तितिक्षा / titikshA


हरि: ॐ ||

Its been a long time since I've blogged, especially anything adhyAtmic. Today, while reading something, I recalled one of my favourite verses from the Bhagavad Gita:

मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः।

आगमापायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्व भारत।।2.14।




mAtrAsparshAstu kaunteya shItoShNasukhadu:khadA: |
AgamApAyinoSnityAstAMstitikshasva bhArata ||


2.14 But the contacts of the organs with the objects are the producers of cold and heat, happiness and sorrow. They have a beginning and an end, (and) are transient. Bear them, O descendant of Bharata. (Translation: Swami Gambhirananda)


What it meant to me earlier is that the opposing pairs such as happiness & sadness, heat & cold, etc, are indicative of dvandva. The contact of the senses with the objects drag along the jIva as being in contact with them and give rise to these feelings of opposing pairs, while truly the jIva has nothing to do with them, its always free. All of these pairs have a beginning and an end, so one must bear them out with patience. However, a deeper meaning shone on me now. The dvandva bhAva not only drags the jIva into association with these emotions or feelings, opposed when weighed against each other, but they in turn lead to dvaita-bhAva or duality. Left to itself, the jIva is brahman, but when associated with objects via the sense organs, duality is born.

Imagine a different set of opposites such as past & future. The mind with its tools drags the jIva into (living the) past and (planning the) future. Not only bearing them out with titikshA but weaning itself out from them, as pratyAhAra, if I may say that, jIva would be left alone in the present. While past had started and ended too, future is yet to start, but that too would end. The present, come what may, is always there. This present is the now. The ever-lasting, nityaM. The jIva. The Atman! The brahman! So only the contact of the senses with the objects gives rise to duality, but the jIva on its own is without a second. Its ekameva advitiya.

Of course, there's a contrary, critical viewpoint to the above, which is: how can the sensual contact be the reason for duality, since the object itself lies out there as a dual, doesn't it? Then again, the object as a dual, other than one's own self, comes into picture due to contact with it, via the senses, which associate the intellect to the senses via the mind. The intellect itself is a result of association of the ego with it, whereas the ego is an *OBJECT* for the jIva. This ego is the closest object which has no existence besides its individuality. And being an individual, without a second me, I am separated from another as a sentient being or an insentient object only when I, as a jIva, have an ego to separate me. The ego but has only a ghostly existence, a delusion, that vanishes in suShupti or deep sleep, where I am truly left to myself.

That brings me to conclude this post so: if this first opposing pair of individuality of ego contrasted against the other were not to happen, there would be no jIva separate as jIvAtman from brahman. Then, I could remain as what I really am: ekameva advitiya brahman. However, this root association is naisargika as Bhagavatpada Adi Shankaracharya says, so there's nothing I can do about it right away. Instead, the solution lies at the other end of the spectrum where I can bear out the opposing pairs of heat & cold, happiness & sadness, past & future, which would lead to remaining neutral in the present, the now, which in turn ends all the duality there is, right from those "objects out there" through my "mind out there" to my own "ego out there". Without the contact with those objects (of the jIva), there would be no duality.

श्रीगुरुपादुकार्पणमस्तु ||

6 comments:

Gotya said...

Moksha,
First, great to see your post after a long time. Wonderful thoughts.

Second, please let me add some thoughts: You are quite right in that one needs to bear out the opposing pairs and try not to be affected by them. Difficult as it seems it is the only way forward. But I do not fully understand you when you end with "without contact with those objects ..." Let me explain.

Enjoyment of objects may be accomplished if 3 conditions are met
1. Object should be available (Cannot enjoy rains if there are no rains)
2. Sense should be available (Blind man cannot enjoy the rainbow) and
3. Right state of mind for the enjoyment (Something goes wrong with my office work and I cannot enjoy the tasty dish in front of me).

Since neither (1) nor (2) are really in our control (or atleast dependent on number of other external variables), contact (or no contact) with the objects is not in our hands.

What is in our hands - I presume - is the (3) State of mind. Which ofcourse is in line with your conclusion of "bear out the dualities".

Can I end my long winded comment with the first verse from the Isha Upanishad (leaving you to correct and translate from the original):

Om Isha Vasyamidham Sarvam !
Yatkinchya Jagatyam Jagat !!
Tena Tyaktena Bhoonjitaha!
Ma Groodaha Kasyasvidhdhanam!!

Warm Regards
Gotya

Praveen R. Bhat said...

Gotya, thanks for your comment.

First off, the point I'm trying to make is that the objects you mention in (1) are not the only objects, but ego, mind, senses are all objects to the jIva.

Secondly, all the 3 points you list are quite in the negative sense. How about when the objects "exist" such as the rains, rainbow & tasty dish, you've the best vision, sense of smell & taste, no tension of work either and yet... you don't let the enjoyment of the dish drag away your-Self into the delusion of all of these being outside of you, separate from you & cause a duality?!

And now, with that thought, apply the IshAvAsya mantra of everything being pervaded by Ishvara, rejecting (the duality of) those objects as not being yours. In any way that your understand the mantra, be it as duality outside, considering it as other's wealth OR as there being no duality of objects at all, the objects can be outright rejected.

Hari Om tat sat

Gotya said...

Well said Moksha.

Do take your reminder that you are talking of objects in the sense of ego, mind, senses as well.

But in your second paragraph your question is rhetorical in that it answers itself. As you say "... you dont let the enjoyment ..." in my understanding, the "enjoyment" is in the renunciation (Tena Tyaktena Bhoonjitaha).

And absolutely agree with you on "the objects can be outright rejected" if by rejected you mean renounce the desire for enjoying these objects not refusing to interact with them (which anyways is not possible).

With all this thoughts it hurts more and more that one does not practice it. A blind man misses not the rainbow - but one who has seen the rainbow misses not being able to see it again. No amount of reading or hearing or even thinking about (I am talking about myself not you ofcourse) will give the true "Knowledge" or "Realization". And yet knowing what to do and doing it are as different as anything - I am sure you know what I mean!

Praveen R. Bhat said...

i) Its indeed rhetorical.

ii) There are various ways & stages in rejecting the objects including a mix of: yoga(s), experience of samAdhi, renouncing desires, sannyAsa, etc, but the outcome intended is for the objects to not give rise to duality (or be it rise of desire again which still means duality).

iii) I'm just another you, I don't claim high moral ground.

yad yad karma karomi tat tat akhilam shambho tava ArAdhanam ||

Gotya said...

Moksha,
My last "rambling" was more of a manogat ... not to insinuate any "high moral ground" on your part.

At least you are brave enough to follow the path you believe in ... most of us are like the closet believers ... "who dont dare to walk the talk" ... In that sense you are not "just another anyone" ... On that front - as usual - hats off to you.
:-)

Gotya

Praveen R. Bhat said...

I can only say that I TRIED/TRY to walk the path and the effort hasn't been complete due to circumstances. Be that as it may, I do wish to walk the path.

Thx.