Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by mikenz66 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:00 am

Thanks, If I were an ace typist or had a scanner/OCR handy I'd have posted more of it. If you can post some extracts we could have a better discussion of the actual issues rather than a meta-discussion about sutta analysis (which might of course be worthwhile on a different thread).

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by beeblebrox » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:16 pm

Vossaga wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:In the Rig Veda :

1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence. This corresponds to ignorance.

2. A volitional impulse (kama - desire) initiates the process of creation.

3. Desire, 'the first seed of the mind', creates consciousness.
hello Mike

this sounds like the Book of Genesis but not Dependent Origination. the Book of Genesis says: "in the beginning, the earth was formless and empty". This is not ignorance. Ignorance is 'not-knowing'. ignorance is a defilement. ignorance is something rather than nothing.
I haven't read the book, but I think that was the point. Saying that: "First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence," would have to be based on ignorance. Who has ever seen the very beginning itself, anyway? That would be where all of the craving, clinging, becoming, the birth, aging, decay and death comes from. The dukkha, unsteadiness, unreliability, the suffering of clinging to one's own cherished views (or the Vedas), in other words.

:anjali:

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by retrofuturist » Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:28 am

Greetings,

Is this relevant?

The Sixteen Hindu Samskaras
http://www.vmission.org.in/hinduism/samskaras.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
1. Garbhadan - The first coming together of the husband & wife for bringing about conception.
2. Pumsvan - Ceremony performed when the first signs of conception are seen, and is to be performed when someone desires a male child.
3. Seemantonayan - A ceremony of parting of the hairs of the expectant mother to keep her spirits high & positive. Special music is arranged for her.
4. Jatakarma - After the birth of the child, the child is given a secret name, he is given taste of honey & ghee, mother starts the first breast-feeding after chanting of a mantra.
5. Nama-karana - In this ceremony the child is given a formal name. Performed on the 11th day.
6. Nishkramana - In this the formal darshan of sun & moon is done for the child.
7. Annaprashana - This ceremony is performed, when the child is given solid food (anna) for the first time.
8. Chudakarana - Cuda means the 'lock or tuft of hair' kept after the remaining part is shaved off.
9. Karna-vedha - Done in 7th or 8th month. Piercing of the ears.
10. Upanayan & Vedarambha - The thread ceremony. The child is thereafter authorized to perform all rituals. Studies of Vedas begins with the Guru.
11. Keshanta Hairs - are cut, guru dakshina is given
12. Samavartan - Returning to the house
13. Vivaha - Marriage ceremony
14. Vanprastha - As old age approaches, the person retires for a life of tapas & studies.
15. Sanyas - Before leaving the body a Hinddu sheds all sense of responsibility & relationships to awake & revel in the timeless truth.
16. Antyeshthi - The last rites done after the death.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester » Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:28 am

It's interesting that DN 15 also has a somewhat more abridged DO sequence. It does not address the nidanas of avijja-sankhara, nor sankhara-vinnana, nor namarupa-salayatana. In fact, Nama-Rupa suddenly assumes a gigantic role in this DO formula, serving as paccaya for 2 states, ie vinnana as well as phassa.

But even in this abridged formula, the absence of the nidana of sankhara-vinnana need not unduly alarm us. DN 15 posits that -
'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned? (Ven Thanissaro's translation)

‘Nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, tadānanda, imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ, yathā nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ. Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, nāmarūpe patiṭṭhaṃ na labhissatha, api nu kho āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ dukkhasamudayasambhavo paññāyethā”ti?
The patittham referred above is that "establishment" of consciousness mentioned in another thread. Take a look at SN 12.39 -
Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards : this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. Where there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is descent of name and form ... (continue per the rest of DO sequence)
.....

But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no descent of name and form... (continue per the rest of DO sequence)
Perhaps the first 2 standard nidanas were omitted from DN 15, simply because they were fairly well known in the context of other discourses? It does sound a lot more palatable than Gombrich's theory that the redactors might have mistaken a parody for Dhamma.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:34 am

Sylvester wrote: It does sound a lot more palatable than Gombrich's theory that the redactors might have mistaken a parody for Dhamma.
Since some reject much Classical Theravada thought on the basis that it is a misinterpretation, I hardly see Gombrich's theory as particularly radical compared to, say Ven Nanavira's or Ven Nanananda's theories. :stirthepot:

Besides, as Tilt has already pointed out, it's not a case of either-or with these various ideas. I'm personally quite happy to consider all the interpretations and see how they inform my practice...

:anjali:
Mike

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:36 am

While I think Gombrich cannot be so easily dismissed in his thesis, I wonder if he had addressed the fact that whatever cosmological bent the Vedas held for "Nothing" as the ground, at least one sutta explicitly rejects any cosmogony to Avijja -
A beginning point for ignorance — [such that one might say], 'Before this, ignorance did not exist; then it came into play' — cannot be discerned. This has been said. Nevertheless, it can be discerned, 'Ignorance comes from this condition.' And I tell you, ignorance has its nutriment. It is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? The five hindrances...

AN 10.61
Unlike some other Buddhist traditions who envisage DO to be a circle, neither Birth-&-Death nor Dukkha are described in the Pali Canon as the abovesaid condition of Avijja -
And what is ignorance? What is the origination of ignorance? What is the cessation of ignorance? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of ignorance?

"Any lack of knowledge with reference to stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the origination of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the cessation of stress, any lack of knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress. This is called ignorance.

"From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of ignorance.
.....

And what is fermentation? What is the origination of fermentation? What is the cessation of fermentation? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of fermentation?

"There are these three fermentations: the fermentation of sensuality, the fermentation of becoming, the fermentation of ignorance. This is called fermentation.

"From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fermentation.

- MN9
If AN 10.61 is indeed the Buddha's words, that would neatly show a rejection of the cosmological assumptions of the Vedas by the Buddha, even if He borrowed a well-known model from them.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester » Thu May 19, 2011 5:43 am

Just a little something for the Gombrich fans on "Namarupa".

His student, Sue Hamilton, seems to be another proponent for the argument that the Buddha's usage of "Namarupa" ought to be understood in the context of the contemporary usage of that time. I've not found her "Identity and Experience" where she argues for this in detail, but a summary of her thesis is found from p.150 onwards here -

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=pE9 ... &q&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In her view, the Vedic conception of "Namarupa" is that Nama constitutes that which is "named/conceptualised/conceived", while Rupa is that which is "apperceived", phenomena which differentiate and distinguish one subject from the next. Note, that her thesis differs from Jurewicz who seems to argue that Namarupa represent "naming" and "giving form".

There's a delicious hint that Hamilton discusses the wretched vinnana anidassana riddle, but lots of it are excluded from the Google Book preview. But, better yet, she develops a really good reading for DN 15's adhivacanasamphassa and patighasamphassa and ties that to her conception of Namarupa (or she could have been totally influenced by Ven Nanavira's interpretation of the same...)

Still, there is something quite useful in Hamilton's thesis which she may not herself have noticed. If Namarupa is how a "subject" is delineated by others, and such delineation of a person vide its khandhas is possible only because of that "person's" clinging, perhaps it will not be impossible to dovetail the Vedic idea of Namarupa with the unique Buddhist spin of Namarupa being the khandhas, plus some.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by mikenz66 » Thu May 19, 2011 6:21 am

Thanks Sylvester, I'll check that book out when we get back access to our library...

I'm not sure I'm a Gombrich fan, but it is interesting how, as you say, some of the academics come to these conclusions that sound similar to Vens. Nanavira and/or Nanananda, but from a quite different path.

Actually, that reminds me that a few posts above Kenshou was promising to summarise relevant parts of Jurewicz's paper in the PTS journal... :reading:



:anjali:
Mike

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester » Thu May 19, 2011 7:36 am

What I like about Hamilton's thesis of Namarupa is that it avoids Gombrich's proposition that the full DO presentation was the accidental hobbling together of "true Buddhist" DO and the Buddha's parody of Vedic cosmogeny.

What will be really interesting is how Jurewicz and Hamilton arrived at very different readings of Namarupa, Jurewicz' being a perspective of that which names, while Hamilton views it as that which is named.

I don't have the Upanishad handy for now, but I think there's one which attempts to explain Namarupa by the river simile - the rivers lose their nama and rupa, once they join the sea. This seems more in line with Hamilton's explanation, but I'm not sure if that Upanishad was one that pre- or post-dated the Buddha.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by mikenz66 » Thu May 19, 2011 8:19 am

Sylvester wrote: In [Hamilton's] view, the Vedic conception of "Namarupa" is that Nama constitutes that which is "named/conceptualised/conceived", while Rupa is that which is "apperceived", phenomena which differentiate and distinguish one subject from the next. Note, that her thesis differs from Jurewicz who seems to argue that Namarupa represent "naming" and "giving form".
Isn't Hamilton's view therefore closer to what I quoted from Gombrich:
4. Gombrich: "Pure consciousness is thus at best reflexive, cognizing itself. From this reflexivity, in which there is only one entity, develops an awareness of subject and object; this in turn leads to further individuation, until we reach the multiplicity of our experience: individuation both by name (nama), using a linguistic category, and by appearance (rupa), perceptible to the senses."
And this seems similar to the definition used by Ven Nanananda, though it seems unreasonably difficult to find a short definition from Ven N...

:anjali:
Mike

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Sylvester » Thu May 19, 2011 9:51 am

I suspect that what Gombrich calls "individuation" is on the part of Namarupa, what in grammar would be called the agent or the subject. I read Hamilton as proposing Namarupa to be that which is the "object" or patient of individuation. What makes for nama and rupa, in Hamilton's presentation, is the subjective relation by the "other" to the namarupa. But, that's just how Hamilton seems to me; perhaps my reading would change once I get my hands on her "Identity and Experience".

Therein lies the differences between Ven Nanananda's/Gombrich's functionalist nama (as naming) and Hamilton's object (as named).

I hope the differences between Hamilton and Jurewicz are not going to turn on how a Vedic word was inflected. If memory does not fail me, Gombrich mentioned a new reading of the Vedas which displaces the old scholarship of "no rebirth in the Vedas", based purely on the new reading assigning a different grammatical case to a previously accepted inflection.

morning mist
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:31 pm

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by morning mist » Thu May 19, 2011 6:36 pm

Hi mikenz66,
mikenz66 wrote: In the Rig Veda :

1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence. This corresponds to ignorance.

2. A volitional impulse (kama - desire) initiates the process of creation.

3. Desire, 'the first seed of the mind', creates consciousness.
The term consciousness shouldn't be understood according to the Vedic definition. Consciousness is not the true self or atman in Buddhism, but merely a combination of many moments of awareness that happens very quickly to give the illusion of the observer.

The first link in Dependent Origination is Avijja. It is commonly translated as " ignorance". From the term " ignorance" we make the assumption that it means " nothing" or " nothingness " in Vedic cosmology. However, if we look at the Buddha's own explanation for what he meant by the term Avijja, it has nothing to do with " nothingness" . It has more to do with not seeing things the way they truly are while we are living , and not being able to penetrate the Four Noble Truths, which then lead to volitional formation. The Buddhist first link Avijja does not correspond with " 1. First there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence." of the Vedic teaching .

According to SN 12.1. 3:

“Monks, what is Avijja ? Monks, if someone does not know dukkha, the arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha and the path leading to the cessation of dukkha. To that is said avijja.

Note: Avijj is consistently explained as not fully understanding the Four Noble Truths.

Here he is referring to a living , breathing person like me and you living in a fully formed world that we are in right now. It has nothing to do with a state where "there is nothing, not even existence or non-existence".

The Vedic and Buddhist tradition originated from the same location , so it shouldn't surprise us that they share similar vocabulary. However, we need to be careful about interpreting the same terms that both teaching share according to the Vedic context. For example, the term karma and rebirth. Although both religion has this term in their teaching, but it would be a mistake to understand the Buddhist concept of karma according to Vedic karma. They both have very different explanation for the term karma. The Vedic teaching on karma leads to rituals, killing of animals and binding people to caste system. The Buddhist explanation of the same term has nothing to do with these practices. We shouldn't understand other similar terms in the context of Vedic teaching:

"The Pāli term Avijja is usually translated as ignorance is avijjā, which might be better translated as delusion. The problem is not so much that we lack knowledge, as the word ignorance might suggest, but that we have a distorted understanding of how things work. Because of our fundamentally deluded or distorted outlook, we don’t see things as they actually are. This distorted outlook is nothing other than our inability to see the three characteristics of existence: our tendency to see things as permanent when in fact they are impermanent, to see happiness where in fact there is suffering, and to see things as self when in fact they are non-self. This is the basic delusion that we live under and it is this misconception which is at the root of this entire chain of dependent origination.

The good news is that ignorance/delusion is itself conditioned by other factors; it is not a monolithic entity that exists independently of everything else. …When we understand the conditions that support delusion we also understand what sort of practice we need to undertake to reduce it and eventually abandon it altogether. So what are the conditions that prop up and perpetuate delusion? They are nothing other than the five hindrances: desire for sense objects, ill will, dullness and lethargy, restlessness and worry, and doubt. This means that the stronger these five hindrances are, the more powerful our delusion is going to be. ..Why is this so? Because the hindrances themselves distort how we see things. …Sense desire has a similar distorting effect. ….So the five hindrances, particularly anger and desire, distort our view of the world. The stronger the five hindrances are, the greater is our delusion, and the more distorted is our outlook. The less we have of these five hindrances, the less is the distortion and the clearer is our view of the world. And because dependent origination is a causal chain, the effect of the hindrances feeds the whole chain all the way down to suffering. So the weaker the hindrances are, the less suffering we experience, and the stronger the hindrances are, the greater is the suffering. It follows that if you want to reduce ignorance and suffering in your life, you have to reduce the five hindrances, that is, the defilements of the mind.

How do we reduce the defilements of the mind? In no other way than by practising the noble eightfold path." - Ven. Brahmali



Regarding to pre-existing theory Gombrich mentioned , the Buddha explained how they arrive that that theory:

“There comes a time, monks, sooner or later after a long period, when this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly reborn in the Abhassara Brahma world. ....But the time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world begins to expand. In this expanding world an empty palace of Brahma appears. And then one being, from exhaustion of his life-span or of his merits, falls from the Abhassara world and arises in the empty Brahma-palace." The first one that fell thought that he is the creator of the ones that fell ( for the same reason) after him.

SEMI-ETERNALIST : The Buddha lists 4 ways in which people arrived at the Semi-eternalist views:

“There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are partly Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists, who proclaim the partial eternity and the partial non-eternity of the self and the world in four ways. On what grounds?”

5. “But the time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world begins to expand. In this expanding world an empty palace of Brahma appears. And then one being, from exhaustion of his life-span or of his merits, falls from the Abhassara world and arises in the empty Brahma-palace. And there he dwells, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious - and he stays like that for a very long time.”

“Then in this being who has been alone for so long there arises unrest, discontent and worry, and he thinks: ‘Oh, if only some other beings would come here!’ And other beings, from exhaustion of their life-span or of their merits, fall from the Abhassara world and arise in the Brahma palace as companions for this being. And there they dwell, mind-made, … and they stay like that for a very long time.”

“And then, monks, that being who first arose there thinks: “I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. These beings were created by me. How so? Because I first had this thought: ‘Oh, if only some other beings would come here!’ That was my wish, and then these beings came into this existence!” But those beings who arose subsequently think: “This, friends, is Brahma, Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. How so? We have seen that he was here first, and that we arose after him.”

“And this being that arose first is longer-lived, more beautiful and more powerful than they are. And it may happen that some being falls from that realm and arises in this world. Having arisen in this world, he goes forth from the household life into homelessness. Having gone forth, he by means of effort, exertion, application, earnestness and right attention attains to such a degree of mental concentration that he thereby recalls his last existence, but recalls none before that. And he thinks: ‘That Brahma, … he made us, and he is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall away, and we have come to this world.’ This is the first case where-by some ascetics and Brahmins are partly Eternalists and partly Non-Eternalists.”- Brahmajala Sutta


With metta,
with metta,

Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by Gena1480 » Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:29 am

the vedic discribe the Jhana of nothing
the buddha discribes cessation of feeling and perception
the difference between two
is the Jhana of nothing can be remembered even if does not have Consciousness
the cessation of feeling and percetion can not be remembered.
metta

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2464
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by manas » Tue May 29, 2012 12:44 pm

Gena1480 wrote:the vedic discribe the Jhana of nothing
the buddha discribes cessation of feeling and perception
the difference between two
is the Jhana of nothing can be remembered even if does not have Consciousness
the cessation of feeling and percetion can not be remembered.
metta
Hi Gena,

I am not so sure that it can't be remembered. I recalled this, thought I should post it:
"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, Sariputta entered & remained in the cessation of feeling & perception. Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is no further escape,' and pursuing it there really wasn't for him.
It says 'he emerged mindfully from that attainment', not that he came back to mindfulness (though I seek clarification on that; if someone who understands the pali in this section could take a look, it might help solve the question, 'is mindfulness still present during saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ ?
Puna ca paraṃ bhikkhave, sāriputto sabbaso nevasaññā nāsaññāyatanaṃ samatikkamma saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ upasampajja viharati. Paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti. So tāya samāpattiyā sato vuṭṭhahitvā ye te dhammā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā, te dhamme samanupassati: 'evaṃ kira me dhammā ahutvā sambhonti, hutvā paṭiventī'ti. So tesu dhammesu anupayo anapāyo anissito appaṭibaddho vippamutto visaṃyutto vimariyādīkatena cetasā viharati so natthi uttariṃ nissaraṇanti pajānāti. Tabbahulīkārā natthitvevassa hoti.
:anjali:
Knowing this body is like a clay jar,
securing this mind like a fort,
attack Mara with the spear of discernment,
then guard what's won without settling there,
without laying claim.

- Dhp 40

User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Dependent Origination and the Vedas

Post by ancientbuddhism » Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:05 pm

mikenz66 wrote:I thought it might be interesting to discuss the arguments that Richard Gombrich collects in Chapter 9 of his recent book What the Buddha Thought regarding the Dependent Origination sequence.

In brief, the argument is that the 12-step chain is the result of pasting together two chains, and that the first four links are a parody of Vedic Cosmogony.

The arguments are based on articles by Joanna Jurewicz, which unfortunately I can't easily access right now, such as "Playing with fire: the pratityasamupada from the perspective of Vedic thought", Journal of the Pali Text Society 26:77-103 (2000). ...
With reference to the book by Richard Gombrich and the article by Joanna Jurewicz cited in the OP, these can be found at the locations linked below.

What the Buddha Thought, by Richard Gombrich

Playing with Fire: The pratītyasamutpāda from the perspective of Vedic thought, by Joanna Jurewicz
Last edited by ancientbuddhism on Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests