Also it is said, in another sutra, that the mind cannot perform two functions at the
same time: ekasamaye ca ubhaya anavadhāraṇam (IV.20). Though it may look like we
can concentrate our minds on several facts and can understand many things at one
and the same time, the psychology of the mind will reveal that the continuity, or the
simultaneity of the perceptions or cognitions of the mind, is something like the
continuity of pictures in a cinema. It is not really continuous. There are discrete links
in the chain of movement, and the mind jumps, flits from one function to another
with such a velocity that it looks as if there is a continuity of cognition. It cannot
think two things at the same time, but it rapidly moves from one perception to
another. The velocity of the movement of the mind is such that we are likely to
mistake its jumping for a continuity of movement.
Also, the other meaning of this sutra, as some commentators make out, is that the
mind cannot be both a subject and an object. Either it is a subject, or it is an object.
Now it has been proved that the mind is an object—it is not a subject—and, therefore,
it has to be dealt with in the manner we deal with the objects outside. It has to be
dispensed with, ultimately, because objects are ultimately not reconcilable with the
character of the Supreme Subject. The great doctrine of the Samkhya is that the
object gets reconciled with the subject by an artificial contact, and there is no
possibility of a real union of the character of objectivity with pure subjectivity. But,
this fact cannot be known. Usually we are unaware of the fact that the mind is an
object and that there is a transcendent subject which enables the mind to look like a
subject under specific conditions.
It is impossible to have knowledge of the subject. All knowledge that we have is
objective. Even the intellectual and ratiocinative knowledge that we have is objective
because of the fact that the individual is the base of this ratiocination, and the
individual cannot be regarded as a subject, as the definition of a subject is something
quite different from what it appears to be based on usual lines of reasoning. A pure
subject is non-existent in this world. Whatever we have in this world is only object,
including the empirical subject. We, as empirical subjects, cannot be regarded as real
subjects, because we are able to cognise our own selves. And, inasmuch as there is
self-recollection and reflective consciousness in our own minds, we stand in the
position of objects. Also, we have all the characters of objects—namely, transience,
mutability and movement from one condition to another. We are subject to
transition and processes of various kinds—physical, biological, social, psychological
and whatnot. Inasmuch as we are subject to processes, which is another name for
saying that we are perpetually dying to one condition and entering into another
condition, we cannot be called real subjects. The individual is, therefore, not a
subject. It is an object, merely because it has the character of objectivity, being
located in space and time, and it is transient in character. It is moving, as a process.
But, how can we have knowledge of the subject? Is there a possibility?
What is yoga? Yoga is nothing but the endeavour supreme to turn back
consciousness into its pure subjectivity and know the subject as it is in itself,
independent of all instruments of knowledge. The aim of yoga is realisation of the
subject, which has got involved in objectivity, unfortunately. The realisation of the
subject is impossible as long as there is a belief that the mind is the subject. We
cannot assume independence, ultimately, as long as our knowledge is a procession of
ideas transmitted through the mind in respect of the objects of sense.