I don't know why it indicates that. I have no evidence on that question one way or another. Vedavyasa himself is considered to be a "partial avatar" Vaishnavas use this to describe Shiva.
--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This would seem to indicate, if I am getting Shukra correctly, that M. > is NOT a Maharishi, i.e. a seer of the Veda. There has been talk that > he cognized an uncreated comment on Rig Veda,but who has seen it? The > comment (i.e. AGNI ILE, etc.) is identical to existing comments with > scientific musings thrown in. It's certainly interesting, but hardly > original. > > > On May 25, 2005, at 12:34 AM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > > what is a "partial Avatar"? something like 14 carat vs 24 carat gold? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
