The concept of the Trinity poses a significant challenge, not only for devotees of the Lord but also for those attempting to compare it with the theological frameworks of other faiths. Since the Vatican II Council, which opened the door for various [liberal] Catholic and other theologians [such as Swami Abhishiktananda (the French monk known as Le Saux), Prof. Raimon Panikkar, and Fr. Bede Griffiths, among others], there has been an effort to engage in dialogue with Hinduism and interpret the Trinity in relation to Hindu philosophies.@ Many of these interpretations are influenced by Advaita, although it is important to note that Advaita is not the only representative of Indian philosophical thought. Nevertheless, Neo-Vedantists have often promoted it as the sole representative theology of Hinduism.
As a layperson, I may not be fully equipped to critique these interpretations. However, based on my limited understanding of both Muktiveda and Hinduism, comparing the Trinity to Hinduism presents significant difficulties. The three deities in Hinduism—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—are referred to as a Trinity, but there is no direct compatibility with the English term ‘Trinity.’ In Hinduism, while these deities each hold supreme status within their respective sects, they are often subordinate to the other two in different sects and Puranas.
The core philosophical focus in Hinduism is understanding the relationship between ‘atman,’ ‘brahman,’ and creation. This could be considered a kind of Trinity in Hindu theology. In this framework, two elements always remain subordinate to the one. For instance, in Advaita [monism, not monotheism], both God and creation serve the purpose of Self-Realization, where Atman is Brahman. Once Self-Realization is achieved, the other two—God and creation—become irrelevant. Even if they continue to play a role in the life of a jivan mukta [one who has attained liberation while still living], they belong to the realm of ‘Maya.’ In the Bhakti tradition, God is Supreme, and the other two—atman and creation—serve to support the divine play [lila] of God. Some sects, like the Charvakas [Materialists], reject both God and Atman, focusing instead on enjoying creation.
Thus, there is no cosmic or hidden Christ in Hinduism, nor is there an Advaita in Muktiveda. Those who attempt to find these elements may engage in what some might consider textual torture, regardless of their scholarly prowess. Although I respect their personal experiences, their writings often serve more as intellectual entertainment for scholars and amusement for individuals like me. However, the core of Muktiveda, which centers on God’s Covenant fulfilled through Muktinath, remains entirely foreign to Hinduism. Similarly, the concept of an unknown, unmanifested impersonal Brahman is alien to Muktiveda, which presents God as a Person—a concept that Advaita lacks. Even when other philosophies project a personal deity or God, it is unclear whether they are referring to the same concept of God as a Person that Muktiveda describes.
This reflection is based on my reading of Dr. Hoch’s points on Advaita, God as Person, etc., in Erna M. Hoch, Hypocrite or Heretic: To pretend or to protest. Published for The Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore, by The Christian Literature Society, Madras, 1983, pp. 172, 176, and 177.
@Interfaith dialogue has been a central focus for the Catholic Church since Vatican II. The inter-monastic group DIMMID and its journal, Dilatato Corde, have positioned interfaith dialogue at the heart of ongoing encounters between Christianity and Hinduism. DIMMID (Dialogue Interreligieux Monastique DIM and Monastic Interreligious Dialogue MID) has been instrumental in fostering this dialogue. — Mario I. Aguilar, CHRISTIAN ASHRAMS, HINDU CAVES AND SACRED RIVERS: Christian-Hindu Monastic Dialogue in India 1950-1993, London and Philadelphia, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, p. 160
Leave a Reply