There is no path with Heart

What is a path? It is activities that are meant to lead to a particular goal. If the goal of spiritual seeking is something that one already has i.e. the Self, how can it be obtained by walking on a path (1) because the Self is limitless and (2) because no activity will produce a limitless result? If the goal or result of one’s seeking is already accomplished then the only way it could be attained would be through understanding what it was. Therefore any and all ‘paths’ must necessarily resolve themselves in understanding.

In spiritual circles it has become an article of faith that the quest for spiritual knowledge is an 'intellectual' and therefore misguided pursuit. But it should be noted that anyone seeking enlightenment through the 'heart' or other paths would necessarily be motivated by the intellectual belief that he or she was limited, inadequate and incomplete i.e. unelightened. To pursue experience is natural but to pursue it at the expense of understanding is foolish because it is only misunderstandings about our true nature that make us think we are unenlightened in the first place.

It is not easy to figure out why the idea of a ‘heart’ path developed: people became fed up hearing ideas from others that were not backed by experience and they frustrated themselves trying to make unworkable ideas work. But this does not mean that all ideas are unworkable. It does not mean that ‘heart’ can become a path.

What does ‘heart’ mean? It is a synonym for love. Obviously there is nothing unspiritual about love but how can love be special or separate ‘path’ in so far as anyone seeking anything worldly or spiritual is motivated by self love. As the saying goes, “Love makes the world go around.” People who imagine they love others before they love themselves actually love themselves because they can only love themselves when they are fulfilling their belief that love of others is superior to self love. People seeking to avoid suffering do so because they love themselves. Even those who see the spiritual path as an intellectual pursuit are motivated by a love of ideas. So the sentimental belief that the ‘heart’ is superior to the mind is completely misguided. Love is the common denominator in all human endeavors.

In fact there are only two paths: action and the renunciation of action. Even if we take the idea of a path of love seriously what does this path actually entail? It entails doing certain practices or rituals. Any practice, including the ‘practice’ of love is karma and people who do karma always believe that the results of their karmas, ‘spiritual’ or otherwise, will somehow make them happier. They chose the so-called path of love because they think it will fulfill them. This idea is patently unspiritual for this reason: nothing can make you happier than you are because you are happiness itself. Therefore, trying to gain lasting happiness through giving or receiving love is not possible. Even if it were it would not result in anything other than temporary moments of happiness. Temporary happiness is a synonym for frustration. Frustration does not amount to the goal of life.

The path of the renunciation of action is based on the idea that no activity or the result of any activity can complete you. Why? Because you are already whole and complete as you are. So the path of renunciation is a path of understanding. Is it a merely intellectual understanding? Yes and no. Any understanding is ‘intellectual’ in so far as understanding…whatever it is…only takes place in the intellect. There is no separate part of the self called the ‘heart’ where understanding takes place. In fact the problem stems from an unsubtle and unthinking understanding of the world ‘heart.’ Heart has come to mean feelings and emotions but the actually meaning of heart is ‘essence.’ The essence of everyone and everything is the non-dual Self and this Self has the capacity to think and feel. These impersonal functions serve different ends in the apparent reality.

Actually it is my opinion that the thinking function could reasonably be considered superior to the feeling function in this sense: all feelings and emotions stem from subtle ideas but feelings and emotions…because they are grosser than thoughts…do not impact on one’s thought life except in so far as they either confirm or contradict one’s beliefs and opinions about oneself and/or the world. Even the world of therapy has finally come to realize that emotional ‘healing’ does not take place until the ideas underlying the emotions are exposed and corrected. And secondly, feelings and emotions are not conscious and therefore only have meaning when they are interpreted by…what else...the mind. In fact it is the mind that values feelings and emotions over thoughts and ideas. But will a person with non-dual vision value one apparent part of the Self over another?

The path of ‘heart’ also takes itself to be the best path because it is experience based. Feelings and emotions are definitely experiential but are they more experiential than thoughts? And furthermore is there any emotional feeling person who does not have thoughts and ideas? Even people who are renowned for their unselfish love and blessed with deep spiritual experiences are plagued with ‘intellectual’ doubts. The diaries of Mother Teresa, who might be considered to embody the idea of a heart path, confirm this. Does this mean that the mind is at fault? It simply means that attachment to thoughts that are not in harmony with reality is the problem. Therefore the belief on the heart path that the mind needs to be ignored, dismissed, stopped or killed is incorrect.

If this is a non-dual reality as scripture claims and our epiphanies confirm there is only one Self and its nature is love. So how can it follow a ‘path’ of love? How can it be devoted to or surrendered to love?