Well, ‘allows’ sounds to me here as if thought first creates an image of something that at some point in time will “allow” it to be free, then separates from that image, and pursues it. Which would be the same old pattern to which thought is so accustomed. But as I said, my perception is that the so-called ‘magical awareness’ is always there waiting for thought to contact it.
Let me ask a question that would try to clarify what I have just said: Does the sun ‘allow’ the day, or is it simply there to illuminate the part of the earth that contacts its rays at any given moment?
So conditioned thought is there, and also this so-called ‘magical awareness’, both coexisting together. The thought trying to take over her and her perceptions at every moment, and her waiting that at some point he will stop and seriously ask itself why at some point he decided to separate irself from her. So the question would be, what is the actual relationship between ‘ordinary/normal awareness’, attention, and the so-called ‘magical awareness’, which would allow such a contact?
In the following excerpt, which “you” does Krishnamurti ask, “do you perceive in that truth?” And what is that “you” supposed to answer to Krishnamurti’s questions, according to your question?
Now wait a minute: do you perceive the truth that thought under whatever circumstances cannot bring about correct action? Intellectually we have examined it, we have analysed it, we have broken it all up, and now we say, do you perceive that? - as you perceive the tree which is truth, that’s an actuality. So is this statement that thought under no circumstances can bring about correct action, do you perceive in that truth?
If we have to get tied up in words and semantics, I’m glad its with the word “allow” - its a wonderful word and I hope we can free it from all the weight that has been piled on it here.
To allow simply means to permit or to yield (as in surrender) - it points to the lack, or fading of resistance and obstructions.
We can say that “the sun allows the day” if we want to be poetic about it - but usually we say that the sun is the light source and if there are no obstructions it might be allowed to illuminate us - when it shines on us, we call this the day.
I think we have agreed that there is no difference between “awareness” and “magical awareness” - its just that we are saying that there’s a kind of magic when it frees us from experience, when it frees us from the known, from the grip of this moment.
Using your allegory of the sun and its light : When the moon comes between us and the sun (aka a solar eclipse) leaving us in shadow - normal awareness is when we are only aware of the dark, but magical awareness is also aware of the moon in all its glory.
Once we have seen the majesty of the moon in all its power and glory, we will naturally tend to pay it its due attention.
When you use ‘awareness’ in this sentence, is it because you forgot to add ‘normal’ to it, or do you mean what Krishnamurti called ‘awareness’ which would be different from the ordinary consciousness/awareness that moves the self?
On the other hand, I’m sorry but I’m still not sure if we agree on this point, because I’m actually still not sure I really see what you’re trying to convey when you equate ‘ordinary/normal awareness’ (of thought?) with so-called ‘magical awareness’. Are you trying to say that both would be of the same nature?
Would you agree that when we say that ‘there is a kind of magic’ it is nothing more than thought trying to describe what would happen (note that I use ‘would happen’ and not ‘happens’), and that ‘when it frees us from the known’ it is still that same thought trying to describe what would happen? I mean, would you agree that all those expressions/descriptions are of thought, and not of what actually happens?
Not only of the moon, but of the sun, of the surroundings, of the people around us looking also at that solar eclipse, and of that bird that suddenly stopped chirping, without any division, without any movement of thought judging ‘how glorious the moon looks’. Yes.
Oh! I almost forgot about this!
Thank you for clarifying this point @macdougdoug . I actually thought that might be what you meant but I wanted to be sure that my understanding of your words was correct, as words can sometimes be treacherous. As in this case, where ‘allow’ could mean either of the two options (at least for me and my language problems).
Normal awareness may not have any relationship with what is termed as magical awarness. As K once said part can not comprehend the whole but whole can have relationship with the part.
Or when I is mot, Other IS.
Maybe you are free of each moment.
Or maybe you are not sensitive to each moment dragging you into the next.
Either awareness is allowing each moment to flower freely, or you are inattentive as each moment determines the next.
Awareness doesn’t “do” anything, so it can’t “allow” for anything.
I don’t know if moments “flower” or not. A moment is just a measure of time.
Actuality is what happens in its own time, and unless the brain is free of its notions about flowering and allowing and moments, it’s just projecting itself.
Sorry, maybe I should have specified that I was referring to our experience - not whats actually happening at a fundamental level of reality (because I’m not privvy to what happens beyond our experience)
Well, maybe we should ask ourselves then if “when the I is not, other is”, how is awareness going to observe that “I” so that the “I” can understand itself how it works and dissolve, if it is not there when awareness is?
So, we have thought and its baby the self on one side and the so-called “magical consciousness” on the other. Now, can we put aside for a moment what Krishnamurti said and observe for ourselves that if we say that the first has no relation with the second, and the second does have a relation with the first, but that when the first is not there, the later is there, there should be some kind of link/relationship between them when that happens that would make possible the dissolution of that “self” projected by thought? Because if there is no link, how is that “self” projected by thought going to dissolve?
So can we look at it for ourselves, without Krishnamurti telling us anything, what would be that link (if any) that would somehow relate both of them so that what @DanMcD and @macdougdoug called “the miracle” would occur?
