|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 11 2010 : 11:28:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Actually points of reference can be quite useful on the spiritual path, as they give us some idea where we are heading, and how to get there. They can also serve as encouragement and validation on the way. Without valid points of reference there is always the danger that one can get lost in mind games, and the spiritual path can get reduced to the level of intellectualizing and sectarianism.
None of this has anything to do with the Dharma. This is a completely Vedant view. "No reference points," "no attachment," and "no focus" is pointing out the nibbana'd mind of objective impartiality where phenomena fade. "Where we are heading and how to get there" is "lost in mind games."
quote:
Nibbhana can be realized in any state of jhana, but receptivity must be there. That is when deep meditation and other spiritual practices are so important.
Nibbana cannot be realized in the dimension of nothingness nor in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There's not enough cognitive capacity in those states to know when a phenomenon is impermanent. Ideally, the practitioner can enter the fourth jhana, equanimity (an epithet for impartiality) and observe impermanence within inner and outer space. The Buddha is very clear about this.
quote:
There are deep-rooted samakaras which can obscure the vision, and which lead to attachment. Meditation, pranayama and self-inquiry work to purify the body and mind, releasing these samskaras, and leading naturally to nibbhana.
Again, this is "Other Systems and Alternative Approaches" and in the Buddhist approach, the Vedant path of pranayama, mantra and self-inquiry practice may release some attachments, but not all, because there is a view held. Holding onto a view, as the Buddha described it, is like a monkey letting go of one branch and grasping onto another. Here, the branches are different levels of consciousness and perceptions/nonperceptions of nonduality. Nibbana is not possible when a point of view is held.
Training in the fourth jhana is sufficient practice to become accustomed to objective impartiality. One has enough mental capacity and enough concentration recognize the process of change, to feel free of emotionality, and to know one is free of attachment. This process alone provides for shedding samskaras, the most deeply rooted attachments possible, and doesn't allow room for new ones to take hold. Here, the process is everything.
We don't even say "I have achieved Nibbana," as if there is one's present condition and a future nibbana to realize. This is "nibbana at the moment." Whenever one engages in the nibbana method, one has achieved nibbana. Meditation is just familiarization with the method. Over time, one's habitual formations fade permanently, especially when it becomes a 24/7 thing. "Realization" just means knowing when an attachment (a condition of ignorance) has vanished. So we can say "levels of realization" is a metaphor for the shedding of more deeply held attachments, like views of a permanent self, etc.
quote:
Good luck with it all,
Christi
Good luck to you too,
Adamant |
 |
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Feb 11 2010 : 5:44:32 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
Actually points of reference can be quite useful on the spiritual path, as they give us some idea where we are heading, and how to get there. They can also serve as encouragement and validation on the way. Without valid points of reference there is always the danger that one can get lost in mind games, and the spiritual path can get reduced to the level of intellectualizing and sectarianism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of this has anything to do with the Dharma. This is a completely Vedant view. "No reference points," "no attachment," and "no focus" is pointing out the nibbana'd mind of objective impartiality where phenomena fade. "Where we are heading and how to get there" is "lost in mind games."
The 10 Bhumis are an example of points of reference on the path from the Buddhist tradition.
As are the four stages of enlightenment taught by the Buddha.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
Nibbhana can be realized in any state of jhana, but receptivity must be there. That is when deep meditation and other spiritual practices are so important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nibbana cannot be realized in the dimension of nothingness nor in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. There's not enough cognitive capacity in those states to know when a phenomenon is impermanent. Ideally, the practitioner can enter the fourth jhana, equanimity (an epithet for impartiality) and observe impermanence within inner and outer space. The Buddha is very clear about this.
The dimension of nothingness and the dimension of perception nor non-perception were not referred to as Jhanas by the Buddha. He reffered to them only as Arupas. The same goes for the dimension of infinite space and the dimension of infinite consciousness. The fourth jhana was the highest jhana referred to by the Buddha.
These four Arupas were only reffered to as jhanas by some later commentators in the Abhidhamma.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
There are deep-rooted samakaras which can obscure the vision, and which lead to attachment. Meditation, pranayama and self-inquiry work to purify the body and mind, releasing these samskaras, and leading naturally to nibbhana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is "Other Systems and Alternative Approaches" and in the Buddhist approach, the Vedant path of pranayama, mantra and self-inquiry practice may release some attachments, but not all, because there is a view held. Holding onto a view, as the Buddha described it, is like a monkey letting go of one branch and grasping onto another. Here, the branches are different levels of consciousness and perceptions/nonperceptions of nonduality. Nibbana is not possible when a point of view is held.
Is that your view on the matter? 
Seriously though, the Buddha taught that the calming of samskaras (mental formations) was synonymous with enlightenment. And the methods that he taught to bring about the calming of samskaras? Mediation and self-inquiry. Nothing else.
quote:
We don't even say "I have achieved Nibbana," as if there is one's present condition and a future nibbana to realize. This is "nibbana at the moment." Whenever one engages in the nibbana method, one has achieved nibbana. Meditation is just familiarization with the method. Over time, one's habitual formations fade permanently, especially when it becomes a 24/7 thing. "Realization" just means knowing when an attachment (a condition of ignorance) has vanished. So we can say "levels of realization" is a metaphor for the shedding of more deeply held attachments, like views of a permanent self, etc.
That's right.
So a view like this one:
quote:
"in the Vedant path of pranayama, mantra and self-inquiry practice may release some attachments, but not all, because there is a view held."
...is no longer attached to. Right?
The view "there is a permanent self" is no longer attached to, and the view "there is no permanent self" is no longer attached to. And yet, miraculously, we are still here.
Enjoy
Christi |
Edited by - Christi on Feb 11 2010 6:04:58 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 11 2010 : 6:14:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The 10 Bhumis are an example of points of reference on the path from the Buddhist tradition.
As are the four stages of enlightenment.
This is not what I'm referring to by points of reference. I'm referring to no present moment reference points.
quote:
The dimension of nothingness and the dimension of perception nor non-perception were not referred to as Jhanas by the Buddha. He reffered to them only as Arupas. The same goes for the dimension of infinite space and the dimension of infinite consciousness. The fourth jhana was the highest jhana referred to by the Buddha.
These four Arupas were only reffered to as jhanas by some later commentators in the Abhidhamma.
Strange you would say that, because they are very clearly called arupa jhanas in the sutta literature. But the arupa jhanas can be understood to be subsets of the fourth jhana. Anyway, the fourth jhana is as far as anyone needs to go.
quote:
Seriously though, the Buddha taught that the calming of samskaras (mental formations) was synonymous with enlightenment. And the methods that he taught to bring about the calming of samskaras? Mediation and self-inquiry. Nothing else.
I know he taught meditation, but self-inquiry? The Advaita Vedanta method of self-inquiry is to focus on the sense of "I am," and to incrementally delve into ever deeper states of unconsciousness, to be "conscious" in the "unknowning state." This is contrary to what the Buddha taught, which was knowingly to observe attachments dissipate.
Calming the mental formations is not synonymous with enlightenment; it is synonymous with meditative concentration, shamatha or jhana. The Buddha clearly states that jhanas are fetters, because they are an object of delight and are a mode of consciousness. Simply calming mental formations can be done through feats of meditative absorption, and these are not what is meant by vipassana or insight into suffering, impermanence and non-essence.
quote:
That's right.
So a view like this one:
quote:
"in the Vedant path of pranayama, mantra and self-inquiry practice may release some attachments, but not all, because there is a view held."
...is no longer attached to. Right?
You are misconstruing things. I am talking about the Vedant's inherently theistic and unfalsifiable view. Then, I am talking about the Buddha's method of liberation from views, that does away with views and dogma. You cannot say, my view is no view. I don't even have a view that says, one should not have views. The Vedant methods, presuppose a view. It's not my view that they have such a view; it's expressed by Vedant.
quote:
The view "there is a permanent self" is no longer attached to, and the view "there is no permanent self" is no longer attached to. And yet, miraculously, we are still here.
And yet, you will continue to reach inwardly in deep meditation and construe Thatness as being your true self.
quote:
Enjoy
Christi
Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream....
Adamant |
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Feb 11 2010 : 9:33:12 PM
|
quote:
Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream....
Adamant
Nice!
Something that makes sense and I can finally understand... |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 11 2010 : 10:57:01 PM
|
There is something very special about the Dharma. It provides a means to elevate a person's mind from one of dogmatic irrationalism to nondogmatic rationalism. No where else have I seen a method to impart to an immature or unripe person a mind of impartial objectivity. Impartial objectivity is such the most elusive mental capacity and means the difference between dispute and discussion. Plus it offers the added bonus of being the real means to prevent personal suffering.
The Dharma is careful, it doesn't say more than it needs to. It doesn't propose fantastic future Utopias which are the basis of religious (and political) fighting, and it doesn't respect the claims of personal spiritual attainment. It only states what must be stated: there is a way to end misery.
quote:
"In brief, it is my thesis that human misery is the most urgent problem of a rational public [and individual] concern and that happiness is not such a problem...
...The unbalanced and immature attitude [of Theistic Utopians] is obsessed with the problem of power, not only over other men, but also over our natural environment--over the world as a whole. What I might call, by analogy, the 'false religion,' is obsessed not only by God's power over men but also His power to create a world; similar, false rationalism is fascinated by the idea of creating huge machines and Utopian social worlds. Bacon's 'knowledge is power' and Plato's 'rule of the wise' are different expressions of this attitude which, at bottom, is one of claiming power on the basis of one's superior intellectual gifts [or so-called spiritual attainments]. The true rationalist, by contrast, will always know how little he knows, and he will be aware of the simple fact that whatever critical faculty or reason he may possess he owes to intellectual intercourse with others. He will be inclined, therefore, to consider men as fundamentally equal, and human reason as a bond which unites them. Reason for him is the precise opposite of an instrument of power and violence: he sees it as a means whereby these may be tamed.
Karl Popper, "Utopia and Violence"
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Feb 12 2010 : 12:25:46 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christi
The 10 Bhumis are an example of points of reference on the path from the Buddhist tradition.
As are the four stages of enlightenment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not what I'm referring to by points of reference. I'm referring to no present moment reference points.
...It's what I am referring to as reference points.
quote:
Strange you would say that, because they are very clearly called arupa jhanas in the sutta literature. But the arupa jhanas can be understood to be subsets of the fourth jhana. Anyway, the fourth jhana is as far as anyone needs to go.
Yes, you are right, some commentators refer to the arupas as arupa jhanas in the suttas. But, as far as I know, the Buddha doesn't refer to the arupa jhanas as jhanas, only as arupa. In any case, my comment on realizing nibbhana in any jhana state was a reference to the four jhanas. So it seems we are on the same page there. 
quote:
I know he taught meditation, but self-inquiry? The Advaita Vedanta method of self-inquiry is to focus on the sense of "I am," and to incrementally delve into ever deeper states of unconsciousness, to be "conscious" in the "unknowning state." This is contrary to what the Buddha taught, which was knowingly to observe attachments dissipate.
The self-inquiry practice that the Buddha taught is vipassana. He would not have called it "self-inquiry" of course. He would probably have called it "not-self inquiry", if asked, but it amounts to the same thing. It is an inquiry practice into the true nature of Self.
quote:
You are misconstruing things. I am talking about the Vedant's inherently theistic and unfalsifiable view. Then, I am talking about the Buddha's method of liberation from views, that does away with views and dogma. You cannot say, my view is no view. I don't even have a view that says, one should not have views. The Vedant methods, presuppose a view. It's not my view that they have such a view; it's expressed by Vedant.
I’d rather say that your view is a view. It’s good to keep it simple sometimes.
It is quite possible for someone to become attached to a view about the self, just as it is possible for someone to get attached to a view about no-self. It is also possible for someone to become attached to the view that one path is superior to another path, which seems to be the case here. This is still attachment to views, and arises because of attachment to views.
The Buddha encouraged people not to become attached to views about the self. He was once asked: “Is it true that there is a self?” and he replied: “No it is not true that there is a self”. Then the questioner asked him: “Is it true then that there is no self?” and he replied: “no, it is not true that there is no self”. Then the questioner asked: “is it true then that there is both a self, and no self?” and the Buddha replied: “no, it is not true that there is both a self and no self?”. Then the questioner asked: “is it true then that there is neither a self, nor no-self?” and the Buddha replied: “No, it is not true that there is neither a self, nor no-self.”
The teaching that the Buddha gave about the self was not that there is no self at all. It is that within conditioned phenomena, no self can be found. It is a teaching method, and a process of self-inquiry which, when followed to completion, brings us to the Self, our true nature, or Buddha nature. It is not a judgement about other spiritual paths, or something to become attached to or evangelical about. That's the basis of religious fighting.
If you can, try to let go of the idea that there is no permanent self, as it seems to have become a bug-bear for you.
Practice wisely, and enjoy.
Christi
|
Edited by - Christi on Feb 12 2010 12:27:26 PM |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 12 2010 : 2:00:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The self-inquiry practice that the Buddha taught is vipassana. He would not have called it "self-inquiry" of course. He would probably have called it "not-self inquiry", if asked, but it amounts to the same thing. It is an inquiry practice into the true nature of Self.
I agree that he might have called vipassana "not-self" inquiry, but many of his teachings make it very clear he is not talking about the true nature of the Self. But again, row, row, row your boat...
quote:
I’d rather say that your view is a view. It’s good to keep it simple sometimes.
I don't adhere to a view called "the true nature of the Self." I don't accept any view. I do adhere to what the textual evidence reveals the Buddha said and what he didn't say. Factual evidence is not a view.
quote:
It is quite possible for someone to become attached to a view about the self, just as it is possible for someone to get attached to a view about no-self. It is also possible for someone to become attached to the view that one path is superior to another path, which seems to be the case here. This is still attachment to views, and arises because of attachment to views.
I don't have a view called "no-self." The Buddha did not actually propose a view called "no self." He proposed that one cannot locate any object that is "mine," including the skandhas. It's just an observation: things arise and fall automatically, not volitionally.
quote:
The Buddha encouraged people not to become attached to views about the self. He was once asked: “Is it true that there is a self?” and he replied: “No it is not true that there is a self”. Then the questioner asked him: “Is it true then that there is no self?” and he replied: “no, it is not true that there is no self”. Then the questioner asked: “is it true then that there is both a self, and no self?” and the Buddha replied: “no, it is not true that there is both a self and no self?”. Then the questioner asked: “is it true then that there is neither a self, nor no-self?” and the Buddha replied: “No, it is not true that there is neither a self, nor no-self.”
Exactly, so why do you say he proposed inquiry into the true nature of the Self? That's not what he proposed, and your quotation is exactly on point why he did not.
quote:
The teaching that the Buddha gave about the self was not that there is no self at all. It is that within conditioned phenomena, no self can be found. It is a teaching method, and a process of self-inquiry which, when followed to completion, brings us to the Self, our true nature, or Buddha nature. It is not a judgement about other spiritual paths, or something to become attached to or evangelical about. That's the basis of religious fighting.
See. Here is your commentary about what the Buddha taught, not what the Buddha actually taught. The Buddha never said, "brings us to our true nature." The only thing he taught was the end of misery. The only problem he sought to address was suffering, not discovery. So if you want to create a conventional definition of The Self to mean: "devoid of independent nature, dependently arisen," then, fine.
quote:
If you can, try to let go of the idea that there is no permanent self, as it seems to have become a bug-bear for you.
I'm not saying there is no permanent self. I'm saying you are saying that that is one. You can posture like you are not saying there is one, but all the yoga teachings rely on a view about "the true nature of the Self." I'm saying there's not way to determine yay or nay whether any such existence is real or not. No matter how deep in meditation one goes, the Self will never be more or less true. It is irrelevant.
I merely point out that there are two separate methods, one dependent on an irrelevant view (Vedant), and one dependent on relinquishing all views (Dharma) and dealing with what is immediately relevant. A view changes the practice and creates a goal based on an unreal ideal of happiness. The Buddha's teaching of simple objective impartiality toward phenomena and critical investigation of one's own condition is only about removing the cause of suffering, which is immediately real.
quote:
Practice wisely, and enjoy.
Christi
Practice wisely, and enjoy, yes.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Feb 12 2010 : 3:29:48 PM
|
Hi Adamant
quote:
I agree that he might have called vipassana "not-self" inquiry, but many of his teachings make it very clear he is not talking about the true nature of the Self. But again, row, row, row your boat...
The Buddha didn't talk about where the practice leads, but that is where it does lead.
quote:
Exactly, so why do you say he proposed inquiry into the true nature of the Self? That's not what he proposed, and your quotation is exactly on point why he did not.
Because that is where it leads.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The teaching that the Buddha gave about the self was not that there is no self at all. It is that within conditioned phenomena, no self can be found. It is a teaching method, and a process of self-inquiry which, when followed to completion, brings us to the Self, our true nature, or Buddha nature. It is not a judgement about other spiritual paths, or something to become attached to or evangelical about. That's the basis of religious fighting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See. Here is your commentary about what the Buddha taught, not what the Buddha actually taught. The Buddha never said, "brings us to our true nature."
That is true, and I didn't say that he did. The first and second sentence I wrote refered to what the Buddha taught, and the next sentence refered to where his teachings lead.
quote:
So if you want to create a conventional definition of The Self to mean: "devoid of independent nature, dependently arisen," then, fine.
"Devoid of dependent nature, non-arisen".
quote:
I'm not saying there is no permanent self. I'm saying you are saying that that is one. You can posture like you are not saying there is one, but all the yoga teachings rely on a view about "the true nature of the Self." I'm saying there's not way to determine yay or nay whether any such existence is real or not. No matter how deep in meditation one goes, the Self will never be more or less true. It is irrelevant.
When we come upon reality, the Self is all there is. The yay or nay comes through direct knowing (Gnosis).
quote:
I merely point out that there are two separate methods, one dependent on an irrelevant view (Vedant), and one dependent on relinquishing all views (Dharma) and dealing with what is immediately relevant.
If any method leads out of suffering then it is not irrelevant is it? Both Buddha Dhamma and Vedanta have pretty good records for leading people out of suffering. Personally, of the six enlightened masters that have taught me over the years, two are Bhuddhist and four follow in the Vedanta tradition. If you put them all in a room together, they would have nothing to disagree about.
I am simply pointing out that these ideas about Self or not-self are really a non-issue. As I said above, I would try and let go of it if you can.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 12 2010 : 10:11:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
The Buddha didn't talk about where the practice leads, but that is where it does lead.
The dharma according to Christi. Consider that the Buddha wasn't just hiding the ball, but revealed at that is revealable.
quote:
Because that is where it leads.
So not self, not not self, not neither self nor not self, not both self and not self is Self?
quote:
That is true, and I didn't say that he did. The first and second sentence I wrote refered to what the Buddha taught, and the next sentence refered to where his teachings lead.
If there is no textual evidence that the Buddha's teachings lead to the Self, then you are just conjecturing your opinion. It's just a theory. By the way, what exactly is the Self?
quote:
"Devoid of dependent nature, non-arisen".
Ah, I see. The Self is nothing. Vedant doesn't agree with you. In fact, you don't agree with you, because you said the Self manifests into light which in turn manifests into the universe. That's called arisen. You can't have it both ways.
quote:
When we come upon reality, the Self is all there is. The yay or nay comes through direct knowing (Gnosis).
If by Self, you mean nonarisen, not dependently originated, then of course, you mean nothing and you can't cling to nothing. However, if you mean the Self manifesting into the universe, then you are clinging to something.
quote:
If any method leads out of suffering then it is not irrelevant is it? Both Buddha Dhamma and Vedanta have pretty good records for leading people out of suffering. Personally, of the six enlightened masters that have taught me over the years, two are Bhuddhist and four follow in the Vedanta tradition. If you put them all in a room together, they would have nothing to disagree about.
Six enlightened masters, huh? Wow. What would be the point in trying to convince an "enlightened master" that he's not enlightened? Discussion is an excellent way to uncover hidden misunderstandings and held assumptions leading to errant practice. Perhaps if they were to discuss things openly it would expose their folly.
If the Buddhists and the Vedant masters all agree there's a Self, then all your enlightened masters are Vedant masters. That's okay, but the Buddha would never say there's a Self or say his teachings "lead to the Self."
I've had a few teachers of my own. They were probably just barely average, but they won't bother to tell others what to expect from practice. In my mere 30 years of practice, I tend to agree in the practice of humbly stating that my experience isn't proof of anything. I certainly won't say, "this is the truth, trust me, I'm realized." That kind of talk doesn't say anything helpful. They would say that just because everybody agrees doesn't make them correct; it usually means everyone's full of baseless assumptions.
quote:
I am simply pointing out that these ideas about Self or not-self are really a non-issue. As I said above, I would try and let go of it if you can.
Christi
You say they are a non-issue, as long as you get to say the Buddha's teachings lead to realization of the Self. If they are a non-issue, then what are you talking about?
I'm not saying there's not a Self. I'm saying you say there is a Self. Saying that is proof of a held view. A held view is contrary to dharma practice as described by enlightened dharma masters like the Buddha.
A Self is irrelevant. What you "realized" in your practice is not relevant. Experience comes in one hundred billion and one flavors. None of them matter.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Feb 13 2010 : 06:26:13 AM
|
Hi Adamant,
Well said, but a waste of time to reply with words. All these things can be known through direct investigation.
Practice wisely and enjoy.
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 13 2010 : 10:43:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Adamant,
Well said, but a waste of time to reply with words. All these things can be known through direct investigation.
Practice wisely and enjoy.
Christi
Now we agree. Which brings us back to my original point that enlightenment is simply impartiality toward all phenomena, objectivity and critical examination.
quote:
"Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
Kalama Sutta
Without critical examination, and being open to critical examination there's no enlightenment. In order to engage in any investigation one must be impartial, unassuming and humble (willing to change one's mind during open discussion). Impartiality leads to dispassion, which is synonymous with enlightenment.
Adamant |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4430 Posts |
Posted - Feb 13 2010 : 1:03:16 PM
|
Hi Adamant,
quote:
Now we agree.
I had a feeling we would come to agree in the end.
Some things are worth persevering for. 
Christi |
|
|
|
adamantclearlight
USA
410 Posts |
Posted - Feb 13 2010 : 2:13:33 PM
|
Hi Christi,
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
I had a feeling we would come to agree in the end.
Some things are worth persevering for.
Christi
Indeed. 
Adamant |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Dharma Distilled
