Therefore, a detached attitude—a scientific attitude, we may say—may be necessary
for the purpose of knowing if there is any defect in oneself. Suppose we are convinced
that we are not at all faulty in any way whatsoever, and we have no defect; then, there
is no question of analysis. We have already passed a judgement on ourselves in our
own favour and, therefore, we cannot further go into the nature of the background of
these perceptions. There is, therefore, a necessity for a detached attitude, especially
where oneself is involved; and, in every perception we are involved—nobody else. We
have, therefore, to go into the roots of the process of knowing itself. How is it that we
are able to know an object at all? How do we know that a thing exists?
I am only repeating what I have told you many times earlier—that the very
consciousness of an object is an inscrutable mystery, and we simply take it for
granted; therefore, it appears as if it is very clear. The awareness of a distant object is
especially a mystery because that which is distant—which is spatially remote from the
perceiving consciousness, which is located in an individual body—cannot become the
content of consciousness by any stretch of imagination, because it is far off. It is
remote; it is not in the proximity of the consciousness. So how is it possible that we
are aware of things outside? What is the means of connection? How is it that
consciousness gets connected with remote objects and becomes aware that they
exist? Is it not a wonder? But nobody bothers about it; they take it for granted. It is
all very clear—we know things. But how do we know things? This is a question which
we have to put to ourselves.
If we enquire into this structural pattern of perception of an object inwardly, we will
find that unless some superhuman factor is involved in perception, knowledge of an
object is not possible. The eyes cannot see an object, as they have no consciousness—
they are inert, fleshy balls; nor can light be their source of knowledge, because it is
also unconscious. Nor can the instruments of physical perception, the organs of
sense, or the external factors like space and light, etc., be regarded as causes of
perception. The knowledge of an object is brought about by factors other than light,
space, the physical organs, etc., but these other factors are outside the purview of
knowledge because they are involved—and, therefore, they cannot become objects of
investigation.
But, yoga requires that the very first step that one takes should be one of non-
attachment to the experiences one is passing through. The first qualification of a
student of yoga is the capacity to investigate into the causes of one’s experiences.
That is called viveka—the capacity to discriminate carefully between the real and the
unreal elements in experience. This analytical process will reveal that there is a
conscious element involved in perception, and also something unconscious which
identifies itself with consciousness, somehow or other—this unconscious principle
being what is known as the principle of externality. That is the mind. Nobody can
know what the mind is made of. It is not physical; it is also not non-physical. A very
great mystery it is! The mind is a peculiar feature which isolates consciousness from
itself in a false manner, because consciousness cannot be isolated from itself. It
externalises it—that also in a false manner, because consciousness cannot really be
externalised—and, consequently, creates a false perception of self-identification with
an object.
Inasmuch as some kind of error—a grave error—is involved in object-perception,
there is also an error in the notion that there is pleasure in the objects of sense. If the