heart
2006-10-04 00:42:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by i have no idea 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rather we should say what are buddhi and manas. What is before mind? If taken literally then before mind is consciousness. And if we assume before mind i.e. infront of mind or after mind then they senses and their sensations.
When the individual consciousness faces objects, it throws its light on the latter. The light is reflected back by the object, giving rise to sensory image. Thus, it is the Consciousness itself which assumes the form of the object in one’s perception of it in the world outside. It is in distinction of the objects reflected in consciousness that there is formed the sense of “I”, making the Consciousness concentric and limited to it. Conversely, the sense of “I” itself may be taken as instrumental in the reflection and consequent formation of the image of the world outside.
The sense of “I” is the seed of the idea of jiva created in the midst of the all-encompassing consciousness. Citta is really Cit, consciousness as such, carved out of the source through the operation of the sense of “I” known as ahankara. The same sense acts as manas while oscillating indecisively between alternatives. The factor of decisiveness in the “I” sense is known as buddhi. The “I” sense seeking to have an actual feel of the world outside gets channelised diversely in the form of the senses. Thus individual consciousness and objects in the world outside are extensions of consciousness. If they may appear as illusory, that is due to consciousness being all in all.
Citta is the screen being reflected on which consciousness assumes the form of manas and buddhi. Manas and buddhi are centres of storage, association, organisation and operation of sensations, perception, thoughts and ideas.
Each wave that rises and reaches its peak finally to fall on the surface of consciousness, this happens when the individual consciousness is intent on the objectivity, which is the domain of physical objects. The extrovert consciousness is discursive while the introvert is reflective. Each thought that rises in succession can be transcended, if the individual consciousness lays its focus on the gap between the two risings.
Thus, if we minus everything we still have consciousness or the witnessing self as the real player behind buddhi, manas (mind), thoughts, senses, sensations of senses and objects. Therefore What is before mind is Consciousness only.
And if we assimilate or add everything in consciousness or the witnessing self, then still consciousness remain all-in-all as the real player behind everything.
2006-10-04 00:57:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Virgo 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would say the self stands before the mind -- since the mind operates on the premise of the existence of the self.
2006-10-04 01:05:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by : ) 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Intelligence
2006-10-05 07:53:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lonelyplanet 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since time is not linear, your question does not make sense. There can't be anything before mind. Nothing exists outside of mind as there can be no things without it being there. Wherever you go, there it is.
2006-10-04 00:54:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by michaelsan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Body
2006-10-04 00:50:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by hahahaha73 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
To "mind" is to regard a thought or belief in high regard. "Matter" should come AFTER mind (mind over matter). "Never" mind is neither before nor after mind. A "conscious" mind is a present mind. To "keep in mind" is to hold a conscious mind in the present. So, "before mind" is what happens prior to your regarding a thought or belief in high regard.
2006-10-04 03:12:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Doug C 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Instinct
2006-10-04 14:00:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Betiel 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd say matter. Without some level of cognition (the mind), everything is without meaning and is in it's most basic form, namely matter. Neither good or bad, it just is.
2006-10-04 00:49:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by largegrasseatingmonster 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
You know I think a lot of people confuse being "deep" with simply being to vague. This would fall under the vague category.
2006-10-04 00:48:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Photons.
2006-10-04 00:49:23
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋