In the east mystics have talked about god in two ways. Those who were more intellectually oriented have talked about god as satchidananda. Sat means truth, chid means consciousness, ananda means bliss. Those who were not so intellectually oriented, who were more emotional, devotional, more poetic, more of the heart- they have talked about god as satyam shivam sundaram: truth, goodness, and beauty. These are the two trinities talked about in the east.
Truth is the same in both; it has to be so because god is: that ‘isness’ is his truth. But then the differences arise. The intellectually oriented think of god as consciousness, and then as bliss, because consciousness is continuously seeking for bliss. It is a search for bliss, so the ultimate goal becomes bliss. But the poetic approach is different.
The ultimate goal is always beauty, bliss is a byproduct. When you have experienced the ultimate beauty of existence you feel bliss, but that is a byproduct, a consequence; it is not the goal. To the poet it is not the goal. To the poet it is not relevant even to talk about it. It comes on its own, just as when listening to beautiful music you feel surrounded by a bliss, but your concern is the music, the beauty of it.