In plain words
You must see her as one to be honoured. You must see her as the very form of a goddess. This is the truth to be seen in this. You must regard a child only as a child. That child is a part of my very own self. “Mamaivāṃśo jīvaloke jīvabhūta ssanātanaḥ.” It is a part of me that has come in the form of my child. You must look upon the child with tender affection. In this way, who is the mother, who is the daughter, who is the younger sister: searching for Satya in this way is necessary. What sees these four is the very same pair of eyes. One single sight. But with what vision must you see the mother? With what vision must you see the sister? With what vision must you see the daughter? With what vision must you see the wife? This, precisely, is the search for Satya.
Yadṛśyaṃ Tannaśyam
If we inquire only into physical forms and names, Satya will not come clear to us. There are many things we do not know, things that are not visible to sight. ‘Yadṛśyaṃ tannaśyam.’ What appears to sight will one day disappear. But on the spiritual path many keep arguing that direct perception is the proof. Direct perception as proof is not the complete truth. There are many things in that person that you do not fully see. If you take direct perception alone as your basis, you will be badly deceived. Direct perception as proof leads you onto the wrong road. A small example. There is a person. His height is 4' 5". His weight is 45 pounds. His colour is fair. So you saw his height, his weight and his colour. If you think, “I have seen such a person directly,” is that true? You saw the weight, you saw the height, you saw the colour; if you take this itself as direct proof, there are many things in that person that we do not know. There may be kindness in him; there may be Prema. There may be compassion, or cruelty. There may be anger. All these we do not know. All that is not known is contained within him. It is great foolishness to believe that only what is known is true. Those who say direct perception is the proof are utter fools. Within what is directly perceived there are many qualities hidden from sight. Only when we recognise this quality does what is directly perceived seem to us a proof. So direct perception as proof is not, in itself, the chief thing. Everything has something hidden from sight.