Body acting on consciousness

[BurningBush]

I just had a thought. I realized that I've been acting under the assumption that my mind (or consciousness or whatever) has been unhealthy and that this whole spiritual process that I've been going through has been in an effort to clean up my mind.

Is it possible that my mind has always functioning properly, but that my body is unhealthy and has given it bad inputs? Here's an example: I went out for lunch in the middle of the workday the other day and I noticed that everything around me had a striking clarity that I had not seen for a long time. I'm talking about an actual visual effect. In seeing this, I realized that the sense of derealization that I had been feeling for a long time was diminished and I wondered if it were possible that this sense of derealization had come about, at least in part, because of fuzzy visual inputs.

Could it be that my consciousness has been drawing perfectly reasonable conclusions about the world it has found itself in and that to change the world around me, I must change the lens, i.e., the body?

Identification as consciousness + realization of the independence and blamelessness of consciousness = freedom and happiness?

Thoughts?

[Rawnrr]

Consciousness is clear.
The mind is the medium between the consciousness and the body/physical world.
If your body and mind is healthy your consciousness can act clearly through you. But you can have blocks in both your body and mind that cloud it's clarity.
With a healthy body, you will have clear inputs to the world around you.
The mind can still cloud these with blocks like "past judgements" on things. Once the mind has made judgements, it tends to skip over new input, and the connection never gets made to the clear consciousness.
Sometimes we have spontaneous moments of clarity where we , for whatever reason, drop a number of our mental blocks and can see the world in a new light. Being able to keep that vision is the work we have to do.

[BlueSky]

You are that which allows change. To change the world, all that needs to be done is to allow it to happen. Allow doing, allow doing nothing....whatever arises in you.

[Mr Interesting]

I've seen people, lots actually, with very healthy bodies who are basically very dumb and vice versa people with unhealthy bodies wracked by sickness with expressly clear minds and what kinda strikes me about that is not the health of the mind or the body being the reason for each but the health of the interplay between the two which is usually about the emotions.

So the body healthy and dumb heads always tend to be people who go nuts emotionally in crisis as if the normal calm that allows them to follow health is only a thin membrane of control which is ripped open under stress and they become screaming children but the people who have wisdom atop a sick body seemed to have mastered the emotional stresses that caused their sickness and are calmly finding a way clear.

I am with Tolle these days that the mind creates emotions in the body or that the emotions are the bodies reaction to the mind and that emotions not resolved will store in the body, whilst also feeding back into the mind to keep specific thought trains alive, and eventually become ill health.

This though is the concept in it's simplest form and the intricacies are a little more the subtleties of the interplay.

Consciousness comes from the brain first, which is why brain issues proceed conscious issues. Your brain must function "properly" first.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Adept

Consciousness comes from the brain first, which is why brain issues proceed conscious issues. Your brain must function "properly" first.

Are not plants conscious to some level? Rocks? Trees?

[BurningBush]

Originally Posted by Adept

Consciousness comes from the brain first, which is why brain issues proceed conscious issues. Your brain must function "properly" first.

Hey, at least someone here is willing to start with a reasonable approach.

What I was trying to get at is that consciousness or rather my capacity for consciousness as a distinct function of "me" was working properly even if the inputs to consciousness, i.e., the contents of consciousness were sourced from an improperly functioning body and not fully representative of the external world. At first glance, it might appear that there is no difference, but if anything, the difference is about identification. If one could step back and see that he is independent from the contents of his experience, perhaps a greater level of freedom could be had. Perhaps a fear of inaccurate experience creates the experience of inaccurate experience (yes, that's how I meant it).

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by BurningBush

Hey, at least someone here is willing to start with a reasonable approach.

What I was trying to get at is that consciousness or rather my capacity for consciousness as a distinct function of "me" was working properly even if the inputs to consciousness, i.e., the contents of consciousness were sourced from an improperly functioning body and not fully representative of the external world. At first glance, it might appear that there is no difference, but if anything, the difference is about identification. If one could step back and see that he is independent from the contents of his experience, perhaps a greater level of freedom could be had. Perhaps a fear of inaccurate experience creates the experience of inaccurate experience (yes, that's how I meant it).

How can there be a reasonable approach to something you don't know the answer to. Sounds like you are ruling out possibilities, in which case you can only find what you want to find. No?

Originally Posted by Capacity

Are not plants conscious to some level? Rocks? Trees?

I thought we were talking "human consciousness"; logic, thought, etc. In the context of this thread plants do not qualify. However if we are using the definition "awareness" then yes, plants react to their environments.

Originally Posted by BurningBush

Hey, at least someone here is willing to start with a reasonable approach.

What I was trying to get at is that consciousness or rather my capacity for consciousness as a distinct function of "me" was working properly even if the inputs to consciousness, i.e., the contents of consciousness were sourced from an improperly functioning body and not fully representative of the external world. At first glance, it might appear that there is no difference, but if anything, the difference is about identification. If one could step back and see that he is independent from the contents of his experience, perhaps a greater level of freedom could be had. Perhaps a fear of inaccurate experience creates the experience of inaccurate experience (yes, that's how I meant it).

I think I see what you are talking about. Are you saying that, to the less biased, experience is less defining? For example, I've had mystical experiences but when you look at it objectively you can explain it without mysticism.

Not sure if this is your point. I feel like you're pointing out that, say, someone with depression can overcome the thoughts being caused by their chemical imbalance if they understand objectively what is happening to them. Am I at all on the right page?