rangtong vs. zhentong

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Tom » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:14 pm

5heaps wrote:
Tom wrote:For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate.

they carry all the weight they need to because relative truths are nevertheless valid [for an obscurer] and, more importantly, do not exist by way of essential natures; they are imputedly knowable. monism wants to say that ultimate truth is independent of the person in some self-sufficiently knowable way. thats all we need to know in order to accept that they [shentong] dismiss any conception of a self to things and persons, whereas monism and nonbuddhists do not


These comments don't make sense in relation to Dolpopa. For him no amount of accuracy with regards to relative truth will lead to the ultimate. For him there is no analytical meditation that leads to a realisation of buddha nature. Yet, ultimate truth is not merely this unfindability it is more and its appearance is perceivable. Further he describes it as self” (bdag, ātman), “permanent” (rtag pa, nitya), “stable” (brtan pa, dhruva), “everlasting” (ther zug), eternal (g.yung drung), and “indestructible” (mi ‘jig pa). It is fine to repeat that there is a distinction here between buddhist and non-buddhist in that buddhist don't accept ultimate truth as self-sufficient but I wonder what actually can be demonstrated in Dolpopa's work. Again, I am not versed in Dolpopa's thought so I'm not saying I have answers just that I think it is complicated and also interesting.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Parasamgate » Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:41 pm

I'm a baby buddhist so I'm posting this so others can let me know where I have gone wrong, but it seems to me after reading this thread and Progressive Stages Of Meditation On Emptiness that the positions are some what like this:

Sravaka Practitioner: "Investigate! Can you identify any lasting, independent, separate self anywhere? Can it be found in your body? Can it be found in your mind? Is it found in both? Neither? If you can't find it after an exhaustive search, then why do you have such a strong feeling it exists?"

Cittamatra Practitioner building on Sravaka: "If you can't identify a lasting, independent, separate self can you at least find a clear line between this feeling of a lasting, independent, separate, self and everything "other"? What is "other" in your dreams? What is the difference between your dreams and waking life? If there is no "other" in your dreams and no clear difference between your dreams and waking life, then where is the clear line between this feeling of a lasting, independent, separate, self and everything "other"?

Svantantrika Practitioner building on Cittamatra: "When you suffer in a dream because of the "other", why does this suffering feel real to the dreamer even though the "other" is not real or empty? When you awaken from the dream - either inside the dream or outside the dream - does the suffering go away? What does 'awaken from the dream' mean? Is it not just directly perceiving the "other" of the dream as not real or empty? Similarly, if we directly perceive the emptiness of the "other" and the emptiness of the "self" of our samsaric existence won't our suffering go away? Isn't everything ultimately empty?"

Prasangika Practitioner building on Svantantrika: "All these questions about dreams and thoughts and emptiness and real or not real and self and other are just concepts. What do they even mean? There is something subtle going on and I need to just sit and turn off all these concepts in my mind and directly perceive how things really are. To do this, I will meditate on the paradoxes and absurdities revealed by all such concepts and exhaust the mind until it finally ceases all such fruitless conceptual thought."

---- INTERLUDE ----

Here the practitioner, through tremendous effort and much merit finally succeeds in the cessation of all such conceptual thoughts and being free from conceptual thoughts and with great concentration directly perceives things as they actually are with a completely non-conceptual mind.

---- INTERLUDE ----

Shentong Practitioner building on the Prasangika after the interlude turns back on the conceptual mind: "Wow! Just Wow! Amazing! Indescribable! Absolute! Everlasting! Permanent! Stable! Eternal! Everlasting! Awe!"

......................

Shentong detractor: "Careful! You are getting lost in concepts again!"
Rangtong detractor: "But did you *see* that! How can you not admit it is all these things! Wow!"
Shentong detractor: "Careful! You are getting lost in concepts again!"
Rangtong detractor: "But did you *see* that! How can you not admit it is all these things! Wow!"

Rinse. Recycle. Repeat.

Again, I am a baby buddhist and have no real idea. This is just me trying to write down what I understand from reading this thread and the attached link to Progressive Stages Of Meditation On Emptiness

I'm sure I have everything wrong and backwards and have missed some fundamental points. Please feel free to correct me so I can understand. Thank you!
Parasamgate
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:48 am

5heaps wrote:
Tom wrote:For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate.

they carry all the weight they need to because relative truths are nevertheless valid [for an obscurer] and, more importantly, do not exist by way of essential natures; they are imputedly knowable. monism wants to say that ultimate truth is independent of the person in some self-sufficiently knowable way. thats all we need to know in order to accept that they [shentong] dismiss any conception of a self to things and persons, whereas monism and nonbuddhists do not.


(1)have you ever read Dolpopas mountain doctrine?

(2)Zhentong: all realitive phenomena are empty of self and the ultimate level of reality is Empty of other.that is Empty of everything *other* than its ultimate nature.

you are trying to say Enlightenment is not singular cause different persons/selves attain Enlightenment.

The problem with this view is that Enlightenment is independent of the persons.
My friend you said it yourself the 5 heaps person is false and it is apart of realtive phenomena not the ultimate.

What does Zhentong teach about the realitive?it teaches that the realitive is empty of itself,the worldly persons fall into this catagory.

Now in Zhentong it is taught that Enlightenment is Empty of Everything other than itself,this means Enlightenment is independent/Empty from the persons(realitive phenomena).

If Enlightenment is Empty of everything Relative,how do these multiple persons attain Enlightenment?
If you say the realitive persons attain Enlightenment,then you are saying Enlightenment is not Empty of the realitive(goes against the very basis of Zhentong)
So Zhentong teaches the realitive person cannot attain enlightenment(there is no realitive in the ultimate,remember The Ultimate is empty of (Everything Other than itself)So it never had the
persons to begin with.

(remeber you already answered your own question when you stated that 5 heaps was false and Enlightenment was True)

pretty much this is what Tom is trying to tell you,the realitive persons argument does not works due to the fact the Ultimate is Empty of all the realitive persons.
(unless you wish to say Enlightenment is not empty of the realitive....but then that woulnt be Zhentong)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby 5heaps » Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:06 pm

Tom wrote:
5heaps wrote:
Tom wrote:For example, arguing that Buddha's are not in some way all "one" because there are many ordinary beings striving and attaining Buddhahood, I don't think carries too much weight. What is helpful then are descriptions about the ultimate.

they carry all the weight they need to because relative truths are nevertheless valid [for an obscurer] and, more importantly, do not exist by way of essential natures; they are imputedly knowable. monism wants to say that ultimate truth is independent of the person in some self-sufficiently knowable way. thats all we need to know in order to accept that they [shentong] dismiss any conception of a self to things and persons, whereas monism and nonbuddhists do not

These comments don't make sense in relation to Dolpopa. For him no amount of accuracy with regards to relative truth will lead to the ultimate. For him there is no analytical meditation that leads to a realisation of buddha nature.

they dont need to lead to the ultimate..they just need to be falsities imputed within reality.
this makes perfect sense for dolpopa. if things werent imputed but instead were substantially existent, they could never be removed

Son of Buddha wrote:pretty much this is what Tom is trying to tell you,the realitive persons argument does not works due to the fact the Ultimate is Empty of all the realitive persons.

right, but its not empty because its independent, is my point.
yes, i myself said the 5 heaps are false and not ultimate. the only way this could be the case is precisely if they were not independent of the real. if they were both independent and false that would mean they would be completely nonexistent since there would be no basis for them. however they are false but not independent, they are imputed
5heaps
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Tom » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:33 pm

Tom wrote:These comments don't make sense in relation to Dolpopa. For him no amount of accuracy with regards to relative truth will lead to the ultimate. For him there is no analytical meditation that leads to a realisation of buddha nature.

5heaps wrote:they dont need to lead to the ultimate..they just need to be falsities imputed within reality.
this makes perfect sense for dolpopa. if things werent imputed but instead were substantially existent, they could never be removed


What makes perfect sense for Dolpopa? These are just slogans about the relative. What is in contention here is the status of the ultimate in relation to the relative. To those who misunderstand their relationship Dolpopa sarcastically remarks:

As it is feasible to destroy the incidental stains,
is it also feasible to destroy the sugata essence?

And conversely,

As the sugata essence is permanent,
are the incidental stains also permanent?

It is probably no use continuing this unless your prepared to ground your claims about Dolpopa's position with textual evidence.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby 5heaps » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:21 am

Tom wrote:These are just slogans about the relative. What is in contention here is the status of the ultimate in relation to the relative.

no its not, and thats what ive been talking about: shentong cant be monism because the relative exists as a false imputation that is not self-sufficiently independent of ultimate reality. it is not self-sufficiently independent of ultimate reality because ultimate reality is free from the extremes of false imputation. in other words theyre one entity aka false imputations are occurring within the purview of reality. do you disagree with this? if false imputations existed self-sufficiently independent of reality (ultimate truth), they would be false which in this context means being existing without any ground of existence
5heaps
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Tom » Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:52 am

5heaps wrote: in other words theyre one entity aka false imputations are occurring within the purview of reality. do you disagree with this?


It does not matter what I agree with. Can you demonstrate Dolpopa agrees with your point?

Do you think Dolpopa thinks the ultimate is related to the relative because it is free of it? Dolpopa's shentong distinguishes between two kinds of universal ground (ālaya, kun gzhi), the universal ground wisdom (kun gzhi ye shes, one of Dol po pa’s neologisms) and the universal ground consciousness (ālayavijñāna, kun gzhi rnam shes), and he speaks extensively in his Fourth Council and its Autocommentary on the sugata essence in relation to these two universal grounds. He maintains that the sugata essence should not be identified with the universal ground consciousness which itself consists of the adventitious defilements to be removed.


User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby 5heaps » Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:44 am

Tom wrote:Do you think Dolpopa thinks the ultimate is related to the relative because it is free of it?

yes, because it (the real) is freedom from them and because they can be imputed within its purview. do you agree that they are imputed within its purview? if you dont then how do you explain that relative truths are false superimpositions, without falling into the extreme of nonexistence ie. there is no difference between unreal things with no grounding behind them and utter nonexistence
5heaps
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Tom » Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:40 am

5heaps wrote:
Tom wrote:Do you think Dolpopa thinks the ultimate is related to the relative because it is free of it?

yes, because it (the real) is freedom from them and because they can be imputed within its purview.


I thought so. In my limited exposure to Dolpopa's shentong this is unrecognisable. Many of your posts just seems like your own theories to me. Which is cool but I'm more interested in what Dolpopa did or did not say. So, I am ready to learn and if you can support your position with a Dolpopa quote that would be great.

5heaps wrote: do you agree that they are imputed within its purview? if you dont then how do you explain that relative truths are false superimpositions, without falling into the extreme of nonexistence ie. there is no difference between unreal things with no grounding behind them and utter nonexistence


I thought I had preempted those questions by explaining Dolpopa distinguishes between two kinds of universal ground!

Also, if you are referencing a less radical shentong position like that of Rangjung Dorje or Jamgon Kongtrol then that also changes things.

This is about the time I tap out... we don't want to bore the Cat again :tongue:
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Son of Buddha » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:11 am

Hey Tom and 5heaps

The answer to this question can be in Dolpopas mountain Doctrine
Pg 707 and pg 465

This is what I have been trying to discribe.

Also pg694,425

Idealy the only reason the Buddha is not singular is due to the Nirmikaya Bodies being different,now that being said all the bodies are different but the mind/pristine wisdom is the same hence the Buddha is not plural.

So the Buddha is plural due to having multiple Nirmikaya bodies.(only plural dues to physical appearance)
BUT the Buddha is Singular in mind/pristen wisdom,due to the fact that the
fact the previous realitive personality/self does not exist WITH the pristen wisdom.

(this is to say the realitive person ceases,Enlightenment/Ultimate is empty of 5heaps,SOB,Tom,so our personalities cannot be found in the Buddha).
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby 5heaps » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:46 am

Tom wrote:
5heaps wrote:
Tom wrote:Do you think Dolpopa thinks the ultimate is related to the relative because it is free of it?

yes, because it (the real) is freedom from them and because they can be imputed within its purview.


I thought so. In my limited exposure to Dolpopa's shentong this is unrecognisable. Many of your posts just seems like your own theories to me.

not really my own ideas i am relying on berzins commentaries atm...i stated that the relative is a falsity...this includes the alaya. so my argument is totally unaffected by your bringing up an ultimate ground. the point is that if the relative ground and the ultimate, which is to say, if any relative is independent of the ultimate, then this makes it a falsity existing independently from reality. that would be the extreme of nonexistence, since a falsity with no connection to anything valid is utter nonexistence

that the two truths are one entity i thought was pretty much nondebatable within all mahayana

while reading tsongkhapa on a different topic i ran into this translation by hopkins which explicitly states my position, particularly the bold part:

"Objection: Just as the eyes of those without cataracts do not perceive
even an appearance of falling hairs, so if a Buddha does not perceive
conventionalities, such as aggregates and so forth, which appear to
awarenesses polluted by ignorance, then those would not exist because
if something exists, it must be perceived by a Buddha. If conventionalities
such as aggregates do not exist, then even the attainment of
Buddhahood would not exist because a person who initially generates a
mind [of altruistic aspiration to Buddhahood] is one who is polluted by
ignorance.

Answer: Let us explain how this fallacy does not occur. There are
two ways that a Buddha’s pristine wisdom knows objects of knowledge—
a mode of knowing all objects of knowledge that are ultimate
truths and a mode of knowing all objects of knowledge that are
obscurational truths. Concerning those, the first is knowledge of the
suchness of the aggregates and so forth in the manner of not perceiving
their conventional appearances. The second is knowledge [of those aggregates
and so forth] in the perspective of the pristine wisdom knowing
the diversity [of phenomena] in the manner of dualistic appearance
as object and subject; this is because it is not suitable to posit that a
Buddha has implicit realization in which something is realized even
though it does not appear and hence [everything] must be known upon
its appearing.*

* This counters Dol-po-pa’s notion that a Buddha only implicitly knows obscurational
truths
; see below, 275ff."

Son of Buddha wrote:fact the previous realitive personality/self does not exist WITH the pristen wisdom.

but, the way you say it, straight up states that the two truths are self-sufficiently independent of each other.
i too assert that the relative does not exist from the pov of the ultimate, but i can explain it as a buddhist where i do not posit essential independent natures to things ie. monism. monism is nonbuddhist
5heaps
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Tom » Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:43 pm

5heaps wrote:not really my own ideas i am relying on berzins commentaries atm...i stated that the relative is a falsity...this includes the alaya. so my argument is totally unaffected by your bringing up an ultimate ground. the point is that if the relative ground and the ultimate, which is to say, if any relative is independent of the ultimate, then this makes it a falsity existing independently from reality. that would be the extreme of nonexistence, since a falsity with no connection to anything valid is utter nonexistence

that the two truths are one entity i thought was pretty much nondebatable within all mahayana


So can you demonstrate that Dolpopa asserts the two truths are one entity?

Sorry to harp on this, however I have spent too much time with people who have spent six month in a tent in Arizona with their ACI courses, Garfield's book, a couple of Hopkins books, and a few Berzin articles and came out with their own Buddhist metaphysics of everything. Not saying this is you and also I love these guys but what I have learnt is that these conversations go on forever unless you ask people to start demonstrating their positions in texts.

Also, I'm not really interested in a critique of Dolpopa there are many traditional sources I could turn to for this and also agree with.

5heaps wrote: that the two truths are one entity i thought was pretty much nondebatable within all mahayana


This is not the case. And here is where we disagree and I am ready to be corrected - but I don't think Dolpopa agrees with this. Also, I believe although Gorampa asserts the basis of division of the two truths to be mere mind (blo tsam) even for him if we are to talk about the two truths then we are then not talking about one entity. Anyways, as I said before in his Fourth Council, Dolpopa asserts that the two truths are ontologically separate not one entity. In his words this is the position he critiques:

"Without dividing the two truths into two kingdoms, they claim that what is apparent is relative truth and what is empty is absolute truth. They say that since those two, the apparent and the empty, are in essence indivisible, they have a single essence but are different conceptual isolates."

Further, in relation to the base and all the Buddha qualities (all my comments have been in relation to this and not monism which i find pointless to discuss unless defined further) Dolpopa says…

dge ba’i bshes gnyen pa’i gsung yig la mkhas pa ‘ga’i gsung gis/ bde gshegs snying po la stobs sogs kyi yon tan tshang bar gsungs pa de dgongs pa can yin gyi don la ma tshang ste glo bur dri mas zil gyis mnan pa’i phyir zhes gsungs pas ‘di la’ng lan gsungs du gsol zhes pa la/ lan ni stobs sogs yon tan rnams la yang bden gnyis rnam dbye shes dgongs lugs dang/ don dam bden par rtogs pa’i yon tan thams cad ‘dus ma byas yin lugs la sogs pa sngar yang gsal bar bkod / cing ‘dus ma byas la skye ‘gag ‘pho ‘gyur med pas/ yon tan de rnams bral gzhi rang bzhin gyi rigs la dbyer med du med na bral ‘bras don dam chos sku la yang dbyer med du med par ‘gyur te/nyes pa glo bur dang ldan dang/ yon tan rang bzhin nyid ldan phyir ji ltar sngar bzhin phyis de bzhin ‘gyur ba med pa’i chos nyid do/ zhes dang/

Since by the words of some scholars it is said of the speech and writings of the virtuous spiritual friend that, “those statements that sugata essence is complete with qualities such as power and so forth are the figurative meaning, however in actuality it is not complete [with all qualities] because of being suppressed by adventitious defilements,” words of response to this also have been requested. As for the response, the position that it is necessary to know the differentiation of the two truths with respect to qualities such as power, and the position [holding] that all qualities of the realization of the ultimate truth are unconditioned, and so forth were previously also clearly established. And since unconditioned [phenomena] have no origin, cessation, or changeability, if one does not indivisibly have those qualities that are the basis of separation, which is the natural lineage, one will also not indivisibly have the result of separation, the ultimate dharmakāya.

Sorry for the convoluted translation - no time to do any more with it.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Karma Dorje » Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:07 pm

Tom wrote:Sorry to harp on this, however I have spent too much time with people who have spent six month in a tent in Arizona with their ACI courses, Garfield's book, a couple of Hopkins books, and a few Berzin articles and came out with their own Buddhist metaphysics of everything.


:rolling:

That's the funniest thing I've read this year. Ain't it the truth!
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby 5heaps » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:22 pm

Tom wrote:"Without dividing the two truths into two kingdoms, they claim that what is apparent is relative truth and what is empty is absolute truth. They say that since those two, the apparent and the empty, are in essence indivisible, they have a single essence but are different conceptual isolates."

this is just one of the ways of positing sameness through entity, so its not a proof for me, and he would be right to criticize it if he is denying buddhist realism ie. gelug

i will try to find something more explicit..i can quote berzin saying that all mahayana attributes the two truths to a single entity and i can recall the dalai lama saying the same thing, but i will try to find something more concrete by dolpopa. quiizzically everything youve quoted so far simply illustrates my position perfectly in my own mind
5heaps
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:09 am

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Tom » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:38 am

5heaps wrote:
Tom wrote:"Without dividing the two truths into two kingdoms, they claim that what is apparent is relative truth and what is empty is absolute truth. They say that since those two, the apparent and the empty, are in essence indivisible, they have a single essence but are different conceptual isolates."

this is just one of the ways of positing sameness through entity, so its not a proof for me, and he would be right to criticize it if he is denying buddhist realism ie. gelug

i will try to find something more explicit..i can quote berzin saying that all mahayana attributes the two truths to a single entity and i can recall the dalai lama saying the same thing, but i will try to find something more concrete by dolpopa. quiizzically everything youve quoted so far simply illustrates my position perfectly in my own mind


If my quotes are illustrating your points then I could be reading you incorrectly in which case I wonder what you are asserting is the basis of the two truths that Dolpopa takes to be one entity ངོ་བོ་གཅིག ?

or maybe I am reading Dolpoa too aggressively however I take the above quote to have Dolpopa as denying not only ལྡོག་པ་ཐ་དད but also ངོ་བོ་གཅིག (one entity). However, even reading it more narrowly are you then suggesting Dolpopa instead asserts ངོ་བོ་གཅིག་ལ་རྣམ་པ་ཐ་དད (different appearances) or else what other way of positing sameness through entity do you think Dolpopa asserts for the two truths?

By the way I think even if you reject the Gelug realism and hold the basis of the two truths to be mind it does not necessarily follow that they are a unity.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: rangtong vs. zhentong

Postby Son of Buddha » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:01 am

"5heaps"
while reading tsongkhapa on a different topic i ran into this translation by hopkins which explicitly states my position, particularly the bold part:
* This counters Dol-po-pa’s notion that a Buddha only implicitly knows obscurational
truths
; see below, 275ff."


we are talking about what is taught in Zhentong(generally Dolpopas Zhentong) so qouteing tsongkhapa rantong views doesnt discribe Zhentong views
(thats like me talking about touchdowns in football then you saying im incorrect about about my views concerining football touchdowns,while at the same time your evidence that I am wrong is based in the hockey rules for scoring)
if you going to say THIS is what Zhentong states then you have to show evidence that comes from Zhentong,dont tell me this is what football rules really are ,then start qouteing hockey rules

"5heaps"
Son of Buddha wrote:fact the previous realitive personality/self does not exist WITH the pristen wisdom.

but, the way you say it, straight up states that the two truths are self-sufficiently independent of each other.
i too assert that the relative does not exist from the pov of the ultimate, but i can explain it as a buddhist where i do not posit essential independent natures to things ie. monism. monism is nonbuddhist


(Nirvana Sutra Chapter 3)
Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama]. This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine. The same is the case with the Tathagata.

yes that is what i am telling you Enlightenment is independent/Empty of all realitive Phenomena(that is literally the basic teaching of Zhentong)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Previous

Return to Tibetan Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Phuntsog Tashi, Sherab Rigdrol, smcj and 29 guests

>