--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: <snip> > My "butting in" to the previous discussion was based > on the fact that its entire premise was *predicated > upon* the existence of the three gunas as described > by MMY. The whole argument would have fallen apart > if that had *not* been assumed. I consider it a > fallacious assumption, so I spoke up.
What you didn't get, because you were too anxious to post your putdowns, is that it *wasn't an argument*. There was nothing to "fall apart." It was an if-then speculation about a possible way to look at things. Nabs suggested one way to look at things; I proposed a different way. Nabs didn't like it. That's fine. We didn't argue about it. wayback and blusc0ut *did* like it, and went on to suggest a bunch of possible ramifications. But nobody was saying, "This is the way it is, the only possible way to see things." *You* chose to try to create an argument about it, but nobody bit. As far as we're concerned, you're welcome to your way of seeing things (although apparently, in your mind, we aren't). We *did* attempt to clear up your confusion about the implications of our speculations, which you hadn't followed the discussion closely enough to pick up on: *It doesn't matter* whether or not there are gunas as described by MMY. Gunas or no gunas, we're all (including MMY) still entirely responsible for our actions; we still, as I said, have to walk the tightrope without a net. We still have to make our own judgments to the best of our ability and take the consequences of our mistakes. Each of us made this point explicitly and in detail, but you managed to miss it entirely. As a result, *your* argument, and all your putdowns, fell apart completely, making you look REEEEELY REEEEELY STOOOOOOOOOPID.
