn với mọi thứ bên ngoài, như nấu ăn, giặt giũ, lau nhà, v.v.. thì nó nói, tôi cô đơn, đó là quan tâm tôi. Kịp không? Làm sao tôi phải vượt qua, hãy để tôi nói về nó, khổ sở biết bao - trở lại huyên thuyên. Nhưng nếu nói, 'Tại sao trí óc huyên thuyên?' Đặt câu hỏi, tiếp tục với tôi. Tại sao trí óc huyên thuyên? Không hề im lặng một giây - hiểu không? - không hề một giây hoàn toàn thoát khỏi vấn đề. Phải không?
1:16:51	So again is that occupation the result of our education of the social nature of our life? Those are all excuses obviously. But when one realises, if one does, your mind is chattering and look at it - you follow? - wait with it, stay with it - I don't know if I am explaining. My mind is chattering. All right, I'll watch it. I say, 'All right, chatter'. I am attending to it. You follow? I wonder if you understand this. I am attending, which means I am not trying not to chatter, I am not saying, I must suppress it, or any of it. I am just attending to chattering. If you do, you will see what happens. Then your mind is so clear, free of all this. And probably that is the state of a normal, healthy human being. Right? That's enough I think, sirs.	Vậy bận rộn ấy lại là kết quả của giáo dục của bản chất xã hội đời này? Đó là mọi lý lẽ hiển nhiên. Nhưng khi bạn nhận ra, nếu nhận ra, trí óc huyên thuyên và nhìn nó - kịp không? - đợi đó, ở lại đó - không biết tôi có giải thích. Trí óc tôi huyên thuyên. Được rồi, sẽ quan sát nó. Tôi nói, 'Tốt, huyên thuyên'. Tôi chú tâm. Kịp không? Không biết bạn có hiểu. Chú tâm, tức là không cố gắng không huyên thuyên, tôi không nói, tôi phải loại bỏ nó, hay gì gì. Tôi chỉ chú tâm đến huyên thuyên. Nếu làm, bạn sẽ thấy gì xảy ra. Rồi trí óc bạn sáng tỏ, thoát mọi thứ. Và có thể đó là trạng thái của người khoẻ mạnh, bình thường. Phải không? Tôi nghĩ vậy là đủ.