One does not err by perceiving, one errs by clinging; but knowing clinging itself as mind, it frees itself. – Tibetan Book of the Dead
EXPLANATION OF ‘HEART-MIND’ – OUR INTERIORITY – EXTRACT FROM DOCTORAL THESIS
My answer is the human spirit – her own and her pupils. How might we construe that spirit? My answer is as the flow of ‘spirit-as-the-life-force’ (chi?)
One analogy for the ‘flow of spirit-as-the-life-force’ is water flowing. Another analogy lies in the flow of energy as dancer dances. Another metaphor for ‘the flow of spirit-as-the-life-force’ is that of white light. These metaphors are the opposite of the mechanistic ‘human-as-computers’ or the older ‘humans-as-machines’ metaphors.
Since I see teachers as ‘developers of consciousness’ I here am focusing on the idea of the life-force, in a normal person, culminating in (raised) consciousness. I also use the term interiority to refer to consciousness. By interiority I mean ‘affective awareness’ and ‘moral awareness’ as well as ‘cognitive awareness’ – hence my preference for ‘heart-mind’ as a term for interiority.
I am grateful to Martin Cortazzi for pointing out that a unitive presentation of heart-mind has a long history. He tells me that heart-mind corresponds to ‘xin’ in Chinese, (sometimes transcribed as ‘hsin’). (Professor Peter Harvey of the University of Sunderland also points out that ‘citta’ in Sanskrit, as used in Indian Buddhism, has the same meaning)
Hansen (1989 p. 97) explains that ‘We use ‘heart-mind’ to translate xin. This is because the philosophical psychology of ancient China did not use a cognitive/affective contrast in their talk of well-honed human performance…’
He also points out (1992 p. 20) that ‘The common translation of xin as heart-mind reflects the blending of belief and desire (thought and feeling, ideas and emotions) into a single complex dispositional potential.’
Tu ( 1985 p. 32) provides further evidence in saying:
…the Confucian hsin [xin] must be glossed as ‘heart-mind’ because it involves both cognitive & affective dimensions of human relations. This ‘fruitful ambiguity’ is perhaps the result of a deliberate refusal rather than an unintended failure to make a sharp distinction between conscience & consciousness. To Yang-Ming [Wang Yang-Ming, neo-Confucian philosopher 1477-1529] consciousness as cognition & conscience as affection are not two separable functions of the mind. Rather, they are integral aspects of a dynamic process whereby man becomes aware of himself as a moral being. Indeed, the source of morality depends on their inseparability in a pre-reflective faculty.
“Transcending the ego” thus actually means to transcend but include the ego in a deeper and higher embrace, first in the soul or deeper psychic, then with the Witness or primordial Self, then with each previous stage taken up, enfolded, included, and embraced in the radiance of One Taste.
And that means we do not “get rid” of the small ego, but rather, we inhabit it fully, live it with verve, use it as the necessary vehicle through which higher truths are communicated.
Soul and Spirit include body, emotions, and mind; they do not erase them.
Source: The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory Reader., Pages: 33
How many words the world contains! But all have
one meaning. When you smash the jugs,
the water is one.
Rumi quoted in Chittick (1989 p. 8)
We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect.
The judgement of the intellect is only part of the truth.
— Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961)
A fact only becomes knowledge when it has meaning, when a student can see where it fits into the world in general.
(First line of description of the curriculum at the
Heschel-inspired Columbus Jewish Day School.)
This supreme emblem of God (the human mind) stands first in the order of creation and first in rank, taking precedence over all created things. Witness to it is the Holy Tradition, “Before all else, God created the mind.” From the dawn of creation, it was made to be revealed in the temple of man.
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 1)
There is a road from the eye to the heart that does not go through the intellect. ~ G.K. Chesterton
DO YOU HAVE SEPARATE ORGANS OF ‘HEART’ and ‘MIND?
The singleness of our ‘interior world’ is a vitally important idea in the SunWALK model. Much is written about the separation of mind from body in post-Enlightenment thinking. I think the head-heart separation is of the greatest consequence. There are no separate organs for head and heart in our interior as experience there is simply ideas that have affective charges and feelings that transmute into ideas. I came to this conclusion before I was told of the following;
‘We use ‘heart-mind’ to translate xin. This is because the philosophical psychology of ancient China did not use a cognitive/affective contrast in their talk of well-honed human performance…’ (page 97)
Hansen, C. (1989) Language in the Heart-Mind, in R.E. Allison (ed.) Understanding the Chinese Mind, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, pp. 75-123.
‘The common translation of xin as heart-mind reflects the blending of belief and desire (thought and feeling, ideas and emotions) into a single complex dispositional potential.’ (page 20)
Hansen, C. (1992) A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought, a philosophical interpretation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Tweaked from an earlier article here http://sunwalked.wordpress.com/6-personal-development-matters/new/faqs-to-the-underlying-sunwalk-model-of-holistuic-education/)