Pure view without being Panglossian.

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

In Malcolm’s post...
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php? ... l#p379425
Malcolm wrote:For a being with a pure mind, Avici hell is no different than Akaniṣṭha Ghanavyuha, the buddhafield of Vairocana/Vajradhara.
...how are we to understand that without being Panglossian?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11691
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm In Malcolm’s post...
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php? ... l#p379425
Malcolm wrote:For a being with a pure mind, Avici hell is no different than Akaniṣṭha Ghanavyuha, the buddhafield of Vairocana/Vajradhara.
...how are we to understand that without being Panglossian?
By understanding the Two Truths, basically. I mean it's boring stuff, but it's a way keeping oneself from going down a deluded path. It's literally built into the Dzogchen (and Sarma too, only in terms of the Mahayana teaching level) that you learn to separate samsara and nirvana before you can become aware of their non-duality.

We don't use the absolute nature as an excuse to not pay attention to karma...like every master has said ad infinitum.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by javier.espinoza.t »

Panglossian just outsmarted me, i had to google it :rolling:
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

All the Tantras I’m familiar with maintain the normal, common perception of phenomena is mistaken. The actual mode of being, the way things actually are, is as a Buddha Realm. They don’t say “just the good parts”.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm Panglossian just outsmarted me, i had to google it :rolling:
PeterC’s term from this thread;

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... an#p555337
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
javier.espinoza.t
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by javier.espinoza.t »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:45 pm All the Tantras I’m familiar with maintain the normal, common perception of phenomena is mistaken. The actual mode of being, the way things actually are, is as a Buddha Realm. They don’t say “just the good parts”.
it is something you actually see, not only have understanding of. i suspect this is the so called "display".
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:52 pm
javier.espinoza.t wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:43 pm Panglossian just outsmarted me, i had to google it :rolling:
PeterC’s term from this thread;

https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... an#p555337
kudos to PeterC :thumbsup:
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11691
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:45 pm All the Tantras I’m familiar with maintain the normal, common perception of phenomena is mistaken. The actual mode of being, the way things actually are, is as a Buddha Realm. They don’t say “just the good parts”.
Right but you would have had the Mahayana training before this. And, this is not even necessarily a Tantric question, since all Mahayana schools that I'm aware of maintain the ultimate non-separation of samsara and nirvana. This not just a question of philosophy. IIRC Virupa calls the vision of the meditator the "vision of experience" which is not yet pure vision, we are not capable of true pure vision, but are basically practicing in that direction.
HHST wrote:Due to karma and defilements, sentient beings have the impure vision, which is the ordinary vision that we have right now. Yogis and practitioners who have enrolled in the path and practise meditation have the vision of experience.
So, the assumption that practicing pure vision as one does in Tantra, then assuming that it means you actually - have- pure vision is a mistake, and an example of that mistake is believing that one with impure vision can somehow make decisions beyond karmic consequence, or ignore ethics.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

...since all Mahayana schools that I'm aware of maintain the ultimate non-separation of samsara and nirvana.
Yes. Nirvana is how phenomena are correctly seen, and samsara is how it is incorrectly seen.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11691
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 12:08 am
...since all Mahayana schools that I'm aware of maintain the ultimate non-separation of samsara and nirvana.
Yes. Nirvana is how phenomena are correctly seen, and samsara is how it is incorrectly seen.
Right, and as deluded sentient beings, we do not see it correctly. We can practice it to our best, while continuing to pay attention to conduct, cause and effect. Like all the masters say...again and again.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Right, and as deluded sentient beings, we do not see it correctly.
Right, and since we aspire to see it correctly, we should understand that a pure mind sees it as being without fault. It is our delusory mind that sees fault, then has a negative response, then negative action, then negative results, etc.
We can practice it to our best, while continuing to pay attention to conduct, cause and effect. Like all the masters say...again and again.
Right. Virtuous conduct makes positive results, which allow for the purification of mind, which allows for seeing things as they actually are.

The precious human rebirth teaching tells us it is not possible to learn to practice Dharma in the hell realms.

The highest teachings tell us it is possible to be enlightened anywhere—even the hell realms. (I’m sure the Chinese gave some high lamas a chance to see if that’s true.) When you look at the Wheel of Samsara pictures there’s a Buddha in each of the 6 realms, including hell.

My understanding is that an enlightened being sees things how they are, and also understands how sentient beings mistakenly sees things. That’s why he is able to guide the s.b. Out of his delusions.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 11691
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 1:09 am
Right, and as deluded sentient beings, we do not see it correctly.
Right, and since we aspire to see it correctly, we should understand that a pure mind sees it as being without fault. It is our delusory mind that sees fault, then has a negative response, then negative action, then negative results, etc.
We can practice it to our best, while continuing to pay attention to conduct, cause and effect. Like all the masters say...again and again.
Right. Virtuous conduct makes positive results, which allow for the purification of mind, which allows for seeing things as they actually are.

The precious human rebirth teaching tells us it is not possible to learn to practice Dharma in the hell realms.

The highest teachings tell us it is possible to be enlightened anywhere—even the hell realms. (I’m sure the Chinese gave some high lamas a chance to see if that’s true.) When you look at the Wheel of Samsara pictures there’s a Buddha in each of the 6 realms, including hell.

My understanding is that an enlightened being sees things how they are, and also understands how sentient beings mistakenly sees things. That’s why he is able to guide the s.b. Out of his delusions.
Ok, that all tracks. It doesn't mean seeing relative horrible events as being "good" though, and it never did. The mistake people are making when they think that is that they are confusing the relative content of phenomena with it's absolute nature. Phenomena being pure by nature etc. does not mean everything relative is relatively good, and that a practitioner should have no discrimination as regards conduct, ethics, etc.

Maybe we can make a rough and imprecise comparison here, viewing one's Guru as pure does not have anything to do with who they are as a samsaric human being. This is similar, the purity and perfection is not about relative content.

A big pitfall of higher teachings to think this way, because we can turn into a nasty piece of work if go around thinking we are beyond cause and effect in our daily lives.
"...if you think about how many hours, months and years of your life you've spent looking at things, being fascinated by things that have now passed away, then how wonderful to spend even five minutes looking into the nature of your own mind."

-James Low
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2735
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by PeterC »

I think this issue can be difficult at a few stages of practice.

Early on, a student is told that it's grasping and aversion that cause suffering, not any sort of objective 'good' or 'bad' out there, for instance in the analogy of the bowl of water being perceived differently by pretas, devas, etc. OK, says the student, but aren't there things that everyone agrees on as being 'good' and 'bad'? For instance - long life and health, vs. kids getting leukemia or slavery? Is that really a question of perception if everyone agrees on it? And if you're telling me that avoiding judgement and dualistic thinking will end suffering - isn't that just pretending that everything is great? Why tolerate conventional suffering and not try to actually do something about it? All of these questions have answers in Shantideva, but often it's a while before the student encounters them.

Later on, particularly for Vajrayana practitioners, you start saying that the earth is strewn with flowers and perfumed with scented water and so forth, imagining everything as the pure mandala of the deity...but then you need to confront that with the realities of living next to a building site, or seeing a river so polluted that all the fish are dead, or a forest being cut down to build a toxic waste dump. We're told that all sounds are the mantra of the deity, but then we hear Fox News. They're told that they must, on pain of hellfire, maintain pure perception of the guru, then they see their human guru display anger or greed. It's difficult for people to really believe in the practice of transformation when it conflicts so much with their own conventional perceptions - which is, really, why they need to practice it.

Finally, they hear things like the supreme conduct is to engage in all conduct without restraint and attachment - great, they think, I can drink, eat and sleep with anything I like.

It's completely reasonable for people to have trouble with these points. They are difficult, and often I feel they're not explained very well, though there are good answers to all of them. I think they become a lot easier to understand when you meet a teacher who exemplifies the practices - for instance, hearing Garchen R. talk about the years he spent in prison.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

PeterC wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:03 am I think this issue can be difficult at a few stages of practice.

Early on, a student is told that it's grasping and aversion that cause suffering, not any sort of objective 'good' or 'bad' out there, for instance in the analogy of the bowl of water being perceived differently by pretas, devas, etc. OK, says the student, but aren't there things that everyone agrees on as being 'good' and 'bad'? For instance - long life and health, vs. kids getting leukemia or slavery? Is that really a question of perception if everyone agrees on it?
Yes. I heard HHDL say something once about White Tara practice, which is for long life. He said that a long life wasn’t very important. What’s important is what you do with whatever life you’ve got.
And if you're telling me that avoiding judgement and dualistic thinking will end suffering - isn't that just pretending that everything is great?
If you haven’t actually purified you mind of it’s obscurations, it is pretending. If you have significantly reduced your emotional defilements and obscurations to knowledge, everything is seen from a perspective not available to the pedestrian mind. That’s not pretending.
Why tolerate conventional suffering and not try to actually do something about it?
Of course you address conventional suffering. But since there is no final satisfactory resolution to conventional living, and if you have the opportunity, then it’s time to go for the brass ring.
Later on, particularly for Vajrayana practitioners, you start saying that the earth is strewn with flowers and perfumed with scented water and so forth, imagining everything as the pure mandala of the deity...but then you need to confront that with the realities of living next to a building site, or seeing a river so polluted that all the fish are dead, or a forest being cut down to build a toxic waste dump.
Yep. IF, and this is a big if, you accomplish the practice, a toxic waste dump is the pure mandala of the deity. As I quoted Malcolm at the start of this thread,
Malcolm wrote:For a being with a pure mind, Avici hell is no different than Akaniṣṭha Ghanavyuha, the buddhafield of Vairocana/Vajradhara.
But first you’ve got to let go of believing it is how your normal perception believes it to be.
We're told that all sounds are the mantra of the deity, but then we hear Fox News.
Yes. Fox News too.
They're told that they must, on pain of hellfire, maintain pure perception of the guru, then they see their human guru display anger or greed.
No comment.
It's difficult for people to really believe in the practice of transformation when it conflicts so much with their own conventional perceptions
Yes. That is why it is essential that the student first understands that their own sane, sober, level headed conventional perceptions are incorrect. The conflict shows the limitations and faults of their present awareness.
Finally, they hear things like the supreme conduct is to engage in all conduct without restraint and attachment - great, they think, I can drink, eat and sleep with anything I like.
That’s just wrong. Indulging defiled impulses results only in suffering. It’s always poison.
It's completely reasonable for people to have trouble with these points. They are difficult, and often I feel they're not explained very well, though there are good answers to all of them.
Yes. It really helps if they understand that their present mode of perceiving reality is deeply, fundamentally, and hopelessly flawed.
I think they become a lot easier to understand when you meet a teacher who exemplifies the practices - for instance, hearing Garchen R. talk about the years he spent in prison.
Yes.

The enlightened mind sees things very differently than the pedestrian mind. In fact, the pedestrian mind is the obstacle to be overcome in order to see life accurately. In the analogy of the clouds obscuring the sun, the clouds represent the pedestrian mind. As HH Karmapa recently said, “The problem isn’t ignorance. The problem is the mind you have right now.”

True unawareness thinks “things are how I perceive them to be, and I know that for an absolute fact because I experience them that way.” To which the Buddha says, “Oh yeah? You think so? Well then start by showing me where the essence of it is...” This is the start of leaving the assumptions of unawareness behind.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2735
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by PeterC »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:15 am
PeterC wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:03 am I think this issue can be difficult at a few stages of practice.
...
It's completely reasonable for people to have trouble with these points. They are difficult, and often I feel they're not explained very well, though there are good answers to all of them.
Yes. It really helps if they understand that their present mode of perceiving reality is deeply, fundamentally, and hopelessly flawed.

...
I think you may have missed my point, which was not to argue for the reality of conventional perceptions, but to illustrate why it's difficult for practitioners to understand the two truths. I don't think it's very helpful to tell practitioners, particularly early on, that their perception of reality is completely wrong: they feel that like the Red Queen, you're asking them to believe six impossible things before breakfast. And then if you tell them that their basic judgements of value on which everyone agrees - that cancer is bad and health is good, for instance - are also just flawed perceptions, I think you make it harder, not easier, for people to actually develop confidence in the teachings. If we tell people that their perception of conventional reality is mistaken, why should their understanding of ultimate reality be unmistaken? How do they know they are not simply exchanging one set of fabricated concepts for another?

As the great Gendun Chopel said:
...as long as we remain in this land of samsara, it is true that there is no other method than simply making decisions, having placed one's confidence in this mind in which one can have no confidence in of the decisions that it makes. However, is it not going too far by virtue of merely this to concoct a system of thought for the nature of dharmata and for each and everyone of the all the inconceivable and unnameable supramundane qualities and, having given a name to each and every one of them, to then make decisions?

The venerable Buddhaghosa decided that external objects are truly established, but the master Asanga took them to be fictions. And Asanga himself decided that the imaginary lacks truth and that the dependent is truly established. The Madhyamaka masters, however, placed it in the category of fictions. Therefore, if there can be no confidence even in the minds of those scholars, in whose mind can there be confidence? Even in the case of someone like us, I would say: if one analyzes with one's own experience, one can understand how much our attitudes change from the time we are children until we are old and decrepit. How can one have confidence in today's conceptions?
...and so on. One cannot think oneself out of this problem.
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2735
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by PeterC »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:16 pm In Malcolm’s post...
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php? ... l#p379425
Malcolm wrote:For a being with a pure mind, Avici hell is no different than Akaniṣṭha Ghanavyuha, the buddhafield of Vairocana/Vajradhara.
...how are we to understand that without being Panglossian?
The point Voltaire was making was that Dr Pangloss was a self-deceiving fool. He deliberately ignored observable facts: the 'reality' he believed in was false. What Pangloss does is the denial of reality. Now we are engaged in the re-discovery of ultimate reality, and it's the misperceptions of conventional reality that we're trying to eliminate. But that of course depends on our being right - that there really is an ultimate truth and that our perceptions of relative truth are flawed. (Of course we could just be wrong, as other major religions would hold, but we don't believe that we're wrong on this.) But that's not to say that conventional truth is not, in some way, true. But the critical distinction between what we're doing and what Pangloss was doing is that we're right and Pangloss was wrong. It's understandable that someone might entertain doubt on that point. If used properly, this doubt can actually be very helpful.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

...and so on. One cannot think oneself out of this problem.
No, one cannot think oneself out of this problem. But one can evolve—actually change—in concert with right views. But wrong view can kneecap the process by remaining attached to pedestrian views.

A caterpillar will dismiss the idea of flying as incompatible with his reality. It’s outside his frame of reference. But that doesn’t mean it’s a mere concept.But he will have to evolve into a new type of being first. And then it will be 100% authentic and natural, not an abstract concept at all.

Enlightened beings and sentient beings may look the same, but they are as different as caterpillars and butterflies.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Malcolm
Posts: 32811
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:45 pm All the Tantras I’m familiar with maintain the normal, common perception of phenomena is mistaken. The actual mode of being, the way things actually are, is as a Buddha Realm. They don’t say “just the good parts”.
Grasping unmistaken perception is also mistaken.
Malcolm
Posts: 32811
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Malcolm »

Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:03 am
Enlightened beings and sentient beings may look the same, but they are as different as caterpillars and butterflies.
No, this is false. There is no substantial difference between Buddhas and sentient beings. We don’t become Buddhas, we already are Buddhas—at least, that’s what the Hevajra and other tantras state.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:23 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:03 am
Enlightened beings and sentient beings may look the same, but they are as different as caterpillars and butterflies.
No, this is false. There is no substantial difference between Buddhas and sentient beings. We don’t become Buddhas, we already are Buddhas—at least, that’s what the Hevajra and other tantras state.
That is true if you are speaking n the sense of
their primordial essence both being Buddha Nature. Of course.

However if you are speaking about how they manifest as appearances, there’s all the difference in the world. One manifests as limitations, suffering, defilements, and delusions. The other manifests as freedoms, peace, and spontaneously beneficial activity.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7199
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Pure view without being Panglossian.

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:22 pm
Schrödinger’s Yidam wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:45 pm All the Tantras I’m familiar with maintain the normal, common perception of phenomena is mistaken. The actual mode of being, the way things actually are, is as a Buddha Realm. They don’t say “just the good parts”.
Grasping unmistaken perception is also mistaken.
Okay. So your point is......?
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”