posted August 17, 2006 02:36 PM         

In one sense,
There is no path,
for everything is the path.

In another sense,
the path exists,
and can be abandoned
or ressumed
at will.

In one sense,
no person is more Spiritual than another,
for we are all in Spirit,
and individuality, like Matter,
is an illusion.

In another sense,
one person may be more advanced,
further along on the path,
than another,
and this may be seen by the
extent to which the person identifies with
(and, so, has access to)
Spirit, as opposed to Matter.

In one sense,
whether we know it or not,
all things are Spiritual,
and there are not some things,
or some areas of life,
in which we express our Spirituality,
and others in which we do not.

In another sense,
we are learning to live in a way
which we consider Spiritual,
all the time,
but, we often forget Spirit,
and experience a disconnection,
in certain areas of our lives.

In one sense,
we are vessels, or channels, of Spirit,
and Spirit is always flowing through us,
unimpeded, unpolluted,
and there is no distinction
between the evolution we seem to embody,
and the evolution of Spirit itself.

In another sense,
we are learning to be vessels,
to make ourselves hollow, as it were, -
to clear, or purify, ourselves of false beliefs,
which reflect a material view of the universe, -
so as to become more perfect channels
for the influx of Spirit,
which alone is perfect.

Both these views reflect truth,
but truth is best understood,
when both these views are seen
as compatible with the way things are.
To see things only in terms of one or the other,
would lead to an imperfect understanding of both views.

((In my opinion.))

Pagan philosophers considered this
a part of the law of three,
which, simply stated,
implies the correspondence of
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Christians have termed it the Trinity;
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Rightly understood,
there is no difference between
the Pagan and Christian view,
and only apparent discrepencies
have arisen through poor translation.
I say "Tomato",
and you say "Lycopersicon esculentum"*.

*Latin for "tomato"

HSC

posted August 17, 2006 03:15 PM         

Cool!!!

Or what the hindus say "creator, destroyer, preserver" (deities: Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu)

posted August 17, 2006 07:08 PM         

I was once fascinated by that religion, but like every religion this religion also got corrupted by people. This was after the tenth guru.

Hmmm...I spiral everytime I read the history of sikhs.

posted August 17, 2006 07:10 PM         

.....excerted...
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

Its interesting this nature of divine light that every religion spoke about

posted August 18, 2006 12:35 AM         

Yes, I think all true religions have the notion that All is One at their cores, and, within that, there is a reverence for that which is beyond notions. Around that One are ideas of Two, Three, and Four, but, essentially, they are all pointing back to the One.

It seems to me, that, when we think about God/The Universe/Truth, etc., we tend to think in terms of Unity, Duality, Trinity, or Quaternity. And, so, if we are going to try to understand it intellectually (i.e. to think about it in the first place) we are going to end up with ideas about Unity, Duality, Trinity, or Quaternity.

But, beyond that, there is always something else, something truer, something beyond the the thoughts, and even beyond the mind that thinks.

And THAT is God.

When we are ready for that
we will dispense with thoughts,
with the ABC's and 1,2,3,(4)'s of God,
and we will drop our religions,
like children drop the training wheels
from their bikes.
When we are ready.

In the meantime,
there is nothing wrong
with thinking about God.
I mean, if you've got to think about something,
you may as well think about God.

And whether you think "one", "two" or "three",
it makes no essential difference,
as long as you are trying to understand;
to do the "math" in your head,
and not just repeating a lesson by rote.

hsc