Kindest Regards, Vaj! Thank you for your post. Thank you for the insight! I accept that rational discussion does not a path make. If I want pizza, I can't eat the recipe. In the end here, I am concerned we may eventually walk away with puzzles still unanswered. That is OK. That is one of the things that makes life worthwhile: the mundane is rather, uh, well, boring, but there is a certain excitement to be had from exploring unanswerable questions. Did not one of the old philosophers say something like "the unexamined life is not worth living?" Besides, maybe I might find myself, or an important piece of me, in the search. I understand my chosen path, as well as my heart and conscience will allow. There is room to continue to build, but there is also concern over whether or not it is the most valid path for me to continue on. A path should be followed with diligence, or why be on the path at all? If my heart is not fully in my path, where is it? Or is the path even important at all? Religion, in the purest sense, is for answering unanswerable questions. A great deal within religion, as I have learned in every example I have looked into, must of necessity be taken on faith. I have long suspected, and this exercise has given me cause to believe my suspicions were correct, that NO religion has all of the answers. There exist, in every religious tradition, myths or stories that must be taken with a grain of salt. Those myths likely serve a purpose of demonstration, of passing along a message (most often a bit of wisdom or morality), but they cannot always be viewed rationally. Naturally, I can see these things better in other traditions (its so hard to look at the face in the mirror!). But I must admit, and so many here have presented viable arguments, that even in my tradition there are components that have to be considered as, well, a little less than fact, even if they do contain wisdom or truth. This exercise provides a vehicle to verify or falsify the validity and equality of every path, if indeed they do all lead to the same end. If they in reality do not lead to the same end, will it not become evident? At least with a line of inquiry such as this, of import to all, and fully answerable by none? If my heart is not where I feel it should be, then I either need to renew my love, or seek a new one. If I choose a new love, it is a choice I will not make frivolously. Divorce is a difficult thing in the best of circumstances. Chalk it up to midlife crisis! I can accept this. However, have you noticed that a raw lesson presented in a neutral (read: boring) manner makes little impact. A raw fact out of context is trivia at best, soon forgotten at worst. Did you ever notice, the teachers that taught you the best, engaged you in the learning process? Those teachers that handed you a book and assigned homework, got a bunch of factoids regurgitated on a test sheet, the student got the grade and went away not truly learning anything. "This is the way it is, because I said so!" Every once in a while, a genuine teacher comes along that engages you in the process, that lights your mind and heart on fire. Homework is not a chore, in fact, the student goes above and beyond the call, because that interest has been sparked. The potential is there to ignite a lifelong passion. "Let's see, if this causes that, and that causes something else, what do you think will happen if you take this away from something else, and why? Or what if you double that?" One way to engage the student is to make the lesson relevent. What lesson is more relevent to all religions, including ultimately even the religion of science, than the subject of morality? The praxis of all seems, to be moral to each other. And an awful lot seem to believe it is important also to recognize, with respect, the source from which all come. I love late night rambles, sometimes the thoughts simply flow, without being screened internally. Ah yes, symbolic thinking. Hmmm, symbolic thought being a connection to the subconscious? Is this not dreams (perhaps even the time consequence applying to prescient dreams and visions), and/or Jungian archetypes? Do I see the implication of outside intervention through this method? Is that outside intervention spirit, or is it internal, mental energies that happen to coincidentally agree between individuals to a great degree, even across cultures and faiths? Is it the spiritual connection that lies between all living creatures? Is it any combination of the above, or none at all? Or is all an illusion, in the Western, fraudulent, defeatist sense of the word (as alluded to by Doestoyevski?) In other words, if there is no outside influence, then is all an invention of religion in the political sense? Even if we are misleading ourselves, collectively, I would tend to think that may yet come to light in the course of this line of inquiry. Perhaps a lot will remain conjecture, but when conjecture applies relatively equally across the board, does that not lend circumstantial weight? I cannot experience everything. I might try to experience all that can be made available to me in my lifetime, but I cannot simultaneously experience the experiences of 6 billion other human lives, and those of countless other living creatures. Or if I am somehow capable, I have not yet discovered the way. I must, at some point, gain from the experiences of others (what we call "teaching"). Even those individuals that do connect, do not in my estimation connect to all at all times, experiencing everything always. I suspect it would lead to madness. (We may all be connected, but there is a certain distinction that makes each and all lives unique) How relevent to morality is it to connect to all spirits/experiences willfully and consciously anyway? Can we improve our moral capacity, does our inner voice gain strength, by deliberately connecting to the collective experiences of all? Is it necessary for understanding? How connected can we truly be while still in this vessel? How ready are we to see reality as reality is, if it is beyond our ability to comprehend? Or do we sate ourselves by saying, "why bother?" I hope my ramble doesn't discourage or insult.