Krishna was born an avatar, and knew it all along. I don't quite see an avatar who isn't aware of the status.
> 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.
Fair enough, that would simply imply a definition which differs slightly from the one I suggested.
> 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.
I don't think it's productive to open that avenue once again, so I just say that I'm stil holding to my opinion in that regard.
> 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).
As per my definition an avatar is aware of that status and is created/born with it. That wouldn't fit with a lunar noble becoming the mortal vessel of the RE.
> 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).
I can't argue with that definition. It's just different from mine, and possibly more in line with the use in the WiPs.
> > > 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.
Since I'm not exactly sure of what these senses are I refrain from answering that...
Powered by hypermail