u/Pleasant_Ad1842

Krishnamurti's "paradox" of observation — am I misunderstanding him?

I've been reading/listening to Krishnamurti and keep running into what seems like a paradox.

On one hand, he says things like:

- The observer is the observed.

- Any effort to become silent is still the movement of thought.

- No method can lead to truth or silence.

- A mind made quiet is not a quiet mind.

But on the other hand, he also says that perception without the observer, or seeing what is true, requires a completely silent mind.

Here's where I get stuck.

If my mind is chattering, and I "observe" the chatter, who is observing? Isn't that still thought observing thought? Isn't that still the observer?

But if true observation can happen only when the observer is absent and the mind is completely silent, then how does one ever begin?

If you say, "Just observe," that seems to assume the very thing in question. If you say, "Don't try," then "not trying" becomes another form of trying.

So the apparent paradox is:

- Observation is said to bring understanding.

- Yet observation without the observer seems possible only when there is already complete silence.

- But complete silence cannot be achieved through effort or method.

In other words, if the observer cannot end itself, and silence cannot be produced, what is actually taking place when Krishnamurti asks us to observe fear, thought, jealousy, etc.?

Did Krishnamurti ever directly address this issue? Am I missing a distinction he makes, or is this tension intentionally left unresolved in his teaching?

I'm interested in responses from people familiar with the primary sources rather than general interpretations.

K never stated very clearly about this but i was curious that there must be difference between loveless corporate job just for money, doing it for the sake of paycheck and doing something you really enjoy doing that you love it to the extent of forgetting about money in the sense you are able to survive but not are really rich and you're not bothered by this. This is also pointed out by aacharya prashant, he emphasized on right work and calling, what are your views on this?

I'm 17 and over the past months I've become very interested in Krishnamurti, especially the dialogues with David Bohm. Some of the discussions have genuinely helped me see things more clearly.

At the same time, I've noticed that I seem to turn almost everything into a problem to solve. I think a lot about self-knowledge, conditioning, fragmentation, freedom, the future, career, money, relationships, validation, and whether I'm living correctly.

Recently I've been feeling a lot of pressure around questions like:

• How will I survive in the future?
• What skills should I develop?
• How do I balance practical life and inquiry?
• Am I using philosophy as a way to solve anxiety?
• How do I inquire without turning inquiry into another achievement project?

I also struggle with overthinking and sometimes poor sleep. After nights like that, my mind starts telling me that something is fundamentally wrong with me or that I've gone too deep into philosophy.

Part of me feels drawn to understanding myself and the world more deeply. Another part feels exhausted by constant analysis.

I'm not looking for reassurance or ideology. I'm interested in hearing from people who have seriously engaged with Krishnamurti's work.

Have any of you gone through a period where inquiry became mixed with anxiety, self-improvement, or the search for psychological security? What helped you see it more clearly?

Another area of confusion for me is work and livelihood.

On one hand, I see a lot of content online about things like AI automation agencies, online businesses, hustles, and opportunities that promise freedom and money. Part of me is attracted to that because of status, success, and the feeling of security.

On the other hand, I've been influenced by Krishnamurti's discussions on right livelihood and by Acharya Prashant's emphasis on self-knowledge, world knowledge, and meaningful work. This creates a conflict in me.

I genuinely enjoy learning, reading, mathematics, AI/ML, history, neuroscience, and understanding things deeply. But then another part of my mind asks:

• Will this help me survive?
• Am I wasting time by pursuing knowledge?
• Should I focus on money-making opportunities instead?
• What is the relationship between earning a living and doing work that has depth and meaning?

Sometimes it feels as if I'm torn between:

• chasing psychological security through money and success,
• and pursuing understanding, learning, and what might be called right work.

I don't know whether this is a real conflict or whether thought is creating the conflict by wanting certainty and guarantees.