Then, we come to a distinct consciousness of our being something—at some place, in
a particular manner, for a particular purpose, and so on. After that, the activity starts
as it would be required by the circumstances in which we are located. Likewise, there
is a subjective consciousness, first of all, which places itself under peculiar
conditions due to karma of the past, as I mentioned earlier. We noted that the
experiences one passes through, the conditions into which one is born, the span of
one’s life, etc., are all determined by those factors which are responsible for the
very birth of this psychophysical individuality—this body-mind complex. Therefore,
the circumstances in which the individuality finds itself are also responsible for the
conditions under which perception of objects would be possible.
First of all, initially, there is the assertion of a specific type of individuality. The
adjective ‘specific type’ is essential, inasmuch as perceptions vary from one
individual to another and are responsible for the different types of experience which
people pass through. While it is possible that different objects may attract the
attention of different subjects, it is also very well known that the same object may
cause different types of experience in different individuals, according to the
conditions of their minds and other circumstances which govern their lives. Hence,
there is a specific conditioning of the individual by innumerable factors which
consequently conditions the type of experience which the individual passes through
in respect of a given object or a set of objects.
It is this conditioned individuality, the specific type of asmita, that allows itself to be
subjected to the ways in which the medium of the mind works. The mind, or the
antahkarana—the psychological organ—is the medium through which perceptions
are made possible because every perception, whatever be its character, is an
externalisation of consciousness. The refracting medium of consciousness which
externalises it in respect of an object outside is the mind. The mind is a peculiar lens,
as it were, placed in the proximity of consciousness, which detracts it in a given
direction. We can focus the consciousness in the direction of the object only when the
mind is tending towards that object.
It is the tendency of the mind towards a particular object that is responsible for the
consciousness of that object, just as the inclination of the bed of the river will
determine the way or the direction in which the water flows. The bed is already laid,
and the water only has to flow over it—that’s all. It cannot flow in any other direction
except in the direction of the bed. Likewise, though the objects are innumerable in
number (they are located everywhere in space), the consciousness tends only towards
certain objects on account of the bed that is already laid before it. The direction is
already pointed out, and the tendency is chalked out and laid down specifically by the
structure of the mind.
This is the means of perception, while the cause of perception is pure consciousness,
drasta. This is the purusha tattva in us—ultimately what is called the atman, which
is impersonal in character, like the water in a river. It has no personality of its own,
but it can be channelled as if it is personalised on account of the media through
which it is directed.
The psychological organ is the restricting medium. The consciousness, when it is not
so restricted, can simultaneously become aware of everything, anywhere, while the
restricted medium through which it is channelled compels it to be aware of only