--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Rory Goff wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking of editing, perhaps you missed the editor's gentle
hint the
> > > first time around: the possessive of "it" is "its" --
not "it's",
> > > which is only used by the literate as the contraction of "it
is."
> >
> >
> V: Yes and my understanding (perhaps not of publishing genre) was
that
> > it's ok per casual anglais.
>
> Suit yourself; to me it reeks of ignorance.
>
> Speaking of ignorance (how's that for a segue), you apparently
ignored
> the main point of the post, about sattva vs. purusha:
>
> Apparently, one person's "spontaneous [excellent] qualities are
> another's "co-dependent moodmaking," then, Vaj; or maybe you meant
to
> say, "*our* group's enlightened qualities are spontaneous and
> excellent; *yours* are co-dependent moodmaking"?
>
> Either way, one could probably make a good case for this whole line
> of thinking being baloney, along the lines of mistaking sattva (a
> guna) for purusha (free from gunas), or mistaking "making it a
> really, really *good* movie" with actual freedom from belief in the
> movie.
>
>
> > I don't live by my c. 1977 Norton Reader or (heaven forbid) a
> > dictionary.
> >
> > I'm just an ordinary being.
>
> If only.
>
unfortunately, it looks like if you mistake sattva for purusha, the
satva spontaneously transforms into tamas rather quickly...or
tamas/rajas at any rate
