Comment: That also is from the Upanishad.
It is from the Upanishad
samaṁ paśyan hi sarvatra samavasthitam īśvaram |
na hinasty ātmanātmānaṁ tato yāti parāṁ gatim ||28|| (XIII)
No, the question is: who is the knower? Who perceives? When do you mark that he has perceived? This is a subject which is raised in all kinds of debates in the world. Everybody claims that ‘he’ perceives. The proponent as well as the opponent, everybody claims he sees. Everybody swears on truth, everybody brings a battery of facts and presents the pacts as truths.
So, at a deeper level, we have to ask the question: who really perceives? Everybody claims that he perceives. The question is: who perceives really? The answer is that unless you have perceived the whole, you don’t perceive anything particularly; no particular can be known without the knowledge of the whole. Normally people claim they know only when they see a few facts. Therefore according to Gita, he does not really see. Anybody who claims that he sees but knows only a few facts, he does not really see.
Comment: When we see the subject and object together.
That’s right. When he sees the subject and the object together and sees the object in the light of the full knowledge of the subject, then only you can say that he has seen.
One of the most important things in the true perception is that perception which results in the supreme condition of avyabhicāriṇī Bhakti, that’s the real mark. When you have a supreme Love for the supreme Lord without any expectation except in self–offering and the chance of offering oneself again and again and again, only when you are in that state of consciousness, you really perceive.
Till that time anybody who says he perceives that is a false claim, admissible only in our ordinary quarrels, but in the court of the Divine you must be able to see actually as the supreme Lord Himself sees Himself and in the world. Is it all right?
When you see the imperishable in the perishable and when you see the Supreme in all the objects, omnipresence of the Divine, even that is not enough, because the next verses again use a further definition.