Thanks Graham, it seems we are maybe a bit stuck on the issue of idealism vs some form of realism (not physcialism which you and I both reject). As for Bruce's post it was clear and well written, but just not sure I can buy it. He quotes an old story:

“Before I was enlightened, I chopped wood and carried water.

After I was enlightened, I chopped wood and carried water, but it was completely different.”

I can understand this, and I can certainly understand the spiritual and psychological value of treating this world and all that is in it as nothing. Mere thoughts. A lucid dream that won't seem so lucid once we enter the realm of enlightenment.

I will do some more research, thinking and writing on why I hold to some form of realism, something like Polkinghorne's "critical realism" as he calls it. I have no problem with seeing that we are very limited in what we can know of the external reality we call matter as all experience of it is mediated by our minds. But, does that mean that nothing about that is real in the sense of having some existence outside of mind? I will attempt to understand my objection to it better so I can respond better to your challenge.