Religious Pluralism & Trinity

[Thomas]

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

Is there a world need for 'pluralistic theology'?

I don't think there is? Or rather, each Tradition is sufficiently inclusive of all in itself not to need to be re-interpreted 'pluralistically' – it addresses all humanity, totally, regardless of socio-political-geopgraphic determination.

Theosophy was a grand attempt at this, but founders, in my view, on too many points. Not the least it has to reinvent the Trinity in a way that is utterly alien to the doctrine, distorting it entirely to fit its imagined pluralist model. The idea of the Holy Trinity conforming to the idea of a First Logos, a Second Logos and Third Logos, is a distortion of a poorly conceived doctrine.

I think on the one hand 'pluralism' is a 'why can't we all just love each other?' notion (which usually is a cover for 'why doesn't everyone think like me?'), and on the other its the marketeers' dream to catch the widest possible consumer audience.

I would also suggest intellectual concepts are not the best way to approach the pluralist question — the majority of people don't go for intellectual abstractions, we need something we can 'get hold of'.

Much better would be a 'sensible' doctrine rather than an intellectual one, such as "Love" or "Compassion" or "Peace" ... A watered-down version of the Trinity, for the sake of acceptance, is not going to get you very far.

I realise to end up with a 'pluralistic theology' you're going to have to water down the Traditional doctrine, but then that's hardly an attractive proposition to other religious traditions, that a watered-down Christianity is good enough for them!

+++

Christians ... may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others.

Sorry, but that's not acceptable to Christians – Christ is not the representative of God, He is God – and that is not acceptable to other traditions.

Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God.

No, I don't think that's the case. There's no correlation between the Trinity of Christianity and the Trimurti of Hinduism, much as people assume there might be, because there's three in each one!

Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

Or perceptions of different things that you're assuming is the same thing.

The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost ... is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

Well for a start, you're wrong in your definition of the Holy Spirit, and indeed your definition of the infinite.

The finite is not other than the infinite, if it was, the infinite is not infinite. Infinite means unconditioned, uncontained, limitless – you can't have a relative infinite.

But this whole argument seems to be mapping a human psychological blueprint onto the Deity. An anthropomorphic analogy ... and one that we refute as 'modalism' ... God is not Trinity because He is like us! We – indeed all creation – are triune because we are conformed to the (self)image of God. Not a physical nor a cosmological image.

... because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme ...

But according to classical philosophy, it isn't. Nor can it be. The One is not a synthesis, not a composite of two or more things. The Absolute is the Supreme because it is Absolute, the Supreme is Absolute because it is Supreme. It's not two things, two qualities, it's your appreciation of the qualities contained in the One. I could add more – the Infinite, the Perfect, the Real, the Good, the True, the Beautiful and so on, but that's because of our fractured vision, not because of multiplicity in the Divine.

so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul.

Now I rather think that is projecting a human ideal on the Divine?

... then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

This is not the Holy Spirit, nor the Trinity, of Christianity.

Get hold of the Writings of St Maximus the Confessor, specifically the Two Hundred Texts on Theology and the Incarnate Dispensation of the Son of God Written for Thalassios

1. God is one because there is one Divinity: unoriginate, simple, beyond being, without parts, indivisible.

The Divinity is both unity and trinity - wholly one and wholly three. It is wholly one in respect of the essence, wholly three in respect of the hypostases or persons. For the Divinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and is in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The whole Divinity is in the whole Father and the whole Father is in the whole Divinity.

The whole Divinity is in the whole Son and the whole Son is in the whole Divinity.

The whole Divinity is m the whole Holy Spirit and the whole Holy Spirit is in the whole Divinity.

The whole Divinity is both Father and in the whole Father; the whole Father is in the whole Divinity and the whole Divinity is the whole Father.

The whole Son is in the whole Divinity and the whole Divinity is in the whole Son; the whole Son is both the whole Divinity and in the whole Divinity.

The whole Divinity is both the Holy Spirit and in the whole Holy Spirit; and the whole Holy Spirit is both the whole Divinity and in the whole Divinity.

For the Divinity is not partially in the Father, nor is the Father part of God.

The Divinity is not partially in the Son, nor is the Son part of God.

The Divinity is not partially in the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit part of God.

For the Divinity is not divisible; nor is the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit incomplete God. On the contrary, the whole and complete Divinity is completely in the complete Father; the whole and complete Divinity is completely in the complete Son; and the whole and complete Divinity is completely in the complete Holy Spirit.

For the whole Father is completely in the whole Son and Spirit; and the whole Son is completely in the whole Father and Spirit; and the whole Holy Spirit is completely in the whole Father and Son.

Therefore the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God.

The essence, power and energy of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, for none of the hypostases or persons either exists or is intelligible without the others.

That's a tough read, I know, but work through it and you're getting there!

 

[Thomas]

I came across this on wiki:

Perennial philosophy and religious pluralism

Religious pluralism holds that various world religions are limited by their distinctive historical and cultural contexts and thus there is no single, true religion. There are only many equally valid religions. Each religion is a direct result of humanity’s attempt to grasp and understand the incomprehensible divine reality. Therefore, each religion has an authentic but ultimately inadequate perception of divine reality, producing a partial understanding of the universal truth, which requires syncretism to achieve a complete understanding as well as a path towards salvation or spiritual enlightenment.

Although the Sophia Perennis holds that there is no single true religion, it differs when discussing divine reality. Perennial philosophy holds that the divine reality is what allows the universal truth to be understood.

Each religion provides its own interpretation of the universal truth, based on its historical and cultural context. Therefore, each religion provides everything required to observe the divine reality and achieve a state in which one will be able to confirm the universal truth and achieve salvation or spiritual enlightenment.

 

[taijasi]

Thomas, that excerpt from Wiki fits perfectly into a thread I started on `Syncretism vs. Theosophy.'

Some of us are not concerned about the discrepancies between the Trimurti and the Trinity. The latter evolution in Christian theology may indeed differ from the Vedic presentation of Trimurti, but certainly the Hindus are attempting to talk about God, about the Ultimate or highest aspects of reality. I always figured that Christians were too ... but maybe I'm wrong!

What is certainly inauthentic and preposterous is for Christian (or any other) theologians to presume that "the Hindus didn't quite get it right," but that Christ and the Christians came along and straightened it out for them. Except that, of course, since the poor, misguided Hindus haven't converted yet, they really don't know the Godhead the way the more enlightened Christians do.

When someone takes that line of criticism or analysis, or even subtly implies such absurdity, I pretty much just have to think, tsk tsk, and chime out. Yet I do wonder how such smugness comes about to begin with.

So, although Theosophy may not yet have managed to convince the masses that we are all simply playing a giant game of `The Three Blind Men of Hindustan,' we haven't stopped believing it for a moment. It isn't to suggest that there aren't various differences in the presentation ... but rather, we must first come to the acceptance of what you've shared from the Wiki articles, *especially* focusing on the last of the three paragraphs.

Once we can embrace one another on common ground, and get totally past any kind of superiority complex, we are automatically beyond the kind of mindset that leads to a desire to convert one another ... and can also work on not seeking to beat each other over the head with how much we understand about - our particular religion, the other person's preferred religion or belief system, or who makes the best automobile, beer, and that sort of jazz.

The fact that a TRIUNE presentation of Deity seems commonplace among many - even the most ancient of - religions ... along with the presentation of a Divine Septenate, or septenary manifestation of Godhead (following logically upon the triune manifestation), all suggests to me quite clearly that we are speaking of the SAME THING, but in different terminology and nuance.

Once again, that's fine, but it gets back to a simple acknowledgment that these differences do not invalidate the greater reality. If anything, they provide us a more solid, larger ground from which to have a discussion. We can educate one another along the way about our particular faith/Faith, experiences, interpretations and understanding of [God, the Godhead, the Divine, etc.] if we like, but the one thing which seems to me should be off limits automatically, is the effort to convert or proselytize.

For the record though, since I don't think H.P. Blavatsky spoke of the Trinity in the way that some of the later Theosophists did, I might try to shed a little light on what C.W. Leadbeater was seeking to do. The presentation of First, Second and Third Logos is a treatment of the cosmological processes of creation, be that the birth of a Solar System, a planetary system, or even of Cosmos itself. There is no effort there to make this presentation conform to Christian theology, or - believe it or not - to trump the same.

As it turns out, Leadbeater was one of several Theosophists who were ordained in the Liberal Catholic Church, being as different from Roman Catholicism as the Baptists are from the Anglicans (if not more so). The choice to use certain terminology and even expect some of the language to do double duty was probably an ill-founded effort, although I do tend to side with the Liberal Catholic, and Theosophical presentation myself ... but this is because for me, it is infinitely clearer than anything I've ever gotten out of the Roman Catholic doctrine and presentation.

But of course, being raised a Lutheran, and being quite familiar with the Christian liturgy in this incarnation - and probably much more steeped in it during a couple of earlier incarnations - it would be counter-productive for me to abandon my experience and discoveries, and attempt to cram it all into the `box' of ... say, Theosophy?

You see, one can be a Theosophist and subscribe to just about any of the mainstream religions, or even lesser known religions, extant. As has been pointed out before, Theosophy is not a religion, and merely purports to be a good bit closer to the River Alph - or Sophia Perennis - *when practiced*.

Just as with Christianity or Hinduism, one can study a body of teachings, and even seek to understand the original intent & message of its Founder(s). Yet as we are both observing on another thread, the proof of the Sacra Doctrina comes not from what you profess, or claim to have discovered. The evidence is in the walk. We know the Tree by its fruits. And that is an old realization.

So a good Theosophist, as opposed to one who merely does lip worship, is one who seeks to emulate the Mahatmas (however we have come to know them), including - if one accepts the presentation - the Christ, or World Teacher.

Likewise, I tend to view the authenticity of a Christian's claims to being a `good Christian' - let alone an exemplary one - by the evidence that s/he is trying to follow in the footsteps of the Christ. And since I am not a Roman Catholic, that most certainly looks different to me than it will to a Roman Catholic. Yet since I learned the definition of INTERNAL CRITICISM during my days in college philosophy class, I am not so shortsighted as to expect a Catholic to behave as a Baptist, or a Methodist to do what the Lutherans do.

A Theosophist is free to join any of these denominations, or other religious faiths, and merely has to demonstrate the commitment to a spiritual path ... which relies upon the Gold standard, if we wish to say it that way, and not upon the particular judgment of one's peers, or even pastor, rabbi, etc. for validation.

What bothers me, and always has - since I have realized that people have been foolish enough to believe such things - is that some people try to literally buy, beg, or ingratiate their way to Heaven (or to favor with God). Such favor is nonexistent, in my book, and Heaven isn't at all - from my point of view - what a lot of folks seem to think it is.

So, when I think about, neither is the Trinity. For such Power - including Love, and Intelligence - rests within us all, in latent form ... and it seems to me that what we're here to do is make it manifest, to develop it to Perfection.

The rest, in a way, is a footnote, since even a little bit of Gnosis is enough to dispel many of the illusions and delusions of both ego and egoism, or egoity. But alas, within religions, and within the religious arena, there yet thrives some of the greatest ... of precisely what these various institutions were established, to eradicate. Irony, indeed.

Namaskar

 

[Thomas]

Some of us are not concerned about the discrepancies between the Trimurti and the Trinity.

Some of us are. If you don't understand the distinctions, I fail to see how you can understand the differences?

I don't think anyone talks of 'discrepancies'?

The latter evolution in Christian theology may indeed differ from the Vedic presentation of Trimurti, but certainly the Hindus are attempting to talk about God, about the Ultimate or highest aspects of reality.

Didn't say they're not. I'm saying it's their reality, and it differs from mine. (I'm talking doctrinally, rather than personally.) I observe and honour the distinction. One cannot transpose the Holy Spirit and the Destroyer without altering one's view of reality.

Reality itself, of course, is 'invisible' because ultimately the Real is beyond all forms. The Great Traditions then provide the safest, surest and most direct and immediate means of access to the Divine for humanity as a whole, and without those forms the Divine is otherwise inaccessible.

What is certainly inauthentic and preposterous is for Christian (or any other) theologians to presume that "the Hindus didn't quite get it right," but that Christ and the Christians came along and straightened it out for them.

Yes, it would be. But, thankfully, no-one's ever said that, to my best knowledge. No one worth their salt, anyway.

By the same token, I might ask, what gives you the right to tell me we haven't 'quite got it right' and that you came along to 'straighten it out' for us. hmmm?

When someone takes that line of criticism or analysis, or even subtly implies such absurdity, I pretty much just have to think, tsk tsk, and chime out. Yet I do wonder how such smugness comes about to begin with.

Well I'm not the one saying it, am I?

Once we can embrace one another on common ground, and get totally past any kind of superiority complex, we are automatically beyond the kind of mindset that leads to a desire to convert one another ...

Rest assured I have not that mindset, nor the desire to convert you.

The fact that a TRIUNE presentation of Deity seems commonplace among many - even the most ancient of - religions ... along with the presentation of a Divine Septenate, or septenary manifestation of Godhead (following logically upon the triune manifestation), all suggests to me quite clearly that we are speaking of the SAME THING, but in different terminology and nuance.

Yes. And it's the nuances on all sides that I find most revealing, both about my tradition, and the traditions of others. As I would say, that's because Creation is Trinity-shaped!

Once again, that's fine, but it gets back to a simple acknowledgment that these differences do not invalidate the greater reality. If anything, they provide us a more solid, larger ground from which to have a discussion. We can educate one another along the way about our particular faith/Faith, experiences, interpretations and understanding of [God, the Godhead, the Divine, etc.] if we like, but the one thing which seems to me should be off limits automatically, is the effort to convert or proselytize.

Couldn't agree more.

For the record though, since I don't think H.P. Blavatsky spoke of the Trinity in the way that some of the later Theosophists did, I might try to shed a little light on what C.W. Leadbeater was seeking to do. The presentation of First, Second and Third Logos is a treatment of the cosmological processes of creation, be that the birth of a Solar System, a planetary system, or even of Cosmos itself.

OK. I can accept that as your treatment.

There is no effort there to make this presentation conform to Christian theology, or - believe it or not - to trump the same.

Good.

As it turns out, Leadbeater was one of several Theosophists who were ordained in the Liberal Catholic Church, being as different from Roman Catholicism as the Baptists are from the Anglicans (if not more so). The choice to use certain terminology and even expect some of the language to do double duty was probably an ill-founded effort, although I do tend to side with the Liberal Catholic, and Theosophical presentation myself ... but this is because for me, it is infinitely clearer than anything I've ever gotten out of the Roman Catholic doctrine and presentation.

Well there you go. Obviously, I'm going to say that for me, Traditional Christian doctrine sheds a light on the difference between the Real and the illusory – Atma and Maya – like no other.

 

[taijasi]

I observe and honour the distinction. One cannot transpose the Holy Spirit and the Destroyer without altering one's view of reality.

...

By the same token, I might ask, what gives you the right to tell me we haven't 'quite got it right' and that you came along to 'straighten it out' for us. hmmm?

Well, Thomas, now that you ask, it would be the following:

Clearly *YOU* don't need to be trying to do any of this `straightening out,' since you're as mixed up about this subject as a tossed salad.

The Destroyer Aspect does not correspond with the Holy Spirit. It is the Father, and it is Brahma which parallels the Christian Holy Spirit.

Yes, even so the concepts are VERY different. But between the two of us, it's ol' Taijasi [me] here who recognizes that Trimurti and Trinity can co-exist as but two "interpretation of the universal truth, based on its historical and cultural context". Gee I do wish you'd keep that straight.

Note: Yes I see, going back, that when you say `transpose,' maybe you do realize what you're saying. Mea culpa, if so. Still, I think the fact that you even acknowledge *Brahma=Creator/Holy Spirit ... Vishnu=Son ... Destroyer=Father* to be an indication that we're on the right track. There is fertile material there alone for discussion, such as:

How on Earth could Brahma be the Holy Spirit, since Christians typically invoke the Father Aspect in their overall cosmological picture of who-made-what-when!

Reality itself, of course, is 'invisible' because ultimately the Real is beyond all forms. The Great Traditions then provide the safest, surest and most direct and immediate means of access to the Divine for humanity as a whole, and without those forms the Divine is otherwise inaccessible.

Ha! Who told you that?

The physical world is part of reality. Is it invisible?

No. It is the `rupa' part of it. And the "Real beyond all forms" is what Hindus might call a-rupa. But the Soul has its residence upon & within such worlds, and without that, neither you nor I nor aught that breathes and moves would breathe or move. Yet Consciousness itself, the SOUL, is able to look out, so to speak, into the physical, into the emotional, into the lower mental world, or still behold its own ken within what Christ called the 5th Kingdom [the Kingdom of God, Heaven, or Souls].

Still yet worlds exist which transcend higher mind, which also the threefold Soul knows well from direct experience. MANY humans have traveled that Royal Road from imperfection to Perfection, and THIS is what Christ taught. Strange, that *some* Christians do not accept much of what Christ asked of them, or earnestly attempt it, nor even believe the injunctions, PLAIN as they appear in your Bibles - all translations.

Yet you would bandy about these distinctions (sorry that `discrepancies' did not suit you), CLEARLY emphasizing the differences, and seeking to blow them all out of proportion to the SIMILARITIES.

It's not even that differences don't exist; rather, that *SOME* people have never learned to see past them. And that is why I would suggest that THEY have no business trying to `straighten out' others, who already have probably forgotten more on the subject than *SOME* of us have ever learned.

But then, I do wish or prefer to be humble, and only think it's necessary to demonstrate that I know more, if pressed.

Now by all means, go ahead, ENLIGHTEN poor, daft ol' me here on the wonders of Thomas's understanding of the Trinity. If you must.

But you see, friend, I already have the insight which I felt I required, have sought, and sure enough - discovered. It's not that I don't care what you have to say. It's just that I will not let you drag me away from an accurate, helpful understanding, which may even be shared with others - others who are not blinded or prejudiced by the mistaken view that we can slice two grapes differently enough to suggest, or prove, that they are DIFFERENT, utterly and completely.

You keep that ol' grape-slicing up, Thomas, but you have yet to prove to any of us - or certainly me - that "two grapes are two ENTIRELY, utterly different entities." I think you're a bit confused by the whole time and space thing, personally, as well as rupa and arupa. You seem to think the latter is utterly beyond human ken, and yet, it is not so. Nor is Nirvana, which yet stands two worlds beyond the Intellect, and one noteworthy world [dvipa] transcendent even of the UNDERSTANDING which the Great Lord referenced.

"There is a PEACE which PASSETH Understanding." Nowhere here is the MIND referenced, either as a Principle or as an entity. If you can't see that, clearly, we should agree to disagree - and I will kindly squelch your posts, since they cannot co-exist with reason or Good Health. Nor for me, anyway.

And man, I do believe we're both better than that. Or am I only half-right?

Well I'm not the one saying it, am I?

I don't know, Thomas, are you?

Rest assured I have not that mindset, nor the desire to convert you.

I'm so glad!

Yes. And it's the nuances on all sides that I find most revealing, both about my tradition, and the traditions of others. As I would say, that's because Creation is Trinity-shaped!

Sure, I believe such nuances worth discussing, and quite agree. Perhaps the clarity as to WHICH Aspects of the Trimurti correspond with which of the Trinity, mentioned above, is a good starting point. Vishnu, the 2nd Person, also leaves room for discussion, yet to treat Siva as the Holy Spirit definitely needed correcting ... as also Brahma and the Father. But nuances, definitely, otherwise Hinduism and Christianity would be the same. And they ain't.

I'm going to say that for me, Traditional Christian doctrine sheds a light on the difference between the Real and the illusory – Atma and Maya – like no other.

Ok, but technically, there are some who make a further distinction - and I consider it a *noteworthy* one - between the several forms of confusion which arise from living within Samsara (no, not a Buddhist concept, since Buddha came to reform an existing worldview or religion).

Maya applies to the physical world, and the latter is certainly accepted as Real, just not the ultimate reality. I know that you may know this, but some may not.

Glamour has been used by some authors to refer to a similar effect or condition upon the astral plane, the world of emotions. Even if you ponder that for but a moment, you should realize that this is the more pervasive, and often the more egregious in warping our view, our understanding, of greater Reality.

Yet upon the plane of lower mind, where each and every one of us already dwells, and where we must sort through the mix to attain the Realization of and as the Soul, upon higher Mind ... there exists Illusion, per se. The intellectual, such as you and I, probably has as much difficulty here as within the astral world.

As an example of great illusion, one sage has often referred to the "Dire Heresy of Separateness." I would submit that the Christ discussed this often and spent much effort seeking to disentangle us from its web. Else, what possibly could He have hoped to share with the common man regarding the true condition of the Souls of men within their own world, Heaven, and of the Angelic/Divine consciousness and mode [state] of existence?

For, Nirvana is non-duality, and yet we continue - YOU AND I [and all `others']. The Buddhic Consciousness, including Bliss-awareness, as well as the `Perfect Understanding' to which the Christ referred, is also based upon non-Duality, hence to truly Know a thing is to know it from within, rather than without, which latter comprehension is the limitation of the mind, save for the Soul which rules from the plane of higher Mind [Mahat as a Universal Principle, Manas in the case of individual MAN, who takes his own `Name' therefrom].

You see, I do not seek pedantry here, and am as eager to learn distinctions or subtleties taught within Roman Catholic theology, or any other system, if and when they can increase and complement my understanding, rather than tear it down or detract from it.

I sincerely believe, since I have discovered it before, that you are capable of schooling someone such as myself in areas where I may need schooling ... *and* that amicable discussion is possible. But I won't hesitate to point out where you're just flat wrong, or at least, where you seem to be saying something which I know to be inaccurate, as above. Likewise, I expect the same. But of course, no one needs to get out the dead fish, I hope.

 

[Thomas]

Trinity & Trimurti part one

Clearly *YOU* don't need to be trying to do any of this `straightening out,' since you're as mixed up about this subject as a tossed salad.

Andrew, based on our previous history, I canvassed the advice of others here before engaging in this conversation ... and I fear this is heading exactly where I feared it might go ... ... can we converse without resort to ridicule?

The Destroyer Aspect does not correspond with the Holy Spirit.

I know. That's what I said.

Yes, even so the concepts are VERY different.

I know. That's what I said.

But between the two of us, it's ol' Taijasi [me] here who recognizes that Trimurti and Trinity can co-exist as but two "interpretation of the universal truth, based on its historical and cultural context".

Well, I said quite clearly that the two co-exist? Where you got the contrary impression from, I have no idea.

How on Earth could Brahma be the Holy Spirit ...

I don't know, Andrew. I don't know where you got that from. Not me.

Ha! Who told you that?

That the Real is beyond forms? Er ... every tradition I've studied? Certainly its there in Christianity, and Platonism. Judaism and Islam, of course. And Hinduism. And Buddhism. It's axiomatic to the Sophia Perennis. And, I think, to all the other Great Traditions as well. Perhaps most explicitly of all, the Dao?

The physical world is part of reality. Is it invisible?

Ah, I see your confusion. That's not what I was referring to. I meant 'the Real', not our perception of reality, which I agree encompasses both the formal and the formless. I think we can both agree that the latter – our perception of reality – comprehends both in a way that is contingent upon an array of factors.

... or still behold its own ken within what Christ called the 5th Kingdom [the Kingdom of God, Heaven, or Souls].

Where does He say that?

Strange, that *some* Christians do not accept much of what Christ asked of them, or earnestly attempt it, nor even believe the injunctions, PLAIN as they appear in your Bibles - all translations.

I'd rather keep this between *us* and leave *them* (whoever they are) out of it?

Yet you would bandy about these distinctions (sorry that `discrepancies' did not suit you), CLEARLY emphasizing the differences, and seeking to blow them all out of proportion to the SIMILARITIES.

Sorry if you missed my point. I see neither the differences nor the similarities as 'discrepancies', in fact, far from it. I see them – the differences and the similarities – as illuminative and enlightening.

... rather, that *SOME* people have never learned to see past them.

Well *SOME* people think that man never set foot on the moon but what others think is irrelevant, really. This is a discussion between you and I.

Now by all means, go ahead, ENLIGHTEN poor, daft ol' me here on the wonders of Thomas's understanding of the Trinity. If you must.

Andrew, I never suggested you are poor or daft. Pleas don't take things so personally. If it so offends you, I won't mention my understanding again. But then I'm somewhat at a loss to see what there is I can contribute to this conversation?

... others who are not blinded or prejudiced by the mistaken view that we can slice two grapes differently enough to suggest, or prove, that they are DIFFERENT, utterly and completely.

Never said that, either. Different, yes. Utterly and completely, no.

I think you're a bit confused by the whole time and space thing, personally, as well as rupa and arupa.

No, not confused there.

You seem to think the latter is utterly beyond human ken...

Good Lord, no! If I thought that, then the whole enterprise would be pointless. I really am at a loss to explain why you think these things, or where you get them from?

"There is a PEACE which PASSETH Understanding." Nowhere here is the MIND referenced, either as a Principle or as an entity. If you can't see that, clearly, we should agree to disagree - and I will kindly squelch your posts, since they cannot co-exist with reason or Good Health. Nor for me, anyway.

Here you go again. I never said that, nor would I, so I fail to see why you think 'I can't see that'?

And man, I do believe we're both better than that. Or am I only half-right?

In a way, yes. I think you're right about what you understand, but wrong about what you think I understand, or don't understand?

I don't know, Thomas, are you?

What, saying, if I may quote you:

What is certainly inauthentic and preposterous is for Christian (or any other) theologians to presume that "the Hindus didn't quite get it right," but that Christ and the Christians came along and straightened it out for them. Except that, of course, since the poor, misguided Hindus haven't converted yet, they really don't know the Godhead the way the more enlightened Christians do.

When someone takes that line of criticism or analysis, or even subtly implies such absurdity, I pretty much just have to think, tsk tsk, and chime out. Yet I do wonder how such smugness comes about to begin with.

No, I'm not saying that.

Let me reiterate:
No. I don't think that.

(As a matter of fact, I've never heard a Christian or a theologian say it, either. I do wish you'd stop inventing things for me to say so you can make disparaging comments. Someone might have, I suppose. Whether I think them 'a theologian' or even 'a Christian' is another matter. You'd have to identify who you're talking about.)

Perhaps the clarity as to WHICH Aspects of the Trimurti correspond with which of the Trinity, mentioned above, is a good starting point.

Actually ... and I don't want to throw a spanner in the works here ... but we may be pursuing a topic that has no meaningful resonance with Hindus anyway:

... See 2nd next post ...

 

[Thomas]

Trinity & Trimurti part two

The Puranic period saw the rise of post-Vedic religion and the evolution of what R. C. Majumdar calls "synthetic Hinduism."

Just to interrupt here, I don't think the author sees "synthetic Hinduism" as a bad thing. Rather, I hope he sees it as I understand it, as harmonising a number of different spiritual streams.

One of the important traits of this period is a spirit of harmony between orthodox and sectarian forms. Regarding this spirit of reconciliation, R. C. Majumdar says that:

Its most notable expression is to be found in the theological conception of the Trimūrti, i.e., the manifestation of the supreme God in three forms of Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva... But the attempt cannot be regarded as a great success, for Brahmā never gained an ascendancy comparable to that of Śiva or Viṣṇu, and the different sects often conceived the Trimūrti as really the three manifestations of their own sectarian god, whom they regarded as Brahman or Absolute."

Historian A. L. Basham explains the background of the Trimurti as follows, noting Western interest in the idea of trinity:

Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kālidāsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahmā, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence, but it appears the Hindu Tradition never made much of the Trimurti anyway.

The above from Trimurti on wiki.

We may well be labouring towards a moot point. I have a suggestion, which I'll posit at the end.

Vishnu, the 2nd Person, also leaves room for discussion, yet to treat Siva as the Holy Spirit definitely needed correcting ... as also Brahma and the Father. But nuances, definitely, otherwise Hinduism and Christianity would be the same. And they ain't.

Quite. Thats' what I said.

Maya applies to the physical world, and the latter is certainly accepted as Real, just not the ultimate reality. I know that you may know this, but some may not.

Good point. It's the not-knowing that that leads people to fall so far short in their understanding of the Incarnation. What the Incarnation exemplifies is that God is All-in-All, and Immanently present in the physical world. That's what His followers missed when He said "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 10:7). It's not there, it's here.

As an example of great illusion, one sage has often referred to the "Dire Heresy of Separateness."

Indeed ... but again I must ask, why introduce stuff we're neither of us talking about?

I would submit that the Christ discussed this often and spent much effort seeking to disentangle us from its web.

All the bloomin' time, chum! That's the whole Bible in a nutshell: You are not alone.

and am as eager to learn distinctions or subtleties taught within Roman Catholic theology, or any other system, if and when they can increase and complement my understanding, rather than tear it down or detract from it.

But it seems to me you've already made up your mind on that point?

I sincerely believe, since I have discovered it before, that you are capable of schooling someone such as myself in areas where I may need schooling ... *and* that amicable discussion is possible.

I don't seek to school, just to share and compare.

But I won't hesitate to point out where you're just flat wrong, or at least, where you seem to be saying something which I know to be inaccurate, as above. Likewise, I expect the same. But of course, no one needs to get out the dead fish, I hope.

I hope so, too.

In light of that, and because neither of us want to be here forever, can I make two suggestions?
1: We stick to the point, and not stray off into extraneous excursions.
2: We keep our subjective opinions on one side.

Having looked again at the Trimurti, I get the impression we could beat this one into the ground, and then the sages say: 'Nice work, lads, but it's no big deal to us, really. You'd be better employed looking at stuff that's more central to our doctrines?'

May I suggest we compare another and more central doctrine, that of Satchitananda? If so, I think we should start another thread.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

The things people argue over amazes me. One kid has a wind-up toy, but no key. A 2nd kid has a key, but no wind-up toy. Each one tells the other how special their item is and why it is superior to the other. Meanwhile a 3rd kid comes along and tells the 1st kid to use the 2nd kid's key to wind up his toy. Instead of doing so, the 1st and 2nd kid fight with the 3rd for making such a ridiculous suggestion stating that their items are completely different, therefore completely incompatible. What a waste. Preferring to argue rather than realizing the true potential of what they have.

 

[Thomas]

Instead of doing so, the 1st and 2nd kid fight with the 3rd for making such a ridiculous suggestion stating that their items are completely different, therefore completely incompatible. What a waste.

Wha'? I thought we were both saying they are compatible! Just not the same.

Preferring to argue ...

Argue? Who-wee! You ain't seen nuttin' Andrew and I go way back. Man, we had some matches! Hammer and Tongs, Jeez, the feckin' kitchen sink! This is cordial by comparison. This is a breeze! Sure, we get fired up, but I think we're both working at being fired up and keeping cool!

Heck, I got a bloomin' compliment! And his scope and range over the esoteric (Hermeticism in particular, as that's an area of interest for me) is encyclopaedic and insightful! (Yeah, OK, we'll bicker over that, too. But ... )

He steps on my Catholic toes and I elbow him in his Theosophical ribs, but I reckon, in some respects, we're both pushing that envelope!

(But brevity? Oh my ... we both gotta lotta work to do on that one! )

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The things people argue over amazes me. One kid has a wind-up toy, but no key. A 2nd kid has a key, but no wind-up toy. Each one tells the other how special their item is and why it is superior to the other. Meanwhile a 3rd kid comes along and tells the 1st kid to use the 2nd kid's key to wind up his toy. Instead of doing so, the 1st and 2nd kid fight with the 3rd for making such a ridiculous suggestion stating that their items are completely different, therefore completely incompatible. What a waste. Preferring to argue rather than realizing the true potential of what they have.

Just because it's something you're not interested in doesn't mean other people don't find it interesting. If you think it's a waste, perhaps you don't see what could be accomplished by having these discussions.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Just because it's something you're not interested in doesn't mean other people don't find it interesting. If you think it's a waste, perhaps you don't see what could be accomplished by having these discussions.

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have posted. I was making an analogy of the situation.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have posted. I was making an analogy of the situation.

I may have misunderstood you, but I thought the conclusion of your post was that, in your analogy, the argument was a waste.

 

[donnann]

Frankly, I'm still amazed that people think of God and Allah as different. That's like saying that `street' and `calle' are two different concepts, simply because the first bloke speaks English and the second speaks Spanish.

Similarly, if one is a Hindu, one recognizes the Trinity, s/he simply calls it `TRIMURTI' - meaning `three forms.' It is useless to argue about subtle theological distinctions if you cannot face this basic truth.

However, since Sanskrit underlies the Latin, preceding it by many thousands of years, and since the Latin has only influenced the extremely modern Romance languages for the past handful of centuries, we should at least note the parallels.

To wit, the far, far more ancient Sanskrit term `trimurti' was already in existence for long ages before the appearance of Christ on the scene 2100 years ago. Likewise, Sri Krishna, whom some believe to be an earlier incarnation thereof, was able to interpret the existing sacred scriptures quite well, without any contribution from Christian theologians, let alone the latterday whizbang experts who have reinvented concepts like the Trinity to suit their own philosophies and pet notions.

The Holy Spirit, simply put, is the Mind of God. This may be conceived - and soon will be proven by scientific investigation - as being present, in more or less passive form within every atom of physical, as well as superphysical substance. The latter is already accepted by science today as `dark matter,' though in fact there is no such thing as matter without energy, or vice versa, be they `light' or `dark.' Occultists knew this centuries ago, some quite a bit earlier. Where matter meets energy (each atom, as well as each greater confluence of the two), Consciousness - the SON, the 2nd Aspect - exists.

The 2nd `Person' of the Trinity is likewise Universally present and pervasive. Some may call it `the Christ,' yet it exists within every atom just as does the 3rd Aspect, or `Holy Spirit.' In the case of human evolution, it is the goal to unfold and develop the Christ Consciousness, yet this proceeds only after the unfolding and perfecting of the Mind, if not entirely sequentially and in linear fashion. Indeed, the Will of God is often manifest in man quite soon after the Christ aspect has been perfected ... even if the Christ Himself has but just relatively recently entered the Way of a Higher Evolution, which we may safely call `Cosmic' if we accept that only a handful among [our] Humanity have also done likewise.

Thus, also the 1st Aspect, or Will, becomes evident eventually, though upon Earth this only shows forth in a handful of cases. Yet every atom is destined to eventually pass the human, then superhuman stages. Such is Divine Law. And that Law, in concert with the Aspects of Beings, applies in three corresponding expressions: 1) The Law of Economy, including Karma, or Cause and Effect, 2) The Law of Attraction, including all that Earth's citizens know by the term `Love' [Compassion, Forgiveness, Grace, etc.], and 3) Synthesis, the expression of Will, or the 1st Aspect.

It will be of little use to suggest that ALL THREE of the Trinitarian's `Aspects' or `Persons' of the Trimurti become perfected in the `Christed' individual, unless one accepts first that all human beings are destined to become PERFECT, even as did the Christ, Who by [repeated] incarnation - just as the rest of us - likewise attained. And yet, HE TOLD US THAT THIS WAS SO.

It seems that - often enough - it only occurs to us *somewhere down the line* that such statements, such universal teachings, were right all along. Instead of seeing that it takes hard work, MUCH hard work on the part of the Soul, the person involved, we would rather invest blind faith in a thing like vicarious atonement ... and somehow expect that by professing oft and loudly that "Jesus paid the price," WE are somehow thereby benefited. Not surprisingly, it turns out that we are benefited *not one whit* - and instead, our own evolution is held back almost indefinitely - while we cling to such nonsense. Show me ONE more example in NATURE where this applies, and I will take two definite steps backward and reconsider such absurdity. Yet you cannot, and thus I will not.

But I do know the Christ, others thus Perfected [vide Ephesians 4:13], and so too I know the consequences of ignoring the Lord's own Teaching, or of attempting to wrangle the meaning and thereby escape our own spiritual responsibilities. Worse yet, I see the karmic consequences of and for a clergy which twists and destroys the original Sanctity of the Gospels, even if they did leave fully 9/10ths of the original Books out of the Canon. I find no difficulty grasping the implications of the disciples questioning their teacher about the BLIND MAN, nor is the exchange between the Good Rabbi and Nicodemus lost upon my Intuition. PERFECT, even as MY FATHER IN HEAVEN is Perfect, is clear enough - for I have eyes to see with, and ears to hear it. So too, does my Mind function, if not yet Perfectly, and so too does my Heart aspire - even as the Nazarene Initiate encouraged it of us.

There are no fewer than THREE Great Lords in Earth's own Spiritual Government that bear the Honor and Responsibility of *personifying* - in one sense - an ASPECT of the Godhood, relative to Earth's evolving Humanity. Only one of these is known today, as for several centuries, by Christians as `THE Christ.' Yet in the Mysteries there has always been a CHRESTOS, being the candidate for Initiation. The Highest Initiation, which the Nazarene Himself demonstrated and symbolized for us in the Resurrection and Ascension, is that which makes of the candidate a *CHRISTOS*. Ignore this, and call yourself anything else, but do not take the term `Christian' to represent your beliefs. Otherwise, I may as well ride horses for a living, yet dub myself `race car driver.' For there may be a similarity, yes, but we speak of a different animal, entirely.

So indeed, the other two CHRISTED members of Earth's Spiritual Government are the 1st and 3rd Aspects of the Trinity, incarnate, just as the Christ is the 2nd, or `Son.' Yet every Son of Man who aspires, mounts the Cross, fulfils his DESTINY [as taught the Christ Himself] and attains to the Perfection ... becomes a full-fledged Son of God, earning for himself the *right* to this designation and recognition. Argue this if you like, but please do not do so and presume to call yourself `a Christian.' For I can assure you, such was not - and is not - the understanding maintained by `the Christed Ones,' who number several dozen upon our Earth ... a FACT, for the record, which I have proven for myself years ago, and which you can prove for yourself as well, though none other [including the Almighty!] can force upon you before your time.

Namaskar

Zagreus [Andrew/Taijasi]

P.S. - There *is* one piece which I would `cherry-pick' from Christian theology, regardless as to how much bunk a great portion of it has already been revealed to be. It did not originate with the Messiah doctrine, for Vaishnavas also expect Kalki Avatara, just as Buddhists look to Maitreya Buddha to come to them. But inasmuch as Faithful Christians do sometimes acknowledge and aspire to hasten the return [objective reappearance] of the Planetary Savior, so too does every true esotericist [versus speculator] invoke and look to the reappearance of the World Teacher.

To KNOW that such a Teacher exists, and has already announced His plans to return to us, OPENLY [as early as 1942, with stirrings which did not go undetected by some as early as 1925], is to take a definite stand against the rampant materialism, ignorance, atheism and runaway conspiracy theorizing so en vogue today.

And no, not ONE WORD of what I share is `New Age' theorizing, sugar-coating, or hocus pocus. But blood sacrifice, devoid of an intelligent & informed explanation of why this *has been and remains* efficacious, plus hogwash surrounding any sort of vicarious atonement, likewise devoid of a grasp of the true spiritual process of at-one-ment ... is plenty vain, plenty pointless.

The trinity is really based in two concepts. The first being spirit soul and body of an individual. The second is the male and female counterparts being two separate beings that are also one having a threefold consciousness.

 

[Thomas]

The trinity is really based in two concepts. The first being spirit soul and body of an individual.

No, the Trinity is based on Scripture's speaking of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Nowhere does Scripture ascribe a 'spirit soul and body' to God.

The second is the male and female counterparts being two separate beings that are also one having a threefold consciousness.

Scripture doesn't say that, either.

 

[wil]

The things people argue over amazes me. One kid has a wind-up toy, but no key. A 2nd kid has a key, but no wind-up toy. Each one tells the other how special their item is and why it is superior to the other. Meanwhile a 3rd kid comes along and tells the 1st kid to use the 2nd kid's key to wind up his toy. Instead of doing so, the 1st and 2nd kid fight with the 3rd for making such a ridiculous suggestion stating that their items are completely different, therefore completely incompatible. What a waste. Preferring to argue rather than realizing the true potential of what they have.

me thinks everyone is readin ol down under here wrong....
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Xtd48Th-Z...TrFmIAop_Y/s1600-h/failure+to+communicate.jpg
and if all allowed they'd be able to look around and see how large the canvas is that we are on, and each holds a cog to the big picture...

 

[taijasi]

Re: Trinity & Trimurti part one

Andrew, based on our previous history, I canvassed the advice of others here before engaging in this conversation ... and I fear this is heading exactly where I feared it might go ... ... can we converse without resort to ridicule?

It's a two-way street, Thomas, and yes, I do like it when folks are in good humor and try to be positive, uplifting, and if possible, positively uplifting.

Originally Posted by Zagreus:
... or still behold its own ken within what Christ called the 5th Kingdom [the Kingdom of God, Heaven, or Souls].

Where does He say that?

Short reference:

"behold, the kingdom of God is within you" ~Luke 17:21​

Longer reference:

Mark 4:10-12 ...

10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.​

I'm somewhat at a loss to see what there is I can contribute to this conversation?

Conversation itself is a Work in progress. If I may also wonder the same thing, I might submit that we will discover ways in which the discussions we've had are or themselves become a sort of teaching medium ... Teachers, if you will. What we benefit from something is a worthwhile question asking, both before and after a particular exchange. In addition, what another person or participant in a conversation might contact ... to me, yes, this is a vital consideration. If bread and water are not the only `Word' of God, then perhaps to experience the simple printing, speaking or expression [song, dance, painting, sculpture, etc.] which is Divinely inspired, also can exactly put the consciousness of the witnessing soul in tune with God.

Now this is no new art, and when there is good substance, we have at least the partial fulfillment of one branch or department of the purpose for our creation. And yes, when there is pedantry, sophistry, casuistry or the like (and worse), certainly there is room for a familiar Shakespeare quote, although depending on the reader, several may readily come to mind.

And so on. But yes, why discuss a subject, and yet, as utterly ineffable and Abstract as I believe the true Trinity to be (the highest and subtlest of three discussed in the Codex Nazarenus, as I recall) ... we might at least look at a few terms the Old Lady dragged out [Blavatsky] - if we get to it (and who knows, maybe not, depending) ... and see if she had the foggiest what she was saying, or - if she was just Whistlin' Dixie. I still can't make liars out of the Prophets, silly me, even if I do sincerely feel - that we are Confederates.

Wrong war, and even if we did just celebrate a national independence, I would say that in keeping with the Teachings of the Good Prophet, we might be thinking more of Peace, Interdependence, and thus Brotherhood. For the record, as I have stated before, no I do not think that the practice of the varying religions will disappear any time soon, since that would be counter-productive ... yet materialism, atheism and the using of science as a crutch and alibi for laziness of thought - are all bound to disappear like butter in the noonday Sun, once we have much more of a clue what's going on ... right before our eyes.

And this is the unveiling, of what is "hidden in plain sight" as you have said ... thus only by way of parallel commentary do I mention, regarding an early work by H.P. Blavatsky that "The work was originally entitled The Veil of Isis, a title which remains on the heading of each page, but had to be renamed once Blavatsky discovered that this title had already been used" (Wiki). The changing of the title to `Isis Unveiled' is a curiosity, in light of the utterance of the Saitic Isis, which I am sure you know.

What is noteworthy - and I trust I do not by any means reveal too much when I point it out - is that she apparently did not say, "And don't bother trying!"

Maybe it will come as no surprise then that I believe the account of Isis essentially transferring her title to the World Mother, Mary, the Goddess or Lady, here again speaking in several different languages or terminologies (since She has more names than either you or I could elucidate in two years of dedicated research and compilation, but as with the Christ, it only takes ONE). Earlier still, antedating Isis we may find Ishtar, Astarte, or perhaps I have my chronologies confused. Either way, the Hiranyagarbha or World egg cannot be born of the Third Mother Aspect without fecundation of the Fathering First, so the esoteric doctrine that Christ the Son is truly the product of Father Spirit and Mater Matter [!] is as intuitive as oatmeal, at least in my mind. Lumpy, maybe, but I do not specialize in communication, and dammit, that's a problem I've begun to notice nowadays.

Still, if Christ spoke less stilted, and sometime taught the most profound lessons in utter - SILENCE ... then yes, I am given cause immediately to Smile, remember ... and practice.

Oh! But I just remembered the point. I sometimes fail to make it! By virtue of the realization that in fact, all of the manifest Cosmos really is `Christ the Son,' we see this mirrored into the planetary scale (or Solar) in the words, "In Whom we live, and move, and have our being." And the point of a vast Hierarchy of Lives is that it is all-Inclusive, while at the same time affording us the freedom of growth and room to explore and experiment - within Reason [literally, as the Mind Itself is perhaps the laboratory of the Logos]. Gradually we become subsumed, so to speak, within the greater Kingdoms, yet we will soon discover - or rediscover, whatever - that as we look out into the universe, there are planets like ours all over the place, with fledgling Human civilizations, paralleling Human civilizations, and all stages we can fathom as representing our own future attainments. No two individuals are fully alike any more than snowflakes, and I'll bet the same applies to planets and Stars, while still, it is Cosmic Law which holds all together, Orders all being, and makes pretty damn sure that this Trinity thing keeps track of it all, regardless as to which plane, which planet, and which great era (or tiny set of individual circumstances) we are considering at any given moment.

ETc.

... See 2nd next post ...

Seems prudent. This is going somewhere ....

 

[taijasi]

Re: Trinity & Trimurti part two

What the Incarnation exemplifies is that God is All-in-All, and Immanently present in the physical world. That's what His followers missed when He said "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 10:7). It's not there, it's here.

And this point, I would suggest, is where we pick up the quest ... Obvious, maybe. Poignant, I hope so!

Originally Posted by Zagreus:
As an example of great illusion, one sage has often referred to the "Dire Heresy of Separateness."

Indeed ... but again I must ask, why introduce stuff we're neither of us talking about?

Ok, why point out the snake in the grass?


Originally Posted by Zagreus:
and [I ] am as eager to learn distinctions or subtleties taught within Roman Catholic theology, or any other system, if and when they can increase and complement my understanding, rather than tear it down or detract from it.

But it seems to me you've already made up your mind on that point?

On what point, Thomas? This is your golden opportunity, you see. I no more take you to represent Roman Catholicism as I do [assume you speak for] all other Roman Catholics. You may, nevertheless, be able to help me understand them, or it, and it will be some long while before either of us can profess to be A-Sekha Adept, the no-learner, which is one definition of Mahatma. The Beatles may have indicated such states and societies of beings in `The Inner Light,' yet realistically we know we are working on *growing up* spiritually, on maturing. As they say, it takes a village ...

I think at the end of the day, discussion or thread, it's a good thing if we're still asking questions, still inspired - or maybe even re-invigorated - to do our *homework* ... whatever else we may carry forward in our thinking, practicing, aspiration and invocation.

I don't seek to school, just to share and compare.

Not to be trite but - I think that's fair.

In light of that, and because neither of us want to be here forever, can I make two suggestions?
1: We stick to the point, and not stray off into extraneous excursions.
2: We keep our subjective opinions on one side.

Good points. Brevity is not my gift ... but it can be. And #2 is good as long as it doesn't leave us high'n'dry, since sometimes it's the colorful anecdotes which tend to reveal the better measure of insight, and they come with amusement, even relief ...

Having looked again at the Trimurti, I get the impression we could beat this one into the ground, and then the sages say: 'Nice work, lads, but it's no big deal to us, really. You'd be better employed looking at stuff that's more central to our doctrines?'

It's what donnann added that I'd like to address, regardless as to another thread. I'm afraid I grew unsurprisingly long-winded, so - apologies. Just skip all this if you don't have a pair of mukluks handy ... ;-)

Spirit, Soul and body are scriptural. St. Paul may have simplified even this most basic human trinity into a convenient duality, and there was a purpose in emphasizing the distinction between the material and the spiritual, or visible and invisible worlds, which importance is relevant today. But it is more helpful now to consider that there is an intervening world between highest, Deity, and lowest matter, including the worlds of Man [and three sub-human kingdoms]. Certainly we must acknowledge several Orders of Angels ... and then:

Christ is and has always been [under whatever form, recognition, presentation and guise - per world era, culture and phase of civilization] the intermediary, mediating Principle ... illustrative of and truly the embodiment of the 5th Kingdom in Nature, the Kingdom of Souls. Another planet, a Sacred Planet, might afford a better glimpse of where our own Humanity will one day be in terms of the development and perfection of Consciousness, as well as Form, if only we are willing to investigate. And Venus, now as always, remains one of several fertile subjects, or fields of study.

Consider: Life, Quality and appearance ... Monad, Triad, personality

And this axiomatic statement ... pretend for the moment that it is uttered by Plato himself, and thus intended as a handy reference or rule of thumb:

"Matter is the vehicle for the manifestation of soul on this plane of existence, and soul is the vehicle on a higher plane for the manifestation of spirit, and these three are a trinity synthesized by life, which pervades them all. Through the use of matter the soul unfolds and finds its climax in the soul of man."​

And again, the same author:

"`Man' is that being in the universe, in whatever part of the universe he may be, in whom highest Spirit and lowest Matter are joined together by intelligence."​

I believe ET would find this definition agreeable, and will soon enough prove it accurate, as well as precise. But then, Plato tended to strive for those qualities of character.

Another excerpt shows a few more correspondences:

"It might generally be stated that the three rays of aspect find their main expression in relation to mankind through the medium of the three periodical vehicles:

Ray I.....Power....................Life.....................Ideas......The Monad.
Ray II ....Love-Wisdom..........Consciousness.......Ideals.....The Soul.
Ray III...Active Intelligence...Appearance...........Idols......The Personality.

They find their secondary expression in the three bodies which form the personality of man:

Ray I.....Power..........Ideas.....Mental Body.....Purpose. Life.
Ray II....Love............Ideals....Astral Body......Quality.
Ray III...Intelligence...Idols......Physical Body...Form."

And so on. Other tables can be produced with a bit of inquiry. When we start naming the many combination of Vedic, Egyptian, Sumerian or other pre-Christian expressions of the triune Deity, we speak of modalities, of variations on a theme, and yes - perhaps it is true - these quickly lead us to realize that the ancients were acknowledging and affirming the same Godhead as we try to do today ... however inadequately, and yet not without at least *something* to show for 18 or so million years of Earth's Humanity's own evolution.

So, I would say these terms are relevant for us all, because each of us is a Soul, a child of God, and we are incarnate in the lower mind, plus emotional-astral body, which together form our ego, ensheathed in etheric physical substance - or the model body which gives our outer appearance, this itself enclosed in the dense body ... which is not considered a spiritual Principle at all. It is called the shadow, and it is referenced in the Gospels clearly enough, in several occasions. The symbolism remains entact.

Everywhere a Trinity. If it did not exist first with God, it could not exist in expression with us. And the same Perfection as was demonstrated prior to the present day, seem to pertain as the blueprint for our New Era and well into the future. I don't mean that the Goal isn't dynamic and that the bar isn't raised ... but that, for example, the positive aspects of a Tantrism which acknowledges and takes responsibility for our thought-creations, where male and female energies do combine to yield true `entities' as *children* - such practice becomes the husband-and-wife [however this pattern expresses] contribution to our world, uplifting and liberating substance, this being an act and path of service as surely as physical childbirth is ... since we build our world, microcosmically [see correpondences above] based upon the patterns of the Master Builder ... Who Themselves both produce children, if we wish to take the metaphor & corollary literally [Cosmos as Son, as the 2nd Logos incarnate in the `biggest picture'], with consideration of the `Mind-born Sons of Brahma' or Kumaras as also relevant, since thought-discipline and a higher, spiritual tantrism obviously has its root and precedent in the subtlest ethers, even in the formation of Cosmos itself.

In short, God thinks __x,y,z,etc.__ into expression on subtlest levels, these themselves `incarnate' as direct projections upon their own, respective planes ... and the incarnations of these Principles, or Aspects of Deity are Whom and what populate our mental, astral and physical planes with myriad infinite lives orbiting every star in Cosmos [with rare exception], uniting even the most seemingly-distant `opposing points' of supergalactic clusters with their complements.

The sphere with centre everywhere yet circumference nowhere is another way to express the mathematical reality depicted as fractals. Each smallest sub-unit reproduces the whole, and that's easy for the mind to say ... but I'll bet it takes a God to keep it all `proverb'lly straight' ... and maybe even, just ONE God. That's the thing that either gives me giggles, keeps me up all night, comforts me and reminds me to sleep & sleep well each night, or get up in the morning and Smile, do it all over again, etc.

Ain't cosmology Grand? Ho! What ratio! What's this about any measure of nearer, Earthly matters, perhaps underground ... remaining for us to understand? How about 3 to 6 to 9, for example, or 1 to 3 to 7?

I refuse to submit to the false view that when we speak of such things, simply because we invoke the sublime, we cannot much fathom what it is we are even invoking! For, if there were not correlate Principle and registering Consciousness within our own - call it microscopic and embryonic, still-latent being ... nevertheless, were it not so, we could not recognize, register or even vaguely fathom - God, gods, or Deity/the Divine ... at all.

We find that Man is destined to become a God, for this may be less difficult to wrangle with than simply saying - `God' - if we are not somewhat versed and steeped in the Eastern Wisdom, or at least in the language and experience of mysticism. Yet as equally certain, where we currently stand, so too even the Logos once - likewise - stood.

The implication of Plato's axioms, above, is that sure enough - all beings in Cosmos either are, have been or will pass through the Human stage ... or its equivalent [as universally defined above]. And I have always thought that such a consideration, which registers as true, can afford tremendous insight ... if I allow it.

I may not try for a chunk of a treatise every post, no. Out of courtesy, if nothing else. There are, nevertheless, some things that I do not believe we can ever get completely tired of hearing or seeing. And since one of those, for me, is the demonstration - or proof - of all that I `believe,' I figure it's worth going a little out of my way (moreso at times) to invoke a meta-physics which, however we may want to make the square pegs fit, just isn't designed to be anything other than a good, old-fashioned round Whole [sic].

Sphere, cube, and all those other solids. We all know that Plato's `Forms' - formless as they may actually be in the Hindu `arupa' sense - are supposed to be `the Real,' meaning *more real* than the mind, emotional self and physical ... so I confess, I never tire of contemplating - WHAT, on Earth and in Heaven, is this `meant' to look like? What is our planet Earth really MEANT to be - like?

And folks, I mean here and now, in the immediate and accessible future, and I do mean the same one we're all aware is worth working toward. What did ol' Hamlet mean, and what was Shakespeare egging us on to do - if not to tread the Royal Road, wherein there is plenty of time for the Stars [Ad Astra Per Aspera] in our long-term future, on the Way of Higher Evolution ... while meanwhile, the Buddha taught us equally as the Christ to alleviate suffering where possible, and to `Work out our own Salvation [Liberation] with diligence.'

Shining a Lamp unto our own feet, we recall Diogenes Laertius, and for every Honest Man we may rest assured, the Christ has recognized another of `His Own' ... and another faithful foot is being prepared to set foot, in earnest, upon THE PATH.

Path = Christ = Love ... and we as well rephrase that:

Path = Way = Love ... because many groups will know the Christ by another name, yet if they are accepting of this truth, all of the differences do fade away. We are not diminished by this, and I think we know that. Rather, the mind itself becomes the slayer of the Real, and while we are tasked with using our mind Intelligently (!) and Creatively, we must also do so Lovingly and Wisely before we learn more deliberately and literally how to empower our thought, speech and action - thereby to truly build, plus steward, a New World, a New Civilization, our One World, in this wonderful New Era we're entering ... attended by upheavals, plenty yet to come, and a Divine Reign - yes, this latter something I'll post elsewhere in another thread.

Because - last mentioned, but if you ask me - it's the NEAT-est part!!!

 

[taijasi]

In our Solar System there are Uranus [Father, although 7th Ray], Neptune [Son, although 6th Ray] and Saturn [Holy Spirit, and 3rd Ray]. These comprise a Trinity of Sacred Planets which themselves are an inner triangle, and represent a much longer term of planetary evolution than each individual planetary scheme may undergo, even while these three planets each are also duplicated in their own, lesser schemes - also as Sacred Planets.

Thus, appearing with these are Vulcan - 1st Ray, Jupiter - 2nd Ray, Mercury 4th Ray, and Venus - 5th Ray. Earth almost qualifies as a Sacred Planet, and is undergoing this initiation at present. Meanwhile, we constitute a triangle of planets with several other *sets* of planets, both Sacred and non-Sacred, since Mars, the Moon and the Sun (as a planet) also figure in. I cannot pretend to have much grasp of this esoteric astrology which many students are well versed in ... yet I do have a basic grasp of some of the correspondences, such as the Seven Elohim, Spirits before the Throne, Prajapatis, Amshaspends, Planetary Logoi, Solar Systemic chakras, and Rulers of the 12 Houses, where obviously some of the planets do double- or overlapping duty.

We don't need to try to wear all the masks at once, and I recognize that. But we do need to learn to see, to know, and to be able to assist our Brother - regardless of which guise, House or appearance we may find him under. These Twelve groupings are vital, and I would suggest that we can resolve them into Seven, then Three, and finally two. Can you guess which experience of our incarnation is the hardest, and last, to resolve? It's the most obvious of all, and donnann certainly knows it!

What it amounts to, is that both the Trinity, and the Septenate, are mirrored into each planetary scheme, and esoterically each has a purpose - which sooner or later (as ours) is meant to bear its own intelligent Humanity, and sub- as well as super-Human Kingdoms of Life. No less is the Majesty, the Order of the Heavens to be marveled at. On the Giza plateau, we observe the three belt stars of Orion - Great Pyramid, and two additional pyramids. Orions shoulders and knees also appear in ancient Egypt. This is no accident, and we will know one day - scientifically, not based on blind faith - that these `belt stars' do correspond with the Holy Trinity, even as another correspondence includes the Seven Rishis and their Wives [being Ursa Major, the Great Bear ... and the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades, that "sweet influence"], plus the Cosmic Christ, Sirius.

Probably we could study any number of series of this sort, yet I do believe in Hamlet's - I mean Bill Shaking-Spear's - advice. Thus, if my insight into Ratios be correct, what ho? It would seem the greatest measure of the Cosmos is utterly beyond my ken ... some intermediate `layer' is there to represent all that is within reach of my Soul, both requiring effort, and proving fertile ground as a field of both Service and experience ... meanwhile my `shadow' [or threefold personality instrument, the `ego' although not the `real self' at all] definitely must be taught to keep its pace, so to speak. And that means, not only with utter humility, but with honesty and steadfastness, I tread the Path.

The ratio, though I cannot easily name or say it, might be something like 100, to 10, to 1 ... except that here I see only an illustration, and even the Brahmarandra we know to be the `1000-petalled lotus' of the Soul, 960+12 if we are being precise. How does that figure to the 12 heart petals, and the four of the mandala upon which we all sit, pattern of buildings in both eastern hemisphere and west for long, long ages? Okay, okay, there's the round stuff, and Frank Lloyd Wright ... but that's another story. And still related.

Red, Green, Blue. Interestingly they make White ... but not because you added them. Rather, it was because of the prism [there's a three in there somewhere] that you got the distinct colors. But a rainbow, all seven of these three, further diversified, remains integral and whole - even double, at times - and never, NEVER loses cohesion, allowing red to drip down behind green, or blue to become entangled in between yellow, red and indigo. It's funny like that, or maybe - as I guess we must admit - it's just ... Natural.

Nor does Tuesday [Mars] sometimes follow unexpectedly upon Thursday [Jupiter], since that remains Friday's [Venus's] honor ... and so, again, it turns out we're just `made that way.'

I apologize for the rigidity. For me, the effort is to tone it down, tune it - even radically, as I know few, very few, people that think like me. This is good, but it's still about bridge-building. The answer for Thomas, simply put, is that we all have something to learn from one another. I just dislike breaking it all down into brass tacks, believe it or not, because I believe in Group Consciousness ... from experience ... and I am still a student of the esoteric, building, creative Group Work which is to build the new world.

It may sound bold, yet the Great Ones have been about this for many, many tens of thousands of years. Some of the greater purviews must accept 26,000 years as essentially one `tick' on the cosmic clock, and looking just 8 ticks backward in time, we see the building of the pyramids at Giza, and the Sphinx before that, while 8 ticks earlier the Toltec civilizations arose, with pyramids of its own.

The Sacred Three and the Four, joining to make an Octahedron, itself a curious figure if we envision ourselves seated in meditation, floating slightly above the base, illumined by a suffused, glowing Light ... this figure mirrored, and not surprisingly, darkly so - for seeing `face to face' takes both practice and patience, even if it is nevertheless - your Destiny, and mine.

Even the octrahedron gently floats in its entirety above the surface of the planet, thus in meditation we grapple with the problem presented by the 8 - which Mystery is both the Buddha's, in solution, and ours in the deciphering and working out. A Dorje ... Dorjesempa? Vajrasattva? Or a double-dorje ... hmmm ... but that would be - A CROSS!?!

Yes, equally as the base of the Pyramid, whichever side of it you're on. So the Mandala is pretty damn universal, yes, and when you go to Alpha Centauri a square is still a square, even if when you arrive you are told that Plato have never actually been there. Nor Euclid, nor Einstein. Etc.

But eleven dimensions and more?

No thanks, I'll stick with Shakespeare.

Namaskar

 

[Thomas]

Re: Trinity & Trimurti part one

Short reference: Luke 17:21, Longer reference:
Mark 4:10-12 ...

No, sorry, I was referring to where 'the fifth' was mentioned?

The number of heavens does vary in Jewish literature, and can refer simply to the physical world on 'up' any scale we care to use, be it poetic, metaphoric, metaphysic, etc.

We regard Our Lord as always speaking from Himself, 'en arche' (John 1:1), from the Principle (as in the First Principle, or Absolute), rather than subsequent quantitative/qualitative determinations. He is the First in the sense of before all things, according to the metaphysical hymn in Colossians.

Scripture does say 'my Fathers house' has 'many mansions' (John 14:2) from which we can derive any number of supposed sub-determinations according to the schemata we're working towards. Danté, for example, has nine heavens, topped by the Empyrean, the Essence of God.

Christian doctrine focusses on the First Principle – so when Our Lord speaks of 'the kingdom', or 'my Father's house', He's talking about the First and over-arching Principle, the house as such, rather than specific mansions within it.

There is nevertheless some speculation on that in the Tradition, such as on Matthew's "But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one an hundredfold, and another sixty, and another thirty" (Matthew 13:23, Mark 4:8, 20), which is read to imply some qualitative difference, but really it's neither dogma nor doctrine.

Maybe it will come as no surprise then that I believe the account of Isis essentially transferring her title to the World Mother, Mary, the Goddess or Lady, ...

No surprise at all. But again, we go for the meta-cosmic First Principles, that which lies behind the veil, which gives rise to all subsequent cosmological variations.

When I studied Hermeticism we went along the road of putting this and that together, but as I increasingly focussed on Christian Hermeticism particularly, then the meaning of Christ's "But one thing is necessary" became more apparent (Luke 10:38-42), and has shaped my way accordingly.

That's what appealed to be in the Traditionalist school of the Sophia Perennis:

"The essential function of human intelligence is discernment between the Real and the illusory, or between the Permanent and the impermanent, and the essential function of the will is attachment to the Permanent or to the Real.

This discernment and this attachment are the quintessence of all spirituality. Carried to their highest level or reduced to their purest substance they constitute, in every great spiritual patrimony of humanity, the underlying universality or what may be called the religio perennis (the Way of the Heart). It is to this that the sages adhere, while basing themselves necessarily on divinely instituted elements." (Frithjof Schuon, Echoes of a Perennial Wisdom)

And again:

The religio perennis is fundamentally this, to paraphrase the well-known saying of St. Irenaeus: the Real entered into the illusory so that the illusory might be able to return into the Real.

It is this mystery, together with the metaphysical discernment and contemplative concentration that are its complement, which alone is important in an absolute sense from the point of view of gnosis.

For the gnostic (in the etymological and rightful sense of that word) there is in the last analysis no other religion. It is what Ibn Arabi called the "religion of love", putting the accent on the element of "realization".

 

[Thomas]

Re: Trinity & Trimurti part two

Spirit, Soul and body are scriptural. St. Paul may have simplified even this most basic human trinity into a convenient duality, and there was a purpose in emphasizing the distinction between the material and the spiritual, or visible and invisible worlds, which importance is relevant today.

Indeed. It's also Paul that has the most part to say about mans' tripartite nature.

Christ is and has always been ... the intermediary, mediating Principle ... illustrative of and truly the embodiment of the 5th Kingdom in Nature, the Kingdom of Souls.

That may we be your understanding. I would beg to differ. Scripture says something else altogether.

The Prologue of John is the stand-out text, of course, but the metaphysics of an early Christian hymn recorded in Colossians is a good entry point to this:
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations,
or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all, and by him all things consist."
(Colossians 1:15-17)
So Christ is before all, above all, etc.

When we start naming the many combination of Vedic, Egyptian, Sumerian or other pre-Christian expressions of the triune Deity, we speak of modalities, of variations on a theme...

Indeed so, but I'm suggesting it's an error to assume that the Trinity revealed in the Christian Scriptures is just another modality or variation of what their triunes is seeking to express.

and yes - perhaps it is true - these quickly lead us to realize that the ancients were acknowledging and affirming the same Godhead as we try to do today ...

In their own way, I believe so.

So, I would say these terms are relevant for us all, because each of us is a Soul, a child of God, and we are incarnate in the lower mind, plus emotional-astral body, which together form our ego, ensheathed in etheric physical substance - or the model body which gives our outer appearance, this itself enclosed in the dense body ...

They're relevant if that's your thing, if it's not, they're not.

My view, the further we are from simplicity, the further we are from the Real.

Everywhere a Trinity.

As we say, 'creation is Trinity-shaped'.

If it did not exist first with God, it could not exist in expression with us.

At last, you've got it! How many times I've said that here, I've lost count. But that's the only Trinity we're interested in, as that Trinity determines all subsequent triunes.

... [Cosmos as Son, as the 2nd Logos incarnate in the `biggest picture']...

We don't do any of that stuff. For us there is just The Logos of God.

In short, God thinks __x,y,z,etc.__ into expression on subtlest levels, these themselves `incarnate' as direct projections upon their own, respective planes ... and the incarnations of these Principles, or Aspects of Deity are Whom and what populate our mental, astral and physical planes with myriad infinite lives orbiting every star in Cosmos [with rare exception], uniting even the most seemingly-distant `opposing points' of supergalactic clusters with their complements.

Maybe. But we bypass all that. God is Immanently Present, everywhere, always – were we only to see – we regard 'emanationism' as veils that occlude the vision. Those 'with the eyes to see', as it were, sees straight through them.

Path = Christ = Love ...

Yep. For me Christ is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" John 14:6.