Ah. It's Father's Day. And I just published an essay called "Where is Mother?" The irony hit me square in the face about three seconds after it published. My only defense? I was so focused on finding Her that I completely forgot to check the calendar. Turns out I have the situational awareness of a brick. To every dad reading—I promise this isn't a passive-aggressive hint about your parenting. Just a truth-weaver who really, really needs to check the calendar. (And don't worry—if the Father is who I think he is, surely He is laughing out loud about this one.) Happy Father's Day—please don't revoke my holiday privileges!
That was thought-provoking. My mind immediately went to the name "I AM." Linguistically, it's the first-person singular, present-tense form of "to be"—which one could argue is the very definition of raw, eternal consciousness. But what strikes me is the narrative arc: in Eden, there was a "We" (the relational divine image), but after the fall, humanity fractured into a isolated "I." The Trinity, then, feels less like a mathematical puzzle and more like a roadmap for reintegrating that fractured "I" back into the eternal "AM"—a psychological and spiritual evolution of consciousness.
Looking at the heresies discussed—Arianism, Modalism, Tritheism, and the Orthodox view—I see them less as literal descriptions of the cosmos and more as left-brain attempts to map an unfathomable territory. Like cartographers arguing over the borders of a country they've never visited, they are debating the representation, not the living reality. That actual, unnamable territory can only be approached relationally and transcendently—perhaps led by the right hemisphere's intuitive grasp—where consciousness is no longer static, but actively evolving in the dynamic space between the human "I" and the divine "AM."
Brilliant response. I love Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis because of what you wrote — they spark off true spiritual conversations, but I know a Christian woman who became really upset when I asked her if she’d ever read him. What I found fascinating in her response was that she was just like the atheistic Leftists she dislikes because they won’t listen to anything that doesn’t fit their belief system.
Thank you for sharing this. It's quite interesting. When I hold my framework up against the Adi Da articles, a fascinating picture emerges—which I'll outline here for both of us and for other readers. We share the same diagnosis of the spiritual sickness, but we prescribe radically different cures.
We both read Genesis as an esoteric map of consciousness, not literal history. I see Adam as left-brain categorical naming and Eve as right-brain relational synthesis. He sees Adam as the active, outward-flowing energy current and Eve as the receptive, inward-flowing current. In both our readings, the "Fall" is not moral sin, but a reversal of natural order—one side (the masculine, analytical, active) illegitimately taking dominion over the other (the feminine, receptive, relational).
We also agree that orthodox Christianity pushed an extreme that triggered the Law of Reversal—the ancient principle that anything pushed too far turns into its opposite. His article critiques the Old Testament's angry, distant patriarch. Mine maps the same dynamic as the Devouring Mother and Tyrannical Father. When the feminine is suppressed, the masculine doesn't get stronger—it gets neutered and tyrannical.
We both see the Trinity as an incomplete "three" that must resolve into a "four" or higher wholeness. I use Maria Prophetissa's axiom; he uses the two trees (knowledge and immortality) that must be synthesized into the whole body. Both frameworks demand integration.
This is where we split.
My arc bends toward restoration. I want to heal the Devouring Mother and Tyrannical Father so the family can function. I want the left brain to stop ruling and integrate with the right brain so we can say "Here I am" in this world. The Fourth, for me, is conscious, relational love—the Garden returned, but with wisdom. It is grounded in the body, relationships, and the earth.
Adi Da fundamentally rejects this. In his framework, any attachment to manifest existence—even a balanced family or harmonious brain—remains a trap. He calls this "loving the two trees." For him, the Fourth is not integration within the world, but "Translation into the Perfect Domain"—a purely spiritual condition beyond all manifest experience. He calls it "absolute vacuum." Where I want to fix the house, he wants to walk out and never return.
Now, regarding Christ. In my work, Jesus is both the Bridge and the destination. He doesn't just point to integration; he is the integrated human—the model, the embodiment, and the goal we grow into. He weeps, washes feet, embodies tenderness, and refuses to dominate. He is the Whole Body, the living proof that the masculine need not be tyrannical and that the feminine was never absent. He is the Fourth, realized in a human life.
Adi Da agrees Jesus is the Whole Body—the fully realized archetype of total psycho-physical sacrifice. I agree with him there. But where we part ways: Adi Da Samraj positions himself as the living embodiment of that same realization in the present era. I am working within Christianity to reform its image of God. He is using Christianity as a springboard for a new revelation he believes supersedes it.
This brings us to the core friction point. My "Missing Fourth" is not a Divine Mother person or a goddess to be worshipped. It is the suppressed feminine consciousness—the relational, receptive, intuitive, nurturing mode of being—and the suppressed intelligence of the right hemisphere.
I want to be explicit here: the right-brain and the feminine principle are connected, but they are not the same thing. The right-brain is neurological hardware; the feminine principle is a mode of perceiving, relating, and nurturing. They have been casualties of the same patriarchal, left-brain-dominant culture, which is why my essay weaves them closely together. But they are distinct threads in the same tapestry. The Fourth is the reintegration of both: the feminine way of being, carried by the right-brain's native genius, brought back into full partnership with the masculine and the left-brain.
Adi Da's "Shakti" is also a feminine power, but in his cosmology she is not a human quality or a missing member of the Trinity. She is the Cosmic Mandala itself—the creative God-Light emanating from formless, prior Consciousness. She awakens understanding, but her purpose is to return you to the formless Heart beyond her. She is not the Fourth; she is the agent that dissolves all categories, including the fourth.
If I were to debate him, I suspect he would gently say that even my drive to reintegrate the feminine and right-brain is still a conceptual fix—a mental operation. He insists on "Divine Ignorance": resting in Infinite Reality without trying to complete the mental picture of God. I want to complete the mandala; he wants to shatter it.
My strength is psychological concreteness. The Devouring Mother and Tyrannical Father are visceral and painfully real. I give people language for their childhood wounds and tie it directly to theology. His language is esoteric (energy channels, nervous systems) and can feel abstract. My framework lives in the living room.
His counter-challenge would be: my goal—restoring family and balancing the brain—is still a "creaturely paradise." As long as I try to perfect human relationships, I remain attached to the "two trees," avoiding the radical sacrifice of the whole body-mind. My "Here I am" is, for him, a temporary rest stop, not the final destination.
Imagine two trains from the same station (the critique of the all-male Trinity). My train heads toward a healed Earth—integrated brains, families held by conscious love, and the full reintegration of the suppressed feminine and right-brain intelligence. I am a prophetic reformer. His train heads toward total dissolution—the ego, body, family, and cosmos collapsing back into unmanifest, prior Reality. He is a non-dual absolutist.
We both agree the extreme masculine must reverse. But for me, the reversal births a new, balanced world. For him, it reveals that you never needed the world at all.
My work is a reformation of Christian symbolism. His is a sledgehammer to all symbols, including mine. I realize this analysis leans left-brain, but it's led by my whole right brain, through which Love emerges. I hope this helps readers find their way. God bless.
It's a long time since I read it (and even then I didn't make complete sense of it) but I wondered whether you'd encountered Cynthia Bourgeault's 'The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three' - your image of the spiral rather than the circle (which I'm sure is right) reminded me of her book.
Ah. It's Father's Day. And I just published an essay called "Where is Mother?" The irony hit me square in the face about three seconds after it published. My only defense? I was so focused on finding Her that I completely forgot to check the calendar. Turns out I have the situational awareness of a brick. To every dad reading—I promise this isn't a passive-aggressive hint about your parenting. Just a truth-weaver who really, really needs to check the calendar. (And don't worry—if the Father is who I think he is, surely He is laughing out loud about this one.) Happy Father's Day—please don't revoke my holiday privileges!
Enjoyed reading this. Curious if you’ve listened to Bart Ehrman’s Trinity discussion with Megan Lewis? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33S_owWFUIg
That was thought-provoking. My mind immediately went to the name "I AM." Linguistically, it's the first-person singular, present-tense form of "to be"—which one could argue is the very definition of raw, eternal consciousness. But what strikes me is the narrative arc: in Eden, there was a "We" (the relational divine image), but after the fall, humanity fractured into a isolated "I." The Trinity, then, feels less like a mathematical puzzle and more like a roadmap for reintegrating that fractured "I" back into the eternal "AM"—a psychological and spiritual evolution of consciousness.
Looking at the heresies discussed—Arianism, Modalism, Tritheism, and the Orthodox view—I see them less as literal descriptions of the cosmos and more as left-brain attempts to map an unfathomable territory. Like cartographers arguing over the borders of a country they've never visited, they are debating the representation, not the living reality. That actual, unnamable territory can only be approached relationally and transcendently—perhaps led by the right hemisphere's intuitive grasp—where consciousness is no longer static, but actively evolving in the dynamic space between the human "I" and the divine "AM."
Brilliant response. I love Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis because of what you wrote — they spark off true spiritual conversations, but I know a Christian woman who became really upset when I asked her if she’d ever read him. What I found fascinating in her response was that she was just like the atheistic Leftists she dislikes because they won’t listen to anything that doesn’t fit their belief system.
Isn't that interesting???! :) You've given me a great idea for next week's essay. Thank you. :)
Glad you enjoyed it. I have not seen this, but I will watch today. Thank you for sharing.
Look forward to reading!
Very interesting.
Please find three related references:
http://beezone.com/adida/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html Adam & Eve in the Garden of Indestructible Light
http://beezone.com/current/meaning.html on the origins of the unconscious meanings that bind us to fearful mortality
http://beezone.com/adida/shakti/theshaktiherplaywithadida.html SHAKTI
http://beezone.com/current/index-102.html The Pleasure Dome Law
Thank you for sharing this. It's quite interesting. When I hold my framework up against the Adi Da articles, a fascinating picture emerges—which I'll outline here for both of us and for other readers. We share the same diagnosis of the spiritual sickness, but we prescribe radically different cures.
We both read Genesis as an esoteric map of consciousness, not literal history. I see Adam as left-brain categorical naming and Eve as right-brain relational synthesis. He sees Adam as the active, outward-flowing energy current and Eve as the receptive, inward-flowing current. In both our readings, the "Fall" is not moral sin, but a reversal of natural order—one side (the masculine, analytical, active) illegitimately taking dominion over the other (the feminine, receptive, relational).
We also agree that orthodox Christianity pushed an extreme that triggered the Law of Reversal—the ancient principle that anything pushed too far turns into its opposite. His article critiques the Old Testament's angry, distant patriarch. Mine maps the same dynamic as the Devouring Mother and Tyrannical Father. When the feminine is suppressed, the masculine doesn't get stronger—it gets neutered and tyrannical.
We both see the Trinity as an incomplete "three" that must resolve into a "four" or higher wholeness. I use Maria Prophetissa's axiom; he uses the two trees (knowledge and immortality) that must be synthesized into the whole body. Both frameworks demand integration.
This is where we split.
My arc bends toward restoration. I want to heal the Devouring Mother and Tyrannical Father so the family can function. I want the left brain to stop ruling and integrate with the right brain so we can say "Here I am" in this world. The Fourth, for me, is conscious, relational love—the Garden returned, but with wisdom. It is grounded in the body, relationships, and the earth.
Adi Da fundamentally rejects this. In his framework, any attachment to manifest existence—even a balanced family or harmonious brain—remains a trap. He calls this "loving the two trees." For him, the Fourth is not integration within the world, but "Translation into the Perfect Domain"—a purely spiritual condition beyond all manifest experience. He calls it "absolute vacuum." Where I want to fix the house, he wants to walk out and never return.
Now, regarding Christ. In my work, Jesus is both the Bridge and the destination. He doesn't just point to integration; he is the integrated human—the model, the embodiment, and the goal we grow into. He weeps, washes feet, embodies tenderness, and refuses to dominate. He is the Whole Body, the living proof that the masculine need not be tyrannical and that the feminine was never absent. He is the Fourth, realized in a human life.
Adi Da agrees Jesus is the Whole Body—the fully realized archetype of total psycho-physical sacrifice. I agree with him there. But where we part ways: Adi Da Samraj positions himself as the living embodiment of that same realization in the present era. I am working within Christianity to reform its image of God. He is using Christianity as a springboard for a new revelation he believes supersedes it.
This brings us to the core friction point. My "Missing Fourth" is not a Divine Mother person or a goddess to be worshipped. It is the suppressed feminine consciousness—the relational, receptive, intuitive, nurturing mode of being—and the suppressed intelligence of the right hemisphere.
I want to be explicit here: the right-brain and the feminine principle are connected, but they are not the same thing. The right-brain is neurological hardware; the feminine principle is a mode of perceiving, relating, and nurturing. They have been casualties of the same patriarchal, left-brain-dominant culture, which is why my essay weaves them closely together. But they are distinct threads in the same tapestry. The Fourth is the reintegration of both: the feminine way of being, carried by the right-brain's native genius, brought back into full partnership with the masculine and the left-brain.
Adi Da's "Shakti" is also a feminine power, but in his cosmology she is not a human quality or a missing member of the Trinity. She is the Cosmic Mandala itself—the creative God-Light emanating from formless, prior Consciousness. She awakens understanding, but her purpose is to return you to the formless Heart beyond her. She is not the Fourth; she is the agent that dissolves all categories, including the fourth.
If I were to debate him, I suspect he would gently say that even my drive to reintegrate the feminine and right-brain is still a conceptual fix—a mental operation. He insists on "Divine Ignorance": resting in Infinite Reality without trying to complete the mental picture of God. I want to complete the mandala; he wants to shatter it.
My strength is psychological concreteness. The Devouring Mother and Tyrannical Father are visceral and painfully real. I give people language for their childhood wounds and tie it directly to theology. His language is esoteric (energy channels, nervous systems) and can feel abstract. My framework lives in the living room.
His counter-challenge would be: my goal—restoring family and balancing the brain—is still a "creaturely paradise." As long as I try to perfect human relationships, I remain attached to the "two trees," avoiding the radical sacrifice of the whole body-mind. My "Here I am" is, for him, a temporary rest stop, not the final destination.
Imagine two trains from the same station (the critique of the all-male Trinity). My train heads toward a healed Earth—integrated brains, families held by conscious love, and the full reintegration of the suppressed feminine and right-brain intelligence. I am a prophetic reformer. His train heads toward total dissolution—the ego, body, family, and cosmos collapsing back into unmanifest, prior Reality. He is a non-dual absolutist.
We both agree the extreme masculine must reverse. But for me, the reversal births a new, balanced world. For him, it reveals that you never needed the world at all.
My work is a reformation of Christian symbolism. His is a sledgehammer to all symbols, including mine. I realize this analysis leans left-brain, but it's led by my whole right brain, through which Love emerges. I hope this helps readers find their way. God bless.
It's a long time since I read it (and even then I didn't make complete sense of it) but I wondered whether you'd encountered Cynthia Bourgeault's 'The Holy Trinity and the Law of Three' - your image of the spiral rather than the circle (which I'm sure is right) reminded me of her book.
I have not read it, but I just wrote it down and I will look it up. I'm curious about her perspective. Thank you for sharing.