Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Public Talk 14th December, 1947 | Madras, India

Why do we name a feeling? Why do we name a reaction as anger, as jealousy, as envy, as hate, and so on? Why do we term it? Do you term it in order to understand it or do you term it as a means of recognizing it? Is the feeling independent of the term? Or do you understand the feeling through the term? If you understand the feeling through the term, through the word, through the name, then the name becomes important and not the feeling and would it be possible not to name the feeling at all? Would it be possible not to term it but when you do term it, what happens? 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.

And what happens, if you do not name a feeling, give it a term? If you do not give that feeling, that reaction, that response a name, a term, what would happen to that feeling? Does it not come to an end? You try it and you will see what happens. You have a feeling arising or a reaction, a response to a challenge and instinctively you name it, you term it, and then what do you do? The living response is put into a frame of past references which only strengthens your memory and therefore gives continuity to the I. But if you do not give it a name, what would happen? If you experiment you will see the reaction. The feeling soon withers away. Experiment with it and try it out for yourself.

Tags: memory, naming, words

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.
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?
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.
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.
When there is no naming, only then is it possible to be fully aware of that which is called the void of loneliness.
The mind needs to be occupied with something? You understand? It needs to be occupied, whether with god, with smoke, with sex, with something, it has to be occupied, therefore it is afraid not to be occupied.
It is extremely difficult and arduous to express, and still not be caught in the net of words.
Merely labelling a state does not mean that we understand it; on the contrary, it is a hindrance to understanding.
The word is not the thing. the word 'God' is not God, and therefore the term is independent of God though you may call it God.
We are all accustomed to name every reaction and refer it to the frame of references, memory, almost instinctively. But if you experiment with it and refuse to name a feeling when it arises in you, you will see that there is a time-lag, between the feeling and the naming.
I wonder how far you have been experimenting with what we have been discussing, namely, the problem of conflict and effort which brings about duality, the opposite, and the problem of terming a feeling.
If you are not naming a quality or terming a feeling, then the feeling dies away.
Should not a wise man be indifferent to flattery and insult?
If I am not a scoundrel and somebody calls me a scoundrel I want to find out, I want to discover whether he is correct.
You may have understood the verbal expressions of what I have explained, but the living significance, the inward meaning, you will understand only through experimentation.
Most people, after hearing me, say that I have only given them vague ideas which are not at all practical.
You will know what is freedom when you are deeply conscious of the walls of your prison, for that very awareness dissolves the self-created limitations.
Questioner: Is intelligence the right word to use?
In discussing, we should become aware of our own ways of thinking.
When applied to objective things, the words are quite apart from the things and you don't interpret those things through the words as you can contact those things directly.
In actual life, we always name the pleasurable feelings thus giving them continuance, and we always avoid painful feelings.
If you understand and realise that the term God is not God it has an extraordinary nervous and verbal response in you; you are free of all the implications of the word God being accepted as God.
The term is not the feeling though it is made to represent the feeling.
What would happen to a feeling if you did not judge it by the frame of reference - i.e. if you do not name verbally that feeling or quality?
What would happen to a feeling if you did not judge it by the frame of reference - that is, if you do not name verbally that feeling or quality?
When we do not put a feeling in the framework of references, the feeling comes to an end, withers away.
It is always difficult to communicate because the verbal expression and understanding are on different levels, are they not?
Every word has a verbal and a nervous reaction which sets a wave going. Do not allow other's words to react upon you.
You may go to the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible or the latest treatise on politics or psychology, and you will find that they have lost that ring, that quality of truth; they have become mere words.