Why do I get affected, when the situations do not happen as I have thought of them, or when people act in a way that I have never expected?

मोक्षो विषयवैरस्यं बन्धो वैषयिको रसः ।

एतावदेव विज्ञानं यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु ॥

Translation:

Dispassion towards objects is Liberation; attachment to objects is bondage. This alone is Vigyan - now do as you wish.

Why do I suffer and get affected by when situations do not happen as I have imagined or thought of them, or when people act in a way that I have never expected?

In one of the weekend with the Master sessions, Acharya Ji said that the verses in any of the scriptures are not a just learnings. They are there to unfold the conflict with me, they exist to answer a question sitting within me. Until and unless I do not make relationship with the verse like this, the verses will come and go and it wont work for me. Therefore I started thinking that which question this verse (taught by Acharya Ji) is addressing.

In this verse 15.2, Muni Ashtavakra is saying that if I suffer, then surely I have a relationship of Ras with that particular object. I am the one who is using the object as a means to obliterate my suffering, though temporarily. So things or people are becoming the source of my happiness.

When some incident happens and it hurts me, then instead of mulling over that incident and asking why this has happened to me, the more useful thing for me is to ask, “how could I let this happen to me?”

The objects are not at fault, I am the one who is at fault, because I am the one who gave the permission to the object to enter. And Why did I give this permission to the object? Because I believe that he/she/it could fulfill me. So, it happened all by my choice, my consent.

If I suffer, it means I have chosen it.

Now whenever I feel restless or overthink about an incident, I question, “why did I let this object to become the centre of my attention? What am I getting out of it?“

This verse has given me a new way to look at the adverse situations. After all, the situation is adverse for “me”. So I must have some stakes out there and associated identity “in here”. That identity mostly constitutes me.

In the session, Acharya ji also mentioned that a person who gives too much importance to the world or its objects implies that the person does not know herself, or deeply deluded about her/himself.