the great vegetarian debate

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

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 31, 2012 2:13 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
Now that is for people, for animals, especially livestock, they live with much more restrictions, with almost no choice possible and much more violence used against them to suit taste preferences which demand cheap meat. What people like you don't want to realize is that your way of life is predicated on a huge amount of violence, coercion, techniques of manipulation. For the developed world to live their relatively lavish lifestyle, they victimize most the rest of the globe. It is not a way of life you have a right to live, it is maintained by force, by the American military, its allies, by coercive institutions like the IMF, the World bank, etc.

So people are ok with force, what they are not ok is having to do with less than they are accustomed to, that is the root of the issue. If you are an adult and you don't already realize such things it is because you don't want to know.


Oh I see, Veganism is the solution to the world woes? Give me a break.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu May 31, 2012 2:31 am

Maybe you should be giving it the "breaks". You seem to feel a need to make lots of bad moral, ethical and environmental justifications that cannot be supported for meat eating. Obviously veganism involves displacing and dispossessing via force alot less animals and people(and insects too) from their land base than otherwise. The desire for meat is the biggest cause of deforestation and the destruction of the land base of the few remaining tribal societies. Obviously veganism promotes less violence and not more, if it didn't you could figure out an actual argument instead of innuendo.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 31, 2012 3:04 am

Thrasymachus wrote:Obviously veganism promotes less violence and not more, if it didn't you could figure out an actual argument instead of innuendo.


What nonsense.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu May 31, 2012 3:19 am

That is also not an argument.

Earlier in this thread when you tried to produce what you thought were good arguments or facts for meat consumption you mentioned about hypothetical ideal grass feed livestock operations even specifically mentioning the infamous Polyface farm of Joel Salatin. I dealt with that here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99443&hilit=polyface+farms#p99443
and here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99470&hilit=vegetarian+myth#p99470
Counting the surrounding forest so vital to that operation you can only feed a very meager 2 people per 10 acres. That kind of meat is also very expensive for consumers, and like all other meat it is also costly for the environment and the health-care system.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Virgo » Thu May 31, 2012 3:30 am

Thrasymachus wrote:
Virgo wrote:This goes against the nature of man. So who would enforce it, a government with lots of guns?


You are ignorant as to the underpinnings of the actually society you live in that make things like rampant meat consumption possible. Our whole social order is built on force and regulations, laws which are of course backed with force...

Now that is for people, for animals, especially livestock, they live with much more restrictions, with almost no choice possible and much more violence used against them to suit taste preferences which demand cheap meat. What people like you don't want to realize is that your way of life is predicated on a huge amount of violence, coercion, techniques of manipulation. For the developed world to live their relatively lavish lifestyle, they victimize most the rest of the globe. It is not a way of life you have a right to live, it is maintained by force, by the American military, its allies, by coercive institutions like the IMF, the World bank, etc.

So people are ok with force, what they are not ok is having to do with less than they are accustomed to, that is the root of the issue. If you are an adult and you don't already realize such things it is because you don't want to know.


I think you forgot the part about the nature of man. Unfortunately, human beings always have and always will use force. Why? Because people are determined to get what they want. You talk about the American military but the American military protects this country and the rule of law here for the most part with force, from others that would, in their absence, use nothing other than force to seize control and replace the rule of law, which works pretty well for the most part here, with some one or another shade of dictatorial, fascist regime, the likes of which the world has seen many, many times over and at who's hands hundreds of millions have humans, on top of animals, have been slaughtered.

Maybe you ought to realize that it is the nature of man to use force. You seem to wish to deny this fact and ignore it. However, you would have the law makers force all people in the land to not eat meat at all, and have the enforcers of the law armed to the teeth to enforce such. Who's the one that's confused now?

Kevin
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं
http://www.ripple.org

Kevin
. . .
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 31, 2012 4:02 am

Thrasymachus wrote:That is also not an argument.

Earlier in this thread when you tried to produce what you thought were good arguments or facts for meat consumption you mentioned about hypothetical ideal grass feed livestock operations even specifically mentioning the infamous Polyface farm of Joel Salatin. I dealt with that here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99443&hilit=polyface+farms#p99443
and here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99470&hilit=vegetarian+myth#p99470
Counting the surrounding forest so vital to that operation you can only feed a very meager 2 people per 10 acres. That kind of meat is also very expensive for consumers, and like all other meat it is also costly for the environment and the health-care system.


The idea it their method of animal husbandry is costly for the enviroment is total nonsense. You obviously have not read a single thing written by Salatan.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 31, 2012 4:04 am

Virgo wrote:
Maybe you ought to realize that it is the nature of man to use force. You seem to wish to deny this fact and ignore it. However, you would have the law makers force all people in the land to not eat meat at all, and have the enforcers of the law armed to the teeth to enforce such. Who's the one that's confused now?

Kevin


Forget it Kev -- this guy is into the food police all the while complaining about "violence". Vegan fascism, basically.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Virgo » Thu May 31, 2012 4:24 am

Malcolm wrote:
Virgo wrote:
Maybe you ought to realize that it is the nature of man to use force. You seem to wish to deny this fact and ignore it. However, you would have the law makers force all people in the land to not eat meat at all, and have the enforcers of the law armed to the teeth to enforce such. Who's the one that's confused now?

Kevin


Forget it Kev -- this guy is into the food police all the while complaining about "violence". Vegan fascism, basically.

Essentially yes.

There is probably no getting through. However, I do admire his fervor for protecting animals, of course, but he needs to sit back and take a look at a few things.

Kevin
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं
http://www.ripple.org

Kevin
. . .
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu May 31, 2012 4:37 am

Virgo wrote:This goes against the nature of man.


I'm sorry, but any such concept such as "the nature of man" (aside from sexist phrasing) is complete nonsense and is not supported by any Buddhist teaching.

Ironically (@virgo), it is the very argument that "it is the nature of man to use force" which is the argument from which fascism as a political ideology, which you object to, claimed its legitimacy. Look up Giovanni Gentile for more on this.

The so-called "nature" of beings in the human realm (man and woman) is not defined by the means, but by the ends:
Humans are plagued by a constant state of dissatisfaction (dukkha) which can manifest as anything from the desire for a hamburger to the need to convert others to a vegan diet, or the frustration one feels because people who call themselves Buddhist eat meat and this seems hypocritical, and hypocrisy to some people is unbearable. It is the desire to be free from this constant dissatisfaction which is "the ends" to which means are employed.
But the means can vary. Sometimes people use force and sometimes they do not.

If it were an intrinsic characteristic of humans ("nature of man")to always use force,
then the Buddhist path would have never been taught as it was, and would be pointless to practice.
If it were an intrinsic characteristic of humans to use force, then using force would ultimately result in lasting happiness,
because the result would be in harmony with the basis for the action.

Quite a few, if not most of the arguments used by vegetarians to illustrate why not eating meat is a wise choice are valid. It may be better for your health, better for the environment, and will separate one slightly from the slaughterhouse industry.

But the underlying cause for choosing either to eat meat or not eat meat is exactly the same:
One mistakenly clings onto the idea that choosing one or the other will lead to happiness and will free oneself (and perhaps others) from suffering. maybe it has to do with feeling well fed, or of having a clear conscience. Whatever.
There are a billion different reasons for the things people choose to do.
But the motivation, or the motivation behind one's motivation is always the same.

Obviously, if millions of consumers stop buying beef (and you may remember when Oprah Winfrey's influence caused this to happen) or some other type of meat, it will have an impact on the market. That is all fine and well, but it will only mean that fewer livestock animals will be born (to die) in the future. It has no bearing on the lives of the animals alive right now. If people don't eat them, they will still be butchered anyway, because there will be no point in spending money to keep them alive.

There are a lot of ways to impact society and try to make things better, and a person should do what they can do. Fight injustice. Save the planet. But this has very little with Dharma. It makes absolutely no difference what you eat, if your mental attitude is still generated by clinging and only fuels anger and resentment. That is why I said before, some people pit vegetarianism against Buddhism. They pit clinging against non-clinging.
.
.
.
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: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Thu May 31, 2012 4:48 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Quite a few, if not most of the arguments used by vegetarians to illustrate why not eating meat is a wise choice are valid. It may be better for your health, better for the environment, and will separate one slightly from the slaughterhouse industry.


Depends on what kind of meat. Industrial agriculture produces inferior food, whether plant or animal, organic or conventional, since it is based on petro-chemicals is not nourishing. Eat local, eat in season, eat a wide variety of things. Then you will be healthy.

The bulk of food ideologies are hoaxes. And yes, it is inevitable that for some beings to live, other beings must die.

M
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10217
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Virgo » Thu May 31, 2012 5:03 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Virgo wrote:This goes against the nature of man.


I'm sorry, but any such concept such as "the nature of man" (aside from sexist phrasing) is complete nonsense and is not supported by any Buddhist teaching.

Nice ploy. Oh perhaps Virgo is sexist then... uh no sorry. Very, very, very far from it. Ask all the women I know>

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Ironically (@virgo), it is the very argument that "it is the nature of man to use force" which is the argument from which fascism as a political ideology, which you object to, claimed its legitimacy. Look up Giovanni Gentile for more on this.

I agree fully. That is why this nation, which tried to establish a rule of law based on equality, and based on the opinions of the governed rather than solely on the opinion of the governers, has a military. You know, like a large part of the reason why we don't speak German today and why all people who don't fit Hitlers descriptions of the perfect race still exist.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:The so-called "nature" of beings in the human realm (man and woman) is not defined by the means, but by the ends:
Humans are plagued by a constant state of dissatisfaction (dukkha) which can manifest as anything from the desire for a hamburger to the need to convert others to a vegan diet, or the frustration one feels because people who call themselves Buddhist eat meat and this seems hypocritical,
Ignorance, attachment, and aversion are all separate, at least in the Abhidhamma that I learned. However, chittas rooted in attachment or aversion always arise with a root of ignorance as well.
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Quite a few, if not most of the arguments used by vegetarians to illustrate why not eating meat is a wise choice are valid. It may be better for your health, better for the environment, and will separate one slightly from the slaughterhouse industry.

I believe meat is good for your health. I don't care about the slaughterhouse industry or distancing myself from it. To me that is all bs.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:But the underlying cause for choosing either to eat meat or not eat meat is exactly the same:
One mistakenly clings onto the idea that choosing one or the other will lead to happiness and will free oneself (and perhaps others) from suffering. maybe it has to do with feeling well fed, or of having a clear conscience. Whatever.
There are a billion different reasons for the things people choose to do.
But the motivation, or the motivation behind one's motivation is always the same./
honestly, my friend, I eat meat because it is what my body is used to. Sometimes it needs it. That's not evil.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:Obviously, if millions of consumers stop buying beef (and you may remember when Oprah Winfrey's influence caused this to happen) or some other type of meat, it will have an impact on the market.

Dude, come back to reality. The only way that will happen is if the price of meat sky rockets.

Kevin
Last edited by catmoon on Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Profanity removed
ओं मणिपद्मे हूं
http://www.ripple.org

Kevin
. . .
User avatar
Virgo
 
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: Globe

Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby seeker242 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:31 pm

I'm curious as to why Japanese zen traditions did not "import", so to speak, the practice of vegetarianism as did the other zen traditions? Chan or Chinese zen is vegetarian, Korean zen is, Vietnamese zen is but Japanese zen is not. Is this just a cultural thing? Was there some particular historical event as to why this is the case? Just curious about this difference.
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby Indrajala » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:45 pm

seeker242 wrote:I'm curious as to why Japanese zen traditions did not "import", so to speak, the practice of vegetarianism as did the other zen traditions? Chan or Chinese zen is vegetarian, Korean zen is, Vietnamese zen is but Japanese zen is not. Is this just a cultural thing? Was there some particular historical event as to why this is the case? Just curious about this difference.


There was a strong culture of vegetarianism in Japanese Buddhism until the 19th century when western influences, particularly protestant, rapidly had much of Japanese Buddhism (including zen) drop a lot of age old traditions like celibacy and vegetarianism.

Generally speaking vegetarianism and Buddhism in Japan went hand in hand, though of course exceptions will be found. Anyone with just the bodhisattva precepts via the Brahma Net Sutra will swear off all meat.

Contemporary Japanese have completely forgotten their old vegetarianism. In Japanese Zen I think people are aware that they used to be vegetarian, but it is now considered irrelevant and unimportant. It is quite abnormal in Japan to be vegetarian and in many ways anti-social. Schools all have lunch programs for example and having your child abstain from eating any meat or fish would be not only inconvenient, but make for a social handicap. The same can be said about the religious world as well. When you go out to dinner with your superiors you're generally supposed to eat whatever they eat or for that matter the group is having. Japanese culture is very keen on this sort of thing. If you go for sushi or yakiniku (BBQ), you only raise questions and make for social friction if you deviate from the flock and start asking for special things.

So when the majority of your group are doing something, you just have to go along with it, even if your conscience or scriptures say otherwise. This is why Japanese Zen has a dirty past when it comes to the early part of the 20th century and the wars the Japanese Empire was fighting.

Before WWII I suspect being vegetarian and a priest would have been commended and acceptable, but after WWII General Douglas McArthur's wife introduced the beef stew and bread program for schools and from there the nation became quite accustomed to eating meat regularly. It became the norm for everyone to eat meat, and as such you just had to go with the flow if you wanted to fit in. Unlike in western cultures in many cases, in Japan if you don't fit in it usually does lead to a lot of problems, social friction and lack of opportunities. The nail that sticks out gets hammered down as they say.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby shel » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:06 pm

jundo cohen wrote:I am not personally supporting or decrying the eating of meat, by the way. Rather, I am simply questioning what is or is not out of line with scripture.

When choosing whether or not to eat an other sentient being do not look to scripture, look to your own heart. :namaste:
shel
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby Huifeng » Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:51 am

seeker242 wrote:I'm curious as to why Japanese zen traditions did not "import", so to speak, the practice of vegetarianism as did the other zen traditions? Chan or Chinese zen is vegetarian, Korean zen is, Vietnamese zen is but Japanese zen is not. Is this just a cultural thing? Was there some particular historical event as to why this is the case? Just curious about this difference.


Just for the record, though most probably know already - It's not just Chinese Chan that advocates vegetarianism, it is considered a virtue for all forms of Chinese Buddhism, compulsory for the monastics and very common among serious lay practitioners.

~~ Huifeng
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby Adumbra » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:21 am

I'm curious as to why Japanese zen traditions did not "import", so to speak, the practice of vegetarianism as did the other zen traditions? Chan or Chinese zen is vegetarian, Korean zen is, Vietnamese zen is but Japanese zen is not. Is this just a cultural thing? Was there some particular historical event as to why this is the case? Just curious about this difference.


I suspect it may have something to do with Japan being a group of islands. With so much coastline, fishing is the natural way to make a living. Strict vegetarianism would seem strange and impractical in a country where seafood is so plentiful. An idiosyncrasy that monks could indulge in, but not the average person.
"The first thing you have to understand is that I don't believe in ANYTHING."
-Arahata Osho
Adumbra
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA U.S.A.

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby plwk » Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:25 am

This little cutey bit from wiki :tongue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism
Japan initially received Chinese Buddhism through Korea in 6th century. And in 9th century, Emperor Saga made a decree prohibiting meat consumption except fish and birds. This remained the dietary habit of Japanese until the introduction of European dietary customs in the 19th century.
Again around the 9th century, two Japanese monks (Kūkai and Saichō) introduced Vajrayana Buddhism into Japan and this soon became the dominant Buddhism among the nobility. In particular, Saichō, who founded the Tendai sect of Japanese Buddhism, reduced the number of vinaya code to 66. (Enkai 円戒)
During the 12th century, a number of monks from Tendai sects founded new sects (Zen, Pure Land) and de-emphasised vegetarianism, Nichiren Buddhism today likewise de-emphasises vegetarianism. However, Nichiren himself practiced vegetarianism. Chan and Zen do tend generally to look favourably upon vegetarianism. The Shingon sect founded by Kūkai also does not prescribe a vegetarian diet for its monks.

Vegetarianism and Vegetarians in Japan
KYOTO: The Capital of Zen Vegetarian Cuisine
Just for the record, though most probably know already - It's not just Chinese Chan that advocates vegetarianism, it is considered a virtue for all forms of Chinese Buddhism, compulsory for the monastics and very common among serious lay practitioners.
Ah! but Fa Shi, there are some Chinese Buddhist organisations (which shall remain anonymous here) that tie up the lay refuge/precepts with the immediate obligation of practicing lifelong vegetarianism. There was a fellow as I recall back in E-Sangha who in a private chat expressed concern over this due to social reasons and etc, as the intended organisation to be part of has this kind of provision. So I advised that if one cannot take up this obligation immediately, there are other organisations that allow the gradual path on vegetarianism, so it's not an issue. In the end, the fellow still joined that one and have not heard from since :shrug:
plwk
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby Huifeng » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:30 am

plwk wrote:
Just for the record, though most probably know already - It's not just Chinese Chan that advocates vegetarianism, it is considered a virtue for all forms of Chinese Buddhism, compulsory for the monastics and very common among serious lay practitioners.


Ah! but Fa Shi, there are some Chinese Buddhist organisations (which shall remain anonymous here) that tie up the lay refuge/precepts with the immediate obligation of practicing lifelong vegetarianism. There was a fellow as I recall back in E-Sangha who in a private chat expressed concern over this due to social reasons and etc, as the intended organisation to be part of has this kind of provision. So I advised that if one cannot take up this obligation immediately, there are other organisations that allow the gradual path on vegetarianism, so it's not an issue. In the end, the fellow still joined that one and have not heard from since :shrug:


Hi,

Yes, indeed, some Chinese Buddhist organizations do just that. I note that my own Shifu, Ven. Master Hsing Yun, very frequently points out during Three Refuge and Five Precepts ceremonies that vegetarianism is not part of it, though it is a good thing if one wishes to.

I sometimes kind of joke that vegetarianism is like the "sixth" precept of Chinese Buddhism, ie. the next most important after the basic five.

~~ Huifeng
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby LastLegend » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:46 am

Vegetarism is not required. But it makes absolutely sense to be a vegetarian in context of Mahayana, compassion, and Bodhisattva path. That says if we really have compassion for animals as other sentient beings, we would not eat them.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Vegetarianism in Zen, Chan, etc.

Postby Indrajala » Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:48 am

Topic split. See new thread for other discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=8949
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kim O'Hara, LastLegend and 18 guests

>