the great vegetarian debate

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

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby catmoon » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:00 pm

Huseng wrote:
It really comes down to compassion: as much as possible don't create the causes for killing and cruelty.


Causes precede effects, do they not? Saying I caused the pig to die is like saying Winston Churchill caused the Punic wars. It's simply impossible, since the pig ceased to exist long before I had my sandwich, that eating the sandwich caused it to die. It's like you're saying I have some magic gun that can fire bullets into the past and kill a pig there.

The sutra quote is nice, but if I am not mistaken there are plenty of quotes to be found that support the opposite position, so one has to throw out one bunch or the other. My view is that the writings on meat came well after the Buddha, and were produced by people who could not let go of asceticism.
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: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Huifeng » Wed Feb 17, 2010 1:23 pm

The great Phowa Master, KC Ayang Rinpoche is also vegetarian, I believe.
On his site, it mentions:

"Amitabha Tsog Ceremony
Free of charge and open to the public. Please bring a vegetarian food offering
or $10 with your registration for the organizers to purchase on your behalf."

So, it may be that he practices tsog in this way too.
However, I don't know enough about his teachings to be more specific. Sorry.
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby Clueless Git » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:23 pm

catmoon wrote:
A pig is not bacon. I see a difference.

Pig is not bacon but bacon is pig?
Clueless Git
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby Indrajala » Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:35 pm

catmoon wrote:
Huseng wrote:
It really comes down to compassion: as much as possible don't create the causes for killing and cruelty.


Causes precede effects, do they not? Saying I caused the pig to die is like saying Winston Churchill caused the Punic wars. It's simply impossible, since the pig ceased to exist long before I had my sandwich, that eating the sandwich caused it to die. It's like you're saying I have some magic gun that can fire bullets into the past and kill a pig there.

The sutra quote is nice, but if I am not mistaken there are plenty of quotes to be found that support the opposite position, so one has to throw out one bunch or the other. My view is that the writings on meat came well after the Buddha, and were produced by people who could not let go of asceticism.



It is simple economics my friend: the meat industry only exists because there is a market for it.

Less meat consumption equals less animals being turned into meat products.

If you give up meat, it is one less consumer demanding meat products, which means less animals being butchered.
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: 5576
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby KeithBC » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:43 am

catmoon wrote:It's simply impossible, since the pig ceased to exist long before I had my sandwich, that eating the sandwich caused it to die. It's like you're saying I have some magic gun that can fire bullets into the past and kill a pig there.

The cause of suffering is desire. It is often helpful to remember this.

It is not the eating of the sandwich that causes the problem but the desire for it. That desire exists before the eating of the sandwich, and, in fact pre-exists the slaughtering of the pig. You desire pork sandwiches today, and, apparently, for the foreseeable future. The desire therefore exists today for a pork sandwich made from a pig that will be slaughtered (for example) sometime next year and eaten shortly thereafter. So the desire creates the market conditions that are the cause of the pig's death.

Om mani padme hum
Keith
User avatar
KeithBC
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:22 pm
Location: East Coast of Canada

Re: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:41 am

Inge wrote:I've also heard about high Nyingma lamas, like Chatral Rinpoche and Patrul Rinpiche, being strong proponents of vegetarianisms. Do you know what their view are when it comes to meat at tsok?

You know, that's a good question. Chatral Rinpoche very well may hold a view identical to many Kagyu lamas that it's unnecessary even at tsok, and Patrul Rinpoche might have too, but I can't say for sure. The only hard and fast rule I know of regards not refusing any offerings received in the tsok. Aside from the meat, this generally is much less an issue than is guarding against attachment to the typically delicious things that make up the rest of the tsok lol.

Inge wrote:For me it is not the death of animals that is the problem, but the intentional killing. The way I understand it is that the animals death is the result of their previous karma, but our killing is the cause of our future suffering. Everybody involved in the process of meat production, the farmer who raise the animal, the ones transporting the livestock to the slaughterhouse, the ones selling the meat, and the buyers, all share the same karma as the butcher. Maybe I'm mistaken in my shallow understanding of cause and effect.

Your understanding certainly doesn't sound shallow at all. I think the difference between normal consumption of meat and this purchase and consumption is twofold. First, when one goes to the store and sees these piles of the cut up carcasses of slaughtered animals, knowing they will keep coming in by the truckload even though one personally abstains from meat, it's really very sad. It's as though there's nothing one can do. One might wish to take an inevitable cycle of suffering and transform at least a small part of it to bring about some good for some of the poor creatures. It is in this vein that one can purchase a small amount of meat, rather infrequently, so as not to really impact supply and demand, and purchase this meat not out of desire to enjoy it or for sustenance, but rather to mentally transform into a wisdom substance beyond the labels of purity and impurity, and offer and consume a bit of it as such, within the view of purity and equality, beyond subject and object (or with the aspiration toward that). So the intention is different.

The second reason I think it's different is also because all beings, including these animals that are now dead regardless of whether one abstains or not, are among the field of sentient beings one has vowed to stick by and lead to liberation once one has attained enlightenment. By using a small portion of their flesh, which would have either been consumed by someone else or have gone to waste, one is making a connection with that animal personally, making a strong auspicious link between it and one's bodhicitta aspiration, as well as with the blessings of the Three Roots. So I believe there is some benefit to the deceased animal(s) because of this and because of the compassion and blessings of the Three Roots. I personally choose to pray that the suffering they endured from the time they were born to the time they were slaughtered, as well as suffering in the bardo, will have been the cause of the exhaustion of the remainder of their karma, and that by virtue of making a connection with the Three Jewels and Three Roots by way of the most valuable thing they had to offer - their bodies - it may be a cause for their liberation and enlightenment.

I can certainly understand if you still feel differently, and would encourage you to speak with a prospective lama about this in private before making any commitments with him/her so you can be sure to form a commitment with a lama whose views are compatible with yours. Because they're out there. Regardless, once you've received empowerment and samaya, if you end up in a tsok you did not organize but are simply participating in, and it turns out there's meat present, you mustn't refuse it if it ends up on your plate, and can eat it sure of no fault since you only have the intention to make a connection and benefit the now deceased sentient being and had nothing to do with its inclusion in the tsok. At no point would you have rejoiced in the animal's death or agreed with it just by consuming whatever was given to you with a view of emptiness and equanimity. In terms of training in pure perception of the normally repulsive items that you might happen to receive during tsok (meat or otherwise... for instance I normally perceive mayonaise or things made with it pretty gross!), you also don't necessarily have to eat the whole portion of such items, just at least a small bit of them (though without rejecting the remaining portion) and while transforming your experience according to the instructions you will have received. Then, whatever leftovers you have you can respectfully offer outside. Hopefully, we'll one day be able to realize the actual primordial purity of all phenomena and then gross things at tsok (or elsewhere!) will be a delusion of the past! :)

Inge wrote:Is this also the chronological order of the process? Do you receive the explanation only after the empowerment and reading transmission?

Generally speaking, yes, although many lamas are nowadays explaining a great deal that in ancient times would have been reserved exclusively for after empowerment had been received and vows taken. I imagine this is due to the frequency with which they've encountered very critically-thinking Westerners who like to be well informed before making an important decision and commitment. Originally, those in the position to enter into empowerment would generally have already been through a good amount of exoteric Dharma practice and would have become sure of their refuge, their bodhicitta determination, and of the authenticity of the vajra master they were going to receive empowerment from so that they would be willing to enter into empowerment and accept whatever commitments might come with it, knowing they'd be in line with bodhicitta. Nowadays, that's obviously a rarity.

Anyhow, the very best wishes to you on your path. May you be able to practice this precious vehicle in a way that is in accordance with your very kind conscience.

-Brian
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby catmoon » Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:15 am

Clueless Git wrote:
catmoon wrote:
A pig is not bacon. I see a difference.

Pig is not bacon but bacon is pig?


Bacon is not a pig
A pig is not bacon

Is what I am saying, in the sense that

If a pig were bacon, then a pig would be a crispy thing that fit in a frying pan.

If bacon were a pig, then bacon would make oinky noises and weigh several hundred pounds.
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: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby catmoon » Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:38 am

KeithBC wrote:
catmoon wrote:It's simply impossible, since the pig ceased to exist long before I had my sandwich, that eating the sandwich caused it to die. It's like you're saying I have some magic gun that can fire bullets into the past and kill a pig there.

The cause of suffering is desire. It is often helpful to remember this.

It is not the eating of the sandwich that causes the problem but the desire for it. That desire exists before the eating of the sandwich, and, in fact pre-exists the slaughtering of the pig. You desire pork sandwiches today, and, apparently, for the foreseeable future. The desire therefore exists today for a pork sandwich made from a pig that will be slaughtered (for example) sometime next year and eaten shortly thereafter. So the desire creates the market conditions that are the cause of the pig's death.

Om mani padme hum
Keith


Interesting. But I wonder if it is not just as logical to say:

The desire for money creates the market. A person sees that he might profit by killing pigs and does so, creating a supply of pork. Therefore it is the greed of the butcher that causes the death of the pig. (Which might occur without suffering btw).

Now, I'm not saying one view is right and the other wrong, just that they both exist, they both seem logical and I see no way to resolve the conflict between them. It looks to me like logic fails completely here, because it so neatly keeps on providing diametrically opposed positions!

So to remain true to the way things appear to me, I must say, "Keith, if you want to be vegetarian, I can see no way to find wrong in it. If you should decide to go on an all-meat diet, the same applies. There are perfectly logical views to support either, and they contradict. So may all blessings fall upon you."
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: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Clueless Git » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:47 am

Inge wrote:Hi.
Is it possible to practice vajrayana without partaking in meat offerings?

Hello Inge :)

If the purpose is to practice non-aversion (a kind of equanamity?) towards the use of fellow sentients as food then I reason this: The practice can not be complete unless one would be equaly non averse to the one having been slaughtered and eaten to be their pet, their child, their mother or even themself.

I reason that simply because it requires absolutely no practice at all to be averse to violence against self or those or those we care for whilst being far less averse towards violence against those we have never known.

On that basis the practice of non aversion towards eating the flesh of anonomous (sp?) victims is nothing more than a practice of the default human state.
Clueless Git
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Sonam Wangchug » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:50 am

It's true eating meat is bad, and their is definitely karma associated with it. However from my limited understanding in this context it is coming from an amazingly profound stance, that is beyond dualities.
Sonam Wangchug
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby Clueless Git » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:09 am

catmoon wrote:
Clueless Git wrote:
catmoon wrote:
A pig is not bacon. I see a difference.

Pig is not bacon but bacon is pig?


Bacon is not a pig
A pig is not bacon

Is what I am saying, in the sense that

If a pig were bacon, then a pig would be a crispy thing that fit in a frying pan.

If bacon were a pig, then bacon would make oinky noises and weigh several hundred pounds.

Counsellor for the Prosecution: Mr Dahmer, did you or did you not cook and eat Mr X?

Jeffrey Dahmer: Not exactly Sir .. Human beings are large and noisy things that won't fit in a frying pan. What I cooked and ate could therefore NOT have been Mr X unless the prosecution is arguing that Mr X was not a human being ..
Clueless Git
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby catmoon » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:25 am

Clueless Git wrote:Counsellor for the Prosecution: Mr Dahmer, did you or did you not cook and eat Mr X?

Jeffrey Dahmer: Not exactly Sir .. Human beings are large and noisy things that won't fit in a frying pan. What I cooked and ate could therefore NOT have been Mr X unless the prosecution is arguing that Mr X was not a human being ..


Well the reasoning is sound, so I guess we have to accept Mr. Dahmer's assertion, much as we don't want to. The alternative is to abandon the teachings on parts and wholes.
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: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:21 pm

catmoon wrote:
Clueless Git wrote:Counsellor for the Prosecution: Mr Dahmer, did you or did you not cook and eat Mr X?

Jeffrey Dahmer: Not exactly Sir .. Human beings are large and noisy things that won't fit in a frying pan. What I cooked and ate could therefore NOT have been Mr X unless the prosecution is arguing that Mr X was not a human being ..


Well the reasoning is sound, so I guess we have to accept Mr. Dahmer's assertion, much as we don't want to. The alternative is to abandon the teachings on parts and wholes.


The emptiness teachings state that on the ultimate level of truth, no Mr X and no pig can be found, not when they're alive and in "one piece" or when they're dead and in "many pieces." However they say that on the conventional level, they certainly can, which is why nonvirtue accrues negative karma and we suffer.

If I were to apply the emptiness teachings in this extreme way as you are, it would also seem to make it ok for some psychopath to come and chop you up, since no indivisibly "whole you" can be found on the ultimate level. How'd you feel about that? I'm sure, instead of an answer like "hmmm, now that you put it that way, I guess I was leaning toward nihilism," you'll just give some smug sort of "sure, after all, no 'me' can be found." You'd certainly beg to differ if it were to happen.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:52 pm

Clueless Git wrote:
Inge wrote:Hi.
Is it possible to practice vajrayana without partaking in meat offerings?

Hello Inge :)

If the purpose is to practice non-aversion (a kind of equanamity?) towards the use of fellow sentients as food then I reason this: The practice can not be complete unless one would be equaly non averse to the one having been slaughtered and eaten to be their pet, their child, their mother or even themself.

I reason that simply because it requires absolutely no practice at all to be averse to violence against self or those or those we care for whilst being far less averse towards violence against those we have never known.

On that basis the practice of non aversion towards eating the flesh of anonomous (sp?) victims is nothing more than a practice of the default human state.


Git,

You've definitely twisted the purpose, and as I stated, I only revealed one aspect of the purpose of the inclusion of meat in a tsok - I mentioned purifying the notions of substances being pure or impure. The other profound aspects of that part of the offering pertain to restricted tantric views and practices. Mind you, the restriction in this case has a lot to do with the necessity of hearing an explanation on the view and method from someone who's actualized that view, not through some clueless git like me. I also stated that, truly, the explanation for the practice states that only the flesh of beings that died of natural causes is suitable, meaning one cannot go and commission an animal to be slaughtered to use in practice. This would violate not only natural non-virtue, but also bodhicitta vows and tantric samayas which state one mustn't harm any being whatsoever, even a fly. However, the allowance that has been made, in these modern times, is to procure a small amount of meat that one did not ask to be killed, one had no knowledge of, that was delivered to a store with no request from oneself and sits on the shelf there whether one abstains from meat or not. The being's consciousness has long since moved on from its body and nothing can bring it back. I'm not talking about regular, large scale consumption like weekly grocery shopping for the amount of meat one would try to live on, in which case supply and demand would clearly apply, and one would not be so removed from the cause of further animals' deaths... But if I feel the same way as you do about animal slaughter but buy a meager bag of beef jerky, the likes of which will keep showing up at the store despite me, and I use a few scraps of it 4 times a month and the bag lasts me several months, do you really think that is affecting supply and demand in a country predominantly made up of meat eaters who will keep up the demand despite me? Notice, I only purchase meat for use in a practice that can benefit myself, the animal, and all other sentient beings, rather than out of attachment to chowing down on animal flesh and living on a meat diet.

Do you realize that the farmers you buy your vegetables from use poisons (even if they're organic ones) to kill pests that try to decimate their crops and set traps to kill larger animals that terrorize their crops, and that many harm their local ecologies in a variety of way which also causes widespread death of insects and animals? Not to mention the death involved in shipping those vegetables. Death is inextricably bound to every kind of food. What we can do is have regret that any of our food has to be tied to any death, try to get food from local environmentally safe sources according to our means, and do practice on these beings' behalf and say prayers them and dedicate the merit to their liberation and enlightenment to repay our debt to them.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Clueless Git » Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:44 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Git,

You've definitely twisted the purpose .

Most 'umble apologies that was not my intention ..

I should have made the 'if' I started off with much larger to be clear that 'if' my understanding of purpose was wrong then the rest of what I had to say should be regarded as automaticaly irrelevant.
Clueless Git
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby KeithBC » Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:24 pm

catmoon wrote:Now, I'm not saying one view is right and the other wrong, just that they both exist, they both seem logical and I see no way to resolve the conflict between them.

There is no conflict between them. Both are true.

Like most phenomena in the world, slaughtering animals does not occur because of a single cause, but because a multitude of causes come together. What makes them causes is that, if you removed any one of them, the phenomenon would not occur.

I am glad that I have your permission to be vegetarian, but I think that you are in denial over your portion of responsibility for the meat industry.

Om mani padme hum
Keith
User avatar
KeithBC
 
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:22 pm
Location: East Coast of Canada

Re: Veg food catching on in Mongolia

Postby catmoon » Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:11 pm

It's not really denial that's happening, though it must surely appear to be so. What is really happening here is: I am pushing the logic of the subject as far and hard as I can to see if it breaks.
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: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Inge » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:05 pm

Pema Rigdzin wrote:Generally speaking, yes, although many lamas are nowadays explaining a great deal that in ancient times would have been reserved exclusively for after empowerment had been received and vows taken. I imagine this is due to the frequency with which they've encountered very critically-thinking Westerners who like to be well informed before making an important decision and commitment. Originally, those in the position to enter into empowerment would generally have already been through a good amount of exoteric Dharma practice and would have become sure of their refuge, their bodhicitta determination, and of the authenticity of the vajra master they were going to receive empowerment from so that they would be willing to enter into empowerment and accept whatever commitments might come with it, knowing they'd be in line with bodhicitta. Nowadays, that's obviously a rarity.


That seems a little alarming, if its the case that teacher and student might not have a close enough relationship to thoroughly inspect eachother before empowerments are given. Hopefully both students and teachers know what they are doing so no one ends up with vows and comittments they are unable to fulfill.

Pema Rigdzin wrote:Anyhow, the very best wishes to you on your path. May you be able to practice this precious vehicle in a way that is in accordance with your very kind conscience.

-Brian


Thanks Brian. You have made some interesting remarks that I will consider further, and then try and talk with a lama if I have the chance.

When it comes to the theme of supply and demand - here in Norway it should be easy to get hold of meat in a way that does not increase the demand, as supermarkets throw away nearly one third of the food they take in.
User avatar
Inge
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Inge » Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:13 pm

Huifeng wrote:The great Phowa Master, KC Ayang Rinpoche is also vegetarian, I believe.
On his site, it mentions:

"Amitabha Tsog Ceremony
Free of charge and open to the public. Please bring a vegetarian food offering
or $10 with your registration for the organizers to purchase on your behalf."

So, it may be that he practices tsog in this way too.
However, I don't know enough about his teachings to be more specific. Sorry.


That is good to know venerable Huifeng. I think he has given Phowa teachings at the Dharma center I attend, maybe he will come back.
User avatar
Inge
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:52 am

Re: Questions and doubts regarding meat offerings and vajrayana

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:24 pm

Inge wrote:That seems a little alarming, if its the case that teacher and student might not have a close enough relationship to thoroughly inspect eachother before empowerments are given. Hopefully both students and teachers know what they are doing so no one ends up with vows and comittments they are unable to fulfill.

Oh, not to worry, I didn't mean to make it sound as though there was any impediment to that inspection process. It is very highly recommended that one take an ample amount of time, months or maybe even years, to observe the lama and get to know him/her, before becoming a disciple and entering Vajrayana. One should ideally be at a place of trust and feeling at home with a lama before one enters Vajrayana by way of him/her. When one connects with such a lama, a truly kind, wise, and at least somewhat accomplished person, then one will not have to worry about taking on commitments that one does not have the capacity to fulfill. This is because on the one hand, lamas tend to gradually lead disciples into the vows and daily practice commitments. In some traditions, where they give daily recitation commitments, the lamas often ask the students to decide how many they can reasonably commit to and for them to then faithfully commit to at least that amount from then on.

On the other hand, even though one receives all the vows during empowerment (not monks or nuns vows, but refuge, bodhisattva, and tantric vows), lamas tend to give one very condensed instructions on how to keep them that corresponds with a beginner's understanding. Also, the weight of the vows increases in direct relation to one's understanding and capacity. So for a beginner, in the case of a vow stipulating, say, that he or she must not go more than a day and night without meditating on emptiness, if the student has not yet gained a sufficient understanding of emptiness, obviously he or she is not breaking the vow because there's no capacity to keep it yet. He or she might choose instead to begin studying emptiness with the aspiration to gain understanding and fulfill the vow. Does this all make sense?

Inge wrote:Thanks Brian. You have made some interesting remarks that I will consider further, and then try and talk with a lama if I have the chance.

When it comes to the theme of supply and demand - here in Norway it should be easy to get hold of meat in a way that does not increase the demand, as supermarkets throw away nearly one third of the food they take in.


My pleasure. A lama will be able to help you much more than me, for sure, so that will be very beneficial for you. Thanks for the idea about the thrown out meat, too, because it's no different here in the US and that sounds better to me than buying it.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

>