I’ll start off the debate on trinities in various religions with a very simple (sceptical) observation:
I very much doubt it makes sense to pretend the various trinities in various religions can be equated. Father-Son-Holy Spirit is the Christian trinity and it says something about the relationship between the divine and each individual, as well as about how God relates to man. The son is said to have died for us, while the Father stayed immaculate, or something. The Holy Spirit is the one way in which God can communicate with normal human beings like us – and I would say it might (with a stretch) be equated with our Buddhi: that which mediates between the divine (Atman) and our ordinary personalities (kama-manas).
That is a decent theosophical interpretation of the Christian trinity.
The Hindu trinity of Brahman, Vishnu, Shiva is very different. Those three gods are separate in more myths than they are united. To gather them together as creator, preserver, destroyer is to simplify each. Both Vishnu (through Krishna) and Shiva are worshiped as primary divinities by droves of Hindu’s. Each has their character. Vishnu has his 10 incarnations. Shiva is both ascetic and married. Lovely tales are told of each. The point is – to see Shiva as only the destroyer, when there are also myths of him creating is to minimize him. Similarly, Vishnu is a very complete Absolute God in his own right.
The further step to unite these three artificially with the Christian trinity makes less sense. Which would one make the Absolute God? Which would have the relationship with mankind? Which would sacrifice himself?
Vin, yes, we always projecting, but I don’t think that negates any claims, it just reinforces ‘as above, so below’. We both reflect and are reflected, and we are all always-already involved in the very structure of the world we are examining. As I’ve said before, what we say often reveals more about us than what we are talking about. Still, if ‘thou art that’, that should be expected!
Chris, I suggest that it is a universal phenomenon (inherent within all mortal human beings) that the psyche shall issue and mirror back projections, that are characteristically littered with distortions of reality due to the incompleteness of human perception. Hence, ‘we are all of us that’.
The religionist calls it ‘double-mindedness’. The psychologist calls it ’split-mind’. The philosopher calls it ‘dualism’. But it is ultimately the same experience which is being observed from multiple different vantage points. We are all part of the same human condition, whether we may choose to identify it or not.
Ultimately, the above ‘is’ the below itself, the internal ‘is’ the external, the left ‘is’ the right, the past ‘is’ the future, etc.. All is ultimately one, without any true differentiations as only dualistic perception may otherwise represent to us in a context of psyche-generated illusion.
It has been a common experience of mine to see in others what they do not see in themselves. And not simply from a vantage point of egocentric projection being mirrored backward as some might prematuraly assume. The subjectivity (as opposed to objectivity) itself is typically projected from the egocentric vantage point, but we must not readily assume that objective perception and/or analysis do not exist amongst others and/or ourselves.
I suggest that there are universal archtype matrixes which are readily identifiable within every human being, as may be monitored and classified through simple observances of facial expression and voice intonation, for example. Emotive and cognitive fluctuations are easily tracked at 30-90 variances per minute along eight different lines of polarity in this context. Imbalanced emotive/cognitive patterns begin to emerge in readily classifiable fashion. This is quite a bit different from egocentric subjective projection and/or mirroring.
Divine/Human/Mediator is fine, but think we might run into some Enlightenment-esque problems by putting it in such terms. I like Augustine’s and Nagarjuna’s way of putting it a bit better because 1) it makes each element contingent upon the other two (one can imagine Divine existing without humans, but not a beloved without someone loving him) and 2) the third element is active/verbal and not an element (Mediator makes it sound like a thing that can be picked up and sectioned off, where as “doing” is relational).
Can we then say that discussions of trinity are in fact discussions about relationality? Is the present the relationality of the past and future, like the loving between a lover and beloved? It paints a fascinating picture.