There are not three hypostasis. The hypostatic union refers to the human nature and the divine nature. There is one divine nature. Not three.
The Trinity is also one aspect of Christian teachings. Not sure how you think a doctrine in one religion is different than a doctrine in another religion. A doctrine is a human attempt to understand the Mystery. Buddhism does this. So does Christianity.
No trinitarian would say there are three separate beings. That's polytheism. Viewing God as a 'being' at all, in a literal, non-metaphorical sense, means God is a creature, a "thing" like a cat, or a dog, or a yeti, or something else. Thinking of the Divine in literal terms as "separate beings", is to apply a crude, gross-level, dualistic thinking to the ineffable as if it were its actuality. This is error.
From what is said of Modalism historically, that God jumps between modes of being, does not reflect what I said. Now while "persons" of the Trinity, is a very loose understanding of that word, i.e., not literal "entities", such as my person versus your person, to understand this is 'modes of being' is not far afield.
I would differ with what is said of modalism in that I believe these three "persons" or modes, or aspects, or whatever term could possibly apply to the Divine Reality, exist eternally as such. God is these "three", Source, Manifestation, and Unity (Father, Son, Spirit).
I think modern day Modelism does accept that these 'modes' are eternal, and so they are closer to Trinitarian theology than they may care to admit. Personally, I just see these "oneness" groups, the modern modalists, as responding to very literalist interpretations of Trinitarian theology (such as you express imagining it means "separate beings"). They recognize rightly that God is not separated thusly with different personalities in a gross-level way you might speak of different "people".
I did not intend to suggest that the Trinity was equal to the Trikaya. The hypostatic union is closer to that. But just as you have the three natures in one person in Buddhism, you have the three 'states of being' in the Trinity. I realize it's not a direct, one to one comparison. I brought that up to show that the question about the nature of the Buddha gave rise to the doctrine of the Trikaya, just as the question about the nature of Christ gave rise to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, and the the question about the nature of the Divine, gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity.
These are ways to try to think about something that transcends definitions. Yet doctrinal literalists always mistake metaphors as actual descriptors of reality itself. They mistake fingers pointing to the moon, as the moon itself.
We may speak of God in terms of three, but to say that they are separate beings, would be like saying my body and my mind and my spirit are three separate beings. I can talk about my body, I can talk about my mind, I can talk about my spirit, but at all times I am not divided. Every aspect of this single being, me, is still one being. Not three separate people or persons. To imagine it literally as three separate beings, is confusion and error.
Am I three separate beings?
Well, I think anyone at anytime who says that our salvation is contingent upon how we conceptualize the Divine theologically, has a long, long ways to go spiritually speaking. Nothing we can say about the Divine, defines God. Period.
Last edited:
. I'm going to try to just generally tackle what I read.
