Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

What is this thing called “the heart” ?


Displaying all 26 posts
Page 1 of 1
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

What is this thing called “the heart”? Obviously I am not referring to the physical organ, although there may well be a connections with the term used .... well, mentally. Is it something other than 'feelings'?

While anyone is obviously free to comment on this, I am especially challenging Mina to go into it, since you so often talks of it, and others do not to the best of my memory.

Can we go into this, slowly, with care?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 27 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this thing called “the heart”?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can we go into this, slowly, with care?

We can go into it, but I don't think we can meaningfully go into it; since if this 'heart' is referring to love, then we can't approach that here on the forum in any 'positive' sense....can we? We can't make an effort to attain it or make an effort to understand it, right? Well, we CAN, but it won't get us anywhere as all the organized religions have proved. So, if we don't have love in our heart, why attempt to discuss it? Why discuss something we know nothing about...have no relationship to? What we CAN explore, I think, is what actually is...our lack of love...our conflict, division from one another...our division within. This we know very well in our daily living...our arguments with our spouse or child or our smoking or over eating...our escaping to talking about our favorite sport team endlessly with our friends at the bar. What can we do here?
Discussing the actual...the facts of our daily living... seems more sensible than discussing something we don't know. Anger is something we can observe in ourselves, right? Love we cannot observe. It's something we can only speculate about....or make into an ideal or goal to try to approach or attain. Should we discuss 'God' as the Christians and Jews have been doing for millenia? That hasn't gotten mankind any closer to loving one another, has it? But perhaps I'm mistaken in my view.

Just now saw the QOTD: "The word is not the thing. the word 'God' is not God, and therefore the term is independent of God though you may call it God." Substitute 'heart', love, anger, violence, whatever word you like for 'God'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 27 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We can go into it, but I don't think we can meaningfully go into it;

I don't know if 'the heart' is referring to love or not, that is something I would like to find out. And I don't want to start with any conclusions, like the heart exists or does not exist. I don't want to make any assumptions about it, since assumptions come from what I already know, and that I don't feel that knowledge has anything useful to contribute to an inquiry.

People use the term 'heart', Krishnamurti uses the term, does he not? I may use the term, but that is because I have picked up the word from its usage around me, by imitation. Why should I not question it? Just because I don't know where an inquiry might take me, does not mean one should not embark on such an inquiry.

Perhaps it is a myth, if it is, I want to put that myth aside and face 'what is'. Or perhaps it is the most important things in the word, the key to all the suffering, all the conflict of mankind – in which case I want to discover that.

But I feel that you are right is saying that we cannot approach it in any positive sense – which I take to mean to start off as if we already know what it is. Clear that such an approach gets nowhere. So seeing that, where are we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But I feel that you are right is saying that we cannot approach it in any positive sense – which I take to mean to start off as if we already know what it is. Clear that such an approach gets nowhere. So seeing that, where are we?

I think I misunderstood your question Clive. I was assuming 'heart' to mean love or compassion since that is how the word is usually used. I was trying to say that the 'positive' approach to understanding what this love actually is has never worked as the religious Christians and Jews have proved through the centuries. Perhaps the only way to approach it is negatively. Like K's negative approach to truth that he described. When the false is removed, the truth will be revealed. So we can only understand what is not heart...what is not love...in ourselves...in the 'mirror of relationship'. We cannot make any positive approach towards love....seeking it out or praying for it.... meditating on it, whatever that might imply. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your questions.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Here's an excerpt from the Commentaries on Living that John R posted today on his forum (John's words in parentheses). I wonder if we can substitute the word 'heart' for the word 'God' in the excerpt. Not sure that this applies here on this thread, but I'll post it anyway.

From the book:

K: Is the man who is seeking God really 'religious'? How can he seek God if he does not know Him? And if he knows the 'God' he seeks, what he knows is only what he has been told, or what he has read; or else it is based on his personal experience, which again is shaped by his own desire to find security in another (next?) world.

Q: Aren’t you being a little too 'logical'?

K: Surely one must understand the 'myth-making' mechanism of the ( self-centred) mind before there can be the (direct?) experiencing of That which is beyond the measure of the (temporal) mind. There must be ( an inner) freedom from the (inherent limitations of the?) 'known' for the Unknown to be. The ( mystery of the?) Unknown is not to be pursued or sought after. Is he serious who pursues a projection of his own mind, even when that projection is called God?

Q: If you put it that way, none of us are serious.

K: We are ('dead -?) serious' in pursuing whatever is pleasant, satisfying.

Q: I do not think that I am seeking God for my own gratification. I am denying myself many things, which isn’t exactly a pleasure.

K: You deny yourself certain things for the sake of a greater satisfaction, don’t you?

Q: But to seek God is not a matter of gratification.

K: One may see the foolishness of pursuing worldly things and so one’s mind turns to the pursuit of a bliss which is called God. In the very process of self-denial is its gratification. After all, you are seeking some form of ( spiritual) permanency, aren’t you?

Q: We all are; that’s the nature of man.

K: So you are not ( really) seeking That which is above and beyond the transient, beyond strife and sorrow. What you are really seeking (subliminally) is a permanent state of undisturbed satisfaction.

Q: To put it so baldly sounds terrible.

K: But that is the actual fact, is it not? It is in the hope of attaining total gratification that we go from one teacher to another, from one religion to another, from one system to another. One pursuit may not be as socially harmful as the other, but we are seeking (not just the personal?) gratification, ( but still deeper?) the continuation of that 'centre' (of self-interest?) which is ever wanting to succeed, to be or become something (better than what it is now?) .

Q: Am I really seeking to 'be something'?

K: Aren’t you?

Q: I don’t care about being known as a writer, but I do want the ideas or principles of which I write to be accepted by the important people.

K: Aren’t you ( subliminally) identifying yourself with those ideas?

Q: I suppose I am. One tends, in spite of oneself, to use ideas as a means to ( worldly ) fame.

K: But to perceive the facts about oneself as they are, and not as one would like them to be, demands an unbiased perception, without the memory recognizing them as right and wrong.

Q: You are surely not totally condemning ambition, are you?

K: To examine ( the truth or falseness of?) what is, is neither to condemn nor to justify. Self-fulfilment in any form is obviously the perpetuation of this (all controlling) 'centre' that is striving to be or become something. ( On the other hand, the?) ambition to fulfil (oneself) or to become something (more) , has always within it the seeds of frustration, fear and sorrow. This self-centred activity is the very nature of egotism, is it not?

Q: Good Heavens, you are stripping me of everything: of my vanities, my desire to be famous, even of my drive to put across some worthwhile ideas. What shall I do when all this is gone?

K: Your question indicates that nothing is gone (yet). No one can take away from you, inwardly what you don’t want to give up. You will continue on your way to (achieving worldly ) fame, which is (ultimately ) a way of sorrow, frustration, fear.

Q: Sometimes I do want to chuck the whole rotten business, but the pull is strong. What will stop me from taking that path?

K: Are you asking this question seriously?

Q: I think I am. Sorrow, I suppose?

K: Is sorrow the way of (self-) understanding? Or does sorrow exist because there’s no such understanding? ( So, here's your homework:) If you examine the whole urge to become (or be) something, not just intellectually, but deeply, then ( a holistic quality of?) Intelligence and understanding would come into being and destroy (delete?) the (psychological?) roots of sorrow. But ( the residual accumulation of personal & collective ) sorrow does not bring understanding.

Q: How is that, sir?

K: Sorrow is the result of a shock, it is the (result of a?) temporary 'shaking up' of a mind that has settled down in the (comforting?) routines of (material) life. Something happens - a death, the loss of a job, the questioning of a cherished belief - and the (temporal) mind is disturbed. And... what does a disturbed mind do? It ( seeks and ) finds a ( fool-proof?) way to be undisturbed again; it takes refuge in another belief, in a more secure job, in a new relationship. Again the wave of life comes along and shatters its safeguards, but the mind soon finds still further defence; and so it goes on (accumulating the hurts?) . This is not the way of Intelligence, is it?

Q: Then what is the 'way of Intelligence'?

K: Don’t you want to find it out (experientially?) for yourself? If I were to give you an answer, you would either refute or accept it, which again would impede ( the unfolding of your inner?) intelligence, understanding.

Q: I can see that what you have said about 'sorrow' to be perfectly true. That’s exactly what we all do. But how is one to get out of this ( time-)trap?

K: To 'see' (the truth about?) the whole nature of this (time-) trap is the only liberating factor - but ( meditation-wise ?) you have to take this (Inner) Voyage on an Uncharted Sea.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #6
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
perhaps it is the most important things in the world, the key to all the suffering, all the conflict of mankind

'Heart' or love, or compassion are all synonymous to my way of thinking. I was just posting with Olive, a question that arose for me about , what is a perfect human being? I think this question of 'heart' fits right in. A perfect human, I think, would certainly have this total quality of heart. If I ask myself why it is that I have little or no compassion for others, my answer is that I judge them. A whole range of judgement is involved in how I see others in relation to myself. I don't find all that many that I 'like'. I think of some as absolutely 'evil'...If a total love, compassion, or 'heart' is potentially possible for us as humans, it must be, to use K.'s words, judgement, condemnation, and comparison that do not allow it to manifest. In this sense total 'love' is dangerous to the 'self' but as long as I can 'dole' it out (here and there) I can stay in 'charge'. With 'total' heart, love. compassion, etc., there can be no 'self' with its limited, discriminations. It does not mean that compassion approves of what another does, but being a product of intelligence, it understands that even though another's behavior is cruel, vile, thoughtless, etc., that that is the conditioned 'self' in action.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Nice post, Dan, if I may say so.

Dan McDermott wrote:
f I ask myself why it is that I have little or no compassion for others, my answer is that I judge them.

Certainly judging (which is an aspect of image-forming) is closely conected to the lack of love, but I am wondering about the cause-affect here. Do I judge because I have no love, or do I have no love because I love? Or is it one movement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I was assuming 'heart' to mean love or compassion since that is how the word is usually used.

Krishnamurti often said:

"We have filled the heart with the things of the mind"

One can hardly fill love with the things of the mind, can one? So does "the heart" equate with love? The phrase "His heart was filled with hatred" is not uncommon, and the like. Does this not point towards the heart being the capacity for feeling - any sort of feeling?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #9
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do I judge because I have no love, or do I have no love because I love? Or is it one movement?

The 'self' has no love. Real love is limitless, the self is limited.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I was assuming 'heart' to mean love or compassion since that is how the word is usually used.
Krishnamurti often said:

"We have filled the heart with the things of the mind"

Perhaps K is trying to say here that we're so full of the things of the mind(we're so attached to them) that the heart is empty....there's no love. I'd give him poetic license here. But it's still very common to equate the heart with love....in literature and even everyday common speech. Look at the holiday we celebrate here in the U.S. on Feb 14th...Valentine's Day. Every valentine's day card has a picture of a heart....meaning love....love for our spouse or significant other usually. Perhaps others see it differently, but if we say to our girlfriend, 'I give you my heart', it means I love you, right? If we say that someone has 'a lot of heart' it often means they have compassion and love for others. Sometimes it means they have a lot of spirit....good will. Mostly I think it's used to refer to love or compassion, but I may be mistaken.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The phrase "His heart was filled with hatred" is not uncommon, and the like. Does this not point towards the heart being the capacity for feeling - any sort of feeling?

Not sure about that. I think again it's simply another way of saying that 'he's so full of hatred that there's no love in his heart.'

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Certainly judging (which is an aspect of image-forming) is closely connected to the lack of love, but I am wondering about the cause-affect here. Do I judge because I have no love, or do I have no love because I love? Or is it one movement?

I'm sorry, I made a serious typo in the above. I obviously meant to say:

Or do I have no love because I judge?.

Yes Dan, it is certainly clear that the self has no love, cannot love.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 31 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #13
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes Dan, it is certainly clear that the self has no love, cannot love.

I mean, 'it', the 'self'. 'me' would really like to Clive..but people are so damned...'unlovable'!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 31 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #14
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes Dan, it is certainly clear that the self has no love, cannot love.

Dan McDermott wrote:
I mean, 'it', the 'self'. 'me' would really like to Clive..but people are so damned...'unlovable'!

Hi Clive, Dan and others,

Is this not wrong use of words, of concepts ??
Must one make not make a distinction between love and LOVE ??

The Self loves itself and is as such an accumalation and a temporary something.!!

LOVE is something one cannot 'Have' but only 'Be'.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Aug 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I mean, 'it', the 'self'. 'me' would really like to Clive..but people are so damned...'unlovable'!

I see. So it like those roadside flowers that K often talked of, which give their perfume to the lovable people, and withhold it from the unlovable.

:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Aug 2017 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

I mean, 'it', the 'self'. 'me' would really like to Clive..but people are so damned...'unlovable'!

Clive: I see. So it like those roadside flowers that K often talked of, which give their perfume to the lovable people, and withhold it from the unlovable.
:-)

I'm not sure we can love someone who is violent and full of hate...or a sociopath who has no feelings for another human. I think seeing the ugliness of that, one might turn away....an intelligent action of self preservation.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm not sure we can love someone who is violent and full of hate...or a sociopath who has no feelings for another human. I think seeing the ugliness of that, one might turn away....an intelligent action of self preservation.

Tom, this is based on the idea of "me" loving "the other". Does not love, as K tries to explain, have a broader, vaster context that from person to person?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does not love, as K tries to explain, have a broader, vaster context that from person to person?

I don't know. It can certainly be love for my wife or child...or neighbor, however. A love that is so vast that it includes all of creation....loving the whole in the part.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't know. It can certainly be love for my wife or child...or neighbor, however.

Yes, it surely must manifest in the particular.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #20
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

There was a long delay in replying to this post because of feeling some energy in it that simply did not bring about words at this end.

I am using the word 'Heart' to describe the totality of one's being which is the totality of life, and not only fragmented mind and thought.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Wed, 23 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If I ask myself why it is that I have little or no compassion for others, my answer is that I judge them. A whole range of judgement is involved in how I see others in relation to myself. I don't find all that many that I 'like'. I think of some as absolutely 'evil'...If a total love, compassion, or 'heart' is potentially possible for us as humans, it must be, to use K.'s words, judgement, condemnation, and comparison that do not allow it to manifest.

Beause of Mina's recent post I was looking back through this thread, and became involved again in this post of yours, Dan.

I am sure that you are right. Any possibility of love goes out through the window as soon as there is any form of judgement of the other. And I am wondering why this is.

So what does it mean, not to judge another? I don't think it means that one should not see the facts about another. As you say, Dan, people ARE cruel, vile, thoughtless, and consistently so. The facts become apparent through their actions and words, whereas judgements can be traced back to my conditioning, no? And “my conditioning” ultimately means the self in action. Of course self in action means no love. All this is very clear and simple.

And I see now that "facts" refer to a person's actions, not some idea of what a person "is". But judgement is always of the (imaginary) self of another.

So the question is not “how am I to love?”, but how is the self to end (without getting caught up in the word “how”). And this is the question which entwines through all the threads, it underpins the forum itself, and hopefully any Krishnamurti related forum. Otherwise what is the point of it all? It sounds corny, but it is indispuitable that what the world needs is love.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 23 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I am using the word 'Heart' to describe the totality of one's being

Does this, Mina, imply that the intellect plays no part in the totality? It is not clear to me how 'totality' can exclude anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #23
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does this, Mina, imply that the intellect plays no part in the totality? It is not clear to me how 'totality' can exclude anything.

Mina: Wholeness neither excludes nor includes, it is not divided. The intellect, as a thought movement which is always divided, includes and excludes at the same time. ('at the same time' is a fact which it itself cannot see, because it exists as a result of separation between cause and effect)

So, totality neither excludes nor includes, so it absolutely excludes nothing, has no contradiction! But the reality of thought, and intellect is thought, is based on contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #24
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive and Dan,

Clive:So what does it mean, not to judge another? I don't think it means that one should not see the facts about another. As you say, Dan, people ARE cruel, vile, thoughtless, and consistently so. The facts become apparent through their actions and words, whereas judgements can be traced back to my conditioning, no? And “my conditioning” ultimately means the self in action. Of course self in action means no love. All this is very clear and simple.

And I see now that "facts" refer to a person's actions, not some idea of what a person "is". But judgement is always of the (imaginary) self of another.

Mina: Although what you say above sounds very neutral and correct, :-), there is something I feel like saying which may a little different..

When looking at another without judgement, thought, knowledge, you look at him/her without any past. This includes not knowing of any past deeds or actions, no matter what their nature may have been, however cruel etc. This actually means a full heart, total forgiveness, for nothing in essence, since there is no past.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
This actually means a full heart, total forgiveness, for nothing in essence, since there is no past.

The word 'forgiveness' really has no meaning here, as there's nothing to forgive....no past deeds held in consciousness...'no past', as you say. Or it may in fact be the only true 'forgiveness', as there's no animosity whatsoever. Forgiveness as it's normally used is motivated by selfishness, I think....selfish motives. An attempt to cover up any remaining animosity.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 24 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #26
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom,

I used the word 'forgiveness' in a holistic way, (which you also describe), not of course as an action of thought/ego

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 26 posts
Page 1 of 1
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)