A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Himasat
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:04 am

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by Himasat » Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:58 am

deleted
Last edited by Himasat on Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by acinteyyo » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:13 am

mal4mac wrote:So what is the "form".
"Form" (rūpa) is the four great elements, according to the Buddha, but I'm sure that will not help you any further, because you seem to be looking for an explanation you can grasp intellectually. "Form" cannot be understood that way, this is what I'm trying to point out to you. You've come to a point where more words won't bring you clearer understanding, you have to search for the answer what "form" is within your experience. There it is.
mal4mac wrote:Would using Kantian terminology, and transcendental idealism, help at all in understanding this material?
I don't know. Maybe it is useful as a hint.
mal4mac wrote:Is the "form of the tree" the "tree as noumenal object". That is is the "form of the tree" the tree "out there" that we can say nothing about because we haven't, and cannot, experience it?
You approach it from the wrong side. There is no "form of the tree" and there is no tree "out there".
Form does not belong to the tree, but the tree belongs to form. The tree is derived from the experience of form (among other experiences).

I'll try to give you a hint that points to that part in experience where you have to take a closer look at.
The four great elements (mahā bhūta) are earth, water, fire and wind. These elements describe certain experiences. Earth for example is a description for an experience of hardness or resistence one could say. If you experience hardness (earth) as a tactile sensation and examine the whole experience further also taking information of the other senses into account, you may arrive at the conclusion of touching a tree.
BUT it is not a "real tree out there" you are touching, to think that exceeds beyond the sphere of experience, where actually no statement can be made, what you DO know is the experience of form (here earth) and anything derived from form is also nothing but form.

I hope you can follow my poor attempt to give you a hint.
And I hope I don't deviate too far from the topic.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mal4mac » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:10 pm

Thanks acinteyyo, your points are interesting, even though I struggle to understand, not having much knowledge in this area.

Would it be correct to say, "A form is a particular experience"? Or is the usage "a form" just plain wrong here. That is should I be saying, "I experience form, and that particular experience of form, leads to the conclusion 'tree'".
- Mal

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1690
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by acinteyyo » Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:57 pm

mal4mac wrote:Would it be correct to say, "A form is a particular experience"? Or is the usage "a form" just plain wrong here.
"A form" is not plain wrong, but yes, it can lead to confusion if it is regarded as an absolute or independent "thing" somehow.
Any form, internal or external is just form. I recommend getting acquainted with the meaning of rūpa, nāma and the compound nāmarūpa.
Here some links to the shorter notes on rūpa and nāma. Maybe the shorter notes on dhamma are also helpful.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Sat Aug 29, 2015 1:57 am

Please refer to this post for information on the purpose of this thread.

Shorter Notes - 17th Excerpt
Previous Excerpts - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16

DHAMMA
Ven. Ñāṇavīra wrote:The word dhamma, in its most general sense, is equivalent to 'thing'—i.e. whatever is distinct from anything else (see ANICCA). More precisely it is what a thing is in itself, as opposed to how it is;[a] it is the essence or nature of a thing—that is, a thing as a particular essence or nature distinct from all other essences or natures. Thus, if a thing is a solid pleasant shady tree for lying under that I now see, its nature is, precisely, that it is solid, that it is pleasant, that it is shady, that it is a tree for lying under, and that it is visible to me. The solid pleasant shady tree for lying under that I see is a thing, a nature, a dhamma. Furthermore, each item severally—the solidity, the pleasantness, the shadiness, and so on—is a thing, a nature, a dhamma, in that each is distinct from the others, even though here they may not be independent of one another. These dhammā, in the immediate experience, are all particular. When, however, the reflexive attitude is adopted (as it is in satisampajañña, the normal state of one practising the Dhamma), the particular nature—the solid pleasant shady tree for lying under that I see—is, as it were, 'put in brackets' (Husserl's expression, though not quite his meaning of it), and we arrive at the nature of the particular nature. Instead of solid, pleasant, shady, tree for lying under, visible to me, and so on, we have matter (or substance), feeling, perception, determinations, consciousness, and all the various 'things' that the Suttas speak of. These things are of universal application—i.e. common to all particular natures (e.g. eye- consciousness is common to all things that have ever been, or are, or will be, visible to me)—and are the dhammā that make up the Dhamma. The Dhamma is thus the Nature of Things. And since this is what the Buddha teaches, it comes to mean also the Teaching, and dhammā are particular teachings. The word matter—'I will bear this matter in mind'—sometimes expresses the meaning of dhamma (though it will not do as a normal rendering).

Sabbe sankhārā aniccā; Sabbe sankhārā dukkhā; Sabbe dhammā anattā. ('All determinations are impermanent; All determinations are unpleasurable (suffering); All things are not-self.') Attā, 'self', is fundamentally a notion of mastery over things (cf. Majjhima iv,5 <M.i,231-2> & Khandha Samy. vi,7 <S.iii,66>[7]). But this notion is entertained only if it is pleasurable,[c] and it is only pleasurable provided the mastery is assumed to be permanent; for a mastery—which is essentially a kind of absolute timelessness, an unmoved moving of things—that is undermined by impermanence is no mastery at all, but a mockery. Thus the regarding of a thing, a dhamma, as attā or 'self' can survive for only so long as the notion gives pleasure, and it only gives pleasure for so long as that dhamma can be considered as permanent (for the regarding of a thing as 'self' endows it with the illusion of a kind of super-stability in time). In itself, as a dhamma regarded as attā, its impermanence is not manifest (for it is pleasant to consider it as permanent); but when it is seen to be dependent upon other dhammā not considered to be permanent, its impermanence does then become manifest. To see impermanence in what is regarded as attā, one must emerge from the confines of the individual dhamma itself and see that it depends on what is impermanent. Thus sabbe sankhārā (not dhammā) aniccā is said, meaning 'All things that things (dhammā) depend on are impermanent'. A given dhamma, as a dhamma regarded as attā, is, on account of being so regarded, considered to be pleasant; but when it is seen to be dependent upon some other dhamma that, not being regarded as attā, is manifestly unpleasurable (owing to the invariable false perception of permanence, of super-stability, in one not free from asmimāna), then its own unpleasurableness becomes manifest. Thus sabbe sankhārā (not dhammā) dukkhā is said. When this is seen—i.e. when perception of permanence and pleasure is understood to be false --, the notion 'This dhamma is my attā' comes to an end, and is replaced by sabbe dhammā anattā. Note that it is the sotāpanna who, knowing and seeing that his perception of permanence and pleasure is false, is free from this notion of 'self', though not from the more subtle conceit '(I) am' (asmimāna);[d] but it is only the arahat who is entirely free from the (false) perception of permanence and pleasure, and 'for him' perception of impermanence is no longer unpleasurable. (See also A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA §12 & PARAMATTHA SACCA.)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16296
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:00 am

Sabbe sankhārā aniccā; Sabbe sankhārā dukkhā; Sabbe dhammā anattā. ('All determinations are impermanent; All determinations are unpleasurable (suffering); All things are not-self.') Attā, 'self', is fundamentally a notion of mastery over things (cf. Majjhima iv,5 <M.i,231-2> & Khandha Samy. vi,7 <S.iii,66>[7]). ...
I think this is important. Discussions of attā often focus on discussions of what other traditions might take as self (which presumably wouldn't have much relevance to Ven N's expositions), whereas these suttas clearly see attā/anattā in terms of controllability/non-controllability.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:00 pm

Mike, here is a very short essay from Ven. N. Ñāṇamoli - influenced (partially at least) by the line you quoted above.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by Sam Vara » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:29 pm

SDC wrote:Mike, here is a very short essay from Ven. N. Ñāṇamoli - influenced (partially at least) by the line you quoted above.
Thanks for this - it's an extremely interesting little essay, and the association of selfhood with control or mastery seems very fruitful. Can anyone help with this bit? Venerable Nanamoli says that
One who is not free from upādāna, and the Self-view, confuses the fact that the five-aggregates (or in this case the
five-holding-aggregates) can be modified or affected once they arise, with the notion that they are controlled
This presumably means that there is a difference, in reality, between modifying or affecting the aggregates, and controlling them. What is this difference? Presumably, few puthujjanas believe they have complete control over the entire scope of even one aggregate. Few also believe that they created them. Given this, is not modifying or affecting a form of control? Is he merely saying that the control is less than the puthujjana imagines? Or does it mean that it never works out in exactly the way the puthujjana wants?

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:39 am

Sam Vara wrote:
One who is not free from upādāna, and the Self-view, confuses the fact that the five-aggregates (or in this case the
five-holding-aggregates) can be modified or affected once they arise, with the notion that they are controlled
This presumably means that there is a difference, in reality, between modifying or affecting the aggregates, and controlling them. What is this difference? Presumably, few puthujjanas believe they have complete control over the entire scope of even one aggregate. Few also believe that they created them.
Ven. N. N. mentions that the nature of the aggregates to is to 'arise, cease and change while standing' (SN 22.38). What it seems he is saying is that the puthujjana can only modify this 'already given state of affairs'. This 'ability' to modify, so to speak, is mistaken for having control of their arising, ceasing and changing while standing - though it is merely the ability to 'interfere' with that given state of affairs (thereby modifying). But since they will always 'cease', whatever level of interference can never measure up to not being able to make it permanent. Hence control is never complete.

As far as 'complete control' over any one aggregate, all I can say is that while the notion of control will vary within the experience - since it is there at all - it will give the impression that control can be either further acquired or perhaps lost altogether; whichever the impression favored in the experience will be equally damaging for the puthjjana since he/she will keep trying to maintain/balance things.

Just my take.
Sam Vara wrote:Is he merely saying that the control is less than the puthujjana imagines? Or does it mean that it never works out in exactly the way the puthujjana wants?
Regarding 'pleasant as preferable' (from the Shorter Note on Cetanā and Dhamma respectively):
Ven. Ñāṇavīra wrote:Intentions are the significance of the actual aspect; they are every possible aspect, and therefore the thing-as-a-whole. In intentional intention the possible aspects show themselves as possible, and the actual aspect, consequently, appears as optional. There is now exercise of preference (with the pleasant preferred to the unpleasant),[e] and this is volition in its simplest form.
Ven. Ñāṇavīra wrote:Sabbe sankhārā aniccā; Sabbe sankhārā dukkhā; Sabbe dhammā anattā. ('All determinations are impermanent; All determinations are unpleasurable (suffering); All things are not-self.') Attā, 'self', is fundamentally a notion of mastery over things (cf. Majjhima iv,5 <M.i,231-2> & Khandha Samy. vi,7 <S.iii,66>[7]). But this notion is entertained only if it is pleasurable,[c] and it is only pleasurable provided the mastery is assumed to be permanent; for a mastery—which is essentially a kind of absolute timelessness, an unmoved moving of things—that is undermined by impermanence is no mastery at all, but a mockery. Thus the regarding of a thing, a dhamma, as attā or 'self' can survive for only so long as the notion gives pleasure, and it only gives pleasure for so long as that dhamma can be considered as permanent (for the regarding of a thing as 'self' endows it with the illusion of a kind of super-stability in time). In itself, as a dhamma regarded as attā, its impermanence is not manifest (for it is pleasant to consider it as permanent); but when it is seen to be dependent upon other dhammā not considered to be permanent, its impermanence does then become manifest.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:55 am

SDC wrote:...
Many thanks, SDC, this is both clear and helpful.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:27 am

Please refer to this post for information on the purpose of this thread.

Shorter Notes - 18th Excerpt
Previous Excerpts - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17

KAMMA
Ven. Ñāṇavīra wrote:Verses 651, 652, and 653, of the Suttanipāta are as follows:

651 Kassako kammanā hoti, sippiko hoti kammanā,
vānijo kammanā hoti, pessiko hoti kammanā.

By action is one a farmer, by action a craftsman,
By action is one a merchant, by action a servant,

652 Coro pi kammanā hoti, yodhājīvo pi kammanā,
yājako kammanā hoti, rājā pi hoti kammanā.

By action is one a thief, by action a soldier,
By action is one a priest, by action a king.

653 Evam etam yathābhūtam kammam passanti panditā
paticcasamuppādadasā kammavipākakovidā.

In this way the wise see action as it really is,
Seeing dependent arising, understanding result of action.

Verse 653 is sometimes isolated from its context and used to justify the 'three-life' interpretation of the twelve-factored formulation of paticcasamuppāda as kamma/kammavipāka—kamma/kammavipāka, an interpretation that is wholly inadmissible (see PATICCASAMUPPĀDA and A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA). When the verse is restored to its context the meaning is clear: kammam paticca kassako hoti, sippiko hoti, and so on; in other words, what one is depends on what one does. And the result (vipāka) of acting in a certain way is that one is known accordingly. For vipāka used in this sense see Anguttara VI,vi,9 <A. iii,413>: Vohāravepakkāham bhikkhave saññā vadāmi; yathā yathā nam sañjānāti tathā tathā voharati, Evam saññī ahosin ti. Ayam vuccati bhikkhave saññānam vipāko. ('Perceptions, monks, I say result in description; according as one perceives such-and-such, so one describes: 'I was perceptive thus'. This, monks, is called the result of perceptions.') (For the usual meaning of kammavipāka as the more or less delayed retribution for ethically significant actions, see e.g. Anguttara III,iv,4 <A.i,134-6> [The P.T.S. numbering has gone astray here].)

The question of kamma or 'action'—'What should I do?'—is the ethical question;; for all personal action—all action done by me—is either akusala or kusala, unskilful or skilful. Unskilful action is rooted in lobha (rāga), dosa, moha, or lust, hate, and delusion, and (apart from resulting in future dukkha or unpleasure) leads to arising of action, not to cessation of action—tam kammam kammasamudayāya samvattati na tam kammam kammanirodhāya samvattati. ('That action leads to arising of action, that action does not lead to ceasing of action.') Skilful action is rooted in non-lust, non-hate, and non-delusion, and leads to cessation of action, not to arising of action. (Anguttara III,xi,7&8 <A.i,263>) The puthujjana does not understand this, since he sees neither arising nor cessation of action;[a] the ditthisampanna does understand this, since he sees both arising and cessation of action—Yato kho āvuso ariyasāvako akusalañ ca pajānāti akusalamūlañ ca pajānāti, kusalañ ca pajānāti kusalamūlañ ca pajānāti, ettāvatā pi kho āvuso ariyasāvako sammāditthi hoti ujugatā'ssa ditthi, dhamme aveccappasādena samannāgato, āgato imam saddhammam ('In so far, friend, as a noble disciple understands unskill and understands the root of unskill, understands skill and understands the root of skill, so far too, friend, the noble disciple has right view, his view is correct, he is endowed with tried confidence in the Teaching, he has arrived at this Good Teaching') (Majjhima i,9 <M.i,46>)—; the arahat not only understands this, but also has reached cessation of action, since for him the question 'What should I do?' no more arises. To the extent that there is still intention in the case of the arahat—see CETANĀ [f]—there is still conscious action, but since it is neither unskilful nor skilful it is no longer action in the ethical sense. Extinction, nibbāna, is cessation of ethics—Kullūpamam vo bhikkhave ājānantehi dhammā pi vo pahātabbā pageva adhammā ('Comprehending the parable of the raft, monks, you have to eliminate ethical things too, let alone unethical things') (Majjhima iii,2 <M.i,135>). See MAMA [a].

For a brief account of action see NĀMA; for a definition see RŪPA .

SarathW
Posts: 9582
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SarathW » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:06 am

The way I understand Arahants do only ethical thing not the unethical things.
However they are called Kiriya Citta. (since they are neither wholesome nor unwholesome)
They act on compassion.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Thu Sep 03, 2015 12:02 am

Please refer to this post for information on the purpose of this thread.

===================================================================================================================

While I've been leaving out the footnotes as of late, the only one for this note contains a quite fascinating exposition of the always mysterious Mūlapariyāya sutta (MN1).

===================================================================================================================

Shorter Notes - 19th Excerpt
Previous Excerpts - 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18

MAMA
Ven. Ñāṇavīra wrote:Cakkhum, Etam mama, eso'ham asmi, eso me attā ti samanupassati. Cakkhum, N'etam mama, n'eso'ham asmi, n'eso me attā ti samanupassati. Majjhima xv,6 <M.iii,284>
'This is mine; this am I; this is my self'—so he regards the eye. 'Not, this is mine; not, this am I; not, this is my self'—so he regards the eye.

If N'etam mama is translated 'This is not mine' the implication is that something other than this is mine, which must be avoided. These three views (of which the sotāpanna is free) correspond to three degrees or levels of appropriation. Etam mama is the most fundamental, a rationalization (or at least a conceptual elaboration) of the situation described in the Mūlapariyāyasutta (Majjhima i,1 <M.i,1-6>) and in the Salāyatana Samyutta iii,8 <S.iv,22-3>. Eso'ham asmi is a rationalization of asmimāna. Eso me attā is a rationalization of attavāda—it is full-blown sakkāyaditthi. Though the sotāpanna is free of these views, he is not yet free of the maññanā of the Mūlapariyāyasutta (which is fundamental in all bhava) or of asmimāna, but he cannot be said to have attavāda.[a] See DHAMMA [d] & PHASSA. The sotāpanna (and the other two sekhā), in whom asmimāna is still present, know and see for themselves that notions of 'I' and 'mine' are deceptions. So they say N'etam mama, n'eso'ham asmi, n'eso me attā ti. The arahat is quite free from asmimāna, and, not having any trace of 'I' and 'mine', does not even say N'etam mama, n'eso'ham asmi, n'eso me attā ti.
Footnote [a] wrote:The Mūlapariyāyasutta is as follows. (i) The puthujjana 'perceives X as X; perceiving X as X, he conceives X, he conceives In X, he conceives From X, he conceives "X is mine"; he delights in X...'. (ii) The sekha 'recognizes X as X; recognizing X as X, he should not conceive X, he should not conceive In X, he should not conceive From X, he should not conceive "X is mine"; he should not delight in X...'. (iii) The arahat 'recognizes X as X; recognizing X as X, he does not conceive X, he does not conceive In X, he does not conceive From X, he does not conceive "X is mine"; he does not delight in X...'. This tetrad of maññanā, of 'conceivings', represents four progressive levels of explicitness in the basic structure of appropriation. The first, 'he conceives X', is so subtle that the appropriation is simply implicit in the verb. Taking advantage of an extension of meaning (not, however, found in the Pali maññati), we can re-state 'he conceives X' as 'X conceives', and then understand this as 'X is pregnant'—pregnant, that is to say, with subjectivity. And, just as when a woman first conceives she has nothing to show for it, so at this most implicit level we can still only say 'X'; but as the pregnancy advances, and it begins to be noticeable, we are obliged to say 'In X'; then the third stage of the pregnancy, when we begin to suspect that a separation is eventually going to take place, can be described as 'From X'; and the fourth stage, when the infant's head makes a public appearance and the separation is on the point of becoming definite, is the explicit 'X is mine (me, not mama)'. This separation is first actually realized in asmimāna, where I, as subject, am opposed to X, as object; and when the subject eventually grows up he becomes the 'self' of attavāda, face to face with the 'world' in which he exists. (In spite of the simile, what is described here is a single graded structure all implicated in the present, and not a development taking place in time. When there is attavāda, the rest of this edifice lies beneath it: thus attavāda requires asmimāna (and the rest), but there can be asmimāna without attavāda.) Note that it is only the sekha who has the ethical imperative 'should not': the puthujjana, not 'recognizing X as X' (he perceives X as X, but not as impermanent), does not see for himself that he should not conceive X; while the arahat, though 'recognizing X as X', no longer conceives X. See KAMMA.

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by pulga » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:06 pm

I think Ven. Ñāṇamoli's translation of the Mūḷapariyāya Sutta is worthy of some consideration, particularly in the way he interprets the ablative in the opening main line:
Paṭhaviṃ pathavito sañjānāti – from earth he has a percept of earth’: This presents the first of the many problems, most of which seems to be ontological. This ablative construction would normally be freely renderable by ‘he perceives earth as earth’ (ie. perceives it ‘for what it really is’); but that takes the ablative in a different sense to the one that follows (pathavito maññati – he conceives (that to be apart) from earth), which seems hard to justify, and perhaps not necessary. The strongest argument against this is that ‘perceives’ (sañjānāti) is used only of the ordinary man. Consequently it must be taken that in the act of perceiving a basic slight distortion takes place (cf. definition of saññā=perception in Vis: ch 14 and abhinivesa=interpretation), which is absent in abhiññā=direct-knowledge. The perceiving has already made an interpretation from the bare object of viññāṇa (bahiddhāyatana). Perceiving has the utraquistic sense of the act of perceiving and the percept, and that is deliberately implied here, apparently.
It has an interesting parallel in Michael Polanyi's "From-to" structure as described by Drew Leder, cf. his book The Absent Body, pp. 15-17.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: A Review of Ven. Ñānavīra's "Notes on Dhamma"

Post by SDC » Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:49 pm

Great stuff from Ven. Ñāṇamoli, pulga. Thanks!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: auto, BasementBuddhist, denise, Google Feedfetcher, mikenz66, rightviewftw, Sam Vara and 82 guests