January 18th, 2024

 I have recently come across this Vedantic notion - into two very separate places and in quick succession. As mentioned in a previous post, whenever such events occur I cannot help but look at it as some sort of divine signal. A message from somewhere beckoning me in this direction. The notion in question is what is referred to in Sanskrit as "Tena Tyaktena Bhunjitha". And I will endeavor to take this apart a bit to explore its true meaning. 

On the face of it, it means " Renounce and rejoice". This is abstruse- does not tell me much, If I renounce, then I should rejoice with what exactly? Does it mean renunciation will make me feel joyous?  Whatever it is that I want to pursue, at some level I do it because it will bring me joy- where joy is a generic moniker ascribed something positive and generative in a good way. If you tell me that I should not pursue, then it would seem you are asking me to be inert. If each one of us had been inert, what would have happened? And where is there any data to suggest this might be a good idea. 

There is not a lot wirtten about this, but with the little I have read or heard, I was trying to make sense of it. The first point that became clear was that Tyag- or sacrifice is not a well understood word. It is not exactly cutting oneself off the entity but rather experiencing the entity in all its abundance- but without being attached to it.  It is like thinking of any experience as that of a party- where you go, you drink you eat you chat and have a good time- but you dont become part of that household. You get back home and possibly go back to work the next day. But during the time you were at the party you were indeed rejoicing. But when you got back home, you had "renounced" the party. So, basically, no one is asking you not to party- but they are asking you to get back home after you are done. It also means that you cannot exert the action of "leaving the party" if you did not " go to the party" in the first place.  If you do not partake, you cannot renounce. It follows that to renounce you need to first partake in something. This mantra is essentially asking you to pursue stuff not be inert. Pursue with detachment. Partake with disengagement. This duality is the key and it is hard to explain it in a linear fashion. Renunciation, in a western sense, refers to some form of asceticism, which as we saw in one of my previous notes on Wokeism, is increasingly used in western society to virtue signal. That is not right, I get that. But it is equally wrong , atleast from my indic philosophical fabric, to think that ascetism is useless and so it should be avoided and instead we should carry on with our various and relentless pursuits.  Wokes are misguided, but I hate to say, so are those opposing them in the West. In India, it is hard to make a case for the wokes, because what they are peddling is not easily categorisable in an Indian context. So much of our philosophy has elements of whatever ascetism is being peddled. We are a largely vegetarian society anyway, and traditionally we are not major consumers - however the West has hyper marketed consumerism across the world to say that this is desirable- and he effects of this has reached Indians too. In addition, we have not real understanding of our ancient civilsational wisdom barring very narrow circles of social networks. Had we been more "hindu", we would have been less obsessed by the Western consumerism. This is one important consideration- because it implies that this would be good for the planet- or rather it would be good for that grand old woke pursuit- fighting climate change. Yet they are leftist enough to be of the view that being more "hindu" offers nothing good in the least. All it does it creates communal tension, oppression of the other and an all pervasive malevolence in general. This to me is completely contradictory.

Coming back to Renouncing and rejoicing, another theme of explanation is along the lines of not thinking that we, personally, are actually responsible for any outcomes. Even if we pursue something, the outcome is from some supreme power and it is only being realised via ourselves. The outcome comes from it forming, traversing and blossoming all via our persons. We are therefore only a medium. We make an effort, but what happens thereafter is not related to us at all. For example, a farmer may toil night and day to prepare and plant his crop- but the rains might be less, or more or jsut about right- which will lead to very different outcomes. In each case, he cannot credit himself for a good outcome nor can he chastise himself for a not so good one. None of that was in his control. And this is an example, but it can be extrapolated to anything else as well. If we therefore are not responsible for an outcome, then we are by definition not attached to it. Therefore, there is nothing to renounce. Renunciation would then follow only when we have something to renounce- which is only possible if we somehow appoint ourselves as "owners" of something. Effort or Outcome or whatever. Rejoicing refers to partaking- so as mentioned, there is not a directive here to deprive oneself of anything- except attachment. Can I really give my heart and sould into a pursuit while being utterly detached? Is it even possible? I guess it is- and this is what Renounce and Rejoice is all about.  It certainly isnt easy or obvious- but if it were not possible, it would not have made to the first page of the Ishopanishad. We have referred to this in selected contexts- which is again denying us of its essence. For example, when it comes to engaging socially we think of being close to people and warm with them but still maintaining a distance. " Ambient Warmth"- this is the phrase coined by a friend to describe this notion. What the Upanishadic idea is suggesting is that Ambient Warmth has to be a way of life- not just limited to how you engage with society. It is an all encompassing way of life- and it is what is being proposed to each of us.

Finally, renunciation is referring to a feeling of denying that you are renouncing anything.  In other words, the idea is renounce the notion that you are renouncing anything. Because whatever you are partaking is mostly not of your doing, although it may seem that way.   At the risk of repeating, you are owning the effort but not the outcome, so you dont own it completely so there is nothing to disown. So in a sense it is suggesting giving up in some sense a sense of ownership. Does this somehow makes us less responsible or accountable. And this is the main dilemma in trying to reconcile this nuanced ideal with a WEstern sense of accountability-which for sue is useful in our day to day life