Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:02 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Understanding emptiness
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 1355
Alright, then. I don't understand Emptiness. I don't even know what I don't know so this will be a little rambling. Sorry.

I understand cause and effect. I understand that a table is really a collection of items (leg, paint, top, empty space around it, and so forth) that is merely labeled "table" in dependence on its parts. I understand that the leg, paint, top, empty space, and so forth are merely labeled in dependence on their parts all the way down to subtle atoms where infinite recursion happens where the atom can be split into several atoms forever.

However, if a "person" "hits" "me" with a "pipe" it'll hurt just as much as if a person hits me with a pipe. Or will it? If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything? And why is the fact that things doesn't have a self so important? It still functions, it just didn't cause itself to arise.

Thank you.

_________________
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:34 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
The importance arises mainly when the ideas you mention are applied to self and others. For example, when "I" hit "you" with a "pipe", you are liable to become angry at "me". But why? The proximate cause of your pain is the pipe itself, should you not be angry at the pipe then? Or, what about the parents who taught me violent ways of solving problems? Shouldn't you be angry at them? And what about this "me" you are angry at - does it really exist? Or is there simply an infinitely intricate web of causes and effects, any one of which you could rationally select as the object of your anger?

Emptiness leads to the conclusion that the thing you are getting so angry at is merely an idea you have created to encompass a range of perceived phenomena, and thus there is no sane place to direct anger.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:13 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Konchog1 wrote:
However, if a "person" "hits" "me" with a "pipe" it'll hurt just as much as if a person hits me with a pipe.


Do you and the pipe and the act of being hit and the intention behind the person hitting you exist inherently or not?

Quote:
If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything? And why is the fact that things doesn't have a self so important? It still functions, it just didn't cause itself to arise.


Do negative mind states exist or not?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Konchog1 wrote:
I understand cause and effect. I understand that a table is really a collection of items (leg, paint, top, empty space around it, and so forth) that is merely labeled "table" in dependence on its parts. I understand that the leg, paint, top, empty space, and so forth are merely labeled in dependence on their parts all the way down to subtle atoms where infinite recursion happens where the atom can be split into several atoms forever.

However, if a "person" "hits" "me" with a "pipe" it'll hurt just as much as if a person hits me with a pipe. Or will it? If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything? And why is the fact that things doesn't have a self so important? It still functions, it just didn't cause itself to arise.

Thank you.


Instead of "empty" let's say, 'dependently arising'.
It is because of dependent arising, if somebody bonks you, it will hurt.
But understanding also has practical applications, when we relate to the rest of the world.
For a Shaolin monk, the understanding...no, the realization is very useful...when somebody hits him with a pipe
it won't hurt as much.
.
.
.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:24 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Konchog1 wrote:
If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything?


recognizing it will not make getting hit with the pipe hurt any less, but you may be less inclined to hit the person back, which will lessen the suffering arising in your continuum in the future, since that seed will not be created.

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Konchog1 wrote:
Alright, then. I don't understand Emptiness. I don't even know what I don't know so this will be a little rambling. Sorry.

I understand cause and effect. I understand that a table is really a collection of items (leg, paint, top, empty space around it, and so forth) that is merely labeled "table" in dependence on its parts. I understand that the leg, paint, top, empty space, and so forth are merely labeled in dependence on their parts all the way down to subtle atoms where infinite recursion happens where the atom can be split into several atoms forever.

However, if a "person" "hits" "me" with a "pipe" it'll hurt just as much as if a person hits me with a pipe. Or will it? If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything? And why is the fact that things doesn't have a self so important? It still functions, it just didn't cause itself to arise.

Thank you.


Emptiness is just an idea for those who can let go through the means of this idea.
What's the use of thinking about the emptiness of a table?
If you are greedy for a precious table made of precious woods but can't affort it then the idea may bring some relief. But actually just to let go of the desire to possess is the goal. If the idea of emptiness does not help you to let go then forget about it and seek more efficient devices.
If you get hit and anger arises then you have to let go of this anger. Does the idea of emptiness help you? If yes then fine, if no then forget it and seek more efficient devices.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 1355
gad rgyangs wrote:
Konchog1 wrote:
If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything?


recognizing it will not make getting hit with the pipe hurt any less, but you may be less inclined to hit the person back, which will lessen the suffering arising in your continuum in the future, since that seed will not be created.
Ok I get it, by not inherently existing it means that someone isn't hitting me with a pipe, someone is hitting me with a pipe BECAUSE of various factors (Karma, Bad parenting etc.). But, the pipe by itself still exists whether its a label or really exists right? Whether it is a pipe or it treated like a pipe is the same thing right?

kirtu wrote:
Do you and the pipe and the act of being hit and the intention behind the person hitting you exist inherently or not?

No, they are labels by collections of cases and conditions. Metal, muscles, anger etc. But, a labelled person is still angry.

kirtu wrote:
Do negative mind states exist or not?
Well yes, because they effect us.

Darn, I though I had it for a moment but it's gone now.

EDIT: I thought maybe my confusion is because I don't know where the middle path between eternalism and nihilism is. Things exists by labels but they don't matter because they lack essence?? Isn't it one or the other? They exist and matter or they don't and don't?

_________________
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats


Last edited by Konchog1 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 1355
TMingyur wrote:
Emptiness is just an idea for those who can let go through the means of this idea.
What's the use of thinking about the emptiness of a table?
If you are greedy for a precious table made of precious woods but can't affort it then the idea may bring some relief. But actually just to let go of the desire to possess is the goal. If the idea of emptiness does not help you to let go then forget about it and seek more efficient devices.
If you get hit and anger arises then you have to let go of this anger. Does the idea of emptiness help you? If yes then fine, if no then forget it and seek more efficient devices.

Kind regards
Yeah you have a good point. I can revisit emptiness later when everything else is attained but what little I understand of emptiness makes sense and sounds really cool. Still you're right. Though I feel that emptiness would help with anger.

_________________
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:37 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Posts: 4612
Location: Baltimore, MD
Konchog1 wrote:

kirtu wrote:
Do you and the pipe and the act of being hit and the intention behind the person hitting you exist inherently or not?

No, they are labels by collections of cases and conditions. Metal, muscles, anger etc. But, a labelled person is still angry.


But does this anger exist by itself? Did it create itself?

Konchog1 wrote:
kirtu wrote:
Do negative mind states exist or not?
Well yes, because they effect us.


They function but do they exist? Does anger or fear or pride exist all by itself?

Konchog1 wrote:
EDIT: I thought maybe my confusion is because I don't know where the middle path between eternalism and nihilism is. Things exists by labels but they don't matter because they lack essence?? Isn't it one or the other? They exist and matter or they don't and don't?


Do things have an essence? Is a building always a building?

Kirt

_________________
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm
Posts: 1601
Disagree that recognizing this thing will not have the effect of less pain felt.
In obvious form it is indeed less anger producing, in perhaps a other form it does indeed reduce actual pain. With no conceived real self to perceive the pain it of course reduces. That componant of pain which is a large part of it is not present.
Watching pain when it occurs is not a big part of that pain that it is occuring to me?

No big deal really that thing....why should we pretend it does not happen?
Or are others stateing it does not?
I suppose it could be found this occurs in some schools of study....this thing is used for study...such would infer it is not all that bad, as if it were...how could one study it..called pain to the path it is. One in such a study in fact tries to magnify it make it more, for purposes of study. If such a thing could be made more, could it not also be made....less? Seems so...at least to me it does. Why not?

_________________
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:31 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 860
Konchog1 wrote:
gad rgyangs wrote:

recognizing it will not make getting hit with the pipe hurt any less, but you may be less inclined to hit the person back, which will lessen the suffering arising in your continuum in the future, since that seed will not be created.


Ok I get it, by not inherently existing it means that someone isn't hitting me with a pipe, someone is hitting me with a pipe BECAUSE of various factors (Karma, Bad parenting etc.). But, the pipe by itself still exists whether its a label or really exists right? Whether it is a pipe or it treated like a pipe is the same thing right?



in conventional reality, a pipe is quite an effective imputation if what you want to do is use it to bonk someone. the hallmark of conventional reality is the ability to be effective, to do something. and someone is hitting you with the pipe on the same conventional level. there is nothing wrong with using the label "person" on this level. the reason you are having a perception of a conventional person hitting you may be the result of karma, or it could be random. if everything was caused by karma in a simple "you're getting hit because you did x in the past", then all people would be doing is hitting each other with pipes for all eternity. hmmm maybe thats actually a pretty good description of samsara...

_________________
Thoroughly tame your own mind.
This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm
Posts: 1601
I don't know if this is being said as the end seems to contradict, but if it is I also disagree :smile: ...."may be the result of karma, or it could be random"...

everything resulting from as consequence of karma, is what seeems to be. No other random thing can exist.

_________________
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:22 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
ronnewmexico wrote:
I don't know if this is being said as the end seems to contradict, but if it is I also disagree :smile: ...."may be the result of karma, or it could be random"...

everything resulting from as consequence of karma, is what seeems to be. No other random thing can exist.



I think it's not necessarily so cut and dry

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:57 am
Posts: 269
Location: Bangkok Thailand
Konchog1 wrote:
Alright, then. I don't understand Emptiness. I don't even know what I don't know so this will be a little rambling. Sorry.

I understand cause and effect. I understand that a table is really a collection of items (leg, paint, top, empty space around it, and so forth) that is merely labeled "table" in dependence on its parts. I understand that the leg, paint, top, empty space, and so forth are merely labeled in dependence on their parts all the way down to subtle atoms where infinite recursion happens where the atom can be split into several atoms forever.

However, if a "person" "hits" "me" with a "pipe" it'll hurt just as much as if a person hits me with a pipe. Or will it? If everything is already empty then how would recognizing it change anything? And why is the fact that things doesn't have a self so important? It still functions, it just didn't cause itself to arise.

Thank you.

--------------------------
:smile:
Don't be so hard on yourself. Especially in the beginning these things often seem counter-intuitive and difficult to understand.
In fact, they often can not be understood by the mind alone, because mere words are inadequate to express such concepts.
You need to experience them more directly...and you need to learn how to do that by experiencing the reality.
But one error commenly made is that "emptiness" means there is a thing called "nothing" there.
Consider this riddle...
Nothing is a thing (it has a definition.... so it has Form or existance).
Therefore the thing called "empiness" contains the thing called "Nothing" or no thing.....if so, then...
where is this thing called "Nothing" held.....
and if Emptiness was truely empty how could it hold "Nothingmess" in it and still be "Emptiness".
(O.K. I'm playing games with words to confuse you out of your pre-conceptions...hoping you will understand then that your words and pre-conceptions are merely mistaken illustions).
But as I said before...you can't understand these things by words alone.

But then you post this brilllant qoute:

Quote:
That which arose from conditions is unborn; It has no arising by virtue of intrinsic existence. Since it depends on other conditions it is empty.”

-Gungthang Tempai Drome

That which arose from conditions is unborn;
(it is empty, emptiness)
It has no arising by virtue of intrinsic existence.
(It is without inherent self-referring existance...it arises from it's relationship to other things...whether you wish to call that "dependent arising " or "dependent origination")
Since it depends on other conditions it is empty.”
(THat is precisely what is meant by "emptiness".)

Hope that doesn't confuse you too much.
:smile:

_________________
Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.
Did you think it was not there--
in your wife's lovely face
in your baby's laughter?
Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it?
from - Judyth Collin
The Layman's Lament
From What Book, 1998, p. 52
Edited by Gary Gach


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 1355
Quiet Heart wrote:
:smile:
Don't be so hard on yourself. Especially in the beginning these things often seem counter-intuitive and difficult to understand.
In fact, they often can not be understood by the mind alone, because mere words are inadequate to express such concepts.
You need to experience them more directly...and you need to learn how to do that by experiencing the reality.
:namaste:

Quiet Heart wrote:
But one error commenly made is that "emptiness" means there is a thing called "nothing" there.
Consider this riddle...
Nothing is a thing (it has a definition.... so it has Form or existance).
Therefore the thing called "empiness" contains the thing called "Nothing" or no thing.....if so, then...
where is this thing called "Nothing" held.....
and if Emptiness was truely empty how could it hold "Nothingmess" in it and still be "Emptiness".
(O.K. I'm playing games with words to confuse you out of your pre-conceptions...hoping you will understand then that your words and pre-conceptions are merely mistaken illustions).
But as I said before...you can't understand these things by words alone.

Right, I understand that. Emptiness is just a quality of form. There is no emptiness without form. I still get thrown when I hear things like "see all things as illusion like"

Quiet Heart wrote:
But then you post this brilllant qoute:

Quote:
That which arose from conditions is unborn; It has no arising by virtue of intrinsic existence. Since it depends on other conditions it is empty.”

-Gungthang Tempai Drome

That which arose from conditions is unborn;
(it is empty, emptiness)
It has no arising by virtue of intrinsic existence.
(It is without inherent self-referring existance...it arises from it's relationship to other things...whether you wish to call that "dependent arising " or "dependent origination")
Since it depends on other conditions it is empty.”
(THat is precisely what is meant by "emptiness".)
I have it in my sig so I can stare at it everyday. I think I understand. But what is the difference between labelled things and actual things? If things inherently existed, how would that be different from what we have now? What would inherently existing things be like?

_________________
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:09 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Posts: 2940
Location: Space is the Place
inherently existing things are actually not possible. . . they are just a conceptual fabrication, and are pointed towards by eternalist religions... Have you read Nagarjuna's Mulamadhymakarika? if not I'd recommend getting Jay Garfield's translation and commentary since he relates it to some familiar references in Western philosphical tradition where appropriate..

we often live and act AS IF our "self" was independent, permanent, etc. --meaning our recurring conceptual image of our "self"...along with similar images of "others" and "objects", we don't readily perceive the complex subtleties of cause, effect, and conditions that enable a given being or object to appear-- we may think of a few of them only, but without enough spacious perspective to snap us out of identifying the object as a solid self-existing thing.

_________________
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:30 am
Posts: 1355
Adamantine wrote:
inherently existing things are actually not possible. . . they are just a conceptual fabrication, and are pointed towards by eternalist religions... Have you read Nagarjuna's Mulamadhymakarika? if not I'd recommend getting Jay Garfield's translation and commentary since he relates it to some familiar references in Western philosphical tradition where appropriate..
Right, but I thought knowing what they would be like would help me understand the difference between how things exist and inherently existing things.

I actually have Jay Garfield's Mulamadhyamakakarika. This line is so beautiful. Simple and breath taking at the same time.

"If the self were the aggregates,
It would have arising and ceasing (as properties).
If it were different from the aggregates,
It would not have the characteristics of the aggregates."

So, since I am unchanging and have the characteristics of my aggregates, I cannot logically exist. But I do exist. I interact with things and they interact with me. So . . . huh? I exist but can't logically? The rest of the book was beyond me so I didn't finish it I suppose I should try again though if you're recommending it.

[quote="Adamantine"]we often live and act AS IF our "self" was independent, permanent, etc. --meaning our recurring conceptual image of our "self"...along with similar images of "others" and "objects", we don't readily perceive the complex subtleties of cause, effect, and conditions that enable a given being or object to appear-- we may think of a few of them only, but without enough spacious perspective to snap us out of identifying the object as a solid self-existing thing.[/qoute]Yes I understand but the self still exists. Things still exist. How they come to existance don't matter. Uhh I feel stupid.

_________________
Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

-Paraphrase of Khensur Rinpoche Lobsang Tsephel citing the Guhyasamaja Tantra

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.
Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.
Through the qualities of meditating in that way,
Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

-Ra Lotsawa, All-pervading Melodious Drumbeats


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:42 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
The existence of the two truths/realities is vital to your understanding.

At the ultimate level there is no attacker, victim, weapon, feeling, reaction, they are just labels or conceptions.

At the relative level there is an attacker, victim, weapon, feeling, reaction, they do exist.

The truth though, lies somewhere in between these two.
:namaste:
PS A person that has direct insight into reality still feels bodily pain, it is their mental reaction that differs from us deluded individuals.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:27 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm
Posts: 1062
Konchog1 wrote:
I have it in my sig so I can stare at it everyday. I think I understand. But what is the difference between labelled things and actual things? If things inherently existed, how would that be different from what we have now? What would inherently existing things be like?


Being able to function, ie to be caused and to have an effect is a direct consequence of not having a nature. If something wasn't empty, it would be frozen and could neither be created, changed or destroyed.

Imgine an A4 piece of white paper that is by nature a blank A4 white piece of paper. You could not tear it, as to do so would mean it was no longer A4 size - which by nature it must be. You could not write on it, as it is blank and white by nature. You could not burn it, as it would become ashes - but by nature it must remain paper.

So you can see that if something had a nature it would be unable to function. Since appearances are dependant on the cause and effect of other appearances and not a nature, they can arise, change and cease. Emptiness is a mandatory requirement for a universe that can change and function.

_________________
Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
ronnewmexico wrote:
No other random thing can exist.

You've never heard of dice?
For that matter, you've never heard of the universe?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 146 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikenz66, Will and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group