Non-existent arm?

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
Post Reply
zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:27 pm

Edit: Apologies for failing to mention this! This post is about Manual of Insight. It was originally the title of the post but I edited it and forgot to clarify. End edit.

On page 362 the translators have this:
Before one reaches this stage of insight knowledge, one will be deluded with regard to these points. For example when one goes to raise one's arm one believes that the arm one means to raise already exists.
I can find nothing even remotely similar to this in the original translation which is supposed to be a closer translation to the Venerable's original syntax.

Regardless of how the translation process took place, what does it mean?

Here is my explanation:

The Abhidhamma and commentaries state that rupa (matter) is a paramattha dhamma ("ultimate reality" or "actually existing")[1]. One's arm is rupa and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that the rupa that a person is made of will continue to flow uninterruptedly from the time of rebirth-linking consciousness until death (at death it becomes temperature born matter in the form of a corpse until it turns to dust)[2]. Therefore, in some sense, one's arm is a paramattha dhamma and exists so long as one is alive (of course assuming one has not lost the arm somehow).

And so,

the translators must be referencing the conceptual "arm" which, being a concept, does not exist and what one is actually referencing is rapidly arising and falling rupa, and no such thing as an "arm" actually exists, only the paramattha dhammas that one conceptualizes as an "arm", and can see only as visible form, and touch as matter, exist. So they are correct in implying that there is no "arm" in this sense.

On a side note, from this, it would seem that, with a different understanding, wording and context, one could correctly believe that there is rapidly arising and falling, continuous rupa in the location where one would typically have an "arm". This matter can be seen by oneself and others as visible form and touched as matter[3][4][5], despite that fact that it is inconstant and not self, rupa does exist in the location of the "arm" in the form of continuously rising and falling matter and is paramattha dhamma. The matter flows on uninteruptedly from the time of rebirth linking consciousness until death so there would be no time while one is alive that it could rightly said that there is absolutely no matter where one perceives the conceptual arm (unless of course one had lost the arm somehow).

Or could it be that they simply meant that, since the rupa dhammas of the "arm" are constantly rising and falling, the "arm" that will be raised when one considers it is not the same as the one that will eventually be raised since it will have risen and fallen many times in the time between the consideration and action?

Can anyone clarify? Does this sound like an accurate explanation of the translators words?

1.) Abhidhamma Sangaha paragraph 2: "The things contained in the abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter and Nibbana."
2.) Abhidhammattha Sangaha, paragraph 24: "Thus the continuity of material groups produced in four ways-namely, kamma-born from the time of rebirth-linking, consciousness born from the second moment of consciousness, temperature-born from the time of the stage of presence, nutriment-born from the time of the diffusion of nutritive essence-uninterruptedly flows on in the sense sphere till the end of life, like the flame of a lamp or the stream of a river."
Abhidhammattha Sangaha paragraph 25: "But at the time of death, kamma-born material phenomena no longer arise starting with the stage of presence of the seventeenth consciousness preceding the death consciousness. Kamma-born material phenomena that arose earlier occur till the death-moment and then cease. Following that, the consciousness-born and nutriment-born material phenomena come to cessation. Thereafter, a continuity of material qualities produced by temperature persists in the form of a corpse."
3.)Vipassana Treatise Vol 1 pages 210-211(original translation of Manual of Insight) " Hence, the nature of the thing seen is only the form
or visible object"
"In this regard, if it is said that
there are females and males with whom contact is made, although
they might not have been seen, the phenomena contacted in reality
is not female or male, etc. It is only the "matter" that is touched
(phoṭṭhabba-rūpa) just like the visible object which is seen."
4.)Manual of Insight page 96 "Therefore, in order for there to be seeing, there must e eye-sensitivity, and there must be visible forms that really exist, are realities that genuinely exist, are personally experienced, and are ultimate reality."
5.)A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 26 "For example "being", and "man, and "woman" are...an assemblage of impermanent factors, of mental and physical processes. Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities-the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independently of the mind's constructive functions-that form the ultimate realities of the abhidhamma. ...ultimate realities exist as the concrete essences of things... Only by means of wise or thorough attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts and take the ultimate realities as one's object of knowledge. Thus paramattha is described as that which belongs to the domain of ultimate or supreme knowledge."
Last edited by zan on Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:48 pm, edited 6 times in total.
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

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

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by R1111 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:20 am

It means that there is delusion about fundamental nature of reality. Instead of observing reality as being of 5 Aggregates the meditator thinks that objects that are cognized by consciousness are real entities that can exist independently of consciousness.
In a similar way to how one can be said to be unable to step into the same water twice, one can not experience the same body twice. We are dealing with moment to moment arising and ceasing of phenomena.

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

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by R1111 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:43 am

It can help to think about concepts like a vacation, when one is on a vacation one cant point to it, one can never point to a vacation because the word is clearly a conception in the mind, implied is a beginning to it and an end due to natural causes.

If one were to point at one's arm as being on vacation, that would not be accurate if we were to examine exactly what it is we are pointing at in this case, the arm is limb a bodypart, skin, sinews, muscle, blood vessels of sorts, bones, bone marrow, upper joint, lower joint, which is the arm? Further upon examination we find that these formations are also conceptual consisting of molecules and these will also behave in same manner further leading us to look for something real in a conceptual world. So we can only observe conceptual reality with Aggregates and they are themselves of conceptual nature, thats why its so confusing.

If however we constantly keep looking at the Aggregates instead of taking the next step then we are not not falling for the trap and we are effectively practising Satipatthana meditation which if practised to perfection leads to cessation of Aggregates.

zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:56 am

R1111 wrote:It can help to think about concepts like a vacation, when one is on a vacation one cant point to it, one can never point to a vacation because the word is clearly a conception in the mind, implied is a beginning to it and an end due to natural causes. If being on a vacation one were to point at one's arm as being on vacation, that would not be accurate if we were to examine exactly what it is we are pointing at in this case, the arm is limb a bodypart, skin, sinews, muscle, blood vessels of sorts, bones, bone marrow, upper joint, lower joint, which is the arm? Further upon examination we find that these formations are also conceptual consisting of molecules and these will also behave in same manner further leading us to look for something real in a conceptual world.
Indeed, however according to the Abhidhamma there are irreducible realities underlying conceptual existence. Hence matter is a paramattha dhamma[1][2].

1.) A Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi page 25 "From the standpoint of ultimate reality (paramatthato): ...These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence"
2.) A Manual of Abhidhamma, Narada Maha Thera, page 318 "It should be noted that the atomic theory prevailed in India in the time of the Buddha. Paramàõu was the ancient term for the modern atom. According to the ancient belief one rathareõu consists of 16 tajjàris, one tajjàri, 16 aõus; one aõu, 16 paramàõus. The minute particles of dust seen dancing in the sunbeam are called rathareõus. One paramàõu is, therefore, 4096th part of a rathareõu. This paramàõu was considered indivisible. With His supernormal knowledge the Buddha analysed this so-called paramàõu and declared that it consists of paramatthas—ultimate entities which cannot further be subdivided."
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:58 am

R1111 wrote:It means that there is delusion about fundamental nature of reality. Instead of observing reality as being of 5 Aggregates the meditator thinks that objects that are cognized by consciousness are real entities that can exist independently of consciousness.
In a similar way to how one can be said to be unable to step into the same water twice, one can not experience the same body twice. We are dealing with moment to moment arising and ceasing of phenomena.
I think we are in agreement. Do you feel that I expressed roughly what you have written in my OP?

Unless you are implying that real entities cannot exist independently of consciousness? If so, from the Abhidhamma standpoint this is incorrect. Please see my footnotes in the OP where this is explained. A person even leaves behind a corpse that exists after consciousness is long gone as a temperature born paramattha dhamma. There are also rupas born of seasonal condition that have nothing to do with consciousness whatsoever such as geological formations[1]. Plants and inorganic substances are also created without interaction of kamma (and therefore, consciousness, since kamma is purely mental)[2][3].

So if a person is said to think incorrectly that their arm exists they are only wrong about it's conceptual existence. The rupa that flows and can be seen as visible form and felt as matter absolutely exists, regardless of the presence of consciousness (at least for a while in the case of a corpse) and in the case of rocks and geological formations and apparently plants they exist and are born without conscious interaction of any kind being required.

To quote The Venerable Dhammanando from another thread in speaking about the Theravada orthodoxy:
Dhammanando wrote:...I think it can be uncontroversially said that this orthodoxy holds that external material objects exist. That is to say, the commentarial system is a realist, not an idealist one.[4]


1.)A Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 251 "Externally, temperature or the fire element also produces inorganic material phenomena, such as climatic and geological transformations."
2.)A Manual of Abhidhamma, Narada Maha Thera, page 346 "Hadaya and 8 Indriya råpas (= eye, ear, nose,
tongue, body, masculinity, femininity, and vitality) are
wholly produced by Kamma. Thus jãvitindriya or the life principle
present in animate beings such as men and animals
should he differentiated from the inanimate life of
plants and inorganic substances, as they are not the inevitable
results of Kamma.
They do possess a certain kind of life different from
human beings and animals."
3.)A Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 31 "It should be understood that both kamma and its results are purely mental."
4.)https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 94#p414334
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

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

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by R1111 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:15 am

zan wrote: So if a person is said to think incorrectly that their arm exists they are only wrong about it's conceptual existence.
Its the other way around, if one assumes materialistic, annhilation view then one is wrong about the Arms ultimate existence because such person will expect something solid, some sort of energy or some stable objective building block of reality. Whilst Buddhism rejects this saying that there is only Nibbana and conceptual (Impermanent) realities. So person would be right in saying that arm exists conceptually, however he would not split reality into conceptual and ultimate, to him conceptual is essentially ultimate.

Thing about impermanence is that if something disappears without a trace and no information can be recovered, its like it never existed. Therefore impermanent stuff have a property of becoming non existant litterally.
We are dealing with delusion here, mental disorder of sorts, not seeing reality for what it is.

I think i agree with your reasoning in general however there are some confusing parts and some that can be open to interpretation so im hestitant to agree. IE
One's arm is rupa and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that the rupa that a person is made of will continue to flow uninterruptedly from the time of rebirth-linking consciousness until death (at death it becomes temperature born matter in the form of a corpse until it turns to dust)[2]. Therefore, in some sense, one's arm is a paramattha dhamma and exists so long as one is alive (of course assuming one has not lost the arm somehow)
Here if i intereperet it as :
"One's arm is rupa and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that the idea of a person's arm will exist in the context of his existence as a human being and therefore can be said to flow uinterruptedly from the time of birth until death as an idea of a limb in context of being a human while also ultimately being empty of an essense existing as essentially perceptions of elements of Fire, Wind, Water, Earth, congnized by consciousness and discerned by wisdom.

I dont like guessing tho, so im not sure if agree or not friend:)
Last edited by R1111 on Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:06 am

R1111 wrote:
zan wrote: So if a person is said to think incorrectly that their arm exists they are only wrong about it's conceptual existence.
Its the other way around, if one assumes materialistic, annhilation view then one is wrong about the Arms ultimate existence because such person will expect something solid, some sort of energy or some stable objective building block of reality. Whilst Buddhism rejects this saying that there is only Nibbana and conceptual (Impermanent) realities. So person would be right in saying that arm exists conceptually, however he would not split reality into conceptual and ultimate, to him conceptual is essentially ultimate.

Thing about impermanence is that if something disappears without a trace and no information can be recovered, its like it never existed.
We are dealing with delusion here, mental disorder of sorts, not seeing reality for what it is.

I think i agree with your reasoning in general however there are some confusing parts and some that can be open to interpretation so im hestitant to agree. IE
One's arm is rupa and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that the rupa that a person is made of will continue to flow uninterruptedly from the time of rebirth-linking consciousness until death (at death it becomes temperature born matter in the form of a corpse until it turns to dust)[2]. Therefore, in some sense, one's arm is a paramattha dhamma and exists so long as one is alive (of course assuming one has not lost the arm somehow)
Here if i intereperet it as :
"One's arm is rupa and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that the idea of a person's arm will exist in the context of his existence as a human being and therefore can be said to flow uinterruptedly from the time of birth until death as an idea of a limb in context of being a human while also ultimately being empty of an essense existing as essentially elements of Fire, Wind, Water, Earth.

I dont like guessing tho, so im not sure if agree or not friend:)



That is your opinion and may be true for some sects of Buddhism, however this opinion does not apply to the Theravada orthodoxy which holds that there are ultimate realities underlying conceptual realities. They also hold that there are objective building blocks of reality[1]. They also hold that nibbana is one of four ultimate realities. They do not say that there is only nibbana and conceptual realities, they say that there is nibbana and three other ultimate realities that exist beneath concepts: mind, mental factors and matter.

You are correct more or less in your rephrasing of the part of my post that you posted, so we are in agreement. I think you are reading "ultimate realities" as "permanent realities", when in fact what they are is things that actually exist but only temporarily as they constantly rise, fall, and change. So yes, there are ultimate building blocks beneath them, but they are constantly arising and falling and will eventually cease or change. However my notes are all direct quotes from reliable sources and need no interpretation.

I assume that you are not reading my notes and you are probably not even reading my entire posts as you keep answering in ways that are not considering the references and notes which I have provided to back up my statements.

Mahasi Sayadaw was a strict orthodox Theravada practitioner, this question is about a statement translated from his book and so the orthodox Theravada explanation is relevant and your opinions, while appreciated for their effort, are not.

You practice insight meditation, I assume by your signature. You should read Manual of Insight to learn more about insight meditation and learn more about the tradition which you largely disregard in favor of your own opinions (not that there is anything wrong with this, there is no rule stating that one has to be orthodox and opinions can certainly be valid in many contexts.); the work is built entirely upon the foundation of the orthodox Theravada tradition and filled with quotes and references from said tradition.

To be clear: I am not attempting to define any fault whatsoever in you good sir. It is due to my own failings that I find it difficult to understand and/or discuss several different traditions and opinions at once and prefer to stick to clearly defined orthodoxy. I really appreciate all of your effort at providing helpful information. :smile: :heart:



1.) A Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 26: "Thus by examining the conventional realities with wisdom, we eventually arrive at the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs. It is these objective actualities-the dhammas, which maintain their intrinsic natures independently of the mind's constructive functions- that form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma.
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

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

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by R1111 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:17 am

I thought i presented Mahasi view tbh with you. I did not intend to interperet your notes rather your own statement, if i realized that they were direct quotes i would have interpreted them without having to guess what you mean by paramattha dhamma and the parantheses and would have interpreted them as i originally did.

other than this here ie
I think you are reading "ultimate realities" as "permanent realities", when in fact what they are is things that actually exist but only temporarily as they constantly rise, fall, and change. So yes, there are ultimate building blocks beneath them, but they are constantly arising and falling and will eventually cease or change.
edited: i think it refers to Four Elements here but they are not things they are conceptions perceived and cognized by appropriate aggregates.

I separate reality into Nibbana (ultimate) and not-Nibbana(impermanent, suffering, non-self), can you tell me the 4 ultimate realities you mentioned?
Another thing is that if orthodoxy was so clearly defined i imagine it would be nice because then we would not have so many threads about defining stuff. In particular consciousness, perception, consciousness concommitants, jhana, name, form and existence.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by robertk » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:23 am

On page 362 the translators have this:
Before one reaches this stage of insight knowledge, one will be deluded with regard to these points. For example when one goes to raise one's arm one believes that the arm one means to raise already exists.
translation of what?

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by mikenz66 » Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:51 am

Mahasi Sayadaw. Manual of Insight. Zan is wondering about whether the translation from Burmese is correct.

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=lPP ... s.&f=false

:heart:
Mike

zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:46 pm

robertk wrote:
On page 362 the translators have this:
Before one reaches this stage of insight knowledge, one will be deluded with regard to these points. For example when one goes to raise one's arm one believes that the arm one means to raise already exists.
translation of what?
Sorry for the confusion. I edited my OP to clarify. Originally the subject title was "Manual of Insight" but that was vague so I changed it and accidentally made it even more vague by failing to add the title to the post.

There are two translations. In both the Venerable makes it very clear that form/matter/rupa can be observed because they actually exist. He states that concepts do not but that matter can be observed because it is a paramattha dhamma. The quote in the OP is from the more recent translation and seems to contradict this idea by implying that one's arm does not exist. I cannot find it's equivalent in the older translation said to be closer to the Venerable's original syntax.

It only seems reasonable to believe that there is an arm in the sense that there is rupa beneath the conceptual arm considering that, even after a person dies and their conceptualizing has ceased because their consciousness has departed, the arm will continue to exist as temperature born matter until it decays, needing no support from any consciousness whatsoever. So it seemed odd to consider it a delusion to believe that one's arm exists other than by assuming that the delusion is the assumption of a conceptual, permanent arm as opposed to rising, falling and continuously flowing rupa dhammas, which an assumption of would not be a delusion.


I was trying to come up with a reasonable interpretation of these sentences on the assumption that they are not contradicting anything and that I just need to interpret them in another way.
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by robertk » Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:24 am

zan wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. I edited my OP to clarify. Originally the subject title was "Manual of Insight" but that was vague so I changed it and accidentally made it even more vague by failing to add the title to the post.

There are two translations. In both the Venerable makes it very clear that form/matter/rupa can be observed because they actually exist. He states that concepts do not but that matter can be observed because it is a paramattha dhamma. The quote in the OP is from the more recent translation and seems to contradict this idea by implying that one's arm does not exist. I cannot find it's equivalent in the older translation said to be closer to the Venerable's original syntax.

It only seems reasonable to believe that there is an arm in the sense that there is rupa beneath the conceptual arm considering that, even after a person dies and their conceptualizing has ceased because their consciousness has departed, the arm will continue to exist as temperature born matter until it decays, needing no support from any consciousness whatsoever. So it seemed odd to consider it a delusion to believe that one's arm exists other than by assuming that the delusion is the assumption of a conceptual, permanent arm as opposed to rising, falling and continuously flowing rupa dhammas, which an assumption of would not be a delusion.


I was trying to come up with a reasonable interpretation of these sentences on the assumption that they are not contradicting anything and that I just need to interpret them in another way.
Arm is a concept, and in fact does not exist. However there are elements -rupas- arising and ceasing, that do exist very very briefly. The normal person , however, erroneously thinks that he has an arm - that it lasts for years, days, minutes, seconds: but that is a delusion.
This is what the quote is pointing to, IMO.

zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:29 pm

robertk wrote:
zan wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. I edited my OP to clarify. Originally the subject title was "Manual of Insight" but that was vague so I changed it and accidentally made it even more vague by failing to add the title to the post.

There are two translations. In both the Venerable makes it very clear that form/matter/rupa can be observed because they actually exist. He states that concepts do not but that matter can be observed because it is a paramattha dhamma. The quote in the OP is from the more recent translation and seems to contradict this idea by implying that one's arm does not exist. I cannot find it's equivalent in the older translation said to be closer to the Venerable's original syntax.

It only seems reasonable to believe that there is an arm in the sense that there is rupa beneath the conceptual arm considering that, even after a person dies and their conceptualizing has ceased because their consciousness has departed, the arm will continue to exist as temperature born matter until it decays, needing no support from any consciousness whatsoever. So it seemed odd to consider it a delusion to believe that one's arm exists other than by assuming that the delusion is the assumption of a conceptual, permanent arm as opposed to rising, falling and continuously flowing rupa dhammas, which an assumption of would not be a delusion.


I was trying to come up with a reasonable interpretation of these sentences on the assumption that they are not contradicting anything and that I just need to interpret them in another way.
Arm is a concept, and in fact does not exist. However there are elements -rupas- arising and ceasing, that do exist very very briefly. The normal person , however, erroneously thinks that he has an arm - that it lasts for years, days, minutes, seconds: but that is a delusion.
This is what the quote is pointing to, IMO.
Agreed. This is what I meant by my explanation in the OP. I must have failed to make it clear. I cannot always articulate my thoughts well :/
I think we are in agreement, yes? Arm as concept does not exist, that's what the translators meant, but a continuous succession of rapidly rising and falling rupa, different from one moment to the next, never existing for more than a few mind moments (billionth of a flash of lightning) does exist beneath the concept of the arm? They function rather like a movie strip where the frames move so quickly that it appears to be one continuous "arm" when in reality it is a continuously flowing succession of rapidly rising and falling but separate rupa?
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2487
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by robertk » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:25 pm

yes. And in what we think of as an arm there are literally trillions of kalapas (the smallest unit of matter) that, as you say, only last for a billioth of a flash ..

things are much more impermanent than we think..

zan
Posts: 460
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Non-existent arm?

Post by zan » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:31 pm

robertk wrote:yes. And in what we think of as an arm there are literally trillions of kalapas (the smallest unit of matter) that, as you say, only last for a billioth of a flash ..

things are much more impermanent than we think..
Okay so we are certainly on the same page in interpreting the words of the translators that I posted in my OP. Thanks!
I don't have much knowledge of the Dhamma, I'm just a beginner. Keep that in mind before you take anything I say too seriously :tongue:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests