On a slightly different note, I remember enjoying Rene Guenon's The Great Triad quite a bit. Did you read it, and if so, what did you think of it?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > > 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. > > >
