Trinities
March 28, 2008 by katinkaspiritual
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?
Chris
Govert
Pablo
katinkaspiritual
latebrake
mitdyob
To keep this discussion on one thread, I’m reposting the original here as a comment:
The Theosophist has received its first request:
“Could you please give me the analogies of the Trinity in the various religions (i.e. Trimurti in Hinduism, Tiratana in Buddhism) and of the Angels (i.e. Prajapatis in Hinduism, Sephiroths in Judaism) ?”
Thank you,
Vartan simplyvartan@live.it
I’ll post my own response as soon as I’m able. In the meanwhile, I offer the query to our growing community!
This is from HPB’s Theosophical Glossary, the entry on Trikaya:
Katinka is right, of course, to caution us not to simply cram every three-fold division into this rubric. It can, however, serve as a key to unlocking the underlying unity, the inner relationships, of various trinities.
Two other trinities are often on my mind. The classic moon/triple goddess of waxing/maiden, full/mother, waning/crone; and the philosophical dynamic of pre-X, X, trans-X, the latter of which I may be unique in equating to the Zen saying ‘At first, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. Later, mountains are no longer mountains, and rivers are no longer rivers. Eventually, mountains are again mountains and rivers are again rivers.
Auch, I’m in trouble: disagreeing with Blavatsky. I have to say I stick by it though: I don’t see how the concepts of creation, maintenance and destruction (which is what the trimurti is generally explained as) combines with the concept of triple aspects of consciousness. It does combine rather well with your classic moon imagery though.
Father-Son-Holy Ghost: sure that fits Atman-Buddhi-Manas reasonably well. But does it fit the moon-imagery?
I would go beyond Blavatsky a bit by noting that I do believe that there is something about the number three. Just like there is something about the numbers 5 and 7. Three - or the triangle - is mathematically the smallest figure that can be made. Out of unity comes not duality, but trinity - because there is always something connecting the two.
As for Ken Wilbers pre-trans fallacy: aren’t you the one getting off-topic here? But if I may follow you there: I do feel there is a valid association with the Zen insight that before enlightenment stuff is just what it is, and after enlightenment (again) stuff is just what it is. Still, before and after are profoundly different and to mistake one with the other would be to mistake the Zen saying. As with the trimurti and the moon’s phases: there is a time-issue there, which isn’t present (in my understanding) in the ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’ trinity, nor in the Atman-Buddhi-Manas trinity.
Blavatsky did overdo it a bit sometimes - I suspect this was one of them. It’s rather easy to cram everything into the same concepts if you are willing to sacrifice the actual believers in those concepts totally. Blavatsky says here: if not altogether running on the lines of Esoteric teachings Doesn’t that directly negate the idea that they can all be explained to be ONE?
I mean there are actual Christians who believe the Holy Spirit is what makes it possible for ordinary Christians to reach God - they aren’t by any means a majority, but they exist and it fits the imagery implicit in the trinity. But can the same be said of the trimurti? I mean the trimurti is itself a rather forced theological concept that unites three gods that have very little to do with each other in ordinary Hindu worship. To combine them with creation, maintenance and destruction is a valid philosophical/theological way of uniting them - but to go from that to states of consciousness in the sense used above is stretching it to a point where I can’t see the meaning any more.
But then - I’m absolutely the sceptic in this discussion. Blavatsky’s very claim that there is a universal something that unites the religions of the world is beyond me at the moment.
Calling Blavatsky out, heh? You heretic! I like that.
The issue here is the structural dynamic of trinities. Blavatsky’s claim is that every triad can be understood by the key of the “triple division into spirit, soul, and body, and in the universe, regarded pantheistically, as a unity composed of a Deific, purely spiritual Principle, Supernal Beings—its direct rays — and Humanity.”
Your last comment, aside from its troubling evidence that you’re being put through the academic wringer, serves as an important reminder to the fundamental dynamic of theosophy itself: providing better explanations of phenomena through revealing deep structures.
This is an occasion to test that claim.
First, I think we have to be wary of Blavatskian hyperbole. To say this can explain “every triad or trinity” may be overstating. We don’t want to create a ‘one white crow’ situation. Alternatively, we can be more generous and say that all true trinities have this underlying structure. Then, however, we court tautology.
The best way to proceed is to look at pervasive trinities in various cultures around the world, wherever those cultures themselves regard the phenomena in question as a three-in-one situation. Where triune phenomena have a multiplicity of interpretations, we would only have to concern ourselves with how the phenomena is regarded when it is regarded as a trinity.
In other words, to properly look at the Hindu Trimurti, we don’t have to account for all the different ways each part manifests in the culture. Instead, the test would be whether or not Blavatsky’s key unlocks a better (read: more comprehensive, consistent, etc) interpretation of the Trimurti when their primary meaning is as a trinity.
And I said pervasive earlier because it would be important that the triune nature, to be considered genuinely representative of an esoteric stream, must take hold.
Blavatsky claims “the Brahmanical Trimûrti and also the three-fold body of Shiva, in Shaivism, have both been conceived on the same basis, if not altogether running on the lines of Esoteric teachings.”
The last disclaimer is a good clue that she herself recognizes the dissonance. What interests me is that, according to what I’ve read, the Trimurti, regarded as an important concept, may not have been altogether indigenous. A synthetic movement in Hinduism first put forth the idea, and then western scholars, seduced by the surface similarity to their own tradition, then overemphasized its importance.
Esoteric impulses here may have tried to create a trinity where it wasn’t able to take hold, but Blavatsky’s key nonetheless reveals the impulse behind the conception. But I am well out of my depths here. I need Dean Accardi to come rescue me. Dean, can you hear me?!
Turning back to the other trinities I invoked, the triple-goddess seems a more appropriate test case. It is certainly seen as a three-in-one and is undoubtedly pervasive.
Does the deific/intermediary/human structure reveal anything deeper about the maiden/mother/crone trinity? It doesn’t seem to me. In fact, as you said, it has a much better correspondence with the creation/maintenance/destruction dynamic.
Alright, I confess. I’m lost. Where’s Ariadne’s thread when you need it?
HPB was not a scholar, and her information about the exoteric aspect of religions and philosophies was not always accurate. When talking about Kabbalah, Neoplatonism, Vedanta, Buddhism etc., she often relied on friends that were authorities in such subjects.
But I think we can trust her when she talks about the esoteric aspect of things, since she was trained in that field and probably had the assistance of the Adepts when writing on those topics.
Now, with this question of the trinities, is it that she was wrong in her exoteric explanation? Is it one of her not uncommon exaggerations?
Is it that the original concept of the trinities in the religions were closer than they appear today? Even if you take the Hindu Trimurti and try to explain its meaning for the Hindus, you will find many contradictory views in different Hindu schools. The Christian trinity was also manipulated, and the gnostic interpretation is different, I believe…
Or is it that her statement has to do with the esoteric interpretation of them? I remember having read in different places in her writings that Vishnu is a symbol of our Inner Self, and also that Siva is a symbol for it. From the context I gathered that they are symbols for our Inner Self when performing different functions in its relationship with the personality…
The subject is complex, and I think we need one Ariadne’s thread to find the Ariadne’s thread that will solve the problem!
Hello Everybody! I’m here, and sadly will probably have to produce some large bhashan (lecture) to untangle some of this mess, so bear with me.
I think the first fundamental question is whether we truly have groups of 3’s here. I’m afraid we’re falling into the problem of the silly adage, “people die in threes” so when one or two people die, we start hunting for a third so as to fit the pattern. So, how do we know when we’ve got, as Chris states, a “true trinity”? I think starting off with making sure we’ve at least got an acceptable set of three is a good first step.
Outside of 19th and early 20th centuries Orientalist scholarship, I have not, to my recollection, ever encountered a reference to the imfamous “trimurti”. I wonder if it was completely fabricated by Orientalists or was fed to them by an informant because they were explicitly asked for it.
Except as a side character in Puranic/mythological accounts, Brahma is pretty much irrelevent in Hindu thought. Brahman, as the Advaita Vedantic gound of all being, is a different matter entirely (except etymologically). Otherwise, there is a long history of often violent sectarian conflict between Vaishnavas (Vishnu/Krishna devotees) and Shaivas-Shaktas (Shiva or Shakti(goddess) devotees–who have a equally long history of teaming up)). So what do you get when you smash together one irrelevent figure with two violently clashing sects? Nothing! Absolutely nothing but a figmentary construction.
And for that matter, I’m sure this whole “creater, sustainer, destroyer” interpretation was either some blithe explanation given to the silly Brits or was an entirely projected interpretation drawn from other Max Muller-esque theories of an solar cult underlying all religions. By my tone, I’m sure you’ve figured out my feelings regaring them.
I find Blavatsky’s defensive positioning quite fascinating, though. She positions herself as being better informed than the Orientalist scholars in saying, “explained quite incorrectly by the Orientalists.” Further, she asserts that these trinities not only have the same symbolic meaning, but that they all derive from one sourse, which is the Esoteric teachings of which she is the sole direct knower. So, all knowledge is derivative of Blavatsky’s secret knowledge…how convenient.
One note I want to make is on Shiva. I take this quote from http://www.shivashakti.com/shiva.htm , but it is a pretty well-established position:
Shiva is fivefold, his five faces being Ishana, Tatpurusha, Aghora, Vamadeva and Sadjyojata, and eightfold (see puja below) as the eight directions.
The FIVE faces is important. According to various tantric schools of Shaivism, they are said to be facing the four cardinal directions and straight up and all be speaking at the same time. Followers of Shiva listening to different faces/mouths found the five major schools of Hindu tantra. This is a way in which some tantric teahers explain the solidarity yet difference among Shaiva tantrikas. So, where this “three faces of shiva” comes from, I don’t know, but I certainly can say it is contested from some strong reasons.
Finally, I want to address the Christian trinity. I have always enjoyed the explanation of the trinity posed by Saint Augustine and later adopted by Simone Weil, that the trinity is like a lover, the beloved and the loving. Take one part out of these three, and the other two lose their identity. In other words, take away the beloved, and the lover is no longer a lover and no longer any loving, etc. What is fascinating to me is that this syllogistic formula is used as the primary argument throughout Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamikakarika (Verses on the Root of the Middle Way). He uses the triplet doer-action-thing acted upon (or maker-making-made) to demonstrate co-dependent origination, or the Buddhist truth that no thing has independent identity, but arises contingently from other contingent things. How would this be applicable to Blavatsky’s esoteric philosophy? We know the manas is dependent on the buddhi to exist, but what if the reverse is also true?
Wow Dean - so much info. Some of it I knew, but you put it so much better than I could have.
I’ll go straight to your question of how buddhi and manas are interdependent:
Buddhi informs Manas with wisdom - (pure) Manas is necessary for Buddhi to express itself (at least for human beings).
Manas without buddhi is quite possible (not even rare) - but the result is dry knowledge instead of wisdom. I’m always reminded of the wisdom trinity (appropriate for this thread): in Buddhism, but theosophy as well:
Wisdom needs mind and love. Each without the other two is incomplete. Love without mind is not wisdom, and is prone to mistakes out of over enthusiasm. Mind without love is not wisdom either. Wisdom without either love or mind is not conceivable.
Regarding Deans point about the Christian trinity and Katinks’s response, remember Pythagoras taught that whenever you have a division of a unity into mutiplicity, you never get two, always three - the two and the relationship between the two. Pythagoras considered three to be the first true number.
Perhaps these various ‘trinities’ are simply humanity’s projection of it’s own archtypal delineations onto an imagined god concept. We thus end up with a god concept that suffers from a ’split-mind’ ailment.
Another point occurred to me.
The Creator/Preserver/Destroyer trinity is temporally structured. That is, though as archetypes that are each always present, they must first unfold sequentially. This is particularly apparent in the lunar trinities (young maiden/mature mother/elderly crone).
The Divine/Human/Mediator is an immediate consequence of differentiation. Indeed, it accords with Jon’s reminder of Pythagoras’ claim. The split of the one (which is also none) immediately creates three (matter/consciousness/energy).
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.