Spiritual Code and Restraints

Author(s): Manu Doshi
Publisher: Manu Doshi

Page 39

opportunity to touch her hair. But if her hair happens to come in his mouth with the food, he perceives that very hair as irritating. He may even feel like vomiting. Why does his perception of nicety for the same hair disappear? Besides, his perception of beauty and attraction for the same girl does not remain constant. It changes with the time and place. It is also noteworthy that the nature of attraction that a man feels for his girl friend, is totally different from that felt by the father or brother of the same girl. These factors lead to the conclusion that the attraction is a matter of perception.
Now let us take the aspect of the pleasure being derived from touch. Suppose, we are traveling in a crowded train and feel the push of someone from behind. While peeping back, if we perceive a young girl behind us, we may not feel the pinch of the push but may actually experience a sense of pleasure. If, however, we properly look behind and find that the push comes from a male, our sense of pleasure would disappear. This makes it clear that the touch itself was not pleasurable. It was the sensation associated with the touch that gave the pleasure and when the cause for the sensation was gone, the pleasure also disappeared.
To take another example, if a man happens to touch a sensitive part of his girl-friend, both of them would feel an exciting sensation. But when the same girl breast-feeds her infant son, she would not feel such excitement. Similarly, if a doctor happens to touch a girl for medical check up, neither of them would experience excitement. It is also possible that a man happening to touch even the footwear of a girl sitting by his side may derive a sensation of pleasure. But if the same footwear lies somewhere in his way, he may not feel any sensation by trampling over it or even by removing it with his hand!
It would thus be evident that touch itself is not pleasurable and the sense of pleasure does not arise therefrom. The pleasure is derived from a feeling, from imagining that the touch is from a pleasurable source. No pleasure is experienced from the same touch, if it is not associated with that sort of imagination. There is an ancient story about Väsavadattä, the most glamorous city girl of Mathura and of the Buddhist monk Upagupta. The latter happened to nurse diseased Väsvadattä and did not experience any sensation even by touching her most delicate parts.
Imagining of pleasure or displeasure is thus one's own fancy. Similarly, the so called experiencing of pleasure from any particular touch is also a fancy, not a reality. Neither the fancy nor the touch is the source of pleasure. The pleasure actually comes from within. Our own Self is pleasurable, but we wrongly believe it as coming from without.
Similarly, the sense of pleasure that one derives from sex is also a reflection of the pleasure that lies within but is wrongly attributed to that particular situation. The contact of a body does not have any inherent capability to extend pleasure. It is the soul within that is full of pleasure. The body that we love the most, ceases to give pleasure when the soul departs. If we contemplate at depth, we can realize that soul is the real source of pleasure and we vainly try to seek it from the sources that are incapable of extending it. That realization can end the long standing trait of attachment for all worldly situations.