What is referenced in the second foot of the first verse—and as in the second verse—is here elaborated in detail. The logic demonstrated regarding the eye or the faculty of sight is what the third verse now applies, by extension, to hearing and the remaining three senses:
Blindness, dimness of sight, and acuity are properties of the eye alone. The mind should conjoin these in one manner. Let this be applied to hearing, touch, and the rest. || 3
The construction: Regarding blindness, dimness of sight, and acuity—properties of the eye—the mind should conjoin them in one manner. Let this be applied to hearing, touch, and the rest.
Translation: Blindness of the eye, dimness of sight, acuity—all these properties, the mind should grasp in one manner alone, as mere properties of the eye. Here, the eye is the object perceived, and the mind is the perceiver. So too must we understand this faculty of the mind as perceiver in the case of the ear, skin, nose, and tongue.
Commentary: By "blindness" is meant the eye's inability to apprehend its proper object—that is, its incapacity to grasp the nature or cause of an event or thing as it truly is—or even to apprehend the worthy or relevant object in its universal form, as merely "something-or-other." Though a sightless being may possess eyes, they serve no purpose.
By "dimness of sight" is meant the capacity to apprehend the naturally perceptible object—that event or thing whose nature or cause the normal eye can of itself grasp—only in its universal form, as merely "something-or-other." The eye with weak vision has reduced capacity for apprehension, and thus no true understanding of the object's nature arises.
By "acuity" is meant the capacity to apprehend the naturally perceptible subject even in its subtle or particular aspect. The eye endowed with normal vision is able to perceive any event or thing in its true form.
The blind person's mind, however, is not blind; nor is the mind of one with weak vision likewise weak. The mind should grasp the three conditions of the eye in one manner alone—that is, without discriminating capacity in judging the efficacy of the eye and other senses—without grasping the object as something that distinguishes between "My eyes are blind," "My vision is dim," and "My vision is normal." Rather, the mind should grasp these only as properties of the eye or sense organ. Only thus is the mind's nature as perceiver established. As much as the eye perceives, so much shall the mind understand.
The word "and" is connected with "hearing, touch, and the rest." For clarity: let this be applied to hearing, touch, and the rest. The ear, skin, tongue, nose, and eye—each sense organ, when compared to its own perceptible object or phenomenon, bears the nature of perceiver and, when compared to the mind which manifests it, bears the nature of the perceived. And where applicable, deafness, insensibility, the incapacity for taste, smell, and sight must be understood accordingly.
This verse, having demonstrated the relationship between perceiver and perceived in a single sense, now extends this understanding, by implication, to the other senses as well. The Acharya's intent is that the reader and student, through the aid of their own intellect, may practice this discrimination between perceiver and perceived—this discernment of the seer and the seen—and thereby attain the four human aims: dharma, the religious and ethical principles, the spiritual and ritual duties; artha, material and economic prosperity; kama, worldly pleasure; and moksha, spiritual liberation.
From manifold, mutually contradictory objects of perception, the eye—granted its status as the perceiver—is not itself the direct seer, for within that very eye we may observe a certain corruption of unity (arising from variations in recognition or capacity). For this reason, the eye too becomes an object of perception. Therefore, the seer of the eye exists beyond the mind; the eye's very existence and function possess no reality independent of this principle—such is the teaching conveyed in this verse.
Though the eye remains the same in one person, it does not remain in a single condition. Sometimes it becomes blind, sometimes weak, undergoing transformation into various states, and that which undergoes transformation cannot itself be the seer of its own deformities. Thus must we acknowledge that the eye, like a clay vessel, is indeed an object of another's perception. When we seek the seer of that eye, we discover that the inner faculty—the mind—stands connected to it as its perceiver. This very truth is what the verse conveys through the words *sankalpayen manaḥ* and others.
In blindness, in dimness of sight, in keenness of vision—these states of the eye—a person who dwells in the Self may speak saying, "I am blind," "I am weak of sight," "I am keen-eyed." Through these manifold and various forms, the mind—that faculty which conceives rightly—remains uncorrupted even amidst the eye's contradictory states, and thus stands established as the true seer.
What has been established through scriptural reasoning at one place applies at another—following this principle, the rule discovered concerning the eye must apply equally to the other senses. So it is said: *śrotratvāgādau ca yojyatām*—the principle established regarding vision applies likewise to hearing, to smell, to taste, to touch. And the law we have discovered concerning the eye applies equally to the ear, the nose, the tongue, the skin, and all the other sense organs.