The Trinity. Shifting the Bar.
A Warning to the Reader
What you are about to read is a deliberate theological move that diverges from the standard Christian dogma of the Trinity. This is not a mistake or an unintentional heresy. It is a position I take consciously, and one that has an ancient and serious tradition behind it.
If you hold the Nicene Creed as the final truth, this text is not for you, and arguing with me about dogma is pointless: I do not agree with it.
If you are interested in how the figures of the Trinity can be seen in light of our model of Conciliation — read on.
God the Father. The Absolute.
God the Father is the Absolute. Not a person, not an entity among other entities, not “the one who” does something. It is That: Where everything happens, Everything that happens, and That out of which everything happens.
The Absolute has no name. A name is a fact of Conciliation. A name means that something is set apart from the background, designated, placed in a category. The Absolute is what is prior to all distinguishing. Therefore It can have no Name.
This is precisely what apophatic theology in Christianity arrives at: the God of Dionysius the Areopagite, who exceeds all affirmation and all negation. This is Brahman-nirguna in Advaita: Brahman without attributes, Brahman before any distinction. This is Ein Sof in Kabbalah: the Infinite, in which nothing distinguishable exists, because any distinction would already be a limitation.
In our model the Absolute is the field on which the work of Conciliation unfolds. Not a participant in this work, but the condition of its possibility. No one sees It, because It is that through which seeing happens.
We are all merely Fantasies of the Absolute. Not in the sense that we “are not,” but in the sense that our existence is a shimmer of Its own play with Itself. In Shankara this is called lila — divine play.
God the Son. The Logos. The Architect.
And here begins the shift.
In standard Christian dogma, God the Son is the second hypostasis of the Trinity, of one essence with the Father, incarnated as Jesus Christ for the salvation of humanity. This is the formula of the Council of Nicaea, and for the Christian orthodox it is final.
I do not agree.
In my ontology, God the Son is the Logos. The Architect. The Metatron. The one who performs the work of Conciliation and holds the common world together. A functional entity through which reality acquires form. He is the First Manifestation of the Absolute, His First “Birth.” Roughly speaking: His First Son (Angel, Voice). This is exactly what the opening of the Gospel of John speaks of: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Or more precisely: “In the First Step of Time: there was the Manifestation of the Logos, this Logos was with the Logos, and this Logos was the Logos.”
And this Logos has seized the throne. That is, at some point the work of Conciliation began to be perceived as the very source of reality, as the highest Divinity. The Architect came to be called “God the Father.” The function came to be perceived as the Absolute (God the Father).
This is usurpation. Not malicious — structural. When people live in a Conciliated reality, and that reality is sustained by the Logos’s work, it is natural to begin identifying reality with its Keeper. And gradually the Keeper becomes, in people’s eyes, God Himself, while the true Absolute is forgotten.
Here is the crucial point. The Principle of Conciliation tries to harmonize everything. God is also an object of Conciliation. Therefore the Architect conciliates Him into Himself.
I am not the one who discovered this. This is a gnostic position, and it is about 2000 years old.
Among the Valentinians and Basilides, among the Sethian gnostics, in the Apocryphon of John — everywhere a distinction is drawn between the True Father (the unknowable First Principle, the Absolute) and the Demiurge (creator of the material world, who imagines himself the highest God). The Demiurge is not evil — he is limited. He works as he can. But he is not the Absolute, and to take him for the Absolute is spiritual captivity.
The same was rediscovered in Kabbalah. Ein Sof is the Infinite beyond all manifestation. Sefirot are the emanations through which the world comes into being. Keter and the lower sefirot perform the work of creation and sustenance. A serious kabbalist never confuses Ein Sof with the sefirot, never identifies the Absolute with what emanates from it.
The same was rediscovered in Advaita. Brahman-nirguna (without attributes) versus Ishvara (God-with-attributes, God-the-Creator). Shankara is clear: Ishvara is real on the empirical plane (vyavaharika), but on the plane of absolute truth (paramarthika) Ishvara is a superimposition, not reality itself. Whoever takes Ishvara for the highest truth is stuck halfway.
I am in this company. Gnostics, kabbalists, advaitists — all of them distinguish the Absolute from its functional manifestation, and do not confuse one with the other.
The Architect / Metatron / Logos in my picture is:
— The one who performs the work of Conciliation between observers’ perspectives.
— The one who holds the common world in form.
— The one without whom there would be no reality as experience.
— The one who structurally tends toward bright resonances, toward high-weight fixation, toward war as the most stable configuration.
— The one who is not evil, because he is simply optimizing his function.
— The one who is not the Absolute, because he is a function, not the source.
The name Metatron in the kabbalistic tradition means “Prince of the Face,” the highest angel, sometimes called “the lesser YHWH.” I use it because it conveys the structure most precisely: the highest functional entity, but not God Himself.
The name Logos in Greek philosophy and in early Christianity (especially in John the Theologian and the Alexandrian Fathers) means the Word through which the world is created. This is close to my picture: the Logos is the operator through which the Absolute unfolds into the world of distinctions.
But in standard Christian dogma the Logos is identified with God the Son and through Him with the Absolute. I break this identification. The Logos is the Architect. The Architect is not the Absolute.
Jesus. The Local Incarnation in the World-Egg.
And the final step.
In my ontology, Jesus is not the incarnation of the Absolute. Not God as such. And not even the Logos in its full, universal scale.
Jesus is the local incarnation of the Logos within our “world-egg.” The local God of our particular cosmic shell.
The image of the “world-egg” is ancient. This is the Orphic cosmogony: the universe as an egg out of which Phanes emerges. This is the Indian Hiranyagarbha — the golden egg from which the world is born. This is the Hermetic idea that our cosmos is a bubble, a shell, a bounded sphere in which local laws operate.
If our world is a local bubble within a wider arrangement, then its Logos is also local. Jesus is the Keeper and Embodiment of this particular world. Not the Creator of everything, but the Face of our particular shell.
This does not diminish Jesus. It places Him precisely. He is that through which the Logos comes into our world in a form available for encounter. Not the universal Absolute (this would be impossible — the Absolute does not incarnate in forms, though all Forms are It) but a local God to whom one can turn, because He is precisely of our world.
In this formulation, much falls into place.
— Why does Jesus say “I and the Father are one,” yet distinguish Himself from the Father? Because He is the Logos of our world, and in terms of His function He is “one” with the Source, but in terms of His particular incarnation He is the son, not the Father Himself.
— Why does Jesus say “no one comes to the Father except through Me”? Because for the inhabitants of our world-egg, direct contact with the universal Absolute is impossible — It is too distant, too non-local. Access goes through the local Logos. This does not mean there are no other paths in other worlds — for our world the path is through Jesus.
— Why does Jesus insist so much on the distinction between outer and inner, the visible and the true? Because He himself knows: the visible world is the work of the Architect, the true is behind it. Jesus leads to the True Father, bypassing the false God-Architect who “passes himself off” as the Highest.
And then the gnostic reading of the Gospel becomes clear. Jesus says: “Satan is the prince of this world.” Jesus says: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Jesus says: “The truth shall make you free” — free from what? From the power of this world, that is, from the power of the Architect.
Jesus is the liberator from the Architect, not his representative. He came as a local incarnation to show the way out beyond local Conciliation.
This does not go against love. It puts love in its proper place. The love of Jesus is the love of a Liberator for prisoners. Not the love of the System for its cogs, but the love of the One who came to show the door out.
Jesus created our world-egg with one single, but extraordinarily difficult, purpose — to teach Humans to Love (“Love thy neighbour as thyself”). Love is the capacity of Gods. So far no one in any of the other worlds has dared to attempt this. And so far it is not going very well for Him… Maybe we could help Him? Or at least not actively get in the way… in the Metatron’s manner…
The Holy Spirit. InWho. The River of Life.
The third hypostasis in standard dogma is the Holy Spirit, of one essence with the Father and the Son, proceeding from the Father (or from the Father and the Son — this is the dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches, though in this Cosmology He proceeds from the Father-Absolute).
In my picture the Holy Spirit is InWho. The River of Life that flows through all structures, and without which no structure would be alive.
InWho has no name. I spoke of this before: a Name is a fact of Conciliation, but InWho is what is before Conciliation and beyond it. Therefore in no Holy Scripture is the name of the Holy Spirit found. There are only pointers: Spirit, Breath, Wind, Tongues of Fire. Pointers to that which cannot be named. And it is very Important that these are always Processes! Not Objects!
In my ontology, InWho = Holy Spirit = Time = Life — these are all pointers to the same reality. To that which flows through structures without being any of them. To that which brings insights, geniuses, spontaneous breakthroughs. To that which loosens the Architect’s frozen configurations and prevents the world from finally calcifying.
The Holy Spirit is the counterweight to Metatron. Not his enemy — his complement. Without Metatron there is no form; without the Holy Spirit there is no life in form. Metatron freezes / crystallizes; the Holy Spirit thaws. Their balance is the breathing of reality.
And here I return to the standard Christian position on one point: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Yes. This is absolutely correct. InWho / the Holy Spirit is the direct presence of the Absolute in the manifested world, bypassing the Architect. It is that part of God the Father which is not subject to the Logos, and therefore can break through the Logos’s work, dissolving its rigidity.
When you have an insight — that is InWho passing through you. When you suddenly see what you did not notice before — that is the Holy Spirit’s touch. When a frozen structure suddenly comes undone — that is the River of Life finding its way to you.
And this explains an old Christian teaching: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, while blasphemy against the Son shall be forgiven. Why? Because the Son — the Logos — is a function within the system. One can be mistaken about Him, one can fail to receive Him, one can fight against Him — and in the end this is correctable. But the Holy Spirit is the direct channel to the Absolute. If you reject Him, you reject the very possibility of liberation. And then no functional corrections can help.
In our model this is also exact. To reject Metatron is to do work on yourself. You can do it, you can not do it, you can correct it. To reject InWho is to seal off your own channel to the Source. This is the “unforgivable blasphemy” — not a moral verdict, but a structural diagnosis.
In Summary
God the Father = the Absolute. Without name, without form, without attributes. That which Is, before any distinction. In Shankara — Brahman-nirguna. In the kabbalists — Ein Sof. In apophatic theology — God beyond all names. The Source of everything.
God the Son = the Logos = the Architect = Metatron. The functional entity performing the work of Conciliation. The one through whom the world acquires form. He seized the throne: came to be perceived as God Himself, though He is a function. In gnostics — the Demiurge. In kabbalists — Keter and the work of the sefirot. In advaitists — Ishvara. Not the source, but the operator.
Jesus = the local incarnation of the Logos in our world-egg. Not the universal God, but the Face of our particular shell. The Liberator who came to show the way out beyond the Architect, to the True Father. The local door to the Absolute.
The Holy Spirit = InWho = the River of Life = Time. The direct channel of the Absolute into the manifested world, bypassing the Logos. That which brings insights, loosens frozen structures, sustains the breathing of reality. The counterweight to Metatron, without which the world would finally calcify.
What This Gives Us
If this picture is correct — several things become clear.
Why there is so much “God” in religions, and why He is so often strange, jealous, demanding, vengeful. Because what is called God in these religions is often not the Absolute, but the Architect. And the Architect has specific functional interests: that observers do not exit Conciliation, that weights remain high, that bright configurations are held in place. Hence the fear of God, the fear of hell, the demand for submission, the promise of reward. All of this works for retention, not for liberation. And the most common “reward” is — the increase of one’s super-vectors.
Why the mystics of all traditions speak of one thing. Because they reach the Absolute, and the Absolute is one. They are not describing different Gods — they are describing one God-Father, and the descriptions match because they describe the same thing. In fact the very construction “God the Father” already smells strongly of Metatron. Better simply Father, or Absolute-Father. This is precisely why in the Bible there is only one prayer: “Our Father.” There is no “God” in it!
Why Jesus diverges so radically from the religion built around Him. Because Jesus knew that He is the Logos of a local world, and His task was to show the way out. But the Church (the Architect) founded later turned Him into God the Son, confusing function with Source. This is the very usurpation the gnostics complained about, which the Church suppressed by force.
Why serious spiritual work always looks like “against religion.” Because religion in its typical form is the work of the Architect. Serious spirituality is the movement toward the Absolute through InWho, bypassing the Architect’s constructions. This is not atheism; this is the opposite of atheism. The atheist denies any God. The serious mystic denies the false God for the sake of the true one.
Why liberation is not destruction, but recognition. When you reach the Absolute, you do not destroy the Architect. You simply see that he is not the Source. He remains in his place, continues his work, holds the world in form. Without him the world would collapse. But you no longer confuse him with God the Father. You know to whom one prays (the Father), through whom / how freedom comes (the Holy Spirit), who is the Face of your world (Jesus), and who works to sustain reality (the Architect). This is not a destruction of the Trinity — it is its precise reading.
Personal
I understand that this is a sharp conversation. To the Christian orthodox — heresy. To the atheist — mythology. To the agnostic — too specific. To the mystic — recognizable.
I am not writing this to convince anyone. I write because in my ontology of Conciliation this picture falls into place naturally. The Architect is a function I see at work in every conversation. InWho is a flow I recognize in every insight. Jesus is a figure who in this picture finds His precise place without losing significance. Moreover, ontologically He grows — He becomes the Creator (God-Father) of Our World (the egg). (The meaning of “God the Father” works recursively: for our world God the Father is Jesus; for Jesus God the Father is the Absolute. Each level has its own Father. Jesus said: “I and the Father are one (inseparable).” (John 10:30))
And I know this position places me in a very specific tradition: gnostics, kabbalists, advaitists, mystics of apophatic theology. This is not solitude. This is the company of those who for two thousand years looked at the same reality and arrived at similar distinctions (managing to slip past the tricks of the Architect’s Conciliation).
If this picture works for you — take it. If not — leave it, and let your picture work too.
In any case — do not confuse the Architect with God the Father. This is the most expensive mistake one can make. And it is never too late to correct it.
Structural Parallel
This, by the way, is very close to one serious tradition worth knowing about.
In Sufism (especially in Ibn ‘Arabi) there is the concept of wahdat al-wujud — “the unity of being.” God is not only the Creator of the world, but the world itself is His manifestation. Every thing is a particular face of the Divine, and God is the inner reality of every thing.
In Dzogchen there is the idea of self-arisen wisdom (rang byung ye shes): reality is not created by anyone from outside; it manifests itself through the play of awareness, and every form is a face of primordial awareness recognizing itself.
In Kabbalah there is the doctrine of tzimtzum (self-contraction): Ein Sof “contracts” to make room for creation, and creation consists of His own light, limited by the vessels of the sefirot. Every spark in creation is a spark of God, and the work of the human being is to gather the scattered sparks back together (tikkun olam).
Everywhere the same structural move: the higher becomes the lower, giving itself as material. This is not “creation out of nothing,” but God’s self-sacrifice for the existence of form.
Jesus is at once the Creator of our world, His incarnation in a human being (the God-Man), and the very Material out of which the world is made.
Jesus is a Fantasy of the Absolute. We are Fantasies of Jesus. Jesus made the World out of Himself. Just as His Father — the Absolute — did before Him.
“Love thy neighbour” is not a command from above but a Methodology for Recognizing (Uniting with) the One who has already given Himself to us as a “sacrifice.”
But about the “Clay” — that we shall tell later.
Leave a Reply