7I § The Radiating Heart and the Flaming Heart
IN connection with 'the light and the rain', [1] and speaking of representations of the sun with alternating straight and undulating rays, we mentioned that very close counterparts of these two kinds of rays are also to be found in certain symbolic figurations of the heart. One of the most interesting examples of this that can be offered is that of the heart depicted on a small bas-relief of black marble, apparently dating from the sixteenth century, and coming from the Carthusian monastery of St Denys of Orques, which has been studied previously by Charbonneau-Lassay. [2] This radiating heart is placed at the centre of two circles upon which are inscribed respectively the planets and the signs of the Zodiac, which explicitly marks it as the 'Centre of the World' in the double sense of spatial and temporal symbolism. [3] This figuration is plainly solar; moreover, the fact that the sun (understood in the 'physical' sense) has itself a place on the planetary circle, as it normally must have in astrological symbolism, shows beyond doubt that it is in reality the spiritual Sun that the figure as a whole represents.
It is hardly necessary to recall that the correlation of sun and heart, insofar as both alike have a 'central' symbolism, is common to all traditional doctrines, of the West as well as of the East. It is thus, for example, that Proclus, addressing himself to the Sun, says: 'Occupying the midmost throne, above the ether, and having as emblem a dazzling circle which is the Heart of the World, thou fillest all with a providence apt to awaken the intelligence'. [4] We cite this text especially, in preference to many others, because of the formal mention of the intelligence that is made in it; and as we have often had occasion to explain, in every
tradition the heart is also considered before all else as the seat of the intelligence. [5] Moreover, according to Macrobius, 'the denomination "Intelligence of the World" responds to that of Heart of Heaven; [6] source of etherial light, the Sun is for this fluid what the heart is for the animated being'; [7] and Plutarch writes that the Sun, 'having the strength of a heart, disperses and gives out from itself heat and light, as if these were blood and breath'. [8] We find in this last passage, both for the heart and for the sun, the indication of heat and light, corresponding to the two kinds of rays that we have considered; if the breath is here related to light, it is because it is in fact the symbol of the spirit which is essentially the same thing as intelligence. As to the blood, it is clearly the vehicle of the 'quickening heat' which refers especially to the vital function of the principle which is the centre of the being. [9]
In certain cases concerning the heart, the representation includes only one of the two aspects of light and heat. Light is naturally represented by radiation of the ordinary type, that is, by rectilinear rays alone; as for heat, it is most commonly represented by flames issuing from the heart. It can moreover be noted that the radiation, even when the two aspects are united, generally seems to suggest an acknowledged preponderance of the luminous aspect. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the representations of the radiating heart, with or without the distinction of the two kinds of rays, are the older, dating for the most part from times when the intelligence was still traditionally related to the heart, while representations of the flaming heart became wide-spread especially under the influence of modern ideas and the consequent reduction of the heart to a correspondence with sentiment only. [10] It is, in fact, only too well known that the heart has come to have no more significance than this, and that its relation to the intelligence has been entirely forgotten. The origin of this deviation, furthermore, is doubtless to
be imputed largely to rationalism insofar as it claims to identify intelligence purely and simply with reason; for the heart is not related to the rational faculty, but to the transcendent intellect which, precisely, is ignored and even denied by rationalism. It is true, on the other hand, that once the heart is considered as the centre of the being, all the modalities of the being can in a sense be related to it, at least indirectly, including sentiment or what psychologists call 'affectivity'. But there is every reason to observe the hierarchical relationships in all this and to uphold the true centrality of the intellect, while all the other modalities are only more or less peripheral. However, when intellectual intuition, which resides in the heart, had ceased to be recognised [11] and reason, which resides in the brain, had usurped the illuminating role [12] of the intellect, there was nothing left for the heart but the possibility of being looked on as the seat of affectivity. [13] Furthermore, the modern world had also to see the birth of what can be called sentimentalism, as a kind of counterpart to rationalism, that is, the tendency to see in sentiment what is most profound and most elevated in the being and to affirm the supremacy of this over intelligence; and it is quite obvious that such a thing, like all else that is really nothing but the exaltation of the 'infrarational' in one form or another, could not have come about except for the fact that intelligence had first been reduced to reason alone.
Now if, apart from this modern deviation, a certain relationship of the heart to affectivity is to be established within legitimate limits, this relationship must be seen as resulting directly from the heart's aspect of 'vital centre' and seat of the 'quickening heat', life and affectivity being two things very close to one another if not completely joined, while the relation with the intelligence is obviously of quite a different order. Besides, this close relationship between life and affectivity is clearly expressed by symbolism itself, which represents both alike under the aspect of heat; [14] and it is in virtue of this same assimilation, however unconsciously it may be made, that in common language one currently speaks of the warmth of sentiment or of affection. [15] It must be noted also in this connection that when fire is polarised into these two complementary aspects of light and heat, they are, so to speak, in inverse ratio to one another in their manifestation; and it is common knowledge, to take simply the point of view of physics, that the less light a flame gives the
hotter it is. Similarly, sentiment is really only a heat without light; [16] and one can also find in man a light without heat, that of reason, which is only a reflected illumination, cold like the lunar light which is its symbol. In the order of principles, on the contrary, these two aspects, like all complementaries, meet and are united, for they are constituents of one same essential nature. This is the case, therefore, as regards pure intelligence which belongs to the principial order; and as we have previously indicated, this further confirms that the symbolic radiation under its double form can be integrally related to it. The fire which resides at the centre of the being is indeed both light and heat; but if these two terms are to be 'translated' respectively by intelligence and love, even though fundamentally they are but two inseparable aspects of one and the same thing, it will be necessary to add, in order that this 'translation' be acceptable and legitimate, that the love in question differs from the sentiment that is named love as much as pure intelligence differs from reason.
It can be easily understood that certain terms borrowed from affectivity, as well as others, should be susceptible of analogical transposition into a higher order, for all things, apart from their immediate and literal meaning, have in fact a value as symbols in relation to more profound realities; and in particular, it is clearly so whenever there is a question of love in a traditional doctrine. Among the mystics themselves, despite inevitable confusions, affective language appears especially as a symbolic mode of expression, for however much sentiment in the ordinary sense of the word they may incontestably feel, it is nevertheless inadmissible, whatever modern psychologists may claim, that nothing should be there but purely human emotion and affection related as such to a superhuman object. In any event, the transposition becomes still more evident when one realises that the traditional applications of the idea of love are not limited to the exoteric and religious domain. They are to be found, for example, in numerous branches or schools of Islamic esoterism; and it is the same in certain doctrines of the Middle Ages, especially the traditions belonging to the Orders of chivalry, [17] and also the related initiatic doctrine which found expression with Dante and the Fedeli d'Amore. We will add that the distinction between intelligence and love, thus understood, has its correspondence in the Hindu tradition with the distinction between Jñāna-mārga and Bhakti-mārga, the way of knowledge and the way of love. The allusion we have just made to the orders of chivalry indicates, moreover, that the way of love is especially appropriate for the Kshatriyas, while the way of intelligence or of knowledge is naturally that which is especially suitable for Brahmins; but ultimately this is a question that bears only upon the manner of conceiving the Principle, in conformity with the difference of individual natures, nor could it in any way affect the indivisible unity of the Principle itself.