The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:36 pm

The "provisional trust" in the Buddha and His teaching as opposed to "verified trust" which only happens once you've experienced it for yourself


Which we can do via the pyrrhonist method. Hear what the Buddha says, withhold assent (as its non-evident), examine our subject experience to see if it correlates and then we know for ourselves (yet cannot affirm its true in of it self or true for everyone).

. One cannot be said to have provisional trust if s/he just brush aside all the concepts mentioned above and jump to the conclusion that they're all false..


A mistake is to assume that scepticism implies falsehood. To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating.


As I said, I withhold assent to any non-evident propositions.


X appears as neither

F

nor not F

Nor Neither F and not F

And so a sceptic continues the inquiry


Or to put it another way, Rebirth appears as neither F (true) nor not F (not true), nor neither F and not F (true and not true).
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

santa100
Posts: 1603
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby santa100 » Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:25 am

clw_uk wrote:To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating


Thank you for clarifying your position. I highlighted what is important for I'm not so sure if all skeptics out there are willing to stick to that part..

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:55 am

clw_uk wrote:The words of the wise are to see for yourself and not to blindly follow doctrines, do you agree?


Also not to blindly follow teachers, or logical argument or to reify one's own opinions.

As the Kalama Sutta says:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:16 am

clw_uk wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:There is also no denying that the Sutta does contain a sceptical element, a caution against being credulous :meditate:


I think in a nutshell the Kalama Sutta is an encouragement to develop Right Intention, and not to get caught up in views - including one's own.


But right intention comes to be via right view, right view arising through detached observation of how things appear to be.


I don't think it's as simple as that. For example the Sutta on Right View, MN9, begins with a section on the Wholesome and the Unwholesome, which is closely related to Right Intention.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el377.html
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:26 am

clw_uk wrote: To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating.


This sounds like a rather idealised view, and it depends which definition of skepticism one is using:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skeptic

But are you saying skeptics don't have opinions? I'm rather skeptical about that idea. ;)
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
Dhammabodhi
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:25 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Rome, Italy

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Dhammabodhi » Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:30 pm

An interesting comparison with these two doctrines of skepticism can be made with the theory of logic and etymology in the Jain tradition. Maybe the philosopher Pyrrho met jain sages in India from where he learned this concept?

Anekantavāda ("the school of manifoldness") is built into Jain tradition of logic and reasoning as an ontological theory of relative truths, and promotes the idea that there are manifold ways to see, know, or perceive "The" truth. The famous story of blind men describing an elephant illustrates this view.

Wiki:

The etymological root of anekāntavāda lies in the compound of two Sanskrit words: anekānta ("manifoldness") and vāda ("school of thought").[7] The word anekānta is a compound of the Sanskrit negative prefix an, eka ("one"), and anta ("attribute"). Hence, anekānta means "not of solitary attribute".[7] The Jain doctrine lays a strong emphasis on samyaktva, that is, rationality and logic.


An extension of Anekantavada comes in the form of "conditional predication", Syādvāda.

Wiki:

Syādvāda (Sanskrit: स्याद्वाद) is the theory of conditioned predication, which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that the epithet syād be prefixed to every phrase or expression.[12] Syādvāda is not only an extension of anekānta ontology, but a separate system of logic capable of standing on its own. The Sanskrit etymological root of the term syād is "perhaps" or "maybe", but in the context of syādvāda, it means "in some ways" or "from a perspective". As reality is complex, no single proposition can express the nature of reality fully. Thus the term "syāt" should be prefixed before each proposition giving it a conditional point of view and thus removing any dogmatism in the statement.[2] Since it ensures that each statement is expressed from seven different conditional and relative viewpoints or propositions, syādvāda is known as saptibhaṅgīnāya or "the theory of seven conditioned predications". These saptibhaṅgī are:[13]
syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
syād-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.
Each of these seven propositions examines the complex and multifaceted nature of reality from a relative point of view of time, space, substance and mode.[13] To ignore the complexity of reality is to commit the fallacy of dogmatism


There is a third school of Nayavāda, Naya -" of partial viewpoint".

The Jains are praised to have dared to "hold both the horns of the bull", i.e. to have syncretised the opposed viewpoints of permanent vs. impermanent, an eternal ātman vs aniccā, of Vedic and Buddhist thought. Of course, as far as I remember the Buddha gave a famous rejoinder to such relativistic logic: that the assertion of relativistic logic cannot be wholly accepted by its own rules. (I forget which sutta was this in.)

I end with the following quote (courtesy Wiki):

(Gautama is not be confused with Siddartha Gautama)

The Jain breadth of vision embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which, according to Jainism, "recognizes substances but not process", and Buddhism, which "recognizes process but not substance". Jainism, on the other hand, pays equal attention to both substance (dravya) and process (paryaya).

Gautama: Lord! Is the soul permanent or impermanent?
Mahāvīra: The soul is permanent as well as impermanent. From the point of view of the substance it is eternal. From the point of view of its modes it undergoes birth, decay and destruction and hence impermanent.
—Bhagvatisūtra, 7:58–59
-Samāhitam cittam yathābhutam pajānāti.

समाहितं चित्तं यथाभूतं पजानाती |

A concentrated mind sees things as they really are.

-Ujuko nāma so maggo, abhayā nāma sā disā.

उजुको नाम सो माग्गो, अभया नाम सा दिसा |

'Straight' is this path, fearlessness is its way.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Spiny Norman » Sat Sep 07, 2013 12:57 pm

clw_uk wrote:As I said, I withhold assent to any non-evident propositions.


Again, I'm struggling with your use of language.

If somebody said (1) "I'm skeptical about the existence of space aliens", I'd take that to mean their tendency was to disbelieve in the existence of space aliens.
If somebody said (2) "Space aliens? Yes, possible, I'm not sure", I'd take that to mean they had an open mind on the subject - a neutral position of neither belief or disbelief.
Clearly both these positions are opinions, whether informed or not.

I think you're trying to say that a skeptic occupies position (2), but I don't think that complies with the definition of skepticism, which implies a tendency to disbelieve.

And IMO the Kalama Sutta is advocating an open mind, ie position (2), not the skepticism of position (1).
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

chownah
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby chownah » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:05 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:As I said, I withhold assent to any non-evident propositions.


Again, I'm struggling with your use of language.

If somebody said (1) "I'm skeptical about the existence of space aliens", I'd take that to mean their tendency was to disbelieve in the existence of space aliens.
If somebody said (2) "Space aliens? Yes, possible, I'm not sure", I'd take that to mean they had an open mind on the subject - a neutral position of neither belief or disbelief.
Clearly both these positions are opinions, whether informed or not.

I think you're trying to say that a skeptic occupies position (2), but I don't think that complies with the definition of skepticism, which implies a tendency to disbelieve.

And IMO the Kalama Sutta is advocating an open mind, ie position (2), not the skepticism of position (1).

I think you are using the term scepticism in the way people do in everyday language when people talk aboit veing sceptical.......while I think that clw_uk is using the term skepticism to mean the particular philosophical school of ancient Greece. If you google for skepticism you will find info about the way clw_uk is using the term.
chownah

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:31 am

chownah wrote:I think you are using the term scepticism in the way people do in everyday language when people talk aboit veing sceptical.......while I think that clw_uk is using the term skepticism to mean the particular philosophical school of ancient Greece. If you google for skepticism you will find info about the way clw_uk is using the term.


Yes, you may be right, everyday meaning v. technical meaning - though I think there is some conflating of these different meanings going on here. It also raises the question of which approach is appropriate for different contexts. For a scientist skepticism might be entirely appropriate, but is it appropriate for understanding Buddhist teachings, and is this what the Kalama Sutta is really advocating? I'm not convinced.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:47 pm

.

If somebody said (1) "I'm skeptical about the existence of space aliens", I'd take that to mean their tendency was to disbelieve in the existence of space aliens.


Thats a crude scepticism which in fact is a dogmatism in disguise#

If somebody said (2) "Space aliens? Yes, possible, I'm not sure", I'd take that to mean they had an open mind on the subject - a neutral position of neither belief or disbelief.
Clearly both these positions are opinions, whether informed or not.



The neutral position is what pyrrhonism aims for, the state of Epoché, or suspension of judgement which leads to Ataraxia, or tranquillity

I think you're trying to say that a skeptic occupies position (2), but I don't think that complies with the definition of skepticism, which implies a tendency to disbelieve.



Well a pyrrhonist will withhold opinion and not disbelieve, if by disbelieve you mean an assent to a negative proposition.

And IMO the Kalama Sutta is advocating an open mind, ie position (2), not the skepticism of position (1).



Which is why a see a similarity between the two. The postitive dogmatist affirms it is true, the negative dogmatist says it cant be known and the pyrrhonist sceptics keeps on inquiring, giving assent to neither. This is the essence of the Kalama teaching IMO
Last edited by clw_uk on Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:55 pm

I also see a similarity between Buddhadhamma and the teaching of the Dhamma as a raft and pyrrhonism, since both use the teachings to let go that which causes stress without clinging to it


For example Sextean Pyrrhonism argues that scepticism is used to free one self from opinions, and then to collapse in on itself to escape from making a fresh dogma.
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:12 pm

Yes, you may be right, everyday meaning v. technical meaning - though I think there is some conflating of these different meanings going on here.


Where?

It also raises the question of which approach is appropriate for different contexts. For a scientist skepticism might be entirely appropriate, but is it appropriate for understanding Buddhist teachings, and is this what the Kalama Sutta is really advocating? I'm not convinced.



I do see a sceptical mind as instrumental to Buddhist, that is dont hold fast to a concept but simply investigate appearances


N.B. A pyrrhonist would doubt the outcomes of science as well, they even doubted causation, logic etc and their own scepticism ;)
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:24 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:The words of the wise are to see for yourself and not to blindly follow doctrines, do you agree?


Also not to blindly follow teachers, or logical argument or to reify one's own opinions.

As the Kalama Sutta says:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."



A pyrrhonist wouldnt say "Dont go by" but would examine each and come to withholding opinion for each one

by probability


Funnily enough this was a difference between the scepticism of the New Academy under Carneades et al and Pyrrhonist scepticism. Pyrrhonist's had issue with agreeing on the "probable". Aenesidemus, who seems to have re-started the tradition of Pyrrho and Timon, saw the New Academy sceptics of falling into a negative dogma of denying knowledge and had become as dogmatic as their arch rival, the Stoics.

As he (apparently) said they had become stoics in disguise and it had become "Stoics arguing against Stoics".
Last edited by clw_uk on Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:25 pm

An interesting comparison with these two doctrines of skepticism can be made with the theory of logic and etymology in the Jain tradition. Maybe the philosopher Pyrrho met jain sages in India from where he learned this concept?



I have thought the same, due to the Jain doctrine you mentioned and the practice of the jains going naked. However its difficult to tell.
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:32 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating.


This sounds like a rather idealised view, and it depends which definition of skepticism one is using:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skeptic

But are you saying skeptics don't have opinions? I'm rather skeptical about that idea. ;)



Depends on the sceptic and the definition of the scepticism

However a pyrrhonist sceptic would hold no opinions, only saying "I experience X" without saying that X is or that X is such and such in nature, or that X is the same for everyone


"For example, honey appears to us to be sweet (and this we grant, for we perceive sweetness through the senses), but whether it is also sweet in its essence is for us a matter of doubt, since this is not an appearance but a judgement regarding the appearance." Outlines of Scepticism - Sextus Empiricus


http://evans-experientialism.freewebspa ... icus02.htm



To give another example, there are arguments for God and arguments against God. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Being unable to decide either way which is correct, and lacking an external judge to decide, one withholds to assent of God or no God and forms no opinion either way, neither does he form the opinion of "It cant be known or decided". Its a blank state where there is awareness and peace of mind.
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:13 am

Also we do have the freedom of views, in line with pyrrhonism, in Buddhism


"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html




This

"Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."


Could be something Sextus would have said. Here I see a synthesis of Buddhadhamma and Greek Pyrrhonist Scepticism
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 3164
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:34 am

clw_uk wrote:To give another example, there are arguments for God and arguments against God. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Being unable to decide either way which is correct, and lacking an external judge to decide, one withholds to assent of God or no God and forms no opinion either way, neither does he form the opinion of "It cant be known or decided". Its a blank state where there is awareness and peace of mind.


OK, withholding both assent and denial. But are you saying this is skepticism? To me it sounds more like having an open mind.
"I ride tandem with the random, Things don't run the way I planned them, In the humdrum."
Peter Gabriel lyric

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:40 pm

OK, withholding both assent and denial. But are you saying this is skepticism? To me it sounds more like having an open mind.


It's the scepticism of pyrrhonism, which doesn't deny that knowledge is possible. Neither does it affirm it is possible. Instead there is epoche and the continuation of the investigation.


"Some have claimed to have discovered the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, while others again go on inquiring"


This is contrasted to the scepticism of the New Academy which denies knowledge, "nothing can be known, not even this"
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3552
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby clw_uk » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:36 pm

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."



From my above post, this is scepticism
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

ricebowl
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:26 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Postby ricebowl » Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:30 pm

The point about the Kalamas as far as the records go, was that they were just a bunch of confused people whose confusions was worsened by foreign visitors with their own ideas from foreign learnings. So the Buddha happened to visit them, and since the Kalamas had already asked people regarding so many opinions, one more wouldn't hurt. The Buddha's point was just to believe in nothing when it gets too confusing. Still, he said with a starkingly helpful prose, that the Kalamas can believe in Him.

In other words, drive aside everything else since they were already confusing enough, start afresh, it ain't about sceptiscm, it ain't about the buddha with a newest doctrine, the notion was that even though many others came to the Kalamas, they had already come and left. Since the Buddha was there, and imho HE WAS AUTHORATATIVE enough in His time, all He did was to ask the Kalamas to "come to Mama and drink some milk".


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests