In this essay, I would like to articulate my thoughts on the Trinitarian God of historic Christianity in light of Buddhist and Tantric paradigms and conceptions of the divine, or what can also be termed ultimate reality. In this movement of ideas, I seek to reconcile and integrate seemingly divergent points of view into a coherent philosophical theology of the Triune God that embraces the strengths and positive contributions of the Christian Biblical, Asian Buddhist, and Indian Tantric intellectual and wisdom traditions. Through this dialogical fusion of multiple horizons in a spirit of hospitable inclusive interspirituality without indiscriminate bland syncretism, I hope to evince an integral cosmotheandric theology of the Trinity that can be faithful to the earliest historical creedal confessions of Christianity while open to fresh thinking stemming from Asian ontological and epistemological perspectives. As a result, my hope is that new impetus and possibilities for reinvigorated engagement with the Christian faith particularly in alternative missiological initiatives and even mainstream evangelization could emerge in this fertile space of bold theological reflection and praxis.
Not Syncretism
Let me be clear that I am not seeking to unify and synthesize disparate and distinctive world religions into one single religion. This is an impossible and undesirable task in my view, for reasons I will not detail here. I am also not attempting to be a universalist and pluralist in stating that all religions are identical and lead to the same goal despite their being different paths. This would be overly simplistic and lacking in nuance, apart from being erroneous in its overarching claims. That said, I am also not denigrating any religious tradition or claiming insular exclusivity of the Christian message by way of a superiority complex that uncharitably downgrades other faiths. Far from it, I wish to honour and celebrate the diversity of faiths especially in terms of their distinctive and deeply beneficial contributions of philosophy, theology, doxology, ethical theory, and contemplative praxis. It is precisely in this spirit of inclusive respect and celebration without veering into uncritical uniformity that I embark on this current reflection.
Not Trinitarian Substantialism
The Christian concept of God is described as Trinitarian — a doctrinal formulation in which
God is conceived personally as being one in substance though as three distinct persons.
The Triune God is thus a Three-One God comprising Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existing as three persons (hypostases) in a communion of love that is essentially one in substance (ousia). Traditional orthodoxy sees God in three persons as substantially and inherently real, both for God as the One essence and God as Three persons. The problem with such a view is that substantially and inherently speaking, the One logically contradicts the Three and vice-versa. By law of the excluded middle of Aristotelian logic, we must have either the One substantial being or the Three substantial persons at any given time but not simultaneously One and Three at all times. As an example, if we have three tables carved out of the same big piece of wood, we end up with not one piece of wood but three pieces of wood even though they all share the same wooden raw ingredient. These three tables may function and behave in the same way by way of their same wooden substance, but they nevertheless exist as three tables or pieces of wood, not one. By the same token, the three persons of God though sharing in the same divine substance end up being three Gods, not one. Hence, we see clearly that substantialism or essentialism makes for an incoherent and self-
contradictory proposition as far as the Trinity goes. We end up having to choose between One substantial God (Unitarianism) or Three substantial Gods (Tritheism) but never and impossibly a Three-One God (Trinitarian monotheism). To put it bluntly, a substantialist and essentialist view of God makes the Trinity ontologically untenable.
Conundrum
How are we to resolve this logical conundrum? How can we view God in non-substantialist and non-essentialist ways? What can Asian wisdom traditions offer to this debate that can potentially break the impasse? How do contemplative practices for unitive illumination — mystagogies — lead to the summum bonum of spiritual life? Find out in a full version of this essay published in Mountain Rain (2025) Issue 1, a periodical of Awarezen. Write to me at chriskang@awarezen.com to request your e-copy.
