I was re-reading Matthew Ward’s new maps of heaven (1) and really looked at his interpretation of the Trinity. He said:
“The Trinity of the Christian churches could be interpreted as this: Father (Creator: the highest power in the cosmos, who is called God or other names in Earth religions). Son (God, who is the creation — the ‘son’ — of Creator and is the supreme being of our universe and who is not generally recognized on Earth as different from Creator. Holy Ghost (the highest angelic realm, also called the Christed realm, where the highest beings are total love expressed as light; and from whence come the souls who have incarnated as major religious figures throughout this universe, including Jesus and Buddha).”
May I use his teaching to illustrate a possible difficulty we could stray into as information begins to be released to us about cosmic matters? It’s called faulty comparisons. I’m about to show you one to illustrate a problem we may encounter later.
Let me first borrow from anthropology (Leslie White, to be specific) the definition of a symbol, such as a word. A symbol is a thing or event upon which meaning is freely and arbitrarily bestowed. I call it a “tree”; you call it an “arbre.” Is one right and the other wrong?
No. We have the ability to freely and arbitrarily bestow whatever meaning we want on symbols, including words. And for us, that then becomes its established meaning.
Keep that as background as we hear a second interpretation of the Trinity, which would ordinarily invite comparison with what Matthew said. I offer that:
“The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, known in Hinduism as Brahman, Atman, and Shakti, represents three levels of Reality. The first is the All, the One, the Totality, to use Matthew’s phrase. The second is the One’s creative power, which we call the Divine Mother (Holy Ghost), and the third is the spark of the Father within a form created by the Mother – that is, us (the Christ, the Atman, the Buddha nature).”
Is one of us wrong? No. The symbol “trinity” is neutral and can be applied to anything. He’s taken the concept and used it as a framework to look at different phenomena than I did.
I haven’t included the being he calls “God” (the God of this universe) in my map – just because I freely and arbitrarily chose to focus on the relationship between three other phenomena.
I cannot comment on the “Christed realm” – and would not – because I haven’t experienced it. Because I have no knowledge of it – intellectual or otherwise – you wouldn’t expect to see it in my “trinity.” In fact, it couldn’t be.
The only thing the two trinities have in common is the use of the word “trinity” itself, but what constitutes the trinity differs. It’s not right or wrong. It’s just different.
I cite this example because I’d like to dispel all notions of right and wrong to prepare us for where we’re going. Matthew’s interpretation is a contribution to our knowledge and I’d like to think mine is too. To compare them, given that they look at different phenomena and that both might be correct, is to compare apples and oranges.
The moral of the story is, we want to watch that we’re not fooled into faulty comparisons as the information flows in the time ahead, much of it previously unknown to us.
Of course a more thorough-going solution is not to make anyone’s interpretation wrong. If nothing else, it’s right for them. The sooner we allow other people their interpretations, I believe, the sooner we recover our original state of peace in ourselves and the world.
(1) “Matthew Ward Provides a New Map of Heaven – Part 2/4,”