--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@...> wrote: > > (Duplicate response; the other may have been eaten by Yahoo, like several > others lately) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <rorygoff@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > Yikes. In terms of Christian theology, you're quite right, > > > of course. (That was my mistake, not Wikipedia's!) > > > > > > But the "mappings" I've read have still identified devata > > > with the Holy Spirit and chhandas with the Son, which > > > makes more sense to me, the order being less important > > > than the similarity of function, at least as I perceive > > > it. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice, I > > > guess. > > > > > > That may be what Paligap meant by saying the mapping is a > > > "bit tricky." > > > > > Yes! Rather like language itself, where words may convey quite different > > tonalities to different people, or even the same people, in different > > contexts at different times. None of it is carved in stone, as far as I can > > see, anyhow. > > > Perhaps I am a fan of the Latin Rite's "filioque" tenet -- saying that the > Holy Ghost (as Chhandas) proceeds from the Father (Rishi) *and from the Son* > (Devata) -- whereas seeing the HG as Devata may be more of a Greek-Rite idea, > as the Greeks see the HG (Devata) proceeding only from the Father (Rishi) and > not the Son (Chhandas).
I could well be wrong, but I don't have the impression that there's a "proceeding from" question with rishi- devata-chhandas. MMY spoke of "the Samhita of rishi-devata- chhandas," rather than suggesting that there's a sequence. I suspect the sequence idea is strictly Western, making it linear rather than self-referential. So at least in that sense the two "trinities" may not be comparable. But I'm not knowledgeable enough either about Christian Trinitarian theology or the metaphysics of Samhita to do anything but guess.
