This is as good a reason as any for why the discovery that “the observer is the the observed” (Bohm had difficulty with this, preferring “the thinker is the thought”) is now ‘possible’. The insight negates the “ego process”.
I must admit, I have no idea.
Its okay, now we are clear 
1 Like
But do we have to ask the question “how can I follow every thought when I can rarely follow one?”. Krishnamurti was pointing to the importance of following every thought. Why not actually “watch oneself” without getting into a tangle about how to do it?
The ‘tangle’ is there if it’s not seen that the ‘watcher is the watched’. When that is seen, there is no you as watcher. No ‘you’ watching ‘your’ thoughts.
Surely there is only attentiveness and inattentiveness. This applies to everything, not just to being attentive to thoughts. Somebody can be speaking and you can be extremely attentive, listening to every word the speaker is saying. Or you can be listening but your mind in wandering all over the place because you’re thinking about something else. You can be walking in a forest or a supermarket and be acutely aware of what is going on around you and in your head. Or you can be walking about, thinking about your troubles and oblivious to what’s right in front of you. If knowing that “the watcher is the watched” helps you do this, then that’s fine. But I don’t see why any knowledge is necessary to simply be aware.
This reminds me of JK’s suggestion to “be attentive when you are inattentive.”
(And don’t call me ‘Surely’. 
)
1 Like
Sounds like a good suggestion to me Dan.