The Trinity - a comparative view

Thomas

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
4,325
Points
108
Location
London UK
These definitions are taken from the online glossary of Frithjof Schuon.

Koranic:
The Trinity “Father, Son, and Mother”, which the Koran attributes to Christianity, has three meanings: first, it expresses a psychological situation de facto, Mary being much more present to Christian people, so far as a truly divine function is concerned, than is the Holy Ghost; second, it implies that the Holy Virgin is identified with the Spirit insofar as she is the Wisdom that has been “set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was” (Proverbs 8:23); third, the Koranic formulation has to stress the exoteric incompatibility of Christian Trinitarianism with Islamic Unitarianism.
[Logic and Transcedence, "Evidence and Mystery"]

Trinity (metacosmic, macrocosmic, microcosmic):
The “Father” is God as such, that is as metacosm; the “Son” is God insofar as He manifests Himself in the world, hence in the macrocosm; and the “Holy Spirit” is God insofar as He manifests Himself in the soul, hence in the microcosm. From another point of view, the macrocosm itself is the “Son”, and the microcosm itself – in its primordial perfection – is identified with the “Holy Spirit”; Jesus corresponds to the macrocosm, to the entire creation as divine manifestation, and Mary corresponds to the “pneumatic” microcosm; and let us recall in this respect the equation that has been made sometimes between the Holy Spirit and the Divine Virgin, an equation that is linked, in some ancient texts, to the feminization of the Divine Pneuma.
[Form and Substance in the Religions, Form and Substance in the Religions]

Trinity (“vertical” and “horizontal”):
The Trinity can be envisaged according to a “vertical” perspective or according to either of two “horizontal” perspectives, one of them being supreme and the other not. The vertical perspective – Beyond-Being, Being, Existence – envisages the hypostases as “descending” from Unity or from the Absolute – or from the Essence it could be said – which means that it envisages the degrees of Reality. The supreme horizontal perspective corresponds to the Vedantic triad Sat (supraontological Reality), Chit (Absolute Consciousness) and Ananda (Infinite Beatitude), which means that it envisages the Trinity inasmuch as it is hidden in Unity.* The non-supreme horizontal perspective on the contrary situates Unity as an Essence hidden within the Trinity, which is then ontological and represents the three fundamental aspects or modes of Pure Being, whence the triad: Being, Wisdom, Will (Father, Son, Spirit).
(* The Absolute is not the Absolute inasmuch as it contains aspects, but inasmuch as it transcends them; inasmuch as it is Trinity it is therefore not Absolute.)
[Understanding Islam, "The Quran"]

+++

This last note is a 'modification' of the Christian understanding to suit the Islamic perspective. The unmodified idea of the Three Persons of the Trinity 'hidden in Unity' of the One True God (Absolute) is an acceptable analogy.

More on the Perennial Philosophy and also here
More on Frithjof Schuon

Thomas
 
The Baha'i view of Trinity may be of interest ... In response to some questions by theologians in Paris around 1911, Abdul-Baha made the following reply:


ABDUL BAHA:

His Holiness Christ said: "The Father is in me." This we must understand through logical and scientific evidences, for if religious principles do not accord with science and reason, they do not inspire the heart with confidence and assurance.


It is said that once John of Chrysostom was walking along the seashore thinking over the question of the trinity and trying to reconcile it with finite reason; his attention was attracted to a boy sitting on the shore putting water into a cup. Approaching him, he said, "My child, what art thou doing?" "I am trying to put the sea into this cup," was the answer. "How foolish art thou," said John, "in trying to do the impossible." The child replied, "Thy work is stranger than mine, for thou art laboring to bring within the grasp of human intellect the conception of the trinity."

Let us, free from past tradition, investigate the reality of this matter.

What is the meaning of the father and the son?
This fatherhood and sonship are allegorical and symbolical.

The Messianic reality is like unto a mirror through which the sun of divinity has become resplendent. If this mirror expresses "The light is in me" — it is sincere in its claim; therefore Jesus was truthful when he said, "The Father is in me."
The sun in the sky and the sun in the mirror are one, are they not? — and yet we see there are apparently two suns.

And in another place Abdul-Baha is recorded to have said:

So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.

- Abdul-Baha on the Trinity in "Some Answered Questions".
 
Hi arthra – thanks for that contribution.

I think when a Christian is faced with an interpretation of a Christian text, from outside the Christian tradition, there arises an immediate question: Does this say the same as I believe, or does it say something other?

Speaking from my own experience, I still recall with a sense of wonder and gratitude the moment in which I was faced with an interpretation of my own scriptures, that in the first instance said "Yes," to everything traditionally affirmed of them, and in the next moment said, "Look ... here is a key you have overlooked, and yet it belongs to you. Seek ye its locks." In my case, this epiphany was at the hands of a Tibetan Buddhist, a spokesman of the Perennial Tradition, the late Marco Pallis.

With that key, I went rattling the locks of dusty chambers and found doors that opened into unexplored halls, rich with the treasures of my tradition.

And there, to my delight, I found not only the traces of likeminded seekers down through the ages but, to my surprise, found companionship, others who cherish the same key.

When a Christian is faced with an interpretation that says something other, however, then there is a test of faith: Is my tradition true, is it wanting, or is it false? Hard questions need be asked ...

So let me offer a commentary, my own internal commentary if you like, in return, by way of a window on the Christian world.

+++

The story of John of Chrysostom is well known in my tradition, but look at our interpretation:

The saint was thinking over the question of the trinity and trying to reconcile it with finite reason ...

... as Abdul-Baha says "if religious principles do not accord with science and reason, they do not inspire the heart with confidence and assurance." But wait,

... a child (for his wisdom is beyond his years), is sitting on the shore putting water into a cup. "My child, what art thou doing?" asks the saint. "I am trying to put the sea into this cup," was the answer. "How foolish art thou," said John, "in trying to do the impossible."

The child replied, "Thy work is stranger than mine, for thou art laboring to bring within the grasp of human intellect the conception of the trinity."

This is a statement of Christian Doctrine, that the Trinity is the Revelation of a Mystery that surpasses all understanding. It cannot be made to accord to science and reason, because the Infinite utterly transcends the finite, this is the message of the miraculous child (for surely his wisdom is beyond his years).

The commentary contradicts itself. It certainly contradicts the lesson of the child on the sea shore. The child is saying the Mystery cannot be understood, you seem to be saying that, because it cannot be understood, there can be no Mystery, and a more mundane explanation should replace it.

+++

I'm not inferring anything about your tradition by this, I'm simply defending mine from misinterpretation.

Thomas
 
The Unmanifest Absolute according to Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950):

In Indian philosophy, the Absolute is conceived of as being Sat-Chit-Ananda, of the nature of pure Being, Consciousness, and Bliss. On the basis of this, Sri Aurobindo speaks of the "Upper Hemisphere" or "Supreme [Absolute-Divine] Nature" which constitutes infinite and unitary existence, and which he divides into the planes of Pure Being (Sat), consciousness-Force (Chit-Tapas), Bliss (Ananda), and Truth-Consciousness ("Supermind"). The latter constitutes a somewhat more manifest level then Sachchidananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss), a sort of "logos" or "Divine Mind" between the true Unmanifest and the Creation.

But all these realities are eternally pre-existent, and constituting the modes or qualities of the Absolute. At the level of the Absolute, there is no differentiation. As Sri Aurobindo puts it,
"Existence is Consciousness and there can be no distinction between them; Consciousness is Bliss and there can be no distinction between them;"
[The Life Divine, p.126].

Here existence is "solely and simply a pure identity in oneness."
[Ibid, p.320].

So there is only one Sachchidananda, but this contains within Itself specific modes. And although these three attributes - Sat-Chit-Ananda, existence, Consciousness, and Bliss - are in inseparable unity, each
"can stand in front of the others and manifest its own spiritual determinates, for each has its primal aspects or inherent self-formulations, although all of these together are original to the triune Absolute"
[Ibid, p.314].

More on Sri Aurobindo here

I would warmly point out that in the voice of true ecumenism, Sri Aurobindo uses terms like 'a sort of "logos"' where another might simply say 'logos' or even 'Logos'. Equally he refers to a 'triune Absolute' but not Trinity – even though his final definition of Sat-Chit-Ananda as inseparable unity and as self-formulation, comes close.

In this way the original teachings of both traditions are preserved whole and entire, as it were, without suffering from any syncretism, dillution or misrepresentation.

To me, this is fundamentally a matter of manners and respect.

Thomas
 
Tattva Bodha by Shankara
translated by Charles Johnston

The Awakening to Reality

To the Master, the World-Soul, the Master of seekers for union, obeisance; to the teacher, the giver of wisdom. To fulfill love for those who would be free, this Awakening to Reality is addressed to them.

The Four Perfections We shall tell of the way of discerning reality, the perfection of freedom, for those who are fitted by possessing the Four Perfections.

What are the Four Perfections?
The Discerning between lasting and unlasting things; No Rage for enjoying the fruit of works, either here or there; the Six Graces that follow Peace; and then the Longing to be free.

What is the Discerning between lasting and unlasting things?
The one lasting thing is the Eternal; all, apart from it, is unlasting.

What is No Rage?
A lack of longing for enjoyments here and in the heaven-world.

What is possession of the Perfections that follow Peace?
Peace; Self-Control; Steadiness; Sturdiness; Confidence; Intentness.

What is Peace?
A firm hold on emotion.

What is Self-Control?
A firm hold on the lust of the eyes and the outward powers.

What is Steadiness?
A following out of one's own genius.

What is Sturdiness?
A readiness to bear opposing forces, like cold and heat, pleasure and pain.

What is Confidence?
Confidence is a reliance on the Voice of the Teacher and Final Wisdom.

What is Intentness?
One-pointedness of the imagination.

What is the Longing to be free?
It is the longing: "That Freedom may be mine."

The Discerning of Reality
These are the Four Perfections. Through these, men are fitted to discern Reality.

What is the Discerning of Reality?
It is this: the Self is real; other than it, all is fancy.

Self, Vestures, Veils, Modes
What is the Self?
He who stands apart from the Physical, the Emotional, and the Causal Vestures; who is beyond the five Veils; who is witness of the three Modes; whose own nature is Being, Consciousness, Bliss -- this is the Self.

The Three Vestures
What is the Physical Vesture?
Being formed of the five creatures fivefolded, born through works, it is the house where opposing forces like pleasure and pain are enjoyed; having these six accidents: it is, is born, grows, turns the corner, declines, perishes; such is the Physical Vesture.

What is the Emotional Vesture?
Being formed of the five creatures not fivefolded, born through works, the perfection of the enjoyment of opposing forces like pleasure and pain, existing with its seventeen phases: the five powers of knowing; the five powers of doing; the five lives; emotion, one; the soul, one; this is the Emotional Vesture.

The five powers of knowing are: Hearing, Touch, Sight, Taste, Smell. Hearing's radiation is Space; Touch's, Air; Sight's, the Sun; Smell's, the Twin Physicians; these are the powers of knowing.
Hearing's business is the seizing of sounds; Touch's business, the seizing of contacts; Sight's business, the seizing of forms; Taste's business, the seizing of tastes; Smell's business, the seizing of odors.

The five powers of doing are: Voice, Hands, Feet, Putting-forth, Generating. Voice's radiation is the Tongue of Flame; Hands', the Master; Feet's, the Pervader; Putting-forth's, Death; Generating's, the Lord of Beings; thus the radiations of the powers of doing.
Voice's business is speaking; Hands' business is grasping things; Feet's business is going; Putting-forth's business is removing waste; Generating's business is physical enjoying.

What is the Causal Vesture?
Being formed through ineffable, beginningless unwisdom, it is the Substance and Cause of the two Vestures; though unknowing as to its own nature, it is yet in nature unerring; this is the Causal Vesture.

The Three Modes
What are the Three Modes?
The Modes of Waking, Dreaming, Dreamlessness.

What is the Mode, Waking?
It is where knowledge comes through Hearing and the other knowing powers, whose business is sound and the other perceptions; this is the Waking Mode.
When attributing itself to the Physical Vesture, the Self is called the Pervading.

Then what is the Mode, Dreaming?
The world that presents itself in rest, generated by impressions of what has been seen and heard in the Mode, Waking, is the Mode, Dreaming.
When attributing itself to the Emotional Vesture, the Self is called the Radiant.

What then is the Mode, Dreamlessness?
The sense that I perceive outwardly nothing at all, that rest is joyfully enjoyed by me, this is the Mode, Dreamlessness.
When attributing itself to the Causal Vesture, the Self is called the Intuitional.

The Five Veils
What are the Five Veils?
The Food-formed; the Life-formed; the Emotion-formed; the Knowledge-formed; the Bliss-formed.

What is the Food-formed?
Coming into being through the essence of food, getting its growth through the essence of food, in the food-formed world it is again dispersed, this is the Food-formed Veil -- the Physical Vesture.

What is the Life-formed?
The Forward-life and the four other Lives, Voice and the four other powers of doing; these are the Life-formed.

What is the Emotion-formed Veil?
Emotion, joining itself to the five powers of knowing -- this is the Emotion-formed Veil.

What is the Knowledge-formed?
The Soul, joining itself to the five powers of knowing -- this is the Knowledge-formed Veil.

What is the Bliss-formed?
This verily is the Substance not quite pure because of the unwisdom that gives birth to the Causal Vesture; in it are founded all joys; this is the Bliss-formed Veil.

Thus the Five Veils.

By saying: "Mine are the lives; mine is emotion; mine is the soul; mine is the wisdom"; these are recognized as possessions. And just as a bracelet, a necklace, a house and such things separated from one's self, are recognized as possessions, so the Five Veils and the Vestures, recognized as possessions, are not the Self (the Possessor).

What then, is the Self?
It is that whose own-nature is Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

What is Being?
What stands through the Three Times (Present, Past, Future) -- this is Being.

What is Consciousness?
The own-nature of Perceiving.

What is Bliss?
The own-nature of Joy.

Thus let a man know that the own-nature of his own Self is Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

+++

Thomas
 
Hello Thomas..

Yes hopefully one can compare various views on the subject without the feeling of being threatened.. that would be my hope anyway.:)

-Art
 
Hello Thomas..

Yes hopefully one can compare various views on the subject without the feeling of being threatened..

Yes. I don't think anyone's threatened here?

For my part, the concern was more to point out a misunderstanding ... in that sense an error unchecked can 'threaten' us all.

Thomas
 
In all, faiths and religions, I've found a trinity, I shall post more info on this later, but, I want to expaline, Yes it is found it all, but only and I say only so far in the Islamic faith the Trinity or any thing compared to God doesn't exist, for examples, The Tribes of Arabia had many statues and wood and etc that were being worshiped as thier gods and protectors. Remember, They too are one of the Sons of Abraham's family which his message lives along with the people, They know about Allah {STW}, The God, The One. The people of Arabia knew they couldn't and still no one has ever made a picture or staue of this All mighty creator. Still, The Arabians did sins, by creating and worshipping the triple goddess or the three duaghters of Allah, :(. This is almost the same when prophet Moses {AS} came back to his people and saw them still worshipping There old gods. It is wierd how the Christians say about the Trinity or the three, when in the holy Bible it is not even mentioned once. In the glorious Quran, it even says about the three or trinity, and it say's Don't make or call your god to be three.

"I belive Culture is bad, but religion is perfect, but if you take culture and religion together, than it too become bad. " -A.S.B.

[To be continued]:cool:
 
Hi Zeras – and welcome to CR!

I am a Christian, so as we are 'People of the Book' ... a warm welcome!

At the head of this thread are some views on the Trinity from an Islamic perspective, by the Sufi scholar Frithjof Schuon.

(Other spokesmen of Islam, for whom I have the most profound respect, are the late Martin Lings – Abu Bakr Siraj Ad-Din; the late René Guénon – Sheikh 'Abd al-Wahid Yahya, and Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr.)

In this thread I am hoping to bring out correspondences, rather than air difference between traditions ... but on the point you made: "t is wierd how the Christians say about the Trinity or the three, when in the holy Bible it is not even mentioned once," – to the Christian it is implicit in our Sacred Text, in the words and moreso in the deeds of the Saviour, and this was brought to light in the commentaries of the Fathers on the received wisdom given them.

If you wish to discuss this in greater detail, I will gladly do so elsewhere, but I would rather keep this thread free of disputation. That having been said, your contribution is most welcome.

Welcome again, and pax vobiscum,

Thomas
 
Trinities found in many cultures, faiths and traditions

[Pure Land Buddhism]
(1) Amitabha Buddha
(2) Mahasthamaprapta Bodhisattva
(3) Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva

[Tibetan Buddhism]
(1) Manjusri Bodhisattva
(2) Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva
(3) Vajrapani

~Vajras(Thunderbolt) holder deities~
(1) Vajrasattva
(2) Vajrapani
(3) Padmasambhava

[Christianity]
(1) Father
(2) Son
(3) Holy Spirit

[Hinduism *Trimurti*]
(1) Brahma
(2) Vishnu
(3) Shiva

[Ayyavazhi]
(1) The Soul (God)
(2) The Spirit (Karana Sarira) of Narayana
(3) The Body of Muthukutty (Human Being)

[Arabian Pagan religion]
(1) Al-Lat
(2) Al-Uzza
(3) Al-Manat

[To be continued]:cool:

I'm sorry but I have a book to read in a day and I have a test coming
up on it soo, I will have to continue this when I get back.
thank you.
 
Last edited:
Past, present, future...all part of one thing "time".

One is set and not alterable, one is dynamic and fluid, and one is infinite in possibility and potential.
 
for those interested in the trinity i found this a good readShould You Believe in the Trinity?
Answers such questions as: What is the Trinity? Does the Bible teach it? Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity? What is the holy spirit, and how does it function? Illustrated.
 
[Christian Druidry]

Uncreated One [Father]
Creative Word [Son- Logos]
Power that is the Inspirer [Spirit-Awen]

[Kim/Path]
Lover
Beloved
Love

Three speaks to relationship... As a Christian I do not personally view the Trinity as a definition of God. God is One and undefineable. The Trinity, as Thomas points out, draws us into mystery. I see it as a path toward embracing the mystery of relationship, of love- of connection to the Divine.
 
Quahom1 said:
You know, at sea it requires three lateral fixes to secure one's position, maybe that's why you're lost...
Click to expand...

mee is not lost i am with a great crowd who all have their focus right , thats because that great crowd took in the accurate knowledge before setting off
 
mee said:
mee is not lost i am with a great crowd who all have their focus right , thats because that great crowd took in the accurate knowledge before setting off
Click to expand...
I recall a great crowd in the Bible, that ran head long in a panic, plunged off the cliff and drowned...
 
Quahom1 said:
I recall a great crowd in the Bible, that ran head long in a panic, plunged off the cliff and drowned...
Click to expand...

mee likes the great crowd that are all waving their symbolic palm branches , and rather than being in a panic they are at peace and unity. and ready to go on into the new world .

but back to the trinity :) in the new paradise earth the trinity will be a thing of the past .

thats because the earth will be full of the knowledge of JEHOVAH .


with no trinity around.
 
Hello Thomas

I would be very surprised if Shankara said that the answer to the question, "What is Consciousness" is "the own-nature of perceiving" because in order to perceive there has to be a perceiver and a perceived. That is duality and Shankara was an advaita vedantin. A possible explanation is that he was using 'perceive' in the sense of 'being aware of' so that he was saying that in a state of Pure Consciousness where there is no content one is aware of their own divinity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top