(The following are my own interpretations of a dream I had last night that I can’t actually recount as it was neither linear, nor chiastic, nor circular)
Whatever the Reality (al-Haqq) beyond all our experience of Being is, the origin emanation or exnihilo event (in our limited human understanding) begins with some moment of personalization. This has been discussed by early church thinkers (such as Origen) as the moment God (as consciousness of All: Prakriti) simultaneously became “Father” by bringing forth or speaking into being a “Beloved”. That is not to say that The Ultimate (“GOD”) had “changed”—technically only when there existed a devotee could That One be truly named “God”—but that the relationship between God and this ‘other-than-It’ simultaneously established a role (along with the names associated with that role). God has no consort, except figuratively as consciousness itself (mind/Wisdom: ‘Sarasvati’-Mahan/’Sofia’-Ahamkara). That is why it is disliked to call God “Ba’al” (Husband), even though figuratively he treated Israel as if he were a husband to her. The mother of the “Son” was nothing (hence, Siva bears this meaning “No Thing” also—like a matrilineal surname).
Brahma is one name given to the Father of the gods. He exist in the moment of split between stillness and movement (rajoguṇa/hyperactivity). He hosts Brahman (The All) like a wineskin. His attributes are found within Shiva and Vishnu. But Shiva has been made Supreme Lord of material creation. Shiva has something ‘other’ than Brahma in his composition (vaikarika/plasticity, taijasa/brightness and tamasa/density) also (Shatapatha Brahmana 10. 88. 3). This is why Brahma can say that Siva is “more” than he himself contains (Shatapatha Brahmana 4. 6. 42). And it is through the split in Siva’s earthly prototype (when Adam became Adam and Eve) that the two energies of male and female came into being. This split is only extant inside the material universe, nothing like it exists beyond it (in the realm of the spirit).
Vishnu has been said to have no connection to material nature, but brings “spiritual rejuvenation”. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is spirit. She (as the wearer of Shakinah: “the Divine Glory”) is dark matter (which is not actually “black”). Indeed, Spirit appears male in splendor but is truly, like Brahma and Siva, definable neither as male, nor female. The Son (Siva qua “Brahmaputra”) is intimately connected to matter (Maya) and is Light (which is not actually white). In fact, in some way it could even be said that in the realm of antimatter they are like negative images (everything is seen in reverse). The son on earth is “dark but lovely”, as is his bride. Yet, in heaven he is “brighter than the sun”. On earth, the invisibility of the Spirit carries light. Yet, in heaven, she is dark like the deepest sea.
Hence, although Brahma is the Father of Siva/the Son (by analogy of relations), Vishnu is not the “Mother” of Shiva (although qua Mohini she can be mother of Ayyappa, but that’s another story). The union of Vishnu with Siva is like that of milk and thick yogurt. Yogurt is of the same source material as milk but cannot function as milk. Likewise, the Holy Spirit flows through one’s fingers, while heavy yogurt is tangible. It is for this reason the Christian traditions developed Trinitarian ideas from debate about “same-substance” (homoousios) and “similar substance” (homoiousios ). It is also one of the many reasons why the Cow as a symbol of Deity holding all of our consciousnesses together is a popular one.
In the Semitic traditions, several mortal men have claimed to be the Holy Spirit. Muhammad was the most successful in convincing people he was “the Paraclete”. In Indic traditions, one mortal man has also been propagated as a similar phenomenon: Krsna is Vishnu. Although, that may have been a corruption of his original claims (as what Abdullah bin Saba’a did with ‘Ali to form the Shiite Tradition).
Vayu is Levitical Judah (the collective consciousness of Israel’s priesthood). At the day the Christ was crucified (Siva’s anointed neck that hosted the Word/Aum was cut), Vayu squeezed, kneaded and crushed a portion of the poison for Siva (qua Neelkanth) and also drank some of it along with him (“Let his blood be upon our heads!” They shouted). But as with [prana] Vayu, what Judah did was not outside Siva’s/Jesus’ control (“I have been given authority to lay down my life and to pick it up again,” he declared).
Speaking of heads, when Siva accepted the water of Ganges on his head (Rg Veda 10. 136), he was then named “Auspicious One” (again). He had already been given all his names by Brahma when Siva was shown to be “sinless” (Shatapatha Brahmana 3. 12. 4-20). The acceptance is took place in human history (as opposed to the narrative ‘viewed’ earlier on the Akasha by the rishis) when Jesus entered the Jordan (all rivers are tributaries of the Ganga) and was called “My Beloved Son”, also again. Whatever source material Muhammad had (perhaps that too was the Akasha), he understood this moment as “The Trust”, whereby Adam took it upon his head to hold the trust of Allah (Al-Aḥzāb (33): 72). Given that Jesus is the “Second Adam” on earth—but also the original masterplan for Adam in heaven (from which the first was copied as an “image of god”)—it is very fitting that Muhammad made the interpretation that he did.
Similarly, Muhammad also brings to us a vision of when Satan fell like lightening. It was imagined by the people of the Indus that this took place on Mt. Kailash—which makes sense (Shatapatha Brahmana 8. 7. 20). However, in material human history, this took place on “the mount of Transfiguration”. It was there that Siva and Bhavani (His Soulmate: The Mystical Church) planned the three worlds: signified by Peter, James and John. At this moment, Jesus had mastered the wild flesh he had taken from Eve and revealed his lordship over it as Pashupati / Prajapati (Master of the Beasts). And it was there that all angels (devas) were told to prostrate and worship him (Shatapatha Brahmana 8. 7. 20; Banī Isrāʼīl (17):61). In the material realm, Moses and Elijah appear to bear witness to this moment (Matthew 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36; 2 Peter 1:16–18). In the timeless realm, their inadequacies are potentially scapegoated to Krsna and Muhammad respectively (Bhgavad Gita 11:46, 50; Sūrat aṣ-Ṣaff (61):6)—but as I don’t like to upset my Muslim or Vishnavite friends, I don’t wish to speculate further than that—although others may like to explore a possible link between Arjuna and Gabriel.