William Roberts3 said:The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.
The Observer, the Observation, and the observed.
.......................
"3" = 1
1 : 3 = 1
1 = "3"
"Three" = The Whole
One divided by three = An apparent Trinity, a "split" Wholeness
One = A Wholeness that just looks like three...
Don't take this the wrong way—I have to comment, and I mean no harm.
Why is it that whenever we encounter an omnipresent Trinity, we try to explain it in a way that makes us forget everything we actually knew? Our mathematical logic simply doesn't square with that statement. Honestly, trying to make sense of claims like these is enough to drive a person mad. You’re offering me an obvious falsehood as a definition for everything, but by that very definition, everything becomes a lie and truth ceases to exist.
From a Catholic standpoint—where any claim lacking a biblical foundation is considered occultism—this kind of assertion falls right into that category. It’s pulling its roots from Greek philosophical thought rather than scripture.
I don't truly know Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, so a deeper commentary on them would be pointless.
However, I do like this part: The Observer, the Act of Observation, and the object being observed.
There’s a certain point here regarding the mechanics of sight that allows us to perceive an object. You’ve reduced the entire process down to two objects and one action, but in reality, what you see depends on so much more. For instance, the color of the light hitting the object... or if it's pitch black, there is no observation at all. You could stare until you're blue in the face and see absolutely nothing.
And if one God truly has multiple faces, then surely there aren't just three, but an infinite number (from a human perspective, anyway).
If we look at a 2D triangle, it comes out as the most perfect structural shape, and we can fit it inside a circle.
Now, try imagining a 3D object with only three flat sides and attempt to fit it inside a sphere. For example, a tetrahedron has four sides, which is the absolute minimum. Now, maybe that's a bit of a tangent, but I'm just applying math to our points of view and our capacity for perception... 🤷