You are here

Dialogue 30 - Bombay - 19th February 1971 - 'The mind and the heart'

Questioner P: We have talked several times, and so far the discussions have been related to the mind and its problems. What we have not discussed is the movement of the heart.

Krishnamurti: I am glad you have raised that.

P: Is the movement of the heart a different movement from the movement of the mind? Are they one movement or two movements? And if they are two movements, what are the elements which make these two movements different? I use the words mind and heart, because these are the two focal points around which certain sensory responses appear to focus. Are the two movements in fact one movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us begin. What do you mean by movement?

P: Any kind of emotional response which we call love, affection, goodwill, compassion, seems to ripple, to move from a focal point which we identify as the region of the heart. These ripples affect the heart, make it physically beat faster.

Krishnamurti: Which is the physical, the physiological movement of the brain cells?

D: Or is it the nerves which have an impact on the heart?

Krishnamurti: It is a response of the nerves, the heart, the brain, the whole organism, the psychosomatic organism. Now, is the movement of the mind separate from the movement which is generally called the heart? We are not speaking of the physical heart, but of the emotions, the sentiments, the angers, the jealousy, the feeling of guilt - all the emotions that make the heart throb and beat faster. Are the movements of the mind and heart separate? Let us discuss it.

P: What we have been saying all along is that if one can strip oneself till nothing remains but the movement of survival, the only factor which distinguishes man is this strange movement of the heart.

Krishnamurti: I think this division is artificial. First of all, we should not start that way.

P: While we have been discussing with you, there has been a silencing of the brain cells, there has been tremendous clarity, yet there has been no response from the heart; there have been no ripples.

Krishnamurti: So you are separating the two. There is the movement of the mind and the movement of the heart: let us question whether they are separate? And if they are not separate, then when the mind is empty of consciousness in the sense in which we have used that word, what is the quality of the mind that is compassion - that is love, empathy? Let us begin by asking whether the movement of the heart is separate. Is any movement separate?

P: What identity has anger with the movement of affection?

Krishnamurti: I am asking, is any movement separate?

P: Separate from what?

Krishnamurti: Is all movement unitary, like all energy is unitary, though we may divide it up, fragment it?

All movement is one; a unitary movement. One has broken movement up as the movement of the heart, the movement of different categories; but we are asking, "Is the movement of the heart separate from the movement of the mind?" Is there such a movement of the heart separate from the mind, mind being the brain? I do not know if I can verbalize this - the mind, the heart, the brain, are they one unit? And from that unit, movement flows; a movement which is unitary. But we divide emotions, sentiments, devotion, tenderness, compassion, enthusiasm from their opposites.

P: As also evil, cruelty, vanity. There is a pure intellectual movement which is neither one nor the other; the pure technological movement.

Krishnamurti: Is the technological movement different from the movement of the mind?

P: I think thought has its own technology. It has its own momentum, it has its own reason for existence, its own direction, its own speed at which it operates, its own motives and its own energy.

F: You cannot measure thought. Do not call it technology.

D: Thought-waves have been measured. Technology means measurable.

Krishnamurti: We said just now that compassion, love, tenderness, care, consideration and politeness are one movement. The opposite movement is contrary to that - it is violence and all that. So there is the movement of the mind, the movement of affection, love and compassion; and the movement of violence. So there are now three movements. Then there is another movement which says this must be or this must not be; has the assertion that this must be or this must not be, anything whatsoever to do with the mental movement?

D: Then there is the movement of the coordinator apart from the three.

Krishnamurti: Now we have the fourth movement - the coordinator. The movement of affection as the movement of the heart, then the movement of violence, callousness, depression, vulgarity and all that; then the mental, intellectual movement and the movement of the coordinator. So there are now four movements and every one of these movements has its own subdivisions.

See how complex it becomes, and each subdivision is in contradiction with its opposite. So it becomes multiple. This psychosomatic organism has got dozens of con- tradictions, not just mental movements, intellectual movements, emotional movements, etc. There are simultaneous and contradictory movements, multitudinous movements and there is the coordinator trying to arrange things so that he can operate.

F: Is there not a selective mechanism, which picks up and calls it thought, mind, heart and so on? Is that not the coordinator?

Krishnamurti: Coordinator, chooser, integrator, selector, call it what you will, they are all in contradiction with each other.

F: Why do you say they are in contradiction, because each one is an independent movement?

D: But as one lives they seem to be in contradiction.

F: But each one is moving in its own.

P: As "F" says, at any given point if one is, the other is not.

F: Then there cannot be contradiction.

Krishnamurti: When one is, the other is not. But the coordinator weighs these two - I want this and I do not want that.

F: That is the whole movement of life.

P: We started by saying that so far we have gone into the movement of the mind. Is there such a thing as the movement of the heart?

B: Is it a nourishing movement? Is it a movement of sustenance - this which we call the movement of the heart? Is this not necessary in order to see that the movement of the brain does not remain sterile?

D: We are not in the field of contradiction at all.

Krishnamurti: Contradiction is not when one is, and the other is not, but when the coordinator says I would rather not have this but have that; then begins the contradiction, the opposition as choice.

A: If I am full of hate, etc., I cannot take two steps beyond. The question is, is the movement of the heart distinct from that of the mind? Or does it have its own quality?

Krishnamurti: That is what "P" is saying. There is the movement of the mind, the intellectual, technological movement; there is the movement of the heart and there is the movement of violence. Then there are several multitudinous movements in us and the coordinator selects one or two to sustain himself. From there what is the next question?

P: Are these movements parallel to each other? Ultimately they are either the one movement or the other.

Krishnamurti: I am not sure.

P: Is the movement of the brain basically that which excites emotions?

A: Though one may not have personal hate or anger, when I read about Bengal, certain emotions come and they are social responses. I do not do a thing about it, whereas to have love, affection is a definite quality of enrichment; a sustenance; which the mind cannot give you.

D: We have already agreed that the perception of the brain is thought.

Krishnamurti: Let us get the meaning of the words clear. The response to various forms of stimuli we call emotion.

Is perception an emotion?

Now what is the next question? You ask, are there two movements with their subdivisions; are they parallel?

P: Parallel means separate; they never meet.

Krishnamurti: Or are they really one which we do not know?

P: Take desire. Which category would you put it in - emotion or thought?

B: Desire is from the heart.

P: Take the arising of desire. After a while it becomes thought. Where will you put it?

A: It arises only as a thought.

F: The arising of desire as an immediate emotional response of the heart, is not separate from thought. With the word "anger", the heart beats faster. All that is one movement.

Krishnamurti: Desire, hate, love, we say, are emotive and mental movements. Therefore there are these two movements. You ask, are they parallel and therefore separate or is it all one movement? I am not saying it is or it is not so.

P: I think that is not a valid question. The valid question is if they are two separate movements, is it impossible for them ever to come together? Or is it the very cause of the misfortune that we have kept them separate?

F: That which perceives the pattern is thought. That which perceives without the pattern is emotion.

P: The moment you make such a statement either this is so to us and therefore the duality has ceased, or otherwise it is a theory.

Krishnamurti: It is a theory. Conclusions, formulas mean nothing. I say I do not know. I know only these two movements the one the thinking, the intellectual, the rational movement; the second the feeling of kindliness, gentleness, that is all. Are they two separate movements? Or because we have treated them as two separate movements, our whole misfortune, our confusion arises. You see, "P", you can see we have till now divided the body and the soul. The whole religious tendency in the west as well as in the east has been this division of the soul and the body and we have maintained that and the scriptures have maintained that. It is really a psychosomatic state, not one or the other, but it is a psychosomatic movement which invents the soul, etc. And so the question is, are they two movements or have we accustomed ourselves to the thought that the two are separate - the body and the soul - till somebody says it is a psychosomatic state and I say "yes", I understand.

P: But how can you neglect the fact that an emotional intensity brings a new quality of being, a complete experience of what the other person feels; a sense of unspoken understanding?

Krishnamurti: Do not bring that in yet. We are asking, are these two movements separate? Or because we are so habit-ridden we have accepted that they are two separate movements? If they are not, what is the one unitary movement that includes thought as the movement of the brain and the movement of the heart?

How do you investigate this question?

I can only investigate it from fact to fact. I can have no theories about it. I see the fact of perception. I see the fact of the movement of thought. And I ask when there is no movement of thought, is there a movement which is nonverbal? Have I explained myself?

If there is complete cessation of thinking which is movement, is there a movement which is an emotive movement as love, devotion, tenderness, care? Is there a movement separate from thought; thought being verbal meaning, explanation, description, etc? Or when the movement of thought comes to an end without any compulsion, is there not a totally different movement which is not that or this?

P: That is so, Sir, and I am saying this very very hesitantly. There is a state when it is as if an elixir is released, when one is overflowing; a state in which the heart is the only thing that is there - I am using metaphors - and there can be action in that state, doing in it, thinking in it, and everything in it, and there is a state when thought has ceased and the mind is very clear and alert, but the elixir is not present.

Krishnamurti: Let us stick to one thing. Just what is the factor of division?

P: What divides is an actual tactile sense. Here it is not something which is mental. There is a certain ripple; a ripple is very real.

Krishnamurti: I am not talking about that. What is the factor in us that divides one as the emotive movement and the other as the intellectual-thought movement? Why is there the soul and the body?

D: Would you admit that the very faculty of intellect sees that there is a movement which emerges from thought and another that emerges from the heart. It is observable.

Krishnamurti: I say, why is there a division?

D: The hand is different from the leg.

Krishnamurti: They have different functions.

D: There is the function of the brain and there is the function of the heart.

A: As far as my experience goes, when the verbal movement ceases, there is an awareness of the entire body in which emotional content is and it is pure feeling. It is no more thinking, but pure feeling.

P: In the tradition there is a word called Rasa. It is very close to what Krishnaji says. But rasa is a word which needs to be investigated. Rasa is essence, it is that which fills. The tradition differentiates different types of rasa but rasa is essence; that which fills, that which permeates.

D: It is emotion.

P: It is much more; rasa is essence.

Krishnamurti: Keep to that word essence, perfume. Essence means what it is.

Now what happens? In observing the whole movement of thought, in observing the content of consciousness, the essence comes out of it. And in observing the movement of the heart, in that perception, there is the essence. Essence is the same whether it is this or that.

A: That is what the Buddhists also say.

Krishnamurti: When you use the word "essence", it is the essence of all the flowers that makes the perfume and the quality. In perceiving the whole movement of thought as consciousness - consciousness with its content which is consciousness - and in observing that, in that very observation is the external refinement which is the essence. Right? In the same way there is the perception of the whole movement of the body, love, joy. When you perceive all that, there is the essence and in that there are no two essences.

Essence has to come into being. Now how do you produce it? Distil it? When the flowers are distilled, the essence of the flowers is the perfume.

D: When the pollution goes, it is essence.

F: There is the essence of friendship, of affection.

Krishnamurti: No, no, I would not use essence of friendship, essence of jealousy. No, no.

F: What do you mean by essence?

Krishnamurti: Just look. I have watched what we have been doing during these discussions. We have observed the movement of thought as consciousness; the whole of it and the content of the movement is consciousness. There is perception of that. The perception is the distillation of that and that we call essence which is pure intelligence. It is not my intelligence or your intelligence but it is intelligence, it is essence. And when we observe the movement of love, hate, pleasure, fear, which are all emotive, there is perception and, as you perceive, the essence comes out of that. There are no two essences.

D: Here comes my question. What is the relationship between essence as you perceive it and uniqueness? I think they are interchangeable.

Krishnamurti: I think I would rather use the word essence.

P: The great masters of alchemy were called rasa-siddhas.

D: They who are established in rasa, that is, those who have attained, who have their being in that.

Krishnamurti: During these days and before, one has watched the movement of thought. One has watched it, and watched it without any choice and in that is the essence; out of that choiceless observation comes the essence of the one and the essence of the other. Therefore what is this essence? Is it a refinement of emotions, or is it totally unrelated? And yet it is related because it has been observed. Right?

P: So energy which is attention....

Krishnamurti: Energy is essence.

P: Though operating on matter, essence is unrelated to both.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin again slowly with essence. Is it unrelated to consciousness? I am taking it that one has observed consciousness.

There has been a perception of movement as consciousness, as thought and the content of that consciousness which is time and the very observation of that, the flame of observation distils. Right?

In the same way the flame of perception brings the essence of emotive movement. Now having this essence, what relationship has it to that and to this?

I do not know if you see this. That was your question. Right? None whatsoever. Essence has nothing to do with the flower. Right. Though it is part of the flower, the essence is not of it.

F: Even grammatically it is not all right: although it is part of the flower it is not of the flower.

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, the other day I saw they were taking the bark of a tree to produce some kind of alcohol; that essence is not the bark.

F: But it is in the bark.

D: It is realized because of the heat.

Krishnamurti: Heat of perception produces essence. So what is the question? Is essence related to consciousness? Obviously not. So the whole point in this is the flame of perception and the flame of perception is the essence.

D: It creates the essence and it is the essence.

Krishnamurti: It is the essence.

P: Is perception creation, the moment of creation?

D: Do we create what we perceive?

P: Is perception creation?

Krishnamurti: I do not know what you mean by creation.

P: Bringing into being something which is not there.

Krishnamurti: Is perception creation? What do you mean by creation? I know what perception means. Let us stick to that word. I do not know what the meaning of creation is. Producing a baby? Baking bread?

D: No, I would not say that. Moving from here to there is also producing.

Krishnamurti: Do not reduce everything to creation. Going to office is not creation. You are asking what is creation? To create, to produce, to create something which has not existed before. When we use the word "creation', to create something different, to create a statue, to bring into being, what does that mean? Is it essence? To bring into being what? It can bring into being only two things: thought or emotion.

D: Bringing into being means, essence manifest.

Krishnamurti: I ask of you what is meant by creation? I do not know. Bringing into being something new or bringing into being in the mould of the known.

P: Creation must be bringing into being the new, not the old.

Krishnamurti: Therefore let us be clear. Bringing into being something totally new. At what level? Watch it. At the sensory level, at the intellectual level, at the memory level; where? Bringing into being something new; where? So that you see it, so that you can visualize it? The man who produced the jet because he was familiar with the piston, the internal combustion engine, was that totally new? So when you say bringing into being something totally new, at what level?

P: At the sensory level.

Krishnamurti: At the sensory? Can you paint a new picture which is non-verbal? Can you paint something that is totally new? Which is, can you bring into being something which is not self-expression? It is not new if it is self-expression.

P: If creation is something entirely new which is unrelated to any self-expression, then probably all self-expression ceases, all manifestation ceases.

Krishnamurti: Wait, wait.

P: I will say that because there does not exist anything which is not self-expression........

Krishnamurti: That is what I want to get at. The man who discovered the jet - at the moment when he discovered it, there was no self-expression. He translated it into self-expression. It is something discovered, then it is put into a formula. I only know that the flame of perception has brought about the essence, and now the question is, has that essence any expression? Does it create anything new?

D: It creates a new perception.

Krishnamurti: No. There is no new perception. The flame is the perception. Flame is flame all the time. One moment pure flame of perception, then forgotten, and again pure flame of perception, then forgotten. Each time the flame is new.

D: Perception touches matter, and there is an explosion and there is mutation. Now that which emerges out of it, you cannot postulate. It is the discovery of the jet engine.

Krishnamurti: Let us put it this way. In that essence when there is action, that essence is not concerned with self-expression. It is concerned with action. Action then is total, not partial.

P: I want to ask one more question. The manifestation of this......

Krishnamurti: Which is action.

P: It has contact with matter.

Krishnamurti: There is action.

A: Up to perception we go with you.

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. You have gone further. There is a perception which is flame, which has distilled the essence. You cannot say I have got it. There is only essence. Now that essence acts or may not act. If it acts, it has no frontiers at all. There is no "me" acting. Obviously.

P: That itself is creation. Creation is not something apart from that.

Krishnamurti: The very expression of that essence is creation in action, not new action or old action. The essence is expression.

P: Then is perception also action?

Krishnamurti: Of course. See the beauty of it. Forget action. See what has taken place in you.

Perception without any qualification is a flame. It distils whatever it perceives. Whatever it perceives it distils because it is the flame.

It is not a sensory perception. When there is that perception which distils at every minute, when you say I am a fool, to perceive that - and in that perception there is the essence - that essence acts or it does not act, depending upon the environment, depending upon where it is; but in that action there is no "me", there is no motive at all.

BOMBAY 19th February, l971