Charley,
Yes, I think that’s possibly what is meant. I would only object to saying that I can own it, I think we can only say: ‘I have seen’.
Sivaram,
Good question! What is truth?? Some speak of the holy grail, Gandhi said truth is love, Jesus said he himself was the truth… Well, there is truth and Truth, and truth must be checked from moment to moment because life is movement.
@Jess
I think our perception of truth is completely different. You are saying what others have said before.
I even do not know the difference between truth and Truth 
Jess,
umm… there was the seeing of it, not “I” seeing it. K said that truth consisted of seeing the false as the false and the true as the true, and of course, the truth of the false. Charley used to be an idealist (past tense, all gone now), so it was really easy to visualize. And insight is impossible unless one has compassion within one’s heart. So, Charley visualized a word to the left (you know, the letters of the word), and to the right Charley visualized an object (I don’t recall what it was, a tree or pencil). And then there was the seeing of it, the truth that the word was not the thing - the seeing that the word wasn’t what it referred to - the thing, so words are only referents, which are used for communication. So, in this case, it was seeing that the truth of the false. And, bang, there was this explosion of energy, energy was released - energy that was trapped deep within, and it flowed throughout the body, and as it went through, it healed Charley’s damaged RNA, and made those particular damaged genes whole. That is what is known a mutation! By the way, Charley is the only person that has said online (that Charley is aware of) that has used the word ‘RNA’. Since K’s time, science has clarified the difference between RNA and DNA.
So, now, Charley owns it, the “I” doesn’t own it. This insight was felt deep within, deep inside; in other words, saying one owns it means one owns it deep in one’s blood. That truth is anchored there, deep within.
A person who parrots that truth or any truth and uses that truth as a conclusion is only being, as K clarified for all of us, a “modified continuity”. There is no real change, because there was no true insight. In effect, someone who poses as a guru, offering you so-called “goodies”, who has never had a true insight, is a fake! Beware of fakes, right? Charley can say to people like that, “I don’t believe you”, which is the same as saying as K did: “I question that”. Online, one has seen many like that. It is only the gullible who fall for people like that. I am saying that because the consequences of interacting with them is that one may end up just like them, and get lost in their illusions.
Charley,
Thanks for sharing your insights. It’s always good to know that some people are lucky, as I remember you saying so somewhere else before.
Jess,
One adds a proviso here, Charley was an unloving person. No compassion. And Charley’s personal relationships with others were unmitigated disasters. And Charley suffered terribly because of all this. Life provided Charley with an opportunity to fill one’s heart with love, and that healed Charley’s shattered heart. So one can say that at one level, Charley was (in the past) very unlucky between the ages of 20-40 as regards love. One can also say that (in that period) Charley failed miserably at having any kind of decent love relationship. After having filled one’s heart with love, Charley decided that Charley never (and I mean never) wanted to suffer again. So, Charley went looking for a kind of balm, without being able to articulate that… It took awhile, but then Charley laid her hands on Freedom from the Known, and so began the hard and very difficult journey, which Charley also discovered was also a spiritual journey. Jess, it was so worth it!
But what is the mind itself? Krishnamurti used “mind” to mean different things.
Inquiry,
Yes, that is the question.
I think the mind is the content of our consciousness.
All the decisions, conversations and dreams are just the content of our consciousness. It differs from person to person.
I use “the mind” to refer to the cognitive process, the intellect, the way one processes information.
Hi Howard. What you say seems to be true.
On the video I posted on another thread recently, Krishnamurti says “That observation is to watch oneself. Never allowing a single thought to escape.”
This would surely require a level of attention that is very rare.
And very rare to come upon etc. but what is being called for here (as everywhere) is that the reaction: “how can I follow every thought when I can rarely follow one etc…” leads to the realization that the ‘one’ having this reaction is in fact the very reaction itself; the observer is the observed. Before this insight it seems the task he talks about here is a watcher, ‘me’, watching the flow of ‘my’ thoughts. But when it’s seen that the watcher , me. is not separate from the thoughts it aims to watch, the whole scene changes. The effort disappears. The conflict between the one wanting to "never allow a single thought to escape’ and the thought itself dissolves. The illusory space between the thinker and the thought disappears…
I can see that this makes sense. But is this something you have actually experienced Dan? K seems to be pointing out something very important here. He is inviting us to be very, very attentive with our thinking.
[quote=“Sean, post:53, topic:708”]
I can see that this makes sense. But is this something you have actually experienced Dan?
He’s “inviting” us to discover that the observer and what is being observed are one and the same.
Have you discovered that Dan?
Sean
The “discovery” that the observer is the observed negates the ‘you’ as the ‘discoverer’.
I’ll take that as a “yes”.Unless you’re theorising.
“The observer is observed”. I think it explains that our way of understanding will reflect on our actions.
Please share your insight.
We are either alert, attentive or we’re not. Is it not so?
For most of us being in the attentive state is not continuous. Therefore, my answer to your question is yes. What is the relation between the topic of “Observer is Observed”, to attentiveness?
I did not understand well 
Is there anything I am missing?