> > 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...
>
> Krishna knew from the beginning.
I don't see that _when you know_ you're an avatar is any more decisive than when you came into being. But I confess I don't have such a ready counter-example at this point. Greg's Pelorian material does imply to me me that 'becoming/realizing' avatarness is within that tradition, at least between the lines.
The distinction is, as you said before, between an avatar being a manifestation of the gods, vs. a heroformed individual being a mortal gaining divine powers. But I don't think it's one that you can readily identify clear-cut distinctions is a straightfowardly 'objective', magical-determinist sort of thing.
> True, I'll have to extend my definition to include
> miraculously born, self-aware avatars...
Your original definition would have covered them -- it was your statements about what this implied for the RE debate that I disgreed with (and which did not follow from your definition). An avatar, I'd suggest, is basically a partial manifestation of pretty much any sort one likes (given caveats about what sorts of entities can have them at all, perhaps).
> > Cue a flamewar about the Singular nature of Vishnu? ;-)
>
> OK, he's singular, but that's O[Gloranthan]T.
He's not 'singular' in (some of) the senses Martin seem to mean the term, in That Dread Debate, to drag it (kicking and mewling pitiably) back to T.ness.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail