Krishnamurti - Tốt đẹp, yêu thương và chân lý có thể sinh ra từ kỹ luật?

Krishnamurti Subtitles

SA79T4 - Tốt đẹp, yêu thương và chân lý có thể sinh ra từ kỹ luật?
Buổi nói chuyệ̣n thứ tư
Saanen, Thuỵ sĩ
15 tháng Bảy 1979

0:59	Krishnamurti: We should go on, I think, with what we were talking about the last three meetings here.	Tôi nghĩ, chúng ta nên tiếp tục điều chúng ta đã nói ba buổi họp vừa qua ở đây.
1:19	Each trade, each skill, has its own discipline. If you are a carpenter, it has a particular discipline, scientist, architect and so on – each function has its own discipline. And human beings throughout the world are used to this idea of discipline, not only in the technological field, but also in the psychological realm. And we are, through education, through our culture, in every form of relationship, there is, as we have accepted, a certain discipline. I would like, if I may, to go into this question rather deeply: why human beings need discipline at all. Please, carefully listen. Don’t jump to any conclusion and say there must be no discipline, we must live in a permissive society, as we are now, and any form of restraint, any form of holding, is inhuman and therefore the other extreme.	Mỗi nghề, mỗi kỹ năng, có qui luật riêng. Nếu bạn là thợ mộc, nó có luật riêng nhà khoa học, kiến trúc, v.v.., mỗi chức năng có luật riêng. Và con người khắp thế giới quen với ý niệm luật lệ không chỉ trong lĩnh vực kỹ thuật mà cả lĩnh vực tâm lý. Và chúng ta, qua giáo dục, qua văn hóa, trong mỗi loại quan hệ, như chúng ta chấp nhận, đều có luật lệ nào đó. Tôi muốn, nếu có thể, đi sâu hơn vào vấn đề này: tại sao con người cần luật lệ. Hãy nghe kỹ nhé. Đừng vội vào kết luận và nói phải không có luật lệ, phải sống trong xã hội buông thả, như hiện nay, và kiểu gò bó kiểu câu thúc nào, cũng là vô nhân và vậy là cực đoan.
3:18	As we were saying the other day we must all have the capacity not only to be able to listen, to observe together, but also think together, which apparently is much more difficult because we are so trained through our religion, through our culture, to think individually, separately. And so there is always diversity of opinion, judgement, evaluation, your belief opposed to another belief, ideals opposed to other ideals, and so on. These differences, contradictory, opposing, keep the individual separate, and when there is separation, there must be conflict, which is so obvious: national conflicts, racial conflicts, class conflicts, ideological conflicts, and so on. Now we are asking, we are thinking together if that is possible; I think it is possible when you put aside your own particular opinion, your particular evaluation, experience, conclusions, and feel the necessity of thinking together. Right? Please, do this as we are talking, not when you go home or later on, but now as we are sitting together, let’s find out if it is possible that we can communicate with each other so that there are no barriers.	Như đã nói hôm nọ chúng ta phải có khả năng không chỉ có thể lắng nghe cùng quan sát, mà cả cùng suy tư, điều hình như rất khó khăn bởi chúng ta đã bị rèn dạy qua tôn giáo qua văn hóa, để suy nghĩ riêng rẽ, cá nhân. Và vậy luôn có rất nhiều quan điểm, phán đoán, đánh giá niềm tin nghịch niềm tin, lý tưởng đối lý tưởng, v.v.. Những khác nhau, mâu thuẫn, đối nghịch, làm cá nhân phân chia và khi có phân chia tất phải có xung đột, hiển nhiên: xung đột dân tộc, xung đột màu da xung đột giai cấp, xung đột ý hệ, v.v.. Vậy chúng ta hỏi, chúng ta cùng suy tư xem có thể nào tôi nghĩ có thể khi bạn dẹp hết quan điểm riêng đánh giá riêng, kinh nghiệm riêng kết luận riêng, và cảm thấy cần thiết cùng suy tư. Phải không? Hãy làm khi chúng ta đang nói, không phải về nhà hay sau đó mà bây giờ khi cùng ngồi đây hãy tìm xem có thể nào chúng ta có thể trao đổi nhau mà không có rào cản.
6:09	The speaker is only sitting on the platform not to assume any authority, but it is convenient because you can all see the man. That is the only reason he is sitting on the platform. And is it possible to think together about this whole question of discipline, effort, and whether it is possible at all in life to live without a single effort. Effort means strife, struggle to become something, to achieve something, not only in the psychological realm, but also in the physical realm. Is it possible to act without effort, to have a relationship with each other in which there is no strife whatsoever between two people, and no conflict within oneself to think clearly without the determination to think clearly? All that implies conflict. Can we together think out this question, and as we are thinking it out, eliminate as we are going, so that we can together put aside through our clarity of perception, clarity of hearing, of thinking, that very movement sets aside the contradictory elements. That’s what we are going to discuss this morning, if we may.	Người nói chỉ ngồi trên bục này không phải có uy quyền gì mà là cho bạn đều có thể nhìn anh ta. Đó là lý do duy nhất anh ta ngồi trên bục. Và có thể nào cùng suy tư về toàn bộ vấn đề kỷ luật, cố gắng, và xem có thể nào sống một đời không chút cố gắng. Cố gắng nghĩa là xung đột, đấu tranh để thành, để đạt gì đó không chỉ trong lĩnh vực tâm lý, mà cả lĩnh vực vật lý. Có thể nào hành động không cố gắng, quan hệ lẫn nhau mà trong đó không có xung đột gì giữa hai người, và không xung đột trong chính bạn suy tư sáng suốt mà không xác định để suy tư sáng suốt? Mọi cái đó hàm ý xung đột. Có thể chúng ta cùng nghĩ ra vấn đề này và khi cùng nghĩ ra xóa sạch khi bước đi, để chúng ta có thể dẹp hết qua sáng suốt của nhận thức, sáng suốt của nghe, của nghĩ chính chuyển động ấy dẹp hết yếu tố mâu thuẫn. Đó là điều sẽ thảo luận sáng nay, nếu có thể.
8:43	Like the soldiers throughout the world are highly disciplined people, and that very discipline encourages violence. I don’t know if you have not thought about this. A soldier is trained, day after day, month after month, suppressing his personality, suppressing his desires, conforming to a pattern, and there is this very, very strict discipline. And that discipline, when it is in action against somebody, it is violent. That is war. Obviously. The word ‘discipline’ means to learn, not to conform, not to suppress, not to imitate, but to learn.	Như lính tráng khắp thế giới là những người kỹ luật cao và chính kỹ luật ấy cổ vũ bạo lực. Không biết bạn có từng nghĩ việc này chưa. Người lính bị rèn, ngày ngày, tháng tháng loại bỏ cá tính, loại trừ ước muốn, tuân theo khuôn mẫu, và có kỹ luật rất nghiêm khắc. Và kỹ luật ấy khi có hành động chống ai đó là bạo lực. Đó là chiến tranh. Hiển nhiên. Chữ 'kỹ luật' nghĩa là học không phải tuân theo, không phải bắt chước, mà là học.
10:08	Now, in our thinking together, we are going to observe whether there can be an action in our daily life, without this quality of conformity, without this quality of imitation to a pattern, to an idea, to a nationalism, and so on, so on. I hope you are following all this. For some this may be totally new, so please, have the goodness to listen. To listen implies that you are interested in trying to find out. You know you have listened to yourself probably many times. You have listened to others, but one always listens partially. And when you listen partially, you don’t listen at all. When you listen, you listen. Right?	Trong khi cùng suy tư chúng ta sẽ quan sát xem có thể có hành động trong sống hàng ngày mà không có tính tuân theo, không có tính bắt chước theo khuôn mẫu theo ý niệm, theo chủ nghĩa dân tộc, v.v.. Hy vọng bạn theo kịp hết. Với vài người chắc việc này hoàn toàn mới vậy xin lắng nghe. Lắng nghe hàm ý bạn quan tâm cố gắng tìm tòi. Bạn biết bạn lắng nghe chính mình có lẽ nhiều lần. Bạn lắng nghe người khác nhưng luôn nghe một phần. Và khi bạn nghe một phần, bạn không nghe gì. Khi bạn nghe, bạn nghe. Phải không?
11:30	Now we are going to find out why man has submitted himself to a series of disciplines, not only in the physical world, technological world, but also psychologically. And is this discipline helping man to free himself from his idiosyncrasies, his conflicts, his problems, his relationship, and so on? You understand my question? Right? Are you all very hot?	Giờ chúng ta tìm xem tại sao con người phó mình cho hàng loạt kỹ luật, không chỉ trong thế giới vật lý thế giới kỹ thuật, mà cả tâm lý. Và có phải kỹ luật giúp con người thoát khỏi tính kỳ cục xung đột, vấn đề, quan hệ của họ, v.v..? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Phải không? Các bạn nóng nực không?
12:37	Can one listen without effort, first? Not to the speaker only, but to learn the art of listening, which means not creating an image about the speaker, about the person who is speaking – your wife, your husband, and so on – not to have an image when you are listening. Right? Not to have a concept, not to hold on to one’s own knowledge, and as you are listening, interpret what is being said according to your knowledge. All this denies actual listening. If you want to see something very clearly, you must give your attention. Attention implies not concentration, just observation, to see what is actually happening. Like a good scientist looking through a microscope, he must look what is actually taking place. But if he has a hypothesis, a conclusion, with that he is looking, then he is incapable of pure observation of what is going on. Right? Please. Therefore there is the art of listening, the art of observing, seeing, then there is the art of thinking together. From that arises the art of learning. We will go into all this presently.	Trước hết, bạn có thể nghe không cố gắng? Không phải chỉ người nói mà học nghệ thuật nghe nghĩa là không tạo hình ảnh về người nói về một người đang nói - vợ bạn, chồng bạn, v.v.. không có hình ảnh khi bạn đang nghe. Phải không? Không có quan niệm, không ôm giữ kiến thức riêng và khi bạn nghe diễn giải điều được nghe theo kiến thức riêng. Mọi việc này chối bỏ nghe thực. Nếu bạn muốn nhìn điều gì thật rõ bạn phải chú tâm. Chú tâm hàm ý không tập trung, chỉ quan sát để nhìn điều đang xảy ra. Như nhà khoa học giỏi nhìn qua kính hiển vi anh ta phải nhìn điều đang xảy ra. Nhưng nếu anh ta có giả thuyết, kết luận, về cái đang nhìn thì anh ta không thể thuần quan sát việc đang xảy ra. Phải không? Nào. Vì vậy có nghệ thuật nghe, nghệ thuật quan sát nhìn, rồi có nghệ thuật cùng suy tư. Từ đó nảy ra nghệ thuật học hỏi. Chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu hết.
15:00	We are now going into the art of thinking together. You and the speaker having put aside their personal problems, issues and all the rest of it, so that we can think together, to observe our problems. Not the problems that the speaker imposes, but the human problems. Right?	Chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu nghệ thuật cùng suy tư. Bạn và người nói đã dẹp hết vấn đề cá nhân và mọi thứ để chúng ta có thể cùng suy tư, quan sát vấn đề mình. Không phải vấn đề người nói đặt mà vấn đề con người. Phải không?
15:32	So we are saying: why has man throughout the ages lived in a constant state of conflict? Whether he is seeking God, whether seeking heaven, whatever he does, both in our relationships outwardly and inwardly with each other, there is this constant struggle, strife. How has this come about? Why can’t we live completely without a single shadow of strife? You understand my question? Please, put that question to yourself, and let’s find out the true cause of it, together.	Vậy chúng ta hỏi: tại sao con người mọi thời đại cứ sống mãi trong xung đột? Dù hắn tìm Thượng đế, tìm thiên đàng dù hắn làm gì, trong quan hệ lẫn nhau, bên trong lẫn bên ngoài, luôn có đấu tranh, xung đột bất tận. Làm sao việc này xảy ra? Tại sao chúng ta không thể sống hoàn toàn không xung đột? Bạn hiểu câu hỏi không? Hãy đặt câu hỏi với chính bạn và hãy cùng tìm ra nguyên nhân thật.
16:49	Strife must exist where there is division. That is obvious; division between the guru and the disciple, between our nationalities, as long as there is a division of any kind, there must be conflict. This is obvious. Right? Do we see that? As long as one thinks one is superior to another, there must be conflict. As long as one asserts one’s opinions, judgements as opposed to another’s opinions, another judgement, there must be division and conflict. In relationship between two people, each pursuing his own ambitions, his own fulfilment his own desires, division exists, and therefore there is conflict. Right? I hope you are following. You are observing it not verbally, not intellectually, but actually as it is taking place in your daily life. Right?	Xung đột phải có mặt nơi đâu có phân chia. Đó hiển nhiên phân chia giữa thầy và đệ tử, giữa các quốc gia hễ còn loại phân chia nào tất phải có xung đột. Hiển nhiên. Phải không? Chúng ta có thấy vậy? Hễ bạn còn nghĩ mình cao cả hơn kẻ khác tất phải có xung đột. Hễ bạn còn khẳng định quan điểm, phán đoán mình nghịch với quan điểm, phán đoán khác, phải có phân chia và xung đột. Trong quan hệ giữa hai người mỗi người theo tham vọng riêng, thoả mãn riêng ước muốn riêng, phân chia có mặt và vậy nên có xung đột. Phải không? Hy vọng bạn theo kịp. Bạn quan sát không qua lời nói hay trí óc mà thực sự khi nó xảy ra trong sống hàng ngày. Phải không?
18:29	Now we are asking: why has this division come into being? There is the sunset and sunrise, darkness and light, the stars in their great brilliancy and beauty, and the dark earth, there is a man and a woman, there is nature and technological improvement. All at that level, which is actual. And inwardly, if you observe carefully, inwardly, there is also division: I must/I must not, I have been/I shall be, I shall achieve/I may not achieve. So there is always this inward division as well as outward division. Right? Right, sir? Some of you at least agree or disagree with me.	Giờ chúng ta hỏi: tại sao có phân chia? Có mặt trời lặn mọc, sáng tối, sao sáng lấp lánh với vẻ đẹp và đất tối đen, có đàn ông và đàn bà, có tự nhiên và cải tiến kỹ thuật. Mọi thứ ở mức ấy, là thực tế. Và bên trong, nếu bạn quan sát kỹ, bên trong cũng có phân chia: Phải/đừng, đã là/sẽ là, tôi sẽ đạt/tôi có thể không đạt. Vậy luôn có phân chia bên trong cũng như phân chia bên ngoài. Phải không? Đúng không? Vài bạn ít ra đồng ý hoặc không với tôi.
20:01	We are asking why. How has this come about? Is this the normal state, natural healthy state? Or it is really abnormal. Really non-existent. This is what we are going to find out. You are following all this? First of all, we are asking: is this normal, this division? And why does this division exist, between God and man, the good and the bad, the better – and so on, this constant division, comparison, conformity to a pattern, and so on, so on? Is this normal? We have accepted it as normal. Like war – please, follow – like war, like the man who says, ‘I know, you don’t know’, ‘I interpret God and you listen’. We have accepted nationalism, division of classes, hierarchical outlook as being normal, healthy, necessary, because we think that is progress. Right? That is evolution, that is achieving the good. Right? Now we are saying – is this normal? We are questioning to find out together – together – not the speaker says something and you accept or reject, but together we are investigating into this question, which means we are thinking together, not you think and I accept, or I think and you accept, or you reject or I reject, but together we are thinking and exploring. Right? Please. Because we want to point out that there is a way of living without a single effort, both physically as well as psychologically. Right? So is this normal? We say yes, it is normal, because everything struggles to exist. Nature is in constant battle of survival – the tiger killing the deer and so on, so on. That struggle, strife is normal. Because it exists there, it must exist naturally here. And without struggle, without comparison, without competition, you cannot progress. Perhaps that may be so in the technological world, but we have accepted it also psychologically – right? – that the more knowledge we have, the greater the ascent of man. Right? The more one knows about the universe, about the environment, the more and more, the more cultivated, the more educated, the more enlightened the human being becomes. All that implies struggle.	Chúng ta hỏi tại sao. Làm sao nó xảy ra? Nó bình thường, trạng thái khoẻ tự nhiên? Hay thực sự bất thường. Thực sự không có. Đó là việc chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu. Bạn theo kịp không? Trước hết chúng ta hỏi: phân chia - là bình thường? Và tại sao có phân chia, giữa Thượng đế và người tốt và xấu, tốt hơn - và v.v.., phân chia triền miên so sánh, tuân theo khuôn mẫu, và v.v..? Bình thường? Chúng ta chấp nhận bình thường. Như chiến tranh - theo dõi nhé - như chiến tranh, người nói 'Tôi biết, bạn không', 'Tôi giải thích Thượng đế bạn nghe'. Chúng ta chấp nhận chủ nghĩa dân tộc, chia giai cấp, lối nhìn thứ bậc là bình thường, đúng, cần, bởi nghĩ nó tiến bộ. Phải không? Đó là tiến hóa, là đạt điều tốt. Phải không? Giờ chúng ta nói nó bình thường? Chúng ta hỏi để cùng khám phá - cùng nhau không phải người nói nói gì đó và bạn thuận hay chống mà cùng nhau chúng ta tìm hiểu vấn đề nghĩa là cùng suy tư, không phải bạn suy nghĩ và tôi nhận hay tôi nghĩ và bạn nhận, hay bạn chống hay tôi chống mà cùng nhau chúng ta suy tư và thám sát. Phải không? Nào. Bởi chúng ta muốn chỉ ra rằng có cách sống mà không chút cố gắng, cả vật lý cũng như tâm lý. Phải không? Vậy bình thường chứ? Phải, bình thường bởi mọi vật đấu tranh để sinh tồn. Thiên nhiên là đấu tranh sinh tồn bất tận hổ giết nai và v.v.. Đấu tranh, xung đột ấy bình thường. Bởi nó có ở kia, nó phải tự nhiên có ở đây. Và không đấu tranh, không so sánh không tranh đua, bạn không thể tiến bộ. Có thể nó vậy trong thế giới kỹ thuật nhưng chúng ta cũng chấp nhận nó tâm lý - phải không? càng có nhiều kiến thức thì con người càng đi lên. Phải không? Bạn càng biết về vũ trụ về xung quanh, càng thêm, càng trao dồi càng học hành, con người càng trở nên sáng suốt. Tất cả hàm ý tranh đấu.
25:05	Why is there this division? Have we taken it over from the actual fact that I must struggle with the earth and cultivate it to produce what one can eat? Is it the struggle in the outward world for sheer existence has that concept, or that actuality slipped into the psychological world? You are following all this? Or is this too brainy, all this? I don’t think it is too brainy, it’s just clarity of explanation – right? – verbal clarity. We must begin with verbal clarity, otherwise we cannot communicate with each other. If you say that is all too complicated for me, too highbrow, too intellectual, you stop investigating, finding out for yourself why human beings have lived like this through millennia, struggling. Is that the reason? We see nature in struggle, in conflict, we see to learn a new language implies a certain amount of strain, conflict, attention, to learn a skill requires effort, so perhaps that movement has been accepted in the psychological field. That is one fact. We are asking that. Or is it that human beings throughout the world have emphasised in their culture, in their religion in their activity, the ego, the me, separate from you? Do you follow? So, culture, religion, economics, politics, everything has educated man to the idea, to the concept of the me and the you. Therefore there is a division. And in the me there are innumerable divisions. Right? The ‘me’ not wanting and wanting. The ‘me’ that says, ‘I shall be, I have been, I must be in the future’. So is that the reason why – is that the cause of this division, which is brought about by culture, religion, and so on, so on? That is second. Or is it that each human being is seeking salvation individually, seeking security individually, seeking Nirvana, heaven, illumination, by himself? And the idea that when you reach that, then you are all one. You follow?	Tại sao có phân chia? Chúng ta đã nắm nó từ thực tế rằng chúng ta phải tranh đấu với đất và cày xới để sinh sản vật có thể ăn? Nó là đấu tranh ở thế giới bên ngoài để chỉ sinh tồn có phải quan niệm, hay thực tế ấy trợt vào thế giới tâm lý? Bạn theo kịp không? Hay mọi cái này quá đầu óc? Tôi không nghĩ nó quá đầu óc chỉ là giải thích rõ ràng - phải không - lời rõ ràng. Chúng ta phải bắt đầu với lời rõ ràng ngược lại chúng ta không thể trao đổi nhau. Nếu bạn nói nó quá phức tạp với tôi, quá sách vở quá trí óc, bạn dừng tìm kiếm, tìm tòi cho chính bạn tại sao con người sống như thế, bao thiên niên kỷ, đấu tranh. Đó là lý do? Chúng ta nhìn tự nhiên trong đấu tranh, xung đột chúng ta thấy để học ngôn ngữ mới hàm ý khá căng thẳng xung đột, chú tâm, để học một kỹ năng đòi hỏi cố gắng nên có lẽ chuyển động ấy được chấp nhận ở lĩnh vực tâm lý. Đó là một thực tế. Chúng ta hỏi nó. Hay là con người khắp thế giới trong văn hóa, trong tôn giáo, trong hoạt động nhấn mạnh bản ngã, cái tôi tách rời bạn? Theo kịp không? Vậy, văn hóa, tôn giáo, kinh tế, chính trị, mọi thứ đã dạy con người ý niệm, quan niệm về cái tôi và cái bạn. Vậy là có phân chia. Và trong cái tôi có vô số phân chia. Phải không? Cái 'tôi' không muốn và muốn. Cái 'tôi' nói, 'Tôi sẽ, tôi đã, tôi phải là trong tương lai.' Vậy đó là lý do tại sao - phải đó là nguyên nhân phân chia sinh ra do văn hóa, tôn giáo, và v.v..,v.v..? Đó là thứ nhì. Hay có phải mỗi người tìm giải thoát cá nhân, tìm an toàn cá nhân, tìm Niết bàn, thiên đàng, tỏ ngộ, bằng chính hắn? Và ý niệm rằng khi bạn đạt được thì đều là một? Kịp không?
29:32	So this has been what we have been taught, encouraged, learnt, conditioned. Right? And a man – or rather when I say a man, there might be ladies who are opposed to man, and all the rest of it – why has a human being not gone into this question? No saint has gone into it. No religious teacher has gone into it. They say ultimately you will be without effort, but you must make effort to reach the ultimate, therefore you must struggle, you must conform, you must discipline, you must starve, you must fast, you must – you know, all the rest of it – you must follow, accept authority. Seeing that, one begins to question it. One asks: is it possible? One sees the causes of this division – political, religious, national: the Arab, the Jew, the Hindu, the Muslim – you follow? – all that, the totalitarian, the capitalist, they are all the same.	Vậy đó là cái chúng ta được dạy, khuyến khích, học, qui định. Phải không? Và con người - hay hơn thế khi nói người có thể có quý bà nghịch với quý ông và v.v.. Tại sao con người không tìm hiểu vấn đề này? Không thánh nào tìm hiểu. Không vị thầy tôn giáo nào tìm hiểu. Họ nói cuối cùng bạn sẽ không cố gắng nhưng bạn phải cố gắng đạt cái tối hậu vì vậy bạn phải tranh đấu, phải tuân thủ, phải kỹ luật bạn phải đói khát, phải nhịn ăn, phải bạn biết, mọi thứ - bạn phải theo, chấp nhận uy quyền. Thấy thế, bạn bắt đầu hỏi xem. Bạn hỏi: có thể không? Bạn thấy nguyên nhân phân chia - chính trị, tôn giáo, dân tộc... Ả rập, Do thái, Ấn, Hồi - kịp không? mọi thứ, độc tài, tư bản, họ đều như nhau. Vậy là bình thường?
31:25	So, is this normal? Or we have so given to this individual, isolated self-centred problems, seeking security there and never finding it, because when one is isolated, one can never be secure. Right? I wonder if you see that? Now when one country is isolating itself from another country, how can they co-exist? There must be wars – you know, the whole thing that is going on. But yet we, as human beings, are isolating ourselves in all our activities and trying to find in that isolation security, and have a relationship with another who is also seeking, isolating himself – there must be inevitably conflict. And therefore no security. Right? Security implies a state of mind in which there is no conflict. You following this? Right, sir?	Hay chúng ta cho nó vào cá nhân, cô lập vấn đề vị ngã, tìm an toàn ở đó và không bao giờ tìm ra bởi khi cô lập bạn không bao giờ có thể an toàn. Phải không? Bạn có thấy thế? Khi một xứ cô lập mình với xứ khác làm sao chúng cùng tồn tại? Phải có chiến tranh - bạn biết toàn bộ việc xảy ra. Thế nhưng, con người chúng ta, tự cô lập trong mọi hoạt động và cố tìm an toàn trong cô lập ấy và khi có quan hệ với ai khác họ cũng tìm kiếm cũng tự cô lập - dĩ nhiên phải có xung đột. Và vậy không có an toàn. Phải không? An toàn hàm ý trạng thái trí óc không có xung đột. Bạn theo kịp không? Phải không?
33:23	Is this an illusion, this division, a delusion that man thought has invented? Or is it an actuality in the sense – real, true? Right? Is it the result of thought? You understand? We have the capacity to think, at least most people have, to a limited or to a wide extent. To think clearly. Or think in illusion created by thought. Right? Are you following all this? Thought, as we have been saying, is the response of memory, experience, knowledge. Right? You have stored up through experience certain knowledge, that knowledge has become memory, and that memory responds as thought. This is obvious, we don’t have to discuss this point. Which is, knowledge is the past, experience is the past, memory is in the realm of the past, and so thought, being in the past, is limited. Right? I wonder if you see all this. Yes, sir? Please, don’t agree. Watch it. It is so obvious. So thought is the movement of the past, movement modifying itself in the present, going on, but always rooted in the past. Therefore it is limited. Right? Isn’t that so? Please, come on.	Phân chia ấy, có phải là ảo tưởng mà con người suy nghĩ đã tạo ra? Hay nó là thực tế, trong nghĩa có thực? Phải không? Phải là kết quả của suy nghĩ? Bạn hiểu không? Chúng ta có khả năng suy tư ít ra là đa số người, đến một giới hạn hay mức độ nào. Suy tư trong sáng. Hay suy tư trong ảo tưởng do suy nghĩ tạo. Phải không? Bạn theo kịp hết không? Suy nghĩ, như chúng ta đã nói là đáp ứng của ký ức, kinh nghiệm, kiến thức. Phải không? Bạn đã lưu lại qua kinh nghiệm vài kiến thức kiến thức trở thành ký ức và ký ức đáp ứng như suy nghĩ. Nó hiển nhiên, chúng ta không bàn cãi việc này. Vậy, kiến thức là cũ, kinh nghiệm là cũ, ký ức ở trong lĩnh địa cũ, và suy nghĩ cũng thuộc cái cũ nên giới hạn. Phải không? Không biết bạn có thấy vậy. Có à? Xin đừng đồng ý. Xem đi. Hiển nhiên đó. Vậy suy nghĩ là chuyển động của cái cũ, chuyển động tự canh cải ở hiện tại, tiếp tục, nhưng luôn dính ở quá khứ. Vì vậy nó giới hạn. Phải không? Không phải à? Nào tiếp tục.
36:01	So has thought invented this idea as the ‘me’ separate from you? You are following all this? Has not thought created nationalities? Has not thought created the Catholic and the Protestant? Has not thought created the Jew and the Arab, the Muslim and the Hindu, and so on? Has not thought divided this? Right? It is obvious. So in this division, thought hopes to find security. Right? Of course. If you found no security in isolation, you would have some other quality. You are following? So I am asking: as thought is limited, because it is the response of the past and therefore it must always, under all circumstances, be limited, and has thought brought about this isolating existence of each one, separate, in order to be secure in this isolation? You are following all this? Are we following this?	Vậy suy nghĩ tạo ra ý niệm cái 'tôi' tách rời với bạn? Bạn theo kịp không? Suy nghĩ không tạo ra quốc tịch à? Suy nghĩ không tạo ra Cơ đốc và Tin lành sao? Suy nghĩ không tạo ra Do thái và Ả rập Hồi giáo và Hinđu, v.v..? Suy nghĩ không phân chia vậy ư? Phải không? Hiển nhiên. Trong phân chia ấy suy nghĩ hy vọng tìm ra an toàn. Phải không? Dĩ nhiên. Nếu không tìm an toàn trong cô lập bạn có đặc tính khác. Bạn theo kịp không? Vậy tôi hỏi: khi suy nghĩ giới hạn, bởi nó là đáp ứng của quá khứ và vậy nó luôn phải giới hạn, trong mọi trường hợp, và có phải suy nghĩ sinh ra cuộc sống cô lập của mỗi người, tách biệt, để an toàn trong cô lập ấy? Bạn theo kịp hết chứ? Bạn theo kịp không? Và cái mà suy nghĩ tạo ra cũng thực: lều, ánh sáng điện
38:10	And what thought has created is also actual: the tent, the electric light, the whole technological field – that is actual, real. And is the ‘me’, the ego, real? You understand? Thought has created the world of technology, architecture, poems, statues, beautiful gardens, excellent carpentry, great cathedrals, and also thought has created the things in the cathedrals. Right? I wonder – obvious. All the rituals, dogmas, the whole circus that goes on in every church, in every temple, in every mosque, this is the whole process of the movement of thought. Right? So I am asking, we are asking: is the ‘me’, the ego, actual? Or is it an illusion? A delusion that has been brought about by thought, thought being limited? You understand? In its limitation, it has created the thing which is limited. Do you see this? Or you are rejecting this? Because we are thinking together. And we are saying, where there is division, there must be conflict, there must be strife, there must be this constant battle going on, outwardly and inwardly. Right? Take a very simple example: man and woman. In all relationships, as it exists now, there is conflict. Right? Would you agree to that? At last! At last everybody agrees about something!	cả lĩnh vực kỹ thuật - nó thực tế, thực. Và cái 'tôi', bản ngã, là thực? Bạn hiểu không? Suy nghĩ tạo ra thế giới kỹ thuật, kiến trúc, thơ ca, tượng khu vườn xinh đẹp, rui kèo tuyệt vời, thánh đường nguy nga và suy nghĩ cũng tạo ra các vật trong thánh đường. Phải không? Tôi tự hỏi - hiển nhiên. Mọi lễ nghi, giáo điều, cả gánh xiếc diễn ra trong mỗi nhà thờ, đền chùa, đền miếu. nó là cả tiến trình chuyển động của suy nghĩ. Phải không? Vậy tôi hỏi, chúng ta hỏi: cái 'tôi', bản ngã, là thực? Hay nó là ảo tưởng? Ảo tưởng được sinh ra do ý nghĩ, suy nghĩ giới hạn? Bạn hiểu không? Trong giới hạn nó tạo ra vật giới hạn. Bạn có thấy vậy? Hay bạn từ chối nó? Bởi chúng ta cùng suy nghĩ. Và chúng ta nói nơi có phân chia tất phải có xung đột phải có bất hòa, phải có đấu tranh bất tận xảy ra bên ngoài và bên trong. Phải không? Lấy ví dụ đơn giản: nam và nữ. Trong mọi quan hệ, như hiện giờ, luôn có xung đột. Phải không? Bạn đồng ý chứ? Vậy à!(Cười) Cuối cùng ai cũng đồng ý một điều!
41:13	You have accepted that conflict, that strife in relationship, and you either escape from it through entertainment, drugs, various forms of fulfilments and all the rest of it, run off to a monastery, to gurus and all that, or – you know all that is happening. And one has never asked in that relationship whether you can live with another perfectly peacefully, not indifferently, not callously, not caring for each other, but caring, being tremendously affectionate, being responsible, but without a sense of conflict. Right? Now, can we think this out together now? Not go home and think it out – now, sitting here, can we together think it out, so that you can totally end this conflict in relationship?	Bạn chấp nhận xung đột ấy, tranh cãi ấy trong quan hệ và bạn chạy trốn nó bằng giải trí, ma tuý nhiều hình thức thoả mãn khác, v.v..., bỏ chạy đến tu viện, đạo sư và mọi thứ, hay - bạn biết mọi việc xảy ra. Và bạn không hề hỏi xem trong quan hệ bạn có thể sống với ai khác hoàn toàn an bình, không thờ ơ, không lãnh đạm phớt lờ, mà quan tâm, rất yêu mến có trách nhiệm, và không có cảm giác xung đột. Phải không? Giờ chúng ta có thể cùng suy nghĩ? Không về nhà rồi nghĩ ra - ngồi đây, chúng ta có thể cùng nghĩ ra để bạn có thể chấm dứt hết xung đột trong quan hệ. Questioner: Nó có thể tuỳ... Krishnamurti: Khoan, khoan.
42:37	Questioner: It could depend... Krishnamurti: Wait, wait.	Q: ...chỉ với tôi và cũng với ai khác.
42:40	Q:...only for me and also for the other one.	K:Tôi sẽ đi sâu. Làm ơn một chút thôi.
42:42	K: I am going to go into that, sir. Un momento per favoure. We will go into it.	Chúng ta sẽ tìm hiểu.
42:59	First of all, do we see actually, not verbally, actually that which is happening in our relationship? Right? That is obvious. Go slowly, go slowly. Why has this division in relationship taken place? Go on. Don’t say, ‘If we loved each other, it would be all right’. But we don’t love each other. That is obvious. So don’t bring that in, it has no meaning. But the actual fact is conflict. I am saying why? Isn’t it fairly obvious that each one – man, woman – each one is exploiting each other, each one using each other, trying to fulfil sexually, non-sexually in each other, and each one being ambitious in different directions, pulling away all the time from each other and meeting perhaps in bed and thinking we love each other. Now I say: what is the root of all this? Ask yourselves: what is the root of this? Apart from man, woman, nature – you know, difference in sexes – apart from that, why is there this division between you and me, between the woman and man, in their relationship? Is it – we are asking, please, enquire with me – is it our culture, our education, which has so emphasised the ‘me’ so strongly, and the ‘you’ equally strongly? You follow? That is, my ego and your ego. Right? The ego being created by thought, thought which is limited.	Trước hết chúng ta thấy thực, không phải lời nói mà thực việc xảy ra trong quan hệ. Phải không? Hiển nhiên. Đi chầm chậm thôi. Tại sao phân chia trong quan hệ xảy ra? Tiếp tục. Đừng nói, 'Nếu chúng tôi yêu nhau thì tốt thôi'. Nhưng chúng ta không yêu nhau. Hiển nhiên. Vậy đừng đem nó vào, vô nghĩa. Mà thực tế là xung đột. Tôi hỏi tại sao? Không phải hiển nhiên rằng mỗi người - nam, nữ mỗi người lợi dụng nhau, mỗi người dùng lẫn nhau cố thoả mãn tình dục, hay không tình dục nhau và mỗi người tham vọng theo hướng khác nhau luôn luôn lôi kéo nhau, và có lẽ gặp nhau trên giường rồi nghĩ rằng chúng ta yêu nhau. Giờ tôi hỏi: gốc nó là gì? Bạn tự hỏi xem: gốc nó là gì? Bỏ qua nam, nữ, tự nhiên - bạn biết, khác giới tính bỏ qua đó, tại sao có phân chia giữa bạn và tôi giữa nam và nữ, trong quan hệ? Phải - chúng ta hỏi, hãy tìm tòi với tôi phải chăng văn hóa, giáo dục, đã nhấn mạnh cái 'tôi' quá mức, và cái 'bạn' cũng quá mức? Kịp không? Tức là bản ngã của tôi và bạn. Phải không? Bản ngã được suy nghĩ tạo ra, suy nghĩ giới hạn.
45:54	Now when you look at yourself as an ego, the self, the self-centred entity, what is it? Actually, what is it? Is it the name, the form, the shape, the idea, the concept, the image? Right? That is the ‘me’, with all the tendencies, and all the rest of it. Essentially, it is the product of thought. Do you see that? Or do you say, ‘No, no, that is not it. It is God, in me, and God in you’? You see, that is too silly. To maintain this division, man has invented so many concepts: the Hindus have extraordinary concepts, the Atman and so on, so on – I won’t go into all that. You follow? To maintain this division and to continue in the strife, and no way out of it, man has invented gods, and all the rest of it – the saviours, the – all that nonsense to me.	Giờ khi bạn nhìn mình như bản ngã cái ngã, thực thể vị ngã, nó là gì? Thực tế, nó là gì? Nó là tên, hình thể, vóc dáng, ý niệm, quan điểm, hình ảnh? Phải không? Đó là cái 'tôi', với mọi khuynh hướng, v.v.. Cơ bản nó là sản phẩm của suy nghĩ. Bạn có thấy vậy? Hay bạn nói, 'Không, không, đó không phải nó. Nó là Thượng đế, trong tôi, và Thượng đế trong bạn'? Bạn xem, thật quá ngớ ngẩn. Để giữ phân chia này con người đã đặt nhiều quan niệm... Hinđu có những quan niệm lạ lùng Đại ngã, v.v.. - tôi sẽ không đi sâu. Kịp không? Để giữ phân chia và tiếp tục tranh đấu và không có đường ra, con người đã tạo ra thần thánh, v.v.. đấng cứu thế - đều vô nghĩa với tôi. Vậy, chúng ta có thể quan sát 'tôi', cái do suy nghĩ tạo ra
47:50	So, can you observe this ‘me’, which is created by thought, observe it without introducing the movement of thought in that observation? Have you got it? Please, see, first of all, the logic of it. The logic. Thought is the response of knowledge and memory, which is the past. So thought is the past, modifying itself all the time, but it is rooted in the past. And therefore it must always be limited, narrow, can never be whole. Right? And thought has created the division in its action: the ‘me’ and the ‘not me’, the ‘you’ and ‘I’, ‘we’ and ‘they’. And has also created various kinds of divisions: the technological action, the personal action, the ideological action, the supreme action, and so on, so on. Right? That’s a fact. Now can you observe that fact – please, listen carefully – can you observe that fact without thought entering into that observation?	quan sát nó mà không xen chuyển động suy nghĩ vào khi quan sát? Bạn hiểu không? Trước hết hãy thấy hợp lý đã. Hợp lý. Suy nghĩ là đáp ứng của kiến thức và ký ức, là quá khứ. Vậy suy nghĩ là quá khứ luôn tự sửa đổi, nhưng gốc ở quá khứ. Và vậy phải luôn giới hạn, cạn cợt, không bao giờ toàn thể. Phải không? Và suy nghĩ tạo ra phân chia trong hành động 'tôi' và 'không phải tôi', 'bạn' và 'tôi', 'chúng ta' và 'họ'. Và cũng tạo ra nhiều loại phân chia: hành động kỹ thuật, hành động cá nhân hành động ý hệ, hành động tối cao, v.v.. Phải không? Đó là thực tế. Bạn có thể quan sát thực tế ấy - hãy nghe kỹ - bạn có thể quan sát thực tế ấy mà suy nghĩ không xen vào quan sát?
49:52	Q: It is the only instrument I have to use.	Q:Đó là khí cụ duy nhất tôi phải dùng.
49:55	K: One moment, sir. I am coming to that, sir. First, go slowly. The gentleman says it is the only instrument that I have, and therefore how can I look without employing that instrument? You have understood? Right? That is a wrong question you have put. Because we have not clearly understood the limitation of thought. If you see clearly the limitation of thought, so you recognise the instrument is itself limited – right? And is it possible not to employ that instrument? If you find a particular drill cannot dig a hole, you find other means to dig a hole. But if you say, ‘I have only this instrument’, then you cannot dig a hole. You understand? So do we realise the instrument itself is useless to investigate into this question of conflict? That is the whole point. You understand? I wonder if you understand this?	K:Đợi chút. Tôi sẽ đi đến đó. Đi chậm trước đã. Anh bạn nói đó là khí cụ duy nhất tôi có và vậy làm sao tôi có thể nhìn mà không dùng khí cụ ấy? Bạn hiểu không? Phải không? Đó là vấn đề sai bạn đặt ra. Bởi chúng ta không hiểu rõ giới hạn của suy nghĩ. Nếu bạn thấy rõ giới hạn của suy nghĩ bạn nhận ra khí cụ bị giới hạn - phải không? Và không thể dùng khí cụ ấy sao? Nếu bạn thấy cái khoan không thể dùi một lỗ bạn sẽ tìm phương tiện khác để dùi lỗ. Nhưng nếu bạn nói, 'Tôi chỉ có khí cụ ấy' thì bạn không thể dùi lỗ. Bạn hiểu không? Vậy chúng ta có nhận ra khí cụ là vô dụng để tìm hiểu vấn đề xung đột? Đó là toàn bộ vấn đề. Bạn hiểu không? Không biết bạn hiểu không?
51:54	Sir, we see, we are so used to a particular form of action, which has not produced results, but we hold on to it. We don’t say as it has not produced results, I will put it away, throw it out, let me find out another. You follow? That is our struggle. You want to employ the instrument of thought, and through thought you hope to resolve the problem, but thought itself is limited and therefore it is not the instrument. Right? Do we see that? Do we see in our relationship that there is conflict, each one having his own image and therefore division, and these images have been created by thought, and thought is limited and cannot solve the problem.	Chúng ta thấy mình quen với lối hành động nào đó không tạo ra hiệu quả nhưng chúng ta cứ bám nó. Chúng ta không nói nó không tạo ra hiệu quả tôi dẹp nó ném nó đi, để tôi tìm cái khác. Kịp không? Đó là đấu tranh. Bạn muốn dùng khí cụ suy nghĩ và qua suy nghĩ bạn hy vọng sẽ giải quyết vấn đề. nhưng suy nghĩ giới hạn và vậy nó không phải khí cụ. Phải không? Chúng ta thấy vậy? Chúng ta có thấy trong quan hệ có xung đột mỗi người có hình ảnh riêng nên phân chia và hình ảnh ấy do suy nghĩ tạo ra và suy nghĩ giới hạn và không thể giải quyết vấn đề. Giờ chúng ta tìm kiếm khí cụ mới
53:17	Now, we are acquiring a new instrument, which is to observe without the old instrument interfering. You have got this? This is... You see, you won’t let go the old instrument. You think that old instrument will help you, but you don’t see that old instrument has created such tremendous problems in life, and you keep on employing that instrument. Once you see that, then you are looking in other directions. Right? It is like a good carpenter: the chisel doesn’t work, therefore he either throws it away or buys a new one, or sharpens it, but he is rejecting it. But you won’t, because we are not clear, we don’t think clearly. Or we are afraid if the new instrument comes, things might break up. Frightened. Which means you have already projected, thought has already projected an idea that it might not. You are following all this?	tức là quan sát không có khí cụ cũ xen vào. Bạn hiểu không? Đó là... Bạn xem bạn không để khí cụ cũ ra đi. Bạn nghĩ khí cụ cũ sẽ giúp bạn nhưng bạn không thấy khí cụ cũ tạo ra vô số vấn đề trong đời sống, và bạn cứ dùng khí cụ cũ ấy. Hễ một lần bạn thấy thế bạn sẽ nhìn hướng khác. Phải không? Giống như thợ mộc giỏi, cái đục không dùng được thì anh ta ném nó đi và mua cái mới, hay mài lại, nhưng hắn không làm. Nhưng bạn không làm, chúng ta không rõ, không suy nghĩ kỹ. Hay chúng ta sợ khí cụ mới đến mọi việc có thể hỏng. Sợ hãi. Nghĩa là bạn đã dự phóng ý nghĩ đã phóng ra ý niệm rằng không thể. Bạn theo kịp không?
55:12	So can you, after this, can you observe without the old instrument of thought the actual relationship of two images between two people and the division that exists? Look at it, observe it, see it. Then what takes place? You can only do that when you have put aside the old instrument.	Vậy bạn có thể, có thể quan sát mà không có khí cụ cũ của suy nghĩ, không phải quan hệ của hai hình ảnh giữa hai người và có sự phân chia? Nhìn đi, quan sát, xem. Rồi việc gì xảy ra? Bạn chỉ có thể làm vậy khi bạn dẹp hết khí cụ cũ.
55:54	Look, sir, if I want to understand what you are saying, I must listen to you, I must listen to you with affection, with care, with attention, because I want to find out what you are saying. But if I say, ‘Yes, I agree with you. I have heard this before’. Or, ‘You are saying something new which is impossible’, you are not listening. So listening implies, sir, a great sense of attention, love, care. But if you haven’t got that, your old instrument is in operation. And then you say, ‘How am I to pay attention? Tell me the method, the system’. Then thought invents the system, then you become a prisoner to the system and you go on with that. Whereas if you see the importance, the danger of separation in relationship – the real danger – we are destroying each other. Right? The terrorists, the capitalists, all the rest of it, we are destroying each other because each one of us feels he’s separate. And if you see the danger, then you will listen, you are already in a state of acute listening to find out if there is a way out of this.	Nào, nếu tôi muốn hiểu lời bạn nói tôi phải lắng nghe bạn tôi phải lắng nghe bạn với yêu mến, cẩn trọng với chú tâm, bởi tôi muốn tìm xem bạn nói gì. Nhưng nếu tôi nói, 'Vâng, tôi đồng ý với bạn. Tôi đã nghe rồi.' Hay, 'Bạn nói điều gì mới thì không thể' bạn không lắng nghe. Vậy nghe hàm ý, cảm giác chú tâm, yêu thương, cẩn trọng lớn lao. Nhưng nếu bạn không hiểu vậy, khí cụ cũ sẽ hoạt động. Và rồi bạn nói, 'Làm sao tôi chú tâm? Chỉ cho tôi phương pháp, hệ thống'. Rồi suy nghĩ tạo hệ thống và bạn thành tù nhân cho hệ thống và tiếp tục với nó. Trái lại nếu bạn thấy sự quan trọng, nguy hiểm của phân chia trong quan hệ - nguy hiểm thực, chúng ta phá huỷ nhau. Phải không? Chủ nghĩa khủng bố, chủ nghĩa tư bản, v.v.. chúng ta phá huỷ nhau bởi mỗi người cảm thấy họ riêng biệt. Và nếu bạn thấy nguy hiểm thì bạn sẽ lắng nghe, bạn đã nghe trong trạng thái tinh nhạy để tìm xem có đường thoát chăng.
58:04	Right? Are you listening that way? That means to observe silently. Silence means not just going off to sleep or this or that. Silence is tremendous attention. That attention is complete energy. All the energy that you have, with all your mind and heart. That is attention. Then you listen, and that very listening, that very observation dissolves the limitation of the instrument.	Phải không? Bạn có nghe vậy? Nghĩa là im lặng quan sát. Im lặng nghĩa là không bỏ đi ngủ hay này nọ. Im lặng là chú tâm rất lớn. Chú tâm ấy là toàn thể năng lực. Mọi năng lực bạn có, với cả tâm hồn trí óc. Đó là chú tâm. Rồi bạn lắng nghe, và chính lắng nghe ấy chính quan sát ấy giải tan giới hạn của khí cụ.
58:58	But we have not touched upon this question of discipline, because if one understands the nature of discipline: the ‘me’ and the thing to be achieved. You understand? To achieve that, I must discipline myself. If I am to reach God, whatever God may be, which, again, is the invention of thought. Do you accept all this? You see, we discipline ourselves to be good. You tell the child, ‘Be good. Don’t do this, do that’. Is goodness born out of discipline? Have you ever asked that? Is love born out of discipline? Is charity, humility, generosity born out of discipline? And is truth to be found by discipline? Enlightenment through discipline? Which means conformity to a pattern, which is conforming, the ego, the ‘me’, to another pattern, that pattern invented by another ego. You are following all this?	Nhưng chúng ta chưa đụng đến vấn đề kỷ luật bởi nếu bạn thấu hiểu bản chất của kỷ luật cái 'tôi' và việc gì để đạt được. Bạn hiểu không? Để đạt được tôi phải tự kỷ luật. Nếu tôi chạm đến Thượng đế, thượng đế nào đó, lại là sản phẩm của suy nghĩ - bạn có chấp nhận vậy không? (Cười) Bạn xem, chúng ta kỷ luật mình để tốt. Bạn bảo trẻ, 'Tốt đi. Đừng làm này, làm kia đi'. Có phải tốt đẹp do kỷ luật sinh ra? Bạn có hỏi vậy chưa? Có phải yêu thương sinh từ kỷ luật? Có phải nhân từ, khiêm tốn, khoan dung sinh từ kỷ luật? Và có phải chân lý được tìm ra do kỷ luật? Giác ngộ nhờ kỷ luật? Nghĩa là tuân theo khuôn mẫu, tức là tuân theo, bản ngã cái 'tôi', khuôn mẫu nào, khuôn do bản ngã khác tạo ra. Bạn theo kịp không?
1:01:07	So when you see all this, the basic question is: can one live in this world without the ‘me’, without the ego, without all the things thought has created – gods, you know, psychologically? Thought has created the postman – right? – the engineer. You need the postman, you need the engineer, but you don’t need the things that thought has created in its desire to be secure, psychologically. And in that there is no security. Security exists only when there is no division. Right? Will you allow me to go?	Vậy khi bạn thấy hết, vấn đề cơ bản là: có thể nào bạn sống trong đời mà không có 'tôi', bản ngã mọi thứ do suy nghĩ tạo ra - thần thánh, bạn biết, tâm lý? Suy nghĩ tạo ra người đưa thư - phải không? - kỹ sư. Bạn cần người đưa thư, bạn cần kỹ sư, nhưng bạn không cần việc mà suy nghĩ tạo ra trong đó nó muốn an toàn tâm lý. Và trong đó không có an toàn gì. An toàn chỉ hiện hữu khi không có phân chia. Phải không? Bạn để tôi đi chứ?