The Hindu Trinity:
Good Evening Servant 19: I am not a Hindu, but I suppose that one doesn’t have to be from a particular religion to read and understand it’s texts. I would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with any Hindu or non-Hindu who would offer the idea that the central theme of the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita suggest some line of thinking other than that which describes God as being the inmost self of all beings. The most basic theme of all of these texts is that while manifest as many, there is in truth none but God. It is something quite different, I think, from the western understanding of Pantheism, wherein we are all said to be God. Instead, the idea is that there is actually none but God, and the illusion of some other self (such as Gary Sheldrake or Servant 19) is simply an attending illusion of sentient experience in a temporal world. I think this is actually a very fascinating idea.
Probably you are the right person to ask: Why is Brahma not worshipped? I also noticed that while I have friends named Vishnu & Siva but none named Brahma.
Wonderful Gary, and a good evening to you too, dear friend
Other passages to consider in regards to the context of polytheism (which I do not believe was the original message of Lord Krsna) are as follows:
Hope these serve as a starter for deeper discussion
Wonderful Gary, and a good evening to you too, dear friend
Good Morning Servant19:
Simply beautiful
I think the “heads, eyes and feet” is representative of the infinite attributes of God, not a representative of a “physical entity” called God
THANKYOU Gary
Good Afternoon Servant19: I take it that the heads, eyes and feet are a reference to the heads, eyes and feet of all living beings that are in fact manifestations of God in the temporal world. Since in Hindu teaching God is the inmost self of all beings, anything that appears in the world around us (including us) are evolving expressions of One Soul that craves experience. What we come to identify with as “ourselves” are thought to be simply instruments of experience, and if we do have some sort of personal soul or Jivatman, they are simply parts and parcel of the Atman, or One Great Soul. This is the part that I find rather challenging to get my head around when I try to consider the implications in their particulars.
Anyone who attempts to compare the trinity to any of these pagan triads is arguing from looking only at an artificial similarity. Pagans didn’t invent the language surrounding the Christian doctrine, Christian’s did when they were forced to define their positions against the positions of heretics.
Blessed John Henry Newman took a rather different approach:
He was one of the 19th century’s greatest Catholic theologians.
Maybe he was one of the greatest theologians but that doesn’t make him right. I have heard the claim before trinity was believed by pagans and all those who advocate this position is say there were three gods in a group or closely identified and that is not enough to say Trinity. Trinity is a specific doctrine and its definition rose between third Century to the fifth century in responce to arrians and clarifying Christian doctrine as a whole. If the trinity truely existed, already defined, there would be no excuse for the patristics of the second century not to use those apparently well known trinitarian texts in order to define it, but they didn’t and instead Christian theology had to develop its terms in order to define itself. The trinity is uniquely Christian and I have not been convinced of an egyptian trinity nor an Indian trinity.Blessed John Henry Newman took a rather different approach:
He was one of the 19th century’s greatest Catholic theologians.
I rather suspect that many would hold that Christian doctrine was defined by intrinsic truths manifest in the life and teachings of Christ rather than primarily as a position against heretics.
I would offer that the similarity exists, and in so being, it is not artificial as a similarity, rather it is similar. Whether or not the similarity has any meaning is another matter of discussion altogether I think, although I think we would be somewhat in the defensive posture in that dialog, being that our iteration of Trinity came later, and seeing that both the former and the latter do represent God in three persons, adds to both the similarity and the inconvenience of the matter. Of course, all of this is only problematic insofar as we maintain a position of primacy over someone else’s beliefs, and at the end of the day, all beliefs are just that - beliefs. And everyone who believes thinks that they have the truth whist everyone else has beliefs. The dilemma of belief.
A bit of circular semantics, isn’t it? If I don’t see a trinity defined in the manner I define it, then it isn’t a trinity. In that sense, every trinity is unique but that doesn’t make the trinity believed in by others any less a trinity, just not our trinity.
I hold that the content of the faith has always been there but it has not always been so clear. Read the bible and the second century church fathers, they simply speak in a way we do not.
Concepts have meaning and to imply from a group of three gods who are super best pals and are commonly worshiped together that it must be a trinity is lacking some basic criterian. Are these gods ever described as having one substance? Are these gods ever described as having a distinct Hypostasis within the one substance? These are key trinitarian terms and if you want to say that there was a pagan trinity, don’t just claim it like atheists, Muslims, neo pagans and even some jews do. Go on and demonstrate it from primary sources. No one who has made this claim has been able to demonstrate it, to my knowledge.
The actual term in Hinduism for Trinity as I understand it is Trimurti. I further understand that they are three aspects of one God. One aspect creates, one sustains and the third destroys as part of a cycle of creation, sustaining and destruction. The analogs of such a God are said to be implicit in nature. I cannot argue otherwise.
Yes, I have describe that above.
So they are not the Christian Trinity, but they are still a trinity nevertheless. Perhaps, it is necessary for your purpose to preface them with ‘Non-Christian’ when referring to a non-Christian Trinity. I guess that will make it clear.
Primary source of hindu text please. I have heard this claim time and again and no one can point to the text this supposebly comes from. The way it is written is far too close to the trinity which leads me to think this is a modern interpretation based on a text. So please provide the references, do what muslims, pagans, jews, unitarians and etc cannot do.
I won’t grant trinity to them or to what you are claiming, I need to see it. Who can provide the primary source which this comes from? Go on and google and find the first website that claims it but thats all you can do.
