short batchelor Critique

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Tom » Sun May 12, 2013 7:28 pm

BuddhaSoup wrote:
Yes, I'm awaiting Batchelor's re-interpretation of gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhisvaha !


"I'm out there, out there. So far out there, I've crossed the line. I'm the new Buddhism!"


साधु साधु बुद्धसूप एवमेतद्बुद्धसूप

excellent, excellent, buddhasoup it is like this buddhasoup

:rolling:
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Sun May 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Tom wrote:
BuddhaSoup wrote:
Yes, I'm awaiting Batchelor's re-interpretation of gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhisvaha !


"I'm out there, out there. So far out there, I've crossed the line. I'm the new Buddhism!"


साधु साधु बुद्धसूप एवमेतद्बुद्धसूप

excellent, excellent, buddhasoup it is like this buddhasoup

:rolling:


Ha, you guys are great. :woohoo: :woohoo:
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Matylda » Sun May 12, 2013 9:51 pm

I have one question, could anyone answer?

1. How Mr. Batchelor did become a Buddhist teacher?
2. Whom does he succeeded and in what lineage?
3, Who did make him a teacher?
Matylda
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Sun May 12, 2013 9:54 pm

I don't remember all the details, but from what I recall he was pretty legit and has been a monastic.

I didn't think anyone questioned his scholarship or background really, just the contest of what he says.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby jeeprs » Sun May 12, 2013 10:52 pm

He settled in Dharamsala, the capital-in-exile of the Dalai Lama, and studied at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives with Ven. Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey. He was ordained as a novice Buddhist monk in 1974. He left India in 1975 in order to study Buddhist philosophy and doctrine under the guidance of Ven. Geshe Rabten, first at the Tibetan Monastic Institute in Rikon, Switzerland, then in Le Mont Pelerin, Switzerland, where Geshe Rabten founded Tharpa Choeling (now Rabten Choeling). The following year he received full ordination as a Buddhist monk. In 1979 he moved to Germany as a translator for Ven. Geshe Thubten Ngawang at the Tibetisches Institut, Hamburg. In April 1981 he travelled to Songgwangsa Monastery in South Korea to train in Zen Buddhism under the guidance of Ven. Kusan Sunim. He remained in Korea until the autumn of 1984, when he left for a pilgrimage to Japan, China and Tibet.


From here

I am not 'worked up' over Bachelor. I am interested in discussing it, because I am interested in philosophical analysis. I give occasional talks on Buddhism and meditation at the Buddhist Library in Sydney, and if the subject of Bachelor's approach ever comes up, I encourage people to learn about it, read his books, go to his talks. He is very approachable and his persona is very friendly and open. I think Bachelor deserves a place at the table, and his approach obviously appeals to many people.

But I also say that I think he is missing something vital about Buddhism. When the question comes to 'what, exactly' - that is rather hard to explain! But my feeling about it is that he doesn't 'realize emptiness'. (I wouldn't put it that way at one of those talks, though.) Of course 'emptiness' has a wide range of meanings and many different interpretations, but his rendering of it seems much closer to European existentialism than to the spiritual-religious interpretation of the actual Budhists. If I was asked for a more authentic interpretation from another Western Buddhist, I think would refer to David Loy, whose review of Bachelor's 'Buddhist Atheism' (from Tricycle) observes:

Batchelor is most concerned to distinguish what was unique about the Buddha’s teachings, in contrast to his Brahmanical cultural matrix, which emphasized brahman and the karmic reincarnation of the atman (soul). He discovers four core elements that he believes were not derived from the Indian culture of the Buddha’s time: the principle of conditional arising, the process of the four noble truths, the practice of mindful awareness, and the power of self-reliance. These allow him to understand Gotama as secular. “If ‘secular religion’ were not a contradiction in terms, I would happily endorse such a concept.” For Batchelor, as for New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, secularism seems to be an unproblematic concept. It’s simply what the world really is: what we experience when we let go of religious superstitions and accept what science has discovered.

The problem with this is that, as Buddhism itself implies, our present understanding of the secular is also historically conditioned. Curiously, it can be traced back to new religious ways of thinking that developed during the Protestant Reformation. By eliminating priests, sacraments, pilgrimages, and so forth, Luther’s focus on “salvation by faith alone” sharply separated this world from any transcendent dimension (God, heaven). Originally this devalued secular reality was understood only as a place to prepare for our eternal destiny with God. Over time, however, preoccupation with that “higher” goal of life has faded away, leaving us stuck in a desacralized world whose materialist nature is now fully explained by physics, chemistry, and biology.


I think when you concede that ground to secular-scientific thinking, you've given the game away.

As the Buddhist scriptures say, first in the Pali Nikayas, and re-stated in several Mahayana sources, grasping emptiness correctly is vital in understanding the Buddha's teaching. It is like a snake - pick it up the wrong way, and it will kill you. I think there's a lot of that going on.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Tom » Sun May 12, 2013 11:02 pm

jeeprs wrote: I give occasional talks on Buddhism and meditation at the Buddhist Library in Sydney་


Interesting, may I ask who your teacher is?
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Matylda » Sun May 12, 2013 11:09 pm

I did not ask about his scholarship... I asked about him or his wife claiming to be Buddhist teachers. But on what base are they Buddhist teachers?

Stephen does not seem to conclude his study or practice within gelug tradition, neither as a Chogye monk. It looks that he spent about 8 years as gelug monk, and then 4 years in Korea, then... became a teacher. Well I know some Westerners who speak local Asian language, got proper education within monastic settlement, and became teachers, after 20 or 30 years and have clear affiliation to tradition or lineage.

But in the case of Batchelors it looks as if they went ''independent'' while they disrobed... isn't it?

I do not care about his or her scholarship, or about them to be some sort of thinkers who have ideas... but I find it very interesting when they claim to be Buddhist teachers. So I asked on what base are they Buddhist teachers?
Matylda
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:32 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby shel » Mon May 13, 2013 12:13 am

David Loy wrote:Batchelor is most concerned to distinguish what was unique about the Buddha’s teachings, in contrast to his Brahmanical cultural matrix, which emphasized brahman and the karmic reincarnation of the atman (soul). He discovers four core elements that he believes were not derived from the Indian culture of the Buddha’s time: the principle of conditional arising, the process of the four noble truths, the practice of mindful awareness, and the power of self-reliance. These allow him to understand Gotama as secular. “If ‘secular religion’ were not a contradiction in terms, I would happily endorse such a concept.” For Batchelor, as for New Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, secularism seems to be an unproblematic concept. It’s simply what the world really is: what we experience when we let go of religious superstitions and accept what science has discovered.

The problem with this is that, as Buddhism itself implies, our present understanding of the secular is also historically conditioned. Curiously, it can be traced back to new religious ways of thinking that developed during the Protestant Reformation. By eliminating priests, sacraments, pilgrimages, and so forth, Luther’s focus on “salvation by faith alone” sharply separated this world from any transcendent dimension (God, heaven). Originally this devalued secular reality was understood only as a place to prepare for our eternal destiny with God. Over time, however, preoccupation with that “higher” goal of life has faded away, leaving us stuck in a desacralized world whose materialist nature is now fully explained by physics, chemistry, and biology.


I believe Atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins might be relieved to be stuck in the desacralized world, freed from "higher" goals like witch burning, holy wars, religious inquisitions...
shel
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby jeeprs » Mon May 13, 2013 12:42 am

Tom wrote:
jeeprs wrote: I give occasional talks on Buddhism and meditation at the Buddhist Library in Sydney་


Interesting, may I ask who your teacher is?


I am not part of any official lineage or organisation, although I have done a Master of Buddhist Studies. I am a member of a group of lay practitioners who meet every two months at the Buddhist Library. Every so often I am asked to fill in on the Tuesday night general information sessions that are held at the Buddhist library as a guest speaker. I give general talks on Buddhist history and philosophy.

I think Bachelor has every right to do what he does, but the issue is that I think his view of what constitutes 'religion' and what is 'secular' is historically conditioned by Western attitudes to the meaning of religion.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby BuddhaSoup » Mon May 13, 2013 1:06 am

I haven't read a lot of Batchelor, so maybe it is unfair of me even to comment. My sense is that the 'secular Buddhists' are guilty, at the end of the day, of cherry picking. While Batchelor's focus on the secular teachings of Gautama may be accurate to a degree, Batchelor simply leaves out the teachings of anatta, kamma, and punabbhava because they involve, in Batchelor's view, religion or matters of faith. To my mind, as these teachings were integral to the Buddha's Dhamma, they are integral and necessary if one is to study or practice what we call "Buddhism." If Batchelor wishes to strip away key aspects of the Dhamma, he is free to do so, but I object to his use of the term 'secular Buddhism.' As a scholar pointed out recently regarding the secular Buddhism movement (I think it was a recent Tricycle article), you can't be partially pregnant....
BuddhaSoup
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby jeeprs » Mon May 13, 2013 1:30 am

I think 'secular buddhism' is a trojan horse. It is trying to appropriate Buddhism for ideological ends. It is part of the the attempt to subordinate every aspect of the human being to science.

It is interesting that there is a raging controversy about philosopher Thomas Nagel's most recent book: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Nagel is no religious apologist, in fact he says he has no 'sense of the divine' and is an atheist. But he too thinks that scientific materialism is a load of cobblers and has been saying so for some time. In a discussion of what drives materialism, from one of his earlier essays on the topic, he says:

I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.


Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion; from The Last Word.

I reckon he nails it. This fear is certainly driving a lot of the debate. It has to do with not being able to face emptiness. Science seems to offer measurable certainty - except it actually doesn't.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby LionelChen » Mon May 13, 2013 1:58 am

I think 'secular buddhism' is a trojan horse. It is trying to appropriate Buddhism for ideological ends. It is part of the the attempt to subordinate every aspect of the human being to science.


Well..someone finally said it. :D

I know there tends to be a lot of "Batchelor-ire" amongst certain schools, and I agree wholeheartedly with jeeprs that the man has every right to go off and do his on thing with the teachings of the Buddha.

But...well. I find there's a lot of truth for me at least in the statement made by jeeprs:

I think his view of what constitutes 'religion' and what is 'secular' is historically conditioned by Western attitudes to the meaning of religion.


Look, i'm coming out of this from a perspective where there's no Socrates/Plato/Aristotle or Jesus of Nazareth looming in the background in my intellectual world. My family has no connection to it and at best a passing knowledge of what those things mean.

All those categories upon which many Westerners dissect the interaction of religion and society, whether its a "promoter of civilization" or "the thing holding back the march of progress," all those surging emotions and vitriolic statements....well... to paraphrase a Theravadan Thai monk i met a long time ago in Chiang Mai:

Their obsession with the question is a Kilesa/Klesha. And at times I feel as if they are trying to drag us into their family's argument.


That being said, I actually do believe that in his own way, Batchelor does indeed spread a version of the Buddha's teachings to those whose emotional reaction to the Abrahamic faiths would have turned away from them on point of principle if it came to them under the guise of religion.

I obviously don't believe its the complete teaching or practice, but if it does offer solace to them...
LionelChen
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Mon May 13, 2013 2:53 am

Yeah, that last bit is a great point and probably the best argument for being a little more accommodating of the "secular Buddhists", within reason at least.

It does seem to be so that there are people practicing a (possibly woefully narrow) version of Buddhadharma who would otherwise not be practicing any spiritual path at all.

I'd even wager that a large number of western Buddhists start off with this kind of thing as a foot in the door, some moving on to other things, some sticking around, and some giving up.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2162
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby LionelChen » Mon May 13, 2013 3:26 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Yeah, that last bit is a great point and probably the best argument for being a little more accommodating of the "secular Buddhists", within reason at least.


That's both the easy and hard part isn't it?

On the one hand, I think a large number of people here by virtue on being a Mahayana/Vajrayana forum admit to the idea that the Buddha taught different things to different people given their circumstances and their capacity to understand.

We may debate about which teaching is the Third or Fourth Turning of the Wheel, but when we're conscientious about it - we can accomodate each others beliefs and paths.

I see the same option with the secular Buddhists - greet them with serenity and compassion.

They will of course think that we act in terms or hold beliefs that they would to be superstitious - but if you the Pure Land-er, or the Tendai, or Zen, or Vajrayana practitioner really believe in the Nembutsu, the Lotus, Bodhidharma, or your Lama... then well.. let them believe as such.

It doesn't really take anything away from our paths. I mean they believe they have the Dharma - how is it different from the way all buddhists schools have acted toward each other in the past?

On the other hand though - there's one slight problem with secular Buddhism if practiced in that manner that I guess i should call "puritanical" in light of the essay Jeeprs put up. Its something I didn't even consider, but I guess i lacked the perspective to see it in such a way.

For all our differences, we accept each other's approaches toward the Dharma. We just have debates about effectivity at the end of the day. We don't deny that a person may achieve an understanding of emptiness via the path of the householder, the monk, or the tantrika.

We admit to each other than in one form or another, we are Buddhists.

When Secular Buddhists start to think of us not merely adding supersition to the Buddhadharma, but actively corrupting it - distorting it to the point where they feel they must save it from ruin, like Protestant Christianity's reaction to Catholicism,

then they aren't affording to us the courtesy of seeing us as Buddhists anymore.

We're aberrant.

We're "what's wrong with Buddhism."
LionelChen
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:42 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby Tom » Mon May 13, 2013 3:45 am

As Jnana mentioned, it is a pluralistic world and of concern here should not be what Batchelor is free or not free to say. Of course, Batchelor is free to say and believe what he wishes and if secular Batchelorism helps others along the way, then wonderful!

Rather, the problem with secular Buddhism is not that it is related to some materialistic-illuminati type conspiracy theory, but just simply that it is not Buddhism.

What distinguishes Buddhism is not its ethics, nor its meditation system, but its view. When Batchelor extracts truth from Buddhism, be it the four noble truths, or the two truths, etc. people are going to ask what is left that is distinctly Buddhist in secular Buddhism.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon May 13, 2013 3:53 am

If I am not mistaken, the essence of so-called 'Secular Buddhism' (and hence, the book title Buddhism Beyond Beliefs) is that if you stack up everything in Buddhism that is observable (what might be called 'provable' ) on one side, and everything that is not observable, but is doctrine nonetheless and must be accepted on faith alone (various realms, pure lands, rebirth) on the other side, that it is possible to obtain complete and perfect cessation of suffering (enlightenment) purely from the side of the observable.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument.

To suggest that one need to believe in things that cannot be observed in order to practice dharma is like suggesting that a Christian needs to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus in order to practice forgiveness.

Although the Buddha may have spoken of previous lives and performed miraculous feats, there is nothing that he taught regarding the liberation of beings that is beyond what can be observed about the mind and about phenomena. Everything that he taught about suffering, its causes, its cessation, and the means to liberation can be practiced by even the most skeptical atheist, materialist, secular whoever.

Truth that can only be known by means of faith alone isn't truth.
If it isn't truth, then it isn't Dharma.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon May 13, 2013 3:55 am

Tom wrote: What distinguishes Buddhism is not its ethics, nor its meditation system, but its view.

Two questions: distinguishes it from ...what?
and view of ...what?
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby dharmagoat » Mon May 13, 2013 3:56 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Although the Buddha may have spoken of previous lives and performed miraculous feats, there is nothing that he taught regarding the liberation of beings that is beyond what can be observed about the mind and about phenomena. Everything that he taught about suffering, its causes, its cessation, and the means to liberation can be practiced by even the most skeptical atheist, materialist, secular whoever.

Truth that can only be known by means of faith alone isn't truth.
If it isn't truth, then it isn't Dharma.

:namaste:
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon May 13, 2013 3:59 am

From batchelor's web page bio, I quote;
"In particular, he regards the doctrines of karma and rebirth to be features of ancient Indian civilisation and not intrinsic to what the Buddha taught".
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.p ... /biography
And I don't dispute that this is what he thinks.
But I will also suggest that if this is the case, he doesn't actually understand the doctrines of karma and rebirth as expressed in the Buddhist context, which must pivot on the concept of anatma (and further, on sunyata), and is intentionally or mistakenly confusing them with baggage inherited from Brahaminism.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: short batchelor Critique

Postby jeeprs » Mon May 13, 2013 4:07 am

Tom wrote:What distinguishes Buddhism is not its ethics, nor its meditation system, but its view. When Batchelor extracts truth from Buddhism, be it the four noble truths, or the two truths, etc. people are going to ask what is left that is distinctly Buddhist in secular Buddhism.


I agree. I think that secular Buddhism ought to be identified as a secular system of philosophy based on some Buddhist principles. I think they're making misleading statements about 'what is in the packet'. :smile:

The issue is that it goes too far in trying to 'redefine' Buddhism. Bachelor's last book, Confessions of A Buddhist Atheist, had a cover endorsement from the late Christopher Hitchens, despite the fact that he had earlier written that Buddhists ''put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals'. Of Bachelor's book, he said that 'ethical and scientific humanism' are 'our only real hope'.

The problem is that 'scientific humanism' is actually anti-humanist. Why? Because in the scientific analysis, persons are products of the blind material processes of evolution, or they are computers, in that all they do is process information.

In fact the idea of the person, and indeed the idea of human rights generally, owes far more to the West's Christian heritage than to science, per se. Humanism, and even secular humanism, if you study the history, was rooted in the Italian Renaissance and such figures as Erasmus, Pico Della Mirandolla, and Ficino, all of whom were deeply spiritual men, well steeped in the Classics and in the spiritual heritage of Platonism. If Hitchens, et al, have their way, all of that will be consigned to the dustbin of history as 'religious superstition'.

They don't understand what it is that they don't understand.

I am actually of the view that the mainstream Western scientific tradition has a background in a spiritual view of life. Pythagoras and Plato, and people like Kepler and Newton and even Descartes, were all very spiritual thinkers. As were Einstein, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger (who wrote essays on Vedanta.)

I think what has happened is that this tradition has been hijacked by the materialists. Read Bikkhu Bodhi's Response to the Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence - very powerful analysis, in my view. This is why we have to call this out. There are powerful forces afoot.
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JKhedrup, MSNbot Media, smcj, Son of Buddha, udawa and 21 guests

>