From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Thu 08 Jun 2000 - 06:53:59 EEST
Nils:
> Krishna was born an avatar, and knew it all along.
> I don't quite see an avatar who isn't aware of the
> status.
Doesn't sound impossible to me, but I'm fresh out of examples,
I admit.
> > 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.
I was thinking of your definition which was just the partial
manifestation of a transcendent being, IIRC. Pardon my
paraphrase, esp. if it's not as close as one might hope.
> > 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.
I thought it was pretty much the same, actually. At least, up to
what the 'caveats' might actually particularise to...
Cheers,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:47:02 EEST