/lit/ - Literature

For now let's see the opinion of the advaita vedanta :
>Taittirîya Upanishad (II, i, 1), "Satyam jñânam-anantam brahma", "Brahman is reality, consciousness and infinity"
Does this triad talk about the Trinity too ? Does that mean the Spirit, third term of the triad, is infinity and not the others ? Or that the others cause the infinity of the third ?
According to Shankara's commentary of this verse, these three words are in apposition with Brahman, not in a relation of mutual dependency (and I don't think he have heard about the christian trinity, so he said that spontaneously, without christianity in mind). Good luck to find a source saying otherwise.
The composite saccidânanda doesn't even suggest any dependency.
In the same way, if anantam is remplaced by ananda, bliss, can we say a part of God is not blissfull, and even a person ? Can we say God activate his blissfulness, causes it ? (because the Spirit, that some want to identify with ananda is said to proceed from the father, and not is inherent or implied by Him (and if you are papist from the Son too).

Now there is two way to dissect it logically as there are two traditions : the christianity and of the sanatana dharma. Their respective logic being falsified in different ways by this false assimilation.

First the christian logic doesn't compute with this blasphemy (indeed it is) :
The Son has never been said to be the consciousness of the Father (supposedly sat, being), but his Image. In the first case that would mean logically that the Father has no consciousness or that the Son has no Being in himself (Being (Sat) and Consciousness (Cit) being distinguished), or that the Spirit has neither Being nor Consciousness in Himself but that he is only blissfulness and that he rely on the Son or the Father for this. If they have the attribute of the others, then they are not different from the others (bliss, being a being, is no different from Being iself). The fact the Son is the Image of the Father means he has the same infinite being and is a replication of the being of the father (he is no inherent of the Father since it would mean he is just the Father explained). In other word we can't suppose it appart from being, since he has it. So He is not the consciousness of the Being, he is being out of being, light out of the light,... "consubstantial with the Father", out of the creed, means He has a being, distinct from the Father so we can say it's the same Being.