Hence, the perception of an object is of a very peculiar character. It is not merely a
meaningless perception. It is a consciousness of an object with great significance
behind it. It is this significance that is read in the object that causes the
transformation in the mind—otherwise, there would be no bondage. The self must be
connected with the object; and as the self is consciousness in its essence, if this
aspect is withdrawn or is absent, physical contact may not bring bondage.
A thing with which one is not psychologically connected may be sitting on one’s own
head, and yet may not cause bondage; but a thing with which one is psychologically
connected may be millions of miles away, and yet it may cause bondage. Therefore,
bondage is not a physical distance, remoteness or proximity. It has nothing to do
with the physical character. It is something which is evaluated by the mind as
meaningful in itself, as having something to do with its own process of existence; and
then it is that there is a change or transformation taking place within oneself.
The perception of the object is a mental act, not merely a physical contact. And, as
the mind is perpetually illumined by consciousness, which is one’s own essential
nature, the mental act looks like the act of one’s own self. While it is the mind that
perceives the object for a particular purpose, it is made to appear that we, as total
individuals, are the perceivers of the object—and then we say, “I perceive the object.”
It is not that ‘mind’ perceives the object, but ‘I’ perceive the object, because the ‘I’ is,
for certain reasons, one with the mind. The mind’s reading meaning in the object is
also based on certain circumstances which have brought about the birth of
individuality. The causes of the incarnation of the individual in this particular world
phenomenon are the determining factors of the manner in which a mind or a
particular individual will react towards certain groups of objects, because perception
is more a reaction of the mind than a kind of action. It is a stimulation of the mind in
respect of certain circumstances, forms, shapes, colours, sounds, etc.
This stimulation of the mind is really the perception of the object, and it is caused by
certain urges within oneself with which one is born, and which are really the
causative factors of the birth itself. We have referred to these urges as karmas. There
is no English word, unfortunately, to bring about the proper meaning of what this
word ‘karma’ means. The word ‘karma’ has been associated mostly with an action
that we do, such as walking, grasping, etc. But as we had occasion to observe, the
forces of karma are different from the mere movement of the limbs of the body
which are usually called actions, or karmas. What we are concerned with here is an
impetus that is generated within oneself, an impulse that urges itself forward for
various purposes. It is ultimately a complex urge which cannot be attributed either to
the body, to the mind, or to the soul independently. The Upanishads, especially the
Katha Upanishad, mention that the experiencer is a complex of the soul, the mind
and the senses: ātmendriy-mano-yuktam bhoktety āhur manīṣiṇaḥ (K.U. I.3.4). It is not
one thing alone that acts; and what is known as the individuality of a person is also
this complex.
Hence, the peculiar urges which are engendered by a particular sense perception
become the forces that create further experiences of a similar nature, and inasmuch
as the span of physical existence is not long enough to provide occasions for the
fulfilment of all these urges that have been engendered in this manner, there comes
about a necessity for rebirth. Death is nothing but the exhaustion of the forces which
could be fulfilled through a particular body. And when the instrument, which is the