Each time we use a certain term, we must understand its definitions. This question is more important than all the others, if we are talking about the beginning of acquaintance with this or that teaching or religious philosophy.
Preliminary clarifications regarding the perception of terminology
A very common mistake is an attempt to fill an archaic term with its own content, which will certainly lead to confusion.
The same requirements should be imposed on yourself when you get acquainted with a new source of information or a book.
Do not rush to run ahead of the locomotive. Move towards understanding gradually. Understand what era this text belongs to, to whom it was addressed and what nomenclature of terms the author used. If you come across such terms as "consciousness" and "mind" or "illumination" and "enlightenment", you should clearly understand what the author calls mind, and what - consciousness, where the border passes, what is their identity, and what is difference.
Promotional video:
Similarity and difference of opinions about the origin of consciousness
As for the stated topic, here there is complete unanimity between specialists in cognitive disciplines (listen to Tatyana Vladimirovna Chernigovskaya, for example) and religious philosophers of all times and peoples. Both those and others are forced to admit that consciousness arises at the moment of the birth of the Universe.
This is exactly what the Vedas speak about, and the mentioned scientist echoes them, answering this question in one of the programs of Vladimir Pozner. There is no other possibility! It must be admitted that the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be explained otherwise.
What does Indian philosophy say about this?
She postulates the existence of Consciousness as a product of Purusha (spirit) and Prakriti (matter). As soon as Mahamanvantara, the period of the manifested Universe, begins, Mahat immediately manifests itself - the great principle of Consciousness.
This field of consciousness permeates the entire Universe. There is not a single form that is devoid of it, from amoeba to planet. Each form has a mental principle (in man it is manas). It's just that in some it is manifested in an active form, while in others it is in a latent state:
- it is present in the stone, but does not act;
- in a plant it manifests itself exclusively in vegetative functions;
- in the animal kingdom it takes the form of instincts and acts much more strongly than in the vegetable one;
- and finally culminates in human form in its greatest expression.
What changes from shape to shape?
It is not consciousness itself that changes. Like Mahat, it is the same for everyone. It's just that not every form is able to use it in a wide range.
If in animals the aspect prevails, which takes the form of the instinctive mind, then in man it can increase to logic, analysis and intuitive insight. This, I repeat, is not connected with the inferiority of the form, but only with the evolutionary stage.
We are also moving along this spiral. Needless to say, the mind of a common native and the mind of the greatest thinker do not equally reflect the field of consciousness.
Andrey Vl