the great atheism debate

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:
SDC wrote:
contemplans wrote:And mind you that the problem is not that you exist
If this isn't the problem then I have no further reason for practicing. What makes you so confident in this declaration?
Because the Buddha said that there is dukkha is life, not that life is dukkha. You're not trying to escape existence, you are escaping the round of suffering. As for what happens to you after you die, the Buddha didn't say anything except you won't be reborn. That statement does not equal an ontological statement about final nibbana. The "life is suffering" message is not what the Buddha was saying.
"Existence" is, for the Buddha is not matter of an ontology of being; is is a matter of becoming in which there is no self-identical self thing to be found. Damdifino what you mean by "existence."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Goofaholix »

contemplans wrote:I am saying this thread is about western ontology. So we are explaining why anything exists. The theory given reasons to "pure actuality". It doesn't go onto other debates about like creation, evil, free will, salvation, damnation, whatever. Those are the next debates.
What you are effectively saying is that "creation" is not a valid answer to explain why anything exists.

Ok fine we are in agreement here.

So Buddhist ontology would say something like "What is, just is, so get on with it".

Wheras as far as i can tell your view of western ontology is something like "What is, just is, so lets call it god or actuality".

I'm not sure this is a true reflection of the spectrum of western ontology, but we aren't that much different as far as i can see other than your use of language to reify concepts.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by SDC »

contemplans wrote:
SDC wrote:
contemplans wrote:And mind you that the problem is not that you exist
If this isn't the problem then I have no further reason for practicing. What makes you so confident in this declaration?
The "life is suffering" message is not what the Buddha was saying.
I guess we have to come to understand things differently.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Kenshou »

This reasoning is more demonstrable than reasoning that giving your mother flowers is a nice thing. You have to actually draw on mor assmptions to make tha decision. You think the flowers things is easier because you already implicitly accept the argument I am giving. I say implicit. Somehow you think kindness and love this is nice.
I do not assume that anything is inherently "nice". I think that pleasure and pain and good and bad are issues that have no significance beyond the subjective. From a wider, impersonal perspective, they are meaningless. But I am not a creature of the impersonal. I am a subjectively driven thing, which I cannot help, so the objective significance of anything is irrelevant to me. But the problem of suffering is relevant.
The Buddha said everybody doesn't like dukkha. He said that is universal. He said that all beings universally love themselves... he never explains why any of this is universal. You have to admit that.
I'm not sure its ever really said that "this is universal" in the way that you want it to mean, but even so, no, he doesn't, but I don't feel particularly pressured to philosophically justify these statements because they have enough subjective common-sense truth to them that they are effective working assumptions.

I can't provide a logical proof that "everyone universally dislikes suffering", but I can take a look around me, and back on everything that I have experienced, and see that this has enough apparent truth that even if it can't be absolutely justified through reasoning, it is still evident enough that it is an effective pragmatic starting point. And what is practical and useful in the subjective is what is important to this Buddhist, which should be obvious enough by now.
we are not in 500 BC India anymore. There are a lot of things that have happened since, human discoveries in knowledge, etc. So how does his universal discoveries fit in.
Well since the purpose of the Buddhist endeavor is not really to lay down ontologies it kind of is irrelevant. You say "universal discoveries" as if you were trying to make out the Buddha as a fledgling ontologist, so that you might corral Buddhism into a pen it does not belong and so judge it by standards that are not particularly relevant to it, but this misses the point.

Which is, that entire path and the working assumptions it contains, is a construction put together for the purpose of facilitating the attainment of a particular psychological goal. What Thomas Aquinas and whoever else had to say about the metaphysics of reality is irrelevant to that particular project.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:I am addressing the direct implications of the ontological questions raised, which directly goes to the coherence of the ontological claims of a god's existence. As pointed out, you are simply trying to shift the goal posts, again. I can understand why you would not want to address the problem of suffering in the world created by your god, but it is part and parcel of the issue of the existence of such a thing.

The is very much to the point: Freser: "At least where the sheer existence of things is concerned, He and He alone is directly causing them at every instant."
There are living and non-living things. An example of living thing is human being. An example of a non-living thing is a spatula. A spatula is just a "thing". It has no process or operation.
And so is will a thing. There is nothing in Freser’s quote that limits what a thing is.
A living thing is something which has processes and operations. The processes are the moments of actualizing the potential in its organs. The operations are actions. One of those operations is will. When given multiple choices (objects), as every situation is, the person determines itself to the object which is deemed through reason to be the better of the choices. God at the moment of an evil act is giving life to the person doing the evil at that moment, acts at the moment as the object of desire (inclines it to good), and moves the will to its operation. God wills the will to will itself, i.e., the sheer existence of free will as a possibility.
Yes, even though this god knows that what is being willed will cause great suffering, but you have not shown any free will, because we cannot will other than how the supposedly omniscient, omnipotent god knows how we are going to will, even before the supposed act of free will comes into being. We cannot act other than how the god knows we are going to act, and all of that is the god’s creation
God wills the will to will itself,
There it is, the god’s responsibility for what is being willed. Add to that what we will cannot be outside the god’s knowledge, cannot be outside what the god’s knows is going to happen because it all is the god’s creation.
As to the actual willed action, that is where we choose to act. Feser's statement is that God lays the ground that make free will possible -- "sheer existence".
Which the god created, along with the will to act, but by what you say there is no will to act without god’s willing us to act. The god willed Hitler to act, knowing fully and completely how Hitler would act and knowing fully and completely what the consequences would be. Simply, the god by withholding its will, no Shoah. Also, how Hitler would act is totally dependent on how the god set up its creation, knowing even before an atom of it was in place how it would unfold.

In a court of law this god would be held fully liable for the consequences of this action.
As for evil, you treat it like a positive reality, instead of a negation. Evil is a negation.
Pain and suffering are not negations any more than happiness and pleasure are negations.
If it was a positive reality, then nobody, not even the Buddha, could escape from it.
As has been pointed out to you via textual evidence, the Buddha was able to attain awakening because there is no unchanging eternal existent self that we truly are.
So where did he start then? With our actions. If an evil doer is determined, then the Buddha's path is a waste.
Fortunately that is not a problem in the Buddha’s universe, but it is the fatal flaw in the theistic universe you describe.
If an evil doer has free choice, then evil is not inherent, but a negation of good. If good is not inherent, then Nibbana is impossible.
And what Buddhist text says that?
The act of God lays the groundwork for free action. he doesn't do the actions, but provides the conditions of existence for the action to take place.
Exactly, knowing full well what the action and its consequences will be, and knowing that the action and the consequences are all a result of its very creative act and exist because, by your own admission, it is what the god directly, purposely wills.
If you admit that they are determined, then you must also admit that Buddhism is a waste of time.
In the theistic universe you are positing, it is a total waste of time, but fortunately that does not seem to be the universe we live in.
So as you can see the implications of your line of reasoning are against both the theory of hylomorphism and Buddhism.
You have yet to show that hylomorphism has any empirical, functional basis, and it certainly has not a thing to do with what the Buddha taught, so this comment of your carries no weight.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Goofaholix wrote: What you are effectively saying is that "creation" is not a valid answer to explain why anything exists.

Ok fine we are in agreement here.
I am saying that we start with the assumption that we exist, reason to pure actuality, and then reason from there the relation we have to that. If we started with creation, we've already assumed that the creator has an explanation.
Goofaholix wrote: So Buddhist ontology would say something like "What is, just is, so get on with it".

Wheras as far as i can tell your view of western ontology is something like "What is, just is, so lets call it god or actuality".
Here I am saying "pure being" just is. Not everything that exists "just is". Why would I need to eat food if I just existed? My eating of food is an act based out of wanting something I did not have. We see through experience that there is existence, but there is also a lack in our experience. Why would anyone change if there was no lack? Aristotle labeled the process of things, qualities etc. which actually exist "actualities", and those things which were potenital, or latent, "potentiality". A common one was that cold water has the potential to be hot water, and vice versa. From this he discerned that nothing within the system explains why anything in the system exists. From that he reasoned that "pure actuality" is necessary for there to be an "incomplete" actuality at any time. It literally is necessary at every moment, or things instantaneously would cease to exist. We exist, but our being is incomplete. Through this lack we are continually replacing our existence, through food, procreation, etc. We have to multiply to continue. Even if we take rebirth as a truth, a being at the end of life would continue beyond death because of a desire to fill a lack. We are constantly "feeding". This is where Aristotle is coming from.

As a side note, Aristotle was searching for a refutation of Parmenides' teachings when he came upon hylomorphism. Parmenides taught that there was no change, all was one being, and that one being is eternal. All the stuff we experience is illusion. Sort of what the Buddha was facing with Hinduism at that time.

Kenshou wrote: I do not assume that anything is inherently "nice". I think that pleasure and pain and good and bad are issues that have no significance beyond the subjective. From a wider, impersonal perspective, they are meaningless. But I am not a creature of the impersonal. I am a subjectively driven thing, which I cannot help, so the objective significance of anything is irrelevant to me. But the problem of suffering is relevant.
If nothing has objective significance, then how could the Buddha teach universal principles? Do you disagree with the Buddha? When he laid down the precept not to kill, was that only applicable to you, or to everyone? Even if you say, he said it applies if you want to attain nibbana, did he ever teach not killing as anything less than a universal moral principle?
Kenshou wrote: I'm not sure its ever really said that "this is universal" in the way that you want it to mean, but even so, no, he doesn't, but I don't feel particularly pressured to philosophically justify these statements because they have enough subjective common-sense truth to them that they are effective working assumptions.

I can't provide a logical proof that "everyone universally dislikes suffering", but I can take a look around me, and back on everything that I have experienced, and see that this has enough apparent truth that even if it can't be absolutely justified through reasoning, it is still evident enough that it is an effective pragmatic starting point. And what is practical and useful in the subjective is what is important to this Buddhist, which should be obvious enough by now.
Yes, but the topic is not what is practical and useful for me and you, it is the response Buddhism has to western ontology. Pragmatism is a useful spiritual tool, but it does nothing to explain anything outside your head. Buddhists felt this in the past when they entered into logical discussions with their neighbors. That can be considered a misstep from a Buddhist perspective. To be quite straightforward, the pragmatic working assumption strategy is effective with a small minority of people, no matter what teaching or religion. On a long spiritual path, many people jump ship before getting to port. I say this in reference to all serious spiritual paths which are long-term, and take effort.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:
Goofaholix wrote: What you are effectively saying is that "creation" is not a valid answer to explain why anything exists.

Ok fine we are in agreement here.
I am saying that we start with the assumption that we exist, reason to pure actuality, and then reason from there the relation we have to that.
But there is absolutely no reason why reason must take us in the direction of "pure actuality."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:Here I am saying "pure being" just is.
"Just is" what? What does it do? Does it have parts? Does it change?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

tiltbillings wrote:But there is absolutely no reason why reason must take us in the direction of "pure actuality."
You have to show that. You're saying a lot of things, but not proving anything. Your repeated red herrings do nothing to address the theory I am describing. You are latching onto the last argument any atheist has, which is the problem of evil. I have told you repeatedly that the problem of evil can only be address in the context of faith. You repeatedly say that "pure actuality" has no empirical basis, but apparently you are forgeting that philosophy, and ontology specifically, is a science of things outside the five senses. Not completely outside, but we only indirectly sense what philosophy talks about. We don't sense "truth", or "goodness". We don't see "happiness" or "joy" walking down the street. If we could directly sense them, that would be a natural science like physics. And you wouldn't need to spend hours in meditation overcomng the sensual sphere to gain some insight about them. So you're making demands that are utterly absurb in the context of the debate. And in case you wish to stick to what is "empirically" demonstrable, you can keep wishing, because that is a wrong understanding of the matter. Sciences only explain pieces, not the whole. Until you are willing to address the idea that an essentially ordered series of causes cannot give rise to itself, then I have nothing further to contribute to our dialog. I wish you well, my friend.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Kenshou »

If nothing has objective significance, then how could the Buddha teach universal principles? Do you disagree with the Buddha? When he laid down the precept not to kill, was that only applicable to you, or to everyone? Even if you say, he said it applies if you want to attain nibbana, did he ever teach not killing as anything less than a universal moral principle?
I don't believe that the precepts are based on "objective significance", but on what is conductive to happiness and the attainment of nibbana, and not because these goals have an objective goodness, but because they are from the perspective of the subjective being preferable. And so then if we are to call them universal the universality is bound to that context, and does not extend to an ontologies of objective morality.
Yes, but the topic is not what is practical and useful for me and you, it is the response Buddhism has to western ontology. Pragmatism is a useful spiritual tool, but it does nothing to explain anything outside your head.
It seems to me that choosing to focus what is practical (meaning in this context, conductive to the attainment of nibbana) is the Buddhist (non-)response to ontology, western or otherwise.
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by contemplans »

Kenshou wrote:I don't believe that the precepts are based on "objective significance", but on what is conductive to happiness and the attainment of nibbana, and not because these goals have an objective goodness, but because they are from the perspective of the subjective being preferable. And so then if we are to call them universal the universality is bound to that context, and does not extend to an ontologies of objective morality.
Can you name a case in which it is skillful/moral/good to intend to kill?
Kenshou wrote:It seems to me that choosing to focus what is practical (meaning in this context, conductive to the attainment of nibbana) is the Buddhist (non-)response to ontology, western or otherwise.
It goes back to an earlier part of the thread. The true Buddhist response seems to be, the topic is better left undiscussed.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Cittasanto »

Kenshou wrote:
If nothing has objective significance, then how could the Buddha teach universal principles? Do you disagree with the Buddha? When he laid down the precept not to kill, was that only applicable to you, or to everyone? Even if you say, he said it applies if you want to attain nibbana, did he ever teach not killing as anything less than a universal moral principle?
I don't believe that the precepts are based on "objective significance", but on what is conductive to happiness and the attainment of nibbana, and not because these goals have an objective goodness, but because they are from the perspective of the subjective being preferable. And so then if we are to call them universal the universality is bound to that context, and does not extend to an ontologies of objective morality.
it depends on the precept, I am afraid!
some are worldly precepts as they are blamable by the world, and others are by ordinance, you keep them because the Buddha recommended the practice.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Cittasanto »

contemplans wrote:It goes back to an earlier part of the thread. The true Buddhist response seems to be, the topic is better left undiscussed.
The Topic has clearly been show to of been discussed by the Buddha, and not put aside, you said "Probably the most authentic Buddhist response would be that the Buddha set these questions aside." please don't mistake what you think for what the Buddha or Buddhist do or do not do!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by tiltbillings »

contemplans wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:But there is absolutely no reason why reason must take us in the direction of "pure actuality."
You have to show that.
Since you are the one stating: "I am saying that we start with the assumption that we exist, reason to pure actuality," it falls to you back up this claim. Since "pure actuality" has no empirical basis, is not experiential, why would we need to "reason to pure actuality?" What would be the basis for it? What would be the necessity of it?
You're saying a lot of things, but not proving anything.
I am certainly calling into question the claims you are making, but as of yet I have not seen you prove anything other than the philosophy you are advocating does not hold well at all to questioning.
Your repeated red herrings do nothing to address the theory I am describing.
If they are red herrings, they would be easily disposed of, but, you have yet to do that. What you are doing now, rather than dealing with the actual points I have raised, is complaining about my questioning your points.
You are latching onto the last argument any atheist has, which is the problem of evil. I have told you repeatedly that the problem of evil can only be address in the context of faith.
Yes, which is really a non-answer. You posit a god, but you cannot deal with the implications of the god you posit and retreat to: “It is really a matter of faith.” That naught more than saying that god is a mystery but you must have faith.
You repeatedly say that "pure actuality" has no empirical basis, but apparently you are forgeting that philosophy, and ontology specifically, is a science of things outside the five senses.
Which is why the Buddha clearly rejected ontology of being, as has been pointed out to you more than twice. Also calling it a science is meaningless, unless you can clearly show what would count as a way of falsifying “pure actuality.”
Not completely outside, but we only indirectly sense what philosophy talks about.
Do we?
We don't sense "truth", or "goodness". We don't see "happiness" or "joy" walking down the street. If we could directly sense them, that would be a natural science like physics.
These things have noting to do with “pure actuality.” They are human emotions and values that arise and fall dependent upon cause and conditions in human contexts.
And you wouldn't need to spend hours in meditation overcomng the sensual sphere to gain some insight about them.
While one can cultivate positive human emotions in various way, the meditative practice is for insight into anicca, dukkha, and anatta. There is no necessity you have shown that in the understanding of notions such as truth and goodness that an assumption of self/soul/existence/pure actuality as being the truly true way things are.
So you're making demands that are utterly absurb in the context of the debate.
Not at all. I am simply pointing to the seriously fatal flaws of theism claims of existence of a god, which you are neatly exposing: God wills the will to will itself,
And in case you wish to stick to what is "empirically" demonstrable, you can keep wishing, because that is a wrong understanding of the matter. Sciences only explain pieces, not the whole.
And what does theism explain without finally resorting to: It is a mystery, one needs to have faith”?
Until you are willing to address the idea that an essentially ordered series of causes cannot give rise to itself,
This has been repeatedly dealt with by a number of folks here, and you just brush it aside offering a non-empirical explanation to what is empirically observable.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Buddhist response to Western ontology

Post by Goofaholix »

contemplans wrote:I am saying that we start with the assumption that we exist, reason to pure actuality, and then reason from there the relation we have to that. If we started with creation, we've already assumed that the creator has an explanation.
Nobody is disputing that assumption that we exist and we've all moved beyond that question, except you'd rather back track to this as an avoidance strategy when you don't have an adequate answer to points raised.
Goofaholix wrote:Here I am saying "pure being" just is. Not everything that exists "just is". Why would I need to eat food if I just existed? My eating of food is an act based out of wanting something I did not have.
You and I "just is", and food "just is", we are all Interdependent. So you are saying pure being is that which does not eat? Perhaps rocks are pure being then?

When I say something "just is" it's not about whether something has Interdependence, or whether it eats, it's about whether there is any point in speculating how it came to be, but of course you knew that.
Goofaholix wrote:We see through experience that there is existence, but there is also a lack in our experience. Why would anyone change if there was no lack? Aristotle labeled the process of things, qualities etc. which actually exist "actualities", and those things which were potenital, or latent, "potentiality". A common one was that cold water has the potential to be hot water, and vice versa. From this he discerned that nothing within the system explains why anything in the system exists. From that he reasoned that "pure actuality" is necessary for there to be an "incomplete" actuality at any time. It literally is necessary at every moment, or things instantaneously would cease to exist. We exist, but our being is incomplete. Through this lack we are continually replacing our existence, through food, procreation, etc. We have to multiply to continue. Even if we take rebirth as a truth, a being at the end of life would continue beyond death because of a desire to fill a lack. We are constantly "feeding". This is where Aristotle is coming from.
From where I'm sitting this seems perfectly compatible with Buddhism, it appears to me to be another way of saying much the same as what the Buddha taught and you haven't even mentioned the G word. I really don't see the god concept adding anything useful to the above explanation, and if you don't add it I'm sure we'll all get along fine.

The Buddha taught that embracing this changeableness, this sense of lack, this incompleteness, is what leads to complete freedom. Whereas the god concept just comes from the desire people have to have something to cling to that is not subject to this changeableness, this sense of lack, this incompleteness.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Post Reply