754. Having revealed our neighbour's identity as the tool that the Godhead uses to sense us, we can take it as a fact that our relationship to this neighbour is our real and true relationship to the Godhead, that is to say it constitutes what it is in the expression of our being that directly impacts on the Godhead's senses. And it is this direct way of being that we have towards our neighbour that becomes our direct act of addressing or our particular relationship to the Godhead. And what can be more natural than that it is this direct act of addressing the Godhead that forms in the first place the basis of the Godhead's reaction or response to us?
      As terrestrial human beings do not usually consider their relationship to their neighbour as being identical to their relationship to God, it is not so strange that their communication or interaction with this Godhead is very muddled and primitive; indeed, it can even seem to be pure heathendom. That the prayers that these beings address to the Godhead do not always seem to be "heard" is easily understandable, for what kinds of forms of address have they manifested? Is it not so that in many cases they have gone far beyond the senses through which the Godhead could perceive them? That there have been moments when they in their desperation have cried out to heaven and have manifested long wordy outpourings of prayer, vowing to reform their behaviour if only their prayers are granted, or they have sent songs of praise and expressions of joy and homage to the Godhead at having experienced happiness and well-being are of course ways of addressing the Godhead, but they can never be stronger than the manifestation of a whisper as long as the beings that are praying do not know or accept that their neighbour is identical to the Godhead, which means, that they love this neighbour. There are therefore two ways of addressing the Godhead, namely the ordinary form of "prayer" and the being's everyday relationship to its neighbour. As this second way is on the whole absolutely not seen as a relationship to the Godhead, it is often so drastically noisy, destructive and dripping in blood that the first way of addressing the Godhead, that is the being's verbal prayer to Providence, is completely lost or drowned out by this mental earthquake. And the one who is praying apparently receives no answer to his prayer. But how would it be if we addressed one of our fellow beings with some kind of whispered, verbal, loving prayer while at the same time in another way subjecting this neighbour to our death-dealing clamour, indignation and anger? Would it not be difficult for this neighbour to grasp our whispered appeal to him? And how much do you think he would be able to accept our words as long as they are drowned out by our indignation and anger or by our unfriendly actions? Do you not think that the answer to our whispered appeal would be rather negative? But why should the answer to such a whispered appeal to the Godhead in a similar situation also not be negative? Would it not be too much to expect to receive an answer to a petition or prayer that we had ourselves done everything to prevent the Godhead from hearing?
      At this point one might perhaps claim that the Godhead is not affected by clamour and suffering, and would be able to grasp our prayer telepathically. But why should we be able to talk to the Godhead only telepathically when he is very easily accessible by physical means? Telepathy is a divine attribute with the help of which it can be possible for one to come into contact with fellow beings who are far away or in another way are beyond the range of our ordinary physical senses. But such a telepathic connection, that is to say mental thought-transference, will absolutely not be required in situations where we have ample physical access to the Godhead's set of senses. And this access is present to a far greater extent through our physical addressing of our fellow beings than we usually suppose is possible.