Spirit-uality No, I needn’t complete what you’ve said “in its correct form.” What you are expressing is well said, at length. Perhaps it will satisfy you if I restate it in my own words. I’ll try to, generally, follow your outline. First, let me say that the word spirit can be misleading in its use. My dictionary has a column of meanings three inches long. It is sometimes a synonym for a Jehovah-like Godfigure; it is thought of as “apart from matter,” especially the body; and sometimes conjures an image of a ghost (a separate entity). The word soul is similar (two inches in my dictionary), considered to be “part of a person,” which (at death) “goes somewhere.” Because of the distinctively separative nature of these words, their use can be unnecessarily confusing in a nondual context. However, I take your use of these words to be indicative of what I would refer to as “omnipresence,” the eternally infinite actuality (which I generally call the Absolute). So, I’ll try to retain the word you used, Spirit. In speaking of the manifestation of “Spirit into form,” I would tend to speak of it rather, Spirit as form. This helps to clarify that Spirit (always) is form; form (always) is Spirit; these have always been one actuality, never separate. It is in Genesis that Spirit precedes form, rather than is “coexistent” as form: the Creator and created are apart from each other initially, in the Biblical tale.
302
