objects. The light of the purusha is reflected through the minds of individuals, and
the reason behind their perception of an object—what we call the illumination of the
object in cognition—is the purusha, or we may say the atman, as the Vedanta would
put it. But the limitation which is concomitant with the perception of an object, and
the absence of omniscience in mental cognition, is due to the character of the mind
itself.
Thus, two things happen in the cognition of an object by the mind: there is a
limitation imposed upon the cognition, and there is a light that illumines the object.
The light comes from the purusha who is supreme but is unknown to the mind—
unknown to the mind because it is the background of the mind. The purusha is
transcendent in the sense that the mind, which is projected extrovertly, cannot turn
back and cognise the presence of the purusha. The purusha is a name that we give to
the Universal Subject—very important to remember. The purusha is universal and
also subject. The mind cannot cognise the presence of the purusha, who is universal,
because the subject cannot be known by the mind, the reason being that the mind is
conditioned by the activity of the senses which always try to drag it towards objects
outside in space and time. The mind is not really a subject in the ultimate sense; it
stands in the position of an object when it is thoroughly investigated into. It is an
object because it is also capable of being known, so that we may know what is
happening in our minds. We can think the faculties. We can have an idea of the
moods in the mind and the notions occurring in the mind. The movement of the
vrittis of the mind is known to us. In the light of this fact that the vrittis of the mind
can become objects of cognition, they are objects. In deep contemplation, which is of
the nature of an abstrsaction, the mind can be observed as if it is an object. We can
stand outside our mind and visualise its movements; this happens in high states of
meditation.
The mind usurps the status of a perceiver, or a knower of an object, by the egoism to
which it is attached, due to the asmita from which it is inseparable. And then, for all
practical purposes, it appears that the mind is the cogniser of the object and the mind
is the knower of things. “I am the knower of an object,” is the statement that
generally is made. When we say, “I know the object”, we are mixing up various
factors. The ‘I’ is the individual perceiver, and the individuality of the perceiver is due
to the interference of the mind in the act of perception, whereas the knowledge
aspect of the perception is the purusha present. So there is a double activity in
mental cognition: the light of the purusha passing through the mind, and the
conditioning of the perception of the object due to the limitations imposed upon the
mind itself by the factors of space, time and cause.
This is an interesting analysis coming from a study of a few of the sutras which try to
show the true character of an object in its relation to the perceiving minds.