"there is such a self"

[xabir2005]

Of course there is a wrong perception of reality. There is no wrong "experience" of reality.

No, I mean Daniel does not have a wrong perception of reality.

No an arhat comes back. We established this a while back when Vajra was here.

An arhat is free from uncontrolled rebirth. He no longer comes back due to karma. In Theravada Buddhism, what is said about arhat just stops there. An arhat ends rebirth, period, there is no mention of their returning.

 

When it comes to Mahayana Buddhism, it is said that an arhat will come back to continue his path to full Buddhahood. However he does not come back due to karma. He comes back because a Buddha has 'awakened' him from his personal cessation after a very long time, and out of his compassion and vows to attain Buddhahood, he returns.

 

In any case it should be understood that an arhat never returns to samsara due to karma, he is already free from uncontrolled rebirth. He returns out of resolve to attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings.

I will write it out for your if you want, it really doesn't take pages as you often do:

 

All experiences and phenomena dependently originate from causes and conditions from beginingless time. When there is an event or an element, another event or element is originated and so on. And because of dependence of phenomena, we find no inherent self-existence to any material or immaterial existence or event, since all are arising by the arising of another.

 

Ignorance is the thought that gives reality to a dual perspective of a separate entity experiencing or witnessing phenomena, when in truth awareness is the manifestation of appearances themselves in the form of the senses and thought function.

 

Enlightenment is the experience of reality as it arises spontaneously, where in the thought and habitual clinging to a separate oberserver or a doer apart from momentary phenomenal manifestation, the Presence, is no longer experienced or seen as a findable self. Everything, the universe, is experienced "as is" as conditions and causes make it so, and because there is no longer a conscious habit of "I," or "Mine," each moment is perfected in itself without fragmentation or friction of opposing wills and desires. Harmony is instantaneously realized. It is moreover seen that reality has always been this way, this very insight solidifies the experience of anatta. The illusion of a separate self within phenomena, or a higher Self controlling events and actions, had simply clouded this very experience of arising "now," which is the true nature, the true workings, of the dependently originating universe.

 

The continuation of a specific chain, a disjointed flow of consciousness and action, of dependently originating events and causes can be called the flow of a "mindstream."

 

Now tell me what I don't get.

What you said here is fine. But some of the other comments you wrote previously needed to be corrected, for example the notion that no self somehow implies that practice is not needed etc. Edited January 22, 2010 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits.

 

Now close your eyes. There is darkness you see. But we can't really call this the same "seeing" as when you have your eyes open. So what can we say is seeing and what can we say is not seeing?

 

The experiences of seeing are hence different.

 

I'm sorry this is a bit beyond you. I try to be as concise as possible. There are no difficult sentence structures or vocabulary used. You are just caught up in your admiration for Xabir to give effort to understanding what I write.

 

Also, you shouldn't just scan through people's posts, complain about not understanding it, call them a moron or expect to understand clearly, citing it as the author's fault and not yours.

No it really is not beyond me. You said "there is no distinguishable experience of seeing" which is a stupid statement. You did not say that there are different types of seeing which is what you say here. Much of what you have said in this topic is just jumbled nonsense that leads nowhere. That is not my fault. Yet that last little summary paragraph was pretty good so I have to give you credit for that.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

\

No it really is not beyond me. You said "there is no distinguishable experience of seeing" which is a stupid statement. You did not say that there are different types of seeing which is what you say here. Much of what you have said in this topic is just jumbled nonsense that leads nowhere. That is not my fault. Yet that last little summary paragraph was pretty good so I have to give you credit for that.

 

I just copied and pasted the first part from the previous post. It was clear enough on its own. Pay attention.

 

It is beyond you at the moment, considering you can't even read clearly. And that clearly is your fault.

 

It leads no where because you don't understand it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

What you said here is fine. But some of the other comments you wrote previously needed to be corrected, for example the notion that no self somehow implies that practice is not needed etc.

You cannot see beyond this, and it is due to your conditioning and the amount you have invested in Thusness and this view. You have an extensive blog dedicated to your views, probably have practiced for a long time under this doctrine and have made much sacrifices to confirm your points.

 

The difference here is I have absolutely no problem with admitting that I am wrong at any given moment if what you say is pertinent to reality and reasonable, which I find it not to be. In past discussions, you've probably seen me do this, and I have expressed my gratitude likewise.

 

ON the other hand, Xabir, after all that we've discussed, tell me what I've been saying, what my perspective is, because I honestly believe you never do give a shit about what the other person says in these discussions, I see this to be absolutely arrogant.

[thuscomeone]

You cannot see beyond this, and it is due to your conditioning and the amount you have invested in Thusness and this view. You have an extensive blog dedicated to your views, probably have practiced for a long time under this doctrine and have made much sacrifices to confirm your points.

 

The difference here is I have absolutely no problem with admitting that I am wrong at any given moment if what you say is pertinent to reality and reasonable, which I find it not to be.In past discussions, you've probably seen me do this, and I have expressed my gratitude likewise.

 

ON the other hand, Xabir, after all that we've discussed, tell me what I've been saying, what my perspective is, because I honestly believe you never do give a shit about what the other person says in these discussions, I see this to be absolutely arrogant.

You kidding me? Dude, what is so absurd about what Xabir is talking about? This stuff is obvious to any sane person out there - impermanence, dependent arising, no separate self. That's all he is talking about. These are the most basic facts of reality. Furthermore, you sidestepped and dodged my question about whether there is a seer apart from seeing. Sure there are different types of seeing, but there is still seeing. And there is still no seer to be found outside of that seeing. Honestly at this point I have to give you one of these

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

What you said here is fine. But some of the other comments you wrote previously needed to be corrected, for example the notion that no self somehow implies that practice is not needed etc.

BTW just to add: enlightenment is not so called an experience that is to be solidified, but a realization of the 'always so' that leads to the ending of 'self imputation' on our experience. This self imputation process is something that is ended once and for all, through the realisation/insight. So it's actually something that has ended, rather than an experienced that has been maintained. But again the ending (not of a separate self since there never was one to begin with, but the end of the self/duality/inherency imputation process) is brought about by a realisation that no-self has always been so. Once you realise there is no santa claus, you don't have to make an effort to maintain a state of no santa claus, you just stop imputing it is so. Edited January 22, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

You kidding me? Dude, what is so absurd about what Xabir is talking about? This stuff is obvious to any sane person out there - impermanence, dependent arising, no separate self. That's it. Honestly at this point I have to give you one of these

[Lucky7Strikes]

You kidding me? Dude, what is so absurd about what Xabir is talking about? This stuff is obvious to any sane person out there - impermanence, dependent arising, no separate self. That's all he is talking about. These are the most basic facts of reality. Furthermore, you sidestepped and dodged my question about whether there is a seer apart from seeing. Sure there are different types of seeing, but there is still seeing. And there is still no seer to be found outside of that seeing. Honestly at this point I have to give you one of these

 

I didn't side step your question at all. I explained clearly my position in regards to seeing. You scanned it without any real efforts to understand. So I simply copied and pasted the same answer again, at which point you said it was a bit clearer, which moreorless showed not only your lack of comprehension but also the unwillingness to consider a different view of reality. I know completely what Xabir is talking about, and no they are no the most basic facts of reality. I've again and again pointed out its flaws, which Xabir is reluctant to actually investigate for himself, he simply parrots quotes and excerpts.

 

The trick to thinking the way you do: "when I investigate the seer, there is no one there but seeing" is that you are consciously moving your awareness, the "I" ness into the seeing. It is like a man who tries to find point B, and upon arriving at point B and looking out from it, wrongly concludes "there is no point B" or "I am point B." Moreover, there is no such distinguishable experience of "seeing." in the first place. There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits instead.

 

You must again investigate into seeing. It's not as simple as you'd like to put it: "there is just seeing." Seeing is usually experienced by the disparity of the seer, the origin or visual perspective (the eye,) and that which is not the make up of that agent of perspective (the "outside"). However, when meditation reaches certain stages into out of body experiences, one realizes that seeing is not limited to the physical make up of the eye, but that it is wholly a matter of a localized perspective of "here" and "there." Yet there is no inherent beingness to these locations, just as the eye is not the only way to see. We can enter states of being where the localized "here" becomes global, at which point the seen becomes the seer, the state of I"ness."

 

By the way, you are contributing absolutely nothing to the content of this discussion.

 

Cheerleaders can just stay on the sidelines please.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

BTW just to add: enlightenment is not so called an experience that is to be solidified, but a realization of the 'always so' that leads to the ending of 'self imputation' on our experience. This self imputation process is something that is ended once and for all, through the realisation/insight. So it's actually something that has ended, rather than an experienced that has been maintained. But again the ending (not of a separate self since there never was one to begin with, but the end of the self/duality/inherency imputation process) is brought about by a realisation that no-self has always been so. Once you realise there is no santa claus, you don't have to make an effort to maintain a state of no santa claus, you just stop imputing it is so.

 

Your turn now. Let's see how much you've been paying attention.

 

ON the other hand, Xabir, after all that we've discussed, tell me what I've been saying, what my perspective is, because I honestly believe you never do give a shit about what the other person says in these discussions, I see this to be absolutely arrogant.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

..double

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

All there is is happenings, but realization is not just one happening in the chain of events. Realisation is on-going. Every experience is immediately recognised as it is in its true nature.

 

Thusness:

Joan Tollifson once asked Toni Packer if she'd ever had one of those big awakenings where life turns inside out and all identification with the body-mind ceases.

 

Toni replied, "I can't say I had it," she replied. "It's this moment, right now."

Does your view of realization still come about through causes and conditions? Does it happen through a chain of events?

 

If so, then it is a happening.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

I didn't side step your question at all. I explained clearly my position in regards to seeing. You scanned it without any real efforts to understand. So I simply copied and pasted the same answer again, at which point you said it was a bit clearer, which moreorless showed not only your lack of comprehension but also the unwillingness to consider a different view of reality. I know completely what Xabir is talking about, and no they are no the most basic facts of reality. I've again and again pointed out its flaws, which Xabir is reluctant to actually investigate for himself, he simply parrots quotes and excerpts.

 

The trick to thinking the way you do: "when I investigate the seer, there is no one there but seeing" is that you are consciously moving your awareness, the "I" ness into the seeing. It is like a man who tries to find point B, and upon arriving at point B and looking out from it, wrongly concludes "there is no point B" or "I am point B." Moreover, there is no such distinguishable experience of "seeing." in the first place. There are many ways sight can be experienced, just as point B can be seen from different angles. For example, conscious sight, where you put all your awareness into the act of seeing, is a different experience than habitual sight, where you are perhaps engrossed with listening to music and so your "seeing" rolls on through habits instead.

 

You must again investigate into seeing. It's not as simple as you'd like to put it: "there is just seeing." Seeing is usually experienced by the disparity of the seer, the origin or visual perspective (the eye,) and that which is not the make up of that agent of perspective (the "outside"). However, when meditation reaches certain stages into out of body experiences, one realizes that seeing is not limited to the physical make up of the eye, but that it is wholly a matter of a localized perspective of "here" and "there." Yet there is no inherent beingness to these locations, just as the eye is not the only way to see. We can enter states of being where the localized "here" becomes global, at which point the seen becomes the seer, the state of I"ness."

 

By the way, you are contributing absolutely nothing to the content of this discussion.

 

Cheerleaders can just stay on the sidelines please.

I am not a cheerleader you twit. Sure there is no inherent beingness to any locations. But there is still the distinguishable act of seeing which dependently arises. Seeing a bird in the sky, that is a distinguishable act of seeing of which the seer is contained within. You see, it is that simple. But you don't want it to be simple do you? Why are you making this so hard on yourself? You may not need the eye to see but you need the mind. You need the eye to see forms but you can still see darkness without the eye. In which case, you still have a mind. Wherever there is any type of seeing, forms or formless or whatever there must be the mind. That is really all there is to it. What are you talking about, moving your "I"ness. Your awareness is not an "I"ness to begin with so you wrongly conflate the two. Your awareness is by nature "I"less (devoid of a separate controller/doer). You need to stop acting like you have refuted the Buddha and all who have followed him. You are the one who has found all these flaws in their model of reality. Right. Get over yourself.

 

Impermanence, change is not a basic fact of reality? Dependent arising is not a basic fact of reality? No separate self (the presence of the mind and sensations basically) is not a basic fact of reality?

 

I don't usually get mad at people in discussions but you are a grade A idiot.

 

I am out of this discussion for good and I want nothing further to do with you. Goodbye.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Tao99]

"By the way, you are contributing absolutely nothing to the content of this discussion.Cheerleaders can just stay on the sidelines please." Lucky7Strikes

 

I am not a cheerleader you twit.

I don't usually get mad at people in discussions but you are a grade A idiot.

 

Uh oh. Another one bites the dust. Poor Buddha, must be rolling over in his grave. All he wanted to do was point out the truth of suffering and the way out, due to his infinite compassion.

 

Edited January 22, 2010 by Tao99

[rebelrebel]

"By the way, you are contributing absolutely nothing to the content of this discussion.Cheerleaders can just stay on the sidelines please." Lucky7Strikes

 

 

 

Uh oh. Another one bites the dust. Poor Buddha, must be rolling over in his grave. All he wanted to do was point out the truth of suffering and the way out, due to his infinite compassion.

 

I have to chime in here. First of all, get off your high horse and quit pretending like you never get angry. Do you think that compassion means always being nice and kind? No, sometimes it means being rough and not beating around the bush. It means calling somebody stupid when they are being stupid so they can become smart. Telling it like it is.

Edited January 22, 2010 by rebelrebel

[Tao99]

sorry I don't get angry at silly ass internet arguments. After getting beat up by my zen master do you think I give two shts about a silly argument. please. that's the easy part. Are all self-cultivaters who find some success on a high horse? Maybe the high horse is yours ...

[Tao99]

When serious, cultivated Buddhists want to talk seriously about someone's 'stupidity' they use Avidyā (Sanskrit) or avijjā (Pāli) meaning "ignorance" or "delusion". It is used extensively in Buddhist texts.

 

They Do NOT get angry and name call someone a twit or a Grade A Idiot.

 

I thought that was obvious. That is using personal insults solely to cause harm and hurt. And I think it's against the forum rules.

 

 

Or maybe should I do as you advise and instead just "tell it like it is" --

 

 

You stupid twit; you are a Grade A Idiot!!!!

 

 

That doesn't "tell" anything at all. It's just angrily spitting insults solely for the purpose of hurting.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Tao99

[rebelrebel]

When serious, cultivated Buddhists want to talk seriously about someone's 'stupidity' they use Avidyā (Sanskrit) or avijjā (Pāli) meaning "ignorance" or "delusion". It is used extensively in Buddhist texts.

 

They Do NOT get angry and name call someone a twit or a Grade A Idiot.

 

I thought that was obvious. That is using personal insults solely to cause harm and hurt. And I think it's against the forum rules.

 

 

Or maybe should I do as you advise and instead just "tell it like it is" --

 

 

You stupid twit; you are a Grade A Idiot!!!!

 

 

That doesn't "tell" anything at all. It's just angrily spitting insults solely for the purpose of hurting.

No, it's your opinion that those were just angry insults solely for the purpose of hurting. Don't confuse opinion with reality. Maybe the poster was trying to help? Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions there Ghandi

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am not a cheerleader you twit. Sure there is no inherent beingness to any locations. But there is still the distinguishable act of seeing which dependently arises. Seeing a bird in the sky, that is a distinguishable act of seeing of which the seer is contained within. You see, it is that simple. But you don't want it to be simple do you? Why are you making this so hard on yourself? You may not need the eye to see but you need the mind. You need the eye to see forms but you can still see darkness without the eye. In which case, you still have a mind. Wherever there is any type of seeing, forms or formless or whatever there must be the mind. That is really all there is to it. What are you talking about, moving your "I"ness. Your awareness is not an "I"ness to begin with so you wrongly conflate the two. Your awareness is by nature "I"less (devoid of a separate controller/doer). You need to stop acting like you have refuted the Buddha and all who have followed him. You are the one who has found all these flaws in their model of reality. Right. Get over yourself.

 

Impermanence, change is not a basic fact of reality? Dependent arising is not a basic fact of reality? No separate self (the presence of the mind and sensations basically) is not a basic fact of reality?

 

I don't usually get mad at people in discussions but you are a grade A idiot.

 

I am out of this discussion for good and I want nothing further to do with you. Goodbye.

 

Thuscomeone, whose first thread was named "clearing up Buddhism by Thuscomeone,"

 

Who names himself Thuscomeone,

 

Whose avatar is the Buddha looking down,

 

Who cries with joy at dependent origination and believes he has understood,

 

Get over yourself.

 

And what is this "mind" you speak of? Where is it? How exactly does it see?

 

Oh and let me re write what you wrote: Your awareness is not an "I"ness to begin with so you wrongly conflate the two. Your awareness is by nature "I"less . . Now, what does conflate mean again? I think you did it right there.

 

I never said I refuted the Buddha. I'm refuting Xabir and his posse. Buddhism has hundreds of different interpretations, tens of different schools.

 

I abide by the Buddha precisely because I am willing to say that he is wrong. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't even be in these discussions.

 

Ahem, now go cheer on the sidelines. .

Edited January 22, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Thuscomeone, whose first thread was named "clearing up Buddhism by Thuscomeone,"

 

Who names himself Thuscomeone,

 

Whose avatar is the Buddha looking down,

 

Who cries with joy at dependent origination and believes he has understood,

 

Get over yourself.

 

And what is this "mind" you speak of? Where is it? How exactly does it see?

 

Oh and let me re write what you wrote: Your awareness is not an "I"ness to begin with so you wrongly conflate the two. Your awareness is by nature "I"less . . Now, what does conflate mean again? I think you did it right there.

 

I never said I refuted the Buddha. I'm refuting Xabir and his posse. Buddhism has hundreds of different interpretations, tens of different schools.

 

I abide by the Buddha precisely because I am willing to say that he is wrong. If you don't understand this, you shouldn't even be in these discussions.

 

Ahem, now go cheer on the sidelines. .

I didn't want to get back into this discussion but I can't resist. You can't even find your own mind? How pathetic. You shouldn't be arguing with anybody about anything if you don't even know that you have a mind. Your mind is what is communicating with me right now. Your mind is what is seeing the words on your screen. Your mind is undeniably present, it is just ever changing, a series of mind moments rather than a solid thing and it is dependently arisen. Guess what? Do you know what you are using to ask me where my mind is? YOUR MIND. It sees forms right now dependently on the eyes, on the computer in front of it, on you and the words that you are typing, on this website and all the people who have created it, on a million different conditions and causes.

 

"who believes he has understood." I can cite find you numerous article, numerous books, numerous quotes straight from the mouths of Buddhist masters from all different traditions that all agree with my spin on dependent arising and impermanence and no separate self. This is not something I take lightly. I know that I have the correct understanding of these things from the Buddhist perspective because I have spent days and days, hours upon hours confirming these insights. Please don't try to tell me what I don't know. You really have no idea.

 

Sure there are different interpretations of Buddhism but I can guarantee you that 95% of them - zen, dzogchen, theravada, mahayana, vajrayana - agree that things like impermanence, dependent arising and no separate self are the basic facts of reality. Know why? Because these are the basic teachings of the buddha. So any school which calls themselves buddhist is going to have these. It just so happens that thusness and xabir talk about all these things (in the correct way).

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Tao99]

No, it's your opinion that those were just angry insults solely for the purpose of hurting. Don't confuse opinion with reality. Maybe the poster was trying to help? Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions there Ghandi

 

Yea, Twit and grade a idiot are meaningless insults that teach nothing. The mods should have struck it down.

 

BTW I don't call myself Ghandi or the self-proclaimed and oft quoted THUSCOMEONE. That's your friend's trip, and he should know - anyone can see the real thuscomeone wouldn't be using twit or grade a idiot. Hey he should thank me for telling it like it is, and apologize.

 

Yea, like lucky7strikes said, he is the one who is on a ghandi-guru trip -

 

Thuscomeone, whose first thread was named "clearing up Buddhism by Thuscomeone,"

 

Who names himself Thuscomeone,

 

Whose avatar is the Buddha looking down,

 

Who cries with joy at dependent origination and believes he has understood,

 

Get over yourself.

Edited January 22, 2010 by Tao99

[thuscomeone]

Yea, Twit and grade a idiot are meaningless insults that teach nothing. The mods should have struck it down.

 

BTW I don't call myself Ghandi or the self-proclaimed and oft quoted THUSCOMEONE. That's your friend's trip, and he should know - anyone can see the real thuscomeone wouldn't be using twit or grade a idiot. Hey he should thank me for telling it like it is, and apologize.

 

Yea, like lucky7strikes said, he is the one who is on a ghandi-guru trip -

It's a USERNAME! What is with people on this board thinking that I think I am better than other people because of my username? I like the name, it sounds cool! I like the avatar, it looks cool in my mind! Get over it already. Good lord. I like how anybody who claims that they understand the way things are is on a "guru trip." I'm so sick of this mentality. Like this pseudo zen "true knowing is not knowing" stuff. That shtick is outdone and it's tired - get over it.

 

And Lucky as regards your subtle jab at my crying over dependent arising thing, if you truly knew what it meant in regards to suffering and end of suffering, you would see the beauty of it. To be in the world at the same time you are out of it. To be completely present yet completely unaffected and unmoved by events around you. Now I don't claim to be unmoved all the times but the implications of seeing dependent arising in ever experience are to be unmoved. I am not at the level of mindfulness yet where I can see it in every situation. It is as if you go back to where you always were but now it is as if there is a shield around you protecting you from all harm. I wish you could know, I really do.

 

As I said before, I do not usually insult people on forums. This time I just absolutely could not resist. Xabir and Lucky have been arguing for 14 pages and it's obvious that lucky7strikes is just not getting it. Or I should say that he is very confused, in one post it seems like he almost gets it and yet in another it seems like he is further away than ever.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Tao99]

Or I should say that he is very confused, in one post it seems like he almost gets it and yet in another it seems like he is further away than ever.

 

Oh boy, that's students for ya. Ah, the trials and tribulations of being the Buddha!! j/k

 

But really, I think you would prefer to have left those two terms off the table, say if you were trying to explain the wondrous Buddha/s way to your professor. Or a 4 year old.

 

So whatever, that's all. Have a good one. Take care. Buddha's blessings shine on all.

[Tao99]

... if you truly knew what it meant in regards to suffering and end of suffering, you would see the beauty of it.

 

To be in the world at the same time you are out of it. To be completely present yet completely unaffected and unmoved by events around you.

 

Now I don't claim to be unmoved all the times but the implications of seeing dependent arising in ever experience are to be unmoved. I am not at the level of mindfulness yet where I can see it in every situation.

 

It is as if you go back to where you always were but now it is as if there is a shield around you protecting you from all harm. I wish you could know, I really do.

 

As I said before, I do not usually insult people on forums.

 

Out of discord and debate oft times comes gems, and I think this is the best I've seen you do. I'm really starting to get the basic idea from this. I do believe that insults are not your way, and hope you won't be leaving.

[thuscomeone]

Out of discord and debate oft times comes gems, and I think this is the best I've seen you do. I'm really starting to get the basic idea from this. I do believe that insults are not your way, and hope you won't be leaving.

You are right, they aren't my way. It's all a result of a lack of mindfulness. It's so easy to blame somebody else for your getting angry when in fact it is YOU yourself who gets angry.

Edited January 22, 2010 by thuscomeone

[dwai]

Yea, Twit and grade a idiot are meaningless insults that teach nothing. The mods should have struck it down.

 

BTW I don't call myself Ghandi or the self-proclaimed and oft quoted THUSCOMEONE. That's your friend's trip, and he should know - anyone can see the real thuscomeone wouldn't be using twit or grade a idiot. Hey he should thank me for telling it like it is, and apologize.

 

Yea, like lucky7strikes said, he is the one who is on a ghandi-guru trip -

 

may I suggest that you leave Gandhi out of this (if that was who you were referring to by Ghandi-guru). He never claimed to be anyone's Guru and he was much farther progressed as far as spirituality, wisdom, compassion and humility goes than most anyone in living or dead. I do agree with your position about using disparaging epithets about anyone. I think the mods on this forum (Stigweard I believe was the one), who suggested that ad hominems be kept out of any discussion. That way the topic being discussed/debated/argued about can be focused on instead of personal traits (or lack of these thereof) of the discussants.