The problem with answers (to this particular problem) though is that they too engender memory(as understanding), thought(as motive), action(as control) and result(as time).
After having thought about the issues we discuss here at length, it seems to me that all the answers have to be seen for what they are: logical conclusions. And conclusion is the very epitome of conditioning.
These answers only have value insofar as they trigger the action of disembarrassing oneself of conclusion.
There is a zen saying that goes something like this:
At the first level on the path she saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers.
On the second level of the path she saw that mountains are not mountains and rivers are not rivers.
And at a third level she saw once again mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers.
Or as K once put it, âI have been made simpleâ. To come full circle, right back where we started from and realize there is nothing to âdoâ.
In fact, it is the very âdoingâ that is the issue. Doing based on understanding must involve time and time is the bedfellow of conflict.
It would appear that the only way to end thought is to end thought. Just do it. Just take in the marvel of existence for its own sake. Forget about why and how and insight, etc. That is all just more thought.
I would add that meditation as the immediate action of silence is something we can only experiment with on our own. It is an entirely (im)personal affair.
You posed quite a few good questions, which I noticed only now.
I think there is nothing certain about this memory issue, I mean what happens when we no longer rely on memory. However according to what K. said the erosion of memory concerns only the memory associated with emotions (fears, desires, attachments) while the âobjectiveâ memory remains (otherwise we could not do any job or even go back home).
This is another important point. We all have to use objective memory all the time, every day for most of our day. There are errands to do, taxes to pay, appointments to respect., and so onâŚThis means we are continuously reinforcing this field. I personally feel that this influences also the subjective memory and the sense of the ego (you have to state who you are when you go to the bank). K. had no worries of those kind, not possessing a house, a car or a bank account.
Your second question however seems a very close possibility: the comple understanding of how our mind works could bring some order and distinction between subjective and objective memory.
K. claimed that all his memory of the past (his youth, etc.) was eroded, and yet he could dictate to Mary Lutyens several episodes about his youth and childhood (you find mention of this phenomenon in Maryâs biography of K.). Some days he could remember and some days not, in a desultory and inexplicable way. Anyway this shows that those memories were still stored in his brain.
In my life, school, education, work, skills, socially, etc, I have had a lot of difficulty because I have a very low level of functional memory. I differentiate this from odd memories of regrets from the past, or vague recollections, and is different again from imagination, creativity, etc. I wonder what question are we thinking about by trying to differentiate memories?
But did they became active and disturbing in his day to day living ?
The harddrive of my computer is stored with past activities and only when needed are recollected but with most of us the brain is disturbing our daily activity by pop-ups of the past sometimes or maybe mostly even without us noticicing them.
I donât think so. K. had a detached attitude towards his past and always talked in third person.
I think the analogy with the computer is a good one, I had thought it myself. It can explains quite well the functioning of a mind who lives in the present: only the RAM of what you need at the moment is active, while all the innumerable recordings are in the HD but donât have any impact on the âscreenâ of our mind.
I also think that @WimOpdamâs analogy of a hard drive was a good one as was yours with RAM.
Questioner: You say the mind, memory and the thought process, have to cease before there can be understanding, and yet you are communicating to us. Is what you say the experience of something in the past, or are you experiencing as you communicate?
Krishnamurtiâs answer to the question above appears to be that he rediscovers what to say anew each time and then reaches for the words to express what has been discovered. Not sure my expressing it as âthenâ is right though as this reaching may be in tandem with the perception. The important point I guess is that in contrast to subjective memory, objective memory does not influence what is perceived.
By the way, he does use the term âfactual memoryâ in his response to the question as well:
K: For communication there must be factual memory.
Yes, that is also what I have gathered from his talks.
I browsed the document you put the link of, and I guess you are talking about the following question:
âQ.: You say the mind, memory and the thought process, have to cease before there can be understanding, and yet you are communicating to us. Is what you say the experience of some thing in the past, or are you experiencing as you communicate?â
Yes, he rediscovers what to say anew each time. Did you add that âand thenâ? Probably it goes just like that. I remember once him saying (sorry I canât remember where or when): Each time I have to start talking (in a pubblic talk) I donât know what to say. Then words come spontaneusly (my wording).
This might explain why he said different things regarding the same topic in different occurrences. He also said, in a pubblic meeting in India, to a man who asked him to repeat what he had said: âSorry I cannot repeat it, I donât know what I saidâ.
âfactual memoryâ is the perfect expression in my view.
Is it just me? But I donât find the quoted comments unusual. In day to day life this is all our own experience. We canât remember exactly what we might have just said, and most of it is flowing along with no agenda, no strict purpose. I donât know what comes next. We may not specifically make a note of this, as inherently it is just day to day talk, not to be taken for important communication. It seems to me, inversely making comparisons to some technical instructions, educational talk, or intellectual discourse, is our own bias, our own expectations, for which we need to see the indoctrination.
I found this part of the article of the QOTD very interesting:
âto understand that state of mind, you have to know yourself, you have to observe the process of your thinking - observe it, not to alter it, not to change it, but just observe it as you see yourself in a mirror. When there is freedom, then you can use knowledge and it will not destroy humanity.â
By the way itâs not the RAM but the CPU which is the deciding point in the need for memory.
To a large extent, but not completely. We always have the option of questioning our intentions and actions, and taking this option is exercising a degree of control.
The question was whether we have any control over how our lives proceed. I gave an example of how we can alter the course of events in our lives by making fewer and more seriously considered moves. Weâre not hopelessly, helplessly bound by our conditioning. We are limited by it. We are not free, but we have enough freedom to realize this.
We are always in the present and the past is always with us, but it doesnât exert total power over the brain. The past is dead and the present is alive, so donât worry about the past. It canât hurt you if you face it squarely and dispassionately.
: