The debate I wish we'd had (for Nabeel Qureshi)
Gazhali’s hair would still be tied in a saddhu’s mop!
For ‘in the text’, I see it not. Yet confess
to having heard it in the living: a reverberance
of three, an Elohim (Abba, Bro and Holy Aide)
Tawheed is equally complex; I’ll give you that…
and an imprint-in-primary marks nature East
to West like a Korean-Celtic eddy, irreducible
Though, I much prefer to stick to letters red
from the lamb who’s blood was shed than
assert the philo-Sophia of ‘The Shack’
as a T-Rex of truth, that
can’t be verified outside faith, blind
Otherwise, it is implied, we become the binding gum
“as I and the Father are one” that resonates to repair
‘broken’ molecules of God, then…
divinity leaks out and subsumes us all as
sand-tombed ruins—or those honey-drowned
insects we view in amber like
Pompeii’s mayan ghosts in ash
Puff! and the line gets erased;
your Doctrine-sound conflates
and Syn-Io and Asherah multiply again
like gremlins high on Zion’s zamzam, tell
all becomes the Self in an “heretical” Monism
or Nirvanannihilation—So, for good measure,
why not just remain a Sufi —reflecting
on the Face/s of Hallaj’s bodhisattva?
You see, this Trinity expands like a Persian pasta pot—
far exceeding Yazd-dazzling apocalyptic spirits-seven
—that can’t be shut in or out even by Noah’s Pandorark!
Unless I’m wrong! and Osiris’ member becomes
Jesse’s root and we indeed do clothe ‘Other’
as symbiotic ‘host’ to The Host-cum-“Guest”
an exceptional condition:
Stranger on a bus of Quality Control
from Eden’s oil spill
Even ‘twer so, can’t we let it go—stop the hemorrhage
caused by all the pompous I-knows of orthodoxy?
Is it not wiser to concede that the I AM may be
none other than the Son’s sky “Pappa”,
as he himself bears witness: The Source
of divine LOGOS—neither made nor Constant
-inoplian but “born of God”
And hold up former mirrors for the litmus;
such as love, and trust,
and imitation of the Master.
Like 0 Pin it 0
Support CosmoFunnel.com
You can help support the upkeep of CosmoFunnel.com via PayPal.