The Face is Not the Index of the Mind

The saying “the face is the index of the mind” has been ingrained in our cultural consciousness, often suggesting that one’s facial expressions accurately reflect one’s inner thoughts and emotions. There is a tale from Hitopadeśa that confirms this notion.

In the city of Campaka, within the confines of an āśrama inhabited by hermits, resided Cūḍākarṇa. This ascetic, known for his simple life and deep meditation in the forest, encountered a curious predicament. A mischievous mouse routinely raided his begging bowl and ate his food. To protect his food, the hermit used to hang the bowl from a peg. Once, his old friend Vīṇākarṇa visited him. As they conversed, Cūḍākarṇa’s distracted demeanor betrayed his preoccupation with the persistent rodent. While listening to his friend, he was intermittently hitting the ground with a bamboo stick to ward off the mouse. Vīṇākarṇa was annoyed by this attitude of his friend and remarked, “My dear friend, what is wrong? Are you not interested in what I am saying? Your mind seems to be wandering elsewhere.” He cited a verse in his support:

mukhaṁ prasannaṁ vimalā ca dṛṣṭiḥ
kathānurāgo madhurā ca vāṇī
sneho’dhikaḥ sambhrama-darśanaṣ ca
sadānuraktasya janasya lakṣma

“A smiling face, affectionate glances, attentive listening, a sweet voice, great affection, and repeated respectful gazing – these are the symptoms of a beloved.”

Vīṇākarṇa’s words are based on the common belief that the face portrays the state of one’s mind. However, the face may not always accurately reflect the innermost thoughts and feelings of an individual. While Cūḍākarṇa’s purity of heart facilitated this intuitive understanding between friends, modern society often masks true emotions behind a veneer of superficial expressions. Many individuals, shielded by layers of emotional detachment or societal expectations present a facade that conceals their genuine sentiments.

There is a modern-day concept coined by best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell called “transparency.” Gladwell describes the idea that we believe that the way a person’s face looks is the way that they actually feel. Apparently, we operate on this unconscious principle all the time. And that is how people can get away with murder, literally. This is the principle at work that enables people to lie and cheat without others doubting them. These deceitful people are masters of not showing their true emotions on their face. They cover their true feelings of hatred, jealousy, and inadequacy with fake emotions on their face of caring, kindness, love, concern, and enthusiasm. This is how they gain power and end up running our organizations, companies, schools, and lives. The sad news is that we all fall for it. The reason is that in our childhood, we put our trust in our parents and close family members. We have no reason not to trust them. This then becomes our mode of operation for rest of our lives. This may not be true for those who had an abusive childhood. They find it difficult to trust anyone. But in general, our tendency is to believe that people are “transparent” in their dealings with us.

Moreover, the advent of social media amplifies the complexities of facial transparency. In the digital realm, individuals meticulously curate their online personas, presenting idealized versions of themselves to the world. Filtered images and carefully crafted captions obscure genuine emotions, perpetuating a facade of happiness and success. As we scroll through our social feeds, we are inundated with polished portrayals of reality, further blurring the line between authenticity and artifice.

Furthermore, cultural norms and societal pressures exert a profound influence on facial and emotional expressions. In some cultures, overt displays of emotions are discouraged, prompting individuals to conceal their true feelings behind stoic facades. Conversely, in other cultural contexts, exaggerated expressions are employed to convey social status or adherence to communal norms. These cultural variations underscore the subjective nature of facial transparency, challenging the universality of its interpretation.

In conclusion, while the saying “the face is the index of the mind” may hold true in certain contexts, it fails to capture the complexity of human emotions and the intricacies of interpersonal communication. By recognizing the limitations of facial expressions as a reliable indicator of inner thoughts and feelings, we can cultivate a deeper understanding of ourselves and others, transcending superficial judgments and fostering genuine connections based on empathy and authenticity. Embracing the nuances of emotional expression allows us to navigate the intricacies of human interaction with greater empathy and insight, thereby enriching our relationships and enhancing our collective understanding of the human experience.

Satyanaryana Dasa Babaji