The Crucifixion of the Ego

by Anny Vos on June 22, 2017

EgoThe crucifixion of the ego has often been mentioned in articles and comments on this blog, also in the previous article, The Harvest is large, but the workers are few: Matthew 9:35-38 by Raymond Phelan, where it gave rise to a very interesting discussion in the comments. These showed that there are indeed many ways to look at this concept and in my view none of them is necessarily more (or less) true than another. Much depends on our personal feelings in this matter. If our personal experience has been negative, for instance because of the way we were taught about the crucifixion of Jesus in church, then it is very difficult to feel positive about the concept of crucifixion as such. Let alone about its use for our process of gaining higher conscious awareness. If, however, you have learned to look at crucifixion from the perspective of tremendous Love, as I have when I was a child, then you look at it from a different perspective. Then it shows us a path which we all can follow.


The cross itself is an important symbol that is not restricted to Christianity only. We find it in many different traditions in different forms and it can be interpreted in different ways and even on different levels. The cross, and crucifixion as well, can not only be interpreted on a personal level but even on a galactic level, as Christine Hoeflich showed us in a comment to Raymond’s recent article:

  • “…. the ego has been being crucified for ages already, through us being “veiled,” or shielded from being aware of the Earth Experiment (as planned by the collective Higher Self). The collective Higher Self planned / engineered this Earth experience for the noble purpose of humanity gaining relatively fast spiritual and emotional growth, through difficult firsthand, direct experiences. The harder the experience, the faster the growth, was the reason. This is what I came to understand, after I connected to my higher self in meditation and followed through with its guidance.


  • Furthermore, this “crucifying” is clearly shown when one looks at the astronomy of this planet with respect to the larger galaxy, at this exact point in time! Things are at a tipping point right now and the astronomy shows it clearly (which I show in my book on the spiritual awakening process).


  • Plus: The above is good news. The ego going off on its own, being disobedient just because it felt like it, and then having to be brought back into control, well that’s not necessarily such good news. But if the collective higher self (God) had planned this fall in consciousness, for the noble purpose of achieving the fastest path to spiritual growth, well that’s real good news, isn’t it? It sheds new light on humanity, no?


In our comments Christine and I have sometimes seemingly disagreed about the meaning of the crucifixion of the ego but I believe that this really only concerns our different subjective perspectives of the matter but not its deeper meaning. I fully agree with how she described the Earth Experiment (see the first italicized section of my quote). As I do with the second italicized section. The only thing that I do see different is the idea of a disobedient ego going off on its own.

I do not interpret the concept of an ego necessarily as negative but see it as a force inside us that guides us through the whole process of gaining higher spiritual awareness. I see this process as a cycle in three phases:

  • First a descent or involution into the world of matter, which is a dream world, not a real world but a world of illusion that could also be described as a game. A game in which we are players on a playing field of a huge range of emotions. These emotions could be seen as tools, not necessarily as something negative in itself.
  • Secondly our stay in that world and our working our way through it, becoming master of our emotions instead of being controlled by them.
  • And finally our ascension or evolution out of this world again, with the conscious awareness we have gained through this process.

Within this process I see the ego as the Life Force in us, a force which temporarily falls asleep at the bottom of the cycle but now is waking up again, as we have reached and are passing the turning point of the Ages. When I look at it from the viewpoint of the translation of the Latin word ego – which means I – then I could see it as a spark of the I Am that has descended in us and with us and because of that has also fallen asleep temporarily. In the lower reaches of the cycle, when it is asleep, this force has become unaware of its task and lets the emotions get out of control.

That is the phase in which we become the slaves of our emotions, which in the Bible is described in the story about the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt, where the pharaoh symbolizes the absolute power of the ego in its fallen state. It is also the phase which gives us the opportunity to explore the darkest extremities and gain even more growth, provided we manage to climb out of the pit again. The Bible shows that we will receive help in doing this, once we ask for that help – God delivers the Hebrews from Egypt, the total control of our emotions is broken – but we will have to complete the process ourselves, during our journey through the desert with all its challenges. Only then we can enter the Promised Land, Canaan, numerical value 190, (1), as opposed to Egypt, Mitsrayim, numerical value 380, (2).  Or the world of the original Oneness (1), by leaving the slavery in the world of duality (2).


Just like Christine I am of the opinion that our descending into this illusional world of matter was planned by God in order to have us ‘gain relatively fast spiritual and emotional growth, through difficult firsthand, direct experiences. The harder the experience, the faster the growth, was the reason,’ as she put it. I look at these hard experiences as ingredients of the crucifixion process, because only when we deal with them in the right way we will gain this higher conscious awareness. If we do not, we will just suffer.

In Genesis 1 we read that it was God who created the world of duality. Already the first word of the Bible, Bereshit in Hebrew, which means ‘in the beginning’, points to that. It is written with a very big Bet, which is not just a letter but also the number 2. By its bigger size this 2 points to the fact that God created duality, symbolized by the opposites of heaven and earth, light and darkness, good and evil and all other opposites that follow in the story. Or in other words, God creates imbalance. During the journey through this world of imbalance we are free to imagine ourselves as separate from God, and separate from so-called others and of different species, in order to play this game in the realm of emotions to its fullest extent, and to experience everything that we can possibly imagine in it, as this game also includes the concepts of time and space, of karma and reincarnation. Of recurring cycles within the greater cycles of 2000 and 26.000 years of (the Ages of) the Zodiac that Christine already mentioned. Of course guidance is available, if we are willing listen.

The creation of duality and imbalance is the beginning of the cycle of three phases that I described above. The way to ascend out of this illusional world again is the process that I call the crucifixion of the ego, or the way of the cross.

There are many ways to interpret the symbol of the cross. The most simple cross is the cross with four arms of equal length, which can be seen as total balance. Also balance between spirit (vertical) and matter (horizontal). The creation of this world of matter as a means to gain spiritual growth and conscious awareness was only possible by introducing opposites and destroying the original balance. It was the start of a descent into this world and the beginning of the game, of the first phase of the cycle. After that first phase came our stay in that world of matter, where gradually our emotions got a grip on us, which made us fall asleep. But now the time of awakening has come for us, and the time to rise up out of that world of illusion again and to regain control over our emotions, taking with us all the conscious awareness we gain by successfully completing this game. In order to accomplish that we have to return to and re-create the original balance of this cross. The act of restoring this balance is what the crucifying of our ego is all about.

When I base my interpretation on the Hebrew word for cross and its numerology, I reach the same conclusion, using different images. Cross is tselav, 90-30-2, in Hebrew. To begin with this can be read as tsel2, which means shadow of the two, or world of duality (Egypt was another symbol for this world). In that case the cross means our life in this world of duality, which includes our every-day-world with all its ups and downs but also all the suffering through the natural and other disasters, wars and whatever we collectively brought on to ourselves during our stay in this world. Again the aim of our stay in this world is to gain spiritual and emotional growth. Within this image we do this by learning to overcome our obstacles in a loving way, by sharing with and caring for others. By turning bitter experiences into diamonds as it were – which after all do only come into existence under enormous pressure – by approaching everything always from a loving perspective and by looking for a way to turn everything in life into something meaningful and beautiful.

What this crucifying process does NOT mean is a never-ending struggle with all sorts of hardships in life which we will never be able to master on our own. On the contrary, by taking a positive perspective and positive action we may be able to create miracles.

And then, in the end, when we finally have become master of our emotions and act only from the perspective of love, we will discover that there is a much more beautiful way to describe this cross, this way through the world of duality! In the end this cross, tselav, 90-30-2, will prove to be 90lev, the road leading to the birth (90, after a difficult process), of the heart (lev, 30-2). It will prove to be the way to restore our ego to its original purpose. And the road to our transformation to Love incarnate.

{ 127 comments… read them below or add one }

Joshua Tilghman June 22, 2017 at 11:20 am

An interesting perspective on the ego here, Anny. I’ve said this on the blog before, but I agree with you too. The ego is a necessary part of our spiritual growth. In esoteric understanding, we have to transform the lower ego into the spiritual ego, which is a natural process as we develop spiritually. Transform might be the wrong word, but it sort of fits. Maybe a more accurate explanation is that the spiritual ego is actually birthed from the lower ego as the lower ego experiences and integrates higher emotional states. Does this make sense?


anny June 24, 2017 at 2:34 am

Hi Josh,

Thanks for your comment. It certainly makes sense to me what you wrote.

I believe there are so many sides to this subject and sometimes I see the one and other times another. It is like the facets of a diamond and I cannot think of one term or explanation that tells the whole story.

Besides, I am not a teacher but a student myself who just share what comes my way in any given moment, which may or may not be of use to others, while I learn from others who comment at the same time. Searching for words or new terms belongs to this as sometimes we are dealing with things that may be too great for us to completely understand the totality of yet.


Manuel June 22, 2017 at 9:52 pm

Concerning the Ego….Reading Elkhart Tolle, I tend to agree with him more as to the ego and what it has done to my life until i started to awaken to the reality of my false indentity via the ego. At this point , i dislike that i did not know this and am becoming more conscious. This is why God says: Gen. 6:6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


anny June 24, 2017 at 2:56 am

Hello Manuel,

Thanks for your comment. You write that you more agree with Eckhardt Tolle as to what he writes about the ego. That is okay of course.

I must admit that although I did read some of Eckhardt Tolle’s books years ago, I do not remember exactly what he says about the ego. I do remember that I appreciated his wisdom and the loving way in which he expresses it. As far as I remember he has fully developed concepts of all the subjects he writes about and I do not.

I use and play with different images sometimes which may lead to new levels of understanding. I try them out by sharing them and receiving feedback on them. And it may trigger something in others, even when they disagree with what I wrote. That is how it works for me as well.

As for the text you quote, I do not have an interpretation of that yet but my experience is that I found a positive interpretation for quite some other texts that seemed to point to judgment and punishment and that proved to be promises instead. You can find those in my other articles.


Wayne June 22, 2017 at 11:51 pm

Interesting take on the “ego” in this article.
“Self Mastery” is where we take what “God” is/has given us and lay claim to it.
My first real education regarding “ego” was provided by the late/great Wayne Dyer who suggested that EGO represented Edge God Out, which has fit well and felt right to me since hearing it. Self Mastery is mastering the natural inclination of ego, or it will master you and therefor limit your spiritual relationship with the “Divine”. The ego is the old man which is to give way to the new man or born again in a very real way for it literally represents a new mind or new way of thinking.
“Crucify” to me may represent >being fixed in place< or stopping, damming or limiting, as being nailed in place would certainly limit one's natural inclination to freedom. To crucify the ego would limit and put it in subjection to the "Divine" mind.

Always interesting and thought provoking to read your articles. Thanks.


anny June 24, 2017 at 3:04 am

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for your contribution to this article. You give quite some interesting additional information and I love that. There are so many ways to look at every subject and it is enriching to read each additional one.

As I already wrote there are very many ways to interpret the concept of the crucifixion of the ego and you just added a very valuable one.

I am glad that you appreciate my articles and find them though provoking. That is exactly what I want them to be. I do not want people to just accept what I tell them but to think for themselves and find their own truth.


Wayne June 26, 2017 at 1:05 am

Anny I am of the mindset that any “good” (inspiring) conversation should cause more questioning than it gives relaxed satisfaction.
Ten people can sit and watch the same film together and if questioned afterwards, there may be ten different summations on what they saw. This of course is because although they may be sitting physically together, mentally/emotionally they are in different rooms altogether, as their life’s experiences have brilliantly created and divided new and exciting realities. There is therefor created the impossibility of one “RIGHT” answer to a question, as they all have equal validity and reality. As you suggest, interpretation/perspective must be infinite, which is likely the purpose and pleasure of “INFINITE MIND” or what many call “God” for without division there could be no expansion or what we call life.

Jesus never said TRUST ME, JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR IT as do you and I either, but experiment on my word and find out for yourself if there is any merit in my words that may expand your life also.

Thanks again for sharing your inspiring articles!


anny June 26, 2017 at 2:51 am

Wayne, thanks for your comment. I love it. It seems like we are thinking in the same direction but you phrase it completely different than I do. That gives added value and new things to think about or be grateful for or whatever. There are so many possibilities and it would be a shame to want to reduce it all to one image.

I recognize the idea of all of us watching the same movie and each seeing a completely different picture. It is all a matter of perspective. We each create our own world with its own truth of the moment and that is a beautiful thing as long as we allow the other person to create his or her own world in a different way. It means that together as One we are exploring All that is in a beautiful way and even the so-called negative experiences will turn into a beautiful result at the end of the game.

Thanks for this exchange of ideas.


Lou Pak June 23, 2017 at 4:16 am

Great comments!

I’m a newcomer here, I’d just like to say that I did/do enjoy the website in general and this article as well. Yeah, I’ve thought ( quite a bit actually ) about how our ego blocks us from seeing true reality, but I’d like to say that it’s really ice to see some people discussing/considering such matters.

We all know, today, it’s just never done. It might be interesting to ask why nobody cares.

Most of the time people will enter intellectual waters not to learn but to grab off a few disjointed concepts to support selfish hedonism, make a point about man’s core nature, or they’re thinking about some past hurt/injustice without directly referring to that.

We are all usually driven by our “Emotional Self”…although we talk about intellectual concepts merely hoping others will help us build our defenses. Sheshh! I sound like a ‘Shrink’…sorry folks…didn’t mean to get too deep here!

Anyway, there’s a difference between people on a journey of discovery…seekers of truth and people looking for ‘loopholes’ as WC Fields once famously quipped when somebody caught him reading a bible.

Best of luck to all who seek the truth! May God guide us all with Peace and Love.


anny June 24, 2017 at 3:12 am

Hi Lou,

Thanks for your comment and welcome as a new contributor. I appreciate what you write about the ego and what it does to us. It is all extra information for everyone to benefit from. And every approach is different so far. It is wonderful to bring it all together.

Thanks for your good wishes as well and the same to you of course!


Joshua Tilghman June 23, 2017 at 8:19 am


Great comment. Especially where you said we are of emotionally driven, and only talk about the intellectual.


Christine Hoeflich June 23, 2017 at 11:33 am

Thank you for this wonderful, insightful article Anny! It is very heart-warming. The reason I wrote “the disobedient ego going off on its own” is that’s the religious culture we’ve been living in for centuries … who knows how long? One can call it the ego “falling from grace,” “missing the mark,” or “sinning,” but they all have negative connotations. Furthermore, in more recent history what I’ve seen in many popular gurus’ vocabulary (and they all claim to be enlightened) is that “the ego needs to be brought down a peg or two.” In other words, the ego is the problem, get rid of that evil ego. And that’s what I had an issue with, and usually the reason for my rants.

But maybe it’s not our emotions that are at the source of the issue but the general consciousness of the culture (and family subcultures) we are living in. Changing our conciousness changes our emotions and our behavior. Anyway, I’d be more likely to focus our endeavors on our consciousness than on our emotions, although when you connect in with your heart / higher self what I’ve personally experienced is that both the emotions and the consciousness gets uplifted. When you pay attention to your heart / soul, your heart and soul respond positively with positive feelings, and your heart / soul also provides you with insights that override false cultural beliefs. (I’m worried that if we focus on our emotions we will get stuck there.) Okay, well, maybe someone else can add more insight regarding emotions vs. consciousness. Thanks!


anny June 24, 2017 at 8:36 am

Hi Christine,

Thanks for your enthusiastic comment. Now I understand how you understand the ego. Again we actually think in the same way about a concept. I love that.

As you know I agree with your statement that our descent into this world of duality was in fact planned by God (or our Highest Self) in order to gain conscious awareness and as such the whole process is positive, even the descending side of the cycle. We had to make this whole journey in order to become aware of everything and not take anything for granted. Judgement is not part of it and as such the concept of the ego had to be positive too. I see it now as the ‘body’ that houses the force that guides us through this whole cycle of descent and ascending again, which itself falls asleep at the bottom part, just like our divine spark. And as the playground on which we play our games. It is totally neutral to begin with and maybe it could be said that it develops towards a lower ego on the descending side and develops/births the higher ego during the crucifixion process. It is difficult to find terms that describe everything it might contain.

I agree with you that our emotions are not really the issue here. Right now I see them as tools that that are meant to help us understand everything that we experience in this world of illusion we still live in. It confronts us with the results of our actions. It depends on how we handle them what will be the result of those actions and the actions of others. Gradually we discover that when we let our emotions take us for a ride so to speak, that we will encounter likewise emotions and actions from other people. All in all it has been a long process through many different lives but I believe that right now, when we are entering a New Age to use a much misused concept, we are discovering that we do not have to react to anger with anger and to hatred with hatred. We are discovering that we do not have to react in a negative way but can act in a positive way. And that the awareness of that concept will lead us upwards again. I believe emotions were our teachers and now it is time to show that we have learned our lesson.

Anyway, I agree that it goes beyond words and concepts that we are familiar with and that it really is all about Love. That is decidedly the Highest Consciousness there is.


anny June 28, 2017 at 7:11 am

Hi Christine,

Now that the flood of comments that have to be replied to has stopped, I started to slowly reread all the comments once more in order to absorb all the new information a little more. And then I noticed a sentence in your comment that I did not respond to yet but is interesting nevertheless.

• “The reason I wrote “the disobedient ego going off on its own” is that’s the religious culture we’ve been living in for centuries … who knows how long? One can call it the ego “falling from grace,” “missing the mark,” or “sinning,” but they all have negative connotations.”

In my view the concept ‘sinning’ does not necessarily have to have a negative connotation, on the contrary. Not that I want to promote sinning but from the Hebrew numerology I conclude that the meaning is neutral with positive intentions.

Sin in Hebrew is the word ‘chata’, 8-9-1. Total numerical value: 18. Eighteen is also the numerical value of the word ‘chai’, which has become a symbol for ‘life’. The well-known Hebrew toast ‘lechaim’ means ‘to life’. The fact that sin and life share the same numerical value points to a connection between the two. Sinning means living life to the fullest and that includes taking pathways sometimes that do not lead directly the goal you are striving for, that have consequences which you have to face but after you have done that you will have become wiser because of it and continue on your way.

When we look at the numerical value of the different characters as such we see 8, 9, 1. They show the way to the birth (9) of the 8th day, the day of Ascension and finally return to the oneness of the world that we came from, which this time however has become a unity in diversity because of all the different experiences we all have gone through during the cycle of our gaining conscious awareness.

I do not know if anyone else has ever interpreted it this way but this is what resonates with me. It also resonates with the fact that this word is only an illusion and in Reality there will be no sinning. It also resonates with what Jesus taught us: Do not judge.

By the way, of course I also read Joshua’s article about your book and I like it. I have ordered it but not yet received it because it has to come from the USA.


Robert June 29, 2017 at 5:24 pm


I think you and other readers might be interested in this book that came out last year “Original Blessing: Putting Sin in Its Rightful Place” by Danielle Shroyer. She claims the concept of original sin was introduced by Augustine, and that neither Jesus nor the early church believed in it. She believes in the concept of original blessing, and that sin is what the Hebrew word for it implies – missing the mark ( or as you express it “taking pathways sometimes that do not lead directly the goal you are striving for” ) – and that we are loved no matter what. Here is a link to an interview with the author conducted in early 2017 explaining her view. I’m reading the Kindle version now.


anny June 30, 2017 at 12:37 am

Thanks for this meaningful addition, Robert. Interesting that this concept seems to be surfacing in more places that one right now. Which happens to more subjects by the way, like with inventions. When the time is ripe more than one person in the world gets the idea and works it out.

It seems to have been that way with the use of electricity, telephone etc. Sometimes people claim that their ideas have been stolen when someone else also develops such an concept but that need not be the case at all. Obviously now is the time to put sin into its rightful perspective.

Yes, we are loved no matter what. That is what Unconditional Love implies. It also implies that we have to love others that way. No more judgement.

This writer may be right that it was Augustine who put us on the path of interpreting sin the way we have done for almost two millennia. No other religion has made such an issue out of sin as Christianity has done.

By the way, I reread my own comment before replying to yours and noticed a typo:
“I do not know if anyone else has ever interpreted it this way but this is what resonates with me. It also resonates with the fact that this word is only an illusion and in Reality there will be no sinning.”
I meant to write that this world is only an illusion but when I look at it as it stands, maybe that is true as well. Maybe in a world of illusion our words are illusions as well as Reality can never be captured completely in a word.

What about it though that women have been accused of bringing sin into this world for centuries and that it seems to be women who bring to light now that this is not true at all? Christine also pointed at it in her comment, which is why I added my explanation.


Robert June 23, 2017 at 12:18 pm

I loved your article. It describes the process that is going on in me perfectly, I was looking at the number 90 a few days ago and for some reason it stuck in my head. And then there was your explanation at the climax of your article. We descend into the game, which is Egypt (the land of the shadow or illusion of two) a world of dualism (right and wrong, heaven and hell, mortal life and death, praise and judgement, them and us, king and pawn, adversary and advocate, like and hate, beginning and end, negative and positive, fail and succeed, yours and mine, give and take). Then at about the time we discover this world we thought was balanced is actually unbalanced, something begins to awaken, our ego (I ) ascends through predetermined struggles in cycles and ages to realize its mature potential as IAM when we control our emotions (Trump stops tweeting) and reach the promised land (a home promised to us through words and images) which is number 190 (I call this the goal) representing Oneness (I call this my point of clarity) where we are delivered from enforced slavery and find purpose in voluntary service. We are a part of everything including the divine. We obtain the divine ability to take positive action to create miracles. We have undergone a birth through a difficult process that allows us now to become Love incarnate. The cross of death becomes this marvelous incarnation of Love.

When I come to how our trials are determined or predetermined or just encountered seemingly at random, I personally try not to assume much there. I am the clay, not the potter, so to speak. But I agree the clay wants to know the details about the potter’s process, and so the clay imagines scenarios that explain the process, or pulls them out of the experiences in the material illusionary world, making analogies between physical phenomena and this mysterious process. The scenarios are personal and beneficial. They are the maps we draw to the new territory.


anny June 24, 2017 at 8:54 am

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your great comment!

I think your comment gives a beautiful description of the process how it is for you. I have one remark: you refer to the number 190 as representing the Oneness but it is not that number in itself that does so. It only represents the 1 when compared to 380, which is the numerical value of Mitsrayim, which of course symbolizes duality and as such the number 2.

I agree that we do not have a higher overview of everything that happens to us in this world but we did learn something about the mechanics of it all. We have learned for instance the principle of not to meet anger with anger but to meet anger with love. This reminds me of a link I sent you recently that shows how Muslims in Kuwait took action against terrorism: answer hatred with love. I did find an international link of it:

I think this is a great example of the direction we have to go.

You give us a beautiful example of how you view the process but personally I do not see us as just objects in this whole process, although I do agree with you that from our actual level of consciousnees we do not have a complete overview of the whole process. We do have an active part in it though.


Chelsea June 23, 2017 at 2:50 pm

So many people are reactionary to their circumstances, emotionally reactionary. And it seems to cause so much more emotional stress than necessary. I highly believe in the power of positivity (as cliche as it sounds). If people would only learn to be more observant. Hence, this all relates to the state of the ego and the state of its development, or waning, or surrendering…not sure which is more appropriate.

Does the ego grow smaller as consciousness rises or like Josh stated, does it just develop a higher emotional threshhold?

Anny, I am going to have to re-read some of year earlier posts again when you dig into the Hebrew language and numerology, it’s a bit difficult for me to grasp consistently. It is however, and incredible way to understand how, literally, everything is connected; how can a person commit themselves to such mainstream, limiting beliefs?!

Thank you all again for sharing your wisdom – it truly is a beautiful thing!


Joshua Tilghman June 23, 2017 at 5:49 pm

I can second that, Chelsea. She is brilliant in that regard! However, with a little bit of patience, I have seen the patterns, and it aligns with the intuitive side of language and symbolism. That’s what makes her contributions so valuable, I feel. The study of Kabbalah that I have engaged in let’s me know that we’re both spot on in our understanding.


anny June 24, 2017 at 9:19 am

Hi Chelsea,

Thanks for your comment and for your interest in this subject. I think people have to become aware of the importance of the subject and the process it involves before they are even willing to listen. It is something that cannot be forced and everyone will come to that point in his own ‘time’.

As I already wrote to Christine, at the moment I see the ego as the originally neutral playing field of emotions which will give us the possibility to have all the experiences we are longing to experience, as well as those that are the result of our words or actions. And there is also the force that guides us through the whole cycle, losing and gaining consciousness through it all. That is the image I see right now but of course there are other symbols we can use in order to find out for ourselves how we see this and other concepts. So the playing field more or less changes with our progress. As such I like the image of a lower ego birhthing a higher one.

I hope you will enjoy my other articles as well and if something is not clear, just say so and I will try to explain it.


Kim Hinojoza June 23, 2017 at 9:09 pm

Hello everyone. Why the game in the first place? If we are part of God, why would God need to learn lessons and gain spiritual growth to return to God’s state of oneness? I’ve probably missed the big picture, so if anyone could shed some light on this for me, I would appreciate it! (Great article btw!)


Robert June 23, 2017 at 11:02 pm

Kim, I also would be interested for people to provide various answers to your question. My two cents is to explain that it is natural for most of us humans to be aware of a part of existence beyond what we know and hope that there is more harmony and goodness there than in our present existence that we may one day be able to access. To some it is automatic awareness, to others they are jarred into this awareness by mystical experiences. We experienced harmony when we were infants or fetuses, before we were able to tell the difference between us and our surroundings. So we are pulled toward the hope of a new world that has similar characteristics we knew in our earlier stage of innocence. We tend to want to understanding and explain this process in words that parallel our everyday existence. These explanations help us to cooperate with the process. We may believe we have planners in the mystical world who guide us , for instance. Or other scenarios. A pole shows that 55% of Americans earnestly believe they have a guardian angel. The bible tells the story about descending from innocence into a corrupted world and ascending toward the perfect world. We use phrases like “going home” to describe the experience of ascending. My personal view at present is that we really do not know what is beyond the veil or the mechanics of how it all works. We make up things, but it is not lying, but rather human creativity trying to put a finger on something it knows is there, but can’t quite touch. I find I can comprehend it best when I abandon all my explanations, when I then become aware of a present and future that is warm and sunny. When I am not doing that then I fall back on the spiritual explanations that I am used to.


Wayne June 24, 2017 at 9:43 am

If I may add some thought to your conversational question Kim & Robert as to the “WHY” if “God” is already complete in all things, why are we fractioned entities of this Divine completeness and most importantly what could we possibly add of value to “completeness”?
Looking beyond the mark (blindness) we expect some complicated unfathomable genius beyond our understanding, and in doing so we make it about us (ego). I look no further than the obvious of our seemingly >”PERSONAL”>BEING<>BEING<< which may explain the intended humility in the declaration of "I AM THAT I AM".
The PURPOSE of life may therefor be simplistically to EXPERIENCE the JOY of BEING.
Anyone feeling they may have "missed the big picture" would do well to enJOY the small details of that so called big picture. The forest is grand but it is each individual tree that makes it so.
There are no UNIMPORTANT or UNNECESSARY trees in a forest.
Life seeks only expansion, or more life. Spirit is a forming substance.
Water evaporates, condenses, forms a droplet, falls from the cloud only to return to the ocean (source) to where it once lived, only to one day do it all again. While doing so imagine all the diverse and joyful EXPERIENCES the ocean feels just by BEING "THAT" droplet.
Isn't life Grand!


anny June 24, 2017 at 10:12 am

Thanks Robert and Wayne for your beautiful additions in your reply to Kim. I love what you both write. There is so much to explore and to share!


Robert June 25, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Wayne, thanks, I am always grateful for being reminded of the joy of being. It is very easy to get out of balance, trying to figure everything out, without even knowing it.


Joshua Tilghman June 25, 2017 at 10:34 pm


A lot of wisdom in that comment.


anny June 24, 2017 at 9:42 am

Hi Kim,

Thanks for your interesting question. I do not see it so much as a question of God needing to learn lesson but as God, the Highest Consciousness, wanting to experience Itself in all possible ways, shapes or forms. And experience is only possible by being exposed to opposites. In the beginning the Source of All that Is may be seen as Consciousness without any differentiation. And as such without the possibility of being aware of anything at all. That is the image I receive when I meditate on this.

My own experience, that I already shared once on this blog, has been that I was born with the knowledge that God is Love and I just took it for granted that other people saw and experienced it the same way. If I heard words in church that pointed to something else, I must have filtered them out because it only dawned on me that other Christians believed in a Jealous God who threatened us with hell and damnation and stuff like that, I was utterly astonished and wondering where they got that from. I was already in my teens at that time and only then I discovered texts in the Bible that might have given rise to that, and doctrines that pointed that way. After a short time of doubts however, I did not let it influence me any longer and was more than ever convinced of the Love of God but this time with conscious awareness of it, so to speak, and that made that Love so much deeper. Before I had just taken it for granted and was not even aware of it all of the time.

And as it was with this, it is with everything. It is a journey of discovery in a world of contrast.

For us but maybe for God also, who experiences everything through us. Us being everything from quanta and atoms through all beings in both material and immaterial worlds and planets, stars and galaxies. Everything has a degree of consciousness.

I hope that answers your question.


Joshua Tilghman June 24, 2017 at 12:20 pm


I see it another way. God isn’t “wanting” this experience. I believe it has to happen. Consciousness naturally interacts with itself. It’s an inherent part of what consciousness is, if that makes sense.


anny June 25, 2017 at 3:02 am

I know we have different views on this Josh but in fact we can do no more than guessing and choose that what appeals to us most in this respect. There are things that we cannot even express in human words because they are completely above our comprehension. That is why we all should keep to what appeals to us most but with the understanding that none of us can grasp the Absolute Truth yet.

You expressed your view differently in our last exchange, if I remember correctly. Then I think the word automatic was mentioned which did not appeal to me at all. Somehow for me it did not fit in with the concept that God is Love which stands above everything for me.

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by consciousness naturally interacting with itself. Even if that is so nowadays, does that necessarily mean that it was so ‘in the beginning’ before this whole process started? If we can even speak in those terms.

Now that I am reflecting about this a little, it suddenly comes to me that ‘Consciousness interacting with itself’ can also be seen as just another term for this whole involution – evolution cylcle. It is gaining conscious awareness by doing so and as such is a more evolved, aware consciousness after the conclusion of the cycle. I do not see an answer to the ‘why’ question in it though. But you obviously do.


Joshua Tilghman June 25, 2017 at 11:22 am

Sure Anny…

If I’m hearing you correctly, you are having a hard time seeing how my concept of consciousness fits in with the idea of love. That’s understandable, so I will try to clarify.

I see love as the great unifying attractive force that brings us all together as ONE. Jesus expressed this when he said we are to be ONE in him as he is one with God. But this is also an inherent component in primary consciousness, as it interacts with itself.

You mention was it like this in the beginning. We often think in terms of the beginning and end, and this makes sense, because time (or what we experience as motion and change) is part of the automatic process consciousness experiences when in duality, through individuality, and the soul. Spirit and physicality are really one in the same since primary consciousness cannot manifest except through a vehicle or body. So it interacts with itself and experience happens. Souls exist this way. And yes, I believe it is an automatic process. The higher self can plan and guide, but the primary engine for what we term creation is an automatic process which HAS to happen, because primary consciousness itself, inherently evolves. And thus the soul goes through the process of involution and evolution as an automatic process.

You’re right, this is hard to explain in human terms and language. But I hope that clarifies my belief a little.


anny June 25, 2017 at 11:57 am

Hi Josh,

Thanks for your reply. Your explanation of the automatic aspect of the process does not really convince me but I agree that it is (almost?) impossible to put this whole process into words. I already hinted at that when I used the term:”‘If we can even speak in those terms.” I do agree that this process has to happen in order to gain conscious awareness so maybe my aversion to this word automatic is illogical.

I do believe that in Reality there is no time or space and not even matter. Everything happens simultaneously. The terms time, space, matter, karma, reincarnation are all part of the dream world of illusion in which we are allowed and encouraged to create our own world. We use the terms we use in order to get clarity for ourselves but whatever we say can never be Real because we are all still living in this world of illusion and not even capable of grasping the Absolute Truth yet.

However, in the meantime everyone is free to create his or her own ideas about what it is all about as long as we do not take them for the absolute truth, so let us just leave it at that and accept each other’s views for what they are, our views.

Joshua Tilghman June 29, 2017 at 10:27 pm

Robert, had to reply to your comments here because there’s no threads left.

Anyway, to answer your assertion that he assumes consciousness is curved, and causes an imbalance. You offer two alternatives. I am going to give you one hard fact that, at least to me, proves his argument:


Think on it. Hard to refute, correct?


Robert June 30, 2017 at 1:01 pm


A primary assumption of classical theology is that God is unfathomable, incomprehensible. This is expressed repeatedly in scripture and may be considered a part of our collective wisdom through the ages. God can create something out of nothing and we simply cannot understand it no matter how much we try. This is very humbling to understand that we are like ants trying to understand rain, thinking “duh, it is wet”. Humans as products of evolution have mental skills much more developed than ants, but they are limited. A theory of everything eludes the brightest scientists.

The author of Grand UniVerse assumes that God does not exist and then selects those intuitive hunches of his out of a variety of equally probable ones in order to support his thesis explaining how something can come out of nothing if consciousness is the key to everything, and uses some unusual aspects of geometry to support it.

Pi has some remarkable properties in being an irrational number and popping up again and again in mathematics. It describes a property of a perfect circle. A circle is a closed and perfectly symmetrical curve. Not all curves are closed. Pi is used to estimate the behavior of curves, opened or closed.

As remarkable as Pi may be, it does not explain love or inspire us to love. It is just the property of a perfect circle. This author is claiming that the incomprehensible is comprehensible… through biased selections of human intuition and geometry. What is boils down to is simply a more elaborate version of what the ant thought “duh, it is wet”.

That is a counterargument I came up with in support of classical theology’s premise that God is unfathomable. Sometimes it does not matter what side I take. Sometimes the only thing that makes any sense is love.

anny July 1, 2017 at 2:07 am


I must admit that by now I have not the faintest idea what you two are agreeing or disagreeing on. You know my attitude about mathematics. This kind of thing is what made me turn my back on it. Or so I thought ..

The only thing I do fully agree with is your final sentence: “Sometimes the only thing that makes any sense is love.” Shall we keep it at that?

Robert June 25, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Josh, I think people’s understanding of consciousness depends on their conditioning, including which books they read. So what may seem obvious to you may be difficult to accept by others. You might want to recommend a book or youtube that explains why it is natural for consciousness to interact with itself, maybe the source that convinced you of this or confirmed it for you. I spent a few hours trying to look this up on the internet again and what I have found merely repeats what you have stated as a first principle of consciousness without explaining why it is so. So I am thinking maybe I haven’t found the right source that explained this to the people who are repeating it. Also, I went back to what some neuroscientists and psychologists in the forefront of studying consciousness have to say on the internet (TED talks), and they do say that interacting with others and our environment adds to our personal knowledge and understanding of ourselves.


Joshua Tilghman June 25, 2017 at 10:33 pm


Sounds good. Here’s a link that explains the process. But you might have to read through all the chapters a few times. Most people have a hard time wading through it, but that’s because they stop after the first few chapters. It has to be read in its entirety in order to get the overall picture, then reread again. It even explains why meditation connects us higher consciousness, and why meditation is an absolute must.

If consciousness were not automatic, where did God from? What we term God has always been, correct? God was not created. Neither was consciousness. I also believe Anny is right when she states all is illusion. Doesn’t make matter any less real, it’s just not what we think it is. As someone who has studied the subject, you already know at the smallest unit of measurement man can possibly do there’s really no substance we can actually call matter. Quarks, gravitons, leptons, whatever…all the way down to what we term virtual particles are just vortexes of energy, that have spin, and can’t truly be measured. We really can’t even explain what’s spinning, and spinning isn’t even an accurate term. The vacuum, or the true void, is full of abundant energy. consciousness allows us to experience in the macro world all this as solid substance, as time, etc. I know I’m rambling but just got back from a late fishing trip so I’m tired and still have to eat, but I would love to discuss that link with you if you get the chance to really wade into it.

What would be awesome is if I could contact that guy and get him to write a blog post for everyone’s discussion here. Now that would be cool. I’ll work on that 🙂 And here’s the link below:


anny June 26, 2017 at 9:26 am

Hi Josh,

This sounds all very interesting but I’m afraid it will be too technical for me to understand.

When you write: “…Does not make matter any less real” then you are right of course but only within the context of this illusional world. You even confirm that yourself when you explain that all the way down the scale everything proves to be just energy. The world we see, hear, feel, taste and smell is explained as a hologram which our senses in a beautiful cooperation seem to form in our brain. You might compare it to an advanced computer game and I think is meant for our enjoyment as well. Maybe illusion does not always have to be viewed as negative. In the state of conscious awareness we have reached right now it is up to us to make it into a beautiful experience.

Robert June 26, 2017 at 4:40 pm

Josh. Got through the intros and first half of 1st chapter so far. This is going to be a long haul even for left-brainers. I think if he did write a blog post for SOS he would have to focus on just a thin slice of his work and include a lot of bridges for right-brainers. But it would be cool. It would be a challenge for him because everything he says is dependent on everything else he says. I am using his blog also to read 30 minutes a day to sharpen my analytical focus.

Robert June 26, 2017 at 8:30 pm

OK, I reread some of the material I read through once. So far I am getting the same impression as when I examined this some time ago. The author is selecting choices to illustrate that the universe (and consciousness) is curved and self-contained in order to support his conclusion that it has nowhere else to go to satisfy a potential (he assumes it has to have) to act, except by interacting endlessly with itself, But he ignores the other equally possible choices which would disprove his conclusion.

For instance, he tell us that we can only perceive reality for a limited distance or time and then we can’t perceive what comes next or further, similar to the analogy of the earth being curved and self contained so our horizon is limited unless we travel toward the horizon and then more is revealed that was not observable to us previously because the earth’s curvature hid it. The other equally possible choice that he ignores is that our perception is limited beyond a certain range, so even on a flat uncontained surface, there would be a horizon beyond which we could not perceive what it beyond it unless we move toward the horizon.

He also assumes that there is no God in the classical sense of being infinite and external to us, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. He also skips the second choice that God can have those external attributes and we can still participate in that in some way, so that he is external and to some extend internalizes some of that in us. His choice is that there is no God like either of those two options, there is only the third choice – there is no God, only consciousness. And this consciousness is self-contained. And it created the illusion of a material world which is always undergoing change, as a means by which the self-contained consciousness divides into a trillion independent mini conscious entities in order to endlessly explore itself. It has to explore itself because according to the definition of consciousness as being self-aware, it cannot be aware of everything it is and everything it can be without these self-contained interactions with separated parts of itself.

What I think is that these three choices I mentioned are possibly three mythologies explaining existence. If Kim is using the first or second mythology as a reference point, then the third mythology will never be compatible. (Maybe my use of the word “mythology” is too biased, and a more neutral term like “belief system” or “metaphor” would be more appropriate). The author is using the illustrations he wants to persuade the reader that his belief system is the only true one. Perhaps he had some moments of intuitive incite that blew his mind, as many of us have had, and felt comfortable in trying to explain the unfathomable using mathematical perplexities that he is familiar with that are also a little mind blowing. When this happens to us, we are like ants trying to understand the science of raindrops, “Uh, its wet and slippery”. So we all need to respect each others choice of explanations.

anny June 27, 2017 at 1:28 am

Robert, this is a comment on your two comments on the link that Joshua shared. I hope it ends up in the right place.

I appreciate that you take the trouble to read this material and to translate it for us into something that is easier to comprehend. If even you find it difficult to grasp, then someone like me does not have a chance! Your explanation I can more or less follow. It seems to me that what you describe are more viewpoints or theories of this man than facts that have been or can be proven. Is that correct? Of course your views on it are also your views. But it is very interesting anyway.

When you mention the three options of how to view the existence of God, did he discuss all three options or only the last one: there is no God but only consciousness? In my view Consciousness could be a definition of God, just like Love and many others. Of course we can never limit the concept of God to only one definition. What do you mean in this respect with self-contained? That is not completely clear to me.

Robert June 27, 2017 at 8:17 am


My impression is that he makes logical arguments from incorrect assumptions. He makes an analogy that just as the earth is curved and self-contained, that the universe is curved and self contained, and therefore consciousness is curved and self-contained. However he ignores the fact that there are 3 types of curvature and only one type results in self-containment. It is true that the space-time continuum of our universe has localized curvature in the vicinity of objects with massive gravity like stars and blackholes. But it is localized. Measurements taken of all the part of the known universe that we are able to observe indicate that the known universe is 99.9% flat and uniform. We do not know if that 0,1% curvature is the self-containing kind.

He believes there is one unifying consciousness that created the illusion of a material world. He claims there cannot be a second consciousness separate from the one unifying consciousness because if there were a separate consciousness then is must be a part of a combined unitary consciousness. He uses some logic to make this point, but to me it seems as if he is just combining logical sounding statements to appear as if he has “deduced” some irrefutable truth, when in fact he has simply assembled them together to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach.

He does not consider the possible legitimacy of the first two options of how to view the existence of God. He does not differentiate between the first and second, He makes a one sentence defamatory statement about how the classical conceptions of God are unsuitable, and moves on from there to claim God does not exist and that existence is all about consciousness.

I do not know if he makes a connection later on down the line between consciousness and love. I would think that in his model of existence, we learn what love is, partly by experiencing what love is not and by being loved and by being not loved. I agree somewhat with this, but the self-contained superconsciousness theory seems to me to be one of many stories which tries to explain existence.

anny June 27, 2017 at 9:45 am


Thanks for your explanation although I must admit I still do not grasp all these concepts completely. I am a total right-brainer as you know and I do not have too much use for proofs either. I depend largely on my intuition.

You did not yet explain the concept self-contained yet. Does this mean something that does not need an outside source in order to develop and sustain itself?

I have heard about curvature in the vicinity of massive objects within the universe, and seen graphs of it, but I have not the faintest notion what the meaning and importance of something like that is. So there is curvature, I can understand the mechanics of that but as far as I am concerned, so what? And what has that got to do with self-containment, if anything? What is the meaning of all this?

You write: “He believes there is one unifying consciousness that created the illusion of a material world. …”. Well, as a matter of fact, so do I. Only I call this Consciousness God. I do not see why he has such an aversion against that term unless he can only equate it with an image of an anthropomorphic being that thrones high above everything else. I do not exactly understand what you mean by a second consciousness that is separate from the first. I do not believe in that either because I believe that All (consciousness) is One in Reality. We are all part of it and in reality not separate from each other either. I do believe that within this Oneness there is now differentiation of vibrational frequencies and levels of consciousness as well as a trillion different foci of attention, two of which are you and I. Just like cells in a body really, that all have their different functions but that do cooperate with each other if all goes well.

Whether this man has reached an irrefutable truth or not, I think it is not wise to claim to have done so because even the irrefutable truths of Newton turned out not to be the ultimate truth after all centuries later. But theories can of course be very interesting in themselves and are well worth exploring.

For scientists to state that the classical conceptions of God are unsuitable is one thing but to claim that this means that God does not exist is another. The question that never seems to be asked in this respect is: Who or What is the God that these scientists do not believe in? And often the answer that I heard to the question of why they did not believe in God showed that they had a pretty primitive image of God.

Robert June 27, 2017 at 12:18 pm


Going back to the beginning of all this, I was as curious as Kim to know the answer to her question. Josh’s comment about consciousness interacting with itself was confusing to me. He referred me to the article on primordiality when I suggested I might understand this better if I read the material that convinced him of this. I started to read it. It is 14 chapters long and very technical so I read the preface, introduction, and first chapter. I remembered a few years ago when Josh referred me to this article and it just did not rub me the right way. The same thing happened this time. Josh did say I should read the whole thing at least twice to understand it, and I did not. Maybe Josh is right. But I quit. I realized I am not in the same vibration as the article.

I do have a better picture now of what Josh meant by consciousness having to interact in order to know itself. So if you consider everything to be made of consciousness that is unified, then consciousness would have to interact with itself or the manifestations of itself. There is nothing left to interact with. That is a beautiful story and very useful to enrich our spirituality and love for one another, since it reminds us of how connected we are. So I am putting it on my shelf of beautiful stories I have collected that try to explain who we are and why we are here. They all contribute something.

Something else I am wondering about is whether our perceptions of everything are defined and limited by the physiology of the brain. Here is a link to a 20 minute youtube TED talk by a neuroscientist describing her first hand experience when a blood clot in the left side of her brain left her with only the right side functioning. She felt so unlocalized she could not conceive of how she could fit in her body and she could not distinguish between herself and her surroundings.

This suggests that our perception of oneness comes from the right brain, and so now I have a question about oneness … when we perceive oneness are we perceiving something that is real or are we perceiving it because it is part of the way our brain physiology is wired? The neuroscientist did not care one way or the other, and she believed the world would be a better place if we were all more right-brained.

anny June 27, 2017 at 11:52 pm

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your explanation. I do not think I would be able to understand this article completely but I do think I understand why you do not like it. As far as I can judge this is a model of how things work but not necessarily the only one. And you probably think and feel in terms of another model.

I do believe that our perceptions of everything are indeed limited in this phase of our cycle, if not by the physiology of our brain then by the vibratory frequency level of the dream world we still live in. The word dimensions is also used. I know that our senses are limited to a narrow bandwidth of frequencies as to the things we can perceive. I cannot understand the people who believe that only what we perceive with our senses exists, as there are many things that certain animals can see, hear or smell that are beyond our reach. There must be a lot that we cannot perceive beyond either end of this bandwidth that exists and functions nevertheless. Even our instruments still have limits, I guess.

This Ted talk is very interesting and moving. I had not heard it before but I did read an article about this woman, I believe. That was already a long time ago. Looking at that brain was also something else. I had never seen before that it is so clearly and literally divided into two halves. Duality again. I never had a stroke but I do recognize some things of what she told about how she felt about the left half after her stroke. I think mine never functioned fully, at least as far as body management is concerned. I have had problems with that all my life.

The concept of oneness, I think, I have somehow always known, even if subconsciously. That is why I was immediately enthusiastic when I became consciously aware of it. I cannot explain it but I do not feel the need to do so. Yes, according to me oneness is one of the things that is Real but I agree that while we live in this world we probably do need the physiology of our right brain to become aware of it.

Thanks for this interesting exchange.

Joshua Tilghman June 30, 2017 at 7:56 pm


First off I greatly respect your analytical mind. It is far more able to hold multiple concepts and sort through them at one time than mine. That has been proven through our personal e-mail correspondence. One of my strong points is chess, which I would very intimidated to play with you, because you could think many moves ahead of me, which is the foundation of winning at the game. Usually I win by the war of attrition, which comes as a shock to my opponents, because my strength is the unpredictable moves. I clock their usual behavior, and then go with something that they wouldn’t expect, even at the cost of losing a valuable piece that wouldn’t make sense to the analytical mind and they become concerned. I do this because I realize I have a deficiency compared to some when it comes to long-term, planned out moves. It has worked for me against some very good opponents, even when I only have a few good pieces left because I am good with only three good pieces. I only mention this here because I want you to think outside the box of regular analytical thought for a moment. You’re telling me about love, but is it possible that you have a biased concept of it based off emotion and your experience? Kind of what I felt with Anny’s comment. Define love for me. What does it mean to you? Because in the normal realm of human interaction it is very limited to our understanding. Why can’t love be included in an automatic and self dynamic response to consciousness interacting with itself, as an inherit property? Why is this so foreign, unless that person has a biased perspective about love?

Who cares that God is love in classical theologies idea of an omnipotent being? What if love is a natural and self dynamic outcome? What if love is a natural inherit law in the spiritual world like gravity is in the natural world?

Again, think. Pi cannot be explained by the most advance super-computers we have to date. The number cannot be calculated because in reality it is infinite based off curvature. Consciousness itself, possibly? I admit “possibly” because I am not saying I am right. I would never be so egotistical. Nor the guy that wrote the book in the link I sent to you. But do we have any definitive arguments that compare? No, we do not.

To me, the fact that potential (consciousness itself) is the only option, because if you have nothing then the only other possibility is something, and that in and of itself has to manifest. Mathematically, nonethingness is actually somethingness by default. How could we conceive of nothingness? We can’t, because it doesn’t exist. The true void scientifically doesn’t exist. It CANNOT. There’s no such thing by very function. Existence is paramount, no matter whether its spirit or physical. Because of potential and imbalance. Chaos theory and order exist simulataneously because there is no other possibility.


anny July 1, 2017 at 3:21 am


You seem to think that Robert and I have a biased idea of what love is. That surprises me because the subject has come up quite a few times in the previous years in which more than one person have given their best to describe what love is, especially around the issue of Mike Doss’s painful comment to me on this issue. I remember both Fran and Justin giving moving examples of that and they were not the only ones.

Love is not a feeling or an emotion. Love is a Force among other things and Energy of a very high frequency. I have experienced that energy in a Near Death Experience when I was a child of thirteen and there are just no words to describe it. There is no way we could experience that kind of Love and physically survive it. So do not make it look like some wishy washy feeling on the part of sentimental people!

I have heard it described as the Source field is Love and that might very well be true. It equals God is Love and Consciousness is Love.

This does not mean that I know everything about Love. I am on a journey of discovery here and find new aspects all the time. Real love includes letting go of people, even if it breaks your heart, instead of clinging to them because you ‘love’ them so much. Real love means letting go of judgement, of anyone and anything at all, even though it hurts like hell. Love may also be a very difficult process and it comes from the heart, not from the mind. The mind should serve the heart and not the other way around.

You describe things from a scientific view and you know that I cannot follow there. But science is a tool and the results that it brings have up to now been changing constantly, not only by adding new knowledge but also by sometimes having to start over from scratch as it were, for instance with quantum physics. I believe that we will only find the Ultimate Truth, when science and spirituality come to the same conclusions, each coming from their own independent search, each using their own terms for what basically is the same. And then we will also know what Love is as that is a unifying Force as well.

Joshua Tilghman July 1, 2017 at 9:53 am

Anny and Robert,

I think we at least had a great discussion here. Defining love is hard, for sure. In relationships we can say it is a choice. We choose to love or to not love. Then we can break down many different kinds of love. Sacrifice, intimacy, etc. As Anny has stated below, I find love as simply the great unifying attractive force. Which is also the concept we call God. It births universes and allows for relationships.

Robert, you are also right when you say there are possibilities that the writer of the article doesn’t address, or side skips, with some assumptions. I guess for me it makes sense, but I in no way claim it is the only way to think about the subject.

I’ve gotten to that place where I no longer feel the need to question the how and why we are here. That book helped quite a bit with this. It spoke to me on many levels. As I read it, I felt like I knew it intuitively, although I couldn’t explain it technically like he did. But I guess that intuitive sense kind of kicked in and I felt like it was just correct – especially when I got around to about chapter 8, even on the first read. But I respect the fact that it won’t do it for everyone.

It’s also hard for me to accept that there can be a creator that is truly outside of it’s creation. That doesn’t make sense for me. Intuitively, I feel that the creator would have to be a part of the creation. The reason for it, yes, but still part of it. Some “thing” can stem from no “thing” because there is no such possibility as nothing. Nothing is just an imaginary concept for me.

All that being said, I enjoyed the discussion. And that’s part of the reason this site is here. As I stated, I will try to get the author to at least provide a comment here.

anny July 1, 2017 at 10:59 am

Hi Josh,

I agree that it is impossible to define Love with any one term.

One thing I did not mention in my comments yesterday and that is that there is a hidden biblical explanation of the connection between Love and Oneness, Unity as well.

It is the number thirteen, which is the numerical value of both the Hebrew words for love: ‘ahava’, 1-5-6-5, and One (oneness/unity:, ‘echad’, 1-8-4. Love IS Oneness, Unity.
This number thirteen plays also an important part in at least one of the Mayan calendars, where the final and 13th phase of development stands for the phase of Transformation.
In connection with this, could we maybe ask the question who declared the number thirteen to be the number that brings bad luck? And why? Could this be meant to keep us from explore these concepts of the number thirteen?

I agree with you about the question whether or not there can be a creator that exists outside of his creation. Within the framework of the Oneness of All that is impossible in my view. That means it is also impossible for anything to be outside this Oneness of Love. The only thing that IS possible is during the lower part of the cycle to IMAGINE that we are outside it and that we are separate from God. A result of this imaginary separation from God, and from all that is, is of course also a greatly diminished love, even hatred at the lowest part of the cycle. But once we have become aware of this, and realize the implications, we can decide to return to Love with a capital L again with an increased conscious awareness.

Indeed this has been a great discussion over all.

Robert July 2, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Josh, I would be the first to agree that intuition is essential to growing spiritually, and very valuable to succeed in many aspects of life. I learned to suppress my intuition as a child which resulted in a highly developed analytical mind, like a blind person who develops an extraordinary sense of hearing. It seems like my destiny as an adult is to bring back a balance of intuition. I have come a long way. At present my intuitive insight has lead me to acknowledge that thought constructs when combined to form theologies are all very shaky and a million miles away from the most essential things, love being the most. When all else fails, love never fails.
Apostle Paul’s discourse on love in Corinthians is very enlightening. At times when it appears that I have lost my way, when nothing seems to make sense, love always makes sense. When I humbly cast all my rusting logical and theological crowns at the feet of love, only then can I chart a course forward in what seems to be a game of life, but also real.

I can take sides and premis an argument “Classical Christianity assumes that
God creates the universe out of nothing”

Robert July 3, 2017 at 12:56 am

Josh, Or I can take other sides. Pi is no special thing to me because I am very familiar with it and other numbers like it, including infinity and imaginary numbers. The Grand UniVerse article smelled fishy to my intuition. My objections to it misusing logic are things I found later as I frustratingly tried to follow the flow and digest it. I considered it deceptive, pretending to use the logic and science of deduction, when in fact it was expressing his emotional attachment to man made images that are pure speculation, and if you found them attractive without really thinking them through, it could get you hooked. Meanwhile the difficulty in digesting the article was tiresome enough to forget to look for any real proof.

The idea of unitary consciousness exploring itself has some merit as a narrative, not as a proof. I can’t agree that it has to be true because there is just no other explanation that fits. Like every other narrative, we tend to make an emotional bond with something that is appealing, often when we are vulnerable, and remain convinced, no matter what, that there can’t be any other way. But in fact, if one severs the emotional bond, it is easier to see that there are dozens of other ways.

By the way, I don’t play chess much, and when I do I usually just wing it, and the other person wings it, and whoever gets more distracted gets caught off guard. If I wanted to be good at it, I’d get a book that describes the various kinds of master moves, and then I would practice them. You would win because my book would not prepare me for such an unpredictable opponent. I call this playing your “Trump” card for obvious reasons.

anny July 3, 2017 at 2:01 am

Robert, I like your two comments to Josh, especially the one with your approach to love and intuition. I think that you have indeed come a long way as it may be more difficult for a leftbrainer to grasp the importance of both. Indeed Love in its essential meaning is the most important thing there is and the 1 Corinthians 13 text has been my favourite Bible text for as long as I can remember.

I have more difficulties with the scientific side of things as you know, although I am slowly learning to appreciate it more and understanding some of it a little better. As you may remember we reached the conclusion that the ultimate truth would not be found until spirituality and science both independently will reach the same conclusions, each naming them by their own terms, a unity in diversity.

The way you phrase this: “The idea of unitary consciousness exploring itself has some merit as a narrative, not as a proof. I can’t agree that it has to be true because there is just no other explanation that fits.” does appeal to me. The fact that no other explanation has been found (if that is indeed the case) does not automatically mean that there is no other explanation. Only think of the scientific view of the world before and after Newton, or before and after quantum physics. However, it also does not automatically mean that this vision is wrong and you are right. I have no way to judge that so I won’t. It is what it is and the ‘time’ will come when all will become clear.

I fully agree with you that it is wise to sever the emotional bond in this respect but of course that also goes both ways.

I love your use of the ‘Trump’ card. You are great with language, you know that?

Raymond Phelan June 24, 2017 at 10:37 am

Hi Anny,

Thank you for this article, and for drawing this much needed attention to the subject of the ego. Straight away, can I say that the standard of ALL the comments here is just truly amazing. I only hope this comment lends further insight to the questions raised in your article and the comments.

So, what is this ego?

If I may answer through an analogy, then let’s see where we are. As mentioned in a previous comment to Christine: as children we had no ego, but that is not to say that the dynamics of such were not present – they were and still are. So, let’s compare the ego to a caterpillar: the caterpillar eats everything green in sight until it’s optimal portion is consumed. The caterpillar then spins a web or cocoon — a dynamic — and out of the consumed green soup eventually emerges the beautiful butterfly. In this miracles transformation, the caterpillar undergoes the intended metaphoric death, but the butterfly gets to know life — freedom from caterpillar/ego standard into a higher realm of consciousness.

like Christine, I would not be focusing on healing the emotions, rather on consciousness transformation which allows us bring capacity of mature or divine intelligence and awareness into dealing with emotional matters on a daily basis. The Tap root of emotions runs unendingly deep. And surfacing them, in order to deal with them, resolves nothing, in my view, it prolongs them. Thus, fighting darkness with darkness is not the way, rather, introduce Light, Consciousness: let there be Light: Genesis 1-3.

Another biblical example of ego treatment is. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth (ego) shall draw all men (spiritual manifestations) unto me (in consciousness)” John 12:32. In other words, there are as if two “I”s, lower I and higher I. The lower I is the all-consuming ego/caterpillar, which will eventually become the higher I when we’re each ready to become the Butterfly. And through this process of transformation, we’re reminded in yet other biblical quote: “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” — the end of the illusory ego, which then becomes the spiritual ego: caterpillar becoming Butterfly, or Christ-nature.

If I may comment briefly on Kim’s question: “If we are part of God, why would God need to learn lessons and gain spiritual growth to return to God’s state of oneness”?

This is a great question and is beyond the scope of this comment to fully clarify. The quick answer is: we’re each here on earth to get to know God as higher I awareness consciously — Psalm 40-10 puts it: “Be still (in mind) and know (in consciousness) that I (our eternally-existing consciousness) am God”. In other words, while we were each in heaven we did not know we were in heaven, which is now why purity of consciousness is required for re-unification. But, the answer to this most profound question is not really to be found in my or someone else’s answer, that’s why the Bible is explained through symbolism. It presents many paradigms by which the same outcome of gaining Unity consciousness may be achieved. But also, if I may suggest reading/questioning “The Prodigal Son” Luke 15:11-32 and reflect it’s esoteric meaning, then insights will begin emerging into consciousness that will serve as divine understanding — revelations of wisdom and Truth unto our own consciousness, thereby answering the above question through Butterfly or Higher I understanding.

Thus, in conclusion, “the fatted calf”, which is killed (integrated) for the home-coming prodigal son, is non other than the fatted caterpillar, or ego.

Hope this has been of some help,


anny June 25, 2017 at 4:14 am

Hi Raymond,

Thanks for your beautiful comment that adds so much yet again, also in answer to Kim’s question.

I want to explain however why I have been using the example of the emotions so much in my articles.

First of all the concept of ego and emotions is wider known than in the biblical concept but also because it is hidden in many biblical images. Many emotions, feelings, forces inside us are in the Bible symbolized by animals and already in the beginning of Genesis we are commanded to ‘rule over them’.

In the New Testament the emphasis is on fish and fishing. Fish are the emotions etc. which have to be caught and ‘eaten’, digested. Emotions are associated with water (tears) and water is the meaning of the Hebrew character Mem, which means ‘mayim’, water. This character is also the number 40, which we find in the Bible an awful lot. The people of Israel are in the desert for 40 years, many people are mentioned to be 40 years old or to have reigned 40 years, the Ascension took place 40 days after the Resurrection. Therefore it has become a symbol of ego and emotions.

Another example is the story in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus spent 40 days in the desert and where it is mentioned that ‘the wild animals were with him’. It is one of the temptation stories where he is tempted by the devil, before beginning his ministry after having been baptized in the Jordan. The number 40 is mentioned here, of ego and emotions, but also the wild animals symbolized the forces inside himself that he had to master before being able to begin this ministry.

Another reason for linking the ego to emotions is that this covers the complete cycle. It covers the descending part and the part of slavery as well as the ascending part and shows the different phases of the ego. Your and Christine’s focus is on the ascending part only in this case, on the method of how to ascend out of this illusional world.

I describe a process. You describe a method to end that process successfully.

However, I see Karma yoga in all its aspects, also described as ”The discipline of selfless action as a way to perfection” as a method to do that as well. As you may remember I heard about quite some examples of that during my youth just after World War II and they concerned people who had never even heard of meditation, or karma or yoga, but who went down that road nevertheless and changed into enlightened beings without any fear or hatred who were of great importance to the people around them in prisons and concentration camps. They made a deep impression on me.


Joshua Tilghman June 26, 2017 at 6:03 pm

@Anny and Robert…

Sorry I am replying here, but the threads only go so deep.

@Anny…you’re right, the world of illusion in necessary and should not be viewed as negative. It’s a wonderful aspect and how spirit / consciousness manifests.

@Robert…Glad you are reading it. I assure you it will open some doors. Just push through. Don’t give up, no matter how left-brained it gets. You’re right brain will connect and a huge light bulb will come on.


anny June 27, 2017 at 1:43 am

Hi Josh,

Thanks for rhis comment. You could have placed it in the right place by using the first reply button, immediately underneath your comment with the link itself. I tried it with my comment on Robert’s explanations and it did end up below them.


Joshua Tilghman June 30, 2017 at 10:10 am

Anny, here is has the proper reply button, but didn’t give me the option before. it’s my threaded plugin for wordpress 🙂


Robert June 24, 2017 at 6:21 pm

Back to Kim’s question, I have also been puzzled by the same thing. No matter how many explanation I have come across so far, I always have another question about the explanation. For instance, why does consciousness have to know itself through interaction? It is not clear to me why this is innate. Can’t consciousness just know itself period. Some people can grasp the necessity for interaction. But I just don’t get it. I think the Hindu have explanations for the cycles of descending and ascending that makes a lot of sense to them in combination with reincarnation and karma, but so far when I have tried to understand explanations of vedic theology translated into English I get buried in an avalanche of unfamiliar details. In the Westernized and simplified versions, I can easily follow how reincarnations through a destined path can cleanse the individual human consciousness so that it is more compatible with supreme consciousness. The bible suggests we like the example of the Christ have descended into corruption to ascend cleansed. It still don’t have a clear idea of why all this has to happen… unless God is cleansing or transforming himself through us. This is a new conception of God as not being static and supreme, who changest not. Instead is a fluid God who is evolving with us. It is a little mind boggling to me.


anny June 25, 2017 at 4:28 am

Robert, I understand your confusion. I believe that we will have to have a higher level of consciousness in order to understand all of it. In the meantime each of us should find his own way and trust in that. Just not take our own take on it for the absolute truth.

I like your conclusion: “..unless God is cleansing or transforming himself through us. This is a new conception of God as not being static and supreme, who changest not. Instead is a fluid God who is evolving with us.” I think you could put it like that. But it does not really answer the ‘why’ question. I guess I’ll stick with my answer for now and so should everyone else (with his or hers), I believe. Just for now.


Wayne June 25, 2017 at 3:30 pm

It is extremely interesting to read all the comments regarding this “EGO” crucifixion concept.
It demonstrates how many varied ways there are to not only suggestively kill it, but also unwittingly water it.
Many posts have a common theme of treating life as if it were a QUESTION needing to be answered. Many comments demonstrate the ego’s drive to be the “answer” to the “WHY” question.
Children relentlessly ask “why” questions important for the learning process to be satisfied. Our entire adult lives are a continuation of this childhood curiosity habit. Depending on WHO answers those “why” questions, also determines our lifelong judgements about all activities we observe throughout our lives whether of others or our own. Lifelong permission and criticism are early established beliefs from these answers to our “why” questions.

Treating life as a GIFT removes any need to ask “why” as we simply are satisfied that it is, and that we are the beneficiary of the gift.
At this point the more appropriate question may be WHAT rather than why. What am I to do with this gift. What was the giver of the gifts intention? What am I to learn? What can I do to share this gift with others? What would be the best use of this gift to expand it’s effect?
What would Divine Mind desire this gift be used for, to who, when, and where?
I won’t attempt to answer “why” on behalf of another, as ONLY they could answer that.
Jesus was always going about his Father’s Business, but never seemed concerned as to why, as Divine faith requires that the why remains elusively out of sight, as trust requires a degree of blindness.

Great comments everyone, very enlightening to read. Thanks


anny June 26, 2017 at 1:00 am

Kim, you started a great discussion with your WHY question!

Wayne, I do not know if it is necessarily an ego thing to ask this question or to want to answer it. Or rather, the whole of this life-cycle is an ego thing as the ego seems to have been created as the ‘organ’ or ‘body’ to guide us through its different phases. Asking this and other questions is part of the game of life in this world of illusion and the need to have them answered might vary, depending on how far we have evolved on the cycle. And the ego itself changes with us all the way along the cycle.

We all brought different personalities to this life as well in order to explore a certain area of life more extensively and there is no judgement as it is all a game of discovery. For some it is the scientific area this time and they love to explore every detail. I am not that way during this life, although I do like to hear the conclusions. I only remember what resonates with me though. It does not necessarily bother me when I do not know the why of it, although I do like to take part in discussions like this once in a while when a question like that is asked. Looking for the essence of things seems to be my thing now but of course we only find this by also exploring pathways that do not lead anywhere sometimes. Also this involves questions and answers.

Wayne, your concluding remark and questions:

• “Treating life as a GIFT removes any need to ask “why” as we simply are satisfied that it is, and that we are the beneficiary of the gift.
At this point the more appropriate question may be WHAT rather than why. What am I to do with this gift. What was the giver of the gifts intention? What am I to learn? What can I do to share this gift with others? What would be the best use of this gift to expand its effect?
What would Divine Mind desire this gift be used for, to who, when, and where?”

is very true, but I see it as a point on this cycle where you have already progressed past the phase of questioning. Every phase before that point, including the phase of asking and answering questions, has to be experienced fully before we can move on.

Well, that is my view on this anyway. My experience is that it does not work to move on when I only comprehend a certain phase with my mind but have not experienced it fully yet. It feels like wanting to drive a car when you have studied all the theory but have never sat behind the wheel of a car yet.

Thanks to everyone who has given a possible answer to Kim’s question so far. It has been a great discussion that gives us all a lot to think about.


Wayne June 26, 2017 at 3:04 am

Anny & Kim when I suggest NEED I am referring to a hole that must be filled. Some holes or lack are purposely and Divinely designed to go without filling. I can’t MOVE ON productively with my life UNTIL my need is fulfilled or I know, is what I am suggesting.
The “ego” INSISTS that answers come when questions are asked. Divine spirit asks these same questions and simply knows and trusts in a Divine process that the teacher will appear when the student is ready, not just because the question was asked.
We may therefor >ALLDivine Process<, for knowledge without wisdom is just information. You simply can't force or hurry spirit I have been inconveniently taught via painful emotions. You may by Divine privilege choose your questions, but you have no such privilege as to how, when, or by who they may be shown you.
I'm suggesting there are two languages that we can ask questions and receive answers.
One answer comes by way of man's knowledge which Edges God Out, while the other comes by way of Spirit which is Divine mind/wisdom. To get a spiritual (wisdom) answer we must speak the same language as the One we are asking.
I may WONDER "why" but I only ask "what" and I often find out the "why" even many years later.
It occurred to me (as probably many others also) the declaration of "I AM THAT I AM" would be equally meaningful as I am WHAT I am. The entire meaning can be changed/explained simply by replacing the T with a W just as it can depending on where you place the comma, after AM or after THAT in I am that I am.
"I AM" which is "God's" self proclaimed name is why so many interpret we are all fractioned entities of "God".
No matter what, the "EGO" may be used how and for how long, it serves to bring us back to our Source. I don't view the ego as bad or good, as it just is. Anything can become a vice if we give it control over us long enough. The ego must be brought into subjugation at some point, for it drowns out the voice of wisdom for it knows and protects only self, as it thinks and shouts me, my, and I continuously. For a time it serves a very important preservation purpose but it knows nothing of faith.
An extreme unruly unchecked ego is narcissism.
We are all ONE and connected invisibly which the ego blind-fully and insistently denies.

"No tree has branches so foolish as to fight amongst themselves" (Native American Proverb)
Thanks again for all the inspiring questions and comments and allowing me to participate.


anny June 26, 2017 at 4:08 am

Hi Wayne,

Another intriguing and interesting comment. Are you living outside of the USA by any chance, seeing that you are responding at this time of the day, at least here in the Netherlands where I live?

To start with the proverb you quote at the end: “No tree has branches so foolish as to fight amongst themselves” (Native American Proverb), I am afraid that if this is true we have a lot of very foolish trees in this world after all. Let us just take care not to become a branch of one of them!

I like your explanation of the Divine Process and from my view this cycle as I described it in my articles IS this divine process. However, within that symbol it also contains a descending part in which man is not ready yet to acknowledge what you share and insists on going his own way, only at the bottom of the cycle he realizes he has become a slave of his emotions (to stay within the framework of this image), and calls to God for help. Only then he will become ready to listen to Divine guidance after a while.

It has become clear to me that there are many ways to view the ego and everyone should be aware of that. Otherwise we, as discussion partners, might each be talking about a totally different thing. When we are aware of that we can adjust our interpretation of what the other person means to say.

You share an interesting explanation about the different meanings of ” I am that I am” and “I am what I am”. However, this explanation is only valid for this translation as in the Bible it is written in Hebrew: Eheyeh asher Eheyeh, which could mean both. Literally in modern Hebrew you could translate it as: I shall be what I shall be.

As I see All that Is literally as a manifestation of God, this means that everything, no matter how large or how small, in whatever frequency, is a manifestation of God and as such indeed a part of God. As such this Name is a declaration of all that is and all that has been and all that shall become. The utmost diversity within the Oneness and timelessness of All.

Thank you too for your inspiring contribution to this discussion.


Wayne June 26, 2017 at 9:31 pm

Anny, “God” has probably handed out more rope than is humanly comprehensible. We are each seemingly given just enough to hang ourselves or tie ourselves up in knots, and when we are at the end of our rope and exhausted, then Divine Mind may be heard.
Blaise Pascal summed it up brilliantly. “ALL OF HUMANITY’S PROBLEMS STEM FROM MAN’S INABILITY TO SIT QUIETLY IN A ROOM ALONE”. We are chronically deaf therefor in epidemic numbers it would seem.
I might add that evil is to live backwards. We often view ourselves, others and our world opposite or backwards to Divine Mind’s wise intention and design. We remember the things best forgotten and forget what is best remembered. We interpret scripture literally which was meant only as a metaphor and that which is instructive and personal in a literal sense, we take casually impersonal as irrelevant to us. Add multiple translations to the mix and scripture is just as likely to be used by those who live backwards for their agenda, as it may be by those living forward in Christ. I won’t be popular for voicing that but I’m past the need for peoples approval ratings of me.

If “God” is infinite and omnipotent then whatever “God” be, must be the box, inside the box, and whatever be outside the box, but who made the box also. There is no place void of “God”. This however seems only applicable if “God” be a noun or a something. I subscribe to the belief that “God” is a verb first and foremost given expression as a noun which may explain life as infinite fractions of “God”. Love and apathy are given a face by virtue of separation of time and space. They become able to express only in “real time”.

Marcus Aurelius best exemplified how to subjugate the ego by remembering who he was in the moment, and who he was not. His servant as you know, whispered a reminder in his ear that he was only a man by “Remember Yourself Mortal”.
He could have been anyone or anything, noun or verb, yet chose to be simply a mortal man. He may have consciously mastered his ego but at what price?
Jesus said “Who Do Men Say I Am” yet always and most important was He knew who He was in every moment.
The I AM internal conversation we have with ourselves is of the utmost importance in every moment for we have the ability to take ourselves literally or as a metaphor of creation. Are we living our life or observing it BE lived? Am I he or am I simply observing he? Is time but ONE endless round having no beginning and therefor no end? Are we living the experience of past and future at this present moment? Is this how scripture has foretold of things to come seemingly thousands of years in advance with stunning accuracy? All God’s words must be fulfilled or come to pass (again and again and again?)
I AM THAT, the past and the future in this PRESENT moment.
No wonder life is a GIFT to be unfolded and revealed continuously all life long.

Yin and Yang, Alpha and Omega, Time and Space all seem perfect descriptive attempts at defining this “GOD” in formulated letters called words that we can talk about and discuss, however LOVE is the means by which this “God” remains humbly anonymous. We can describe love by words but only by feeling love, can we say we know it personally. There is a hole (that I spoke of previously) which only “Love” can fill which no substitute has ever satisfied nor by Divine design ever will.
If this hole is filled with love, we feel Whole.
Love satisfies the W-ho, W-hat, W-here, W-hen & W-hy for all these words could properly and accurately describe what we call “God” or I AM >”THAT”<

Enjoy conversing with you Anny and very much appreciate your inspiring thoughts. Thanks for sharing them.
P.S. I'm Canadian.


anny June 27, 2017 at 4:27 am

Hi Wayne,

Again a comment full of material to think about. Very interesting even though generally we seem to go off topic a little. I love it however when much wider fields come into our view and the discussions seem to get a life of their own. It all has to do with consciousness after all.

I already knew the concept of evil being live backwards. I even used it in one of my articles I believe. In Hebrew we can find the same. Evil is ‘ra’ in Hebrew and backwards that gives the word ‘er’, which means awake. So you might also say that evil means being asleep. And that again fits in perfectly within the concept of this world of illusion which in Genesis is called ‘tardema’, which means deep sleep. God puts the androgynous Adam to sleep in order to create Eve, which means separating the female side from the male side (the Hebrew word for rib, ‘tsela’, means side as well) and in this way making man and woman independent from each other. Another step deeper into duality. Nowhere is it said that after this they woke up again. They did not and we are still asleep to a certain extent as we are still living in this dream world of the illusion.

I fully agree with you on the matter of translations. Although necessary of course translating means also interpreting and that interpreting has been used a lot in order to manipulate the texts in order to serve our own interests. I do not think though that you will be unpopular by voicing your opinion about this on this blog as most people who come to it are here because they have started to ask questions themselves.

Even when there is no intention of manipulation it is possible to translate texts in different ways, depending on the perspective from which you look at them. I found an example of this in the story about the birth of Samuel. It begins with the story of Elkana, who had two wives, Peninna and Hanna. Peninna had children but Hanna did not. Then the translations tell us that Hanna was very sad because Peninna teased her because of her childlessness. They call Peninna her tormentor. ‘Her tormentor’ – or any other term like that – is a translation of the Hebrew word ‘tsarata’, which however can be translated just as well as ‘her sorrow’, Hanna’s sorrow. Hanna was sad because she was childless. I have not found this other option in any translation though. Every translator had chosen to connect the word to Peninna (even though it is in a separate sentence, if I remember correctly) and in that way to accuse her of something that is not mentioned anywhere else in the story. Given the fact that all biblical names have a meaning and are a symbol of something this negative meaning is not very probable, considering that the name Peninna means pearl.

God can be described in so many ways and still all of them together fall short of the totality of it.
Deepak Chopra once described God as: Generation Organisation Dissolution/renewal. Which of course also is a cycle in three phases, a Trinity.
Rabbi David Cooper (also?) described God as a verb but not only God. Each of us is a verb as well as we have to fulfill our total potential in order to successfully conclude the cycle.

I also enjoy conversing with you and all others in this way. It will enrich us all.

Robert June 26, 2017 at 10:11 am

Anny, Wayne,

I think Psalm 23 poetically expresses total assurance to the developing ego through its quests and challenges. This “i” trusts in an “I” who is a shepherd who leads him and guides him in all of life’s up and downs. It hints that there is no “lack” (i shall not want), only the fear (shadow) of lack (the valley of the “shadow” of death). The i learns in those times that there is an I who is right there besides him and that i will be encompassed by the I forever.


Wayne June 26, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Robert I sincerely believe that this “God” (Father, Divine Mind, Imagination, Source, etc….) who we believe answers our prayers, does so each and every time with the same answer which is a resounding >>YES<< as we don't get what we desire, but what we BELIEVE.
"Fear" is simply inverted faith or a sincere belief in what we don't want. Either way our prays are answered even before we ask, according to our faith. If we have a belief in "lack" our prayers are answered according to our belief, not according to our desire to escape "lack".
As Job found out the hard way that "What I have feared has come upon me" is no unanswered prayer!
I personally always pray: MAKE ME AN INSTRUMENT OF THY PEACE, but I make sure I feel at peace asking it. I'm really just volunteering myself, not hoping that someday, someway, somehow "God" will give me something I'm presently lacking, for lack begats more lack, as like attracts like.
The feeling is the prayer, not the words, at least for me.

Appreciate your interesting comments and for stirring my intuition. Thank-you.


anny June 27, 2017 at 4:50 am

I totally agree with you on this, Wayne. We receive what we believe. And not believing in the sense of a belief system, I think. At least, that may be a system in which you are born and raised but which you do not necessarily accept in its totality.

You might also call it: we receive what we focus on.

I love this prayer of Make me an instrument of thy peace which is part of this beautiful prayer of St. Francis. This prayer is really about dissolving the power of the ego as it is usually interpreted. It is all about giving instead of receiving.

Indeed the feeling is the prayer, not just for you. It is the feeling that attracts whatever it is to you because of its frequency. Loving feelings attract totally different things than hateful or fearful ones.


Wayne June 28, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Anny, the Hawaiian attempt at COMMUNION as you may be aware is called Ho’oponopono which has brought a great degree of success and peace to my life.
Years ago I read another article that suggested one might also repeat the words mentally “I AM THAT” as one goes through your day interacting with nature and other people.
It is a reminder that we (everything) is all but one “stuff” although each being unique and gifted differently for the benefit of the collective all of creative evolution.
Noun (something) or verb (action) it matters not as the worst of us is capable of so much greatness, and the best of us is equally capable of disgustingly heinous actions and thoughts, especially when pushed to our breaking points and caught unrehearsed, unprepared and by surprise.
It’s hard to personally swallow the words “I AM THAT” when reading or watching a story about a thief, a cheat, a child molester, a rapist or a murderer. Its much easier when it’s an act of intelligence, heroism, kindness and selflessness.
I have found that nothing is more abrasive to the EGO than humility, as it gently grinds on the ego as if polishing a hard to convince diamond.

COMPARING is one of the Ego’s favorite recreational activities, so one may choose simply not to play, …………… or ………one may beat the ego into submission at it’s own game BY the I AM THAT comparing exercise, and exercise is what it feels like! It is impossibly difficult in the beginning but gets somewhat easier with practice, but never comfortable. Peace can only come by suspending all judgment and the human habit of dividing everything into piles of bad or good. Judgement is a very turbulent river to navigate. Judgement and anxiety go hand in hand.

Communion/reconciliation with the “Prince of Peace” may be best accomplished by calming the ego mind and enjoying the “Still Waters” Robert related in Psalms 23, and while doing so, repeating “I AM THAT”.

anny June 28, 2017 at 11:35 pm

Thanks for your beautiful comment, Wayne.

Yes, I do know about Ho’oponopono. Isn’t that healing/ forgiving in yourself what you see as ill or wrong in the other? I also like the I AM THAT principle that you practice. I do something similar with DO NOT JUDGE, immediately when I feel indignation about someone or something coming up.

Another form of both the I AM THAT and DO NOT JUDGE is a statement that I once read that all of us HAVE committed every imaginable and even unimaginable crime once ourselves during one or more of our many previous lives, so what right do we have to judge those who commit them now. If we do not do such things now anymore, that only means that we are in a different phase of the cycle. Remaining aware of that possibility helps a lot to refrain from judgement.

Unconditional love is another name to give to this whole process of course. Unconditional love heals everything.

anny June 27, 2017 at 4:32 am

Beautifully put, Robert.


Kim Hinojoza June 26, 2017 at 6:35 pm

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who provided such great insights to my query!


Wayne June 26, 2017 at 6:51 pm

A great question SHOULD confuse everyone and cause them to search, scratch and dig deep, not for an answer but the experience.
Thank-you Kim for the soul searching experience of new insights.


anny June 27, 2017 at 4:57 am

Thank you for the great question, Kim.


anny June 30, 2017 at 2:47 am

You have an interesting view about the principle of claiming ownership of an idea in relation to the sea of collective consciousness.

I understand what you mean and in principle agree with it but I can also understand the idea of a patent in daily life. At least, considering the fact that someone might have worked for years on developing an idea, or writing a book, and somebody else steals it from him or her and puts it into practice or publishes it and earns a lot of money without having done anything for its development, where the original inventor or writer possibly is left empty handed or even in debt because he or she has spent a lot of money to develop this idea or do research for this book. I think the idea of a patent or copyright has been developed to prevent this type of situation.

When it is about ideas that have been developed by different people all over the world in the same period of time, then we are dealing with this sea of collective consciousness and the fact that the time for this idea has come. In that case I agree with you totally because then only the one who gets his idea registered first receives the profits from it and all the others who have worked on it just as hard are left empty handed. Was not something like this the case with Edison, who seems to have been ahead of the others by a very slight margin, if at all?

I like what you write about this possessive pronoun, my this, my that … For myself I have solved this by calling it a relational pronoun instead. My children are not my possession but they are my children because I gave birth to them (or adopted them for other parents). They are not my possession because I cannot decide for them how they will live their life or where they will live it. Although that does not seem to have dawned on all parents yet, I am afraid. As it is one of ‘my’ children has decided to live his life on the other side of the world and to raise ‘his’ family there. As a result I have seen ‘my’ grandson, who is almost four years old now, only once. I have accepted his decision though and never tried to convince him that he should stay near us in the Netherlands. ‘My’ parents also had to accept my decision to move to Israel for a time and they did. This shows that we are not each other’s possession / owner but we do have a relationship that is described very well with these pronouns. Maybe we should develop the same relationship with our pets and ‘possessions’ as well.

As far as the unconditional love that God has for us, yes, we definitely should develop that love for others as well, even though we will not succeed immediately. It is funny though that I addressed some of these very same concepts as well in a few comments underneath my reply to Christine Hoeflich’s comment, higher up in this chain, which I wrote yesterday and today.

How did we become so conditional and thereby so un-Godly? It’s all part of the process of gaining conscious awareness, I believe, and we also should not judge that. It is our journey from God through the phase of an un-Godly state (sleep or illusion) back to God again.


Wayne June 30, 2017 at 9:55 am

“Patents” are ONLY NECESSARY in a world where men lack >>integrity<< as stealing another man's (so called idea) would cut the originator (so called) out of the loop completely and even monopolize it possibly keeping it from the hands and eyes best benefited from it.

As for what "Consciousness" REALLY IS one need look no further than the "100th monkey principle" to see OUR thoughts our not our own.

Our children belong to us in the same way we belong to mother earth.
They came through us that we might share and learn of ourselves. It is said that: "No man is your friend, and no man is your enemy, but every man is your teacher".
Pets and children teach us things unavailable anywhere else I surmise.

As for the defining purpose of life? Experience for the sake of wisdom, of simply gaining knowledge, for the experience itself, or possibly just happiness? Is it a journey, an adventure, or a promise fulfilled?
John 14:6 may explain what/why/who life really is?

Thanks again for your shared perspectives.


anny July 1, 2017 at 3:51 am

Hi Wayne,

“ “Patents” are ONLY NECESSARY in a world where men lack >>integrity<< as stealing another man's (so called idea) would cut the originator (so called) out of the loop completely and even monopolize it possibly keeping it from the hands and eyes best benefited from it.”

Yes, it is a thing of duality and as I am still living in duality I can therefore understand people’s need for things like patents. Of course once we will have left this world of duality there will be no need for any of this. However, while we are still living in it but also aware of the fact, I am also learning to apply the principle of non-judgement to it. Not to judge people, not to judge actions not to judge concepts. I does not mean that I there agree with everything but I try to learn to do and say everything from a viewpoint of non-judgement. Not that I always succeed.

Our thoughts are not our own, you write and of course that is true. We are all One after all although we came to this illusional world to forget that for a while. We succeeded beyond measure I believe.

“As for the defining purpose of life? Experience for the sake of wisdom, of simply gaining knowledge, for the experience itself, or possibly just happiness? Is it a journey, an adventure, or a promise fulfilled?”. All of the above, I should say, AND regained CONSCIOUS awareness.

I love this exchange of ideas.


anny July 2, 2017 at 2:15 am

Hello Josh,

I have been thinking once more about our discussion and disagreement about using the term automatic for this process of Consciousness interacting with itself, and especially love’s connection with it. You asked: “Why can’t love be included in an automatic and self-dynamic response to consciousness interacting with itself, as an inherit property?” In my answer to one of your earlier comments I already admitted that my aversion to the word automatic maybe is illogical because I do agree with you that the whole cycle of involution – stay in matter – evolution/ascension has to happen. Still, it kept bothering me and I did not know why. Last night it suddenly hit me what is the reason for it.

About the whole process as such I agree with you but I would call the responses ‘built-in’ instead of automatic. And ‘built-in’ in a range of choices. The term automatic seems to exclude the possibility of choice in my view. This would then mean that everyone would react exactly the same to every stimulus and basically all run on the same track. And while that may be true for certain parts of the track – the very deepest stretch, where we have become slaves to our emotions and everything that triggers us, and the stretch near to reaching our destination, where love has become our first nature and we immediately and automatically act and react with love to everything and everyone – on the other parts we have to take a conscious decision how to act and how to respond to whatever happens to us.

It takes a conscious decision to pull on the brakes and call for help on the deepest point, and it also takes a conscious decision on the way up again to act and react in a loving way and to refrain from judgement in the phase we find ourselves in. There is nothing automatic about that yet. I am faced with those decisions every moment of the day and I guess you are too. But when we do not succeed yet in acting that way and lash out occasionally, then that could be termed automatic still.

So there are two sides to describing this whole process: part of it can be described as automatic but the aspect of the conscious decision is more important. In my view that is.


Wayne July 2, 2017 at 1:18 pm

I would attempt to add to your conversation, that if the prefix “Con” in Greek is associated with “connect” or “join” or “with” which regarding “Consciousness” and >scious>>OUR<<< privilege and are made aware of or introduced to "cause & effect" as "GRACE" shields us from rightly reaping what we may have inadvertently sown just as any parent shields their small child from the consequence of their maybe not so wise choices.
The word "Nevertheless" comes strongly to mind as instruction is conveyed and made clear, NEVERTHELESS choose for thyself.
"Consciousness" may therefor not be quite so complicated a matter after all, but nevertheless choose for thyself to make it what you will.
I think many so called "quantum science" and "self help" authors and so called experts have spent a lot of time and made a lot of money complicating the simple.


anny July 3, 2017 at 1:10 am

Thanks, Wayne, for this always welcome addition to this discussion.

I like this sentence: “The word “Nevertheless” comes strongly to mind as instruction is conveyed and made clear, NEVERTHELESS choose for thyself.”

I must admit though that I never considered the concept Consciousness as being complicated even though I would never be able to give words to what I feel it is. I am obviously a rightbrainer who does not need an explanation or definition for everything.

I do not understand what you mean by your last sentence though. Why do you think that quantum scientists and others are complicating things?


Joshua Tilghman July 9, 2017 at 7:10 am

Hi Anny,

Sorry I missed this earlier. After reading your comment I noticed where I need to clarify. I do believe we have free will, not an automatic will that runs on auto-pilot. When I say primary consciousness is automatic in that is has to interact with itself, I mean that souls are automatically created. But as you say, once that soul develops individual consciousness it has true free will to react to its experiences any way it chooses, and there is no set path it has to follow. Does that help?


anny July 9, 2017 at 10:22 am

Yes, it is more clear to me now. I understand that primary consciousness has to interact with itself as there is nothing else to interact with (I would still use another term for it, I think, but we agree on the principle), that is if it chooses to become active.

So for me the question remains: Does primary consciousness HAVE to interact with anything at all or does primary consciousness WANT to do so? Does primary consciousness have the choice to become active or to remain inactive?

Fact is that primary consciousness has made the choice to do so but was this a concious choice or an automatic necessity? I am still inclined to choose the first option.

I must admit that these questions come to me right now for the first time. Where will we end with this?

Thanks for your comment.


Robert July 4, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Josh, I did not see your July 1st comment when I posted my later comments. There is a lot of literature I have just come across on the net that agrees with the article – there cannot be a void without matter and energy or form (shape of the empty space). In order for that to happen, the universe would have to collapse into a singularity. But the Big Bang Theory postulates that the universe was born when a singularity expanded into becoming the universe. What made that happen? It still seems intuitive to me that something external to the singularity had to cause the singularity to explode into the universe. Something beyond space and time and everything we can physically know and measure or conceive of must have caused this.

Also if our bodies die and our localized consciousness reverts to consciousness of the all, animate and inanimate, then how do we explain children’s memory of past lives.


anny July 5, 2017 at 12:34 am

Robert, I appreciate your comment and your questions.

You write: “But the Big Bang Theory postulates that the universe was born when a singularity expanded into becoming the universe. What made that happen? It still seems intuitive to me that something external to the singularity had to cause the singularity to explode into the universe. Something beyond space and time and everything we can physically know and measure or conceive of must have caused this.”

First of all the term Big Bang Theory suggests to me that it is just that. A theory. Although it is not treated as such by mainstream science, I believe. In my view a theory should mean that other theories are possible as well. You obviously have one.

In this case however I ask YOU “why”? Why do and did you so often feel that there needs to be an external Someone or something that has to cause or provide something? It is obviously not just an opinion of yours as you write that you intuitively feel that there has to be something external that caused this to happen.

I myself never even was aware of the concepts unity/oneness versus duality before the end of the last century but once I did become aware of it, it was like a revelation to me. And the Oneness of All outside of which nothing can exist is part of my ultimate truth ever since. Within that concept everything HAS to have its origin inside that oneness and God is both part (every part) and All of it in my world view. The fact that I cannot understand the how and why of many things does not change that.

Part of my understanding is that as long as we still live in this world of illusion it is impossible for us to know and understand the Absolute Truth and the Absolute Reality. In this world of space, time, and matter we have the opportunity to become aware of things and give them a place in our understanding and as such to gain conscious awareness but I do not believe that we can learn to understand that way what it is like when everything happens at the same ‘time’ and everything and everyone is in the same ‘space’ as there is no time and there is no space in Reality and also matter does not exist. In fact, everything and everyone must be God as God is All that Is but it is impossible to understand that with our human mind in the condition we are still in right now.

That is why I see reincarnation as a useful learning tool but how can we understand it within the oneness of All? Within the concept of no-place and no-time? Within the concept of the One Who is manifesting and experiencing everyone and everything all at once?


Joshua Tilghman July 5, 2017 at 7:24 am

Robert and Anny…

Stephan Hawking states… “[D]o we need a God to set it all up so a Big Bang can bang? … Our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time. So it’s natural for us to assume that something—perhaps God—must have caused the universe to come into existence. But when we’re talking about the universe as a whole, that isn’t necessarily so.

The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.”

Although I don’t agree with much of what Hawking states, I do see his point here. And it aligns perfectly with the book and the link I sent you.

Furthermore, as mainstream scientists have already successfully argued, an outside agent of the universe could not experience it unless it was a part of it.

Forget the term consciousness for a minute. We’ll use the term, infinite potential. If there is the potential for something, something will happen. True nothingness cannot exist because there is always a potential. There is a natural tension within nothing (there’s always potential, a tension that must seek balance, which can never fully happen in duality. This is primary consciousness interacting with itself. As it does so, souls are created. The universe is simply the flow of information, of consciousness interacting with itself because it must. Souls are bits of experiential information. Souls do not live or die in the physical sense. The information does not either. Some are able to remember, some are not, but the information is still there.

Think back to what Hawkins states. There was no time for a creator to exist in. So whatever created the universe must have time as one of its inherent properties. And that’s the flow of information that our limited consciousness in duality interprets. This flow of information is simply motion in the physical world.

So how does potential create an imbalance? Think again of Pi. Consider the quote below:

“Pi is an infinite, non-repeating decimal — meaning that every possible number combination exists somewhere in pi. Converted into ASCII text [computer representation], somewhere in that infinite string of digits is the name of every person you will ever love; the date, time and manner of your death; and the answers to all the great questions of the universe. Converted into a bitmap [computer image], somewhere in that infinite string of digits is a pixel-perfect representation of the first thing you saw on this earth; the last thing you will see before your life leaves you; and all the moments, momentous and mundane, that will occur between these two points.

All the information that has ever existed or will ever exist, the DNA of every being in the universe.

EVERYTHING: all contained in the ratio of a circumference and a diameter.”

The above statements cannot be proven, but scientists expect that it is true. I believe it is.

It’s all about potential, which manifests as tension, which manifests time and the conscious experience. Tension manifests in curvature. Consider another quote…

“The curvature of space/time is governed by PI – 3.141592653589793 …on to infinity.., a transcendental number, a condition without end, a condition of infinite possibility, the most improbable of which will inexplicably emerge when least expected. This is a law, a power built into the Universe we are born into, always at hand, always ready for our use. The time and way to use it is when conditions are too complicated to humanly judge. Courageously step forth when you are too blind to see. Always make the attempt to succeed and doors will open ..and unexpected possibilities will present. The curvature of the Universe often emerges as irony, because nothing is exact, as all things and conditions are open ended to new possibility. All humor is based on the irony of curvature. Such “God” is always smiling upon and through us ..and many times I think in its own way, laughing. The Creator, thus in this way, always provides a path to success, but each of us must be courageous enough to seize the opportunity, to boldly step forward. There is an old saying that states that “Fortune favors the Bold”, and that saying is undeniably true because the Bold Step Forward and move their horizons. Every book ever written about the power of positive thinking is absolutely correct, because and only because, we live within a curved universe.”


Robert July 5, 2017 at 3:45 pm

Josh, where is that last quote from?


Joshua Tilghman July 6, 2017 at 9:38 am

The link I sent you 🙂

anny July 6, 2017 at 4:49 am

Hi Josh,

Thanks for your very interesting comment. It gives a lot to think about. And new questions to ask.

For instance Stephen Hawkin’s question “Do we need a God to set it all up so a Big Bang can bang?” What does he mean by that question? How does he define the concept of God? The term ‘a God’ suggests to me that he means a sort of anthropomorphic being who creates the universe from outside. The Grand Designer as you call it. But in my view that does not need to be the case at all. The concept of God, which is just a word, can be interpreted in very many ways and even all of those together do not come near to the Reality of this Force.

To me the concept of God does not necessarily mean that God has to be outside of creation, as I am sure you know by now. On the contrary God as All that Is, which is a well-known definition, IS all of creation or, as Deepak Chopra called it, Generation – Organisation – Dissolution/renewal. Or Creator – act of Creating – Creation/creature. Both a cycle in three phases/facets.

As such God IS the Universe. And everything that is in it, including us. God is the force that fuels the universe. And God is the Grand Designer too because I do not believe that everything happens just by chance. However, this design might be based on the experience gained in previous universes. I believe I have read something like that in one of prof. Weinreb’s books about the Kabbala.

As such ‘our’ Big Bang might not be the first one (or the only one either). Could we look at the concept of a Big Bang maybe as a Geyser like in Yellowstone, which erupts from time to time and then returns to its previous state of a smooth body of water? But with an evolutionary character, resulting in a higher conscious awareness every next time?

What you write in your second paragraph is indeed very interesting. You are looking at a universe of duality that originates from a condition of oneness. Within that oneness there is no time, as you write. As such there is also no beginning or end, which already escapes our comprehension. Whatever is just is but I do believe it is conscious. So you might also say it is God. It is Oneness. It is also called the Zero-point field of Potential I believe, from which the universe(s) arise once this Force that is God becomes active in it.

This universe or these universes do know time and development and as such I see it or them also as the dream world that is meant for us (everything from quanta till galaxies and beyond and maybe God Itself as well) to gain conscious awareness. As such everything in this world is not real but just a playing field to develop conscious awareness.

People have been having different views about the concept of this universe all the ‘time’ since they began thinking about it. One of the views these days is that everything and also the universe is a Hologram, which kind of fits in with the view of this world as a ‘tardema’ or deep sleep/dream. In this illusional world each one of us has the possibility to create his own reality. The details of this concept of the universe as a hologram I do not remember but there is a lot of information about it to be found on the internet.

Thanks for the way you describe Pi. Of course I also learned at school what it is, that is the number 3,14 with an endless string of digits after it but the meaning of it was never explained. What you write starts making some sense for the first time in my life.

Writing about this stuff really stretches my mind to its limits. Do you experience the same?


Joshua Tilghman July 6, 2017 at 9:48 am

Anny, yes. I enjoy contemplating it all. And yes, you are correct. The traditional version of God we were all taught about as children has never made sense to me. An anthropomorphic God would be too limited. God is much bigger. Impersonal in one sense, very personal in another.

The traditional interpretation accepts God as both fully human and fully God. The only way that could be possible is if God was not an anthropomorphic being in the traditional sense.

anny July 6, 2017 at 11:47 am

Thanks for your reply, Josh.

What do you mean by “The traditional interpretation accepts God as both fully human and fully God.”? Isn’t that said about Jesus only? I never heard it said that God was human as well as divine. And Jesus was not so much an anthropomorphic being but a human being who was divine as well. Which I believe is true, but then again, all of us sre, which I believe he had come to teach us.

Robert July 6, 2017 at 3:29 pm

Josh, regarding your statement:

“An anthropomorphic God would be too limited. God is much bigger. Impersonal in one sense, very personal in another.”

I think the different variations of Christianity attempt to capture that characteristic of “impersonal in one sense” (God the creator, judge, lawmaker, advocate of justice) and “very personal in another” (answers prayer, advocates for individual mercy and correction, brings individuals into truth and wisdom, expresses through the Son the divine potential of each human and the human-like characteristics that are a reflection of the image of God). It captures this in the plain meaning of the bible narrative. And I agree that by focusing too much and too long on a conventional anthropomorphic conception of God, this can suppress spiritual growth and all the benefits from recognizing the Christ within. It’s just a story that can be used well or abused.

A new story about God not being related to an anthropomorphic overlord brings with it it’s own potential for being used well and for being abused (abuse as a kind of arrogance about normal human capability being sufficient, when in fact human capability has to grow beyond normal for spiritual growth to take place).

The idea that all “that has been, is, and will be” will be encoded digitally in the never ending, never repeating stream of numbers in Pi, including your name and what you had to eat for lunch today, can come across as too mechanical and misleading. It will also include your name misspelled and what you had to eat for lunch today but not including the fries you gobbled on. The Pi thing is really just a ploy based on unusual properties of the mathematical construct of infinity to try to justify an atheistic explanation of existence (consciousness rules). You may “prefer” to believe it because you think it avoids some of the drawbacks of a theistic belief.

But the Tao suggests that what we “prefer” does not lead us to truth.

Robert July 6, 2017 at 4:35 pm

My last words on this subject injects some of my prefered bias:

“Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn’t there and shouting, “I’ve found it!”

Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a flashlight.”

Leonie Trent

Robert July 6, 2017 at 1:14 pm

Josh, Is the quote from Grand UniVerse, Steven Hawking, or a different link? Please try to be more specific. Whichever it is from, OK, that last description under “consider another quote” is more enlightening and digestible than the majority of language in Grand UniVerse, which is mostly mechanistic, automatic, overcomplicated, and tries to incorporate explanations for virtues such as love into its automatic structure, but Anny and I are not buying it. But what this last quote means to me is that there is a part of the divine mystery that is beyond our past and present understanding and experiences, and that part influences us to be successful (to develop) when we are courageous to boldly step forward (may be related to the Peter walking on water imagery).

So here is my point. At any present moment we are influenced by some force or agent beyond us. This is the part that I perceive as the external part of the divine. Maybe “external” is not the best word. Let’s just say we believe in and are aware of something beyond our time horizon is leading us (or making it possible if we cooperate) for the good. I call that God. Anny calls it love. The math people call it Pi. In all cases for each one of us, that potential for good (in our unravelling future) is not perceived by us in our everyday world at any given moment as coming from within us, from within the resources of our separate being. It is experienced in the present as a resource beyond our separate selves. We may be able to hypothesize that we are somehow connected to that resource beyond our separate selves, using human imagination, deduction, or based on the hypothesis resonating in us (activating a positive bond with our intuitive/emotional expectations).

All I can say about these hypotheses is that we really don’t know. We may each pick an explanation that is comfortable. But the wisdom of the Tao suggests, “The Truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing”.

Perhaps this quote form the book “Original Blessing: Putting Sin in Its rightful Place” by Danielle Shroyer can shed light on the issue of what is “external”. (The book describes Christianity when viewed from beleiving we are born into original blessing and not into original sin):

“And we don’t have to describe following God as something that happens outside ourselves, which is rife with philosophical conundrums. As people who follow an embodied Savior, we can say that we live into the image of God within us, as well as the image of Christ that goes before us. Though neither the image of God nor the image of Christ us owned by us, or contained within us, they are not outside us either. ”

This quote shows “images” of divine identity that “is not owned by us, or not contained within us, they are not outside us either”.


anny July 7, 2017 at 3:35 am

Robert, thanks for this very interesting comment. It is very difficult to give words to these concepts that are really beyond our current understanding. I was immediately struck by the final sentence of the first paragraph: “ …. and that part influences us to be successful (to develop) when we are courageous to boldly step forward (may be related to the Peter walking on water imagery).” You might indeed compare us to Peter but we should not let doubts make us sink into the water. We should keep trusting in what we are doing and that even if we are on a wrong path sometimes, everything will turn out all right anyway because we will be guided back to the right way when we trust our inner guidance. The search is what is important and not so much its initial outcome.

As far as the internal – external part of the second paragraph is concerned, I believe that All is One and that as such in Reality everything has to be internal, and nothing can be beyond us, even if we cannot yet understand how that can be possible.

However, in the dream world that we still live in – in which time and space have a function in order to help us gain conscious awareness – internal and external do exist and are the only concepts we can learn to understand and work with. Within this context it makes sense to consider some things as external, or beyond, but that is only the truth of the world we are living in right now. It is okay to explore and experience this world in all its aspects , that is why we incarnated into it, but the rules of our world of duality do not apply to the Reality of a world in which All is One.

And we should not forget that our world of seeming separation has always remained part of this world of Oneness, we only are not aware of it anymore because we have fallen asleep. But it is time to wake up now and that is why I keep reminding myself and everyone else of the oneness of all by as many different images and concepts I can find.

Joshua Tilghman July 7, 2017 at 7:19 pm


The quote you refer to is from Grand Universe. I’m telling you, if you read the whole thing, you might have a different perspective. His brilliance on the subject is unmatched, across the net. That I can assure you. Intuitively (and of course this is only my opinion) no scientists, spiritualists, or Christian can match the overall content in its all-inclusive commentary on all things. I don’t mean to try and convince you with it, it’s just I feel you will connect with it, intuitively. You have over complicated many matters here. I can see it in the comments. I do not say this disrespectfully, because I have a great respect for you. You know that. But…it is also easy to see based on your comments the bias and over analytical nature of the mind.

Robert July 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Josh, I appreciate your respect. I think part of the problem is that I do not trust the manner of presentation in the Grand Universe because it seems he is playing around with concepts that are not soundly established in a scientific sense. So in the end after reading it through twice, having suspended judgement on things not that well understood or accepted, finally to see how it all adds up, this could be a more of brainwashing than proof of anything. So rather than do that, I have looked on the net for other presentations of the same concept. I did not find anything good. But I did find a trail to something that might be related. Anny had mentioned something about the holographic universe, which shows the connectedness of all things behind what actually appears to us a separate. I realized I did not fully understand this. So I have started reading the Holotropic Universe by David Talbot which describes the brilliant work of physicist Bohm in language that is easy to understand. So far from this. I get the idea that the universe is connected behind the scenes in a non-localized way, and that what we see in normal reality is a localized effect. So it is possible for the two views of God to be equally valid – one view being a localized perception of being guided by an external aspect of God, the other view of God as the non-localized aspect behind the scenes that is in all. So that responding to either view of God is equally valid and effective. This is in contrast to the Grand Universe’s primary assumption that the localized aspect of an external God is automatically false. I’ll keep you posted on whatever else I learn about Bohm’s approach to the universe and to consciousness.

Robert July 10, 2017 at 5:06 pm

Anny, so far in reading a little of the Holographic Universe, I have become to find different words to describe immediate reality we experience (which you call a dream or illusion, or a game which has a learning purpose) in contrast to the underlying unity of existence where everything is connected and there is nothing outside of it. I would say what you call a dream, illusion, learning game is not a fake experience distorted from the true reality that is actually there. It is a valid experience and operates according to rules of that experience. Our perception of love during that experience as the highest purpose is valid for that experience. But we are also connected to a cosmic consciousness that is in all things everywhere and in all time, communicating information to us behind the scenes of ordinary reality. Physicist Bohm calls the everyday experience explicit reality, an experience of localized reality, and the cosmic experience implicit reality, an experience of of non-localized reality interacting with us and behind the scenes an integral part of us. Non-localized reality may have a disposition toward moving itself toward love as it seeks to harmonize itself, to maintain the most efficient order in itself. This harmonization may be experienced in our localized explicit reality as a process we call “redemption”.

anny July 11, 2017 at 6:21 am

Robert, I just read your very interesting two comments to Josh and me. And I noticed the difference in language between you and me (nothing to do with English being a foreign language for me and not for you). Your language is scientific and mine is definitely not. I often do not have words to describe what I intuitively grasp from concepts that I do not totally understand in detail but from which immediately see the essence. Which is enough for me but often not for you because you need to know the what, the why and the how. And still we come to a more or less common conclusion sometimes.

I understand basically what you mean by the localized and the non-localized perception of God and I agree with you there.

I also noticed that Joshua was caught almost by the perception of this man (was his name mentioned anywhere?) about the origin of the universe which to you still remains anathema somehow, no matter how often you read the concerning matter. Could it be that Joshua resonates totally with this non-localized vision whereas the localized perception has always remained so important to you? Even though you fully seem to grasp the concepts of both? I cannot imagine that Joshua would fall for it if there had been some manipulation somehow.

I think that it is okay to stick to one of the options if that is the only one that feels good to (the proverbial) you but I do not think that it is good to assume automatically that the other one is false. Both might apply as you also show in your beautiful example.

When you write: “I would say what you call a dream, illusion, learning game is not a fake experience distorted from the true reality that is actually there. It is a valid experience and operates according to rules of that experience.” I fully agree.

I would not call it fake though. That is not what I mean by those terms. There are not really any words to describe it, as every experience is real enough in itself, only not in comparison to the Absolute Reality. And its value is real enough as it provides the conscious awareness that we do take with us when we leave this reality, either by dying or by ascending out of it to a higher level of existence. Fake also has negative connotations I feel and of course there are just as many positive experiences to be had in this world, depending on our perspective and attitude. Both negative and positive contribute to the absolute Good and to the return to the Oneness we originated from.

anny July 7, 2017 at 3:45 am

Hello everyone,

For those of you who occasionally check underneath this chain of comments to see if any new ones have come in, and not found any, I inform you that there somehow has been some mix-up with the reply buttons which resulted in the fact that all comments of this first week of July ended up above Wayne’s comment of June 29th.

So for who is interested, there is a whole string of them.


Joshua Tilghman July 11, 2017 at 10:16 am


Sounds good, my friend. Keep me posted. I do like David Bohm. Sorry about the placement of the comment here under Anny. It seems we need a forum!


Robert July 16, 2017 at 12:06 am

Josh, I finally was able to distill Mike’s theory into two philosophical statements.

1. Existence is unbalanced (therefore like the mathematical property of Pi where the diameter cannot fit evenly into the circumference, it is compelled like an urge to perpetually try to comprehend itself in new and multifarious ways).

2. Existence is limited to the “Totality” of which there is nothing that can act outside of it.

When distilled to this, Mike’s theory as I view it is just a philosophy. If it appeals to you, then I support you in our journey to enlightenment through it. If something about it resonates in you, then you need to follow your bliss, my friend. There is no perfect path for everyone, and it seems to me that every best path even for the individual is probably imperfect, but what is most important is that you find deep meaning in it and use it for good purpose, which I can attest that you definitely have done to a great degree and will continue to do.

My imperfect path has led me to believe that nothing is as certain as the belief that life is better than we often think, which inspires us often to be better than who we would otherwise be. That resonates through me like a symphony. When I am not resonating so much and feel I need a little more certainty to get through to the next big resonance, I have a wonderfully rich and imperfect religious background to fall back on. Whether I am resonating or falling back, I find that I do not have any particular inclination to limit my beliefs to Mike’s idea of “Totality”. Connectedness I accept. Having unity with parts of existence I accept. Partaking in aspects of what we sometimes refer to as divinity I accept. But “oneness” to me is just a philosophical concept, perhaps one that is very sacred to some, which I totally respect because what the bleep do I know, and as long as it inspires them to be their best then I find great value in it for them, but I do not limit my belief to rejecting that something beyond anything we know or can imagine does not act on us externally. Assigning anthropological attributes to this as yet unknowable agent is a metaphorical way of filling in the blanks to acknowledge that is exists. Granted, an anthropological obsession can be problematic, so I could not fault those people who want to run away from it like the plague. I would just feel more comfortable if they did not automatically dismiss the possibility of an external agent.

This comment is relevant to this blogpost because of the overall discussion throughout this blog about “consciousness”, also because of Anny’s numerological discussion in the blogpost regarding “oneness”, and Josh’s reply to Kim’s comment in which he introduced the idea of an automatic consciousness and later related it to Mike’s website. There is enough involvement and precedent for it to justify it being public. Other copmments I have made, maybe not.


anny July 16, 2017 at 1:02 am

Robert, this is a great comment. You have considered all options carefully and chosen what feels best for you. That is how it should be. There is not one way that is perfect for all. There is one way that is perfect for you and another that is perfect for me. Everyone’s way is the perfect one for him or her as long as they honestly search for their truth.

What choice you make is not important but the willingness to consider other options before you make your choice is and also to accept that one of the other options might be the right choice for another person. That is one of the things I learned on this blog.


Joshua Tilghman July 11, 2017 at 11:32 am


I agree with you about the fake experience. Since matter and spirit are two sides of the same coin both are real, because we experience it. Dreams are real too, and even though we aren’t actually physically doing some of the things we dream, its part of our emotions and thoughts and lives.

The fact that matter (as an experience) and spirit are both eternal makes the experience anything but fake. It has to be as it is.

I understand Robert’s reluctance to accept the writing in the link I sent him. He has a very good analytical mind and I think he understands much about physics and chemistry.

Robert…I have done a lot of other reading before I read the Grand Universe of Primary consciousness which had a lot to do with helping me be set up for it, so to speak. That might have helped me more than I know make connections with esoteric literature. For me it makes sense intuitively but at the same time it agrees with esoteric literature and that helped me put two and two together. Certainly no proof though, so I’ll give you that.


Robert July 11, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Josh, I think it may be possible to accept some of the conclusions in the Grand Universe but I think I need to become familiar with it following a path that works better for someone who is more analytical. The Holographic Universe may be the bridge I need to develop that background. I am having to catch up a lot on this part of science. This is the pattern I follow. I have a breakthrough struck by lightning type revelation that makes me curious and open to new ideas, although I don’t understand it well, but feel encouraged and mystified. Nothing analytical about any of that. Then I write and read and engage in SOS to try to fill in the blanks. Sometimes I find a different topic along the path that I am ready for. This time I am excited about bending reality. I went totally bonkers when I read the chapter in Holographic Universe called “Pocketful of Miracles”. It documented case after case after case of healings that occurred when people expected them either because they were too ignorant to know the odds were against them, or because their mind was convinced somehow they would be healed. It showed me how consciousness changes the outcome. People with multiple personalities heal faster because they can allow the personality with the consciousness to change the outcome to work 24/7 on it while it is inactive, while another personality was active taking care of everyday business. I have a lot of outcomes to change right now – my family, health, and employment – and encountering lots of obstacles, so I am ripe for trying to flex this new muscle.


Robert July 11, 2017 at 5:15 pm

Anny, the use of the word illusion has always caused a problem for me. I knew from the first time I saw it used and in every explanation after that, that it was the wrong word. But I could not think of a better word. I don’t think anyone else could either, so it became popular to stick to the word illusion. I know what you mean by your specialized use of “illusion” as a second kind of reality, but the common use of the word as a mirage (fake image) is much too powerful and interferes with understanding the specialized use. So we have to have this discussion all the time to remind us the specialized illusion is real. Also the specialized illusion is not like a conventional dream where you are dreaming or you are awake, one or the other. We are able to exist simultaneously in both worlds. We are just not always aware of the second world until we begin to experience it, and then when we begin to experience it, it is popular to say we are awakening, which is also confusing. We are not awakening out of a dream, but becoming aware of our connection to unified consciousness. We were always connected. But now we are aware of the connection.

The technical definitions of implicative (non-local) and explicative (local) used by David Bohm eliminates all these kind of confusions. So that is the way I want to think of them when I don’t want to be confused.

Don’t worry, I understand your use of the word illusion. So we are on the same page. Please keep on using it. Everybody else but me uses it they way you do. So I am the exception who has to backtrack and establish an analytical foundation for what you mean, so I don’t get confused. My everyday life is not a dream, but there is more to me than that through connection to unified consciousness. And now I know that connection to unified consciousness can change the outcome of everyday life.


anny July 12, 2017 at 3:07 am

Josh and Robert,

Thanks to you both for your comments.

It is becoming clear how difficult it is to put into words what we intuitively think to know about subjects like these that seem to go beyond words. I already mentioned it in a previous comment that whatever word we choose might not mean the same to everyone, depending on our way of thinking but probably also on our experiences in the past. And when we write about concepts such as we recently have been discussing, that problem becomes even more clear. It is good to become aware of that and take it into consideration when you, the proverbial one of course, disagree with someone. It has been my experience recently that someone else and I thought we disagreed with each other but that we only thought in different terms which turned out to mean the same.

It never even dawned on me that you might have problems with my use of words like illusion, or dreams, or awakening, Robert, because first of all they are not words I invented for this use. Illusion I think I read about in books about Buddhism, and the dream is of course the ‘tardema’ in Genesis. Awakening is a term used widely these days for this process of becoming aware. I immediately took these words as symbols and sort of separated them from every day use. It was intuition as I never thought about it consciously. It is the same with the fact that I do not need all kind of details in order to get an impression and grasp the essence of something. I know of course that your way of understanding things is totally different because you come from the side of science but I never realized these implications.

I am glad that reading the Holographic Universe is such a help to you, Robert. It was for me too although there was a lot that I could not understand. But what stuck with me most is it fractal character, which implies that every part of it, no matter how small, still contains all its potential.

One thing should be clear. When I write about life in this world of matter as a dream or an illusion etc. then I am looking at it from the point of Oneness as it were. From the point of our departure. When we think about this world while still in it, then it is anything but an illusion or a dream but the real experience it is meant to be. When you look at this world from the point of Oneness, then the people living in it are asleep. When they become aware of their situation though and rediscover their connection with the world of Oneness that has always been there, then you could call that awakening, I think. It is just a manner of speech.


Robert July 12, 2017 at 1:26 pm

Anny, I agree, you have used established terms from scripture and religious systems of belief, and that the term “illusion” as an alternate reality is well understood by many people like yourself. It is also misunderstood by some people, not yourself, to mean that everyday reality is less real or less important. So you and I agree on the concept of illusion as an alternate reality. We have different goals at this time, which is a natural result of individuality. My goal is to leave the religious metaphors and explanations to themselves, without judging their validity, and search for more of an objective, scientific explanation for consciousness. That is my nature as an individual. I won’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge unless I have all the information about its structural integrity and my right of ownership. I bought it before when I accepted religious doctrines without checking them out thoroughly. Intuition can be insightful and fallible. One thing is clear about David Bohm’s explanations, they are based on science without human bias towards religious beliefs. There are no ambiguities in definitions that can cause them to be misunderstood. Nothing extra is assumed to fill in gaps of understanding. He has used physics to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that a vacuum is not empty, but full of a tremendous amount of energy, vibrations and invisible matter which resonates with everything else in the universe. This means something to me. Trying to convey this using an intuitive explanation that “there can not be nothing because nothing is something” is philosophical babble to me. It does not have the same validity as a scientific explanation. The intuitive conclusion may turn out to be correct this time, but it can easily be incorrect, and is only validated by science.


Robert July 12, 2017 at 3:59 pm

Anny, I should also add that David Bohm’s scientific concept fully supports your belief in unity of all things in the universe, with the underlying connection between all things being a kind of consciousness or behind the scenes communication through resonating vibrations. Also the book documents countless examples of human consciousness changing the outcomes in the material world (healings, psychokinesis, answers to prayers, etc.). I have had some success with this in minor things, and I am encouraged to apply it to bigger things, especially since I am having a biopsy on a cyst in my pancreas next week. But I am also looking into even broader applications. World politics is failing to contain the threat of nuclear attack. A growing shift in worldwide consciousness that may have begun according to the Mayans in 2012 may be able to contain it. A generalized, non-literal interpretation of Revelations suggests worldwide disaster is remedied by the spiritual activities of the saints in concert with their connection to a higher power or unifying source.


Robert July 12, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Anny, One more comment. Although the scientific route helps to define and clarify concepts without bias or philosophical coloring, the present development of physics (and cosmology) is not developed enough to give a definitive answer about consciousness; it can only suggest a mechanism that might fit. The discrepancy between quantum mechanics on the micro level and the theory of relativity on the macro level has not been resolved. It will either be resolved or scientists will ditch both and come up with something entirely new. That may or may not happen in the 21st century. Most of the scientists who have contributed to the relationship between science and consciousness have also been drawn to Eastern or new age spirituality independently from science. It is still the various schools of spiritual wisdom with its diverse metaphors and stories, imperfect as they may be, that provide the guidance to their followers and inspire them to bear fruit, to spread the message of unconditional love, and anticipation of a bright and rich future.


anny July 12, 2017 at 11:32 pm

Thanks, Robert, for your extensive explanations. I understand what you mean and it is exciting to notice our differences in approach to each subject and that we still end up with more or less the same conclusions. That we each learn to understand the other one’s point of view as well as our own. Is not that what it is all about?

I do not think that the terms I am using (illusion, dream and awakening) are religious terms in the well-known meaning of the word though. Illusion may be a Buddhist term but Buddhism is not really a religion. Buddha is not considered to be a God. Of the deeper meaning of the term ‘tardema’ as deep sleep nothing is known within the churches, or if it is then it certainly has not become known to the common man. And I have not heard the term ‘awakening’ used either in church.

You are right that I do use religious metaphors though. I have not turned my back on religion as such, only on dogmas and doctrines. I want to find out for myself what it all means and I do not belong to any special group any longer but I do try to find the common ground between them all. Love and Unity are part of all of them. And so are fundamentalism and extremism. Because I do not have a negative past in the church I still feel comfortable using some of the terms they use but I give them my own interpretation. This may make it easier for people still in the church, who are also starting to have doubts about the usual interpretations, to open up for something new.

You as a scientist obviously have another entrance to all these matters as well, so you look at them from the side of science. I like hearing that approach too although obviously I cannot possibly use it myself. I do succeed in grasping the essence of the explanations a little better now and it is exciting to recognize patterns. Like in your explanation of the findings of David Bohm.

I am currently watching a TV series of 10 parts about more or less the same subject we are writing about here. It is called The Mind of the Universe. It proves to have been on TV for some months already but I discovered it only last week. Fortunately over here we can watch this series on the internet also. This is an approach purely from the scientific view and starting from the world of matter. The word consciousness got mentioned only once till now! Still, the view of this world as a dream or a hologram was also mentioned there. Although sometimes I do not understand one word of it I often have a feel of the essence. There is one person who is explaining through the whole thing, a Dutch scientist called Robert Dijkgraaf, who is the director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Boston (did you have any contact with that institute while you were in Boston?) but there are interviews with scientists all over the world. I watched 8 parts till now and will watch part 9 this morning. Part 10 will be broadcast next week. It is really interesting to suddenly recognize patterns again but it is a pity that spirituality is not mentioned even once. I find more and more that when you are really objective both can complement each other and spirituality would add much.

I fully agree with what you write in your second comment. Consciousness is all important in this respect but I must admit that I am still in the phase of the training wheels. My theory is better than my practice. I hope you are successful in your health situation. I do believe in this shift in consciousness in 2012 but as the concerning date, December 21st, already suggests: the days are lengthening after that (and consciousness is shifting) but it is a very slow start and before spring will become apparent it will be winter first. That is the phase we are in now during which everything that has to be cleared is coming up. But indeed the future seems to be bright and away from the cameras many signs of it are already there.

Your third comment is very interesting and hope giving indeed. I did not know that many scientists are already drawn to some kind of spirituality also. You know that I have become convinced that we will come near to the Truth when science and spiritually reach the same conclusions independently from each other, each using their own terms, and when I am watching all these developments I see signs of that already.


Wayne July 13, 2017 at 2:39 pm

I feel somewhat disappointed in general with this websites “comment” section regarding some very interesting and SPIRITUALLY thought provoking titles and articles.
The “SPIRIT” of scripture seems to regularly get lost being replaced by (My Interpretation of Scripture) , (Thanks For Asking an Expert) , and ( I’ll Tell You How It Really Is) versions, rather than speaking to the >>infinite<Effortless Accomplishment< then are there any so called "Experts"? Things get easier with practice and repetition but even breathing takes muscle and burns energy.
So called "Biblical Experts" are not smarter, more gifted, more educated, or more divinely loved, as "Spirit" plays no favorites, cares about education, status, your following of supporters, ethnicity, or the money in or not in your bank account. "Spirit" like a radio wave is available to anyone and everyone, but is only heard or recognized by those attuned with ears to hear, as the EGO prefers lip service to ear service, and must therefor have and be the last word.
The internet is full of blogged comments of lonely people who seek only some digital conversation, feedback and agreement to help make them feel relevant again.
If "Spirit" communicates the unspoken and unspeakable and unfathomable, then insisting that all "Scripture" can be readily explained in laymen terms is certainly EGOtistical.

I like to think of "The Spirit of Scripture" as it's PERSONALITY rather than simply it's infinite (possible) messages.
I sincerely hope the "Spirit" of my comment will not be lost nor misconstrued.


anny July 14, 2017 at 2:57 am

Hi Wayne,

I am a little surprised about the content and seeming judgement of your comment.

It is okay if the content of the latest section of comments does not appeal to you as of course it is not about the article itself anymore. Such a thing happens from time to time and is interesting for the people who engage in whatever the subject is and maybe for others as well. Everyone else is free to just disregard it.

Sometimes people want to get certain things clear for themselves and look at them from all possible sides. Not everyone experiences everything in the same way and sometimes it is impossible for others to understand what motivates a person. The way you look at things is not always easy to understand but it is your way and that is fine. However other people feel differently about whatever the subject is and that is okay too. I always try to understand where people are coming from and if there is something I can learn from that.

Dragging the ego into it does feel like a kind of judgement to me. Do you know everyone’s motivation for discussing a certain subject? Sure, the ego is still active to some extent, in me and in you as well as in all the others. But my feeling is that it is best to monitor ourselves in this respect and to abstain from judging the motivation of others.

You are right that this blog is not meant for the discussion of other subjects than esoteric bible interpretation but it does not do any harm if it happens from time to time. It does not prevent anyone from posting a comment to the original subject of the article, does it?


Wayne July 14, 2017 at 2:57 pm

“Dragging the ego into it ……………”?
I thought this particular article and comments were supposedly about and purposely directed at discussing the “EGO”?
This is exactly my point Anny, that “Titles” are deceptive and inappropriate it would seem.
There are a thousand internet sites that so called scripture believing people repeat what so called “Bible Scholars” have interpreted scripture to mean. Nothing very personal about that though, as parroting someone you think is more Divinely connected than yourself lacks originality and that personal relationship, that every person/spirit must have with Jehovah, God, Creator, Savior, Spirit, Source, etc…
Some people will undoubtedly spend days arguing about what shade of green that grass is, but they should do that between themselves, not on a forum that is supposedly meant and structured to discuss something besides grass. Maybe we could discuss cats and dogs ………………. but here would probably not be the place.
I repeat my sentiments of disappointment as “The Spirit of Scripture” apparently was misleading to me joining this discussion and group. The articles are very intriguing and inspiring but the discussions seem to readily go off topic very quickly and often just become conversations of selling their intellect and convincing others of their “correct” interpretations, which has little or no value to spiritual growth, but it certainly demonstrates “ego” at work, as the ego is a very insistent salesman.
I don’t like moderators or censorship, although some form of respectable compliance mechanism is necessary for the success, longevity, and growth of a website to retain topic relevance.
So sad and too bad. I guess I was just looking for more “Spirit” and less conjecture. My mistake.

anny July 14, 2017 at 11:55 pm

Wayne, I am sorry that you feel disappointed although I must admit that I do not understand why. And I must admit that I feel disappointed too because I feel judgement in your comment somehow. I may of course be mistaken but I have the feeling that you consider your view on this subject as the only one that is right. I may not agree with what is written in some of the comments, or articles for that matter, but I hold to the opinion that everyone has the right to give his or her view on things as long as they do that respectfully. Whether or not they base that view on something someone else has said or written. Each person has his own way to finally get to the Truth and I do not think anyone has the right to deny anyone else to express his views on the way there. Children in kindergarten are just as valuable as graduate students and may come with some very original observations sometimes. And it is not up to us to judge who is in whatever stage and who has the right to play the game with us or who does not.

You have every right to express your disagreement with this of course but please do so without giving the other person the feeling that he is somehow inferior or judged.

My article was written about the ego, yes, but about the crucifixion of it. In ourselves, not in others. For my part, I have quite enough to do in that direction.

Robert July 14, 2017 at 4:00 pm

Wayne, I am sympathetic to your interest in having a more moderated comments section to try to keep discussion on task. I think that would work well in a more specialized environment like a think tank, or maybe a more formal theological or philosophical forum. I think the comments section is this blog should remain more open ended than that. The goal in my view should be to promoting the most participation as possible, with a public viewing, regardless of training, sophistication, or motive. I regard every motive as respectable. The discussion may dance around some in people trying to sort out what they believe compared to others, which is acceptable as long as everyone respects each other’s views. Some people may not be interested to be bothered with all of that. Others will discover new insights about themselves and others during the dance. I think almost everyone is searching for truth and a little validation that they are not way off track. It is natural to challenge each other’s beliefs and the source from where they developed from, especially if one person believes strongly in something and the other just does not get it as much as they have tried to. This is OK to me as long as it is done respectfully. I see this as an ongoing journey of mutual discovery. We may get carried away by ego a little bit at times, in the comments, which is human, and it is good to become aware of that, as it leads to more individual and mutual enlightenment. Meanwhile, the appearance of randomness to this dance does not mean it does not resolve and focus into something very valuable, though not immediately apparent mid-process.


anny July 15, 2017 at 12:20 am

Robert, I like your comment and the way you phrase it. Especially the last sentence: “Meanwhile, the appearance of randomness to this dance does not mean it does not resolve and focus into something very valuable, though not immediately apparent mid-process.”

The way we two have been at odds with each other in the comments in the past and the place we are in now are proof of that, I believe, and it took taking a serious look at ourselves to get there.

Joshua Tilghman July 17, 2017 at 9:08 pm


I hear your comment loud and clear. I often get people who write a personal e-mails wondering why I don’t shut down the comments when they get off topic or somewhat seemingly personal. And they often do here, especially as some of the articles very early on on this website can attest to.

But as the moderator, I feel it would also be egotistical to shut down comments. I have come to a point where I can read hate mail first thing in the morning over coffee telling me I am going to hell, and just think…”okay…I respect your opinion and wish the best for you”…or even sometimes I feel like saying…”can you share a little more to back up your claims…or even…”damn dude, that ego is pretty big today”…to finally making some off the cuff joke to make them think about what they are really saying, and to test my own self.

One thing I have learned about both Robert and Anny over the years…I can speak to them plainly, because they are both seekers. And they feel free to do the same. Whether I’m right or wrong, or whether they are, they have definitely earned my respect. And both of them would be there in a second for anyone in need. Both of them proved that during a very trying time for a very special widow that used to comment here often and touched my life personally on so many occasions when my ego was being tried with the break up of my fourteen year marriage, and I had to confront everything I was teaching with a trial the ended up being as real as a death for me.

That being said, sometimes I feel that both Robert and Anny (and many others) here misinterpret what I say, or take it out of context. But I also realize we are all coming from different places, different backgrounds, and very different experiences when it comes to the details, even if there are overarching themes within those details that I feel we should all recognize. But that disconnect, or disagreement…that’s what makes the soul unique, and oftentimes, where the conscious experience truly shines and teaches us lessons truly valuable, whether we admit we are wrong or whether we double down and reinforce our own thoughts on the subject.

One comment you made earlier I really appreciated was about feelings. The intellect is truly a great tool. Necessary, but it’s a very small part of the bigger reality of feelings, which most often drive the intellect in a person, whether that intellect is great or small in our own interpretation. Emotions are where the true foundation of the ego lies, and the intellect is the byproduct.

Something funny, but true…one of the girlfriends I had in the past that I felt at times treated me the worst has more respect from me than any other. Why? Because although she was quick with passion and anger, wanted her way most of the time, and fought hard to get it when I bucked her, she was always…and I repeat…always honest with her feelings and genuine to the core. And she made no apologies for it, unwavering. And through that experience I learned more about myself than I ever did with anyone else. And it was the conflict that proved the most beneficial in the end.

I hope you come back as you have some very insightful comments and truth. I have watched the comments here carefully the past few weeks, and have had a lot of respect for what you have said.



Robert July 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm

Anny, I looked up the TV series Mind of the Universe and there are about 30 episodes available for free online at The one entitled “How does the Pope’s astronomer combine a belief in science and religion?” looked interesting to me. I’ve watched half of it so far. I think you would truly enjoy it if you have not watched it yet.


anny July 14, 2017 at 3:11 am

Hi Robert,

Thanks for this link. I looked at it and these episodes are indeed the interviews with the scientists I watched. The series on Dutch television does not present the whole interview with each scientist but provides the possibility to download each one. The one which features the Pope’s astronomer is actually the one I watched yesterday too. I’ll watch the rest of it today and the others as well over time.


Robert July 14, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Anny, you watched it yesterday too. Holy synchronicities. I just watched the rest of it. His description of the Vatican as a bureaucratic center rather than an autocratic authority was very different than my original conception. He knows a lot and is able to speak about it very clearly and intelligently. He is someone I could learn a lot from. This kind of reformed Catholicism seems better than a lot of narrow-minded Christian spin offs. He rejects the idea that God is the collective conscious of humans and all nature, which would be expected of someone representing the Vatican. I like the way he encourages us to be open-minded and to participate in the fun of exploring new insights.


anny July 15, 2017 at 12:12 am

Yesterday I watched the whole video and saw that the part that got into the Dutch series was only very small. Still, it did give an impression and they did give the link to the whole interview. I also was favourably impressed though I could not agree with everything he said. I do not think that something like intuition was taken into account or spirituality in a wider context than the Christian religion. On the whole though he seems to be open-minded and that is the most important thing for all of us.


Raymond Phelan July 15, 2017 at 11:30 am

Hello Wayne,

Good to hear from you. You stated in your first comment earlier: “I feel somewhat disappointed in general with this websites “comment” section regarding some very interesting and SPIRITUALLY thought provoking titles and articles.”

You then qualify this comment with:

“I sincerely hope the “Spirit” of my comment will not be lost nor misconstrued”.

I see no intended harm in this honest appraisal of an obvious fact. Rather, I feel that you deserve full support for highlighting the prolongation of the current comments in this article, which I fully agree have completely lost their “ordinary” reader appeal. I do not see your comment as judgmental or disrespectful to the authors of the comments. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the article’s comment contents per-cey, it’s just I feel they may be more appropriate to private email rather than for public consumption on this blog-site. I feel sure that’s what you intended in your comment, with no malice or “judgement” intended toward any person whatsoever. At least that’s how I see. It’s been nice speaking with you, Wayne, maybe you might consider submitting an article yourself to SOS? Thanks for your comment on the site’s articles being inspirational — that’s always motivational to hear. I do hope you stay with SOS and continue commenting as you see and feel it.

anny July 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm

Hi Raymond, Wayne and all,

Raymond, thanks for your view on this matter. You may be right that my use of the word judgement is not totally correct but I certainly experienced a lack of respect for the comments of some people, even though they were not mentioned by name. And for the motivation of people for placing comments on the blog. Just imagine you are one of them yourself.

It is true that this string of comments has been going on for a long time this time but that was by no means my intention. However since the subject that came up was interesting and related in a way, I do not see why this should irritate anyone. No one is obliged to read it or take part in it. And therefore I also do not agree with you that this had better be continued by e-mail per se. It is nothing personal and there may be just as many people who are interested in this subject as there are who definitely are not.

Leaving all this aside however I propose to stop all this antagonism which is everything I have always been trying to avoid. Everyone has had his say and let us leave it at that. We obviously do not agree on this matter but that in itself does not is not an issue. What does bother me is when I feel a lack of respect, whether that is meant as such or not. I admit though that the correspondence about this obviously activated the ego in some of us. Let each one of us examine ourselves on how we (re)acted in this matter and learn from it.

It is not important to have the last word in this matter but it is important to re-establish peace and balance and mutual respect, while agreeing to disagree in this particular matter.

This will be my last reaction on this subject.

Robert July 15, 2017 at 8:38 pm

Wayne, Raymond,

I value the input of community opinions and am able and eager to cooperate with them for the better good. It is a pleasure following interactions from US, Canada, UK, and Netherlands. I’ve only been out of the US for a week or two in Mexico, so being able to correspond globally is like whipped cream on the cookie. Namaste

Robert July 16, 2017 at 8:20 am

Raymond, my mistake. Anny reminded me you are from Dublin, the non-UK region of Ireland. Me saying you are from the UK would be like someone saying I am from Northern Mexico.

Wayne June 29, 2017 at 10:22 am

The “Ego” is something you could write about forever and never run out of things to say.
There are just so many examples of it covertly showing it’s face when or where we least expect to find it.
I have always been dismayed by “Patents” or the principle of claiming ownership of an idea, especially once you become aware of this sea of collective consciousness we all swim and reside in. Imagine if “God” had patented every aspect of creation and in so doing we as consumers and illusionary “inventors” payed dearly for every action we undertook minute by minute throughout our time here. But yet we call whatever we touch mentally or physically MINE.
My wife, my husband, my children, my house, my property, my idea.
Truth is whatever is truly ours cannot be taken from us,…………ever!
Our body, our health, our land, our life, our wealth, our children etc…… can be removed from our “POSSESSION” in an instant, and so testifies just how insanely arrogant and egotistical we really all are, for if anything was really truly “OURS” we couldn’t lose it.
It is said that our children don’t come FOR us, but only THROUGH us. I have thought much about this statement since I first heard it, and it has convinced me of it’s validity over time.
There are certain words that reveal the ego presence such as “Mine” that are almost laughable when we look at the bigger picture, and see beyond “SELF”.

The lion who eats the baby zebra while still alive and conscious is not evil, but only hungry. It knows nothing of inflicting pain nor punishment nor revenge. It concentrates on survival only, not killing. The “INTENTION” is the difference and therefor the defining difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. We JUDGE only according to our indoctrinated perceptions of good and bad, and categorize each and every action as Godly or Un-Godly. The lion is not less important nor less loved than the baby zebra, yet “God’s” UNCONDITIONAL love as you suggest, is to a fault, unconditional, and refuses to take sides even under the illusion of severe cruelty, injustice and blatant barbarism.
Are you or I that UNCONDITIONAL that we take no side? Do we really aspire to be so unconditional and so ego free that we are indifferent to “saint” and “sinner” alike?
The phrase and concept of “Unconditional Love” is one worth contemplating and meditating on. It’s virtues and ramifications are seemingly infinite.
How did we become so conditional and thereby so un-Godly?


anny June 30, 2017 at 2:51 am

I must have gone wrong somewhere as my reply to your comment ended up above your comment. That is probably the result of trying to write a comment when my 3 year old grandson suddenly demanded my attention sometimes. I hit the wrong reply button.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: