Am I talking to myself ?

You see a beautiful car, you touch the polish, see its shape and texture. Out of that there is sensation. Then thought comes and says - How nice it would be if I got it, how nice it would be if I got into it and drove off.” So what has happened ? Thought has intervened, has given shape to sensation. Thought has given to sensation the image of you sitting in the car and driving off. At that moment, as that second, when thought creates the image of you sitting in the car, desire is born. Desire is born when thought gives a shape, an image, to sensation. Now, sensation is the way of existence, it is part of existence. But you have learnt to suppress, conquer, or live with desire 

with all its problems. Now, if you understand this, not intellectually but actually, that when thought gives shape to sensation, at that second desire is born, then the question arises: Is it possible to see and touch the car - which is sensation - but not let thought create the image ? So keep a gap. That Benediction is Where You Are, p 54
Now the question is whether there can be a hiatus, a gap; that is, have only sensation, and not let thought come and control sensation. That is the problem. Why does thought create the image and hold on to that sensation? Is it possible to look at the shirt, touch it - sensation - and stop, not allow thought to enter into it ? Have you ever tried any of these ? When thought enters into the field of sensation - and thought is also a sensation - then thought takes control of sensation, and desire begins. Is it possible to only observe, contact, sensation, and nothing else ? And discipline has no place in this because the moment you begin to discipline, that is 

another form of desire to achieve something. So one has to discover the beginning of desire and see what happens. Don’t buy the shirt immediately, but see what happens. You can look at it; but we are so eager to get something, to possess a shirt, a man, a woman or some status that we never have the time, the quietness, to look at all this. Mind Without Measure, pp 19-20
Why is it that all religions, all so-called religious people, have suppressed desire? All over the world, the monks, the sannyasis, have denied desire, though they are boiling inside. The fire of desire is burning, but they deny it by suppressing it or identifying that desire with a symbol,

with a figure and surrendering that desire to the figure, to that person. But it is still desire. Most of us, when we become aware of our desires, either suppress or indulge it or come into conflict; the battle goes on. We are not advocating either to suppress it or to surrender to it or to control it. That has been done all over the world by every religious person. We are examining it very closely so that out of your own understanding of that desire, how it arises, its nature, out of that understanding, self-awareness of it, one becomes intelligent. Then that intelligence acts, not desire. Mind Without Measure, p 18
To end thought I have first to go into the mechanism of thinking. I have to understand thought

completely, deep down in me. I have to examine every thought, without letting one thought escape without being fully understood, so that the brain, the mind, the whole being becomes very attentive. The moment I pursue every thought to the root, to the end completely, I will see that thought ends by itself. I do not have to do anything about it because thought is memory. Memory is the mark of experience; and as long as experience is not fully, completely, totally understood, it leaves a mark. The moment I have experienced completely, the experience leaves no mark. So if we go into every thought and see where the mark is and remain with that mark as a fact - 

then that fact will open and that fact will end that particular process of thinking, so that every thought, every feeling is understood. Krishnamurti on Education, pp 119-120
QUESTION - What does it mean to see the totality of something ?  Is it ever possible to perceive the totality of something which is moving ?
You understand the question ?  A good question ? Shall we do it together ?
As we said in the previous question in going into it, to perceive the totality of our consciousness, that consciousness is centred as the 'me', the self, the egotistic activity, self-centred movement, which is the totality of our consciousness.
Right ? Now can we see that completely ?  Of course we can. Is that difficult ?  That is, one's consciousness is made up of all its content. Right ?  Is that clear ?
That is, my jealousy, my nationality, my beliefs, my experiences and so on and so on and so on, that is the content of this thing called consciousness.
The core of that is me, the self. Right ? To see this thing entirely now. Right, sir ?  Can you do it ?  Of course you can.  Which means giving complete attention to it.

Again we rarely give complete attention to anything. Now we are asking each other: give complete attention to this content which is at the very core of the self. The self, the 'me  is the essence of that, and give attention to it, and you see the whole, don't you ?
Now the questioner says also, which is interesting, which is, is it ever possible to perceive the totality of something which is moving?  Is the self moving ? Is the content of your consciousness moving ?  It is moving within the limits of itself.  Right sir ? Are you following all this ?  Am I talking to myself ?
Sir, look, what is moving in consciousness ?  Attachment, the fear of not being attached, the fear of

what might happen if I am not attached ?  Which is what?  Moving within its own radius, within its own limited area. That you can observe. So you can observe that which is limited. I want to go into this a little bit, don't be shocked. Is our consciousness with its content living ? You understand my question ? Are my ideas living ? Your belief living ? So what is living ? Are you following this?  One has an experience, pleasant, unpleasant, noble, ignoble, so-called enlightened - you cannot have experience of truth, of enlightenment - that's irrelevant.  So is the experience that you have had living ? Or the remembrance of that experience is living ?  Right ?  The remembrance, not the fact. The 

fact has gone. But the movement of remembrance is called what is living. You follow ? Come on, sirs, move. So the experience, which has gone, of course, that is remembered, that remembrance is called living. That you can watch, but not that which is gone. I wonder if you see this ?
So what we call living is that which has happened and gone. See, sir, what you are doing.  That which has gone and dead, our minds are so dead, and the remembrance of all that is called living.  That is the tragedy of our life.  I remember the friends we have had, they have gone, the brothers, the sisters, the wives that are dead, the mothers, I remember. The remembrance is identified with the photograph and the constant looking at it, remembering it, is the living. You understand, sir ?  And that is what we call living.