Speaking from the Right Heart

Originally printed in the January - February 2002 issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: Ravindra, Ravi. "Speaking form the Right Heart." Quest  90.1 (JANUARY - FEBRUARY 2002):4-7, 23.

Ravi Ravindra

I had been asked by the editors of an encyclopedia to write an article on Krishnamurti. I prepared the outline, made extensive notes,and had a special interview with him to make sure that what I hadwritten reflected his thought accurately. I asked him whether"intelligence beyond thought" was the central thing he spoke about. Heagreed, but without much feeling. Suddenly, he was animated: "Take the risk, sir. Say what you wish. If you speak from the heart, I'll agree.Take the risk."

What is the risk in speaking from the heart? Vulnerability, above all. There are first of all concerns about "what would they say?" The carefully polished image of myself that I wish to project for others to see may be tarnished if they see me as I am. I may be exposed. This is,to be sure, a sort of conscience that keeps the usual social interactions proceeding more or less smoothly. But the real difficulty lies in the fact that we do not know what is deep down in our heart. Many sacred texts say that the Highest resides in the deepest part of each creature, as in the Bhagavad Gita (15.15) when Krishna says, "I dwell deep in the heart of everyone." We do not know Krishna, the highest God, and a part of ourselves knows this. This ignorance bothers our conscience, making us vulnerable, for the awakening of conscience is the opening of the heart.

Although it has become acceptable in the last few decades to speak in terms of levels of consciousness, one rarely comes across a discussion of levels of conscience. Even in the great traditions, one can see different emphases. The insight-and-truth traditions, such as the Hindu-Buddhist, have elaborate descriptions of various levels and states of consciousness, whereas in the faith-and-love Biblical traditions, the emphasis is much more on the various levels ofconscience, although it is not so labeled in these traditions. Examples can be found in two well-known traditional texts: The Tibetan Book ofthe Dead and Dante's Divine Comedy, both of which deal with the journey of the soul after death and with the cultivation of the right quality of life. The former addresses levels of consciousness; and the latter, those of conscience.

This major difference between the Biblical and the Indic traditions—of emphasis on conscience or on consciousness—is related to another important difference between these two streams of spirituality. In Biblical traditions, the root cause of the human predicament is an assertion of human self-will as opposed to the will of God, as revealedin his commandments. "Nothing burneth in hell except self-will," says the Theologia Germanica (chapter 34). And the whole exquisite agony ofthe cross—the way of the Christ—is in his last words in the Garden of Gethsemane: "If it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Yet not my will, but thine be done" (Mark 14.36; Ravindra, 151 -2). In Indic traditions, on the other hand, the root cause of the human difficulty is ignorance, which in its turn gives rise to suffering (dukkha) and to illusion (maya). In Biblical traditions, submission of our will in obedience to the will of God is called for; in Indic traditions, the requirement is for the sword of gnosis  to cut the knot of ignorance.

Another fundamental difference, intimately related to the preceding is that, in the Indic traditions, holding on to an ultimately separate individuality is a mark of ignorance, whereas in the Biblical traditions a lack of individuality—even in the presence of God—marks a lack of responsibility. In one case, the traditional emphasis is on the oneness of all, whereas in the other case, the emphasis is on the uniqueness of human beings from all other creatures and of each person with respect to every other. Both oneness and uniqueness are derived from the same root;but their meanings diverge radically.

Traditions that hold the ideal of oneness are insight oriented and have developed a great deal of wisdom about various levels of consciousness. These levels have always to do with degrees of steadiness of attention and gradations of clarity of perception. The traditions extolling uniqueness are faith-and-obedience oriented and have a great deal to say about individual responsibility and moral conscience corresponding to the quality of virtuous conduct or the degrees and the gravity of sinfulness. Levels of consciousness are emphasized in one case, whereas levels of conscience are stressed in the other.

It is possible, but neither generous nor insightful, to convince oneself that half the sages in the world have misunderstood the matter and only the other half have found the truth. Of course, once certain modes of expressions are used in a cultural and linguistic context, a traditional momentum develops. Only the modes and terms used by the great teachers in that tradition seem appropriate to its followers. This attitude is not so harmful by itself, but the trouble arises when the dogmatic section in any tradition insists that Truth can be expressed only in one form.

All the great teachers have said in one way or another that the experience of approaching God or Truth or Nirvana or Brahman or the Ultimate cannot be expressed in the language of the lower levels. They have all affirmed that a radical transformation of conscience-consciousness, a spiritual re-birth, is needed for us to experience the Real. The sages have articulated significant truths indifferent ways, often constrained by the abilities of their pupils and the specific language of their community, emphasizing what they themselves found helpful. The importance of the specific language context cannot be overemphasized.

In some cases, for example in French, Spanish, and Sanskrit, there isonly one word corresponding to both the English words consciousness and conscience. This fact alone should alert us to the possibility of anintimate connection between the two. The awakening of conscience is the feeling preparation for an enhancement of consciousness. It is not possible to come to a higher state of consciousness without coming to a higher state of conscience. On the other hand, those who are in touch with higher levels of consciousness naturally manifest largeness of heart. Inclusiveness and compassion bespeak a sage as a particular kind of fragrance does a rose.

The best of any tradition is an expression of the highest insights of its sages, and therefore at depth the tradition is always right. But it is also true that the tradition is almost always misunderstood, especially when taken externally and partially, with exaggerated emphasis on rational speculation or on sentimental devotion.We can see this historically: if the traditions had not been misunderstood, Krishna, the Buddha, and the Christ would not have thrown down such forceful challenges as they did before the official guardians of their traditions.

One sees not only that the traditions are continually betrayed, but that the traditions themselves betray the Truth—as is implied by the fact that the word tradition and the word treason come from the same source. Whenever a scholastic interpretation freezes a tradition into a rigid formulation, however liberating it had once been and however hallowed by time, the words of Krishna apply: "For one who truly knows,there is as much use in all the Vedas [sacred texts] as there is in a well when there is a flood of water on all sides" (Bhagavad Gita 2.46).

From the perspective of practice and experience, we may too quickly imagine that we can speak of or know the highest reality or the deepest truth. It is very easy to be lost in fantasy. The soul has many levels of depth, many levels of realization, as it also does of ignorance and thus of conscience. In the felicitous expression of Meister Eckhart,"our soul is as infinite as God." Wherever we are, we can always attempt to be in touch with what is more deeply true.

So, in trying to speak from the heart, we need to keep in mind the unending depth of being. We need to become freer both of ourselves and of the tradition—the scaffolding of our position, rationality, and law—+and take our stand only in what is vaster than what our egos or our concepts can contain. Brahman, which literally means the Vastness, is everywhere, but especially experienced in that depth of the heart where attachment to remaining small can be sacrificed. "Through the heart one knows truth," says the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.9.23) and later with deeper emphasis, "Heart is the supreme Brahman" (4.1.7).

Whoever speaks from the heart runs the risk of being considered an outlaw and a fool:

Make no mistake about this, if there is anyone among you who fancies himself wise—wise, I mean, by the standards of the passing age—he must become a fool to gain true wisdom. For the wisdom of this world is folly in God's sight. Scripture says, "He traps the wise in their own cunning," and again, "The Lord knows the arguments of the wise are futile." [1 Cor. 3.18-20]

St. Paul speaks of being in one's right mind (Coomaraswamy), but it could equally well be the right heart; for the right mind, or the higher mind-heart, belongs to a different level of substantiality and comes into existence only by a delicate combination of the attributes usually associated with heart and mind, of conscience and consciousness, of love and truth, of compassion and wisdom. Since "mind" and "heart," as we commonly use the terms, do not permit the necessary finesse of levels of heart and mind, it is useful to retain traditional words, such as buddhi in Sanskrit or nous in Greek.

According to a simile used in the Katha Upanishad (1.3:3-4), thehuman body is like a chariot whose steeds are the senses; mind or discursive intellect (manas) is the reins; soul or contemplative intellect (buddhi) is the charioteer; and the Self or Spirit (Atman) is the owner of the chariot. Buddhi is the integrated intelligence that stands between the human mind and the Spirit, between what is below and what is above, between the individual and the cosmos.It is the will that can orient a human being towards the light of the Spirit and give direction to the mind and the senses.

On the other hand, if the senses get unruly, like the steeds of a chariot, they affect the mind, which in turn leads to dissipation and fragmentation of the buddhi. The buddhi has an amphibious character. It can dive into and stay in the lower world of matter, or it can soar in to the higher realms of the Spirit. In the first case, a person is led into conflicting desires, illusion, and darkness. That is sin; that is what causes sorrow. In the other case, there is the possibility of movement towards light—towards understanding, integration, and unity.

The term buddhi, which denotes the subtlest and the highest faculty in human beings, is not translated easily (see endnote). The verbal root budh means "to wake up; to rise from sleep; to heed, attend to; to perceive, notice, learn, understand, become aware of; to have insight into, understand thoroughly." Buddhi thus means "returning to consciousness; presence of mind, intentions, purpose, design; perception, comprehension; intellect, understanding, intelligence, talent; discrimination, judgment, discernment." In the Sankhya Karika (23), buddhi is defined as adhyayasaya, "determination, resolution, mental effort, cognition, awareness."

Buddhi is above manas, which is the mind as thinking faculty involved in ratiocination and comprising the totality of human emotional and intellectual possibilities. This is why it is termed mahan (the Great One). It is also known as prajna (wisdom, discernment), dhi (intuition, imagination), khyati (knowledge, power of distinguishing objects by appropriate names), smrti (memory,remembrance), chitta (comprising the functions of both the reasoning faculty and the heart, namely observing, thinking, desiring, and intending). It is the integrated intelligence above thought.

Other spiritual disciplines also speak of this faculty. St. Gregoryof Sinai (quoted in Writings from the Philokalia 38) said, "A true sanctuary . . . is a heart free from thoughts, made active by the Spirit." And Nicephorus the Solitary (24 -5, 33) said, "God appears to the mind in the heart, at first as a flame purifying its lover, and then as a light which illumines the mind and renders it God-like . . . . The mind, when it unites with the heart, is filled with unspeakable joy and delight. Then a man sees that the kingdom of heaven is truly within us."

The truly right heart-mind is without measure, unlimited, naturally ordered, and full of truth, as Patanjali puts it in the Yoga Sutras(1.48). The deeper one can dwell in the right heart, the closer one is to the Unconditioned Real. If I could speak from there, Krishnamurti would agree. Unaccustomed to the depths, the mind wishes to swim on the surface.

Ibn 'Ata' Allah, the thirteenth-century Sufi sage, spoke from the heart when he said, "The Real is not veiled from you. Rather, it is you who are veiled from seeing It."

NOTE ON THE TERM buddhi. In translating the parable of the chariot in the Katha Upanishad (1.3:3-4), Radhakrishnan (623) renders it as intellect; Aurobindo (49) as Reason; Zimmer (363) as intuitive discernment and awareness; Zaehner (238) as soul. Zaehner's authority for his translation is based on verse 2.41 of the Bhagavad Gita, in which it is declared that the essence of the buddhi is will, which in the Christian tradition inheres in the soul. In other connections, these authors and others translate buddhi as wisdom, consciousness, or awareness. It is useful to retain the Sanskrit word buddhi because any rendering into English is problematic. I think the closest one-word translation is soul, as distinct from mind as well as from Spirit or Self. In the tripartite division of psyche made by Plotinus, integrated or purified buddhi is the highest element, which is directed to the contemplation of the Nous and the One; before purification, buddhi corresponds approximately to the middle element, which may be attracted upwards or downwards. The importance of buddhi and buddhi yoga in the Bhagavad Gita and its parallels in Greek thought are discussed by Armstrong and Ravindra. 

References

Ravi Ravindra is Professor and Chairman of Comparative Religion,Professor of International Development Studies, and Adjunct Professor of Physics at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is interested in understanding whether it is possible to go beyond a Hindu-Christian or an East-West encounter to a human-human one.