hariḥ oṁ

What is different from the yogin (or yogī) to the average person on the street? It is this one distinction (viśeṣo'yam) that is called out in the vijñāna bhairava kā́rakaya (or kā́raka’s). It says the following:

ग्राह्यग्राहकसंवित्तिः सामान्या सर्वदेहिनाम्।
योगिनां तु विशेषोऽस्ति सम्बन्धे सावधानता॥

grāhyagrāhakasaṁvittiḥ sāmānyā sarvadehinām |
yogināṁ tu viśeṣo'sti sambandhe sāvadhānatā || 106

The components of the kā́rakaḥ:
· grāhya-grāhaka-saṁ-vittiḥ - pertaining or regarding perceiving + one who seizes + same, even + consciousness
· sāmānyā – common or general ( yet there is a deeper meaning that will be offered in a moment)
· sarvadehinām - all bodies
· yogināṁ or yogin (or yogī)
· tu - certainly
· viśeṣo'sti = viśeṣa asti or present distinction; svāmī lakṣman-jū informs us this should be read as viśeṣo'yam or viśeṣa + ayam, ‘this one distinction’
· sambandhe – joining , connection
· sāvadhānatā - attentiveness

This says (my translation only) that,
the consciousness of perception and the seizing of that perception is common to all embodied beings.
the yogin(yogī) though is attentive to this one distinction.

Now, let me ‘clean it up’ a bit so it will make more sense.
the consciousness or awareness of subject and (an) object is common to all embodied beings.
As if the object seizes, ensnares/grasps (grāhaka) one’s awareness.
but (certainly - tu) the yogin (yogī) is mindful of this and attentive to this existing condition.

That is, all embodied beings have the perception of objects (persons , places, things) in front of them; even a thought or feeling in this case is an ~object~; yet the yogī is mindful of this & is not attached to this tightly-coupled connection.

How can I get this out of this verse? The term sāmānyā. It was defined as ‘common or general’ and used in the verse that this perception of subject-and-object is ‘common’ to all . Yet if one knows the origin of the term it arises from samāna.
This term means ‘in the middle’ or viṣuvat = madhya = middle most. It is neither consumed by one side or the other. Hence there is the distinction (viśeṣo'sti = viśeṣa asti or present distinction) between the two. The yogin is anchored in Self. Self is uninvolved / independent of these perceptions ( that is, not caught up in them).

The average person perceives an apple and is lost to the apple, absorbed in the apple say the wise. That is, one’s Self is not maintained during this experience of the apple. It is lost to the experience (seized/grasped) by the apple experience.
Yet one will say ‘I see an apple’. If we define ‘I’ as Self, then this becomes somewhat of a pickle to really understand if one never really experienced Self to any degree. That is, if one is constantly outward facing all the time, Self remains in the background.
For the yogin steeped in Self , it is from this reference that he (yogī) she (yoginī) watches this perception occur in the apparatus of perception and is never caught up in the experience of the apple. The experience occurs, yet for that person aligned to Self, this is their frame of reference at all times. Even wake-dream-sleep passes in front of them as they align to awareness, pure awareness or Self.
This ‘I’ that is perceiving the apple is a fragment of Self and is the intellect/mind part of it. For the yogin steeped in Self , it is from the reference point of Self that he/she watches this perception occur in the apparatus of perception.

śrī śivāḥpanamastu