Christian Trinity and Trikaya

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]... bject of ridicule blown hither and zither by every form of teaching, unsteady in all their ways!

I bow😵

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
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 ...[text shortened]... gs now.

Thanks for your thoughts. They were dazzlingly intelligent !![/b]

I thank you for sharing your thoughts too
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
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 as e Aristotlean University of Thessaloniki (you will find English text along with the Greek)
😵

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).

You are doing gymnastics to find even vestigial trinitarianism. As I see Plato's argument, love is an expression of our desire for immortality. Love spurs people on to procreate so that they might have children and live on. Certainly, Plato argues that mortality and immortality are the conditions for love. But this hardly corresponds to the Trinity. Christians believe that all the persons are immortal.

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.

I think there is something very troubling about your view of history. Basically, if someone shows a way of thought similar to an earlier thought, you assume that the person is beholden to it; that he is unable to think for himself. Even if Plato's thought shows similarity with Eastern doctrines (and you have to admit that there are substantial departures between them), that does not mean that Plato was beholden to Eastern doctrines. It ignores the fact that Plato argued for his idea of forms; he didn't show historical continuity between him and the East but showed that his belief was philosophically tenable.

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.

Firstly, I think that Plato and Buddhism mean different things by this. Plato believes that the senses are overcome by thought, by philosophical interrogation of the forms of things, rather than the things themselves and the senses required to investigate them. As I understand, Buddhism is not interested in that at all but rather in losing thought all together. Secondly, this hardly proves that Plato was familiar with the Trikaya. Your argument basically is both Plato and Buddhism use a triad; Plato and Buddhism argue that senses are the cause of 'suffering'; both Plato and Eastern thinkers argue that material things are not real (although would Buddhists agree with Plato about the reality of his metaphysical forms which are instantiated in material things?) Sorry, but that's really weak.

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.

Well, at the level of functionality, there can be agreement. But the Trinity is namely the doctrine that there are three divine consubstantial persons. The only similarities I can see between the two concepts is the use of a triad.

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.

Firstly, Tertullian is not regarded as an orthodox teacher. While Christians continue to study him because of his foundational role in the development of the early church and its doctrines, they do not honor him as a saint or doctor of the Church (unlike some later church fathers.) Secondly, if Tertullian did teach that there was a time the son did not exist, he would be heretical. Christians believe that the Father has begotten the Son for all eternity (although Jesus Christ, the union of the Son and a human nature, is not co-eternal; he is two thousand years old.) Thirdly, Christians would not call God the 'supreme enlightened being'; that is Buddhist terminology and if Christians did use it, they would have to mean something else.

Also, we have gotten sidetracked. What I am asking for is details about where, when and to what extent this doctrine originated. Dogmas only emerge through history and even if the Trikaya was mentioned, even declared, at the First Buddhist Council (whatever that is), it would still have to be taught, studied and spread to other Buddhist places. I am wondering how this doctrine could have infiltrated the whole Christian world from the Greece and Rome all the way to Egypt and to Africa. And given that many early church fathers were at pains to distance themselves from pagans and even when borrowing from Plato, keen to criticise him, why didn't they mention Buddhism explicitly? I know of no references to the Trikaya in early Christianity. Surely it would have been good ammunition for non-Trinitarians?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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 ass ...[text shortened]... in early Christianity. Surely it would have been good ammunition for non-Trinitarians?

edit: “You are doing gymnastics … Christians believe that all the persons are immortal.”

This is false -how did you came to this conclusion? Diotima’s speech is quite clear: Plato’s Eros is based on the philosopher’s metaphysic belief that the existence of the Ideas is Aletheia, and that at this level On is perfect. We can get to know these Ideas by means of our senses, claims Plato, and then these senses of ours are entering Einai and they participate in the Being thanks to the existence of the Ideas. Plato states that this understanding is a product of the non-conceptual power of the soul and at the same time a product of Noisis (mind). Definitely this exact doctrine regarding this level of understanding has Eastern roots (in the Eastern philosophy we are talking about conceptual and non-conceptual awareness, ie for meditation in a deep level of specific Yoga practices). Plato claims that this is the basis of the rising of Eros, and he states that there are two kinds of immortality:
a) the absolute immortality of On (a condition in which Being is ever stable and keeps all his elements unchanged), and
b) the relevant immortality of the mortal Human by means of the birth of the human beings. So, according to Plato’ metaphysic theory of reality, in the conscience of the Human Pair (Lovers) Through (the agent) Eros lies not our need to become relevantly immortal by giving birth to a baby, but the power of the potential manifestation of a Unified Person (the Two Lovers) that it is able to rise (thanks to the power of the mingling of the souls of the two lovers) towards Being and Light (Symposium 208e). Over here I point out that according to the Platonic doctrine God has no Eros for nothing because s/he already possesses all the values and the virtues that they derive out of Eros; so Eros for Plato is a human-triggered phenomenon but not human-oriented regarding its tense and its telos, and this is the reason why the character of Eros is neither solely psychological nor solely sociological but mainly metaphysic.

Since you are not versed in Plato it is meaningless to comment further about “tokos en to kalo” and “tokos en ti psyche”, and of course I cannot go once more through the Platonic Trinity. If you are interested in further discussion you have to cope and at least study Symposium in full
😵

edit: “I think there is something very troubling about your view of history. … …he didn't show historical continuity between him and the East but showed that his belief was philosophically tenable.”


Oh I believe that such a thing as parthenogenesis in Popper’s World 3 is a rare bird. Contact any university you want and any philosopher well versed in Platonism -you will get the answer that his philosophy is Eastern-oriented and not at all Typical (naturalist) Greek. Of course Plato walked his personal pathway, but his roots are Eastern and quite visible. Regarding Eros, Psyche, Ideas etc Plato offered solely metaphysic views, and surely he is not considered a metaphysic realist due to the fact that he does not care to enter and use apodeixis. Plato argued almost about everything; this means not that all of his arguments are based on apodeixis.

And something else: Plato’s arguments regarding these very topics are not philosophically tenable: they are theology, and they became the basis for the Neoplatonist movement -an even more huge Eastern/ Western philosophical, metaphysic and theological mixer- etc. If you want to spot philosophically tenable doctrines check for starters (after the Presocratic philosophers) Aristotle from the West and Nagarjuna from the East
😵

edit: “Firstly, I think that Plato and Buddhism mean different things by this. Plato believes that the senses are overcome by thought, by philosophical interrogation of the forms of things, rather than the things themselves and the senses required to investigate them. As I understand, Buddhism is not interested in that at all but rather in losing thought all together. Secondly, this hardly proves that Plato was familiar with the Trikaya. Your argument basically is both Plato and Buddhism use a triad; Plato and Buddhism argue that senses are the cause of 'suffering'; both Plato and Eastern thinkers argue that material things are not real (although would Buddhists agree with Plato about the reality of his metaphysical forms which are instantiated in material things?) Sorry, but that's really weak.”


Plato and Buddhism are almost identical to this, and this is the reason why Plato is considered an Eastern-oriented philosopher driven by his metaphysic views. Buddhism has nothing to do with the “losing of all thought”. Buddhism has to do with the overcoming of suffering/ Enlightenment by means of permanent conceptual and non-conceptual awareness; and Platonism aims to enable the Human to transcend death by means of loving a fast and noble life devoted to Virtue (Kalon, Agathon etc.). All in all, the essential in Buddhism is this understanding: once you discard all the arbitrary notions of every existence, of your “self” and of every other person and of a universal self included, and when you discard all the arbitrary notions of the non-existence of every existence, of your “self” and of every other person and of a universal self included, you will have your mind silent. This silence is You. Find Yourself first, and then feel free to find out more about the quality of your arbitrary notions.
Do you see now Platonic Socrates smiling?

So my argument is not that Plato and Buddhism are using triads, but rather that Plato used the functionality of the Buddhist Trikaya archetype in order to offer his metaphysic theory of reality as it appears in his conception known as Platonist Trinity. I argue that the Christian Trinitarian theology is based on the functionality of the metaphysic Platonist Trinity. I argue that the Platonist Trinity is problematic in comparison with the doctrine of Trikaya, and I argue that the Christian Trinity (that is based on the functionality of the Platonist Trinity) is irrational whilst Trikaya is a crystal clear concept. Of course I do not argue that Platonism and the Christian theology are identical, as you can also notice if you read my first post on page 4 at the thread “What Others Said about the Trinity”
😵

Edit: “Well, at the level of functionality, there can be agreement. But the Trinity is namely the doctrine that there are three divine consubstantial persons. The only similarities I can see between the two concepts is the use of a triad.”

So at last we agree at the level of functionality, as we did the other day at the thread “Greek Mythology”! However I see much more than merely a use of a “triad”: I see the evolution of the archetype of triad emerging in Trikaya, Trikaya emerging into Platonic Trinity and Platonic Trinity emerging into Christian Trinity. And I take as granted that contextualization and decontextualization are in any case taking place

Edit: “Firstly, Tertullian is not regarded as an orthodox teacher. While Christians continue to study him because of his foundational role in the development of the early church and its doctrines, they do not honor him as a saint or doctor of the Church (unlike some later church fathers.) Secondly, if Tertullian did teach that there was a time the son did not exist, he would be heretical. Christians believe that the Father has begotten the Son for all eternity (although Jesus Christ, the union of the Son and a human nature, is not co-eternal; he is two thousand years old.) Thirdly, Christians would not call God the 'supreme enlightened being'; that is Buddhist terminology and if Christians did use it, they would have to mean something else.”


Fine, then Tertullian had a foundational role in the development of the early Christian church and doctrine, but it seems that the church disliked his specific Neoplatonic view and oops, he was not promoted to a Saint. So he would be heretic, but this is a very broad term -so what? He would be “heretic” to some and at the same time “orthodox” to some. A whole religion, Christianity, is considered heresy by Judaism -so what?

It strikes me the fact that you can easily recognize the similarities between a religious topic at which you are well versed and at the same time understand how we are using the mechanism of building on specific ideas in order to establish a totally new approach ((ie Abrahamic religions, development of heresies etc), however you refuse to see that the same mechanism is used in philosophy!

Finally, I do not understand why the Christian God is not the Supreme Enlightened Being amongst else, the Primal Enlightened Being that is the creator of the Universe etc etc. Probably my contextualization sounds awkward to a disciple of Jesus I reckon
😵

Edit: “Also, we have gotten sidetracked. What I am asking for is details about where, when and to what extent this doctrine originated. Dogmas only emerge through history and even if the Trikaya was mentioned, even declared, at the First Buddhist Council (whatever that is), it would still have to be taught, studied and spread to other Buddhist places. I am wondering how this doctrine could have infiltrated the whole Christian world from the Greece and Rome all the way to Egypt and to Africa. And given that many early church fathers were at pains to distance themselves from pagans and even when borrowing from Plato, keen to criticise him, why didn't they mention Buddhism explicitly? I know of no references to the Trikaya in early Christianity. Surely it would have been good ammunition for non-Trinitarians?”



Details I offered you so many! Why is it so hard for you to google and conduct your own research regarding the topics “First Buddhist Council”, “Graeco-Buddhism”, “King Ashoka”, “Edicts of Ashoka”, “Dhammarakkhita", “Mahavamsa XII” and regarding every other core of the pieces of information I offered at my first post of the second page of this thread? You did not even try to get information about the First Buddhist Council -so I understand why you are still failing to see which way these ideas were communicated from the East to the West. Well, they were communicated thanks to the Ionian philosophers, and thanks to the Buddhist monks sent by Ashoka all around the (known back then) world, and thanks to the free, uncensored circulation of the philosophical and religious doctrines between East and Greece. Of course during Alexander the Great and later on the Hellenistic Kingdom remained for a long period a sparkling, huge and open area between Greece and India, and the communication became even easier.

Many scholars have asserted that themes found in Buddhist texts and doctrines can be found in the New Testament in more or less recognizable forms. I understand that if you start looking for facts and evidence about Trikaya/ Trinity you will be obliged to enter into a field unfamiliar and unsympathetic to you, however this is the case and the archetypal idea stands -we are not talking about a “triad” but about “Trinity/ Trikaya”. You may start from studying Greaco-Buddhism too: according to Diog. Laertius, Pyrrho (360-270BC) was together with Alexander, and after an interaction with the Indian ascetics for 18 months he returned back in Greece and he offered immediately his philosophy, which is based directly and openly on Stoicism and on the Indian philosophy. What makes you think that Pyrrho knew something that the Pythagoreans, and thus Plato, were ignoring?

Furthermore, it is crystal clear that the Athenians were definitely aware of similar (not identical to Paul’s) Eastern religious doctrines. Plato’s theory is full of similar approaches and the communication link between the West and the East was by that time so well established that the historians Strabo and Nicolaus of Damascus noted that the Indian sarmana “…Zarmanochegas, a native of Bargosa, had immortalized himself according to the custom of his country”, as it was written on his tomb. This action (the Indian set happily himself on fire in order to let his spirit break free) took place in Athens, and his tomb was visible at the time of Plutarch; therefore it is obvious that the Athenians had the chance to see and talk to various religious personages and ascetics from India (gymnosophists/ saddhus) and from other Eastern countries before, during and after Jesus’ death. BTW, from another perspective this is the reason why the Athenians were not particularly amazed with Paul's gospel -they probably just wanted to pin him down in Agora by means of their dialectic dexterity as they used to do with every "weirdo", and to engage him in a conversation aiming to prove in front of everybody that he was talking nonsense.

Regarding your next question I clarify that the masters and the disciples of the basic 6 Buddhist schools conceive sunyata, Trikaya ect the same way at the level of the non-conceptual awareness -but the evaluation of the mind within each school is conducted by means of different ways, and this is the reason why the doctrine of Trikaya took its final form (a form accepted from all the schools) by the 4th century CE. So the Trikayan concept was not known to the ones who were not versed in Buddhism, whilst the ones who were well versed they wanted either to built on it and to bring up their own, all new approach (BTW this is exactly how the Presocratic philosophers were acting), or they were not eager to spread the ...“good news” the same way as the Christians.

Finally methinks that the non-Trinitarian Christians are satisfied to claim simply that “…the Trinity has pagan origins, period.”, and actually as far as I am concerned they all mean that the Christian Trinity has its origin in Platonist Trinity. Since this opinion is obviously a fact they were never bothered to check deeper and to find out which way and why Plato brought up his Trinity, and this sounds logical because they want merely to prove that "Trinity is a product of paganism" and not to offer an evaluation of Trikaya and Plato's Trinity. And methinks the …“ammunition” is indeed so strong that the Christian religion is even today divided in Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian denominations
😵