Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Frognerseteren, Norway | 2nd Public Talk, 8th September, 1933

Questioner: The other day you spoke of memory as a hindrance to true understanding. I have recently had the misfortune of losing my brother. Should I try to forget that loss?

Krishnamurti: I explained the other day what I mean by memory. I shall try to explain it again.

After you have seen a beautiful sunset, you return to your home or office and begin again to live in that sunset, as your home or office is not as you would have it, it is not beautiful; so to escape from that ugliness you return in memory to that sunset. Thus, you create in your mind a distinction between your home, which does not give you joy, and the thing that gives you great delight, the sunset. So, when you are confronted by circumstances which are not pleasant, you turn to the memory of that which is joyous. But if, instead of turning to a dead memory, you would try to alter the circumstances that are unpleasant, then you would be living intensely in the present and not in the dead past.

So, when one loses someone whom one loves greatly, why is there this constant looking back, this constant holding on to that which gave us pleasure, this longing to have that person back again? This is what everyone goes through when he experiences such a loss. He escapes from the sorrow of that loss by turning to the remembrance of the person who is gone, by living in a future, or by belief in the hereafter - which is also a kind of memory. It is because our minds are perverted through escape, because they are incapable of meeting suffering openly, freshly, that we have to revert to memory, and thus the past encroaches upon the present.

So, the question is not whether you should or should not remember your brother or your husband, your wife or your children; rather, it is a matter of living completely, wholly, in the present, though that does not imply that you are indifferent to those who are about you. When you live completely, wholly, there is in that intensity the flame of living, which is not the mere imprint of an incident.

How is one to live completely in the present, so that the mind is not perverted with past memories and future longing - which are also memory? Again, the question is not how you should live completely, but what prevents you from living completely. For when you ask how, you are looking for a method, a means, and to me a method destroys understanding. If you know what prevents you from living completely, then out of yourself, out of your own awareness and understanding, you will free yourself from that hindrance. What prevents you from freeing yourself is your search for certainty, your continual longing for gain, for accumulation, for achievement. But do not ask, ''How am I to conquer these hindrances?'' for all conquering is but a process of further gain, further accumulation. If this loss is really creating suffering in you, if it is really giving you intense - not superficial - sorrow, then you will not ask how; then you will see immediately the futility of looking back or forward for consolation.

When most people say that they suffer, their suffering is but superficial. They suffer, but at the same time they want other things: they want comfort, they are afraid, they search out ways and means of escape. Superficial sorrow is always accompanied by the desire for comfort. Superficial suffering is like shallow plowing of the soil; it achieves nothing. Only when you till the soil deeply, to the full depth of the plowshare, is there richness. In the state of complete suffering there is complete understanding, in which hindrances as memories, both of the present and of the future, cease to exist. Then you are living in the eternal present.

You know, to understand a thought or an idea does not mean merely to agree with it intellectually.

There are various kinds of memories: there is the memory that forces itself upon you in the present, the memory to which you turn actively, and the memory of looking forward to the future. All these prevent your living completely. But do not begin to analyze your memories. Do not ask, ''Which memory is preventing my complete living?'' When you question in that way, you do not act; you merely examine memory intellectually, and such an examination has no value because it deals with a dead thing. From a dead thing there is no understanding. But if you are truly aware in the present, in the moment of action, then all these memories come into activity; then you need not go through the process of analyzing them.

Tags: memory

Related Quotes
There is no such thing as pure thought, or ''free'' thought
if there is constant perception of beauty without the accumulation of memories, then there is the possibility of joy everlasting.
Your experiences, your inclinations and motives, all that is the movement of the past, which is knowledge.
Can one see that the whole movement of this illusory memory, which appears so real, can end?
You cannot brush the past aside. It is there.
Will you please explain what you mean by awareness?
The more you are interested in something, the more your intention to understand, the more simple, clear, free the mind is.
Our love is based on your image of me and my image of you.
Is there any thought which is not conditioned?
To look, your mind must be silent, and the very urgency of looking makes the mind silent
Experiencing without memory is one state, and experiencing with memory is another.
As long as the mind is a slave to time, there must be the fear of death, the fear and the hope of a future life, and a constant inquiry into that question.
Thought is the outcome of incomplete experience.
Action according to memory, is total inaction, and therefore there is no revolution at all.
For love to be, memory, with all its complex processes, has to come to an end.
Consistency is the sign of memory, memory that results from lack of true comprehension of experience.
Your mind has learned to be careful, to be cunning, to act as a signal, to give a warning; therefore, you cannot meet any incident fully.
An experience really understood frees the mind from all search for experience.
The moment there is hope, longing, fear, prejudice, temperament, it conditions the mind, and that conditioning creates memory, which obscures the clarity of mind which is intelligence.
What is living fully in the present?
What is it that creates the changing of values?
Memory, is caught up in the struggle of changing values, and this battle is called progress, the evolutionary path of choice leading to truth.
As long as the mind, clouded by memory, imparts values, action must create further walls of prison;
You cannot lose memory, but by living completely in the present, in the fullness of the moment, you become conscious of all the subconscious entanglements of memory, the dormant hopes and longings which surge forward and prevent you from functioning intelligently in the present.
Let us consider what this "I", this actor, this observer, this centre of conflict is.
The beginning and the end, the "you" and the goal, are the results of this self-protective mind.
Anything that we perceive directly, understand completely, leaves no scar on the mind.
Question: You say that memory is a barrier. Why?
If your mind is aware of its own creations, then you will discern how you have established for yourself guides, values, which are but memories, as a protection against the incessant movement of life.
Memory acts as a resistance against the movement of life.
The mind has become merely a record of the various lessons of experience.
Where there is want, there must also be accumulative memories, self-protective calculations, which give to consciousness, continuity and identification.
Memory is ever conditioning the mind and creating for it an environment of values in which it becomes a prisoner.
I have tried to explain that conduct born of compulsion, whether it be the compulsion of reward or of punishment, of fear or of love, is not right conduct.
The accumulation of self-protective memories is the process of experience, and relationship is the contact between two individualized and self-protective memories, whose morality is the agreement to guard what they possess.
Experience may further condition thought or it may release it from limitations.
What is the good of your listening to me if the obvious thing is escaping your consideration?
All habit must prevent clarity of perception and must conceal one's own integrity.
Memory must become as a shell without a living organism in it.
The accumulation of memory is called knowledge; with this burden, with the scars of experience, thought is ever interpreting the present and so giving continuity to its own scars and conditioning.
A mind-heart that is burdened with the memory of yesterday cannot live in the eternal present.
Should we not, as the questioner points out, be aware of the two kinds of memories: the indispensable, relating to facts and figures, and the psychological memory?
he eternal is ever the unknown for a mind that accumulates; what is accumulated is memory, and memory is ever the past, the time-binder.
Questioner: Why is memory an impediment?
Surely what I am saying is meant for all: for those who have renounced the world and for those who live in the world, for he who has renounced is still in the world because he is in the world of his own making, just as the worldly person is in the world of his own desires.
Memory is the residue left in the mind of insufficient experience;
We experience through the screen of the past and therefore there is no experience at all but only a modification of experience.
Accumulated memory is static. It has no life unless we inject new life into it, that is, by our recalling the memory, we revive it.
In seeing the false as false, truth is perceived.
Where there is authority, you do not listen in the same manner as to someone who is talking with you in a friendly manner, and there is little communication.
The 'I' is non-existent without memory, its tendencies, gifts and so on, i.e. non-existent without continuity, the racial, the traditional, the past in conjunction with the now, the past flowing through the present to the future which is hope.
The problem is that I am only aware of factual memories and I am not aware of psychological memories.
You bring a framework of references to a living feeling and thereby absorb the living feeling into time, which only strengthens memory, which is the I.
What is thinking, what is the process of thinking?
Our thinking, which is the response to a challenge which is ever new, is always conditioned and therefore produces further conflict, further suffering and further pain.
When you attempt to avoid disturbance you don't want memory; but when you want to improve in the field of your choice you really want memory; thus there is contradiction.
An incomplete experience leaves a scar or a residue whereas a completed experience does not leave any residue.
To understand a challenge, which is always new, I must also meet it anew, there must be no residue of yesterday; so, I must say adieu to yesterday.
To understand the truth of a problem, of a relationship, you must come to it afresh - not with an 'open mind', for that has no meaning.
When you talk of the higher self, when you talk about Brahman, it is still within the field of memory; and memory is incomplete understanding.
Memory is time, and time is not the door to reality;
I must give continuity to an experience, otherwise consciousness ceases.
Examine your own memory and you will see that it has no vitality in itself; but when memory meets the new and translates the new according to its own conditioning, then it is revivified.
You can live completely, wholly, only when there is no terming, when there is no naming, and therefore no recording, which is memory.
To bring about a state of constant experiencing, which is really extraordinarily revolutionary, we must be aware of this process of action which is always seeking an end, a result, and therefore giving birth to the actor.