Judy,
You would be spinning your wheels like the other speculators here. There is no relationship, whether actual or imagined between the various strata of the Vedic system and any form of Christian theology. Christian theology developed as various layers of Hellenic polytheism were grafted onto Semitic monotheism. This shotgun wedding was recently called a "bastard union of the inherited conglomerate" and rightly so. It only became de rigueur in the parlors after being made de jure by Constantine. Such is the history of this Godly "illumination" made popular by privileging the "faithful" (City people) over the pagans (country folk). Perhaps it could be intelligible to talk about Latin horizontal hypostases versus Orthodox vertical hypostases as two different ways to think while considering Trinitarian speculations. But what's the point? I think the key here is to recognize just how speculative all this is. It is even more vacant of meaning than trying to stitch Blavatsky's Theosophy onto Vedic/Puranic/Tantric cosmology. .. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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. >
