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 hypostatic union in Christianity is the one ousias of three hypostasis. Not Jesus. Jesus is one of the hypostasis.
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.Dharma means teaching. Kaya means body. And it is one aspect of the Buddha in the Mahayana teachings, unlike the trinity.
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.IN the trinity of the athanasian creed, God, son and spirit are one but three separate beings altogether with one usia.
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.So your explanation is similar to a Christian heresy called Modalism.
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.The trinity is not one person in three modes like the Thrikaya in Mahayana Buddhism.
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.I think you may of course know all of this. But the concept of the trinity is that it is one ousia or essence in three separate beings, vis a vis, the father, son and Holy Spirit. The father is NOT the son, the son is not the father, the Holy Spirit is neither of them.
Am I three separate beings?They are separate beings, but of the same essence or usia so they are not three lords.
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.In the church history, believing the trinity is three modes of the same person like the Thrikaya spoken of above is called modalism. Its a very serious heresy and you can be excommunicated for believing in such a thing. I will cut and paste part of the Athanasian creed for you from Marquess's translation directly.
"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity."
Last edited: