"Egoism" stands between man and god.?

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hey venetian, did you intentionally make an obscure Tolkien reference in your 2nd last post? You called me eruspirit. As we all know Eru Ilúvatar was the great one in the Silmarillion. I thought it was a clever way of saying we are all part of God. Or maybe it was a typo!

You all bring up some interesting points. I have heard most of the concepts before and still do not understand how they work as a whole. I have come up with some very different conclusions. I was going to try and hit all the points but I think I will just bring up a couple topics and talk them out. I think it might be easier to discuss that way and they all tie in together anyway.

First off I do not believe in original sin. And I do not beleive the body is inherently evil. I think the material manifestations are symbolic of our spiritual states. The world is our mirror and is neutral by nature.

I'll start with the bible quote "heaven and earth shall pass away...[Matthew 24:35]". My take on this is that bringing the Spirit to earth will 'spiritualize' matter and release it into energy. The body and the earth will have to be transformed because our purpose for it will be transformed. Here is a quote:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and
abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all
the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass
withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away, but
the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is
the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"
(1 Peter 1:23-25).

A Course in Miracles states it quite simply:

Nothing real can be threatened;
Nothing unreal exists.

I still get the same meaning. That the truth of God is eternal yet the corruptible (flesh and earth) eventually fades away. The light will shine out the shadows and what is left is what is light. When you bring truth and illusion together the illusions fade away. If the ego was real it could never be transcended. If the body were created by God it would have life forever and be beyond destruction. Yet the above passages suggests that the body has no life because it is temporal. But we are also told that we have infinite Life. I don't think the flesh can contain the expansive light of God. Express it sure, but contain it and endure forever?

I think in Hinduism the term is Maya (or illusion) and that it must be overcome if we are to be liberated from the cycle of birth and death. When we all achieve this what becomes of the body and the earth?

Which brings me to my next question. If God created the material universe does that not constitute mastery? And if God wants to master the world through us is that not a violation of free will? Or are we just some tool to amuse Divinity? Am I truly imprisoned in the flesh by the will of God? If God wants us to experience life on the physical plane warts and all then what about extreme torture and violation? Is this pleasing to the Lord? Does God truly delight in all? Or is there a difference between levels of pain that make one form more acceptable than the others?

It is the same with spiritual awareness. Is there a level of ignorance that any of you are willing to accept for your children (it is total by default)? Would any parent design a world where such extremes exist and send their children into it in ignorance of the truth only to hope they make it out alive and whole? And if they don't succeed then send them again and again until they do? Something does not feel right about this. It seems rather sadistic (like the nuns in Sunday school).

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit.

A typo, but it's nice you found a larger meaning in it. :)It's donkey's years since read The Silmarrilion, but I certainly thought it his best book. But I recall little of it today.

I don't think our perspectives are far apart at all. Secondly, of course it's probably impossible to 'prove' any perspective right or wrong, correct or incorrect. All we can do is lay them out for whatever reason - discussion, comparison (conversion? [&o]). I'll also stop trying to second-guess your exact meanings as only you know them.

I sometimes tend to take a topic posted by someone and focus on it, and in that focussing I'm really, though it may not be perfectly clear, not replying to the person of the poster, but generally on the topic raised - so I wasn't suggesting you believe yourself in original sin. However we are moving into the realm of that if we believe matter is in some way inherently wrong.

People can call me wacky, but insofar as human beings are concerned, though I can't prove this today, I agree with you that a perfected human being wouldn't retain the body (for long). At least, at the end of that incarnation, IMHO there's be an Ascension, no more incarnations to take place. The rounds of rebirth are over.

This is how I see Creation, matter, incarnation and the issue of human beings and of being physical ...

The Creator Created a Universe consisting of many vibratory levels. Among these was the physical level of existence, and the physical always will exist, since the vibratory nature of the Creation is musical or tonal: just as you cannot have the seven-tone scale if you take one pitch of the seven away, so too the created universe is a harmony of tones, and they all only exist in conjunction with one another. The physical is one "pitch" among seven, and the seven make a harmony. Whatever may or may not exist within the physical realm, the realm itself is for as long as Creation endures.

But that's only matter/energy. It has a kind of primeval consciousness within the matter/energy, but it doesn't yet have self-aware, individualised consciousnesses.

God seeks to grow. I can't expand on that if any don't follow it. God Himself/Herself actually also grows. This is accomplished by gaining control in perfection, without going awry, within each sphere or vibratory frequency. And God accomplishes this learning process by individualising Himself/Herself as individual beings such as angels, Archangels, Cosmic Beings, and men and women. All of these are simultaneously both individual beings, but also the One God as well.

Higher spheres can be easier to master / control / dwell in. (What's so hard about being an angel?) But the more deep or coarse the vibration, the harder it gets. And we all know how difficult it is to dwell in the emotional and physical spheres! [ I had a friend whom some thought to be an embodied angel. A Scot. "Aye", he said, "Landed with a bump!" ] But as individual parts of God, those of us here willed to incarnate in order to carry out this process - to bring individual consciousness into matter. We didn't have to do it, and not all have. But those of us here elected to take on the task.

The Divine Intent was that we'd never lose God-Consciousness. But emotions, and matter, are difficult. There's occurred what in various religions is called the 'Fall' (in consciousness). God didn't will it to happen, but we all had free will as a gift to use. Without free will we'd just be robots. So we have created these miscreations called the ego, which are indeed not-God.

So just creating matter wasn't the mastery. The realm of matter existed "from the Beginning". Matter is only the realm, like a footbal pitch is the place of action. But nothing really happens there until the players take to the field.So there was once no consciousness inmatter that had incarnated into it and gained total Victory over its difficulties. Torture and miscreati

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi David (erospirit)

Just wanted to say how much I relate to your posts! I'm so glad you've joined HP. 🙂

Wish I had time to add to this thread again, but it will probably have to wait till next week.

Hi Venetian,

Why does not believing that matter is real make it evil? That is certainly not how we see the body in Christian Science. We look beyond matter to the solid spiritual ideas that are the true substance of everything that, in this present experience, appears as matter. I've often tried to explain this on HP with the comparison to those Magic Eye pictures - on the surface is a puzzling pattern, but focus BEYOND the surface and the true picture emerges, but it's all the same piece of paper! We don't have two bodies - one material and the other spiritual - there is, in reality, only the spiritual.

Love and peace,

Judy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi Mary Poppins ;),

ORIGINAL: Principled

Why does not believing that matter is real make it evil?

Judy, I don't say it does. I was 'taking the voice' of others in the world for whom this is their perspective. There aren't just three or four clear perspectives on this, but a huge range of subtly different (or not so subtly different) views. Some, in rejecting matter as real, consider it and the body to be 'evil'. Or they consider the physical body to be an inherently sinful thing - not something which can be lived in in a hallowed way such as saints and sages have indeed done. So they have at least in the past scourged themselves, or been very mixed-up sexually (they couldn't get rid of their feelings, yet considered them evil; therefore they were also evil). And I don't mean to go down the sexual route of discussion as we've had often on HP ;)- philosophically there are also schools of thought about wanting to escape matter. Apparently some of the early Christian gnostics (who were not a unified group) also held to this belief.

I see the 'sphere' or 'level of vibration' of matter as being a given. It's a place or region if you like. But what manifests within that region - as in the analogy of a football field - is entirely up to individual consciousnesses, who become the creators, through the formative powers of consciousness, of whatever manifests or precipitates onto this football pitch of the matter-realm.

I think we fairly much agree on that. Thought and feeling shapes matter, period. The realm of matter is, but what manifests within it is all potential, and up to us. And that's how the understanding is in Christian Science regarding healing, right?

My own perspective is that we are here for a positive and Divinely-intended reason, not just as some form of mistake or as a place to escape from a soon as possible. All realms of existence are inherently hallowed IMO, as all are realms within the omnipresent 'Body of God'. I don't think that matter is evil at all! It's an inherently hallowed place, but also neutral in potential: as with computer programming, GIGO - if individual consciousnesses, misusing free will, put thoughts and feelings of Garbage out into the world-aura, then Garbage will manifest in the physical realm. [&:]

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Judy, thanks for the comments. I am glad I joined too! I like your analogy of the Magic Eyes pictures. I agree completely that the reality is only spiritual. I also think that as we learn to look within and eventually learn to stop projecting all of our energy outside of ourselves the material world will begin to be transformed. It is all just energy but we are using it to fill our imagined needs with illusions instead of with the Truth. It is as if very act of seeking something produces the need for it.

venetian, again thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts. I do appreciate the level of detail you get into. I also feel that we do agree on many of these ideas. However, I do enjoy the discussion whether we agree or not. I am truly looking to understand different perspectives and my nature is to test ideas. You have been very patient with me and I appreciate that!

I have heard the concept before that we are all willing participants in our incarnations and that we chose consciously. I have no recollection of ever making that choice but as you say we did create the ego and the illusion. I also don't disagree that there are many levels of existence but I do see it quite differently. I actually think that all of the levels of existance are part of the illusion as they still are not complete. Being part of a progression to God they still involve ego (however refined) because we are still separate aspects of what cannot be divided. Experiencing any such division is what the ego is all about. It is a thought system that suggests the very opposite of God and with the power of our minds behind it we have miscreated a world that reflects this. Until we are all at the highest level together this world and all its levels will continue to exist. When we are ready to enter into God there will be no more needs and nothing will reamin unshared. This very idea eradicates levels of any kind. God is complete and so will we become because to me God is the only level of existense. Everything else is illusion.

So I guess I see matter more in the way Judy does. The body and the world are all part of the same energy and intention. When we no longer seek outside of ourselves the energy that manifests in material elements will no longer be invested there and so it will not remain. There would be no source of Life to maintain a material universe. We are the universe and when we change it changes. I believe this because God is not material.

I also want to say that I do not see the material world as evil. There is nothing wrong with it but it seriously limits our relationships. There are billions of souls in the world and I am not aware of the vast majority of them (not to mention the infinite numbers beyond). I truly believe we were created to know and love each other as closely as we know ourselves. In the physical realms this is impossible. All the Love of God separated in a world of time and space. The only 'problem' persay is that it is entirely unnecesary to live is such a limited condition.

~Peace

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Dear erospirit,

Thanks for your comments. One interesting thing is that between the several of us we've actually boiled some items of discussion down to what are perrenial philosophical questions, such as the nature of maya. Some consider maya to be "illusion" to such an extent that they take literally the 'English translation' of the word, that it means 'unreal'. Indeed, some Hindus believe that maya means that the material world is unreal as well - and live accordingly! (With little care for material concerns.) In this perspective, what we see of hear or touch basically isn't there - it's as if we are dreaming or imagining it.

This doesn't actually equate with the real meaning of maya as usually used in Hinduism, at least in its deeper philosophical understandings and in Vedanta.'Karma', the creator of maya,at core means 'action' with the understanding that each action creates a reaction, karma comes into being (good or bad), and such karma isn't the ultimate nature of the Highest aspect of God or Brahman. But karma isn't necessarily bad at all: for example the initial impetus of karma, to create maya, came from God when God created the universe. That was an action, and it set off multitudinous reactions.

On maya then, what I'm getting at is that yes, on the one hand we have the one ultimate God, undivided, unmanifest at any level, as existed even before the creation of the universe. But since the Creation there have been these various realms of existence, whether incarnated into or not, such as the physical. Maya actually means something more along the lines of "impermanent" or "ever-changing" - it doesn't mean unreal, or that it's not there. My karma may one day be resolved, and my body will one day be dust on the wind - in that sense it's impermanent, and any concept I subconsciously hold to that it'll exist forever is to be caught up in maya - nevertheless it's real enough now.

If bodies, people, animals, and anything we see or can touch around us were truly unreal, there'd be no point in doing good to a neighbour or in being a Godly person: within a dream one presumably can't make karma, and nobody is harmed or hurt in a dream. So we do instinctively seem to know that the people around us are indeed real, that they are a part of God, and what we do to another does matter, because there is reality to them.

On the ego we are agreed. It seems that we are all agreed (?). Actually, if there's any truth IMO to the idea of maya being unreal, then certainly it's that indeed the concepts of the ego, and the way in which the ego may view or understand the matter-world is unreal as they are false perceptions. But a study of mystical experiences seems to demonstrate, as do the lives of great saints and sages, that once the ego is wholly or mostly starved away, the being who remains - whom I'd call a Christ - still perceives, sees and touches matter, but now sees matter and physical bodies for what it all really is: one among many 'frequences' of the Tone or vibratory nature of the omnipresent Body of God. In mystical perception, it's suddenly clear to the beholder that every atom is Holy, and everything, animate or supposedly inanimate - rock, trees, the air, flowers, birds, and all peoples - are all manifestations of God, and very real as such. They'd still be here and still be real as manifestations of God whether we were here to behold them or not.

That's how I see it all anyway. 😉

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hello All,
Very interesting subject the ego and the ways we understand the view of being with God bringing about the factors that we can provide the ego with understanding, creating the place where we can look at the ego is a process that takes much hard work as there are times that are ego's can take over then we are shown the rights and wrongs of the travels that we taking help to create a strong place where are ego envelopes the views of the world is sometimes needed as this is a place that we are able to direct the process of the times at hand is the way that the ego may be used to help us to move forward relating this with the negitive that comes with encountering the strong personalities that we incounter. This I am hearing can very in many different directions as the ego always can show itself to bring about the process for individuals to act in different ways there are times to project the ego to create a space that you are able to see the ways that the path is being shown so to blend the upper and lower parts of ego to help us see what is occurring. So to say parts of ego is used to build a place to learn so to call this a useless part of self is not really a reflections of the self there will at times that we need to counterreact the ego but then you can really use the lessons that are being brought to you....this is only a proces of thought to the subject...Gypsy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

hello my lovelies [sm=nature-smiley-008.gif]

just wanted to post this link which i found yesterday... (especially for the two Davids - Venetian & Erospirit - i'm pretty sure you will like it)

it is an interview with Eckhart Tolle (from 'what is enlightenment?' magazine), and very directly relates to the whole ego discussion, and other things that have been brought up along the way... (yeah - Judy/principled, there is stuff about the 'real' manifested world vs. 'real' unmanifested spiritual world too)

one quote that i particularly liked was: " The desire to renounce the world is again the desire to reach a certain state that you don't have now... "

much love to you all [sm=love-smiley-009.gif] - must go to bed

jess xx

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Thank you for that, Jess. It made for a great reading experience, and it was impossible in reading it not to have a degree of inner experience of it.

At the top of the second page there is the discussion about whether the world is 'real' or whether the unmanifest Real is different from the manifest world. One way I think of it is like this: nothing can effect another thing if in quality it is totally 100 percent different from the second thing, and has no point of reference or contact with it. For example, if you were to take a piece of stainless steel, and you wanted to add to it, and add to its shape, and all you had was a piece of putty, you might stick the putty, in a certain shape you create, onto the steel. But they are still quite separate, the steel and the putty. They don't meld together. Pull the putty, and it'll come off: the shape of the stainles steel hasn't been altered at all. They are different things, and there is no real interaction between them at all.

This, to me, is the imagined state of affairs were it true that the world and matter is actually and truly 'unreal'. Consciousness, which flows from Reality and from the Absolute, wouldn't be able to interact with matter. There would be no point of contact or of interaction at all. Actually, not only would it be impossible for consciousness to heal physical bodies, in spiritual healing, but there'd be so little interaction that we wouldn't even see or be able to touch unreal matter. The Real wouldn't have any interaction with the unreal at all. Ultimately, in fact, the unreal truly would not exist - even as a dream, even as a potential or as a world separate from consciousness. If anything is totally and utterly unreal, it doesn't exist.

Matter does exist, whatever it is, and consciousness intimately interacts with it. There's a mind-body system, and the mind does affect not only our own, but other bodies. I can tap this physical keyboard. You can hear sound in the physical vibrations brought to you through the air. The only reason we can have any interaction with matter at all, as beings of consciousness who stem from Reality, is because we share a common source and a common nature with matter. We - consciousnesses and matter - are different aspects of the same thing. If that "thing" - God, the One, Divinity, the Absolute - is real, then it's real in both: in both consciousness and in matter.

Eckhart Tolle in the interview expresses it well IMO in saying that underlying everything is the Absolute, and the material world is ripples upon the surface of that Absolute. We might call the ripples 'unreal' since they pass away, yet they are still manifestations of the real Absolute. In mystical experience, one "sees" matter differently - quite, quite differently. In mystical experiences, "matter" can actually "talk" to you, as it were. You find the Total Consciousness of the One to be manifest in a beam of sunlight - so much so that it can physically knock you over. You may be walking atop a clifftop by the sea: the cliff is high and the sea is below; the rock is dense and huge and seemingly has much mass. Suddenly, if you enter into mystical consciousness, you can experience that supposed mass of rock beneath your feet as being nothing but the crystallised consciousness of the One - it is nothing substantial at all. It is just Real Consciousness playing at being solid so long as you are taken in by that game. If you suddenly find yourself outside the game, the experience of the insubstantiality of that 'rock' may be so profound that you fear you shall fall, and fall - because there's actually nothing beneath your feet at all, and "rock" is unreal as a solid thing.

But it's real as being the play of the One, simply for now taking a different form - taking the form of matter instead of the form of consciousness.

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi V

yes i agree, you have put it very well

when i'm in a good frame of mind ('spiritually awake') i too can find it all divine - rocks, cowpats, Ganeshe pictures, a blade of grass...
when i'm caught up in the mundane i have a harder time with gas bills, dog poo, leaking pipes, dirty floors (all work of the Devil - ha ha ha)

but really, i see that since everthing is directly or indirectly a creation, expression or manifestation of God/Goddess, the Divine, the Absolute, Cosmic Consciousness - whether visible or invisible, matter or consciousness - it is all 'real' and it is all divine - and when you get those blissfull moments of understanding ultimate reality (like you described on a cliff) then you see that it is all ONE - one energy, one creation, with different vibrations...

what i mean by directly and indirectly is the example of war - God created people, with consciousness as a way to experience the all, the multiple variations - and (s)he gave us free will and choice (and carefully consructed a state of forgetfulness, so that we could choose to remember the truth...) so war is man-made creation, the result of poor choices and having forgotten that we are all connected, we are all divine and we are ultimately all part of the ONE. - but ultimately, nuclear bombs, tanks, war and all other "evil" man-made stuff is still divine!! but when we are more 'enlightened' (i.e. more aware of the interconnectedness of everything) we will realize when we harm another we are harming ourselves....

as for ego - that is a difficult one, but i agreed with a lot of what Eckhart Tolle said, i don't think i'm quite there yet though!!!

i still like to be patted on the back and told i'm doing a good job with the kids, or that was a nice meal, thanks for the gift etc. - i'm not sure whether 'saints' still like that acknowledgement or it that is part of that ol' devil ego???
- if you are still in and of the world. a householder (as opposed to a renunciant) these are issues of interaction - it is nice to be nice and appreciate others, so is it bad to like being appreciated? (is it more a 'woman' thing - to do with our slighty different connection with people {giving birth and nurturing}? - i'm sure men like to be told they have done a good job too) [oh no! that is opening a whole nother can 'o' worms - i didn't mean to start that!!!]
mind you a simple "I love you mummy" from my toddler goes a very long way!!!

much love
jess

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Thanks jennyanyway for the link. The Eckhart interview was very interesting. It is definitely relevant to our discussion of the ego. It was refreshing to hear him speak about the spiritual also being a way for some to reinforce their egos. This has also been touched upon in this discussion and it is a worthy bit of information as we all get stuck in that from time to time.

I have been giving this some thought lately, as I have been working, and have come up with a more clear way of expressing my perspective. I still hold that matter and people (bodies) are not created by God. With all of the examples of mystical experience, the details of transcendantal experience, and the very exisitence of the body and perception, it all leads me to a very different conclusion.

The idea that matter is unreal is a pretty simple one to understand if we also understand the relationship that ego-consciousness has to matter. Eckhart made a point that I agree with and said of the world "It's a temporary manifestation of the real." Denying the existence of matter is pretty useless and will not help us along our way because to do so in any way is belittling the power of our minds. That would hardly help us grow. But it seems that there is a definite relationship between the ego, the body, and the world (as seen through the body's eyes). The ego represents the separated children of God. While this is not a fact it can certainly be believed and the ego consciousness is the result of this thinking. The ego questions everything and this shifting intepretation is perception (judging between many choices/levels). To quote ACIM: "The ability to percieve made the body possible, because you must perceive something and with something." We also seem to interpret the body as ourselves. All we have to do is realize hwo we spend our days to notice this interpretation. This very concrete perspective is simply a point of view, an interpretation based on the false perception that we are separated from other aspects of reality. The body is not our identity but it is a helpful learning device used by the mind to realize itself. When we begin to recognize that our spiritual eyes begin to open. As was mentioned earlier we would not be here on this thread if this wasn't happening, and I agree 100%.

The analogy of the steel and putty suggests there is a difference between matter and consciousness. I personally believe that there is not. The mystical experience expressed (venetian, was it your own?) also suggests that this is so by illustrating that there is no real substance to matter. The fear of falling may be an incomplete awareness because the laws of matter were still being obeyed when they were simultaneously being suspended. I think the conflict is simply level confusion. The body perspective makes space seem like a given.

I have to clarify that I do not think we need to master the material world. The world is a perception based on what we believe we are. Our thoughts do affect it (personally and collectively). It is drawn on the canvas of the mind and it is perceived there. We are in reality only Spirit and the mind belongs to the Spirit. When we see ourselves as separated (and our minds split it levels) we experience the unreal because we are perceiving from a perspective that is based on what is not true. It has been said that the ego is a false identity (based on our perceived sepration from God and each other). Any experience from this perspective is as false as its premise. In truth there is only God.

I also enjoyed Eckharts description of being a teacher. That it is his function in time and that this is what time is for. I think this is how we learn. It seems we teach by our attitudes as well. So I don't think we need to drop everything and start wandering around the earth to do this. I don't know about anyone else but I am learning from the interaction here.

Jess, don't be so hard on yourself! In time we exist for and with each other. It is very healthy to appreciating each other for our own specific c

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi Jess,

Whether we need to be appreciated or whether that's an ego thing brings us all the way back to the ego subject. ;)Offhand, I'd say it's a question of what the need is for, or the motivation behind the need? Certainly the ego laps up being told how wonderful it is. Yet it's also a part of normal and a healthy psychological make-up to feel useful or of worth in the world. To be ignored or to be put down all the time is surely going to be unhealthy to most of us.

However, the spiritual wayshowers may have such a close communion with God that the opinions of other humans don't much affect them? I was just dipping into 'The Practice of the Presence of God' from the late 1600s while on a train. You do get the impression that Brother Lawrence, whose notes and letters make up the book, had God so much as an every-minute companion that other people's opinions wouldn't have touched him. But I doubt many of us are there yet, so it's probably useful to watch oneself when being praised - is it touching any ego off in us? or is our reception of the praise of a pure kind, which it can be?

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi David,

ORIGINAL: erospirit

The mystical experience expressed (venetian, was it your own?) also suggests that this is so by illustrating that there is no real substance to matter.

Yes, mine. I've often perceived matter as what it is IMO in essence - sometimes as simply 'energy', sometimes as Consciousness-Love, or as Consciousness-vibration. It's hard to put into words. But that experience is memorable since I had millions of tons of 'solid rock' between me and sea level. Upon gradually shifting into an awareness of the Reality behind the 'rock' - that it's nature wasn't truly as anything solid - for a couple of seconds I actually experienced vertigo (as you would I imagine when you jump out of a plane to parachute), and it was virtually as if I could see hundreds of feet down through the rock, since it wasn't substantial enough to inhibit my perceptions.

I have to clarify that I do not think we need to master the material world. The world is a perception based on what we believe we are. Our thoughts do affect it (personally and collectively). It is drawn on the canvas of the mind and it is perceived there. We are in reality only Spirit and the mind belongs to the Spirit.

I think you are saying that your view is, then, that the material world is something within our minds? (If I misunderstand you'll forgive me, as these are all hard things to convey in text of course.)

Hoping not to repeat myself too much, to me matter has an external reality, but at another level it isn't solid of course as even physics tells us. But whatever level we consider it at, IMO it's still external.

To me, this is actually testable in a sense that's basically even scientific. In Theosophy and its offshoots or developments of the twentieth century, a very detailed cosmology of what the universe consists of at all levels is given. Regarding Spirit, mind, and matter, though I'm only touching upon a detailed cosmology here, there are seven "planes of existence". In fact each of these are sub-divided into seven sub-planes, though that's a detail. At the highest level we have Spirit, and below this vibrations become more gross, until at the lowest level it's 'physical matter'. Mind, intellectual action, and memory, or what we normally think of as "me" is the 'body' we have at the third and fourth levels of vibration up. In other words, we have a mental 'body' and thought - not matter - exists as a substance at this level.

It appears to be testable since Theosophy and neo-Theosophy goes deeply into the whole subject of how to influence matter such as in healing, bringing things or circumstances to pass, etc., by the creation of "thought forms" which we create with our minds but project externally into the external world at the mental-plane level.

I'll leave it there as there's no end to how much could be said on the planes, the bodies, thought forms and manifestation through their use!

But it also is synonymous, though using different terms, with other deep, useful, and convincing (IMO) cosmologies, such as Advaita Vedanta in which the basic building blocks of the universe are Prakriti and Perusha.

Prakriti has since time immemorial been considered in Hinduism to be a kind of virgin, untouched, unshaped state of all matter-energy. In other words, to begin with all matter and all energy are unshaped - they have not been 'made' or shaped into any 'thing', It's just virgin Prakriti. Perusha is the vibratory action of Consciousness (both from the One God and from man/woman) which shakes and shapes Prakriti into whatever is visualised and desired.

The point being in both the Hindu (Vedanta) and Theosophical perspectives, and many others too, that the matter is external and real as such, not something within our minds but something our minds can affect.

So for what it's worth, that's how I see it. 😉

venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

A quick P.S. on Perusha and Prakriti.

So in this ancient philosophy, God / the One / the Source externalises as two things, and both are needed for a Creation: (1) matter-energy, (2) Consciousness.

The way to think about Prakriti before the Creation is not as substance that's physical, but somehow not as anything specific, but rather that it hasn't been glued together into atoms, molecules, etc., and energies such as electricity and gravity haven't been 'started up'. Matter is there, but as a "sea" of quarks, or something even more primeval.

And just to note that this isn't an Oriental belief, but is very widespread in most religions and most creation-myths. For example, in the West we are most familiar with Genesis as a Creation story. Just to point out, then, that someone from my background instantly sees that "the waters" in the opening of Genesis are not oceans and seas on Earth - for Earth is not yet formed, nothing is! "The waters" are the unformed matter-energy of the universe. The allegory of "And God Spoke ... " means: "The Creator sent forth Vibration ... "

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

..... but I get a "Daily Reading" email from the Divine Life Society, and as if to refute all the above, how does today's begin, as I just opened it? -

The physical body appears only in the present. A thing which has neither past nor future must be considered as non­existent in the present also. If you think over deeply, with pure intelligence you will find atyanta abhava (complete non­existence) for the world.

Perhaps we agree totally, but are coming at Reality from different sides.

🙂

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

I think you are saying that your view is, then, that the material world is something within our minds? (If I misunderstand you'll forgive me, as these are all hard things to convey in text of course.)

You are correct in that I do have this general view (and also that these things are very difficult to put into words). I think that we affect the material world more than we think we do but perhaps on more of a subconscious level. In the same way I am not sure we need to learn how to master the material world as much as we need to learn how we do this already and learn how to control our thoughts about it (that affect it). In this way it seems internal. But yes I agree that the world and larger universe does appear outside of ourselves.

[color="#000000"]Perhaps we agree totally, but are coming at Reality from different sides.

I think that is a good way to put it. I was thinking something like this earlier today! I am amazed at how much detail we both have been able to get into from seemingly different perspectives and still be able to understand one another through it all (and not lose sight of the goal). That is no easy task. I must say that the goal we share is the most imprtant element of these discussions to me. In the end all paths lead to God and by as many different paths as there are ideas in the world about how to accomplish it. I remember an idea from somewhere that says that we cannot avoid God anymore than God can avoid us. It is a beautiful idea.

~Peace

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

ORIGINAL: erospirit

You are correct in that I do have this general view (and also that these things are very difficult to put into words). I think that we affect the material world more than we think we do but perhaps on more of a subconscious level. In the same way I am not sure we need to learn how to master the material world as much as we need to learn how we do this already and learn how to control our thoughts about it (that affect it).

We see now how hard it is for words to express these concepts, though we all seem to have done quite well. But I'm only just realising from the above passage that I was probably misunderstood when I've written that IMO we incarnate in order to learn to "master the physical world". Others with me have the same concept, so I took it for granted my real meaning would be understood - though why should it? ...

By this, I don't mean 'master the physical world' in such ways as physical labour, building roads, working out in the gym, curing cancer, or such. Or these are not the main thing. I did mean to learn to rule over the experience of living in the material world rather than have it rule us and have us bouncing around as mere reactionary creatures - through the mastery of our consciousness while in the world. In other words, just what you are saying: the control of thought and feeling while we are in the world, since these are the only ways in which, ultimately, we shape or impact the physical world, for better or worse, anyway.

BTW, I'm again grateful for the link to Eckhart Tolle. It's really planted me in the NOW, whereas one can get mentally flabby at that. I'd heard of his book but didn't get it or read it since I have a small collection of books on 'Now-Consciousness' or 'being Awake' anyway. But he looks like he'll be worth reading.

Venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hello David (Venetian) & David (Eruspirit)

i just wanted to say that i have very much enjoyed this thread/discussion, even though i don't have enough time to enter into the intellectual debate side of things as much as i would like [yesterday my littlest one was in a pooey nappy for 20 minutes while i looked at HP - 'shame' on me!!!]

[color="#000000"]Perhaps we agree totally, but are coming at Reality from different sides.

I think that is a good way to put it. I was thinking something like this earlier today! I am amazed at how much detail we both have been able to get into from seemingly different perspectives and still be able to understand one another through it all (and not lose sight of the goal). That is no easy task. I must say that the goal we share is the most imprtant element of these discussions to me. In the end all paths lead to God and by as many different paths as there are ideas in the world about how to accomplish it. I remember an idea from somewhere that says that we cannot avoid God anymore than God can avoid us. It is a beautiful idea.

~Peace

and eruspirit, you said something about getting a lot our of the interaction here too - i agree, i am very glad that i stumbled across HP and made some new cyber spiritual friends like you two!!:)

'A New Earth' by Eckhart Tolle is on my list of books to buy and read very soon too...

love
jess

p.s. sorry erOspirit - V you've got me all mixed up in my spelling now!!

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

venetian, I agree. We were expressing the very same thing with differing terminologies and prespective. I totally appreciate the time that was taken to achieve this understanding. Now when you say "master the physical" I will know what you mean! You see I haven't read much of the Eastern religious texts so I am not generally familiar with the terminology but the concepts are very similar. So we may come across such semantic issues again but I have no doubt we can work through them and understand each other as we did here.

Jess, I am glad you found HP too! For me I feel this has been a great find. I have been looking for an outlet to express myself as well as to learn from others. I am sure we have all seen how personal perspectives can easily be seen as the 'truth' and be defended (ego out of control) instead of expressed and shared for the sake of learning (ego in training). What I enjoy most about HP is that I can just state my ideas and no one sees it as a personal challenge but just as a point of view equally as valid as thier own. We have all done very well indeed!

Speaking of Eckhart Tolle here is a short essay he wrote about 'The New Earth'. It's not much but I thought maybe some might find it interesting:
[link= http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/eckharttolle.pdf ]http://images.amazon.com/media/i3d/01/eckharttolle.pdf[/link]

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

On mastering the physical realm, then, just to restate how I see this ...

Suppose we want to hallow space? Or we want a place where people in our area, or in a specific group, can worship or meditate? So we decide to build a temple. In fact, there, already, is IMO an act of mastery within the physical. For this world has so many temptations and distractions. It's easy, as many do all the time, to get tempted by endless TV, or endless socialising, or the non-stop accumulation of personal wealth. Or perhaps, in Eastern terminology, we've already made so many mistakes in our incarnations that the returning karma swamps us - we wish to do the best thing and do have a vision of a temple, but we lack money, or have illness, or have relationship or family problems keeping us off-balance. So even to have the desire, and intending to actually try, to create a temple would often be an act of mastery in the first place.

But how is it done, if we are starting from scratch with no funds and no huge organisation behind us? I've seen such accomplishments a number of times, over and over, from just nothing and from people who began with nothing but a vision, and people who were very small in number to begin.

It would involve a clear vision or visualisation, the right-use of desire to impell one to action, presumably a communion with the Higher for guidance amid the tumult of life, selflessness amid the calls of the ego within life, the ability to keep harmony and to get along with others in carrying out the task, persistence, courage, faith (having no doubt it can be done), and seeing through the hard times when money may seem short or something goes wrong, or people have differing opinions. Also practicality and know-how, for how is a temple built? How should it look? What acoustics? Where should it be located? Can you get planning permission?

That's a quick example of what I mean by 'mastery of the physical'. So in the example of building a temple, which presumably is an act to hallow space and to improve the world, it isn't just a question of "How strong are you, and can you carry bricks?" 😉

It does all relate back to the ego, since a rampant ego wouldn't do such a thing, or usually wouldn't succeed if it tried. (It might succeed in building a temple to itself!)

Venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

venetian, here we go again!

The seemingly lofty example of a building a temple is repeated in this world and is often glorified as a divine structure. Look at the Mormon church, Yogananda's Church of Self Realization, the Church of Satan, and Scientology for example. All of the founders had a vision that they grew to what they are today and have many structures that they have built. But the religious and spiritual association is somewhat decieving and obscures what is really going on here. There is nothing fundamentally spiritual about the concept at all. Look at the McDonalds fast food chain, and other multinationals that started with a dream and weak support. Hitler is also an excellent example of a man with a vision that went against all odds. This is the same technique and energy but I would hardly call the mass distribution of a hamburger divinely inspired nor would anyone suggest that Hitler had a spiritual agenda. These are all examples of how we shape the world with our desires and shows just how we have shaped the very world to our own desires. This is our energy at work. Being guided in this work can certainly affect the direction we take with it but to suggest that because a temple is built it must be divinely directed is simply not true.

We have two choices in guides; one is Spirit and the other is the ego. Both can direct us in whatever we do but both have very different ideas for the body and the world. The ego sees the world as its home and the body as an end. To those who accept the ego as identity this end is death because it is the end of the ego. The ego sees the body as its home and the limit on its life is the lifespan of the body. As such it always tries feebly to protect and immortalize the body in external ways. In contrast to this the Spirit sees the body as a learning tool and the world its classroom. Both are a means to an end, which is God. Spirit always teaches that our bodies are not who we are and to invest in what is eternal such our relationships with God and with each other. The recognition of these most Holy relationships brings the result of healing manifested in the world.

God wants us to awaken spiritually and heal each other so we can return our awareness to the Spiritual Realm. We do not need temples for this to happen. The structure itself is meaningless and is no more hallow than a garbage dump or a tomato. Matter is neutral. It is the unseen altar within us that is holy and the vision that comes from this percieves all as holy. Either all matter is holy or it is not. There are no degrees in truth. External structures always attempt to obscure this by focusing on what is outside and attempting to establish its reality there. This is a classic ego maneuver. I choose to accept my body as the Temple of God and my spirit the altar within.

~Peace

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit,

It's just the same simple thing, which we don't seem to have any lasting problem with, of temporary misunderstanding quickly resolved. Or perhaps not in some cases, for no two beings are identical, and that's how it should be. However -

I simply sought an example of how I see the Spirit in us working for the good within the material world. I pulled an example out of the hat, and it happened to be a temple. Physically a temple is just stone, and / or marble, etc. It is of no worth. The point in that example is that in examples I've been a part of, a physical place was extremely useful for a group of people to facilitate the entry of the Divine into the world, ego being no part of it.

Sometimes examples or allegories don't come easily, or come poorly. I might have chosen the healing of the sick, or the alleviation of starvation. The son of a good friend is part of a rapid response team in Sri Lanka to heal the aftermath of Tamil Tiger warfare and also the tsunami, so it might have been 'How do you best do that?' It might usefully have been a more mundane example such as everyone experiences in their individual lives.

The point I was trying to make (and no need to get hung up on the temple example, though I wonder if you have experienced how much good a truly hallowed temple or sacred space can do for the world when a group know the Divine Mysteries and can Invoke the Presence of the Divine into matter within that space, whereas in mundane family life, being without a dedicated group and without a hallowed space such effects are far more difficult) - the point I was trying to make, obviously not well (!) is simply that this mastery of consciousness over matter didn't mean, for me, just physical labour! ;)- it's primarily about how the mind and emotions deal with being incarnate - whether we consider this real or a dream - within matter.

Every day we wake up and face challenges and tasks we must accomplish in life. We accomplish these things through the mind and the emotions rightly used, and the body obeys us. Or does the body seek to tell us what to do? So my point was a general one.

I chose the example of a temple, BTW, as I have found it fascinating to see how a hallowed place can be created for students of the esoteric Mysteries, starting from absolutely nothing, but knowing how to manifest things into the physical by the use of visualisation, right-desire, and persistence along with practicality. Of couurse, if it were to be an empty temple, devoid of spirit, which I suspect you are thinking of, then the endeavour would be meaningless.

My experience of certain places manifested in a dedicated way is a million times beyond that of any Christian church, or a mosque, or anything usually known to the outside world - the experience of hallowed space which people feel from miles around, with a spiritual 'flame' present which is the Presence of something magnificent, shedding Rays across the land, and tended 24 hours a day.

But again, on the thread subject, we can forget the temple example. 😉

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

My experience of certain places manifested in a dedicated way is a million times beyond that of any Christian church, or a mosque, or anything usually known to the outside world - the experience of hallowed space which people feel from miles around, with a spiritual 'flame' present which is the Presence of something magnificent, shedding Rays across the land, and tended 24 hours a day.

That is a sweeping statement. Forgive me for saying so but it seems quite condescending towards other religions, cultures, and differing spiritual paths. Of course you don't have to answer any of this but what is the outside world you are refering to? And how is this difference meaningful to a spiritually realized person? It suggests an inner world not usually known by ordinary people so are you extraordinary by your own assesment? Are you refering to an exclusive spiritual elitist system that has access to God in a way that others don't? Or is this just another expression of your preference to the East?

If your experience of God was 'a million times' greater in these places you mention then I can only think that you have 'a million times' more faith in them than you do in other places. This is your limitation. Please, do not assume that other spiritual systems are somehow inferior or inneffective because of your own limted experiences and preferences. This arrogance does not become you at all. This is a classic conflict of form over content.

If I have you wrong please correct me. But I have been thrown by your suggestions of a better understanding, greater experiences, and irrefutable traditions of the East. Perhaps you don't really think this way? Or perhaps you are trying to reorganize all of my ideas into a form of your own?

I have enjoyed the thread so far and the comparison of our very different ideas. But I am have no interest in competing over spiritual paths (although the example would perfectly serve this discussion). The myriad forms of spirituality exist because of our unique perspectives. New forms are still emerging. None are superior and none can monopolize God nor limit accessability to the Truth. To think so is delusional.

~Peace

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

In brief on that, no, I didn't mean East vs. West. By 'outer' I meant non-esoteric. For example, there are churches of various denominations of Christianity all around me, where people go on Sundays, and perhaps the more dedicated go more often. These are 'normal' or outer (as I used the word, meaning non-esoteric) places of religion. I can't really assess in any sweeping way whether the usual kind of place of worship in the East is better or worse than the West for anchoring Light. And the very criteria we each might use would be up for discussion. I'd talk of "anchoring Light", but what would you think I mean by that? [&:]

Please, please, let's not get into calling another arrogant, goodness! I just saw such a thing happening also on one or two Hinduism threads (meaning the first person who started it off the name-calling there). I'm not interested in that, in reading it, and the mind switches off TBH.

It's off-topic really, but the kind of place I had in mind was of an esoteric nature. Esoteric aspects of most if not all major religions exist, and also have their places of gathering for whatever they do there - rites, invocations, worship, ceremony. And there are also esoteric places, and esoteric groups, not associated with the major religions at all. IMO and IME, the esoteric work is often 'scientific' in the sense that people know together how to make things happen. In a way that people don't in the more common church or temple. IME that's just a plain fact, and to state truth, or what IMHO is truth, isn't arrogance. If I have a pullover that's a deeper red than one you have, I can state that and it's a simple truth - hardly arrogance! 😉

I'm aware that this isn't a detailed explanation. It doesn't look as if detail would help!

V

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

In a way that people don't in the more common church or temple. IME that's just a plain fact, and to state truth, or what IMHO is truth, isn't arrogance. If I have a pullover that's a deeper red than one you have, I can state that and it's a simple truth - hardly arrogance!

Yes, you can state this fact about your pullover and call it a fact. But this is a nothing but a clever use of an example that no one would object to and then applying its logic to an issue that is of a totally different nature. I believe they call this a straw man argument.

The issue I called you on was not one of stating fact. It was stating opinion as fact and then presuming that all other forms of spirituality must follow your own personal guidelines. If they do not you assume the experiences of the practitioners to be severely diminished. Or at least this is how it came across to me. I will leave it up to you to look up the definitions and see if I was using the word correctly. My intent was not name-calling but to convey a specific meaning. My behavior on this forum should easily prove this to you.

To be quite honest I have yet to experience a spiritual 'flame' anywhere that I did not bring it myself. When I was younger I often had experiences of profound spirituality when entering sacred places or attending gatherings with people of a 'higher purpose'. As I mediatated upon the nature of my experience there I came to realize that it was within myself that the flame resided and not in any place or thing or person. Because of this realization I have no doubt that places or objects can seem to collect energies that focus perceptions to a point of (potential) spiritual recognition. But the energy does not belong to the object or space but only to those who perceive it and give it that power.

This is why I don't disagree with you because we can see and feel it if we look outside of ourselves for it. Our creative ability is beyond the scope of our perception. But the real Light is within us where God placed it regardless of where we prefer to 'see' it. If we look there we will have no more need for external searching however convincng the world image may become.

Once again this is all my own personal perspective. Take it or leave it. It simply works for me.

~David

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi erospirit.

To quote myself as quoted by you in your quote box:

ORIGINAL: erospirit

IME that's just a plain fact, and to state truth, or what IMHO is truth, isn't arrogance.

In other words, obviously it is an opinion. In that line I stated it, but otherwise it can be taken as a given. Surely we don't have to preface every single written sentence with 'IMHO'?

The thread is about ego at core, and in the title. I don't know if that has influenced you? ;)- but just from my perspective it feels as if you are 'on the look-out' for any possible sign of ego, thence to jump on it heavily! :D- which makes me feel pretty inhibited, as I'm finding I have to be extremely careful over choice of words, choice of examples (temple, pullover ... ) ... nothing appears to satisfy! [&:]

On whether spiritual Light is wholly within, or whether it can be outside of ourselves, it's no surprise that you believe it's not at all outside of us, and that I believe it can be. That's in conformity to our different ideas about reality - that I accept the external world has having reality. By definition then, a real external world woldn't exist if not infused with some Spirit or Light. And IMO we can add to that Light, invoke it 'down', and send it forth.

HP, for example, is mainly a forum and site about healing. I'm sure there are ways to turn things and render an argument whereby all healing is within consciousness and nothing external happens from a healer, but it's not the way most people seem to think here and frankly neither do I. Not that numbers make something true of course, but I go for the idea that people can, for example, project healing, either a couple of inches or across the world for that matter - the bodies of sender and receiver, and the world, having external reality, and thus Light being sent externally. (Talismans, and the general concept behind them, also depend upon the idea that 'energy' may be invested into an external object. IMO 'Light' can also be built up within buildings - but hey, we only got into all that since I was simply using 'temple' as an example, yet you latched onto the thing itself as a topic. ;))

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Oh venetian, take a look at post #53 and reread it to get a better understanding of my comment.

I truly think you are over-reacting. This is a discussion board after all. You have freely made many point-by-point dissections of my posts and I never felt attacked by it. In fact I learned a great deal from your viewpoint and I thank you for that. I wish I could have done the same for you but it is quite apparent that you do not appreciate my point of view nor do you wish to understand it or learn anything from it. That's cool. My apologies. I thought you did.

ORIGINAL: venetian (highlighting: erospirit)

The thread is about ego at core, and in the title. I don't know if that has influenced you?
...
HP, for example, is mainly a forum and site about healing. [color="#0000ff"]I'm sure [color="#0000ff"]there are ways to turn things and render an argument whereby all healing is within consciousness and nothing external happens from a healer, [color="#0000ff"]but it's not the way most people seem to think here and frankly neither do I.

Now how did I misunderstand you again? I respect that you think I am not a good fit on HP but it is entirely disrespectful and presumptuous of you to speak for the other members like this and assume their consent. This is exactly what I had issue with before. I will take your hint but I plan to stick around and enjoy discussions with the other poeple I have met here.

For the rest of you reading along, could we have asked for a better show?!? What a way to wrap up this portion of the thread.

~Peace

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

A misunderstanding again, erospirit. [&:]You write that you plan to stick around - despite my "hint". As if I was hinting that you should get lost or something? The thought never entered my mind, and it's great having you here.

Further, I'm not "disrespectful" or "presumptuous" in speaking for other HP members. I'm not speaking for them. I've been on HP long enough to know IMHOhow most people here think about their particular healing modalities. It will generally be true that they see their homeopathic remedies, or distant healing, or massage, or acupuncture needles as having an external reality of some type, and that the energies discussed here, call it chi, prana, or what-have-you also have an external reality. As I said, it would be wrong to imply that the 'truth' on matter/energy being externally real or wholly inside consciousness can be known by a majority vote; nevertheless it seems a point worth making. It's something along the lines of Occam's Razor: if it seems and looks real, or feels real, maybe it is.

It's been interesting. Thanks for the dialogue really. I've heard offhand from others that they've found it interesting too. My apologies for any misunderstanding on my part, but once an abstract or general subject gets into having to self-defend (and I have to say I do feel your post aboveis again sharply worded against me in an incalled-for manner), then the point is missed. I'm totally inhibited now at writing anything to you on this, as nothing I write seems acceptable. So I'm all for calling it a day and - here's a cyber handshake. 🙂

Thanks for the dialogue, again. No hard feelings at all. I think we've actually said all that there probably was to on-topic?

Venetian

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi guys,

Thanks from me too for a very interesting discussion. It's sad that it's descended into inharmony. As Venetian says though I also feel you've probably said everything that needs to be said on this particular topic, but I look forward to reading more posts from both of you on other threads.

I had to smile just now (considering the topic of this thread!). I felt I needed a read of an article by Mary Baker Eddy called "Taking Offense" and this bit is so true (though it always hurts to admit it!) 😀

"The mental arrow shot from another's bow is practically harmless, unless our own thought barbs it. It is our pride that makes another's criticism rankle, our self-will that makes another's deed offensive, our egotism that feels hurt by another's self-assertion."

As I'm there, I'll go on to my favourite bit at the bottom (I wish I could always live up to it, but I fail again and agian):

"We should remember that the world is wide; that there are a thousand million different human wills, opinions, ambitions, tastes, and loves; that each person has a different history, constitution, culture, character, from all the rest; that human life is the work, the play, the ceaseless action and reaction upon each other of these different atoms. Then, we should go forth into life with the smallest expectations, but with the largest patience; with a keen relish for and appreciation of everything beautiful, great, and good, but with a temper so genial that the friction of the world shall not wear upon our sensibilities; with an equanimity so settled that no passing breath nor accidental disturbance shall agitate or ruffle it; with a charity broad enough to cover the whole world's evil, and sweet enough to neutralize what is bitter in it,--determined not to be offended when no wrong is meant, nor even when it is, unless the offense be against God."
(Miscellaneous Writings p 223)

Love and peace,

Judy

RE: "Egoism" stands between man and god.?

Hi Judy,

Nice to hear from you here again. I was going to return to the thread anyway. Am just back from the dentist - very minor work indeed was needed, but all the same they injected me and I presently can't feel my nose or left eye. (Maybe this proves they're unreal? :D) Anyhow, somewhere just before or just after the injection I reflected for a mo' on this thread. You use the word 'inharmony'. You know, I don't feel any inharmony at all, and my guess is that the other David doesn't either. If I were called this or that name, or a certain motive or tone believed to be mine, I only said 'ney' to it out of the spirit of truth - to try to keep things on track and explain the misunderstanding in order to further the discussion. If someone believes I'm four feet tall, and I've a pretty good idea that I'm not, then quite calmly I can try to explain that.

What I was returning here for anyhow was just to say that it's the typical problem one gets over the internet. It's a cliche, but only because it's true, that things are often misunderstood over the net, including by email, as you've only text to go on, and no facial cues, and no instant to-and-fro dialogue. To me, that's all that happened here. It's common, it's not personal, and it wouldn't happen face-to-face.

I haven't 'taken offense' and I hope neither of us have. It's 'only' a typed discussion on a net forum! ;)And I look forward to David's participation elsewhere. Presently, both David's are half right in my experience: my right cheek is 'real' since I can feel it clearly - but my left cheek just ain't there! 😀

V xxx