Ancient Buddhas

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

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:09 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
The fact that it's an igneous rock occurred to me as well.
But, if they assume it's a footprint
then they are just taking it for granite that it's true.
:rolling:
.
.
.


Oh, gneissly done!
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Jikan » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:34 pm

catmoon wrote:
Oh, gneissly done!


I'm often impressed by the schist that accumulates here at DW.
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:36 pm

tatpurusa wrote:A lot of people get attracted to Buddhism, because it is more logical and more compatible with Western scientific views than other religions.
Nevertheless, Buddhism is also full of teachings and stories that, if taken literally, contradict those views.

Quite often scientifically educated Westerners try to "purify" Buddhism from thoughts contradicting to those "scientific" (and therefore only possibly true) views.
Very much like modern Christian theologists do with their own religion, they try to interpret those incompatible parts of Buddhism as mere metaphors, pointing to the cessation of suffering.
Though it is true that everything in Buddhism has something to do with liberation from suffering, as much as that there can be found many metaphors within Buddhist literature, especially in Tantric scriptures; nevertheless there is no real justification to consider things like descriptions of siddhis etc. as mere metaphors. They are meant and interpreted literally within the living tradition, as probably have ever been during the history of Buddhism.

I personally have difficulty to understand how "scientific purist" Buddhists can identify themselves with Mahayana/Vajrayana/Tantric Buddhism, where the "magical" and transcendental parts play a relatively important role.
Theravada, Tripitaka are much closer to their ideals IMO, although not even these are completely free of those magical elements.


You may wonder why the "scientific purists" as you rather insultingly call us, hang out in Mahayana. But one might just as well ask, if you're into magic why not go be a Wiccan?

What holds me here are three things, really. There are the doctrine of emptiness and compassion, which as near as I can make out, work pretty well. There are the stellar practical examples of kindly living exhibited by some monks and nuns. And there are the meditation teachings, which also work and lead to some pretty interesting possibilities. None of these rely on flying guru stories being true.

Consider for a moment the Biblical story of Balaam's ass. Here we have a guy having a conversation with a supernaturally prescient donkey. I sure you have no trouble disregarding it as a sort of fairy tale, one with a lesson to be sure, but more akin to Aesop's fables than to serious history. Yet there are those Biblical literalists who take the story as fact.

Well Buddhism is a religion too, it is subject to all the corruptions of truth any other religion is subject to. Why would anyone select out one religion and say it's myths, tales, and exaggerations represent the truth?
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:22 pm

Aemilius wrote: There are many more than just one person in Youtube telling us about the giant skeletons. There are about a dozen of them, and they have been there for years. There are more than one giant skeleton found in the earth. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that these pictures of giant skeletons are there for existing things.


So, I think what you are saying (correct me if i am wrong) is that
it is reasonable to think something is true
because a lot of people believe it is true
rather than there being any evidence to suggest that it is true.

Is this what you are saying?
.
.
.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby tatpurusa » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:09 am

catmoon wrote:You may wonder why the "scientific purists" as you rather insultingly call us, hang out in Mahayana. But one might just as well ask, if you're into magic why not go be a Wiccan?............
............Well Buddhism is a religion too, it is subject to all the corruptions of truth any other religion is subject to. Why would anyone select out one religion and say it's myths, tales, and exaggerations represent the truth?


Please do not misunderstand me, I do not wish you away from here. On the contrary, you and your views are very welcome for me, even if I do not completely agree with all of them.
My point is rather: Buddhism is neither science (as in the modern Western sense) nor a belief system (at least not in the sense as for ex. religions of Judaic origin like Christianity etc. are) ; nor is it merely a mixture of science and belief / religion, as much as it is neither something completely outside of / different from both.
It cannot be reduced to any of these components without being stripped of its unique "raison d'être"

viewtopic.php?f=66&t=14680&start=20#p196858
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=14464&start=60#p197185

tp
Last edited by tatpurusa on Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:15 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote: There are many more than just one person in Youtube telling us about the giant skeletons. There are about a dozen of them, and they have been there for years. There are more than one giant skeleton found in the earth. I think it is quite reasonable to believe that these pictures of giant skeletons are there for existing things.


So, I think what you are saying (correct me if i am wrong) is that
it is reasonable to think something is true
because a lot of people believe it is true
rather than there being any evidence to suggest that it is true.

Is this what you are saying?


Please be serious, I never said that.
There is our own experience of the world, and there are other peoples' experiences. What we see and experience is to a very large extent influenced by what we believe to exist, by our previous experiences in life, by our attachment to views, etc.. If you have no attachment to views, you have no need to condemn other peoples' experiences of the essentially open universe so brutally or not at all.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:53 pm

Aemilius wrote: Please be serious, I never said that.
There is our own experience of the world, and there are other peoples' experiences. What we see and experience is to a very large extent influenced by what we believe to exist, by our previous experiences in life, by our attachment to views, etc.. If you have no attachment to views, you have no need to condemn other peoples' experiences of the essentially open universe so brutally or not at all.


Oh. I thought what you were saying is that we should consider that if a lot of people think something is true,
that maybe it is true
even if they don't offer any credible evidence for their beliefs.
Since I have never experienced a being who has lived for 20,000 years
it is rather hard for me to get attached to the idea that such is literally true.
I am attached to being open-minded, however,
and attached to the need for strong evidence to back up fantastic claims.

But getting back to the main topic,
a person certainly can believe, literally, that Buddhas live for 20,000 years
even if there is no evidence.
People seem capable of believing just about anything.

My understanding is that Buddhahood transcends all definitions of time and space as we would generally regard them,
for many reasons
and thus, something as specific is "20,000 years" simply doesn't make sense if applied literally
but makes perfect sense when understood metaphorically.
.
.
.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:30 am

tatpurusa wrote:Please do not misunderstand me, I do not wish you away from here. On the contrary, you and your views are very welcome for me, even if I do not completely agree with all of them.
My point is rather: Buddhism is neither science (as in the modern Western sense) nor a belief system (at least not in the sense as for ex. religions of Judaic origin like Christianity etc. are) ; nor is it merely a mixture of science and belief / religion, as much as it is neither something completely outside of / different from both.
It cannot be reduced to any of these components without being stripped of its unique "raison d'être"

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p196858
http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 60#p197185

tp


Whoa. Now you've made me think so hard I've even questioned some of my beliefs. You know that sinking feeling that maybe you're really going to have to change the way you think?

What got me was the role of rationalism in Buddhism. One could say if you reduce Buddhism to the purely rational, well, then you just have science and clearly something has been lost. And therefore the irrational must have a place in Buddhism. Gulp.

Now that's an argument I made up, not yours exactly, so yes it's kind of a straw man, but its a very sturdy one requiring some effort to destroy. :rolling:

But science restricts it's range to the physical world and Buddhism does not. And, it is possible to be rational about topics outside of science, although some considerable amount of logical rigor is lost. So a rationalistic Buddhism does not necessarily devolve to mundane science, it can include much more than that. And that's what Buddhism is really.

You can't separate rationality from Buddhism, and that has never been done, even in the most exotic forms. If you have an elephant-headed deity, he does not become a newspaper tomorrow and a kumquat the day after. Why? Because if he did, the rational mind would rebel and call it nonsense. So always, everywhere in Buddhism, the ideas are forced to pass at least elementary tests of rationalism. Without it, Buddhism would be a chaos of conflicting ever changing ideas. (pacem hircum)
The trouble is, rationalism has rather broadened the base of facts on which it can draw in the past few centuries, so today us common folk can easily draw cross-religion comparisons and analogies. And this leads to a certain skepticism regarding old tales, myths, or just dogma. (By dogma I mean positions insisted upon, but for which no justification is offered or deemed necessary). Rationalism is starting a tidal wave of rethinking, re-evaluating and sometimes destruction of old ideas. But I don't think we are actually losing anything of value, so long as we confine ourselves to discarding the ideas that are demonstrably false. We'll just waste a lot less time arguing about where Mt Sumeru is.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby tatpurusa » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:33 am

catmoon wrote:Whoa. Now you've made me think so hard I've even questioned some of my beliefs. You know that sinking feeling that maybe you're really going to have to change the way you think?

What got me was the role of rationalism in Buddhism. One could say if you reduce Buddhism to the purely rational, well, then you just have science and clearly something has been lost. And therefore the irrational must have a place in Buddhism. Gulp.

Now that's an argument I made up, not yours exactly, so yes it's kind of a straw man, but its a very sturdy one requiring some effort to destroy. :rolling:

But science restricts it's range to the physical world and Buddhism does not. And, it is possible to be rational about topics outside of science, although some considerable amount of logical rigor is lost. So a rationalistic Buddhism does not necessarily devolve to mundane science, it can include much more than that. And that's what Buddhism is really.

You can't separate rationality from Buddhism, and that has never been done, even in the most exotic forms. If you have an elephant-headed deity, he does not become a newspaper tomorrow and a kumquat the day after. Why? Because if he did, the rational mind would rebel and call it nonsense. So always, everywhere in Buddhism, the ideas are forced to pass at least elementary tests of rationalism. Without it, Buddhism would be a chaos of conflicting ever changing ideas. (pacem hircum)
The trouble is, rationalism has rather broadened the base of facts on which it can draw in the past few centuries, so today us common folk can easily draw cross-religion comparisons and analogies. And this leads to a certain skepticism regarding old tales, myths, or just dogma. (By dogma I mean positions insisted upon, but for which no justification is offered or deemed necessary). Rationalism is starting a tidal wave of rethinking, re-evaluating and sometimes destruction of old ideas. But I don't think we are actually losing anything of value, so long as we confine ourselves to discarding the ideas that are demonstrably false. We'll just waste a lot less time arguing about where Mt Sumeru is.


I agree that rational thinking is the best possible vehicle ever invented to navigate within samsara.
Buddhism is more than that. ;)
tatpurusa
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:13 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote: Please be serious, I never said that.
There is our own experience of the world, and there are other peoples' experiences. What we see and experience is to a very large extent influenced by what we believe to exist, by our previous experiences in life, by our attachment to views, etc.. If you have no attachment to views, you have no need to condemn other peoples' experiences of the essentially open universe so brutally or not at all.


Oh. I thought what you were saying is that we should consider that if a lot of people think something is true,
that maybe it is true
even if they don't offer any credible evidence for their beliefs.
Since I have never experienced a being who has lived for 20,000 years
it is rather hard for me to get attached to the idea that such is literally true.
I am attached to being open-minded, however,
and attached to the need for strong evidence to back up fantastic claims.

But getting back to the main topic,
a person certainly can believe, literally, that Buddhas live for 20,000 years
even if there is no evidence.
People seem capable of believing just about anything.

My understanding is that Buddhahood transcends all definitions of time and space as we would generally regard them,
for many reasons
and thus, something as specific is "20,000 years" simply doesn't make sense if applied literally
but makes perfect sense when understood metaphorically.



I agree that this is not so important, not for me and for most of the modern people, who do not wish to "live forever" or for 20 000 years. Theoretically I want to leave room for its existence however. The consensus consciousness can't experience everything that certain individuals can, under specific circumstances. There are always phenomena that are outside of the normal consensus experience of the world, that are not unreal because they are rare or impossible for the generally accepted view.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Wed Nov 20, 2013 1:53 pm

Aemilius wrote: Theoretically I want to leave room for its existence however.


Of course. All sorts of things are possible, theoretically.
The thing is,
Just because you can't disprove something
doesn't mean that likely to be true.

That is the trap a lot of people fall into.
They say,
"you can't prove that this isn't a (footprint, bone, 20,000 year lifespan, whatever, etc.)
---therefore the suggestion that it is (whatever) true, is a valid assumption
merely because it has been suggested".

That's the whole foundation of god-based religions.
Somebody, one day, said there are gods, or a god,
and because nobody could disprove it,
people assumed it was a valid suggestion.
But by that measure,
any suggestion is a valid suggestion
which thus renders all suggestions which lack credible evidence
essentially meaningless.
.
.
.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:39 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote: Theoretically I want to leave room for its existence however.


Of course. All sorts of things are possible, theoretically.
The thing is,
Just because you can't disprove something
doesn't mean that likely to be true.

That is the trap a lot of people fall into.
They say,
"you can't prove that this isn't a (footprint, bone, 20,000 year lifespan, whatever, etc.)
---therefore the suggestion that it is (whatever) true, is a valid assumption
merely because it has been suggested".

That's the whole foundation of god-based religions.
Somebody, one day, said there are gods, or a god,
and because nobody could disprove it,
people assumed it was a valid suggestion.
But by that measure,
any suggestion is a valid suggestion
which thus renders all suggestions which lack credible evidence
essentially meaningless.




When there are people who have found and dug up these giant skeletons, there is much more in play. And thus we see the whole panorama of how people react to it.
The same with immortal people, there are stories of how some people in India, China or elsewhere have met them. It is up to you how you react to it. (This means for example the taoist immortals.)
I believe that these encounters are real and existing. But sociologically they cause different reactions in different individual humans, and I don't expect that they will become an accepted truth. Truth is a human sociological phenomenon.
The so called "evidence" is always sense perception or it is dependent on sense perception.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:09 pm

Aemilius wrote: When there are people who have found and dug up these giant skeletons, there is much more in play. And thus we see the whole panorama of how people react to it.
The same with immortal people, there are stories of how some people in India, China or elsewhere have met them. It is up to you how you react to it. (This means for example the taoist immortals.)
I believe that these encounters are real and existing. But sociologically they cause different reactions in different individual humans, and I don't expect that they will become an accepted truth. Truth is a human sociological phenomenon.
The so called "evidence" is always sense perception or it is dependent on sense perception.

What evidence?
Stories?
Still waiting.
.
.
.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:44 pm

There is a saying,
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Consider this video demonstrating the levitation of a holy man in India:
http://youtu.be/etSivpBHUmE
.
.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:45 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:There is a saying,
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Consider this video demonstrating the levitation of a holy man in India:
http://youtu.be/etSivpBHUmE
.
.


I have seen this hidden chair pseudolevitation video. But it doesn't explain the levitation of say Criss Angel and David Blaine (and some others). Have you seen any of them? We can take the videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine as valid evidence for real levitation, why not? I think the levitation videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine are extraordinary, but so is humanity. The videos of giant skeletons are also extraordinary, what else could the persons do who have found them?? Humanity is sometimes really low level, and capable of destroying evidence it doesn't like.

You can't make extraordinary demands on the nature of reality. Several phenomena in our world are by their nature such that they will not take place in every possible place under all manner of conditions. This is the nature of reality.
You are making impossible demands on real phenomena, like levitation and immortal persons in hinduism, taoism and buddhism (there are the 16 or 18 Arhats, who belong to this category of immortal persons). By Your attitude You will not find out the truth, which You probably think You are doing? You have to accept the way many phenomena exist in our universe.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:36 pm

Aemilius wrote: We can take the videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine as valid evidence for real levitation, why not?


Well, if you are going to cite stage and street magicians as valid evidence,
of anything other that showmanship, and stamina,
then there is no point in my continuing this discussion.
Sweet dreams!
.
.
.
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: Ancient Buddhas

Postby dharmagoat » Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:49 pm

Aemilius wrote:I have seen this hidden chair pseudolevitation video. But it doesn't explain the levitation of say Criss Angel and David Blaine (and some others). Have you seen any of them? We can take the videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine as valid evidence for real levitation, why not? I think the levitation videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine are extraordinary, but so is humanity. The videos of giant skeletons are also extraordinary, what else could the persons do who have found them?? Humanity is sometimes really low level, and capable of destroying evidence it doesn't like.

Um, you do realise that these things can be faked, especially on video?

If you want to get off on a genuine mystery, try pondering consciousness.
User avatar
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby catmoon » Sun Nov 24, 2013 3:37 am

Yes. I mean really, given the nature of the internet, no video can be taken as evidence by a reasonable person until they have asked the question, Can this be faked? Who would benefit if it were faked? It's pretty telling that "miracles" show up every day on the net yet in 55 years of watching I have yet to see even one. Seen lots of fakers tho.

Though there was that time the water bowls changed color in front of 100 people during a Medicine Buddha practice. We were a little alarmed by that one, to be sure, but there was saffron in the water, plant dyes are often natural pH indicators and the pH of water can change quite a bit as it absorbs CO2 fro the air...

It was quite gradual, they started slowly changing and in half an hour all the bowls had changed from orange to clear IIRC.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:12 pm

dharmagoat wrote:
Aemilius wrote:I have seen this hidden chair pseudolevitation video. But it doesn't explain the levitation of say Criss Angel and David Blaine (and some others). Have you seen any of them? We can take the videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine as valid evidence for real levitation, why not? I think the levitation videos of Criss Angel and David Blaine are extraordinary, but so is humanity. The videos of giant skeletons are also extraordinary, what else could the persons do who have found them?? Humanity is sometimes really low level, and capable of destroying evidence it doesn't like.


Um, you do realise that these things can be faked, especially on video?


Ofcourse they can be faked, but in my view there are also real ones. I have seen some that are obvious fakes, and so I haven't named them, but some that I consider genuine. Levitation as a phenomenon exists. How and under what circumstances it exists is difficult to determine. There has to be some measure of greyness or uncertainty around it usually. There are some real ones, and you can't command where and how levitation is allowed to take place.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Ancient Buddhas

Postby Aemilius » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:32 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Aemilius wrote: When there are people who have found and dug up these giant skeletons, there is much more in play. And thus we see the whole panorama of how people react to it.
The same with immortal people, there are stories of how some people in India, China or elsewhere have met them. It is up to you how you react to it. (This means for example the taoist immortals.)
I believe that these encounters are real and existing. But sociologically they cause different reactions in different individual humans, and I don't expect that they will become an accepted truth. Truth is a human sociological phenomenon.
The so called "evidence" is always sense perception or it is dependent on sense perception.

What evidence?
Stories?
Still waiting.



This field requires time, and time is very precious, we seldom have time for what we don't actually like. So very likely You are not going find out how much material there exists under the title Forbidden Archaeology.
But there are several hours of good videos about Forbidden Archeology, where you can see and hear what happens to archeologists who actually found some of these things: How their careers came to an end abruptly, just because they didn't start lying about what they had found. Maybe there are some who where not so honest, who didn't want that their many years of studies should become wasted so suddenly! And who, as a result, became famous in official archeology?
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Inge, Lotus108, Sherab Dorje, Tabkye and 16 guests

>