> > So, Krishna's _not_ an avatar, then, since his body was made by
> > 'usual method'? Surely this just proves that the means can be
> > as indirect-seeming as one wishes?
> Oopsie, I didn't finish my train of thought there. Krishna was
> born of a woman, that's true, but he was an avatar from the
> beginning. I don't think you _become_ an avatar.
But that's a post hoc ergo propter hoc distinction, not an observable difference. 'Becoming', vs. the Being method of realizing that's who you were all along... If one applied the 'test' for avatarness you suggested would be appropriate vis the Red Emperor debate (in fairly specific terms, IIRC), one _would_ conclude that Krishna wasn't one.
Cue a flamewar about the Singular nature of Vishnu? ;-)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail