(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).
