Christian Trinity and Trikaya

Originally posted by karoly aczel
i find it very easy to believe.

Perhaps the christians came up with the trinity independently but you cant deny the similarities.
The beetle version is superior or at least equal to(depends on how you think) the christian version

I do not claim to be an authority on this. Beetle will have to supply a few details such as when this doctrine developed, where this doctrine developed and the extent of this doctrine. According to wikipedia, this doctrine did not realise its full expression until the 4th century, long after the Trinitarian formula had been developed (2-3rd century CE.) While early Christians did engage in missionary activities in Asia, as far as India at most, this did not encompass China, Japan or Tibet which are usually associated with Buddhism, nor could they have had much cultural contact. Nor did the early church writers mention Buddhism. So the accusation of syncretism seems quite implausible.

Lastly, the similarities between the doctrines are very small (I think Beetle is deliberately exaggerating them, since I doubt that Buddhists would have used the Greek 'logos' and the Latin 'spirit'.) The Trikaya does not describe the interiority of any single being, but reality itself. It does not describe what actually is, but what the Buddhist can potentially be. In contrast, the Christian Trinity expresses the nature of God. It links this with Revelation, what is in Scripture, and with salvation history, how God is seeking to show Himself to us for our salvation. When the early church theologians wrote about the Trinity they were mostly interested in Scripture and how Greek philosophy can be used to understand and reconcile certain parts of Revelation. The Trikaya does not easily fit into any of this.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Due to the above methinks the Christian Trinity is a bad copy-paste of Trikaya. So it is no mystery at all the fact that until this very moment the Trinitarian Christians are unable to explain rationally this invention of theirs whilst Trikaya is fully understandable regardless of one’s personal beliefs and religion.

Actually, this hardly resemble ...[text shortened]... Christian theology was centered mostly in Greece and Italy, I find that hard to believe.[/b]

Graeco-Buddhism was developed in the period between the 4th century BC and the 5th century in the area known today as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir. It was built out of the interactions by Greek forays into India since the time of Alexander the Great, and later took place the establishment of Indo-Greek rule in the area for some centuries. Greco-Buddhism influenced the spiritual framework of Mahayana Buddhism.

And King Ashoka, the one who convened the third Buddhist council around 250 BCE at Pataliputra that was held by the monk Moggaliputtatissa, sent Buddhist missionaries dispatched throughout the known world to spread their doctrine. In the Edicts of Ashoka we see that the king tried to propagate the Buddhist faith throughout the Hellenistic world, and it is clear thanks to the Edicts that Ashoka had a perfect understanding of the political organization in Hellenistic territories, for the names and the location of the main Greek monarchs of the time are identifiedas Antiochus II Theos of the Seleucid Kingdom (261-246 BCE), Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt (285-247 BCE), Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (276-239 BCE), Magas of Cyrene (288-258 BCE) in Cyrenaica (modern Libya), and Alexander II of Epirus (272-255 BCE) in Epirus (modern Northwestern Greece).

And according to Pali sources some of Ashoka's emissaries were Greek Buddhist monks, indicating close religious exchanges between the two cultures: "When Moggaliputta, the illuminator of the religion of the Conqueror Ashoka, had brought the council to an end he sent forth elders… and to the Western countries he sent the Greek named Dhammarakkhita" (FYI check Mahavamsa XII).

Furthermore, check the notorious dialogue between King Menander and Nagasena
😵

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not claim to be an authority on this. Beetle will have to supply a few details such as when this doctrine developed, where this doctrine developed and the extent of this doctrine. According to wikipedia, this doctrine did not realise its full expression until the 4th century, long after the Trinitarian formula had been developed (2-3rd century CE.) Whi ...[text shortened]... and reconcile certain parts of Revelation. The Trikaya does not easily fit into any of this.

Wiki stinks, Conrau K!

Trikaya deciphers the manifestation of the perfect condition of a Buddha at the three realms of existence -and this doctrine is ancient.

Anyway: due to the fact that the First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's Parinibbana, ie during 499/8 BCE according to Theravada tradition, it is obvious that the doctrine of Trikaya predates the doctrine of the Christan Trinity
😵

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not claim to be an authority on this. Beetle will have to supply a few details such as when this doctrine developed, where this doctrine developed and the extent of this doctrine. According to wikipedia, this doctrine did not realise its full expression until the 4th century, long after the Trinitarian formula had been developed (2-3rd century CE.) Whi ...[text shortened]... and reconcile certain parts of Revelation. The Trikaya does not easily fit into any of this.

Finally, the Buddhists use the words "Dharmakaya", "Sambhogakaya" and "Nirmanakaya". The meaning that I attributed to each condition of existence is accurate and accepted in full by every Buddhist😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Wiki stinks, Conrau K!

Trikaya deciphers the manifestation of the perfect condition of a Buddha at the three realms of existence -and this doctrine is ancient.

Anyway: due to the fact that the First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's Parinibbana, ie during 499/8 BCE according to Theravada tradition, it is obvious that the doctrine of Trikaya predates the doctrine of the Christan Trinity
😵

Anyway: due to the fact that the First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's Parinibbana, ie during 499/8 BCE according to Theravada tradition, it is obvious that the doctrine of Trikaya predates the doctrine of the Christan Trinity.

Actually, you have not proved that. For example, you did not say that Trikaya was formally declared at the First Buddhist council. Again, you must show the time of origin, place of origin and its extent. Did the Trikaya exist contemporaneously with Tertullian and geographically close to Tertullian? I am skeptical. It is one thing to say that there were a few Greek converts and that some Buddhists knew Greek territories, it is another to say that Greek Christians systematically incorporated Buddhist ideas into their theology. Another thing is that the early Christians went to great efforts to distance themselves from pagans. St. Augustine goes through hundreds of myths in the City of God, criticising their morality and showing how Christian doctrine is more sensible. If Buddhism could have such a huge intellectual force over the church, I would expect to see at least some references to it.

Trikaya deciphers the manifestation of the perfect condition of a Buddha at the three realms of existence -and this doctrine is ancient.

Again, this sounds nothing like the Trinity. Christians are not interested in 'manifestations' or 'reals of existence'. Sure, there is triad in the Trikaya and Trinity but that is as far as similarities go.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Anyway: due to the fact that the First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's Parinibbana, ie during 499/8 BCE according to Theravada tradition, it is obvious that the doctrine of Trikaya predates the doctrine of the Christan Trinity.

Actually, you have not proved that. For example, you did not say that Trikaya was formal ...[text shortened]... ce'. Sure, there is triad in the Trikaya and Trinity but that is as far as similarities go.[/b]

Check “Trikaya” in any good encyclopaedia and you will read that the antecedents of the Mahayana Trikaya doctrine appear in the Pali Canon when Gautama Buddha tells Vasettha that the Tathagata (the Buddha) was Dharmakaya, the 'Truth-body' or the 'Embodiment of Truth', as well as Dharmabhuta, 'Truth-become', that is, 'One who has become Truth' (Digha Nikaya). Thus even before the Buddha's Parinirvana the term Dharmakaya was current, and Dharmakaya without the concept of Trikaya is unconceivable;

Finally, I did not said that Trikaya is identical to the Christian Trinity. I said that the Christian Trinity is an irrational doctrine regarding the so called triune nature and the activities of the Christian God, whilst Trikaya is an older and quite understandable concept regarding the triune hypostasis of the manifested Buddha. Tertulian is irrelevant; and the trikayan concept was known to Plato, who re-offered it at his Platonism
😵

=========================================
I said that the Christian Trinity is an irrational doctrine regarding the so called triune nature and the activities of the Christian God
========================================

I'll humor you a bit, ATHEIST.

Tis not irrational. Neither is drinking or breathing irrational. Man needs to take IN God. God wants to dispense Himself into man. This is as necessary (even more so) than man's need to breath air or drink water. He cannot live without ingesting water, air, food.

Don't argue that you can live without Trinity. Yes, but not well and not in the eternal purpose of God. You need to take God into you.

Now what does taking God into you have to do with Trinity and what is the rational?

God is Triune because God's plan is to dispense Himself into man. What God IS cannot be separated from what God DOES. He's being Triune is intimately related to Him dispensing His life and nature into His people.

No illustration is perfect. You will probably find problems with the following which will not at all surprise me. However, some of you may think in this way:

The Father like a huge Water mellon.
The Son like the slices prepared for eating.
The Holy Spirit like the juice, the extract and essence to be digested, assimilated for nourishment.

The Trinity represesnts also a process of God passing through stages in His plan for us to EAT Him. I do not mean Modalism. Each of the Triune God is eternal and each simultaneously lives with and even in the other. But you should see the progression from the Source of life to the Incarnation of life to the Dispensing of life into the receiver's inner being.

God is dispensing Himself into man to be "digested" by man, to impart all that He is into the very "tissues" and "fabric" of man's being, that God and man may be mingled together.

We should think of the Trinity as a dynamic operation of God to dispense Himself into man. He is finally RECEIVED as life. He is not satisfied to be an object of outward worship solely. No matter how we may exalt God in our attitude, His eternal purpose is to dispense and impart Himself into man. For this He is and has to be the Triune God. From eternity He has been so.

It is rather mysterious but I don't think it is irrational. Life is not irrational. God is the ultimate divine and eternal life for His creature man made in His image.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
I said that the Christian Trinity is an irrational doctrine regarding the so called triune nature and the activities of the Christian God
========================================

I'll humor you a bit, ATHEIST.

Tis not irrational. Neither is drinking or breathing irrational. Man needs to t ...[text shortened]... od is the ultimate divine and eternal life for His creature man made in His image.[/b]

Oh I fail to make myself clear to you jaywill -or you ignore the basic aspects of the Christian religion! Methinks according to your religion the Human has to have established a powerful inner understanding (non-conceptual awareness) of Agape, and the sole way to achieve it is by means of Pistis. For it is impossible to use Noisis/ Mind/ Philosophy/ evaluation of the mind in order to conceive the existence of God, because the mind of the Human is so distorted due to the Propatorikon Amartima that s/he suffers of the delusion that her/ his false evaluation of the mind is accurate. Furthermore, it is impossible to prove logically the existence of God, therefore the Christian needs not logical (philosophically accepted, that is) proves. These attempts are pathetic. And this is the reason why the sole point that proves (not logically, of course) for the Christian the existence of God is the manifestation of Jesus the Son of God. And this is the reason why there would be no moral value into the belief in the existence of God if such a thing could be logically proved, because there is nothing holy within the belief that 1+1=2.

So your religion is based on an irrational concept, but this is fine with me. Everybody would be a Christian if Jesus was manifested in full glory like the full armed goddess Athena who emerged out of Zeus’ skull -but then what would be the value of the morality of the people that they would become sure for the divine hypostasis of Jesus? So one has to check Gal. 5.22 amongst else in order to meditate deeply over the interconnection of the scheme Agape-Pistis (which the early fathers tried to decipher in analogy to the Platonic scheme Eros-Philosophy, entering again vulgar Platonism for nothing).

So one’s love for God is not analogous to the Platonic Eros, and Grigorios stands on a solid basis when he states at his “Peri Psichis kai Anastaseos” (Migne PG 45 page 96) that “…i gnosis agape ginetai.” (the knowledge turns into Agape -my translation). And, whilst Platonic Eros is amor concupiscentiae (Eros for every Agathon we are lacking of), Agape is “amor benevolentiae” and “amor complacentiae”. So Platonism is heterosoteriology whilst Christianity is self-soteriology. Eros for the Divine according Plato is the product of the “inner knowledge” of the existence of Agathon. But the Christian agape of the Human for God is the answer to his Agape for the Human, and it is conceived as our soul’s acknowledgment of the existence of God. Therefore according to the Christian religion our agape for God is not a product of the Human soul but a praxis of the Divine Grace, which is the sole agent that undertakes action. And this is considered a prove (Gal. 4, 9 and Cor. A. 8,3) that the Human is known by God, and not a prove that the Human went to know God.

Therefore once more, all the above is pure theology -a “take it or leave it” case. This is the case with every religion afterall. Now methinks it' s a bit sad to see the Christians trying to “prove logically” their personal understandings regarding their religious beliefs, for instead of humility and Agape we are constantly monitoring missionary activism and negative attitude. And this, in my opinion, is quite sad.


Be well
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh I fail to make myself clear to you jaywill -or you ignore the basic aspects of the Christian religion! Methinks according to your religion the Human has to have established a powerful inner understanding (non-conceptual awareness) of Agape, and the sole way to achieve it is by means of Pistis. For it is impossible to use Noisis/ Mind/ Philosophy/ eva sionary activism and negative attitude. And this, in my opinion, is quite sad.


Be well
😵

its not proper beetle for it makes a complete mockery of Christianity. Proclaim aloud from the rooftops a doctrine that is neither reasonable nor explicable in terms such as, 'its beyond the scope of human reason', 'its to be experienced'. its nonsense and it is no wonder that those who profess it are the most unreasonable that you could imagine, for theirs is a stance based not on reason, but pure emotionalism. Its is utterly blind! how can you explain an entity to another that you do not understand yourself? how can you teach another what is incomprehensible? Thus they make a mockery of the Christ and Christianity. Your forbearance and tolerance are noted beetle, but never the less, for a Christian their conduct is intolerable!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not proper beetle for it makes a complete mockery of Christianity. Proclaim aloud from the rooftops a doctrine that is neither reasonable nor explicable in terms such as, 'its beyond the scope of human reason', 'its to be experienced'. its nonsense and it is no wonder that those who profess it are the most unreasonable that you could imagine, ...[text shortened]... olerance are noted beetle, but never the less, for a Christian their conduct is intolerable!

If I were a Christian I would be proud of my Pistis, and I would never be bothered to explain logically to the Gentiles why in my irrational Pistis and in my God I trust😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh I fail to make myself clear to you jaywill -or you ignore the basic aspects of the Christian religion! Methinks according to your religion the Human has to have established a powerful inner understanding (non-conceptual awareness) of Agape, and the sole way to achieve it is by means of Pistis. For it is impossible to use Noisis/ Mind/ Philosophy/ eva sionary activism and negative attitude. And this, in my opinion, is quite sad.


Be well
😵

=============================
Oh I fail to make myself clear to you jaywill -or you ignore the basic aspects of the Christian religion!
=====================================

I think it is perhaps a little of both. You do fail to make yourself too clear somewhat. And I may be ignoring something that I don't know that much about regarding Buddhism.

What is basic to my faith is that Christ is a living Person and not a religion.

=======================================
Methinks according to your religion the Human has to have established a powerful inner understanding
=============================================

Maybe. But the establishment of an inner understanding is really accomplished by Christ a living Person. Yes without this living Person I don't know how I could believe in Christ.

He is simply believable, the most believable Person I have ever known.

I don't have anymore faith than another person, in myself. I notice that spending time in His presence in the word of God does nurture faith within me. The establishing is largly due to His wonderful operation.

=============================
(non-conceptual awareness) of Agape, and the sole way to achieve it is by means of Pistis. For it is impossible to use Noisis/ Mind/ Philosophy/ evaluation of the mind in order to conceive the existence of God,
=================================

Believing in the existence of God I do not think requires fellowship with God. Someone who finds themselves alienated from communion with God may still believe that God exists.

Someone might see the love of God manifested just in the way she is cared for in the sunshine, the well being of blessings in nature, the relatively happiness of their human life - to feel there must be some amount of love from this God.

I do not think only people who commune with God believe that God exists. Some people who would admit that they are not on very intimate talking terms with this God somehow believe that God exists.

The subjective experience of God can be a distinct matter from the believe objectively that there is a God somewhere. And some people who are simply thankful for getting up each morning may perceive the love of God without knowing much else.

This is consistent with the Bible which says there is no excuse for a person believing in thier heart that there is no God. The universe as a creation, Paul says, testifies of God's eternal power and divine characteristics leaving all men without an excuse.

To not believe in God in the face of these evidences, Paul says, is to "hold down the truth in unrighteousness". In other words it is a moral problem of conscience and not an intellectual one of evidence for God's existence.

None of this yet touches on what I wrote about the Trinity, so far.

=====================================
because the mind of the Human is so distorted due to the Propatorikon Amartima that s/he suffers of the delusion that her/ his false evaluation of the mind is accurate. Furthermore, it is impossible to prove logically the existence of God,
===============================

I don't have a comment here. These seem to be some things one would have to know about Buddhist terminology to discuss.

===================================
therefore the Christian needs not logical (philosophically accepted, that is) proves.
=================================

Do you think Jesus requesting after His resurrection, that He be given some fish to eat, or that they handle His body, were because no logical reasons were needed to persuade them that He had actually risen from the dead?

Acts says that He presented Himself alive to His disciples with "many irrefutable proofs" over a period of 40 days (Acts 1:3)

" ... the apostles whom He chose; to whom also He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, appearing to them through a period of forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:2c,3)

Do you think Christ was not concerned that the layers of the foundation of His church would have no logical proof of His having been victorious over death? There are some divine abd mystical aspects of the faith in Christ. But there are also some intensely practical matters that went into the foundations of our belief.

===================================
These attempts are pathetic.
===========================

What I find is pathetic is the excuses that atheists give me when I ask them what they have which is better than the Son of God.

Some say "You see, you just are selfish and want to gain something". But I think this is just an excuse to cover up their poverty. They have nothing but the prideful and dubiois "enjoyment" of thier skepticism.

This is something like a empty box to me, which is wrapped up in fancy ribbons and colerful frills. Inside them, there is really nothing to offer compared to Jesus.

I am more impressed with Jesus.

======================================
And this is the reason why the sole point that proves (not logically, of course) for the Christian the existence of God is the manifestation of Jesus the Son of God.
=================================

There were 39 books which talked about God before the 27 of the New Testament. And the existence of God, Paul says, is not dependent upon the acknowledgement of the Son of God but in the manifestation of God's eternal power and divine characteristics manifested in the creation.

No mention explicitly of the Son of God is in this passage:

"For the invisible things of Him [God], both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they are without excuse;

Because though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or thank Him, but became vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened." (Rom. 1:20-22)

No explicit mention of the Son of God is there. There is not even an explicit mention of Judaism. Man is without excuse to not believe that there is a Creator God. And those who claim not to believe, Paul says, hold down the truth in unrighteousness. He does not say only those who know Jesus can believe that God exists.

So far none of this seems to related to what I wrote about the Triune God dispensing His life into man.

====================================
And this is the reason why there would be no moral value into the belief in the existence of God if such a thing could be logically proved, because there is nothing holy within the belief that 1+1=2.
====================================

As I wrote above for man not to believe that God exists, is a moral problem of man supressing the truth from rising up in his conscience.

This is not particularly a belief in the biblical God of Judeo / Christian tradition. Simply to not acknowlege a Creator God is a moral defect. That is what the book of Romans teaches. And the Old Testament says that it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.

During the end of the great tribulation the book of Revelation says that some people will be saved just because of believing "an eternal gospel," not of Christ redemption, but of God the Creator.

I firmly believe that Revelation 14:6-7 indicate that apart from the Gospel of Christ the Savior, there is an eternal gospel", an eternal good news and good proclamation that there is a Creator God.

Revelation 14:6-7 is pretty strong proof to me that some people will be saved into the next age because, they believed in the Creator God as Romans 1 seems to indicate.

I don't understand everything about this. And I believe there are some unknowns in the Bible. But I read it carefully and am guided less by tradition than simply by what it seems to speak to me.

It is not the Christian theist who needs to be pittied. The atheist is the one who should be pittied.

======================
So your religion is based on an irrational concept, but this is fine with me.
=============================

1.) Christ is a living Person and not a religion

2.) Christ is not altogether not rational

3.) Christ and faith in Christ are what they are whether its fine with you or not.

I have to go on to other things now.

Thanks for your thoughts. They were dazzlingly intelligent !!

Originally posted by black beetle
If I were a Christian I would be proud of my Pistis, and I would never be bothered to explain logically to the Gentiles why in my irrational Pistis and in my God I trust😵

then if you were trying to convince those gentiles of the virtue and surpassing excellence of your faith, recommending its way to those who may be interested in adopting its tenets, your students would say to themselves, the Master is mad, an irrational being, proclaiming truths that are unsubstantiated and unfounded. I would be better off adopting a different form and model, for this one is beyond reason and cannot be grasped! Not only that you would be known around the towns and cities as a practitioner and purveyor of mumbo jumbo! your students the object of ridicule blown hither and zither by every form of teaching, unsteady in all their ways!

Originally posted by black beetle
Check “Trikaya” in any good encyclopaedia and you will read that the antecedents of the Mahayana Trikaya doctrine appear in the Pali Canon when Gautama Buddha tells Vasettha that the Tathagata (the Buddha) was Dharmakaya, the 'Truth-body' or the 'Embodiment of Truth', as well as Dharmabhuta, 'Truth-become', that is, 'One who has become Truth' (Digha Nik ...[text shortened]... t; and the trikayan concept was known to Plato, who re-offered it at his Platonism
😵

Check “Trikaya” in any good encyclopaedia and you will read that the antecedents of the Mahayana Trikaya doctrine appear in the Pali Canon when Gautama Buddha tells Vasettha that the Tathagata (the Buddha) was Dharmakaya, the 'Truth-body' or the 'Embodiment of Truth', as well as Dharmabhuta, 'Truth-become', that is, 'One who has become Truth' (Digha Nikaya). Thus even before the Buddha's Parinirvana the term Dharmakaya was current, and Dharmakaya without the concept of Trikaya is unconceivable;

Could you cite some references to make it easier?

Finally, I did not said that Trikaya is identical to the Christian Trinity. I said that the Christian Trinity is an irrational doctrine regarding the so called triune nature and the activities of the Christian God, whilst Trikaya is an older and quite understandable concept regarding the triune hypostasis of the manifested Buddha. Tertulian is irrelevant; and the trikayan concept was known to Plato, who re-offered it at his Platonism

You are being very duplicitous. The doctrine of the Trinity does not argue a 'triune nature' (it argues a triune personhood and unitary nature). Trikaya does not hold three hypostases but three modes (they are, according to you, dimensions or manifestations.) Could you supply evidence that Plato used the Trikaya?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The first transmission across ARPAnet (precursor to the internet) was "Lo." By your way of thinking, the word's origin can be traced to the internet. True? Or is more research necessary to determine the word's origin?

As it stands, the "Lo" really wasn't 'lo' as we understand it, but simply the result of the system crashing prior to the input of the ...[text shortened]... to written form is as naive as thinking the internet is the origin of communication.

Yeah, I'd ignore it, too...

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Check “Trikaya” in any good encyclopaedia and you will read that the antecedents of the Mahayana Trikaya doctrine appear in the Pali Canon when Gautama Buddha tells Vasettha that the Tathagata (the Buddha) was Dharmakaya, the 'Truth-body' or the 'Embodiment of Truth', as well as Dharmabhuta, 'Truth-become', that is, 'One who has become Truth' (Digha Nika ...[text shortened]... dimensions or manifestations.) Could you supply evidence that Plato used the Trikaya?

Check Plato’s “Symposium” / Diotima, and you will recognize the archetypal Trinitarian concept that is offered by the Greek philosopher as “Immortal-Mortal-Love”. You will see that, according to Plato, Love mediates between the Immortal and Mortal and that it is a force which allows the Human to behold the Immortal. In Christianity the Divine Love is associated with the Holy Spirit which intermediates between the Mortal and Immortal, and Plato’s archetypal “Immortal-Mortal-Love” is seen in the Christian doctrine as Father/ Immortal, Son (sacrificed thus Mortal) and Holy Spirit (Love).
Of course Plato is purely metaphysic due to the fact that he was convinced he could well get rid of the thesis that Aletheia has to be all the time in an 1:1 analogy with the reasoning that is brought up by means of the logic. Plato was thinking that the Supreme Aletheia transcends apodeixis, and therefore his Diotima offers a dogma -a dogma so esoteric that even Socrates falls in trance because he understands that her Aletheia is transcending his sharp intelligence.
Since this scheme is exactly what urges Swinburne to insist that "...the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God because of how they are function", Plato’s Trinity is as Trinitarian as it gets. Plato had an obsession with the triads (for example check Plato’s psyche).

Now: the cornerstone of Plato’s philosophy (influenced of the Orphic philosophers and also of the Pythagoreans, which in turn according to Herodotus were influenced of the Egyptian and the Indian-Persian philosophical doctrines) is the belief that the Ideas that are existent in the heavenly realms are the sole real beings, whilst the objects that we are monitoring with our senses in the physical world are solely imitations of the Ideas and thus delusional beings. Due to the fact that this mind-only main concept is quite similar to the Eastern doctrine of Emptiness/ sunyata and of Trikaya, which predated Plato, I claim that Plato’s philosophical and metaphysic thoughts are not typical (they are not naturalist) Greek but that they are based on these specific Eastern doctrines.
You see, Plato stated amongst that the True Self of the Human is Soul, and that we are suffering because of our senses for they are leading us to delusional thoughts (check Peri Ideon). But this is a view identical in full to the mainstream Buddhist doctrine, therefore Plato was aware of the Buddhist philosophy -and the doctrine of Trikaya was known to him as it was back then to every person that it was versed on Buddhism.

On the other hand I repeat that I compare Trikaya and Trinity at the level of functionality instead of a specific order of personalities within the Christian Godhead, and during this comparison methinks the Christian Trinity looks as I expressed at my OP. The two doctrines are not identical, but they are quite similar because Dharmakaya and Sambhogakaya certainly do bear resemblance to The One and the Nous, and Nirmanakaya is comparable in full to the “World Soul” at the level of its existence within time and not beyond it.

Finally, do you have a clue about what Tertullian had in mind when he stated “…there was a time when the Son was not.” -in other words: “there was a time when Jesus Did Not Exist”? If the Son Of God did not exist at a given space/ time as Tertullian implies, then we are talking about modes/ dimensions too, for according to the Trinitarian doctrine the Godhead would be Existent at A Specific Level Of Existence whilst it was not yet Manifested At Another Specific Level Of Existence. And the Godhead is indeed supposed by the Christians to be the Supreme of the Enlightened Beings. What a coincidence.

I have already offered a lot of sources and names, so you may find further references once you google the cores of specific pieces of information I already have posted here at this thread. For your convenience you may try amongst else http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/112851 and be posted on several Platonic aspects that are argued at the Aristotlean University of Thessaloniki (you will find English text along with the Greek)
😵