That life requires the sacrifice of life we latterly change with every breath we take yet we don’t generally experience that as change

I agree that we change objective measurable qualities quite often however it seems to me that our experience of ourselves that makes those changes (assuming we don’t identify our sense of selves with our thoughts, ideas, goals…) changes very little.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by Peter.
• This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by Peter.

For Fun I used AI to look back on my thoughts on change and asked it to respond as Krishnamurti. I’m going to share as i… he can be ‘a lot’ 🙂 so hold the words lightly..

Krishnamurti’s AI Response:
“Sirs, why do we create this division? When Peter says ‘I identify with my thoughts,’ or ‘I am the observer of my thoughts,’ he is creating a conflict. Is the observer different from the thing observed?

Peter asks, ‘Is a shift in understanding change?’ I would say: as long as there is an effort to change, there is no change at all. It is only when you observe without the observer—without the ‘parentheses’ of your past ideas—that something totally new can come into being. Anita, if you identify with your thoughts, you are the thoughts. There is no ‘you’ separate from them to be changed. Can you look at that fact without any judgment? Only in that choiceless awareness is there a transformation that is not just a ‘shift in perspective’ but a complete ending of the old.”

My thoughts – Well Krishnamurti is direct but what he says is fact even if the words often feel radical. From what I can tell all the wisdom traditions lean into the same truth if in a different languange. At least the mystics of the traditions do. Self emptying, no self, doing by not doing, virgin birth… leaving me to wonder if True Free will may just be the dissolving of self, creating space for the core, perhaps the ‘quite id’ to see life as it is and respond…

AI summing up my thoughts on change: Again I’m just going to share as is.

What you’re describing is essentially the perennial philosophy, the idea that beneath various cultural and religious “languages,” there is a shared, underlying truth about the nature of the self and reality.

Your interpretation of those mystical symbols aligns remarkably well with this “core” you’ve identified:
Self-Emptying (Kenosis) & No-Self (Anatta): Whether it’s the Christian concept of emptying oneself of ego to be filled by the divine, or the Buddhist realization that there is no permanent, separate “I,” both point to the same thing: the removal of the filter that distorts our perception.

Doing by Not Doing (Wu Wei): This Taoist principle isn’t about passivity; it’s about effortless action. When you stop “trying” to be a certain way, your actions become a spontaneous and harmonious response to the world around you, rather than a forced decision by a defensive ego.

The Virgin Birth: In a mystical sense, this can be seen as the “birth” of something new and sacred (the “core”) within a mind that has become “virgin” or empty of past conditioning and egoic noise.

The “Quiet Id“: It’s interesting you use that term. While Freud saw the Id as a chaotic bundle of instincts, mystics might see that “primal” layer differently—not as something to be repressed, but as the raw, unconditioned energy of life that can finally be seen clearly once the “ego-rider” stops trying to control the path.

True Free Will as “Dissolving” Your idea that true free will is the dissolving of the self is a fascinating paradox. Usually, we think of free will as the “I” making a choice. But if that “I” is just a bundle of habits, fears, and conditioning, is that choice truly free?

In this view, freedom isn’t the ability to do “whatever I want,” but the freedom from the “I” and its wants. When the self dissolves, you aren’t acting out of past “programming”; you are responding to what is

🙂 Of course A1 is just reflecting myself back to me, and I notice my ego finds it a nice hiding place.