There is a factor of remembering in many teachings along these lines, so it is not about getting rid of memories, per se. In a sense, it the remembering refers to going deeply beyond what is before the memories, or at least it points in that direction. As in, show me your original face before your parents were born.
If you ask what the meaning of "remake" is or what it refers to, you may find some insight into that. While memories feel like they are actual and have a reality to them, I think it is safe to say that they are recordings and not real, even if the mind resorts to replaying them and referring to them in order to maintain the persona. So, in that case, one could actually "remake" memories and perhaps, intensive instruction on that would be useful, (with many caveats).
I would say, though, that the remaking is along the lines of what I just said. It is not so much about the contents, but the process and then what our relationship to memory is. Remake, to me, would be to remember to remember that the present has its tang of direct reality that is tangible and immediate, whereas memories are very much different when compared to that and the machinations of our rather compulsive anticipation of the future we project and take for real in a similar fashion. So, dealing with the nature of memory in this way brings you to here and now as this just as it is and then, the future can also be reconciled in that way.
You could liken memories and their stickiness to karma, though karma refers more directly to actions or what we do. Another way it can be put is as residue or traces, similar to the wake a boat leaves as it moves through the water.
In your mind, how are memories stored and treated? Are they not all "there" simultaneously and merely remembered with a chronological time stamp based on your recollection in the subjective sense? You could just as easily envision memories as a flat, two-dimensional wall with lines and arrows pointing to their successive relationships. Are not memories often evoked by causes and conditions that then ignite a serious of associations that present patterns?
What really cuts to the core of this though is not so much memories, but who or what is knowing them and a simple case of identification involved in the process. You find this theme in both Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and it is expressed in many ways. Logically, is it possible to actually be what you know? If you can know people and things and situations, well, obviously you are not them in name and form. Now, what about the body, mind, thoughts, memories, etc.? If you can know it, you can't be it because the act of knowing implies what is known. This whittles it down to what is the brunt of the investigation.
So, there may be subtle differences, (and one can detail them) in the meanings of liberation, enlightenment, moksha, satori, self-realization, etc., but, for the sake of brevity, I will leave it at that. There is an implication in all that that can be expressed in words, but it is better to encounter that in the right environment and with the aim to find out for yourself because it rests solely on direct experience, not merely on conceptual knowledge and the rest.
I would even suggest to avoid any cut-and-dried definition of those terms without some further study and practice because it really does not good to continue this with any false assumptions and misunderstandings, after all, ignore-ance is both the crux and heart of the matter in this case, as you may already know. I can casually say that whatever you think enlightenment is, it isn't and the same applies to self-realization and liberation. But maybe I say that in jest? 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
