Emptiness and the two truths

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Wayfarer » Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:52 pm

Rachmiel wrote:So is the prevalent conclusion among Buddhists that (Buddha thought that) there IS in fact an eternal ground, but that it's too dangerous for the mind to believe that, so the entire issue is deemed moot? Or that there is no eternal ground? Or that no one can ever know with certainty if there is or isn't?

It sounds a bit like this to me:

There's this guy who's been to the other side of the hill outside his village. He meets with a bunch of villagers who have not been to the other side of the hill. The village, btw, is in dire need of fresh water. They ask him: "Is there a fresh-water lake on the other side of the hill?" Rather than saying yes or no to them, he spends all his time trying to get them to understand why they are asking the question in the first place.


I think there is some merit in that analogy. However, in the case of 'fresh water', the question of motivation is not really important. The villiage is in dire need of fresh water, as you said, so it's just a matter of saying 'that way'.

The question with regards the higher truth is not directly analogous, because the kind of need it is, and the way to finding out about it, is very different from just walking over a hill. It requires right view. I suppose you could say 'right view' is analogous to 'the water is in that direction', because if you start off with wrong view, then you might travel the right distance, but in the wrong direction, and so not get anywhere, and die of thirst meanwhile.

So in order to establish right view, it might indeed be appropriate to ask someone 'why are you interested in this? What motivates you? What are you really seeking to understand?'

As regards the question of 'certainty' - I don't think you can know in advance. I don't think it's a matter of it being 'too dangerous' but a matter of forming unjstified opinions which then become dogmas. If you study (for instance) Nagarjuna's Philosophy by K Venkata Ramanan (Motilal Banirsadis) you will find throughout it there is constant emphasis on 'not adopting dogmatic views'. These are generally paraphrased under the heading 'it exists' (eternalist view) and 'it does not exist' (nihilist view). That is why there is the link between Madhyamika and scepticism. Madhyamika is actually a properly sceptical philosophy, in that it insists on 'suspension of judgement' regarding those things that you really don't know. Otherwise it is very easy to think you know something you really don't, which is the origin of most dogmas.

Now dogma has its place as a kind of guideline and a summary way of expressing agreed points. So it's not as if dogma is always bad. To say it is, is another dogma. But not clinging to ideas and dogmas is very much a part of this approach.

It all goes back to the Ananda Sutta, in which the Buddha is asked 'does the self exist' and refuses to answer either 'yes' or 'no'. 'Self exists' is the eternalist view, that there is an unchangeable self being reborn in perpetuity. 'Self does not exist' is the nihilist view, that at death and the break up of the body there is no further fruition of karma and so on. So the middle path is to avoid both those. That necessitates living with a sense of uncertainty. That is the real meaning of 'scepticism' in the original sense. Buddhist teachings is always focussed on understanding the very process by which mind creates its world, and you have to have insight into how it is doing that, not simply have beliefs about it.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby disjointed » Sat Oct 12, 2013 11:36 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
rachmiel wrote:Does this stand up in court?

-------------------------

One of the main assertions of Buddhism is impermanence: everything is constantly changing.

To try to observe the impermanence of the seemingly concrete, enduring objects in the world (of relative truth) is futile. Our sensorium is not sensitive enough to detect the micro-changes going on in a rock moment to moment.

But there is something whose constant change we *can* observe: the goings on in our mind. So, to observe impermanence in action, look no further than at your own mind.

Impermanence is not a good thing.
SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885 Ven Bodhi translation
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."


Suffering=Dukkha=non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness]

Context specific translation would be useful here. Sorry for just tapping on this thread with an annotation. There's a book I think by Newland on the "two truths" as they exist in context of various schools.
If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,
you are a sock puppet.
Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.
disjointed
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:59 am

disjointed wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
rachmiel wrote:Does this stand up in court?

-------------------------

One of the main assertions of Buddhism is impermanence: everything is constantly changing.

To try to observe the impermanence of the seemingly concrete, enduring objects in the world (of relative truth) is futile. Our sensorium is not sensitive enough to detect the micro-changes going on in a rock moment to moment.

But there is something whose constant change we *can* observe: the goings on in our mind. So, to observe impermanence in action, look no further than at your own mind.

Impermanence is not a good thing.
SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885 Ven Bodhi translation
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."


Suffering=Dukkha=non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness]

Context specific translation would be useful here. Sorry for just tapping on this thread with an annotation. There's a book I think by Newland on the "two truths" as they exist in context of various schools.


I gave the context,that is the entire sutta.
SN stands for Samyutta Nikaya
22.46 is the sutta numbering in the Nikaya/book
Impermanent (2) is the actual name of the sutta
Pg 885 is the page number it is found in the Samutta Nikaya book form from wisdom publishings,which is translated by Ven. Bodhi

The context is impermenance is Dukkha/suffering which is a bad thing.
Enlightenment is the end of Dukkha/suffering......which means Enlightenment is the end of impermenance also since impermenance is Dukkha/suffering.

That is from a sutta in the pali canon,I can post you a quote from the Mahayana canon that says the same thing....(i.e impermenace is suffering)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby disjointed » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:22 am

Context specific translation of the word dukkha is what I meant.

Suffering is not always an appropriate translation to convey the meaning in the context used.

"What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself."
These lines make no sense using the standard translation of "suffering".

So I wrote out a sequence of alternatives that can be used depending on the context.
Suffering=Dukkha=non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness]

So here. "what is impermanent is non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness]."
"what is non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness] is not self" is how I would adjust the translation of dukkha to capture the import of the line as explained to me.
If there is a radical inconsistency between your statements and the position you claim to hold,
you are a sock puppet.
Make as many accounts as you want; people can identify your deception with this test.
disjointed
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Sherab » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:23 am

rachmiel wrote:So is the prevalent conclusion among Buddhists that (Buddha thought that) there IS in fact an eternal ground, but that it's too dangerous for the mind to believe that, so the entire issue is deemed moot? Or that there is no eternal ground? Or that no one can ever know with certainty if there is or isn't?

As I see it, there were, are and will be endless debates/arguments about emptiness, two truths etc., so long as we are stuck in the ancient way of thinking when the tools that are used in such thinking involve mutually exclusive ideas such as existent and non-existent, permanent and impermanent, eternal and non-eternal. In using this ancient way of thinking, you will be forced into one of the two mutually exclusive positions which the Buddha and the suttas/sutras have warned that we should avoid.

Because of mutual exclusivity, any thinking based on it is doomed to fail. For example, take the mutually exclusive pair of existent and non-existent. If you say that things are existent, then by definition, they are permanent. And by definition of what is permanent, then there cannot be any change of anything and we end up with a completely static world. If you say things are non-existent, then by definition, there cannot be anything, not even illusions because whatever things that give rise to illusions must be non-existent, and if they are non-existent, how can they give rise to anything? So you end up with complete nothingness.

Given the above, there are those that resort solely to dependent arising, arguing that everything is dependent on something else and this goes on ad infinitum. For those who believe that everything has a cause, then they have to posit an endless chain of causation. For those who are familiar with logic, such arguments can never be a complete argument and therefore not intellectually satisfying.

If I have to choose a model for reality, I prefer to borrow ideas from science, one of which is the idea of conservation, for example, the conservation of energy. Energy can take a variety of forms but the total amount of energy is always conserved. Using this idea, we can think of the ultimate as that which is conserved and the relative as the various forms of the ultimate.

Another ideas from science would be the idea of fields, such as electric field, magnetic field and gravity field. A field is merely the state of a space. Various modes of oscillation of a field would produce various observable characteristics such as the spin of an election. In this analogy, the ultimate is merely a field and the relative will be the various phenomena resulting from karmic movements/perturbations in that field. (Note: these are merely analogies.)
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:47 am

disjointed wrote:Context specific translation of the word dukkha is what I meant.

Suffering is not always an appropriate translation to convey the meaning in the context used.

"What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself."
These lines make no sense using the standard translation of "suffering".

So I wrote out a sequence of alternatives that can be used depending on the context.
Suffering=Dukkha=non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness]

So here. "what is impermanent is non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness]."
"what is non-satisfactory[because it is an unreliable basis for consistent happiness] is not self" is how I would adjust the translation of dukkha to capture the import of the line as explained to me.


Okay I see what you mean now.
Yea your eleboration on the translation looks spot on.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Wayfarer » Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:06 am

I think the better models are from within Buddhism itself. One in particular that has captured my attention is Karl Brunholzl's translation and commentary on In Praise of Dharmadhatu. The preview on the Amazon edition is very generous.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby takso » Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:49 am

rachmiel wrote:Could someone please explain to me, in clear simple words, the Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka meaning of emptiness and the two truths?


Emptiness is a universal quality and it is a necessary pre-requisite for any objects to exist; without it, the object would be impossible. Upon in-depth analysis, we could discover that emptiness corresponds to two distinct scenarios:

1. It corresponds to the inherent existence (due to unchanging nature) that all conventional phenomena lack.

It means that if we focus purely on seeing emptiness, it cannot be segmented or dissected further to see the real origin. Emptiness exists in the way it appears in direct perception and does not constitute some false appearances concealing a lack of inherent existence. Therefore, it has an unchanging nature that all conventional phenomena lack. This conclusion is made from the ultimate perspective - seeing into the within of the within.

2. It corresponds to the dependent arising (a conditional phenomenon) i.e. subject to the same lack of inherent existence as every other object or phenomenon. This is referred to as the emptiness of emptiness.

It means that emptiness would not exist without a dependent partner. If there were no objects to analyse, then emptiness as such could not be realised. Without objects, there can be no emptiness - a circumstance that points to emptiness of emptiness. This conclusion is made from the conventional perspective - seeing as a subject on the other side of the object or matter.

In addition, the emptiness of phenomena is both the cause and consequence of the dependent nature of phenomena. Emptiness of phenomena exists in the way it appears in direct perception and without the need to reference of any other entity. It is completely defined by its own nature. In other words, emptiness of phenomena is an inherent existence that is uncaused. It is indestructible and eternal. It is unchanging when viewed externally and cannot undergo any internal changes of state. It has no constituent parts and nothing can be thrown out or removed from it. Nothing can be added to it and no change in the external conditions can affect it.

As a summary, we could see that emptiness exists in all conditional phenomena. Without emptiness, the potential movement of the mind from non-enlightenment towards a state of enlightenment would not be possible – that is to say if the mind itself existed inherently. The emptiness of inherent existence of the mind is called the Buddha nature.
~ Ignorance triumphs when wise men do nothing ~
User avatar
takso
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:08 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby conebeckham » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:36 pm

Stated as simply as I can, Nagarjuna's position is that the "seeming" is the relative truth. It is the experience of the ignorant--all who are not Buddhas, or at least on the Bhumis. Cause and effect, Karma, appearances of phenomena, and mistaken notions about them, are all relative. So, yes, in a sense, your statement about the "every-day world" is "relative truth" is correct.

Absolute truth, on the other hand, is the True Nature. Most traditions hold that it is beyond conceptual mind, but most agree that conceptual mind can, through analysis, arrive at a conceptual similitude of the True Nature. Emptiness is often coined as a synonym for the True Nature, and it's a useful, though dangerous, word. Emptiness does mean the lack of existence of conditioned phenomena. It also refers to dependent origination. That which is caused, and that which is a cause, as well as the continuum of change of any given phenomenon, have no existence. But Emptiness is not a complete and utter Nonexistence-it shouldn't be understood as the assertion of Reality As Complete Void.

The key thing to remember, in my opinion, is that the two truths are interpdendent. The "Seeming" of the relative can only appear due to the truth of Emptiness, or the True Nature. And there is no such thing as the True Nature, except as it can be understood in relation to the "Seemng" from a conceptual, conventional point of view. As to whether there is an "extra-conceptual point of view," recognizing an Existing Absolute beyond Conceptual thought, interpretations differ, but in my opinion talking about such things is conceptual fodder, from Nagarjuna's point of view. As long as we're talking, we're in the realm of ignorance, conceptual proliferation, and the Seeming.

Nagarjuna says that it is foolish to ignore the relative truth, on the level of no analysis-in other words, he accepts convention. Appearances appear, along with all of the related phenomena such as cause and effect, Karma, and conceptual impositions. But on the level of analysis, all such conventions are found to have no existence whatsoever. The unity of these two understandings is the true understanding of the Two Truths.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby KonchokZoepa » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:45 pm

to study shunyata it is good to study both shentong and rangtong approaches to it.
If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby rachmiel » Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:48 pm

I would have thought that two cornerstones of Buddhism would have universally (by Buddhists) agreed-upon meanings.

But wow ... the more I read about the two truths and emptiness, the more I find that their meanings are anything but universally agreed upon!

Some interpretations are practically contradictory. Which makes it very difficult (more like: impossible) to come to a reliable objective understanding of what the terms mean.

Meaning is in the mind of the beholder?
neti neti
User avatar
rachmiel
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby conebeckham » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:05 pm

Every (Mahayana) Buddhist agrees that absolute truth is "Emptiness," I think.

Every (Mahayana) Buddhist agrees that our "conventional world" is relative truth, I think.

Now, in what way Emptiness does or does not exist, and in what way the "conventional world" does or does not exist, that's where you will find.....variety. :smile:
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby rachmiel » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:06 pm

So as to minimize my confusion, I think I'll stick with Nagarjuna's take on the two truths and emptiness. Dude seems to have known what he was talking about. ;-)

Note: I wrote this before I saw conebeckham's previous posting.
neti neti
User avatar
rachmiel
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby KonchokZoepa » Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:07 pm

i think the points of view maybe different but the essence stays the same and ultimately is not contradictory.

basically the difference between svatantrika and prasangika is not in the view at all but only in how they present it. two approaches with the same result.

svatantrika is for the gradual learner and prasangika is for the one who can perceive directly.
If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby rachmiel » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:47 pm

Thanks, everyone, for participating in this thread. I learned a lot. (I think.) :-)
neti neti
User avatar
rachmiel
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby KonchokZoepa » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:34 pm

i would like to continue this thread by asking that how does Buddha-nature teach the correct view of emptiness? and what separates it from the extreme of eternalism?
If the thought of demons
Never rises in your mind,
You need not fear the demon hosts around you.
It is most important to tame your mind within....

In so far as the Ultimate, or the true nature of being is concerned,
there are neither buddhas or demons.
He who frees himself from fear and hope, evil and virtue,
will realize the insubstantial and groundless nature of confusion.
Samsara will then appear as the mahamudra itself….

-Milarepa

OMMANIPADMEHUNG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls6P9tOYmdo
KonchokZoepa
 
Posts: 1358
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:50 pm

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby conebeckham » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:39 pm

Buddha Nature doesn't "teach" emptiness.

To clarify, I believe your question might be: How do you reconcile Buddha Nature and Emptiness? Or perhaps, how do those schools or teachers who emphasize Buddha Nature discuss emptiness? Or something else?

If I'm understanding the gist of your question, you wish to know how Buddha Nature escapes the "charge" of being "eternalist?" The answer depends....

This is one of the Big Topics (tm) of debate and discussion. Is Buddha Nature a conceptual nominative for potentiality? Or is it some unconditioned ground of Awareness? Or......

This discussion is one of the perennial ones. I'd recommend a search first.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2789
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby hop.pala » Tue Oct 15, 2013 7:57 pm

KonchokZoepa wrote:i would like to continue this thread by asking that how does Buddha-nature teach the correct view of emptiness? and what separates it from the extreme of eternalism?


"In this passage, the Buddha clearly identified the 'tathagatagarbha' with emptiness, markless, 'tathata', etc., meaning that the 'tathagatagarbha' is without any substantial entity. Then the question arises: -- if the 'tathagatagarbha' is empty by nature , why the Buddhas teach a 'tathagatagarbha' possessing all positive attributes, such as eternal (nitya), self ('atman'), bliss (sukha) and pure (subha)? The Buddha goes on to answer this question:

- The reason why the 'Tathagatas' who are Arhats and fully enlightened Ones teach the doctrine pointing to the tathagatagarbha which is a state of non-discrimination and imageless, is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to teaching of egolessness. It is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of one sort by his own manual skill and labour ... that the 'Tathagatas' preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces of discrimination by various skillful means issuing from their trancend-ental wisdom, that is, sometimes by the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' , sometimes by that of egolessness ... Thus, 'Mahamati', the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' is disclosed in order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego. Accordingly, 'Mahamati', the 'Tathagatas' disclose the doctrine of the 'tathagatagarbha' which is thus not to be known as identical with the philosopher's notion of an egosubstance. Therefore , 'Mahamati', in order to abandon the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must depend on the 'anatman-tathagatagarbha'.(13)

It is pointed out in this passage that the 'tathagatagarbha' is empty in its nature yet real: it is 'Nirvana' itself, unborn, without predicates."

Its only the positive expression of sunyata.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha191.htm
hop.pala
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby hop.pala » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:53 pm

rachmiel wrote:One more:

Per Nagarjuna/Madhyamaka is there anything that DOES have intrinsic existence?

For example, emptiness. Or Buddha nature?



"4. The Emptiness of Emptiness "
Now, this doctrine of the emptiness of emptiness emerges directly from 24:18.

" Whatever is dependently co-arisen
That is explained to be emptiness.
That, being a dependent designation
Is itself the middle way."
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... rising.htm
hop.pala
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Emptiness and the two truths

Postby Son of Buddha » Wed Oct 16, 2013 12:24 am

KonchokZoepa wrote:i would like to continue this thread by asking that how does Buddha-nature teach the correct view of emptiness? and what separates it from the extreme of eternalism?


The correct view on Emptiness in relation to the Buddha Nature is Shentong (literally)

This topic is actually covered in the Queen Srimala Sutra
Chapter IX The Underlying Truth: The Meaning of Emptiness “O Lord, the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha is the Tathāgata’s wisdom of emptiness (śūnyatā). O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha has not been seen nor attained originally by all the arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and powerful bodhisattvas. “O Lord, there are two kinds of wisdom of emptiness with reference to the tathāgatagarbha. The tathāgatagarbha that is empty is separate from, free from, and different from the stores of all defile ments. And the tathāgatagarbha that is not empty is not separate from, not free from, and not different from the inconceivable Buddha-Dharmas more numerous than the sands of the Ganges River. “O Lord, the various great disciples can believe in the Tathā gata with reference to the two wisdoms of emptiness. All arhats and pratyekabuddhas revolve in the realm of the four contrary views because of their knowledge of emptiness. Thus, arhats and pratyekabuddhas do not originally see nor attain [the wisdom of the tathāgatagarbha].
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ayu and 13 guests

>