Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
khlawng
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by khlawng » Thu May 11, 2017 12:54 am

santa100 wrote: ...
Now if you want to counter this exact point, please provide sutta to back that up. To be more specific, please provide sutta that goes against AN 10.92 which was cited above. I'm waiting.
sorry, i have no interest in doing so.

santa100
Posts: 3051
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by santa100 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:07 am

khlawng wrote:
santa100 wrote: ...
Now if you want to counter this exact point, please provide sutta to back that up. To be more specific, please provide sutta that goes against AN 10.92 which was cited above. I'm waiting.
sorry, i have no interest in doing so.
Also to address your inquiry, I did check Ven. Bodhi's translation version of AN 5.179 (not AN 5.79) and he indeed rendered "false speech" which should be more in line with the other cited suttas, instead of just "lying" as rendered by Ven. Thanissaro.

chownah
Posts: 7491
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by chownah » Thu May 11, 2017 3:00 am

santa100 wrote:Notice observing the Five Precepts is only one among the various prerequisites before one can be called a Sotapanna:
AN 10.92 wrote:Householder, when a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities, possesses the four factors of stream-entry, and has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated with wisdom the noble method, he might, if he so wished, declare of himself: 'I am one finished with hell, the animal realm, and the sphere of afflicted spirits; I am a stream-enterer...

What are the five perils and enmities that have been eliminated? Householder, one who destroyes life,...takes what is not given...engages in sexual misconduct...speaks falsely...indulges in liquor, wine, and intoxicants...
This is as explicit as it gets. I simply can't imagine what else the Buddha could say to make it any more obvious.
I don't think that anyone would argue that a noble disciple that fits into the description which the buddha made above is a sotapanna. I think the difference of opinion is that some people view this list of things as necessary requirements for being a sotapanna i.e. it is a check list of things which must be accomplished to be able to declare oneself a stream enterer....while some people do not. The buddha does not say that this is a list of necessary conditions for being a sotapanna.....he only says that if one has met these conditions then one can declare oneself a stream enterer.

Just to make this concept clear. Let's consider this: "One who is 2 meters tall may rightly declare themselves as being over 1.5 meters tall." This does not mean that you have to be 2 meters tall to rightly declare this....one could be 1.51 meters tall and rightly declare this. Being 2 meters tall is adequate or sufficient for being able to rightly declare this but it is not necessary to be 2 meters tall to declare this. The difference is between what is ADEQUATE and what is NECESSARY.
chownah

santa100
Posts: 3051
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by santa100 » Thu May 11, 2017 3:22 am

chownah wrote:Just to make this concept clear. Let's consider this: "One who is 2 meters tall may rightly declare themselves as being over 1.5 meters tall." This does not mean that you have to be 2 meters tall to rightly declare this....one could be 1.51 meters tall and rightly declare this. Being 2 meters tall is adequate or sufficient for being able to rightly declare this but it is not necessary to be 2 meters tall to declare this. The difference is between what is ADEQUATE and what is NECESSARY.
The logic statement above does not translate to the logic statement in AN 10.92. Your premise and result are co-variant, not invariant like in AN 10.92. To demonstrate the point, a translation into AN 10.92 would be:
If one who is 2 meters tall, then one is over 1.5 meters tall
<===> If a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities, then s/he has eliminated over 3 perils and enmities
which obviously doesn't say anything.
A more accurate analogy to AN 10.92 is, for ex: If a grad student has successfully defended his electrical engineering Ph.D dissertation, then s/he can rightly be declared a Doctor of Philosophy in electrical engineering. <===> If a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities, etc..., then s/he can declare to him/herself that s/he is a Stream Enterer. In short, the contrapositive to the logic of: "If p then q" would naturally be: "If !p then !q"; or "If a noble disciple has NOT eliminated the five..., then s/he can NOT declare to him/herself that s/he is a Stream Enterer".

binocular
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by binocular » Thu May 11, 2017 9:19 am

khlawng wrote:can someone in coma qualify then?
It seems that in that case, the sutta with the analogy of the stupid baby boy applies:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

chownah
Posts: 7491
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by chownah » Thu May 11, 2017 10:10 am

santa100 wrote:
chownah wrote:Just to make this concept clear. Let's consider this: "One who is 2 meters tall may rightly declare themselves as being over 1.5 meters tall." This does not mean that you have to be 2 meters tall to rightly declare this....one could be 1.51 meters tall and rightly declare this. Being 2 meters tall is adequate or sufficient for being able to rightly declare this but it is not necessary to be 2 meters tall to declare this. The difference is between what is ADEQUATE and what is NECESSARY.
The logic statement above does not translate to the logic statement in AN 10.92. Your premise and result are co-variant, not invariant like in AN 10.92. To demonstrate the point, a translation into AN 10.92 would be:
If one who is 2 meters tall, then one is over 1.5 meters tall
<===> If a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities, then s/he has eliminated over 3 perils and enmities
which obviously doesn't say anything.
A more accurate analogy to AN 10.92 is, for ex: If a grad student has successfully defended his electrical engineering Ph.D dissertation, then s/he can rightly be declared a Doctor of Philosophy in electrical engineering. <===> If a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities, etc..., then s/he can declare to him/herself that s/he is a Stream Enterer. In short, the contrapositive to the logic of: "If p then q" would naturally be: "If !p then !q"; or "If a noble disciple has NOT eliminated the five..., then s/he can NOT declare to him/herself that s/he is a Stream Enterer".
I am not making a statement of formal logic. What I am saying is even simpler than that. I am just talking about what is necessary and what is sufficient. The buddha gives a bunch of things that if achieved allows one to declare stream entry....this is because the list is SUFFICIENT for that purpose. This does not mean that all of the things listed are NECESSARY to declare stream entry. The buddha does not declare that one must complete every thing on the list to declare stream entry....the buddha only says that if you do everything on the list it for sure will be enough but he does not say the list is the minimum which must be done to declare stream entry.
chownah

User avatar
ganegaar
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 8:01 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by ganegaar » Thu May 11, 2017 10:48 am

chownah wrote:
santa100 wrote:this is because the list is SUFFICIENT for that purpose. This does not mean that all of the things listed are NECESSARY to declare stream entry.
Above is a logically strange statement to me. I am more inclined to think, the set of "all sufficient conditions" must be necessary too., while a subset of necessary conditions may not be sufficient.
Edit: or may be i am wrong on second thoughts
But I do not think it is prudent to deduct anything from what Buddha has explicitly said as "unnecessary".
Sīlepatiṭṭhāya naro sapañño, cittaṃ paññañca bhāvayaṃ;
Ātāpī nipako bhikkhu, so imaṃ vijaṭaye jaṭanti.

santa100
Posts: 3051
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by santa100 » Thu May 11, 2017 1:03 pm

chownah wrote:I am not making a statement of formal logic. What I am saying is even simpler than that. I am just talking about what is necessary and what is sufficient.
I'd assume you meant the "necessary and sufficient" condition in logic. Since the Five Precepts are mentioned repeatedly in those suttas about the Sotapanna, it's obvious that it is the "necessary" condition (ie. without which one cannot be declared a Sotapanna). But it is not the "necessary and sufficient" condition (ie. in and of itself is not enough to be declared Sotapanna). Ex: a lay person who observes the Five Precepts perfectly but still not be qualified as a Sotapanna due to the lack of other conditions mentioned in AN 10.92, let alone someone who has not fulfilled the Five Precepts. This is why I find it a bit ridiculous to the claim that a Sotapanna can break the Five Precepts because even the perfection of it by itself is still not enough to guarantee Sotapanna. However, I do understand the reason why one claims such thing. It's typical human nature, if the bar is too high for one to jump over, then what does one do? Take the lesser path of resistance by lowering the bar instead of the much harder path to to put in all the time and effort to train to jump higher and further. A very typical human nature.
Last edited by santa100 on Thu May 11, 2017 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chownah
Posts: 7491
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by chownah » Thu May 11, 2017 1:06 pm

ganegaar wrote:
chownah wrote:
santa100 wrote:this is because the list is SUFFICIENT for that purpose. This does not mean that all of the things listed are NECESSARY to declare stream entry.
Above is a logically strange statement to me. I am more inclined to think, the set of "all sufficient conditions" must be necessary too., while a subset of necessary conditions may not be sufficient.
Edit: or may be i am wrong on second thoughts
But I do not think it is prudent to deduct anything from what Buddha has explicitly said as "unnecessary".
Here is an example to illustrate the difference between necessary and sufficient:
It takes two hands to clap....just forget the zen thing for this discussion...our rule is that it takes at least two hands to clap. In terms of "necessary", it is necessary to have at least two hands to clap. We say that it is necessary to have at least two hands to clap. We also say that having only two hands is sufficient to clap because everything needed for clapping is present (according to our rule) and so it is "sufficient"...that is to say if you have two hands then you have the sufficient stuff for clapping.
Now consider having only one hand. It is necessary to have at least two hands in order to clap and having only one hand means you do not have at least two hands so having only one hand is not sufficient to clap.
Now consider having three hands. It is necessary to have at least two hands in order to clap. Having three hands one can also clap in that having three hands one has at least two hands and so having three hands satisfies the condition of having at least two hands and so one can clap having three hands. We say that having three hands is sufficient to clap.
Here is the important part: Having three hands is not necessary to clap...you don't have to have three hands to clap so it is not necessary....but it is sufficient.
Stated another way: Having three hands is enough (sufficient) to clap but you have one hand which is not needed (not necessary). Three hands are sufficient but not necessary.
Some people interpret the sutta to mean that the buddha is describing a person who has sufficient attainments to declare stream entry but that not all of the attainments are necessary. In other words, some people believe that if you want to find the MINIMUM of attainments for stream entry then one should find the shortest list of attainments needed since that list does not include attainments which are not necessary but does include all the attainments that are necessary.
Note that the buddha seems to always talk about stream entry by giving an example of someone who is successful at attaining it but he never seems to say that everything that the person attained is necessary for stream entry but only that it worked and so is sufficient.
chownah

binocular
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by binocular » Thu May 11, 2017 6:19 pm

R1111 wrote:Im sure there are more, in general one should not assume things about people and if someone proclaims an attainment that is an invitation to be questioned as i see it. When a Bhikkhu declares final gnosis according to the Chabbisodanasuttam he should neither be belived nor not belived but questioned on the Dhamma.
A Sotapanna can be questioned as well but more basic questions i guess, anyway people should be given benefit of the doubt always imho.
How does this work out in reality, especially in a culture where people bow to (each)other and where the depth of each person's bow and how high they hold their hands in anjali expresses how highly they think of the other person?

At forums like this, this issue doesn't come up, but it does come up when meeting people in person. Not bowing deeply enough to someone can be seen as a sign of disrespect, and even be interpreted as denying their attainment!
if someone proclaims an attainment that is an invitation to be questioned as i see it
Have you tried that in reality?
How did it work out?
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3739
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala » Thu May 11, 2017 6:24 pm

chownah wrote:Here is the important part: Having three hands is not necessary to clap...you don't have to have three hands to clap so it is not necessary....but it is sufficient.
:clap:
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Sat May 13, 2017 9:08 am

This is kind of exhausting for me to look for the Suttas and keep explaining things, afaik the material has been exhausted and i have adressed every single point in a somewhat coherent manner.
santa100 wrote:
R1111 wrote:Why is it not on list of impossible things then? If he wanted to make that point he had 40 years to do it..
Because the Buddha expected you to read more suttas, like all those I have provided.
Here Sutta references are disproving your assumptions.
DN 33Five impossibles, to wit, for an Arahant intentionally to take life, or to take what is not given, so as to amount to theft, or to commit sexual offences, or to lie deliberately, or to spend stored up treasures in worldly enjoyments, as in the days before he left the world.
Sutava SuttaBoth before & now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles.
...
This pretty much disproves your claim and shows that it is very likely that it would've been stated if it was the case. Nor is there any mechanism by which it couldve happened for a person with relatively(to an Arahant) much delusion left. This is proclaimed of an Arahant and no such thing has been and therefore ought not to be stated about a Sotapanna imo.

And this is what has been and can rightfully be proclaimed of a Sotapanna:
Nanavira wrote:What the sotāpannais absolutely incapable of doing is the following (M. 115: iii,64-5):—

- To take any determination (sankhāra) as permanent,
- To take any determination as pleasant,
- To take any thing (dhamma) as self,
- To kill his mother,
- To kill his father,
- To kill an arahat,
- Maliciously to shed a Buddha's blood,
- To split the Sangha,
- To follow any teacher other than the Buddha.
Ratana Sutta:
Abhithanani; i. matricide, ii. patricide, iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones), iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood, v. causing schism in the Sangha, and vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi).
In regards to Nandiya Sutta:
ganegaar wrote: So, it can be the case, that the confusion here is, between the magga and phala, @R1111 you might be describing the qualities of a person who is on the way to become a Sotapana, but not necessarily a person who has attained the Sotapana state.
The Blessed One said, "And how, Nandiya, does a disciple of the noble ones live heedlessly? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One:... he does not exert himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedlessly, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in pain. When pained, the mind does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena do not become manifest. When phenomena are not manifest, he is reckoned simply as one who dwells heedlessly.
Clearly verified confidence is a mark of someone Attained to Stream-Entry. There are plenty of references and even the Pali version uses the word Ariyan Disciple (ariyasāvako) both when question is posed and when answered. The Sutta is furthermore from the Sotāpatti Saṃyutta Nikaya. Here some references proving verified confidence means Stream Enterer:
Licchavi SuttaBlessed One said to him: "Nandaka, a disciple of the noble ones endowed with four qualities is a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. Which four?

"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'
Raja Sutta"And even though a disciple of the noble ones lives off lumps of alms food and wears rag-robes, still — because he is endowed with four qualities — he is freed from hell, freed from the animal womb, freed from the realm of hungry shades, freed from the plane of deprivation, the bad destinations, the lower realms.

"And what are the four? There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'
Also noteworthy
because he is endowed with four qualities — he is freed from hell
It does not say "because he does not break the five precepts - he is freed from hell"
There are diffrent kinds of Stream Winners it is incredibly bold and provocative statement to make "that it cannot happen, it is impossible that they break the five precepts", although it is a very common thing in Asian Countries where the culture is seemingly steeped in dogmatism and the Sasana is institutionalized.

Here in example of Sotapannas may differ in case of someone who is Freed by Faith and someone who has won both View & Vision
MN70
And how monks, is the person who has Won View & Vision?

As to this, monks, some person is abiding, without having directly experienced with both body
and mind those peaceful mental releases, which are formless, and having seen by understanding
only some of his mental fermentations are utterly eradicated. However, those things explained
by the Tathagata are fully understood and fully practised by him. He has won view & vision, but
has still something to do. If he trains hard … then he might come to dwell in the sublime fruit.

And how monks, is the person who is Freed by Faith?

As to this, monks, some person is abiding, without having directly experienced with both body
and mind those peaceful mental releases, which are formless, and having seen by understanding
only some of his mental fermentations are utterly eradicated. But his faith in the Tathagata is
settled, fixed, genuine, & established. This, monks, is called a person, who is Freed by Faith, but
he has still something to do. If he trains hard … then he might come to dwell in the sublime fruit.
:heart:
Last edited by R1111 = rightviewftw on Sun May 14, 2017 7:38 am, edited 11 times in total.

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Sat May 13, 2017 9:22 am

binocular wrote:
R1111 wrote:
if someone proclaims an attainment that is an invitation to be questioned as i see it
Have you tried that in reality?
How did it work out?
Im not into questioning people, i tend to let them be and have refrained from getting involved even on the forum and would in general mind my own progress. Nor has it come up much, if someone i cared about did proclaim i would question him surely.

It seems like you might living in Asia where "Buddhism is on steroids".

I have a limited experience in dealing with monastics and don't want to disclose too much about myself but i think it is important to be open about one's views so that it can be worked out and harmony can be achieved one way or another. Ive raised all the controversial topics and challenged a lot of views, luckily the participants were very well behaved and we ended up having the most fruitful discussion, the tensions as well as the stakes were high tho so i would not recommend it without a lot of confidence and restraint of speech. Bowing has not been an issue for me as i don't really care and would bow to anybody from whom i can learn the Dhamma, it is probably not appropriate but it doesn't harm me.
Last edited by R1111 = rightviewftw on Sat May 13, 2017 1:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Sat May 13, 2017 12:46 pm

santa100 wrote:Notice observing the Five Precepts is only one among the various prerequisites before one can be called a Sotapanna:
AN 10.92 wrote:Householder, when a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities, possesses the four factors of stream-entry, and has clearly seen and thoroughly penetrated with wisdom the noble method, he might, if he so wished, declare of himself: 'I am one finished with hell, the animal realm, and the sphere of afflicted spirits; I am a stream-enterer...

What are the five perils and enmities that have been eliminated? Householder, one who destroyes life,...takes what is not given...engages in sexual misconduct...speaks falsely...indulges in liquor, wine, and intoxicants...
This is as explicit as it gets. I simply can't imagine what else the Buddha could say to make it any more obvious.
Well he could say it is impossible like it was done in the case of an Arahant, see post above.

You have to read the context here and look at the Pali, this is similar to the Gihi Sutta which has already been adressed both in the OP and later on.
santa100 wrote:Notice observing the Five Precepts is only one among the various prerequisites before one can be called a Sotapanna:
Actually this is not at all of whether one can be called a Sotapanna or not. It says that he can make the proclamation if he so wishes.
In regards to the Pali
Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu AN10.92 As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “When, for a disciple of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled;
Sister Uppalavanna... “Householder, when the five dreadful fears are appeased...
Bhikkhu Bodhi's own translation of an Identical Sutta SN 12.41“Householder, when five fearful animosities have subsided in a noble disciple...
Eliminated is definitely a shaky word to use here and Bhikkhu Bodhi himself did it in both ways and other Translators prefer subsided/appeased/stilled/calmed. Furthermore he is the only one inconsistent in his translations of these Suttas.

Anyway i leave you with this:
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
If you want to keep adding things to what was said to be impossible, i seem to be unable to stop you.
:heart:

santa100
Posts: 3051
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by santa100 » Sat May 13, 2017 4:05 pm

R1111 wrote:This pretty much disproves your claim and shows that it is very likely that it would've been stated if it was the case. Nor is there any mechanism by which it couldve happened for a person with relatively(to an Arahant) much delusion left. This is proclaimed of an Arahant and no such thing has been and therefore ought not to be stated about a Sotapanna imo
No, you have not proved your point at all. All you did were using DN 33 and twisted it to try to prove your point that a Sotapanna can break the Five Precepts. But DN 33 does not say that at all. And you completely threw AN 10.92 in the garbage bin regardless of how many times I have shown you. AN 10.92 proves beyond all shadow of doubts that the virtuous behavior that you keep questioning is indeed the Five Precepts. And it also says explicitly that the Sotapanna has fulfilled them. Whether "he can optionally make the proclamation if he so wishes" is entirely your assumption and I will have to ask you to provide sutta reference to back that up. You also completely ignore the suttas most important key words like:
[a Sotapanna] has fulfilled virtuous behavior.
...and to such a degree that is:
untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration
These are repeatedly mentioned but you made a conscious choice to never pay any attention to. You even went so far as selectely pick Ven.Bodhi's "subsided" translation in SN 12.41 as proof while deliberately hide the next section where its exact meaning was explained, again: "untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration". I know you already have your blindfold and earplugs on and there's no way you will listen. But as long as you keep presenting your personal view, I will be there to present the suttas view as a counterbalance so that other people will have all the needed information to make the right decision. :anjali:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], cappuccino, paul, samseva and 84 guests