Dialogue ~ 16

In the book ‘De Docta Ignorantia’ (on Learned Ignorance) by Nicholas of Cusa (Cusanus), it says, “There has never been a nation which did not worship God and did not believe Him to be the absolutely Maximum … But Pythagoras, a very famous man of undeniable authority in his own time, taught that this Oneness is trine.” 

Cusanus goes to some length to explain that ‘oneness’ is prior to otherness and is eternal; equality is prior to inequality (otherness) and is eternal; effect of prior cause is prior to effect of subsequent cause, meaning that if oneness is a cause of union and otherness is a cause of separation, then union is eternal. He concludes, “ … Since oneness, equality and union are eternal: oneness, equality, and union are one. And this is that trine Oneness which Pythagoras, the first philosopher of all and the glory of Italy and of Greece, affirmed to be worthy of worship.”

Modern definitions of ‘trine’ include: threefold, triple, a group of three: triad, the trine astrological aspect of two celestial bodies, an aspect of 120° (one third of a circle).  

It is interesting to think about a deity or God (or the oneness as Pythagoras was referring to) as having a triple aspect. One way that I can create an impression of this in my mind is through envisaging a sentient being which has of yet no form, but it does have order within itself through contemplation of itself; it is whole and complete in itself. In order to have experience of itself, it has to allow for another. This other is not equal to its source (the one) in that it is other and it has form (it is an idea or an imagining of the one).

Cusanus might describe this ‘other’ as I am envisaging it as a ‘contracting’ of the one; such a state might be an origin of it being possible to contemplate an inner and an outer being – or implicate and explicate order. It is not that there are two in reality, but thought can envision any number of possibilities in relation to the one. What seems important to reiterate at this point is that all thought has emerged from the one and is in relation to the one - even if thought migrates through any number of forms or interpretations of itself, it cannot in reality ever be separate from its source, although it is possible that appearances can suggest otherwise and thought can conceive that it is so.  

 

The ancient philosopher Parmenides said that wherever there is thought there is being. It is being which allows for thought; this remains true and is irrespective of the density and form that thought can take. What is the modern saying, ‘we cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails’? In respect of Parmenides, I had written in a previous blog, ‘His conclusion was that humans are misled by their senses and of perceiving that the cosmos is comprised of many entities rather than of one being; this misapprehension of becoming having arisen not from observation of change, but as a consequence of reasoning that opposition exists in differing states of being.’ 

Consider the Cosmos in which sentient oneness or being is capable of taking many forms (through the generation of its thought of itself). One form can identify with or prefer aspects of its own form and it can dislike others – diversity allows for this, but Parmenides was correct in saying that there has been misapprehension of becoming. A form cannot create itself anew or ‘out of nothing’ - it can choose to accept or reject in relation to what it already is, which is another way of saying that form will change as with its thought of itself. This changing of form is not random or ‘magic’; all change takes place within context and according to natural scales or resonant frequencies as are relating to that form – harmonics or overtones; in this respect, an appearance of ‘becoming’ as we are given to understand it, is about ratio and is closer to a piece of music that is played from birth to death and beyond. 

To return to what Pythagoras had suggested with regard to a trine aspect of the ‘absolute maximum’, God or Source (according to our doctrine or tradition) as oneness, equality and union. I perceive this as true; in that the Cosmos, irrespective of an appearance of characteristics and representations, has an essence or being as within the one from which it has emerged. It could not be otherwise or the Cosmos as it appears to us would not exist, given that wherever there is thought (form), there is being. There is equality in the midst of diversity of form, in that there is potential, such that recognitions are made in respect of the ratio of said form. There is union, in that all forms are participants and are motivated through being to know and to experience themselves as one with and in harmony with the Cosmos. It is the trine characteristic or aspect of the source of all that is, which reveals the truth of what is, as well as allows for all differentiations and representations of what is – the one and the many.

Contemplation of the trine aspect and its implications for humanity has generated (and still does) considerable controversy through the ages. Even if a human being does not know through experience, but is able to conceive in the stillness of their being, that they are not separate from the Cosmos or from all that is, it allows a sense of spaciousness in which to contemplate their nature and to make choices as they experience life which they otherwise would not have been inclined to do. 

Human beings are always making choices, irrespective of whether they conceive of themselves as being part of a sentient oneness or unity of life or not. Consider however, that if a human is able to conceive of the self as akin to a seed that is growing into its full potential within the sentient being that is the Cosmos (an image which comes to mind is of the Matryoshka dolls (Russian nesting or stacking dolls), layer within layer, perhaps as is also evident in the holographic principle), then thought takes place within a context of right relationship or ratio (harmonics) and form (a person’s worldview) shifts accordingly. It can even be said that this relationship has precedence in any concept of what constitutes and governs moral or ethical behaviour.

As I am able to perceive it, to ‘lose one’s truth’ is effectively an experience of the conscious self being ‘knocked out of orbit’ in relation to one’s own being; effectively, a person loses touch with a primal axis or point of origin, that is to say, their being in relationship with ‘all that is’, whether we call this the primordial, oneness, God, the Cosmos or Nature (or else as according to your tradition).

Unconscious conflict (dissonance) arises as a growing consequence of a person losing harmony with their point of origin or primal axis, particularly as they attempt to navigate through life using an analytical approach and response. Such conflict not only brings about a state of incoherence in relation to life, but its nature is such that a person is unable to be in right relationship with others (given that the one and the many are congruent) and to behave accordingly. Such a person can view life and their relationships with others through a lens of personal need or usefulness; experiences are interpreted through an individual value system, rather than if they had been perceived in right relationship with truth. 

Christopher Hitchins, the social critic and author of the best-selling book ‘God is not Great’ said, “We keep on being told that religion, whatever its imperfections, at least instils morality. On every side, there is conclusive evidence that the contrary is the case and that faith causes people to be more mean, more selfish, and perhaps above all, more stupid.” He told readers of an online newspaper that what he considered to be the ‘axis of evil’ was ‘Christianity, Judaism, Islam – the three leading monotheisms’, but in his book he expanded his criticism to include all religions. He wrote, “Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive towards children: organised religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience."

I appreciate where Hitchins was coming from as he shared his views concerning religion, but I do not share his disparagement of them. I sense there is something incomplete in his assessment and which requires some clarification. As I am perceiving things to be, the root of the behavioural problems and conflict of which he speaks, lies not so much in whatever language or sacred text happens to be used or followed by an individual, if at all, so much as in how (as I have written earlier) that person is relating to a truth of being within themselves. If there is incoherence and dissonance at the core of a human in that respect, then no amount of signposts, guides, maps, orators or instruction will ‘yield a healthy crop or generate a good wine’; religion per se isn’t the problem (and nor is its absence in the world) – an inner connection or correlation has to be made willingly by an individual in order for their worldview to change.