Pupul Jayakar: So far our 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?
K: 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.
K: This is the physiological movement of the brain cells.
P.Y. Deshpande: Or is it the nerves which have an impact on the heart?
K: It is a response of the nerves, the heart, the brain, the whole psychosomatic organism. Now, is the movement of the mind separate from the movement of what is generally called the heart? We are not speaking of the physical heart, but of the emotions: the sentiments, the anger, 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: In the context of what we have been saying all along, that is, of stripping the mind until nothing except the movement of survival remains, the only factor which would distinguish man would be this strange movement of the heart.
K: 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 a tremendous clarity, yet there has been no response from the heart; there have been no ripples.
K: So you are separating the two: There is the movement of the mind and there is the movement of the heart. Let us question whether they are separate. And also, if they are not separate, when the mind is emptied 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, that has empathy? Let us begin by asking whether the movement of the heart is separate.
P: What identity has anger with the movement of affection?
K: I am asking: Is any movement separate?
P: Separate from what?
K: Is any movement separate, or is all movement unitary, like all energy is unitary, though we may divide it up and fragment it? One has broken up movement into different categories, as the movement of the heart and the movement of the mind. We are asking: Is there a movement of the heart separate from the movement of the mind? I do not know if I can verbalize this: Are the mind, the heart and the brain one unit? And from that unit, movement flows, a movement which is unitary. But we divide the emotions, the sentiments of devotion, tenderness, compassion, enthusiasm from their opposites.
P: As evil, cruelty, vanity. But there is a purely intellectual movement which is neither the one nor the other – the purely technological movement.
K: 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, its own motives and its own energy.
Maurice Friedman: You cannot measure thought. Do not call it technology.
D: Thought waves have been measured. Technology implies measurability.
K: We said just now that compassion, love, tenderness, care, consideration and politeness are one movement. The opposite movement is contrary to that; it is the movement of violence and so on. So there is the movement of the mind, the movement of affection, love, compassion, and there is the movement of violence. So there are now three movements. Then there is another movement which asserts that this must be and this must not be. Has the assertion that this must be or this must not be anything whatsoever to do with the other mental movements?
D: Apart from the three there is the movement of the coordinator.
K: Now we have the fourth movement, that of the coordinator. The four movements are: the movement of the heart which has affection; the movement of violence, callousness, depression, vulgarity and all that; then the intellectual movement and, finally, the movement of the coordinator. Now, each one of these movements has its own subdivisions. And each of the subdivisions is in contradiction with its opposite. And so it multiplies. See how complex it becomes. This psychosomatic organism has many contradictions, not just intellectual and emotional movements. These movements are multitudinous and contradictory. And there is the coordinator trying to arrange things so that he can operate.
F: Is there not a selective mechanism, which picks out and names things ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘heart’ and so on? Is that not the coordinator?
K: Coordinator, chooser, integrator, selector, call it what you will – they are all in contradiction with each other.
F: Why do you say that they are in contradiction? Is it because each one is an independent movement?
D: In the way one lives, they seem to be in contradiction.
F: But each one is moving on its own.
P: As F says: If, at any given point, one is, then the other is not.
F: Then there cannot be contradiction.
K: 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 this discussion by asking whether there is such a thing as a movement of the heart. So far we have investigated the movement of the mind.
S. Balasundaram: Is the heart’s movement a nourishing movement? Is it a movement of sustenance? And is it not necessary, in order that the movement of the brain does not remain sterile?
D: We are not in the field of contradiction at all.
K: There is no contradiction when one is and the other is not. Contradiction comes in when the coordinator says: I would rather have this and not that. Then contradiction, the opposition as choice, begins.
Achyut Patwardhan: 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?
K: 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. There are 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.
K: 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; it is a sustenance which the mind cannot give you.
D: We have already agreed that the perception of the brain is thought.
K: Let us get the meaning of the words clear. The response to various forms of stimuli is what we call emotion. Is perception an emotion?
Now what is the next question? Are the two movements with their subdivisions parallel?
P: Parallel movement means separate movement; they never meet.
K: Or, are they really one movement, which we do not know?
P: Take the example of desire – which category, thought or emotion, would you put it in?
B: Desire is from the heart.
P: After a while desire becomes thought. So 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: when one is angry the heart beats faster. All that is one movement.
K: Desire, hate, love are mental and emotive movements. You ask whether they are parallel and, therefore, separate. I myself am not saying that they are or that they are not.
P: I don’t think that that is a valid question. The valid question is: If they are two separate movements, is it possible for them ever to come together? Or, is the very cause of our misfortune the fact that we keep them separate?
F: That which perceives the pattern is thought; that which perceives without the pattern is emotion.
P: When you make such a statement, either this is so for us and, therefore, the duality has ceased in us, or it is a theory.
K: It is a theory. Conclusions and formulas mean nothing. I say: I do not know. I know only these two movements – the intellectual or rational movement and the feeling of kindliness, gentleness. That is all. Are these separate movements? Or, does our present misfortune and confusion arise because we have treated them as separate movements? You see, P, we have divided the body and the soul. The religious tendency in both the East and in the West has been to divide. But it is really a single psychosomatic state which invents the soul. And so the question is: Are there two movements, or have we accustomed ourselves to the thought that the two, the body and the soul, are separate?
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?
K: Do not bring that in yet. We are asking: Are these two movements separate? Or, is it because we are so habit-ridden that we have accepted these two as separate movements? If they are not separate, 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 non-verbal? 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.? 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 there is. I am using metaphors. There can be action in that state, there can be doing, thinking; there can be everything. There is also a state when thought has ceased and the mind is very clear and alert, but the elixir is not present.
K: Let us stick to one thing. Just what is the factor of division?
P: What divides is an actual physical sense; it is not mental. There is a certain ripple; a ripple is very real.
K: 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 movement of thought? Why is there the division between soul and body?
D: Would you admit that the very faculty of the intellect sees that there is a movement which emerges from thought and another that emerges from the heart? It is observable.
K: I ask: Why is there a division?
D: The hand is different from the leg.
K: 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 pure feeling. It is no more thinking, but pure feeling.
P: In the tradition there is a word called rasa, which is very close to what Krishnaji says. Tradition recognizes different types of rasa: rasa is essence, it is that which fills, that which permeates. But rasa is a word which needs to be investigated.
D: It is emotion.
P: It is much more; rasa is essence.
K: Keep to that word: ‘essence’, ‘perfume’. Essence means what 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.
K: In perceiving the whole movement of thought as consciousness – consciousness with its content, which is consciousness – and in observing it, 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, of love, joy. When you perceive all that, there is the essence. And in that there are no two essences.
When you use the word ‘essence’, what does it imply? You see, it is the essence of the flower which makes the perfume. The essence has to come into being. Now, how do you produce it? Do you distil it? – When 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.
K: No, no. I would not use ‘essence’ in that way – as ‘essence of friendship’, ‘essence of jealousy’. No. No.
F: What do you mean by ‘essence’?
K: Just look. I have watched what we have been doing during these discussions. We have observed the movement of thought as consciousness; we have observed the whole of it – the content of the movement is consciousness. There is the 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; 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.
K: 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.
K: 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 the essence? Is it a refinement of emotions, or is it totally unrelated to emotion? – and yet related, because it has been observed. Right?
P: So energy which is attention –
K: Energy is essence.
P: Though operating on matter, essence is unrelated to both.
K: Let us begin again slowly with essence. Is it unrelated to consciousness? I am assuming that one has observed consciousness. There has been a perception of the movement of consciousness as thought, and as the content of that consciousness, which is time. 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 your question was: Having this essence, what is its relationship to the emotion? – None whatsoever; essence has nothing to do with the flower. Though the essence is part of the flower, it is not of it. I do not know if you see this.
F: ‘Although it is part of the flower, the essence is not of it’ – how can that be so, even grammatically?
K: Look, sir, the other day I saw them 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: Which is realized because of the heat.
K: The heat of perception produces the essence. So what is the question? – Is essence related to consciousness? Obviously not. The whole point here is the flame of perception; the flame of perception is the essence.
D: It creates the essence and it is the essence.
K: It is the essence.
P: Is perception the moment of creation?
D: Do we create what we perceive?
K: I do not know what you mean by creation.
P: Bringing into being something which was not there before.
K: 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.
K: Do not reduce everything to creation; going to the office is not creation. What does it mean to create, to produce something which has not existed before, say to create a statue? What is brought into being – is it essence? There are only two things which can be brought about: thought or emotion.
D: Bringing into being means ‘essence manifested’.
K: I ask of you: What is creation? I do not know. Is it bringing into being something new which is not in the mould of the known?
P: Creation is bringing into being something new, something not of the old.
K: 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 level of memory – where? ‘Bringing into being something new’ – So that you see it, so that you can visualize it? So, when you speak of bringing into being something totally new, at what level is it brought about?
P: The sensory.
K: At the sensory level? Take a picture which is non-verbal – can you paint something that is totally new? That is, can you bring something into being which is not an expression of the self? 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.
K: Wait. Wait.
P: I will say that, because there does not exist anything which is not an expression of the self…
K: That is what I want to get at. The man who discovered the jet – at the moment of discovery 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.
K: No. There is no new perception; the flame is the perception. The flame is a flame all the time. One moment there is the pure flame of perception, then it is forgotten, and again the pure flame of perception, then forgotten. Each time the flame is new.
D: Perception touches matter, and there is an explosion and mutation. Now, you cannot postulate that which emerges out of it. It is the discovery of the jet engine.
K: Let us put it this way. In that essence when there is action, there is no concern 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 –
K: Is action.
P: Has it contact with matter?
A: We go with you as far as perception.
K: No, sir, you have gone further. There is a perception which is a flame, which has distilled the essence. Now that perception 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.
K: 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?
K: Of course. See the beauty of it. Forget about action. See what has taken place in you. Perception without any qualification is a flame. It distils whatever it perceives; it distils whatever it perceives, because it is the flame.
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.