What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by The Cicada » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:35 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:18 am
There is no person in buddhahood. So how could any buddha be a follower of any other buddha?
You don't exist, so how could "you" be making a point?

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm

The Cicada wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:35 am
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:18 am
There is no person in buddhahood. So how could any buddha be a follower of any other buddha?
You don't exist, so how could "you" be making a point?
It is true there is no person in Malcolm. That does not prevent Malcolm from making a point. Buddhas however are unlike malcolm, they have all realized in a definitive sense that there is no person in the aggregates, separate from them, or in one of them alone. While malcolm might erroneously perceive a malcolm in malcolm, while cicada might erroneously percieve a cicada in cicada, buddhas are not subject to such error. So how can one follow another or be subordinate to another in anyway at all, especially since there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

pael
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by pael » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm
... there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?
Do buddhas share it? Is buddha same as dharmakaya?
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:38 pm

pael wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm
... there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?
Do buddhas share it? Is buddha same as dharmakaya?
All buddhas have the same realization. Hence, there is only one dharmakāya.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:51 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:38 pm
pael wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm
... there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?
Do buddhas share it? Is buddha same as dharmakaya?
All buddhas have the same realization. Hence, there is only one dharmakāya.
and yet you use the term "All Buddhas"

and yet you talk about them in such a manner as to impose a separate identity
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm

Buddhas however are unlike malcolm, they have all realized in a definitive sense that there is no person in the aggregates, separate from them, or in one of them alone. While malcolm might erroneously perceive a malcolm in malcolm, while cicada might erroneously percieve a cicada in cicada, buddhas are not subject to such error. So how can one follow another or be subordinate to another in anyway at all, especially since there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?


Let's discuss your teaching Loppon...
a teaching Loppon that starts off
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:18 am
There is no person in buddhahood. So how could any buddha be a follower of any other buddha?
and has a strict guideline loppon
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:54 am


There is no conventional persons in either buddhas or sentient beings.

if we read you saying this Loppon
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm
So how can one follow another or be subordinate to another in anyway at all, especially since there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?
it completely contradicts the teaching you are laying out. I bolded out and underlined to show you are talking about plural Buddhas.


I put forth to you the reason why, i find your conclusions contradictory and off.
The Middle way...
The realization it is something between existance and non existance..
sunyata..
no inherency and yet there is an existence that is neither nihilistic nor inherent

the teachers i came to know brought me to a view that it is something you have to bend your head around and see that it is both existent and nonexistent..
i believe Lord Buddha Nagarjuna left us this teaching to come to that view.


As per
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:18 am
There is no person in buddhahood. So how could any buddha be a follower of any other buddha?
The very sentence talks of any buddha .
I think you have gone to extreme and obscured the reality existence /nonexistence to total nihilism to the point your words themselves contradict everything you are trying to teach.

Maybe leave it to Lord Buddha Nagarjuna and His Madhyamika teaching...because tell me i am wrong...but you have tossed that teaching out the window .

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:46 pm

Minobu wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:51 pm

it completely contradicts the teaching you are laying out. I bolded out and underlined to show you are talking about plural Buddhas.
So you think there is a person in a buddha and thus one buddha can be superior to another?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:41 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:46 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:51 pm

it completely contradicts the teaching you are laying out. I bolded out and underlined to show you are talking about plural Buddhas.
So you think there is a person in a buddha and thus one buddha can be superior to another?
No there is no self , there is no i ..but a Nirmanakaya emanation of Buddha did come to this realm, is in other realms as we speak to teach sentient beings who do not understand their true nature.

walking around saying there is no person in buddha is actually quite meaningless in this conversation.
The person is trying to understand the concept of a primordial buddha and other buddhas.

it's like the whole Atman Paramatman thing , except that's a little too inherent for us Buddhists.


the middle way ....
so do you go along with Lord Nagarjuna's Madhyamika totally..or some of it or not all...???

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:44 pm

as per followers of Buddhas..
to me that is what people do before they attain Buddhahood..

Which sort of leaves the Primordial Buddha in question...
except if you say the Primordial Buddha was always...never had to follow anyone or any teaching...
that makes the primordial Buddha unique amongst Buddhas.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:49 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:46 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:51 pm

it completely contradicts the teaching you are laying out. I bolded out and underlined to show you are talking about plural Buddhas.
So you think there is a person in a buddha and thus one buddha can be superior to another?
the point of the long post ..was yet you say.
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:18 am
There is no person in buddhahood. So how could any buddha be a follower of any other buddha?
you are talking plural entities and saying they do not follow or have followed other buddhas to be buddhas..
thats how this conversation has gone..


for me it has always been ...what exactly is the Primordial Buddha ...for a Buddha is once a common mortal and then awakened.
the primordial buddha is just not fitting into an awakened being.

it becomes something other than Buddhism

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:04 pm

Minobu wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:49 pm


you are talking plural entities and saying they do not follow or have followed other buddhas to be buddhas..
Do many buddhas appear or only one?

for me it has always been ...what exactly is the Primordial Buddha ...for a Buddha is once a common mortal and then awakened.
the primordial buddha is just not fitting into an awakened being.
The adibuddha, the primordial buddha, has two meanings: one, it refers to the first buddha of a given great eon; two, it refers to the nature of reality which is what one must realized to become a buddha.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:22 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:04 pm
Minobu wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:49 pm


you are talking plural entities and saying they do not follow or have followed other buddhas to be buddhas..
Do many buddhas appear or only one?

for me it has always been ...what exactly is the Primordial Buddha ...for a Buddha is once a common mortal and then awakened.
the primordial buddha is just not fitting into an awakened being.
The adibuddha, the primordial buddha, has two meanings: one, it refers to the first buddha of a given great eon; two, it refers to the nature of reality which is what one must realized to become a buddha.
obviously i don't get it..
but i do appreciate your patience and the fortitude one needs to communicate with me.

what i don't get is the word Buddha ..the awakened one..which implies a dumbed down state at one time..
so a primordial buddha always was in a state of ??????

but this post you just made...this is the one i need to meditate on..for it does something to me..
thanks Loppon

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:23 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:04 pm


The adibuddha, the primordial buddha, has two meanings: one, it refers to the first buddha of a given great eon; two, it refers to the nature of reality which is what one must realized to become a buddha.
aha....i get it...one reread !!!!!!
awesome.

now wait till tonight and i get this all Minobued and aggravate the piss out of everyone.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Minobu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:24 pm

don't have to wait till tonight...so buddha's of a given eon denotes plural Buddhas.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:45 pm

Minobu wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:24 pm
don't have to wait till tonight...so buddha's of a given eon denotes plural Buddhas.
Yes, there will be 1001 buddhas, i.e., supreme nirmanakāyas in this Bhadrakalpa, or fortunate eon. They all have the same dharmakāya, or realization, however.

Apart from that, there are infinite buddhas manifesting all the time.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by The Cicada » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:13 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:12 pm
It is true there is no person in Malcolm.
Well enough. I hear pregnancy can be difficult.
That does not prevent Malcolm from making a point.
There is no "Malcolm" to make a "point." In fact there is no such thing as a "point" to be "made," nor is any made throughout the "past," "present," "or" "future" in any "direction." It is also for this reason that nothing can be said to be "pointless."
Buddhas however are unlike malcolm,
False distinction.
While malcolm might erroneously perceive a malcolm in malcolm, while cicada might erroneously percieve a cicada in cicada, buddhas are not subject to such error.
To posit sentient beings which can make ontological errors and are distinct from other beings called "Buddhas" who are awakened is to admit conventionality by using it to explain the point you aren't making. It is only our shared delusion that makes this exchange comprehensible—or incomprehensible, depending on the "delusions" "one" "has."
So how can one follow another or be subordinate to another in anyway at all, especially since there is only one dharmakāya, or state of realization, of the buddhas?
There is ultimately no distinction between fecal matter and a Shinola watch, between one's backside and a hole in the ground. These distinctions are merely matters of utility based on what is most beneficial to us—and what we perceive to be.

"All" of "our" "physical" "senses" "work" in "this way," which is why "they" are "labelled" "transducers."

:quoteunquote: :namaste: :quoteunquote:

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:23 am

The Cicada wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:13 pm

To posit sentient beings which can make ontological errors and are distinct from other beings called "Buddhas" who are awakened is to admit conventionality...
Yes.
by using it to explain the point you aren't making. It is only our shared delusion that makes this exchange comprehensible—or incomprehensible, depending on the "delusions" "one" "has."
Yes.

There is ultimately no distinction between fecal matter and a Shinola watch, between one's backside and a hole in the ground. These distinctions are merely matters of utility based on what is most beneficial to us—and what we perceive to be.
But still, there is no buddha in a buddha, and we come by this knowledge via convention as well. The minute you start believing there is a buddha in a buddha, you begin to make ridiculous distinctions such as claiming this buddha is better than that buddha and so forth, that Śakyamuni is better than Amitabha or Mahāvairocana. Such distinctions are utterly false and deluded.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by The Cicada » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:18 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:23 am
There is ultimately no distinction between fecal matter and a Shinola watch, between one's backside and a hole in the ground. These distinctions are merely matters of utility based on what is most beneficial to us—and what we perceive to be.
But still, there is no buddha in a buddha, and we come by this knowledge via convention as well. The minute you start believing there is a buddha in a buddha, you begin to make ridiculous distinctions such as claiming this buddha is better than that buddha and so forth, that Śakyamuni is better than Amitabha or Mahāvairocana. Such distinctions are utterly false and deluded.
The effectiveness of a teaching is determined by its skillfulness. In the same manner, the best cure for hypochondria is the medicine of placebo, and the best cure for the ailments of sentient beings in the Saha realm during the degenerate age is the example of Shakyamuni Buddha and the teaching of the Lotus Sutra. This is the appropriate medicine that reveals the mystic cintamanti jewel hidden within the seams of our vestiges in accordance with our collective karma.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25384
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:58 am

The Cicada wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:18 am
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:23 am
There is ultimately no distinction between fecal matter and a Shinola watch, between one's backside and a hole in the ground. These distinctions are merely matters of utility based on what is most beneficial to us—and what we perceive to be.
But still, there is no buddha in a buddha, and we come by this knowledge via convention as well. The minute you start believing there is a buddha in a buddha, you begin to make ridiculous distinctions such as claiming this buddha is better than that buddha and so forth, that Śakyamuni is better than Amitabha or Mahāvairocana. Such distinctions are utterly false and deluded.
The effectiveness of a teaching is determined by its skillfulness. In the same manner, the best cure for hypochondria is the medicine of placebo, and the best cure for the ailments of sentient beings in the Saha realm during the degenerate age is the example of Shakyamuni Buddha and the teaching of the Lotus Sutra. This is the appropriate medicine that reveals the mystic cintamanti jewel hidden within the seams of our vestiges in accordance with our collective karma.
The Lotus Sūtra is a nice sūtra, like all sūtras. But your hermeneutic is excessively parochial.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

User avatar
The Cicada
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by The Cicada » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:44 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:58 am
The Cicada wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:18 am
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:23 am


But still, there is no buddha in a buddha, and we come by this knowledge via convention as well. The minute you start believing there is a buddha in a buddha, you begin to make ridiculous distinctions such as claiming this buddha is better than that buddha and so forth, that Śakyamuni is better than Amitabha or Mahāvairocana. Such distinctions are utterly false and deluded.
The effectiveness of a teaching is determined by its skillfulness. In the same manner, the best cure for hypochondria is the medicine of placebo, and the best cure for the ailments of sentient beings in the Saha realm during the degenerate age is the example of Shakyamuni Buddha and the teaching of the Lotus Sutra. This is the appropriate medicine that reveals the mystic cintamanti jewel hidden within the seams of our vestiges in accordance with our collective karma.
The Lotus Sūtra is a nice sūtra, like all sūtras. But your hermeneutic is excessively parochial.
Shakyamuni Buddha has appeared here like an old rural doctor in our place of birth who has known us since childhood. Because he gives us the correct medicine for our ailments, we must acknowledge this not think that the medicines given in a far away place are more effective. Running off to Sukhavati or trying to rely on Mahavairocana or some other Buddha is merely denying what's available right in front of us in the present and an egregious error. Given the option of simply curing our ailments immediately or going through a complicated process for the same end, the latter is folly, and likely to allow us to further complicate things so that we never gain our cure.

Likewise, denying that Shakyamuni is the definitive example for those in this world to realize their Buddhahood is misguided, and denying the Lotus Sutra and failing to have proper faith in is as the cure we need leaves us floundering in our sickness of delusion. This is like a hypochondriac always insisting that they need a more refined and rare medicine in order to be cured. They must be willing to admit to what is readily available—for us, it is Shakyamuni and the effects of his life and teaching that are readily available. If we can accept this, we will begin to regain the health we never lost. Anything else is just a game.

From the perspective of emptiness, we are illusory and so are our sufferings. We mistake ourselves and our sufferings for being "real," but for an illusion suffering over illusions, such things are "real" in their own misguided way. It is for this reason that the Buddha has pity for us, though in reality it "doesn't matter" one way or another since everything is empty, and there is no pity to be had. Why the Buddha teaches may be a bit like Diogenes of Sinope's response to why he didn't simply commit suicide if it didn't matter whether he lived or died: It doesn't matter either way.

But yet it does in a way, but not really. Whether you avail yourself to the cure for your suffering is empty. Yet, if your suffering in this life were to become immediate and unbearable, you would still want a cure. Simple faith is, at the very least, the first step, if not the last. Writing "shunyata" on an arrow doesn't make it hurt any less.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 4320
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: What does it mean, "All other Buddhas are followers of Shakyamuni Buddha?

Post by Queequeg » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:14 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:23 am
But still, there is no buddha in a buddha, and we come by this knowledge via convention as well. The minute you start believing there is a buddha in a buddha, you begin to make ridiculous distinctions such as claiming this buddha is better than that buddha and so forth, that Śakyamuni is better than Amitabha or Mahāvairocana. Such distinctions are utterly false and deluded.
There are buddhas in the conventional sense. Buddhas are insubstantial in the absolute sense. Notwithstanding, buddhas are thus.

Shakyamuni is the emanation who appeared in this world. He was born at Lumbini, awoke at Gaya, first turned the wheel at Sarnath, and passed at Kusinagara. He is also the Buddha who actually first attained awakening in the infinitely remote past. As explained completely in the Lotus Sutra, and completely and/or incompletely in other sutras, there is no tension between these two teachings.

Shakyamuni appeared in this Saha world in perfect complement to the us beings here. He is the perfect upaya for us. Amitabha, Mahavairocana and other buddhas of the ten directions, all of which are emanation bodies of this same Buddha, have only imperfectly appeared in this Saha world, and most only when summoned to testify to the veracity of Shakyamuni's most profound teachngs. In comparison, in this world, for the causes and conditions of the beings in this world, they can only offer incomplete or at best, mixed benefit, and so comparatively speaking, in context, we do say that Shakyamuni is better... for us. We honor Shakyamuni as the supreme buddha whose bodies have no beginning or end because he is our teacher in this world. In another time, in another place, we would honor the Buddha in the identity assumed there. But, we are not there. We are here.
“Once you have given up the ghost, everything follows with dead certainty, even in the midst of chaos.”
-Henry Miller

"Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in.
Great for solving problems, after it creates the problems."
-Modest Mouse

"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world!"
-The Grateful Dead

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kirtu, markatex, narhwal90, Pomona, Queequeg, Virgo and 10 guests