Drasta drisimatrah: The seer is ‘pure seeing’. That is the meaning. The seer is made
up of ‘pure seeing’, and what we call the seen, or the object, is only a later
development that has arisen on account of certain difficulties. This development is
due to the presence of a peculiar medium through which the consciousness expresses
itself. We have known it as the citta, or the mind. Due to that, the seer becomes
pratyayanupasyah—‘looks on’ at the objects of sense, sees the world outside, and
experiences contact with things, as it were, merely because of the presence of the
mind.
The drisya or the object of perception—that which is experienced through the
senses—has a meaning and a significance only in respect of this consciousness that
experiences objects. The meaning of an object is in the consciousness; it is not in
itself. This is a new thing that we are told in the next sutra: tadarthaḥ eva dṛśyasya
ātmā (II.21). The object serves a purpose, and the essence of the object is the capacity
to serve this purpose. The purpose is the purpose of the Self, which is the seer; and
what is the purpose? Bhogāpavargārtham (II.18). It is already mentioned in the earlier
sutra that the drisya, or the object, exists for the bhoga and the apavarga of the
seer. The phenomenal experience as well as the ultimate freedom of the seer is the
purpose of the existence of an object of consciousness, and that is the meaning of the
sutra: tadarthaḥ eva dṛśyasya ātmā (II.21). Atma is Selfhood. The very Selfhood of the
object is for the purpose of the experience and freedom of the consciousness which is
the onlooker or the seer of the object.
But, we cannot usually appreciate this position because we seem to be controlled by
the objects. If the objects exist for our purpose, how is it that we are running after
objects? It appears from this sutra that the objects subserve the subject. They are
existent for the purpose of the self. They are servants, as it were, of the self; they have
significance only in relation to the self, and, therefore, they are adjectival rather than
substantive. But, that is not what is happening. The self is running after the objects
as if the objects are the self and the self is the adjective. That which is the substantive
has taken the position of the adjective. The very urge of consciousness to move
towards objects would imply that it is subservient to the purpose of the object, which
is the reverse of what the sutra is saying.
This has happened due to habitual attachment from many births, and also subjection
of consciousness to the processes of the mind—the mind being made up of the
samskaras and vasanas, the desires that have been left unfulfilled. The velocity of
the mind in respect of the objects is due to the similarity of structure, as we have
said, between the senses and the objects. The gunas of prakriti, existing both in the
object as well as in the senses, become the cause for the movement of the senses
towards the objects, and it is impossible to prevent the movement of the senses
towards the objects as long as it is accepted that both are made up of the same
gunas—sattva, rajas and tamas. And so, when there is an identification of
consciousness with the senses, it looks as if, together with the senses, there is a
movement of consciousness towards the objects. While it is natural for the senses to
gain union with the objects outside on account of similarity of structure, it is
unnatural for consciousness to follow the senses and appear subservient to the
existence of an object.
The world seems to control us, subject us to its laws, and immerse us in a craving for
things, so that it is impossible to believe that the subject—the awareness within, or