Tattva-viveka
mind vs. heart
Brian Peterson - April 21, 2008 1:43 am
Hey everyone:
Something I've been struggling with is the balance between mind and heart. I’ve come to realize one of the most difficult transitions a person encounters is moving from living in the mind to the heart.
It sounds strange, but it’s almost as if there’s a battle for two supreme wills raging within me at all times. My mind demands that I analyze every situation to death. I can’t just let things go. I’ve got to pour over the details, wonder “why” an event happened or why something was said. Was there an ulterior motive? Was it something I said or did?
Obviously, we have to use our minds to think, to learn, to judge, to investigate—all things that are necessary. But on the other hand, I’ve come to realize I can get trapped in my mind, shackled by never ending questions that have no answers, yet they whirl circularly in and out of my direct consciousness, and many of these thoughts never completely disappear.
We’re raised in a society that demands adherence to the “rules” of logic. And I’m always looking for them to govern over many situations. Yet there are so many times when logic gets tossed out the window, and we’ve got to just act from the heart, letting go of our own self-imposed limitations and allowing our true selves to appear.
The mind can be a blessing and a curse—a blessing in that it helps us cut through the fog of drama, misinformation, and stupidity we witness; a curse in that sometimes it just won’t shut down and, strangely enough, makes the same mistakes it tries to avoid when witnessing the actions of others.
Ironically, here I am right now trying to “think” about this conundrum on this forum. 
Sometimes by writing things out I feel better, but sometimes I wonder if it’s just another “escape” from opening up my heart.
So, what am I afraid of?
At any rate, what I seem to understand (in my very basic understanding) about bhakti is that bhakti is all about opening up and feeling, experiencing straight from the heart, while using the mind as a support system. My spiritual search has been one of conflict between the mind vs. heart; however, I'm looking to change this as I feel it's what I need.
Any advice? 
Shreekrishna - April 21, 2008 2:07 am
I am the least qualified to give advice on this topic, but my thoughts I can share!
When I read your post, it reminded me of discussions of vaidhi bhakti vs. ragamarga which, to me, doesn't seem so much as mind vs. heart but more of logic vs. pure feeling/emotion.
I also think that the Vedic conception of "mind" is different from the Western one. I think it would be great if the scholars on this forum could say something about the Vedic conception of mind, and "heart" and how it relates to the consciousness (the big "C" in Krsna Consciousness!). And if this seems of track for this discussion, let me know and I can post it in the Q & A forum...
Vamsidhari Dasa - April 21, 2008 6:59 pm
Very interesting topic for me. I thought I put in my 2 cents (or $120 as it happens to be my hourly rate :Talking Ear Off: ). Lets first define the MIND and HEART as I understand it from Brian's post . Mind = thinking Heart = feeling. I think that this division is not only false but is also harmful because it dichotomizes parts of our experience that are not mutually exclusive making either sides of the continuum undesirable.
Often times we confuse THINKING with intellectualization, rationalization, and obsessional rumination. To analyze something to death is actually opposite of thinking because it kills what is supposed to be understood. The origins of Cartesian split were a reaction to Romanticism and "spiritualism" that dominated the thinking of the time. But this splitting also epitomizes something that is intrinsic in the way our minds operate and that is how it has been maintained at least in the popular thinking. When something is hard for us to understand or it provokes internal turmoil because we have conflicting information which creates cognitive dissonance we tend to split it apart in order to grasp it. This makes everything easier because it is safe. You have certainty where the good is where the bad is and you know who is right and who is wrong, etc. After a period of black and white thinking we come gradually to appreciate and accept the complexity of everything: that we are both good and bad, that in reality we have to exist in the gray area and tolerate the complexities of everything.
So, one can apply the same kind of splitting in this false dichotomy between thinking and feeling. People who have difficulties with emotional life tend to resort to intellect to control their feelings and people who have difficulty with thinking get lost in the unmodulated emotional content. The culture emphasizes and values rational, logical, approach (which is an expression of Protestant values system) over affect, feeling, emotion and intuition. These are devalued and seen as lesser human qualities to be kept in check. Often we find that the former are seen as a masculine qualities and the later feminine so do I have to go any further?
In reality there is no thinking without feeling and no feeling without thinking. They are not a independent products of the mind but they inform and supplement each other. In order to THINK one has to consider both feeling and the intellect. If there is too much intellectualization it would follow that there is some emotional component that is hard to bare or is avoided.
I think that most people are afraid of their emotional lives and tend to cover it up and avoid it, using everything from drugs to books and unfortunately, at times also religion.
Feelings are hard because we do not come to this world knowing how to modulate them and we need help by others with that which occurs through development. For example when a baby is hungry all that she is aware of is that she has pangs of pain in her abdomen and that it is unbearable. It is mother's job to recognize the cries as hunger and provide what is needed (milk) for the baby. This process occur "eons" before words but is the origin or thinking. Baby comes to associate the sensation of pain with the coming of the breast to feed it. The baby then "invokes" the "thought" of the breast to modulate the pangs of hunger. That is the prototype of thinking. By the "appearance" of the mother's milk as a result of recognition of baby's needs the baby comes to make sense of her own world.
I hope this helps.
in service,
Vamsi
Gaura Krsna Dasa - April 25, 2008 6:33 pm
Vamsi's post made me think of something in regards to the words spirit soul.
Srila Prabhupada uses those words in a lot of his talks, commentaries, and translations to mean the jiva -the atman. I used to come across that and think "where did he get that? Why those words?" Apart from Srila Prabhupada you just never hear spirit soul outside a Western mystical context. Eventually I looked into it.
Turns out, it is very much Western mystical terminology. I'm no expert on mysticism by any stretch of the imagination, but it does seem they also use spirit soul to mean the atman. However their idea of atman is significantly different from ours. Our siddhanta is very precise (almost technical) and so when we say jiva or atman we explicitly understand it to be transcendental in nature. Although it isn't entirely clear to me, their conception of self seems to include this but also the more mundane self as well: intellect, mind, feelings, and all that.
But what I find interesting in their conception (and also analogous to some Tantric teaching, although I won't elaborate) is that spirit and soul are two interdependent components of the self, well, better to say person. Spirit is the solar side that thinks and soul is the lunar side that feels. Spirit, being solar, is the archetypal male; soul, being lunar, the archetypal female. Spirit, like fire, thinks in terms of action and expresses will through the body directly. Soul, like water, reflects and expresses will through the body indirectly. So spirit would inspire you to think: "I will complete this project and only sleep 3 hours this weekend!" And soul will say; "Fine. Now we will get catch a nasty flu and be sick for 3 days. Are you listening?"
Also of interest is that they say spirit is "objective" because thinking is objective. Thoughts, ideas, anything happening in the language part of the brain is objective because thoughts and ideas can be communicated to others. Our ideas aren't really our own because the sources for them have come from other people and can live on outside us long after we are gone. Soul, on the other hand, is subjective. An idea may be objective but how we feel about it isn't. Feeling is entirely reflective; personal; subjective. You can make someone believe something (spirit) but you cannot make them love the belief (soul).
Of course, none of this objective-subjective, solar-lunar, thought-emotion stuff is actually transcendental. The spirit soul (the jiva) as Srila Prabhupada uses it and as we understand it is separate from this. But there does seem to be some parallel. Could we not say that jnana is objective and bhakti is subjective? I recall Guru Maharaja saying that jnana is what brings us together (the canvas of siddhanta on which the lila is painted) and bhakti is what separates? Jnana reveals spirit, but bhakti is soulful?
Anyhow, just a thought. The essential point I draw from this is that both aspects, the solar and lunar, are intrinsic parts of my person. My actual spirit soul operates through these and both in turn act upon my body. Both are real, both must be recognized, and both must be consciously cultivated and drawn into receptivity to Sri Guru and his service.
Brian Peterson - April 25, 2008 9:40 pm
Thanks for all of the response posts so far. You all provide some excellent examples/points and I am still allowing the writing to sink in and digest. :Talking Ear Off: I will add more to the discussion as I internalize all of your interesting and thought provoking ideas.
Vamsidhari, I enjoyed your analysis of my conundrum. Yes, that is one of my problems--my over-analysis often does "kill" my desire to "think." And, therefore, my feelings are often left to the side, clouded in the dust that covers my heart at this time. I accept the shades of grey in all aspects of life; in fact, this is often what makes life special, seeing that potential beauty and mystery within all. At the same time, I guess I aspire to have a firmer grasp of a spiritual path in my mind/heart. At this point in my life, as beautiful as all the manifestations of the Divine I've studied/attempted to practice are, I still feel a wall that badly needs to be broken down. 
Know what I mean?
Maybe part of it is I'm scared of what happens when I do "choose" a spiritual path. That ol' Catholic guilt often pops up in my mind (or via my family) when attempting to understand/practice other paths, such as bhakti. Although I believe that God would view positive aspirants from any of these paths in a positive light, it seems some of my family/cultural background pops back into focus.
Maybe it's more that I lack confidence in myself to choose/practice correctly? It's hard to say, but after reading your post, that seems to make some sense to me. Now, to attempt to shatter those "walls"...that's the real challenge. 
Vamsidhari Dasa - April 26, 2008 12:33 am
At the same time, I guess I aspire to have a firmer grasp of a spiritual path in my mind/heart. At this point in my life, as beautiful as all the manifestations of the Divine I've studied/attempted to practice are, I still feel a wall that badly needs to be broken down.
Brian I am glad that you can take in what I said and think about it. I just wanted to comment that it is not like there is a spiritual life on one side and the non-spiritual on the other. Spiritual life is not an idea or a theory to be fully grasped in order to be applied. Even when it comes to theory that is not possible what to speak of a spiritual path.
The way I see it, and this is just my limited experience and understanding, one needs to spiritualize one's life. It is a process which takes time and patience, some study is necessary too, but I don't think you can learn and grasp spiritual life before you live it. It goes hand in hand.
Brian Peterson - April 26, 2008 1:05 am
Yes, I totally agree with you. Life in and of itself is spiritual. I guess I just feel pulled in different directions at times, many of those directions being away from my very basic understanding of this concept. So, I guess I've been on a path to remind myself of this; however, I often get bogged down by external distractions in the way (politics of spiritual communities, work life, family drama, etc.) And I think at times I've longed for The Matrix type of idea where I "wake up" to the spiritual reality around me that I ignore at times. Yet I smile when I think of this as it's never that simple. :Talking Ear Off:
Vamsidhari Dasa - April 26, 2008 1:46 am
YI often get bogged down by external distractions in the way (politics of spiritual communities, work life, family drama, etc.) And I think at times I've longed for The Matrix type of idea where I "wake up" to the spiritual reality around me that I ignore at times. Yet I smile when I think of this as it's never that simple.
Hahah, you're funny. But you know you are not alone we all get distracted and bogged down. What ever you do just don't take the Blue pill. :Talking Ear Off:
Brian Peterson - April 29, 2008 2:09 am
Another thought that might correlate with this topic:
Being born in America we are typically brought up with a certain sort of mindset about pretty much every sort of matter, let alone spiritual matters. Obviously scientific and materialistic analysis is ingrained in our thinking, which is good to a certain extent. However, because our culture is so firmly entrenched in these perspectives, we often cannot "see" deeply into spiritual concerns.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm looking for advice in terms of balancing the "western" mindset I have inherited with the (I feel) deeper understandings that one can have when removing the ego from the equation, which many "eastern" paths teach their practitioners to do. I'm looking for balance, such as with the whole mind/heart feelings I've already shared.
Thanks!
Citta Hari Dasa - May 1, 2008 4:00 am
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm looking for advice in terms of balancing the "western" mindset I have inherited with the (I feel) deeper understandings that one can have when removing the ego from the equation, which many "eastern" paths teach their practitioners to do. I'm looking for balance, such as with the whole mind/heart feelings I've already shared.
Guru Maharaja uses and expression in this regard that I think sums up how to do this quite eloquently: "Use your head to soften your heart." Religion in general and bhakti in particular are all about faith. Faith could be said to be the domain of the heart, but faith that has not been tempered with deep rational enquiry and objective analysis is not mature faith. His commentary on Bhagavad-gita chapter 17 might me worth looking at for more on this.
Guru Maharaja has also often said that it's not because we have a mind that we can think, but that our mind gets in the way of our thinking clearly. The jiva is the thinker and feeler, and our material coverings (guna and karma, samskaras) obscure the natural perception, feeling, and action inherent in the soul. The ultimate solution to the Cartesian split (as Vamsi put it) is to transcend the material ego, as the path of bhakti teaches. Effacing the ego is in fact the work of the sincere sadhaka, and is the focus in sadhana-bhakti: "Let me become a soul surrendered unto you, my Lord". And the only way to do that is to get good association and to put the teachings of bhakti into practice--lots of practice. And in the course of our practice our thinking becomes more clear, our faith grows deep and strong as we exercise our intellect in understanding the teachings, and the heart starts to come out from under the myriad extraneous desires and designations that we have obscured it with.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 1, 2008 7:07 am
Guru Maharaja uses and expression in this regard that I think sums up how to do this quite eloquently: "Use your head to soften your heart." Religion in general and bhakti in particular are all about faith. Faith could be said to be the domain of the heart, but faith that has not been tempered with deep rational enquiry and objective analysis is not mature faith. His commentary on Bhagavad-gita chapter 17 might me worth looking at for more on this....
If I may add, this is so rare today. Swami Tripurari is not an ordinary swami and his words echo one wholly different reality of understanding and feeling. A reality not commonly seen. You need to be at least curious in order to have a glimpse of it. So if you convey this beautiful analysis of yours to someone else, they might not understand the message properly, or they may think you're an idealist. For them, this is all terra incognita. For you, it's reality.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 1, 2008 3:43 pm
Zvonimir, your comments are terra incognita to me: I'm left wondering how they relate to the topic under discussion. Of course Guru Maharaja speaks of an uncommon reality that is rarely seen, and that is why we follow him, so that one day (or life) we may gain access to that reality. And clearly Brian is curious to know about it, since he's here on the board asking questions. My comments were for him, and I think he has the capacity to understand them properly. And if not, then that's what the Tattva-viveka is for: to gain clarity on such issues.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 1, 2008 9:51 pm
Zvonimir, your comments are terra incognita to me: I'm left wondering how they relate to the topic under discussion.
I wanted to say people here in Tattva viveka can experience your beautiful, comforting words and Swami's reality too. This land is an unknown land to many, and if you convey everything you say here to someone outside, they may think your ideas are at least idealistic. Because reality you're coming from is unexperienced to them. In other words, I was praising your good luck, your commitment, and Brian's good luck too, because he's been answered beautifully.
Yamuna Dasi - July 29, 2008 10:14 pm
Hello Brian!
I've read in your post "We’re raised in a society that demands adherence to the “rules” of logic. And I’m always looking for them to govern over many situations. Yet there are so many times when logic gets tossed out the window, and we’ve got to just act from the heart, letting go of our own self-imposed limitations and allowing our true selves to appear."
Being a completely new one into this forum I was thinking rather to read more first before writing anything, but your post really urged me to write you 
There is something what really shocked me years ago when I was very determined to get to know more about logic to which we so much bow down - so I took the 6-7 cm thick (like a brick nearly) textbook for the University exams named "LOGIC" completely decided to "eat it". Starting from the very preface... and what did I find in the very preface was logic defining itself as a science saying "Logic in NOT a science about the truth, it's a science about how thoughts follow one another as a chain". Shocking, isn't it? :He He: Because we are usually ready to put equation between "local" and "true", but the very preface of the book made it clear it's not at all so.
Actually we have to be sincere with ourselves what do we search for - logic or truth, because the very logic says that they are not the same at all. So practically what logic does is something like "if this is so, then from it follows that". Like a way of solving a mathematical problem. A chain of thoughts following one another. But every chain starts from somewhere, from some ring from which the others follow. In maths these are the axioms - claims which are ACCEPTED as true by default. Can you imagine what this means? That even in mathematics the basis is FAITH - axioms are claims accepted by faith, without any proof. And without axioms no mathematics can exist. Without axioms no problem can be solved because one cannot start from "nothing" his chain of thoughts about it.
So the real question which comes is which are our axioms, what are the thoughts we accept as true by default? As we can see modern society in which we are born practically implants axioms into our minds, and becoming spiritual requires us to question the most difficult thing to be questioned - the axioms we accept... and shake them... and change them eventually.
That much about logic and truth. Truthful axioms first... then truthful sequence of thoughts, because there are also many kinds of logic and some of them can also not lead to the truth even if one starts from a truthful axiom.
When we ask "why?" this sort of questioning requires very special openness of both mind and heart since not all the levels of the answering target only the mind. The very beginning of Bhagavatam is crushing some kind of logic and establishing another on it's place - when the sages asked Shukadeva Goswami to tell them all the most important truths, the essence of ALL he replied a kind of strange... that little Krishna is holding the tail of the calf which is dragging him on the yard of mother Yashoda in a cloud of flying dust. This is how he started answering that question! What kind of an answer this could be or did he eot the question at all? What kind of an answer this is? After that he spoke all the Bhagavatam as a large answer, but first he gave this short one. And how could this possibly be an answer to their question? Well, it is because by this answer he first had to broaden their view about "logic" and "answer" involving also the feeling as an answer. He was pointing them that higher reality is a feeling... other dimension. If we put a two-dimensional question and we get a three-dimensional answer, we might not be able to accept it as an answer at all, because it would require from us first to accept the existence of one more dimension in order to understand it.
But still we cannot stop following logical conclusions, we just have to be more open to the feeling as an answer to certain questions. Also I think that by getting to know more logically both the natures of mind and the logic itself, we can learn how and when to dismiss them
Recently it happened to me to dismiss my mind and logic as an authority on a topic when I caught it on the spot in the serious crime of a double standard. I am usually very much after justice and I caught myself pleading for justice on somebody else, while begging for mercy for myself daily. So if my mind is soooo deeply double-standard, how can it then be just playing the role of a judge? Dismissed! Seems that I can be more just by being more merciful (if I want mercy upon myself), which from the logical point of view seems quite a contradiction 
Maybe in this way, little by little dismissing the logic and the mind (in order to avoid their strike) as our absolute guides, we can slowly but surely come closer to the Truth.
Yamuna Dasi - July 29, 2008 10:25 pm
I've read Shridhara Maharaj saying that the distance in the body between mind and the heart is just 20 cm but we are struggling on this path all our life... experiencing it as a long and hard trip.
Syamasundara - July 29, 2008 11:11 pm
axioms are claims accepted by faith, without any proof.
I don't think it's a matter of proof, but rather of parameters.
For example, for centuries geometry meant Euclidean geometry, whereby, for example, a rectangle has parallel sides, and everybody would agree on that, but everybody also takes for granted that the observer is looking at the rectangle perpendicularly, or that the rectangle is on a straight plane.
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 9:33 pm
I don't think it's a matter of proof, but rather of parameters.
I was giving the definition of axiom - a claim which is just accepted without requiring any proof of it. Pure acceptance. And on the basis of these few basical already accepted claims starts the building of the whole "mathematic" (being it the maths of Euclid, Lobachevski, Rheeman) - they all accept axioms, even though the set of axioms accepted in each differs from the other). No axioms - no maths, no maths - no solving problems. Without accepting axioms they cannot start building a system of theorems (claims which are already sequences of logical conclusions based on the axioms) by the aid of which to be able to resolve problems in the realm of that mathematic. So this is the way towards resolving problems - a good set of axioms and theorems and then a good way of thinking which can organize them into serving the purpose - to resolve a problem.
So my main point here regarding the proof was that NO PROOF required when question of axiom because the very idea of an axiom is accepting for the purpose of further building and resolving.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 30, 2008 9:43 pm
I was giving the definition of axiom - a claim which is just accepted without requiring any proof of it. Pure acceptance. And on the basis of these few basical already accepted claims starts the building of the whole "mathematic" (being it the maths of Euclid, Lobachevski, Rheeman) - they all accept axioms, even though the set of axioms accepted in each differs from the other). No axioms - no maths, no maths - no solving problems. Without accepting axioms they cannot start building a system of theorems (claims which are already sequences of logical conclusions based on the axioms) by the aid of which to be able to resolve problems in the realm of that mathematic. So this is the way towards resolving problems - a good set of axioms and theorems and then a good way of thinking which can organize them into serving the purpose - to resolve a problem.
So my main point here regarding the proof was that NO PROOF required when question of axiom because the very idea of an axiom is accepting for the purpose of further building and resolving.
But science is ready to change its axioms when the evidence is challenging them. That is what rationalist like. In practise obviously this is not true as depicted by post modern reality
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 10:30 pm
But science is ready to change its axioms when the evidence is challenging them. That is what rationalist like.
Devotees are also ready to change some of their axioms when the evidence is challenging them.
So was Arjuna when he had given two vows which in a certain moment come to contradict each other - he had to choose which one to follow and which to leave behind. For Arjuna his own vows were a kind of axioms - to accept and follow them both at the same time. But since the circumstances had proven that no way to be so, he had to choose.
I feel some disapproval from your side about the readiness of the science to change it's axioms and considering it as a feature of rationalism, but path of bhakti has this same flexibility as well... at least to what I have realized till now.
Devotees did accept as an axiom the words of Shrila Prabhupad not to leave ISKCON and to serve together, but when the circumstances had proven them that this cannot be done, they changed this axiom. Some changed the axiom and continued and some sticked to the axiom and were not able to see others as doing the right thing. Some axioms are not absolute and can be changed if facing with evidences. An axiom which is accepted in a two-dimensional mathematic is not accepted in a three-dimensional one, but still it serves it’s purpose.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - July 30, 2008 10:37 pm
Devotees are also ready to change some of their axioms when the evidence is challenging them.So was Arjuna when he had given two vows which in a certain moment come to contradict each other - he had to choose which one to follow and which to leave behind. For Arjuna his own vows were a kind of axioms - to accept and follow them both at the same time. But since the circumstances had proven that no way to be so, he had to choose.
I feel some disapproval from your side about the readiness of the science to change it's axioms and considering it as a feature of rationalism, but path of bhakti has this same flexibility as well... at least to what I have realized till now.
Devotees did accept as an axiom the words of Shrila Prabhupad not to leave ISKCON and to serve together, but when the circumstances had proven them that this cannot be done, they changed this axiom. Some changed the axiom and continued and some sticked to the axiom and were not able to see others as doing the right thing. Some axioms are not absolute and can be changed if facing with evidences. An axiom which is accepted in a two-dimensional mathematic is not accepted in a three-dimensional one, but still it serves it’s purpose.
But atleast the picture they paint of prabhupada is somebody who didn't change the axioms and even if he made some modifications he is the final person making it for 10,000 years.
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 10:42 pm
Even though I wrote that NO PROOF required when question of axiom, still times come when we are put into situations which require evaluation of proofs on either to follow an axiom or not… either to change it or not. Some may see this as weakness, other can see it as part of the growth. Finally the goal is to please Krshna and this is the final axiom. All the rest should serve finally this up-most one.
Yamuna Dasi - July 30, 2008 10:49 pm
But at least the picture they paint of prabhupada is somebody who didn't change the axioms and even if he made some modifications he is the final person making it for 10,000 years.
Some may glorify Shrila Prabhupada as a keeper of the axioms, others may glorify him as a changer of the axioms. He changed a lot of axioms and so did his Gurudeva Bhaktisiddhanta Maharaj. For me he is glorious for both keeping and changing the axioms, because he did either (keeping or changing) without losing of sight the top-most axiom - pleasing Krishna.