Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Twilight » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:41 am

I think I finally understood what you are trying to say here:
The "that to be" is referring to "percept of earth" being conceived in the sequence. The whole point of this stanza is that the commoner is understanding it wrongly through his conceiving. It is meant to describe a mistake. The later stanza from the POV of the arahant is completely different and the arahant does not conceive anything let alone that percept of earth.

For example there is the perception of earth that a person has. And that "that" from the "he percieves that to be earth" is referring to this perception that the person has. And Nanamoli is trying to say that perception is something different from earth. For example one perceives a car. And that perception is one thing and the car is another.

This is perfectly in line with what Buddha had taught and I see where he is hinting but this is not what that particular sutta is about. And this information is not exactly something a putthijhana does not know.

EDIT: Because of lack of wisdom, there arises in the putijhana the idea "this is my perception" because he has not yet understood the doctrine of dependent origination to know there is no such thing as a self. And for the arahant, the phenomenon that arises is not "this is my perception of a car". It is just "a perception of a car" that has arisen and exists dependent on the eye, eye-consciousness, eye sight and the external element of a car. In this way the arahant does not conceive himself in this perception of a car. There arises a different perception in him than in a puthijhana. Is this what he is trying to say?

This is what the sutta is actually trying to say. The way Nanamoli has translated it makes one believe that the difference between a putthijhana and an sotapanna is that the puthijana mistakes the perception of earth to be earth. Or the perception of a car (interal) to be the real car (external). I don't think there is any puthijhana having such confusions. This is why I think the translation is misleading and not leading to what the sutta is trying to say.
Last edited by Twilight on Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:12 am, edited 5 times in total.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:47 am

Bakmoon wrote:But you presented it as an argument that the earth element is inherently real. All I did is point out your argument fails.

All I did was point out the arguments are irrelevant however, if I had to argue, I would take the side that the earth element is inherently real, i.e., always has the sabhava (own nature) of "earthiness".

Unlike craving, earth element cannot vanish. Its destruction cannot be observed. That is possibly why they are called The Four Great Elements.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:56 am

Twilight wrote:I've never heard Buddha debate weather the earth element is inherently real or not.

Yes. I agree. But Nāgārjuna sounds like he does. This was the point of raising the issue.

Honestly I don't even understand too much what "inherently" is supposed to mean.

Probably a Abhidhamma word, such as 'sabhava', which means the element of earth will always be earthy (solid), as in MN 62:
And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property?} Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid... MN 62

:alien:
Buddha view about the earth element and everything else is like this:

1) They have no substance, but they do exist.

The Pali is tucchaka - empty; vain, fruitless; lacking substance. Stop focusing on the English translation. Tucchaka is unrelated to non-existence.

Form has as much substance in it as consciousness or volition. That is how it should be seen. But it does exist just like consciousness or volition do exist.

Tucchaka means "fruitless". But in terms of "existence", form (rupa) is more permanent than mentality (nama), as follows:
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another... SN 12.61

:alien:
2) That who sees their cessation can not say they exist because they cease. Those who see their arising can not say they don't exist because they do arise.

SN 12.15 is probably about 'self-views' rather than about objects of consciousness. The two worldly views in SN 12.15 are atthitañceva & natthitañca, where each word seems to be connected with 'asmi" or "I am". The core message of SN 12.15 is right view does not regard anything as "myself". It sounds like you are reading SN 12.15 the same as Nagarjuna did & applying it to all things. You seem to be saying that because the Universe might possibly one day blow up & cease, say in 500 trillion years time in the future, the universe does not exist. :roll:

The word 'loka' generally refers to the human & godly (social) worlds. These are the worlds of 'self-identity' & dukkha (rather than the world as the planet Earth).

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

SN 56.11

"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

MN 44

Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos (world), the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."

AN 4.45

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world

SN 12.44

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

He is not resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

SN 12.15

Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Bakmoon » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:31 am

CecilN wrote:Unlike craving, earth element cannot vanish. Its destruction cannot be observed. That is possibly why they are called The Four Great Elements.

Do you mean to say that the earth element is permanent?
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:35 am

Bakmoon wrote:
CecilN wrote:Unlike craving, earth element cannot vanish. Its destruction cannot be observed. That is possibly why they are called The Four Great Elements.

Do you mean to say that the earth element is permanent?

Do the Pali suttas explicitly say anywhere the earth element is impermanent? Or do they only say the form (rupa) derived from the four great elements is impermanent?

Obviously, any element or atom of earth element is impermanent, since it will be subject to erosion. But how far can an atom of earth element be broken down until it ceases without remainder?

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:47 am

Twilight wrote:Well this is a therevadian forum. Therevada follows the teachings of the historical Buddha preserved in the pali canon. In order to know if one is interpreting the canon correctly or not, one first has to read it. You said yourself that you don't consider such a task to be important in page 2 of this topic. Without reading the pali canon, how can one possibly know witch views are in accordance with the pali canon or not ?

Again, I have no problem with the views expressed in this topic. I only have a problem with claiming these views are based on the Pali Canon.
Theraváda Buddhism is indeed based solely on the Páli Buddhavacana, based entirely on it, but you hermeneutic leads you to reject much of actual Theraváda Buddhism.

"Stupid Bhikkhu Books" is what I believe you call Theraváda discourse that goes not comply with the readings of Dhamma your hermeneutic produces from the Páli Buddhavacana, yes?

By all means reading the suttas is never a bad thing, but imported fundamentalist post-Protestant hermeneutics were not the hermeneutic with which the Páli was meant to be read, so even if they happen to produce 7 solid readings of a given sutta, they might also produce 6 flawed ones, or 20. With that hermeneutic you never really know if what you're gleaning from the Buddhavacana is authentic or if you are just reading the scriptures through your own preconceived lens of what it is "supposed" to mean.

This is why the Great Commentary (a fair amount of which is at least as old as the current written incarnation of the Páli Buddhavacana) and the monastic tradition are useful. One can't be a fundamentalist in the opposite direction, clinging to the words of monks as if they are all Buddha himself, but they preserve a very helpful system of hermeneutic interpretation that constitutes a generally highly informed, if humanly fallible, measuring post by which to judge certain things one encounters in the suttas, which can be very impenetrable at times due to their age.
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:08 am

Coëmgenu wrote:Great Commentary...

Buddhism primarily rests on meditative verification: sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi. Even the words of the Buddha himself spoken in the Buddha's own presence must be tested & verified. Refer to MN 38. Every appeal to authority & every ad hominem attack is pointless.
Last edited by CecilN on Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:11 am

CecilN wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:Great Commentary...

Buddhism primarily rests on meditative verification: sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi

Even the words of the Buddha himself spoken in the Buddha's own presence must be tested & verified. Refer to MN 38.

Every appeal to authority & ad hominem attack is pointless.
What are you even talking about? Ad hominems? Appeals to authority?
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:12 am

Coëmgenu wrote:What are you even talking about? Ad hominems? Appeals to authority?

Examples: refer to your posts.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:17 am

CecilN wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:What are you even talking about? Ad hominems? Appeals to authority?

Examples: refer to your posts.
Ok?

Why don't you find one single ad hominem on this thread coming from me?
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6272
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Mkoll » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:05 am

CecilN wrote:The word 'loka' generally refers to the human & godly (social) worlds. These are the worlds of 'self-identity' & dukkha (rather than the world as the planet Earth).

For the benefit of those just tuning in, this is CecilN's very peculiar view, not the Theravada view.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5526
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Aloka » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:26 am

Mkoll wrote:
CecilN wrote:The word 'loka' generally refers to the human & godly (social) worlds. These are the worlds of 'self-identity' & dukkha (rather than the world as the planet Earth).


For the benefit of those just tuning in, this is CecilN's very peculiar view, not the Theravada view.


Its not just CecilN's view. Ajahn Amaro discusses the different realms (worlds) of manussa loka, preta loka etc in this 5 minute video and how our minds can drift into the other realms from that of the manussa loka (human realm/world)


phpBB [video]



Please also check" loka" in this dictionary:

https://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_l.htm


:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Coëmgenu » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:42 am

Aloka wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
CecilN wrote:The word 'loka' generally refers to the human & godly (social) worlds. These are the worlds of 'self-identity' & dukkha (rather than the world as the planet Earth).


For the benefit of those just tuning in, this is CecilN's very peculiar view, not the Theravada view.


Its not just CecilN's view, Ajahn Amaro discusses the different realms (worlds) of manussa loka, preta loka etc in this 5 minute video and how our minds can drift into the other reams from that of the manussa loka (human realm/world)


phpBB [video]


:anjali:
This is actually almost identical to the Tiantai interpenetration of the 10 dhátu, interesting.

Ven Buddhadasa makes good insights, but sometimes he or his commentators seems to be prone to supercessionist rhetoric regarding how these teachings allegedly "replace" the already-existing transmissions of Buddhavacana-interpretation.

Ven Buddhadasa gives an explanation that is focused and related to practice in the here-and-now in this life and it is particularly open and inviting to modern scientific peoples who would have otherwise not been open to any Dhamma at all.

I think Ven Buddhadasa's interpretations don't actually contradict normal understandings of rebirth. The two applications of the teaching can exist side-by-side without contradiction or incoherency.
神足示現者,
世尊隨其所應,而示現入禪定正受,陵虛至東方,作四威儀,
行、住、坐、臥,入火三昧,出種種火光,青、黃、赤、白、
紅、頗梨色,水火俱現, 或身下出火,身上出水,身上出火,
身下出水,周圓四方亦復如是。

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6272
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Mkoll » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:13 am

Aloka wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
CecilN wrote:The word 'loka' generally refers to the human & godly (social) worlds. These are the worlds of 'self-identity' & dukkha (rather than the world as the planet Earth).


For the benefit of those just tuning in, this is CecilN's very peculiar view, not the Theravada view.


Its not just CecilN's view. Ajahn Amaro discusses the different realms (worlds) of manussa loka, preta loka etc in this 5 minute video and how our minds can drift into the other realms from that of the manussa loka (human realm/world)

Sure, you can use the idea of deva realms, etc. as psychological states as a pedagogical tool in the context of speaking at the Buddhadasa Archives. But that's not how they're used in the suttas. Nor, AFAIK, by any Theravada commentators up until Ven. Buddhadasa.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5526
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Aloka » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:13 am

Coëmgenu wrote:. The two applications of the teaching can exist side-by-side without contradiction or incoherency.


You might also like to read Ajahn Sumedho's views about rebirth in his book "Direct Realisation" in the section " An Interview with John Baxter" under the heading " Death and Rebirth" (p.203)

Excerpt:

AS: I am only interested in rebirth as something that you can witness with the mind. You can talk about a previous life or the next life,but then you are just dealing with speculation. The emphasis in the teaching though is always on the here and now rather than speculating about the past or imagining the future. When you understand what the Buddha was really teaching, then rebirth in those terms is really the process of becoming which is a mental process. You are becoming something all the time.

In heedlessness, when you are not being mindful, but just following habit and its process of becoming something, you mentally slip into role after role. For example becoming a father and a teacher, and something else and then something else, according to what you are attaching to and absorbing into on the sensual plane.

http://cdn.amaravati.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Ajahn-Sumedho-Volume-3-Direct-Realization.pdf



:anjali:

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6272
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Mkoll » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:20 am

Coëmgenu wrote:I think Ven Buddhadasa's interpretations don't actually contradict normal understandings of rebirth.

From what I've seen, some of his adherents or those who've been inspired by his teachings use them as an excuse to reject or be agnostic about rebirth as it is traditionally understood and taught in the suttas. And if someone wants to hold that view, that's their prerogative. But when they say that the Buddha didn't teach that kind of rebirth in the suttas, it's a misrepresentation. One needs to read enough suttas to clarify this, but few people do.

Coëmgenu wrote:The two applications of the teaching can exist side-by-side without contradiction or incoherency.

Perhaps, though I've never seen it done.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5526
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Aloka » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:21 am

Mkoll wrote:Sure, you can use the idea of deva realms, etc. as psychological states as a pedagogical tool in the context of speaking at the Buddhadasa Archives. But that's not how they're used in the suttas. Nor, AFAIK, by any Theravada commentators up until Ven. Buddhadasa.


Have you checked "loka" in the Nyanatiloka dictionary ?

https://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_l.htm


Loka: 'world', denotes the 3 spheres of existence comprising the whole universe, i.e. 1 the sense-world kāma-loka or the world of the 5 senses; 2 the fine-material world rūpa-loka corresponding to the 4 fine-material absorptions see: jhāna 1-4; 3 the immaterial world arūpa-loka corresponding to the 4 immaterial absorptions see: jhāna 5-8.

The sense-world comprises the hells niraya the animal kingdom tiracchāna-yoni the ghost-realm peta-loka the demon world asura-nikāya the human world manussa-loka and the 6 lower celestial worlds see: deva I. In the fine-material world see: deva II still exist the abilities of seeing and hearing, which, together with the other sense abilities, are temporarily suspended in the 4 absorptions. In the immaterial world see: deva III there is no materiality whatsoever, only the four mental groups see: khandha exist there.

Though the term loka is not applied in the Suttas to those 3 worlds, but only the term bhava 'existence' e.g. M. 43, there is no doubt that the teaching about the 3 worlds belongs to the earliest, i.e. sutta-period, of the Buddhist scriptures, as many relevant passages show.

Loka-dhamma: 'worldly conditions': 'Eight things are called worldly conditions, since they arise in connection with worldly life, namely: gain and loss, fame and anonymity, happiness and misery, praise and blame' Vis.M XXII. Cf. also A. VIII, 5.

Lokiya: 'mundane', are all those states of consciousness and mental properties - arising in the worldling, as well as in the Noble One - which are not associated with the supra-mundane lokuttara see: the foll. paths and fruitions of sotāpatti etc. See ariya-puggala A.

Lokuttara: 'supra-mundane', is a term for the 4 paths and 4 fruitions of sotāpatti etc. see: ariya-puggala with Nibbāna as ninth. Hence one speaks of '9 supra-mundane things' nava-lokuttara-dhamma. Cf. prec.



:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6272
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Mkoll » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:25 am

Aloka wrote:
Mkoll wrote:Sure, you can use the idea of deva realms, etc. as psychological states as a pedagogical tool in the context of speaking at the Buddhadasa Archives. But that's not how they're used in the suttas. Nor, AFAIK, by any Theravada commentators up until Ven. Buddhadasa.


Have you checked "loka" in the Nyanatiloka dictionary ?

https://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_l.htm


:anjali:

Yes.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby Bakmoon » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:18 am

CecilN wrote:
Bakmoon wrote:
CecilN wrote:Unlike craving, earth element cannot vanish. Its destruction cannot be observed. That is possibly why they are called The Four Great Elements.

Do you mean to say that the earth element is permanent?

Do the Pali suttas explicitly say anywhere the earth element is impermanent? Or do they only say the form (rupa) derived from the four great elements is impermanent?

It is a fundamental teaching of Buddhism that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. Nibbana alone is unconditioned, so all other phenomena, including the four great elements, are of course impermanent.

CecilN wrote:Obviously, any element or atom of earth element is impermanent, since it will be subject to erosion. But how far can an atom of earth element be broken down until it ceases without remainder?

What does this question mean? What do you mean by breaking an atom of earth down until it ceases without remainder?
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.

CecilN
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:31 am

Re: Theravāda & Nāgārjuna

Postby CecilN » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:53 am

Bakmoon wrote:What does this question mean? What do you mean by breaking an atom of earth down until it ceases without remainder?

This thread is about Nāgārjuna & I am pointing to what is practical versus creating a dogma. The Buddha practically taught the physical body is impermanent because it is something the mind attaches to as 'self', which creates suffering. But once we enter into dogmatic views such as the element of earth has 'no inherent existence', we come to problems such as proving the element of earth ceases to have the sabhava of 'earthiness'. Earth will always be earthy, just as consciousness will always cognise, just as Nibbana will always be peaceful. These inherent qualities of these things is their 'sabhava' (own nature). The element of earth can only have no inherent existence when it loses its earthiness or ceases without remainder; just as the illusory 'self' concept can cease without remainder. But the element of earth, unlike the hallucinatory self-concept, cannot cease without remainder. The earth element appears to always exist as earth element, regardless of its transformation into food, trees, flesh, sand, dust, atoms, etc.


Return to “Connections to Other Paths”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheSynergist and 63 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine