position of an object in space, the isolated existence of the object—is regarded as a
kind of temporary presentation before the senses of a form taken by the cosmic
prakriti in its manifold movement of the gunas: sattva, rajas and tamas. A kind of
concretion, we may say, a concentration of the three gunas in a particular manner, at
a particular point in space and time, is the object. The outcome of this analysis is that
every object has a cosmic significance. It is not something cut off entirely from other
things.
Therefore, it is possible, through the samyama practised on any object, to enter into
the heart of any other object also. This is a very great point that is made out here by
this philosophical analysis of the nature of the object, because otherwise it would be
difficult to understand how cosmic knowledge or omniscience can be the outcome of
meditation on a single object, as there would be no relation between the two. The
point made here is that the relation does exist. One can enter the ocean through any
river in this world, because all rivers meet the same ocean. Likewise, one can enter
the cosmic through any object, even if it is only a pencil or even a pin. It does not
matter what it is, because this little thing called the pencil or the pin looks so small
only from the point of view of our empirical sensory perception. But even this little
pinhead has a cosmic background behind it, and it is only a projection of the forces of
prakriti—called sattva, rajas and tamas. This subject was studied earlier in some
detail.
Now, the question arises: how does an object become known? How are we aware that
there is an object? It is stated in the subsequent sutra, vastusāmye cittabhedāt tayoḥ
vibhaktaḥ panthāḥ (IV.15), that varieties in perception of a single object depend upon
the varieties of the constitution of minds. The various stresses through which the
minds of individuals pass determine the variety in cognition and perception of
objects. Though the object may be one and the same in respect of the perception of it
by many others, its reception by the different minds may be variegated on account of
the variety in the nature of the minds themselves. This means to say, the impression
formed by the object upon minds is not always uniform, because though the force of
the impress by the object upon the minds of perceivers may be uniform, the way in
which this impress is received by the minds may be variegated on account of the
different receptive capacities of the perceiving minds. I will give a crude example to
illustrate this point. The same sunlight falling upon different kinds of mirrors may
appear differently. A broken mirror, a coloured mirror, a dusty mirror, a mirror that
is painted with pitch, etc.—these may allow the light of the sun to pass through them
in different ways.
The moods of the mind—the vrittis of the manas—have something to do with the
reaction which they set up in respect of the impress that the object makes upon them,
so that even if the object is the same, the perceptions and cognitions may be
variegated. This is a little point that is brought out here in connection with the
psychology of perception. Objects are structurally different on account of the various
constitutions of the gunas in different ways; that is one aspect or one side of the
matter. The other side is that the same object can create different impressions on
different minds, on account of the difference in their make-up. Not only that, even on
the same mind the object can make different impressions during different moods or
different stages of the manifestation of the vrittis of that particular mind.