right, contributors! The flaw starts in IF - A; since it has to be parsed into 2 parts:
a. if the Gunas control all actions, and b. then no one is the doer ... The problem here is that the entities in question (MMY, ...anyone); are composed of the Gunas as - elements + organs of action, will, etc (the entire complex of what makes up a conventional body/mind). So, (conventionally), there are no entities separate from the Gunas, and we are back to square one in ascertaining the dynamics of action. The net result is that we have to resort to ordinary traditional, means in studying actions, much of which is in the domain of science and subject to rational inquiry without the need to grok "unfathomable" chains of karma. ... To obfuscate the issues further, various stooges introduce the set of E'd people; saying their karma is somehow different. Their first premise however also fits into the above, since the claim is that "E'd people are non-doers". The problem with this is that un-E'd people are equally "The Self" (a dirt clod = the Buddha); so again we have to resort to conventional means in investigating the nature of actions. http://www.fantasygallery.net/bouchard/art_0_interlude.html --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2011, at 10:31 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > Just as a followup, and hopefully the "last word" on > > the subject from my side, I want to try to clarify why > > I got involved in the recent discussion here. It was > > to point out that the whole thing was based on some- > > thing assumed to be true, and that this assumption > > is not to be assumed. > > > > Here's how I would present Judy's position, expressed > > in computer language-like pseudocode: > > > > IF > > A (the three gunas control all actions, and no one, > > including Maharishi is the "doer" of any of these > > actions, merely puppets carrying them out.) > > THEN > > B (Maharishi might have been consciously aware > > that each of his actions was the "doing" of the > > three gunas, and thus a willing participant in > > those actions.) > > OR > > C (Maharishi might have been completely unaware > > of the "true," inner, three gunas-directed nature > > of his own actions, but did what he was "supposed > > to do" anyway, because he was so enlightened and > > all.) > > THEREFORE > > Z (No harm, no foul either way. Maharishi always > > "did the right thing" because he had no choice; > > the three gunas "really" did everything. He's off > > the hook for anything we perceive as "incorrect" > > behavior because that's merely our limited per- > > ception of "his" actions, which weren't "really" > > his at all but the actions of the three gunas.) > > > > BZZZZZT. DOES NOT COMPILE, BECAUSE > > A IS NOT A VALID VARIABLE. IT HAS NOT > > BEEN DECLARED AS ABSOLUTE. > > > > What Judy's argument boils down to is an appeal to those > > who believe that A is not only true, but Truth. It is neither. > > It is a theory, thought up in the Dark Ages of Vedic thought > > to "explain" How The Universe Works. > > > > Judy clearly believes that A is true. Thus it never occurred > > to her that the rest of her argument falls apart if it *isn't* > > true. If it *isn't* true, and Maharishi had free will, then > > both B and C become irrelevancies, and Z as well. > > > > Her argument was "pitched" at people she expected to never > > question whether A was true. It was an attempt to "play off > > of" the shared assumption that A is true, and force a conclu- > > sion that whatever Maharishi's actions -- or our perceptions > > of them -- they were not his responsibility because neither he > > nor we have any responsibility for *any* of our actions. They > > are not "our" actions at all; they're the actions of the three > > gunas. > > > > Bzzzzzzzt. > > > > Not everyone believes this. I, for one, do not > > I, for two, do not either. > It's impossible, since it's quite clear > (and everyone knows it) that it's > the actions of the Three Stooges. > > Sal >
