Intellectual Integrity

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:20 am

SDC wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:edit - it does not depend on one's personal perspective for it to be the case.


:o Objectivist!

Just kidding...sort of. :tongue: I find that way of thinking to be dangerous, but that is a discussion for another thread.

In regards to maintaining this intellectual integrity...in my experience, this practice is far too dynamic to worry about such things.

why not here?
but if you look closely am I using those terms in a particular way or claiming something is it?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby SDC » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:42 am

Cittasanto wrote:why not here?


I'll take it far off topic.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:15 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
This scripture quote is also very relevant - in fact, it parallels two of your quotes: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/skill-in-questions.pdf
PEOPLE WORTH TALKING TO (& NOT)
§ 117. “Let an observant person come, one neither fraudulent nor deceitful, one of straightforward nature. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time rightly knows, rightly sees, ‘So this, it appears, is liberation from the bond, i.e., the bond of ignorance.’” — MN 80

§ 118. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. ...


This needs more context to be relevant. Quote § 118 is from AN 3:68. The full quote from Skill in Questions (pp. 278-279 hardcopy; pp. 212-214 pdf) is:

Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when
asked a question, doesn’t give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn’t give an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn’t cross-question a question deserving cross-questioning, doesn’t put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, cross-questions a question deserving cross-questioning, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a
question, doesn’t stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn’t stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn’t stand by teachings known to be true [1] doesn’t stand by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down [the questioner], doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn’t lend ear doesn’t draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality [2]. Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind
through no clinging.

Those who discuss
when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
following what’s not the noble ones’ way,
seeking to expose each other’s faults,
delight in each other’s misspoken word,
slip, stumble, defeat.

Noble ones
don’t speak in that way.

If wise people, knowing the right time,
want to speak,
then, words connected with justice,
following the ways of the noble ones:
That’s what the enlightened ones speak,
without anger or arrogance,
with a mind not boiling over,
without vehemence, without spite.

Without envy,
they speak from right knowledge.
They would delight in what’s well-said
and not disparage what’s not.
They don’t study to find fault,
don’t grasp at little mistakes,
don’t put down, don’t crush,
don’t speak random words.

For the purpose of knowledge,
for the purpose of [inspiring] clear confidence,
counsel that’s true:
That’s how noble ones give counsel,
That’s the noble ones’ counsel.
Knowing this, the wise
should give counsel without arrogance.

NOTES
1. Reading aññ›tav›da with the Burmese edition. An alternate translation would be,
“the teachings of those who know.”
2. According to the Commentary, these qualities are, respectively, the noble truth of the
path, the noble truth of stress, the noble truth of the origination of stress, and the noble truth
of the cessation of stress.
Last edited by danieLion on Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Nyana » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:15 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:How is that an "objective fact"?

It can be tested by anyone. it is true whether a Buddha is present or not. also see my last comments (this part is why I responded there).
edit - it does not depend on one's personal perspective for it to be the case.

The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:19 am

Cittasanto wrote:but lets not forget about the silver rule
or the platinum rule: treat others in the way they like to be treated.

And: how do we follow such "rules" without conceit?
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:28 am

Cittasanto wrote:
there will be recourse to faith, but being doubtful and using scepticism's tools are not the same thing, one part of empirical scepticism is accepting a workable model yet remaining open to a better one.
This reminds me of Bayesianism.

Cittasanto wrote:and a valid authority is as the Buddha said time and again, in various ways (particularly about practice and finding a teacher,) one that can be observed and tested.
How sure are we that the what the Buddha meant by "observed" and "tested" is similar to what sceptical empiricism means by the terms? Perhaps a better empricism for Buddhist religionists is William Jame's radical empiricsim (likewise, perhaps a better view of science for Buddhist religionists is to be found in Kuhn, Feyerabend et al as opposed to Gombrich's beloved Popperianism or the logical postivism of the Vienna Cirlce)?
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:44 am

daverupa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Does anyone find any tools used in Scepticism or Intellectual integrity useful or not?
is yes/no why?


Critical thinking skills, an understanding of fallacious reasoning, literary criticism - I find these skills to be altogether essential when examining Buddhist texts for practical meaning.

Amen, brother.

Here are some of my favoritie critical thinking resources.

List of fallacies

Informal Fallacy

Informal Fallacies

List of biases in judgment and decision making

Fundamental attribution error

Ultimate attribution error

Albert Ellis' 12 Irrational Beliefs
1. The idea that it is a dire necessity for adults to be loved by significant others for almost everything they do--

Instead of their concentrating on their own self-respect, on winning approval for practical purposes, and on loving rather than on being loved.

2. The idea that certain acts are awful or wicked, and that people who perform such acts should be severely damned --

Instead of the idea that certain acts are self-defeating or antisocial, and that people who perform such acts are behaving stupidly, ignorantly, or neurotically, and would be better helped to change. People's poor behaviors do not make them rotten individuals.

3. The idea that it is horrible when things are not the way we like them to be--

Instead of the idea that it is too bad, that we would better try to change or control bad conditions so that they become more satisfactory, and, if that is not possible, we had better temporarily accept and gracefully lump their existence.

4. The idea that human misery is invariably externally caused and is forced on us by outside people and events

Instead of the idea that neurosis is largely caused by the view that we take of unfortunate conditions.

5. The idea that if something is or may be dangerous or fearsome we should be terribly upset and endlessly obsess about it--

Instead of the idea that one would better frankly face it and render it non-dangerous and, when that is not possible, accept the inevitable.

6. The idea that it is easier to avoid than to face life difficulties and self-responsibilities

Instead of the idea that the so-called easy way is usually much harder in the long run.

7. The idea that we absolutely need something other or stronger or greater than ourself on which to rely --

Instead of the idea that it is better to take the risks of thinking and acting less dependently.

8. The idea that we should be thoroughly competent, intelligent, and achieving in all possible respects --

Instead of the idea that we would better do rather than always need to do well, and accept ourself as a quite imperfect creature, who has general human limitations and specific fallibilities.

9. The idea that because something once strongly affected our life, it should indefinitely affect it --

Instead of the idea that we can learn from our past experiences but not be overly-attached to or prejudiced by them.

10. The idea that we must have certain and perfect control over things --

Instead of the idea that the world is full of improbability and chance and that we can still enjoy life despite this.

11. The idea that human happiness can be achieved by inertia and inaction --

Instead of the idea that we tend to be happiest when we are vitally absorbed in creative pursuits, or when we are devoting ourselves to people or projects outside ourselves.

12. The idea that we have virtually no control over our emotions and that we cannot help feeling disturbed about things --

Instead of the idea that we have real control over our destructive emotions if we choose to work at changing the “musturbatory” hypotheses which we often employ to create them.


David D. Burns: Ten Cognitive Distortions:
1. All-or-nothing thinking: You see things in black and white categories. If your performance falls short of perfect, you see yourself as a total failure.

2. Overgeneralization: You see a single negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat.

3. Mental filter: You pick out a single negative detail and dwell on it exclusively so that your vision of all reality becomes darkened, like the drop of ink that discolors the entire beaker of water.

4. Disqualifying the positive: You reject positive experiences by insisting they "don't count" for some reason or other. You maintain a negative belief that is contradicted by your everyday experiences.

5. Jumping to conclusions: You make a negative interpretation even though there are no definite facts that convincingly support your conclusion.

Mind reading: You arbitrarily conclude that someone is reacting negatively to you and don't bother to check it out.

The Fortune Teller Error: You anticipate that things will turn out badly and feel convinced that your prediction is an already-established fact.

6. Magnification (catastrophizing) or minimization: You exaggerate the importance of things (such as your goof-up or someone else's achievement), or you inappropriately shrink things until they appear tiny (your own desirable qualities or the other fellow's imperfections). This is also called the "binocular trick."

7. Emotional reasoning: You assume that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: "I feel it, therefore it must be true."

8. Should statements: You try to motivate yourself with shoulds and shouldn'ts, as if you had to be whipped and punished before you could be expected to do anything. "Musts" and "oughts" are also offenders. The emotional consequence is guilt. When you direct should statements toward others, you feel anger, frustration, and resentment.

9. Labeling and mislabeling: This is an extreme form of overgeneralization. Instead of describing your error, you attach a negative label to yourself: "I'm a loser." When someone else's behavior rubs you the wrong way, you attach a negative label to him, "He's a damn louse." Mislabeling involves describing an event with language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded.

10. Personalization: You see yourself as the cause of some negative external event for which, in fact, you were not primarily responsible.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby SDC » Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:48 am

Ñāṇa wrote:The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.


Excellent post, Ñāṇa.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:33 am

Cittasanto wrote:and one by Tammi Jonas, which relates to the previous thread.

Tammi Jonas wrote:"Not everything is opinion.
an opinion

Tammi Jonas wrote:Newspapers are not authoritative.
an opinion

Tammi Jonas wrote:What you read in The Australian about climate change is not authoritative. What you read from the Union of Concerned Scientists is.
an opinion: science is a bundle of opinions, premised on the Grand opinion that methodology and "consensus building" lead to (someday, anyway) Truth, or worse, "objective truth".

Tammi Jonas wrote:I'll admit it. I'm contrarian when people un-reflexively reproduce stereotypes and prejudice that keep us from progressing towards a more egalitarian/cosmopolitan/sustainable society.
This is worse than scientific opinion. This is political opinion.

Tammi Jonas wrote:Rather than being so wounded when I tell you I disagree with you and why, try something different. Try saying, 'Really? Tell me more. I'm interested'. There should be nothing threatening about learning something new, something that may even change your mind. It's okay to change your mind. I'll change mine if you provide compelling evidence for me to do so.
Even it's evidence contrary to egalitarianism, cosmopolitanism and sustainabilit-ism?

Tammi Jonas wrote:If the world is to distribute resources and power more equally amongst all its people....
"The world" will never do that. This is The Just World Fallacy. Perhaps Tammi's not as academically sophisticated as she claims. Not one mention of J.S. MIll or Richard Rorty or even an Habermas quote to support her opinions? Perhaps it really is true that you just can't get a good education anymore?
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:06 am

Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:20 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:How is that an "objective fact"?

It can be tested by anyone. it is true whether a Buddha is present or not. also see my last comments (this part is why I responded there).
edit - it does not depend on one's personal perspective for it to be the case.

The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.

The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:20 am

SDC wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:why not here?


I'll take it far off topic.

ok
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:35 am

danieLion wrote:Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.

could you expand on this?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:24 pm

i have just noticed that I missed a number of responces from Daniel, but as I am going away for a few days soon I may not have time to go over them until I get back, but will try.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:24 am

Cittasanto wrote:
danieLion wrote:Belief that the fact/value (fact/opinion) distinction is valid is just another opinion.

could you expand on this?

The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy by Hilary Putnam

Excerpt from Richard Rorty's review of the above.

Putnam's dislike of science-worship is just one example of his distrust of all philosophies that stray too far from common sense, from what he sometimes...calls "the ordinary...." Using a strategy pioneered by Dewey, Putnam shows how his opponents have turned commonsensical distinctions into philosophical dichotomies (fact vs. value, objective vs. subjective, mind vs. matter) and then, typically, tried to eliminate one side of the dichotomy in favor of the other.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby danieLion » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:26 am

Cittasanto wrote:i have just noticed that I missed a number of responces from Daniel, but as I am going away for a few days soon I may not have time to go over them until I get back, but will try.

Thanks Cittasanto. I'm in no hurry but sincerely look forward to your responses.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:31 am

danieLion wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:i have just noticed that I missed a number of responces from Daniel, but as I am going away for a few days soon I may not have time to go over them until I get back, but will try.

Thanks Cittasanto. I'm in no hurry but sincerely look forward to your responses.

Probably wont be too much as I have ran out of steam this past week. hence my impromptu trip away.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:03 am

Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.

The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
I don't think you understood at all what Geoff just said.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19030
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:45 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:The recognition of the cessation of mental outflows is only available to noble ones and doesn't exist independent of a particular mental continuum. As worldlings, we can experience the temporary suppression of the hindrances through the development of samādhi & paññā, and can infer from this that the complete termination of the mental outflows would be peaceful, but this is still an inferential cognition on our part. This can be very useful as a way of pointing us in the right direction. But it is a pointer, and not an observable objective fact.

The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
I don't think you understood at all what Geoff just said.

care to explain?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:05 pm

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:The subjective experience may influence the application but not its being true.
I don't think you understood at all what Geoff just said.

care to explain?
First of all, I have no idea what your response to Geoff's msg is saying. But what I am saying, and what I do believe Geoff is saying is what I said above: One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts. The Buddha is not talking about the height of Everest. He is talking about being free of greed, hatred, and delusion, which is an experiential, cognitive process.

That is, in the Dhamma the only way truths are truly experienced and truly known (not as a matter of belief) is by cognition. The Four Noble Truths start with pointing to experience, not a matter of belief. Awakening is not something one must believe in in order for there to be awakening. It is what one experiences with the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19030
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests