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 PadmaVonSamba » Sun May 13, 2012 1:35 pm

Thrasymachus wrote: To me thinking you can actually become enlightened is hubris, it is just an ideal.


That's all you had to say.
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 » Sun May 13, 2012 1:38 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:-- Not eating meat is more than just an ego trip. It really contributes to prevent suffering...


No it doesn't, not even one tiny bit.

N
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Blue Garuda » Sun May 13, 2012 1:41 pm

Namdrol wrote:
Blue Garuda wrote:I have also read that the Dalai Lama supports vegetarianism but feels he cannot be vegetarian due to his health.

namdrol - are you saying that he does or does not understand and practice Dzogchen?


I am quite certain HHDL understands and pratices Dzogchen. I am certain it is his primary practice.

N


In which case why does he not preach like ChNNR that vegetarianism is a miserable form of compassion?
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Sun May 13, 2012 2:02 pm

Blue Garuda wrote:
Namdrol wrote:
Blue Garuda wrote:I have also read that the Dalai Lama supports vegetarianism but feels he cannot be vegetarian due to his health.

namdrol - are you saying that he does or does not understand and practice Dzogchen?


I am quite certain HHDL understands and pratices Dzogchen. I am certain it is his primary practice.

N


In which case why does he not preach like ChNNR that vegetarianism is a miserable form of compassion?


You will have to ask him. ChNN's point of view is not for everyone. One either agrees or disagrees. But he thinks it important enough to bring it up at nearly every retreat.

Also, HHDL is under a lot of pressure from a lot of people to conform to their view of him.

N
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Sun May 13, 2012 2:04 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:...

If you don't realize your own true mind, it doesn't matter what goes into your belly or where it came from. You may save a herd of cattle in this lifetime, and that will be a very good thing, but that will be all you save.



:thumbsup:
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Blue Garuda » Sun May 13, 2012 2:14 pm

Namdrol wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:...

If you don't realize your own true mind, it doesn't matter what goes into your belly or where it came from. You may save a herd of cattle in this lifetime, and that will be a very good thing, but that will be all you save.



:thumbsup:


Does this imply that choice about eating meat will prevent someone realising their true mind? No, it means that it is irrelevant to it, so it is a neutral comment.

It is irrelevant, that is, unless one believes in karma having consequences which relate to the 8FP.

As I do, and others seemingly don't, the thread will gain little from my thoughts so I'll let others tread along the Mobius strip. LOL :)
Left
Blue Garuda
 
Posts: 2000
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby mindyourmind » Sun May 13, 2012 2:15 pm

What I never understood, and have no real hope of ever understanding, is why these enlightened practitioners must actually participate in killing a sentient being to improve its lot. Surely such a practitioner can benefit such a being by simply saying mantras, or another practice - other than participating in killing it.

In other words, a human that is so advanced that he or she can actually directly choose to benefit another being should be able to do so through other means than participating in the killing of that being.

I'm with Chatral Rinpoche on this one.

And, for the record again, I have no real problem with people who eat meat. This is just a point behind which I believe a lot of fuzzy thinking has gathered. Refraining from eating meat is a difficult and challenging choice, and choosing not to do so is a perfectly viable and acceptable way of life, but let's just be very honest about this popular "defense" of eating meat.
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mr. G » Sun May 13, 2012 2:45 pm

    Devadatta next plots discord among the monks by proposing that the Buddha mandate five austere disciplines for all recluses. These five are as follows:

    1. forest dwelling
    2. alms begging
    3. the wearing of only refuse-rag robes
    4. living at the foot of a tree
    5. not eating meat or fish

    All of these disciplines, Devadatta suggests, should be followed “for as long as
    life lasts.”

    The Buddha’s response is again sharp:

    Enough, Devadatta. . . . Whoever wishes, let him be a forest-dweller;
    whoever wishes, let him stay in the neighbourhood of a village; whoever
    wishes, let him be a beggar for alms; whoever wishes, let him accept an invitation;
    whoever wishes, let him be a rag-robe wearer; whoever wishes,
    let him accept a householder’s robes. For eight months, Devadatta, lodging
    at the root of a tree is permitted by me. Fish and flesh are pure in respect
    of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have
    been killed on purpose for him
    )


    - Daniel Boucher - Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahâyâna
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun May 13, 2012 2:51 pm

Mr. G wrote:
    Devadatta next plots discord among the monks by proposing that the Buddha mandate five austere disciplines for all recluses. These five are as follows:

    1. forest dwelling
    2. alms begging
    3. the wearing of only refuse-rag robes
    4. living at the foot of a tree
    5. not eating meat or fish

    All of these disciplines, Devadatta suggests, should be followed “for as long as
    life lasts.”

    The Buddha’s response is again sharp:

    Enough, Devadatta. . . . Whoever wishes, let him be a forest-dweller;
    whoever wishes, let him stay in the neighbourhood of a village; whoever
    wishes, let him be a beggar for alms; whoever wishes, let him accept an invitation;
    whoever wishes, let him be a rag-robe wearer; whoever wishes,
    let him accept a householder’s robes. For eight months, Devadatta, lodging
    at the root of a tree is permitted by me. Fish and flesh are pure in respect
    of three points: if they are not seen, heard or suspected (to have
    been killed on purpose for him
    )


    - Daniel Boucher - Bodhisattvas of the Forest and the Formation of the Mahâyâna
It seems thought that the Buddha is talking about enforced and compulsory abstainence when he reproached Devadatta. There is no doubt that the Buddha did not counsel the monastic sangha to abstain from offerings of meat that did not transgress the last three points, BUT we are talking a monastic sangha that HAD TO beg for their food from house to house. We are not talking about householders (and this can be extended to monastaries) that choose which food they will purchase.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Stewart » Sun May 13, 2012 2:56 pm

Fair point Greg, but where did the Buddha suggest things for lay people are different, with regard to the 3 points?
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun May 13, 2012 3:16 pm

I really don't know if there is a different teaching aimed at lay people, but the specific teaching was directed at Devadatta who was, at the time, a member of the monastic community.
:namaste:
PS I am not assuming that for householders the Buddha prescribed vegetarianism.
PPS I was a vegetarian well before I became a Buddhist, I did not need a Buddhist justification then, nor do I need one now.
Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Sun May 13, 2012 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7899
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Mr. G » Sun May 13, 2012 3:22 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:I really don't know if there is a different teaching aimed at lay people

PS I am not assuming that for householders the Buddha prescribed vegetarianism.


There wasn't and he didn't.

PPS I was a vegetarian well before I became a Buddhist, I did not need a Budhist justification then, nor do I need one now.


I think one of the points in the Devadatta story is to not dictate to others what they should eat, what they should wear, where they should live and whether they should be a monk or a layperson. Basically, he's saying mind your own business. :smile:
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun May 13, 2012 4:14 pm

mindyourmind wrote:What I never understood, and have no real hope of ever understanding, is why these enlightened practitioners must actually participate in killing a sentient being to improve its lot.


Eating meat that is offered to you is different from killing.
As far as legends about the practices of famous yogis and so forth, who knows all of the details of the situation?

"enlightened" is a vague, western term.
But my teachers are at least very accomplished and they might select to eat meat if given the option, but they do not kill beings.

To say that choosing to eat an already killed animal is the same as killing the animal yourself is entirely incorrect and misses the point about not killing.

If the person who chooses to eat meat is the same as the killer, then the vegetarian school teacher whose student grows up to become a butcher must also be held responsible for the killing of many animals. The people who put together your computer were able to do that because they ate food and that probably included a lot of meat. So, your keyboard has that blood on it as well.

The chain of connections to suffering is endless. Anyone who says they do not choose to be part of that chain is probably deluded, living on an island all alone, or lying.

I am a vegetarian 98% of the time. I prefer it and I think it is a good way to go. But eating meat or not has nothing to do with 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: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Sun May 13, 2012 4:21 pm

mindyourmind wrote:What I never understood, and have no real hope of ever understanding, is why these enlightened practitioners must actually participate in killing a sentient being to improve its lot. Surely such a practitioner can benefit such a being by simply saying mantras, or another practice - other than participating in killing it.


Killing, the taking of life, requires the intent to take life, an object, the carrying out of the action and satisfaction in doing so.

In other words, a human that is so advanced that he or she can actually directly choose to benefit another being should be able to do so through other means than participating in the killing of that being.


Eating meat does not equate with killing unless you killed the meat you are eating, or asked that it be killed for you.

However, whenever we eat anything at all we are participating in the death of something else. This is a simple fact of life. When we harvest grain, we destroy the homes and lifes of many creatures. We participate in their death when we eat oats, wheat, not to mention the death of the plants in question, etc. To live is to participate in the death of other beings, both plant and animal.

Many vegetarians argue the deaths caused by agriculature is unavoidable. And I agree with them. But they never accept responsibility for the deaths of creatures caused by agriculture, and do their best to pretend they have no karmic responsibility for them.

When a peice of meat is available in a resturant, its death is unavoidable. Why? Because it is dead. It has been slaughtered already. It has been packaged and sold. But I did not kill that animal. I no more killed that animal that our vegetarian friends killed all the insects and birds that die in the large scale production of rice harvested by machines in Lundberg Farms. For example, feathermeal is one of the main products Lundberg Farms uses in organic rice production. Feathermeal, in case you were wondering, is described as follows:

Feather meal is a byproduct of processing poultry; it is made from poultry feathers by partially hydrolyzing them under elevated heat and pressure, and then grinding and drying. Although total nitrogen levels are fairly high (up to 12%), the bioavailability of this nitrogen may be low. Feather meal is used in formulated animal feed and in organic fertilizer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feather_meal

Now, how can vegetarians, who suppose they eat a diet free from animal products, possibly excuse themselves when they eat rice and other kinds of large scale organic produce? Feathermeal is pervasively used in the cultivation of organic crops. Feathermeal is a by-product of the poultry industry. The feathers of those chickens in those truly hellish chicken factories get ground up and used in "organic" fertilizer. Feathermeal is also fed to steers in industrial beef operations.

Another common organic fertilizer is blood meal. Another one is bone meal. What about manure? All of these are used pervasively in growing organic produce. What about Biodynamic farming? This is another form of organic food production that depends heavily on the use of animal products in production of organic foods.

I can refuse to eat that peice of meat or fish, but that organic bread too comes at the cost of life, as does the rice, and the asparagus. All food comes at the cost of life. The cost of life is death. There is no food that does not come at the cost of life.

One need not be "advanced" to benefit some animal whose meat you are consuming. In fact, to benefit those with whom one does not have direct contact in some way is impossible on a merely mental level unless you are an awakened person. For example, this is the reason ordinary people cannot successfully do Phowa for others. They simply do not have the yogic capacity to eject the consciousness of another being from its body (these days there are many arrogant people who run around and pretend to do phowa for others, deceiving the relatives and accepting money for their deceptions)

When you eat meat with compassion, presence and awareness, and use a mantra like the six spaces of Samantabhadra, you create a positive cause for that animal specifically, and if you are eating a vegetarian meal, a specific positive cause for any animal who was killed during the harvesting of that crop. This works for ordinary people best because one is making a concrete physical connnection with those animals through tsal.

I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction. At least, it is a false distinction from a Dzogchen perspective. From the Dzogchen point of view, everything is made of five elements, all sentient beings, even consciousness, even the buddhas. Plants are every bit alive as animals. As Garab Dorje says "The color of rtsal is green". But because it is convenient and because they are ignorant of the principles of the basis, ideological vegetarians make a false distinction between sentient and non-sentient. There is, according to Dzogchen teachings, no true distinction to be made between the sentient and the non-sentient. Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is. Therefore whenever we eat, and no matter what we eat, we must do so with compasion, pressence and awareness because all food comes at the cost of something's life.

Everytime we consume the flesh of something we are incoporating that being's vital energy into our own, whether it is plant or an animal. When we die, our vital energy, our rtsal, contributes to the growth and health of other creatures. This is the natural cycle of life.

Thus one simply has to be mindful and attentive, present and aware. If one eats without presence and awareness, even eating a tomato becomes a non-virtue. If one eats with presence and awareness, even eating meat becomes a virtue.

...but let's just be very honest about this popular "defense" of eating meat.


I am being very honest about this extremely unpopular advocacy of meat-eating -- because in the end it is not about meat, it is about compassion, presence and awareness. I know that many people with more conventional Mahāyāna views about meat-eating, not to mention fanatical vegans and so on, will find this principle, if not just counter-intuitive, completely unacceptable.

So people like to mention Chatral Rinpoche, and so on. But they are not speaking from the point of view of Dzogchen. They are speaking from the point of view of common Mahāyāna. As I have said many times, this is fine. But it is not the point of view of Dzogchen teachings.

N
Last edited by Malcolm on Sun May 13, 2012 4:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby David N. Snyder » Sun May 13, 2012 4:22 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:I really don't know if there is a different teaching aimed at lay people, but the specific teaching was directed at Devadatta who was, at the time, a member of the monastic community.
:namaste:
PS I am not assuming that for householders the Buddha prescribed vegetarianism.
PPS I was a vegetarian well before I became a Buddhist, I did not need a Buddhist justification then, nor do I need one now.


It is debatable if there are teachings or not that prescribe vegetarianism for lay people. Consider the following points:

Devadatta was a member of the monastic Sangha, not a lay person. The Buddha rejected Devadatta's list, but this does not mean he disagreed with everything in the entire list.

The threefold rule is a rule for monastics who went door-to-door for food and had to graciously accept what was offered.

The practice of going door-to-door for food was a common practice in India before Buddhism. Not everyone at the time of Buddha was Buddhist yet, so not everyone at the time could be expected to be vegetarian.

There are teachings that directly speak against meat eating, for example the Lankavatara Sutra and others.

In the Theravada Canon, which is generally considered to more conservative and more in favor of omnivore diets, there are references which suggest that meat eating is not acceptable for lay people. For example:

Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof. Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention.” Anguttara Nikaya, 3.16

". . . he abstains from killing living beings, exhorts others to abstain from killing living beings, and speaks in praise of the abstention from killing living beings." Samyutta Nikaya 55.7

"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.” Dhammika Sutta, Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya

"Monks, possessing forty qualities one is cast into purgatory . . . he takes life himself, encourages another to do so, approves of taking life, and speaks in praise of thereof . . ." Anguttara Nikaya 10. 213

The above quotes show that is not just okay to not do the killing yourself, it is also unacceptable to encourage another, approve of another's killing, or speak in praise of it.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby kirtu » Sun May 13, 2012 4:38 pm

Namdrol wrote:I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction....Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is.


Approaching the Tendai, Shingon and Zen position via Dzogchen ...

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

“All beings are Buddhas, but obscured by incidental stains. When those have been removed, there is Buddhahood.”
Hevajra Tantra
kirtu
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4101
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby mindyourmind » Sun May 13, 2012 4:41 pm

kirtu wrote:
Namdrol wrote:I no longer believe that plants are insentient because I beleive the distinction between sentient and insentient is a false distinction....Therefore we must respect all life, not just the life that is convientient for us to respect. Even though we must respect all life, life must be taken for other life to flourish. This is simply how samsara is.


Approaching the Tendai, Shingon and Zen position via Dzogchen ...

Kirt


This is merely another convenient obfuscation, with all respect.

There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.
Or, to cut through the crap - if I have the choice there is a difference between killing a cow and killing a cabbage.
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Malcolm » Sun May 13, 2012 4:49 pm

mindyourmind wrote:There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.


Really, what is the difference? Visible sense organs? A so called "nervous system"?

It simply won't do to call something an "obsfucation" merely because you disagree with someone's opinion.

You are a lawyer, be precise.

N
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: 10187
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby mindyourmind » Sun May 13, 2012 5:06 pm

Namdrol wrote:
mindyourmind wrote:There is a qualitative difference then, even on this argument, between plant sentience and animal sentience.


Really, what is the difference? Visible sense organs? A so called "nervous system"?

It simply won't do to call something an "obsfucation" merely because you disagree with someone's opinion.

You are a lawyer, be precise.

N


I meant it is an obfuscation in a general sense, it is an excuse used often, not just by you.

And yes, I believe that there is a great, real and rather obvious difference. For starters we can start with the amount of suffering involved. If someone is going to, with a straight face, try to convince me that the "suffering" undergone by a truckful of cabbage is anything approximating that undergone by say a truckload of pigs, well then I have very little else to say, and it would be best for at least the rules of this forum if we leave the debate just there.

I am aware of some of the tests and treatises that have seen the light recently, mostly as far as I can tell designed by theists to show that the problem of suffering can be discounted. There are none that convinced me that the patently obvious should be discarded. Raising, killing and eating an animal is just simply involving more suffering than even the worst case scenario of the amount of bugs we kill in producing a non-meat meal. Remember also that some of those same bugs are also killed in the process of slaughtering an animal.

Part of that precise answer would, in addition to suffering, most definitely deal with the presence or absence of a central nervous system, although if you will that could be a duplication of the suffering argument.

This whole argument equating animal sentience with plant "sentience" is simply a last-ditch, desperate and rather unbecoming argument, designed to defend our choices as meat-eaters.

I accept without any reservation that a vegetarian meal involves death and suffering, but not more so, or even equal, than the death and suffering involved in eating meat.

Again, I respect everyone's choice in what they eat and do not eat, and what you eat or not will not liberate you, but let's not make stuff up to make us feel better.
As bad as bad becomes its not a part of you

Talk Talk
User avatar
mindyourmind
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:11 am
Location: South Africa

Re: the great vegetarian debate

Postby Stewart » Sun May 13, 2012 5:09 pm

I doubt very much Chatral and Norbu Rinpoche are arguing about what's on the menu.
Attachments
ChatralandNorbu.jpg
ChatralandNorbu.jpg (28.86 KiB) Viewed 427 times
Last edited by Stewart on Sun May 13, 2012 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
s.
Stewart
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, smcj and 13 guests

>