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?
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).