Life Ahead - part 6 - Is there such a thing as security?
Chúng ta đã nghiên cứu khá nhiều về fear ở nhiều góc cạnh. Sercurity là một khái niệm (từ) khác nhưng có liên quan (không hề nhẹ) ở đây. Xem như một góc nhìn khác để bàn luận. JK có nói fear và pleasure là hai mặt của một đồng xu và nên nghiên cứu chúng cả hai như một nhất thể. Chi tiết mình sẽ tổng hợp và update sau.
Perhaps we can approach the problem of fear from still another angle. Fear does extraordinary things to most of us. It creates all kinds of illusions and problems. Until we go into it very deeply and really understand it, fear will always distort our actions. Fear twists our ideas and makes crooked the way of our life; it creates barriers between people, and it certainly destroys love. So the more we go into fear, the more we understand and are really free of it, the greater will be our contact with all that is around us. At present our vital contacts with life are very few, are they not? But if we can free ourselves of fear we shall have wide contacts, deep understanding, real sympathy, loving consideration, and great will be the extension of our horizon. So let us see if we can talk about fear from a different point of view.
So we want something to give us a sense of certainty, and we have safeguards
of many different kinds. We have inward as well as outward protections. When
we close the windows and doors of our house and stay inside, we feel very
secure, we feel safe, unmolested. But life is not like that. Life is constantly
knocking at our door, trying to push open our windows so that we may see more;
and if out of fear we lock the doors, bolt all the windows, the knocking only
grows louder. The closer we cling to security in any form, the more life comes
and pushes us. The more we are afraid and enclose ourselves, the greater is our
suffering, because life won’t leave us alone. We want to be secure but life says
we cannot be; and so our struggle begins. We seek security in society, in
tradition, in our relationship with our fathers and mothers, with our wives or
husbands; but life always breaks through the walls of our security.
We also seek security or comfort in ideas, do we not? Have you observed
how ideas come into being and how the mind clings to them? You have an idea
of something beautiful you saw when you were out for a walk, and your mind
goes back to that idea, that memory. You read a book and you get an idea to
which you cling. So you must see how ideas arise, and how they become a means
of inward comfort, security, something to which the mind clings.
Hay! (hảo 好!)
Hay cho câu "But life is not like that. Life is constantly knocking at our door..."
Have you ever thought about this question of ideas? If you have an idea and I
have an idea, and each of us thinks that his own idea is better than the other’s, we
struggle, don’t we? I try to convince you, and you try to convince me. The whole world is built on ideas and the conflict between them; and if you go into it, you will find that merely clinging to an idea has no meaning. But have you noticed how your father, your mother, your teachers, your aunts and uncles all cling hard to what they think?
Now, how does an idea come into being? How do you get an idea? When you
have the idea of going out for a walk, for example, how does it arise? It is very
interesting to find out. If you observe you will see how an idea of that kind
arises, and how your mind clings to it, pushing everything else aside. The idea of
going out for a walk is a response to a sensation, is it not? You have gone out for
a walk before and it has left a pleasurable feeling or sensation; you want to do it
again, so the idea is created and then put into action. When you see a beautiful
car, there is a sensation, is there not? The sensation comes from the very looking
at the car. The seeing creates the sensation. From the sensation there is born the
idea, ‘I want that car, it is my car’, and the idea then becomes very dominant.
Cái này có giống seeing - contact - sensation ? ở phần desire hay beauty gì đó.
We seek security in outward possessions and relationships, and also in inward
ideas or beliefs. I believe in God, in rituals, I believe that I should be married in a
certain way, I believe in reincarnation, in life after death, and so on. These beliefs
are all created by my desires, by my prejudices, and to these beliefs I cling. I
have external securities, outside the skin as it were, and also inward securities;
remove or question them, and I am afraid; I will push you away, I will battle with
you if you threaten my security.
Now, is there any such thing as security? Do you understand? We have ideas
about security. We may feel safe with our parents, or in a particular job. The way
we think, the way of our life, the way we look at things—with all this we may
feel satisfied. Most of us are very content to be enclosed in safe ideas. But can
we ever be safe, can we ever be secure, however many outward or inward
safeguards we may have? Outwardly, one’s bank may fail tomorrow, one’s father
or mother may die, there may be a revolution. But is there any safety in ideas?
We like to think we are safe in our ideas, in our beliefs, in our prejudices; but are
we? They are walls which are not real; they are merely our conceptions, our
sensations. We like to believe there is a God who is looking after us, or that we
are going to be reborn richer, more noble than we are now. That may be, or it
may not be. So we can see for ourselves, if we look into both the outward and the
inward securities, that there is no safety in life at all.
Đã đọc phần sercurity và hiểu thế nào là no safety at all. Chỉ khi hiểu rằng không bao giờ có đủ an tâm, an toàn thì khi đó mới thực sự hiểu an toàn là như thế nào. Tức là theo ý chấp nhận sự thật chả bao giờ có (đủ) an toàn hay nói cách khác chấp nhận hiểm nguy/ cái chết...
If you ask the refugees from Pakistan or from Eastern Europe, they will
certainly tell you that there is no outward security. But they feel there is security
inwardly, and they cling to that idea. You may lose your outward security, but
you are then all the more eager to build your security inwardly, and you do not
want to let it go. This implies greater fear.
If tomorrow, or in a few years’ time, your parents tell you whom they want
you to marry, will you be frightened? Of course not, because you have been
brought up to do exactly as you are told; you have been taught by your parents,
by the guru, by the priest to think along certain lines, to act in a certain manner,
to hold certain beliefs. But if you were asked to decide for yourself, would you
not be completely at a loss? If your parents told you to marry whom you like, you would shiver, wouldn’t you? Having been thoroughly conditioned by tradition, by fears, you don’t want to be left to decide things for yourself. In being left alone there is danger, and you never want to be left alone. You never want to think out anything for yourself. You never want to go out for a walk by yourself. You all want to be doing something like active ants. You are afraid to think out any problem, to face any of life’s demands; and being frightened, you do chaotic and absurd things. Like a man with a begging bowl, you thoughtlessly accept whatever is offered.
Vãi cả active ants.
Seeing all this, a really thoughtful person begins to free himself from every
kind of security, inward or outward. This is extremely difficult, because it means
that you are alone—alone in the sense that you are not dependent. The moment
you depend, there is fear; and where there is fear, there is no love. When you
love, you are not lonely. The sense of loneliness arises only when you are
frightened of being alone and of not knowing what to do. When you are
controlled by ideas, isolated by beliefs, then fear is inevitable; and when you are
afraid, you are completely blind.
So, the teachers and the parents together have to solve this problem of fear.
But unfortunately your parents are afraid of what you might do if you don’t get
married, or if you don’t get a job. They are afraid of your going wrong, or of
what people might say, and because of this fear they want to make you do certain
things. Their fear is clothed in what they call love. They want to look after you,
therefore you must do this or that. But if you go behind the wall of their so-called
affection and consideration, you will find there is fear for your safety, for your
respectability; and you also are afraid because you have depended on other
people for so long.
This is extremely difficult. Có cái mẹ gì mà ông thần a nhầm ông thầy này bảo là dễ đâu. Nói vui thế thôi chứ nghĩ ra thì đúng thật. Ngược lại có những cái tưởng rối rắm phức tạp thì lại có câu trả lời rất thỏa đáng như phần complete freedom, purpose of living. Còn lại cũng nhiều câu trả lời kiểu 'ba phải' tức là bạn phải tự kiếm câu trả lời, constanly observe blah blah
That is why it is very important that you should, from the tenderest age, begin
to question and break down these feelings of fear so that you are not isolated by
them, and are not enclosed in ideas, in traditions, in habits, but are a free human
being with creative vitality.
Questioner: Why are we afraid, even though we know that God protects us?
...
When there is the feeling of affection, there is no fear, no exploitation, and
then there is no problem.
Lại god! Gặp mấy ông atheism nản thật. Nhưng câu trả lời vẫn quan trọng. Có gặp ý này đâu đó bên Chris Laro. Chắc copy ý tưởng rồi diễn đạt khác.
Questioner: What is society?
KRISHNAMURTI: What is society? And what is the family? Let us find out, step by step, how society is created, how it comes into being.
What is the family? When you say, ‘This is my family’, what do you mean?
Your father, your mother, your brother and sister, the sense of closeness, the fact
that you are living together in the same house, the feeling that your parents are
going to protect you, the ownership of certain property, of jewels, saris,
clothes—all this is the basis of the family. There are other families like yours
living in other houses, feeling exactly the same things you feel, having the sense
of ‘my wife’, ‘my husband’, ‘my children’, ‘my house’, ‘my clothes’, ‘my car’;
there are many such families living on the same piece of earth, and they come to
have the feeling that they must not be invaded by still other families. So they
begin to make laws. The powerful families build themselves into high positions,
they acquire big properties, they have more money, more clothes, more cars; they
get together and frame the laws, they tell the rest of us what to do. So gradually
there comes into being a society, with laws, regulations, policemen, with an army
and a navy. Ultimately the whole earth becomes populated by societies of various
kinds. Then people get antagonistic ideas and want to overthrow those who are
established in high positions, who have all the means of power. They break down
that particular society and form another.
Society is the relationship between people—the relationship between one
person and another, between one family and another, between one group and
another, and between the individual and the group. Human relationship is
society, the relationship between you and me. If I am very greedy, very cunning,
if I have great power and authority, I am going to push you out; and you will try
to do the same to me. So we make laws. But others come and break our laws,
establishing another set of laws, and this goes on all the time. In society, which is
human relationship, there is constant conflict. This is the simple basis of society,
which becomes more and more complex as human beings themselves become
more and more complex in their ideas, in their wants, in their institutions and
their industries.
Nhiều câu hỏi và khía cạnh chi tiết là cần thiết và mệt mỏi, nên cố gắng ra khỏi comfort zone để nghiên khảo chúng. Thời đại Internet mọi thứ thông tin gần như có thể truy cập được nhưng tự mình suy xét thì vẫn cần thời gian.
Questioner: Can you be free while living in this society?
KRISHNAMURTI: If I depend on society for my satisfaction, for my comfort, can I ever be free? If I depend on my father for affection, for money, for the initiative to do things, or if I depend in some way on a guru, I am not free, am I? So, is it possible to be free as long as I am psychologically dependent? Surely, freedom is possible only when I have capacity, initiative, when I can think independently, when I am not afraid of what anyone says, when I really want to find out what is true and am not greedy, envious, jealous. As long as I am envious, greedy, I am psychologically depending on society; and as long as I depend on society in that way, I am not free. But if I cease to be greedy, I am free.
Questioner: Why do people want to live in society when they can live alone?
KRISHNAMURTI: Can you live alone?
Questioner: I live in society because my father and mother live in society.
KRISHNAMURTI: To get a job, to earn a livelihood, have you not to live in
society? Can you live alone? For your food, clothing and shelter you depend on
somebody. You cannot live in isolation. No entity is completely alone. It is only
in death that you are alone. In living you are always related—related to your
father, to your brother, to the beggar, to the road-mender, to the merchant, to the
collector. You are always related; and because you do not understand that
relationship, there is conflict. But if you understand the relationship between
yourself and another, there is no conflict, and then the question of living alone
does not arise.
Hay, tôi có lần tìm hiều các bài nói của JK về vấn đề này rồi. Không nhớ như nào nhưng sau đó hình như cũng có câu trả lời thỏa đáng. Chính xác là gì chắc phải tìm lại nhưng có lẽ do nó ngăm vào máu rồi hay sao nên câu hỏi không còn loudest nữa.
Có nhiều Robinson, Tazan ở trong rừng và hải đảo trên thực tế. Gần như là hoàn toàn biệt lập nhưng đây là câu chuyện khác và cũng rất thú vị. Cái câu hỏi nói trên là khi tôi thử suy nghĩ xem liệu một cá nhân có thể làm được gì ví dụ khi anh ta có rất nhiều thứ như máy móc, năng lượng để tự động hóa, anh ta có nhiều thời gian rảnh rỗi. Nhưng nghĩ lại anh ta làm ra nhiều thứ làm gì khi mà chả ai (ngoài anh ta ra) dùng ? Không tính đến việc nhân bản vô tính hay sinh sôi.
Liệu có một loài động vật nào có được sự thông minh và yếu tố cần thiết để dựng lên một nền văn minh ? Chắc chắn cần phải có co-operation. Loài kiến và nhiều loài khác có co-operation và phân chia nhiệm vụ tới tận gene của mỗi loại nhưng chúng chỉ đơn thuần là sinh học. Những loài có vú thông minh dùng tư duy để tồn tại như linh trưởng, cá heo, hải cẩu, thậm chí chim vẹt... nhưng chúng thiếu đi đôi bàn tay... Liệu có nền văn minh dưới nước ? (biển hay nước ngọt) Rõ ràng co-operation trên cạn dễ hơn ? Rất nhiều tri thức cần truyền đạt cho thế hệ sau trên cạn lợi thế hơn ? ... Nói chung rất nhiều câu hỏi bung ra quanh những điểm trên mà tôi đã từng thử vật lộn suy nghĩ. Không nhớ sau như nào nhưng có vẻ JK đã giúp lý giải một phần vấn đề này. Tôi sẽ brain dump lại sau. Why has man given supreme important to thought ? Cẩn thận sự tinh tế và hiểm hóc khi chúng ta đặt câu hỏi và tìm kiếm câu trả lời. Ví dụ khi chúng ta seek, what am i to do ? hay what is the right action ?... chúng ta cứ xoái vào cái what trong khi how to do right action ... sẽ dễ dàng hơn. Không sure lắm nhưng JK có nói nếu bạn có love, tình yêu thương, intelligence ... thì bạn có thể làm bất cứ việc gì, tự bạn suy sét đúng đắn không bị cling vào một câu trả lời answer nào cả, không đưa ra kết luận. Bạn phải constanly observe ... Đại ý là mấy điểm trên đã phần nào (somehow/may be) lý giải được những thắc mắc trên của mình. À còn một ý hay nữa: liệu có nền văn minh nào đã tồn tại trước khi loài người xuất hiện ? Và rồi nó đã diệt vong ? Nếu xét trên Trái Đất thì chắc rất khó nhưng ở hành tinh khác thì chúng ta vẫn đang tìm kiếm. Còn before time thì lại là chủ đề khác The ending of time không bàn ở đây. Đảo lại tinh tế một chút: Nếu loài người diệt vong do bệnh dịch, thảm họa nhân tạo hay tự nhiên, liệu các loài khác (còn sống) sẽ tiến hóa ra sao ? Trong lịch sử loài người nói riêng có quá nhiều thứ ngẫu nhiên từ sự tuyệt diệt của khủng long cho tới đột biến gene xương hàm làm não bộ to ra ... Thiết nghĩ nếu loài người chưa xuất hiện thì liệu việc dùng tư duy để tồn tại liệu có là xu thế tiến hoá ? Giả định là tư duy là công cụ ưu thế hơn cả để tồn tại ?
Thôi xin dưng lan man ở đây vì những điểm trên có thể viết ra cả đống bàn luận. Tuy nhiên có thể thấy những phương pháp khoa học, thực nghiệm mà tôi nghĩ là tốt nhất (duy nhất?) để nghiên khảo vấn đề đi dần tới sự thực nhất. Có vẻ nó làm lu mờ 'cách' tiếp cận và giảng dạy của JK ? JK có vè không đối lập với khoa học dù nhiều điểm ông 'chỉ trích' (?). Dù sao nó cũng làm lung lay không hề nhẹ 'niềm tin' của tôi vào JK. Lung lay theo kiểu JK không phải là end of the road như nhiều người nói. Có nhiều cách tiếp cận khác JK như các phương pháp khoa học hay dùng. Khoa học và thực nghiệm ở đây theo ý khác với duy tâm chứ không phải là không bao gồm khoa học lý thuyết. Có rất nhiều chương trình và nghiên cứu về tâm lý học, xã hội học ... Có thể JK đi trước nhưng khi một vấn đề nổi cộm các nhà khoa học sẽ nhảy vào và làm sáng tỏ nó, và đương nhiên họ thường hiểu tính có thể sai của mình. JK nói đấy là họ quan sát outside thing, but inside they still ambition, competition... Thời thế thay đổi và quan điểm này có thể không đúng nữa. Anyway ông thầy JK không hề xem sách của mình là tôn chỉ. Không coi mình là guru, không được dựng cái gì worship. Bạn phải tự mình hiểu mình và vấn đề. Những điểm này chắc vẫn là pure gold, đúng đắn trong nhiều thế hệ nữa.
Quay lại vấn đề society, free.
Questioner: Since we are always related to one another, is it not true that we can
never be absolutely free?
KRISHNAMURTI: We don’t understand what relationship is, right relationship.
Suppose I depend on you for my gratification, for my comfort, for my sense of
security; how can I ever be free? But if I do not depend in that way, I am still
related to you, am I not? I depend on you for some kind of emotional, physical or
intellectual comfort, therefore I am not free. I cling to my parents because I want
some kind of safety, which means that my relationship to them is one of
dependence and is based on fear. How then can I have any relationship which is
free? There is freedom in relationship only when there is no fear. So, to have
right relationship, I must set about freeing myself from this psychological
dependency which breeds fear.
"There is freedom in relationship only when there is no fear. right relationship..." đoạn này có một bài viết rồi thì phải, nên tìm và đặt link lại đây. Cũng kiểu kiểu như the right action, the real freedom.
Questioner: How can we be free when our parents depend on us in their old age?
KRISHNAMURTI: Because they are old, they depend on you to support them. So what happens? They expect you to earn a livelihood that will enable you to
clothe and feed them; and if what you want to do is to become a carpenter or an
artist, even though you may earn no money at all, they will say that you must not
do it because you have to support them. Just think about this. I am not saying it is
good or bad. By saying it is good or bad we put an end to thinking. Your parents’
demand that you should provide for them prevents you from living your own life,
and living your own life is considered selfish; so you become the slave of your
parents.
You may say that the State should look after old people through old age
pensions and various other means of security. But in a country where there is
overpopulation, insufficiency of national income, lack of productivity and so on,
the State cannot look after old people. So elderly parents depend on the young,
and the young always fit into the groove of tradition and are destroyed. But this
is not a problem to be discussed by me. You all have to think about it and work it
out.
I naturally want to support my parents within reasonable limits. But suppose I
also want to do something which pays very little. Suppose I want to become a
religious person and live my life to finding out what God is, what truth is. That
way of living may not bring me any money, and if I pursue it I may have to give
up my family—which means they will probably starve, like millions of other
people. What am I to do? As long as I am afraid of what people will say—that I
am not a dutiful son, that I am an unworthy son—I shall never be a creative
human being. To be a happy, creative human being, I must have a great deal of
initiative.
Doạn này có điểm sát thực. Cũng có những điểm lạ. Về mặt sinh học hay sinh tồn thì nhiều tình huống để cha mẹ chết là 'chấp nhận được'. Ý tôi là như trong phần BBC Time machine. Theo thời gian mỗi cá thể có thể tồn tại hay chết đi, cả thảy một loài có thể tồn tại hay diệt vong nhưng sự sống by any form tiếp tục cuộc hành trình của nó xuyên thời gian. Tức là dù chết đi nhưng cơ thể hay gene của mỗi cá thể, mỗi loài đều có ảnh hưởng tới nhau, các loài sinh vật tiếp tục sinh sôi và tiến hóa, thay đổi. Đến đâu thì không biết nhưng khi nghĩ về tổ tiên loài người (mama) hàng trăm triệu năm trước thì câu hỏi cha mẹ trên có gì đó bớt gắt hơn.
Questioner: Would it be good on our part to allow our parents to starve?
KRISHNAMURTI: You are not putting it in the right way. Suppose I really want to become an artist, a painter, and I know painting will bring me very little money. What am I to do? Sacrifice my deep urge to paint and become a clerk? That is what generally happens, is it not? I become a clerk, and for the rest of my life I am in great conflict, I am in misery; and because I am suffering, frustrated, I make life miserable for my wife and children. But if, as a young artist, I see the
significance of all this, I say to my parents, ‘I want to paint and I will give you
what I can from the little I have; that is all I can do.’
You have asked certain questions, and I have answered them. But if you do
not really think about these questions, if you do not go into them for yourself
more and more deeply and approach them from different angles, look at them in
different ways, then you will only say, ‘This is good and that is bad; this is duty
and that is not duty; this is right and that is wrong’—and this will not lead you
any further. Whereas, if you and I think about all these questions together, and if
you and your parents and teachers discuss them, go into them, then your
intelligence will be awakened, and when these problems arise in your daily life
you will be able to meet them. But you will not be able to meet them if you
merely accept what I am saying. My answers to your questions are only intended
to awaken your intelligence, so that you will think out these problems for
yourself and thus be capable of meeting life rightly.
Đoạn này lặp lại ở đâu đó rồi. Đúng là ban phải tự tìm ra câu trả lời cho riêng mình. Cũng thật khéo nếu JK nói ra trả lời cụ thể tình huống này thì căng. Như kiểu SNL Jeopady hỏi người da trắng dối trá điều gì ? Thực tế chúng tôi chấp nhận mọi câu trả lời :). Hay đoạn bắt vẽ chân dung nhà tiên tri Mohamed, không ông nào dám vẽ luôn, dù vẽ thế nào chắc cũng có thể bị tín đồ xử. (Nói ý vui chứ không violent).
Nói nốt lại chủ đề safety. Self-knowledge give much more security, JK nói vậy, ám chỉ việc lời ông không nên cho là chuẩn chỉ, phải tự suy xét lại. Tôi sẽ viết một số bài cố gắng chỉ ra cái 'sai' của JK, hay những thay đổi trong suy nghĩ, cách nói của ông trong suốt hàng chục năm kèm biến cố lịch sử như việc người em JK chết năm 1925 khi 27 tuổi, khi căng thẳng cuộc chiến với Pak, việc nữ thủ tướng bạn thân Indira bị ám sát sau khi tái đắc cử...
Chúng ta đã nghiên cứu khá nhiều về fear ở nhiều góc cạnh. Sercurity là một khái niệm (từ) khác nhưng có liên quan (không hề nhẹ) ở đây. Xem như một góc nhìn khác để bàn luận. JK có nói fear và pleasure là hai mặt của một đồng xu và nên nghiên cứu chúng cả hai như một nhất thể. Chi tiết mình sẽ tổng hợp và update sau.
Perhaps we can approach the problem of fear from still another angle. Fear does extraordinary things to most of us. It creates all kinds of illusions and problems. Until we go into it very deeply and really understand it, fear will always distort our actions. Fear twists our ideas and makes crooked the way of our life; it creates barriers between people, and it certainly destroys love. So the more we go into fear, the more we understand and are really free of it, the greater will be our contact with all that is around us. At present our vital contacts with life are very few, are they not? But if we can free ourselves of fear we shall have wide contacts, deep understanding, real sympathy, loving consideration, and great will be the extension of our horizon. So let us see if we can talk about fear from a different point of view.
So we want something to give us a sense of certainty, and we have safeguards
of many different kinds. We have inward as well as outward protections. When
we close the windows and doors of our house and stay inside, we feel very
secure, we feel safe, unmolested. But life is not like that. Life is constantly
knocking at our door, trying to push open our windows so that we may see more;
and if out of fear we lock the doors, bolt all the windows, the knocking only
grows louder. The closer we cling to security in any form, the more life comes
and pushes us. The more we are afraid and enclose ourselves, the greater is our
suffering, because life won’t leave us alone. We want to be secure but life says
we cannot be; and so our struggle begins. We seek security in society, in
tradition, in our relationship with our fathers and mothers, with our wives or
husbands; but life always breaks through the walls of our security.
We also seek security or comfort in ideas, do we not? Have you observed
how ideas come into being and how the mind clings to them? You have an idea
of something beautiful you saw when you were out for a walk, and your mind
goes back to that idea, that memory. You read a book and you get an idea to
which you cling. So you must see how ideas arise, and how they become a means
of inward comfort, security, something to which the mind clings.
Hay! (hảo 好!)
Hay cho câu "But life is not like that. Life is constantly knocking at our door..."
Have you ever thought about this question of ideas? If you have an idea and I
have an idea, and each of us thinks that his own idea is better than the other’s, we
struggle, don’t we? I try to convince you, and you try to convince me. The whole world is built on ideas and the conflict between them; and if you go into it, you will find that merely clinging to an idea has no meaning. But have you noticed how your father, your mother, your teachers, your aunts and uncles all cling hard to what they think?
Now, how does an idea come into being? How do you get an idea? When you
have the idea of going out for a walk, for example, how does it arise? It is very
interesting to find out. If you observe you will see how an idea of that kind
arises, and how your mind clings to it, pushing everything else aside. The idea of
going out for a walk is a response to a sensation, is it not? You have gone out for
a walk before and it has left a pleasurable feeling or sensation; you want to do it
again, so the idea is created and then put into action. When you see a beautiful
car, there is a sensation, is there not? The sensation comes from the very looking
at the car. The seeing creates the sensation. From the sensation there is born the
idea, ‘I want that car, it is my car’, and the idea then becomes very dominant.
Cái này có giống seeing - contact - sensation ? ở phần desire hay beauty gì đó.
We seek security in outward possessions and relationships, and also in inward
ideas or beliefs. I believe in God, in rituals, I believe that I should be married in a
certain way, I believe in reincarnation, in life after death, and so on. These beliefs
are all created by my desires, by my prejudices, and to these beliefs I cling. I
have external securities, outside the skin as it were, and also inward securities;
remove or question them, and I am afraid; I will push you away, I will battle with
you if you threaten my security.
Now, is there any such thing as security? Do you understand? We have ideas
about security. We may feel safe with our parents, or in a particular job. The way
we think, the way of our life, the way we look at things—with all this we may
feel satisfied. Most of us are very content to be enclosed in safe ideas. But can
we ever be safe, can we ever be secure, however many outward or inward
safeguards we may have? Outwardly, one’s bank may fail tomorrow, one’s father
or mother may die, there may be a revolution. But is there any safety in ideas?
We like to think we are safe in our ideas, in our beliefs, in our prejudices; but are
we? They are walls which are not real; they are merely our conceptions, our
sensations. We like to believe there is a God who is looking after us, or that we
are going to be reborn richer, more noble than we are now. That may be, or it
may not be. So we can see for ourselves, if we look into both the outward and the
inward securities, that there is no safety in life at all.
Đã đọc phần sercurity và hiểu thế nào là no safety at all. Chỉ khi hiểu rằng không bao giờ có đủ an tâm, an toàn thì khi đó mới thực sự hiểu an toàn là như thế nào. Tức là theo ý chấp nhận sự thật chả bao giờ có (đủ) an toàn hay nói cách khác chấp nhận hiểm nguy/ cái chết...
If you ask the refugees from Pakistan or from Eastern Europe, they will
certainly tell you that there is no outward security. But they feel there is security
inwardly, and they cling to that idea. You may lose your outward security, but
you are then all the more eager to build your security inwardly, and you do not
want to let it go. This implies greater fear.
If tomorrow, or in a few years’ time, your parents tell you whom they want
you to marry, will you be frightened? Of course not, because you have been
brought up to do exactly as you are told; you have been taught by your parents,
by the guru, by the priest to think along certain lines, to act in a certain manner,
to hold certain beliefs. But if you were asked to decide for yourself, would you
not be completely at a loss? If your parents told you to marry whom you like, you would shiver, wouldn’t you? Having been thoroughly conditioned by tradition, by fears, you don’t want to be left to decide things for yourself. In being left alone there is danger, and you never want to be left alone. You never want to think out anything for yourself. You never want to go out for a walk by yourself. You all want to be doing something like active ants. You are afraid to think out any problem, to face any of life’s demands; and being frightened, you do chaotic and absurd things. Like a man with a begging bowl, you thoughtlessly accept whatever is offered.
Vãi cả active ants.
Seeing all this, a really thoughtful person begins to free himself from every
kind of security, inward or outward. This is extremely difficult, because it means
that you are alone—alone in the sense that you are not dependent. The moment
you depend, there is fear; and where there is fear, there is no love. When you
love, you are not lonely. The sense of loneliness arises only when you are
frightened of being alone and of not knowing what to do. When you are
controlled by ideas, isolated by beliefs, then fear is inevitable; and when you are
afraid, you are completely blind.
So, the teachers and the parents together have to solve this problem of fear.
But unfortunately your parents are afraid of what you might do if you don’t get
married, or if you don’t get a job. They are afraid of your going wrong, or of
what people might say, and because of this fear they want to make you do certain
things. Their fear is clothed in what they call love. They want to look after you,
therefore you must do this or that. But if you go behind the wall of their so-called
affection and consideration, you will find there is fear for your safety, for your
respectability; and you also are afraid because you have depended on other
people for so long.
This is extremely difficult. Có cái mẹ gì mà ông thần a nhầm ông thầy này bảo là dễ đâu. Nói vui thế thôi chứ nghĩ ra thì đúng thật. Ngược lại có những cái tưởng rối rắm phức tạp thì lại có câu trả lời rất thỏa đáng như phần complete freedom, purpose of living. Còn lại cũng nhiều câu trả lời kiểu 'ba phải' tức là bạn phải tự kiếm câu trả lời, constanly observe blah blah
That is why it is very important that you should, from the tenderest age, begin
to question and break down these feelings of fear so that you are not isolated by
them, and are not enclosed in ideas, in traditions, in habits, but are a free human
being with creative vitality.
Questioner: Why are we afraid, even though we know that God protects us?
...
When there is the feeling of affection, there is no fear, no exploitation, and
then there is no problem.
Lại god! Gặp mấy ông atheism nản thật. Nhưng câu trả lời vẫn quan trọng. Có gặp ý này đâu đó bên Chris Laro. Chắc copy ý tưởng rồi diễn đạt khác.
Questioner: What is society?
KRISHNAMURTI: What is society? And what is the family? Let us find out, step by step, how society is created, how it comes into being.
What is the family? When you say, ‘This is my family’, what do you mean?
Your father, your mother, your brother and sister, the sense of closeness, the fact
that you are living together in the same house, the feeling that your parents are
going to protect you, the ownership of certain property, of jewels, saris,
clothes—all this is the basis of the family. There are other families like yours
living in other houses, feeling exactly the same things you feel, having the sense
of ‘my wife’, ‘my husband’, ‘my children’, ‘my house’, ‘my clothes’, ‘my car’;
there are many such families living on the same piece of earth, and they come to
have the feeling that they must not be invaded by still other families. So they
begin to make laws. The powerful families build themselves into high positions,
they acquire big properties, they have more money, more clothes, more cars; they
get together and frame the laws, they tell the rest of us what to do. So gradually
there comes into being a society, with laws, regulations, policemen, with an army
and a navy. Ultimately the whole earth becomes populated by societies of various
kinds. Then people get antagonistic ideas and want to overthrow those who are
established in high positions, who have all the means of power. They break down
that particular society and form another.
Society is the relationship between people—the relationship between one
person and another, between one family and another, between one group and
another, and between the individual and the group. Human relationship is
society, the relationship between you and me. If I am very greedy, very cunning,
if I have great power and authority, I am going to push you out; and you will try
to do the same to me. So we make laws. But others come and break our laws,
establishing another set of laws, and this goes on all the time. In society, which is
human relationship, there is constant conflict. This is the simple basis of society,
which becomes more and more complex as human beings themselves become
more and more complex in their ideas, in their wants, in their institutions and
their industries.
Nhiều câu hỏi và khía cạnh chi tiết là cần thiết và mệt mỏi, nên cố gắng ra khỏi comfort zone để nghiên khảo chúng. Thời đại Internet mọi thứ thông tin gần như có thể truy cập được nhưng tự mình suy xét thì vẫn cần thời gian.
Questioner: Can you be free while living in this society?
KRISHNAMURTI: If I depend on society for my satisfaction, for my comfort, can I ever be free? If I depend on my father for affection, for money, for the initiative to do things, or if I depend in some way on a guru, I am not free, am I? So, is it possible to be free as long as I am psychologically dependent? Surely, freedom is possible only when I have capacity, initiative, when I can think independently, when I am not afraid of what anyone says, when I really want to find out what is true and am not greedy, envious, jealous. As long as I am envious, greedy, I am psychologically depending on society; and as long as I depend on society in that way, I am not free. But if I cease to be greedy, I am free.
Questioner: Why do people want to live in society when they can live alone?
KRISHNAMURTI: Can you live alone?
Questioner: I live in society because my father and mother live in society.
KRISHNAMURTI: To get a job, to earn a livelihood, have you not to live in
society? Can you live alone? For your food, clothing and shelter you depend on
somebody. You cannot live in isolation. No entity is completely alone. It is only
in death that you are alone. In living you are always related—related to your
father, to your brother, to the beggar, to the road-mender, to the merchant, to the
collector. You are always related; and because you do not understand that
relationship, there is conflict. But if you understand the relationship between
yourself and another, there is no conflict, and then the question of living alone
does not arise.
Hay, tôi có lần tìm hiều các bài nói của JK về vấn đề này rồi. Không nhớ như nào nhưng sau đó hình như cũng có câu trả lời thỏa đáng. Chính xác là gì chắc phải tìm lại nhưng có lẽ do nó ngăm vào máu rồi hay sao nên câu hỏi không còn loudest nữa.
Có nhiều Robinson, Tazan ở trong rừng và hải đảo trên thực tế. Gần như là hoàn toàn biệt lập nhưng đây là câu chuyện khác và cũng rất thú vị. Cái câu hỏi nói trên là khi tôi thử suy nghĩ xem liệu một cá nhân có thể làm được gì ví dụ khi anh ta có rất nhiều thứ như máy móc, năng lượng để tự động hóa, anh ta có nhiều thời gian rảnh rỗi. Nhưng nghĩ lại anh ta làm ra nhiều thứ làm gì khi mà chả ai (ngoài anh ta ra) dùng ? Không tính đến việc nhân bản vô tính hay sinh sôi.
Liệu có một loài động vật nào có được sự thông minh và yếu tố cần thiết để dựng lên một nền văn minh ? Chắc chắn cần phải có co-operation. Loài kiến và nhiều loài khác có co-operation và phân chia nhiệm vụ tới tận gene của mỗi loại nhưng chúng chỉ đơn thuần là sinh học. Những loài có vú thông minh dùng tư duy để tồn tại như linh trưởng, cá heo, hải cẩu, thậm chí chim vẹt... nhưng chúng thiếu đi đôi bàn tay... Liệu có nền văn minh dưới nước ? (biển hay nước ngọt) Rõ ràng co-operation trên cạn dễ hơn ? Rất nhiều tri thức cần truyền đạt cho thế hệ sau trên cạn lợi thế hơn ? ... Nói chung rất nhiều câu hỏi bung ra quanh những điểm trên mà tôi đã từng thử vật lộn suy nghĩ. Không nhớ sau như nào nhưng có vẻ JK đã giúp lý giải một phần vấn đề này. Tôi sẽ brain dump lại sau. Why has man given supreme important to thought ? Cẩn thận sự tinh tế và hiểm hóc khi chúng ta đặt câu hỏi và tìm kiếm câu trả lời. Ví dụ khi chúng ta seek, what am i to do ? hay what is the right action ?... chúng ta cứ xoái vào cái what trong khi how to do right action ... sẽ dễ dàng hơn. Không sure lắm nhưng JK có nói nếu bạn có love, tình yêu thương, intelligence ... thì bạn có thể làm bất cứ việc gì, tự bạn suy sét đúng đắn không bị cling vào một câu trả lời answer nào cả, không đưa ra kết luận. Bạn phải constanly observe ... Đại ý là mấy điểm trên đã phần nào (somehow/may be) lý giải được những thắc mắc trên của mình. À còn một ý hay nữa: liệu có nền văn minh nào đã tồn tại trước khi loài người xuất hiện ? Và rồi nó đã diệt vong ? Nếu xét trên Trái Đất thì chắc rất khó nhưng ở hành tinh khác thì chúng ta vẫn đang tìm kiếm. Còn before time thì lại là chủ đề khác The ending of time không bàn ở đây. Đảo lại tinh tế một chút: Nếu loài người diệt vong do bệnh dịch, thảm họa nhân tạo hay tự nhiên, liệu các loài khác (còn sống) sẽ tiến hóa ra sao ? Trong lịch sử loài người nói riêng có quá nhiều thứ ngẫu nhiên từ sự tuyệt diệt của khủng long cho tới đột biến gene xương hàm làm não bộ to ra ... Thiết nghĩ nếu loài người chưa xuất hiện thì liệu việc dùng tư duy để tồn tại liệu có là xu thế tiến hoá ? Giả định là tư duy là công cụ ưu thế hơn cả để tồn tại ?
Thôi xin dưng lan man ở đây vì những điểm trên có thể viết ra cả đống bàn luận. Tuy nhiên có thể thấy những phương pháp khoa học, thực nghiệm mà tôi nghĩ là tốt nhất (duy nhất?) để nghiên khảo vấn đề đi dần tới sự thực nhất. Có vẻ nó làm lu mờ 'cách' tiếp cận và giảng dạy của JK ? JK có vè không đối lập với khoa học dù nhiều điểm ông 'chỉ trích' (?). Dù sao nó cũng làm lung lay không hề nhẹ 'niềm tin' của tôi vào JK. Lung lay theo kiểu JK không phải là end of the road như nhiều người nói. Có nhiều cách tiếp cận khác JK như các phương pháp khoa học hay dùng. Khoa học và thực nghiệm ở đây theo ý khác với duy tâm chứ không phải là không bao gồm khoa học lý thuyết. Có rất nhiều chương trình và nghiên cứu về tâm lý học, xã hội học ... Có thể JK đi trước nhưng khi một vấn đề nổi cộm các nhà khoa học sẽ nhảy vào và làm sáng tỏ nó, và đương nhiên họ thường hiểu tính có thể sai của mình. JK nói đấy là họ quan sát outside thing, but inside they still ambition, competition... Thời thế thay đổi và quan điểm này có thể không đúng nữa. Anyway ông thầy JK không hề xem sách của mình là tôn chỉ. Không coi mình là guru, không được dựng cái gì worship. Bạn phải tự mình hiểu mình và vấn đề. Những điểm này chắc vẫn là pure gold, đúng đắn trong nhiều thế hệ nữa.
Quay lại vấn đề society, free.
Questioner: Since we are always related to one another, is it not true that we can
never be absolutely free?
KRISHNAMURTI: We don’t understand what relationship is, right relationship.
Suppose I depend on you for my gratification, for my comfort, for my sense of
security; how can I ever be free? But if I do not depend in that way, I am still
related to you, am I not? I depend on you for some kind of emotional, physical or
intellectual comfort, therefore I am not free. I cling to my parents because I want
some kind of safety, which means that my relationship to them is one of
dependence and is based on fear. How then can I have any relationship which is
free? There is freedom in relationship only when there is no fear. So, to have
right relationship, I must set about freeing myself from this psychological
dependency which breeds fear.
"There is freedom in relationship only when there is no fear. right relationship..." đoạn này có một bài viết rồi thì phải, nên tìm và đặt link lại đây. Cũng kiểu kiểu như the right action, the real freedom.
Questioner: How can we be free when our parents depend on us in their old age?
KRISHNAMURTI: Because they are old, they depend on you to support them. So what happens? They expect you to earn a livelihood that will enable you to
clothe and feed them; and if what you want to do is to become a carpenter or an
artist, even though you may earn no money at all, they will say that you must not
do it because you have to support them. Just think about this. I am not saying it is
good or bad. By saying it is good or bad we put an end to thinking. Your parents’
demand that you should provide for them prevents you from living your own life,
and living your own life is considered selfish; so you become the slave of your
parents.
You may say that the State should look after old people through old age
pensions and various other means of security. But in a country where there is
overpopulation, insufficiency of national income, lack of productivity and so on,
the State cannot look after old people. So elderly parents depend on the young,
and the young always fit into the groove of tradition and are destroyed. But this
is not a problem to be discussed by me. You all have to think about it and work it
out.
I naturally want to support my parents within reasonable limits. But suppose I
also want to do something which pays very little. Suppose I want to become a
religious person and live my life to finding out what God is, what truth is. That
way of living may not bring me any money, and if I pursue it I may have to give
up my family—which means they will probably starve, like millions of other
people. What am I to do? As long as I am afraid of what people will say—that I
am not a dutiful son, that I am an unworthy son—I shall never be a creative
human being. To be a happy, creative human being, I must have a great deal of
initiative.
Doạn này có điểm sát thực. Cũng có những điểm lạ. Về mặt sinh học hay sinh tồn thì nhiều tình huống để cha mẹ chết là 'chấp nhận được'. Ý tôi là như trong phần BBC Time machine. Theo thời gian mỗi cá thể có thể tồn tại hay chết đi, cả thảy một loài có thể tồn tại hay diệt vong nhưng sự sống by any form tiếp tục cuộc hành trình của nó xuyên thời gian. Tức là dù chết đi nhưng cơ thể hay gene của mỗi cá thể, mỗi loài đều có ảnh hưởng tới nhau, các loài sinh vật tiếp tục sinh sôi và tiến hóa, thay đổi. Đến đâu thì không biết nhưng khi nghĩ về tổ tiên loài người (mama) hàng trăm triệu năm trước thì câu hỏi cha mẹ trên có gì đó bớt gắt hơn.
Questioner: Would it be good on our part to allow our parents to starve?
KRISHNAMURTI: You are not putting it in the right way. Suppose I really want to become an artist, a painter, and I know painting will bring me very little money. What am I to do? Sacrifice my deep urge to paint and become a clerk? That is what generally happens, is it not? I become a clerk, and for the rest of my life I am in great conflict, I am in misery; and because I am suffering, frustrated, I make life miserable for my wife and children. But if, as a young artist, I see the
significance of all this, I say to my parents, ‘I want to paint and I will give you
what I can from the little I have; that is all I can do.’
You have asked certain questions, and I have answered them. But if you do
not really think about these questions, if you do not go into them for yourself
more and more deeply and approach them from different angles, look at them in
different ways, then you will only say, ‘This is good and that is bad; this is duty
and that is not duty; this is right and that is wrong’—and this will not lead you
any further. Whereas, if you and I think about all these questions together, and if
you and your parents and teachers discuss them, go into them, then your
intelligence will be awakened, and when these problems arise in your daily life
you will be able to meet them. But you will not be able to meet them if you
merely accept what I am saying. My answers to your questions are only intended
to awaken your intelligence, so that you will think out these problems for
yourself and thus be capable of meeting life rightly.
Đoạn này lặp lại ở đâu đó rồi. Đúng là ban phải tự tìm ra câu trả lời cho riêng mình. Cũng thật khéo nếu JK nói ra trả lời cụ thể tình huống này thì căng. Như kiểu SNL Jeopady hỏi người da trắng dối trá điều gì ? Thực tế chúng tôi chấp nhận mọi câu trả lời :). Hay đoạn bắt vẽ chân dung nhà tiên tri Mohamed, không ông nào dám vẽ luôn, dù vẽ thế nào chắc cũng có thể bị tín đồ xử. (Nói ý vui chứ không violent).
Nói nốt lại chủ đề safety. Self-knowledge give much more security, JK nói vậy, ám chỉ việc lời ông không nên cho là chuẩn chỉ, phải tự suy xét lại. Tôi sẽ viết một số bài cố gắng chỉ ra cái 'sai' của JK, hay những thay đổi trong suy nghĩ, cách nói của ông trong suốt hàng chục năm kèm biến cố lịch sử như việc người em JK chết năm 1925 khi 27 tuổi, khi căng thẳng cuộc chiến với Pak, việc nữ thủ tướng bạn thân Indira bị ám sát sau khi tái đắc cử...
Comments
Post a Comment