|
The-Mole posted:Jhanas are basically stages or degrees of this. I ask because I'm curious about what it feels like. I think about death a lot. Maybe not the healthiest thing to do, but whatever. Anyway, assuming there's no afterlife, which is impossible to know for 100% certain but there's no scientific evidence of one, death would be a state of non-existence. We can't imagine non-existence, but maybe ego-death is the closest we can get while still being alive and conscious. No sense of personal identity, no sense of time. I'm very curious about those who have experienced this state and how it affected your feelings about death, non-existence, or any other "big questions".
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:So it's not a punishment, but it is a direct consequence of their previous actions? Not exactly, but close. It is not a punishment, and it is a result of previous actions, but it's not exactly correct to call it "their" previous actions. They haven't done any previous actions, as they have just been born. Previous actions have been done which have created the causes and conditions such that a person was born with disability. That particular person being born, somewhere down their mindstream, also must have done something that produces similar causes and conditions. It is not directly punitive nor can it be tracked to specific prior lives directly. To claim it is a result of "their" past actions implies "they" are the same being that performed those actions, and carries with it that sort of punitive concept. I think it sounds like I'm doing some kind of existential dodge, but one of the things about Buddhist doctrine is that it is all very internally consistent and also irreducibly complex. A Buddhist view on karma requires a Buddhist view on death and self, which is difficult to agree upon because there are different takes on that. Regardless though it is generally agreed that a thing and its causes cannot be the same, so doctrinally it is wrong to say that a person caused their own karmic consequences through some direct action. In practice, though, it is difficult to divorce ourselves from this view. In fact, karma is quite impersonal, being simply a cause and effect. Maybe a page back I posted another part from this book which describes the nature of the function of karma as simply the fruition of causes and effects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:That particular person being born, somewhere down their mindstream, also must have done something that produces similar causes and conditions. Paramemetic posted:...doctrinally it is wrong to say that a person caused their own karmic consequences through some direct action. Paramemetic posted:...one of the things about Buddhist doctrine is that it is all very internally consistent ...  You're going to have to break this concept down a bit more, because I'm really not getting it. EDIT: ashgromnies posted:Be mindful of the potential impact of your actions on both yourself and your surroundings. But if there's no direct consequence then that analogy is flawed, they're still your actions leading to the effects. Gravitas Shortfall fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
To use an analogy, would it be fair to say that karma is like the rippling of a lake after tossing a rock in? Fish, flotsam, and jetsam might get caught up and affected by the ripples, though they didn't cause it themselves. That's the way I try to view karma, though it may be wrong view: everything has an effect on its surroundings. Destructive action tends to breed more destructive responses. Positive action generally breeds more positive responses. Be mindful of the potential impact of your actions on both yourself and your surroundings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Bhikkhu Bodhi has a pretty good piece on rebirth and kamma and their relationship toward each other. It is a bit short of sutta references but I think it does a good job of laying down the way that rebirth and kamma fit into the teachings. For those of you not familiar with this monk, he is a very well-respected and accomplished translator of the Pali texts, and the author of one of the best introductions to the Buddha's teaching that is currently available (in my opinion). It is more tailored to those who want an academic approach to the teachings, with lots of footnotes, references to the commentarial literature, and historical references. And a great foreward by the Dalai Lama!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:
It is not an easy concept to get, neither is it an easy concept to explain. This is in part because of the irreducible complexity of the concept, and part because I am not a great teacher, I have not mastered this subject. Still, I'll try to clarify and break it down a bit more. The main point of contention is the statement "it's not a punishment, but it is a direct consequence of their previous actions." I realize you're asking this as a clarifying question and not as a statement, but to explain why the statement is not correct as written, I need to break it down as to why it's not correct. It is not correct in the following ways: first, in that it is not punishment, which has already been discussed; second, in that it is a direct consequence; and third, that it is their own actions leading to the effects. First, it has already been discussed that it's not a punishment. It is not a punishment because this implies an intention, a sort of agent inflicting this punishment as an unrelated tool to inflict pain for transgression of some kind of rule. This is not the case, as has already been discussed. The second and third points are more complicated, and require some background and explanation. This is part of that "irreducible complexity" bit. One can't simply just say "such is the case" and provide a satisfying answer. The second point is that of a direct consequence. This is a problematic phrasing. By way of example, let's say I kill somebody. This is the action. This action now creates new causes and conditions. Because I kill this person, I have deprived his or her family, I've ended their life, prevented them from achieving things they wanted to achieve, robbed them of their opportunities to practice Dharma, on and on. It's a really bad thing that I've killed someone. There are therefore immediate fruits of my actions. Perhaps I go to jail, or people really hate me, and already it's known that the person's family will suffer, or at least the person I killed has suffered. However, more than this, I've also created further causes and conditions for future suffering. One might propose all sorts of mechanisms for this, but they aren't really important. Perhaps that person will be reborn into violence because of his attachment to violence, or because of his grasping after revenge, or his anger at me will lead him to want to be born in such a way that he can do the same to others, or whatever. And for myself, perhaps I will get what I want, and think that it is okay to kill people, and so I will tell others it's okay, or I will continue to kill people in order to get my way, or so on. All of this is just conjecture, and isn't really important. The gist of it is, certain seeds only produce certain plants. I cannot plant a begonia and expect a hyacinth to grow. Similarly, I cannot plant a violent seed and expect a peaceful happy result. There is a lot more complexity here, because things like intent matters, mindset, and other circumstances, but at the bottom line, Buddhist thinking is very much based on an unceasing chain of causes and effects. Violent actions cause violent effects. Nonvirtuous actions (those which produce suffering) cause suffering. Sometimes, this suffering is not immediately visible. One might dismiss these teachings as coercive tools to encourage good behavior, by saying "oh if you do a nonvirtue you will suffer, even if not in this life then in the next," but ultimately these are a sort of lie-to-children, because of the third problem, that of "consequences for your own behavior." In any case, a karmic consequence isn't a direct consequence because while that chain of cause and effect is unbroken, it may not be immediate. The fruition of karma is not often easily comprehensible, and it may be that even now I am reaping the karmic fruits of lives many times removed from me. The third problem is that of "for your own behavior," which requires a lot of background. One of the fundamental concepts of Buddhism is that of impermanence, and that of emptiness. Emptiness is understood not in the Western sense of being without something inside, and other perhaps better terms include "voidness." But in any case, it means without an intrinsic, inherent essence. All things lack essence, there is nothing that has an intrinsic essence. A table is not intrinsically a table, but rather is a table because it has been shaped that way, the causes and conditions for it to become a table have arisen in the form of laborers shaping wood or some such. A rock is not inherently a rock, but rather elements have come together through billion year processes to form it into a rock. And a rock can just as soon become a statue if the conditions arise of a skilled craftsman, a table can just as soon become firewood, and so on. Ultimately, there exists nothing that is not a compilation of its causes. There is nothing that is not empty, because nothing has an intrinsic nature, rather, everything is a result of causes and conditions coming together, an aggregate of elements. Likewise, a person, a "self," is not inherently a "self." There is no intrinsic "self" that can exist outside of its causes and conditions. This is demonstrable several ways. One such way is simply by observation, asking "where is the self?" Nowhere that we look can we find a "self." Even if it is said to be an invisible spirit, that cannot be an intrinsic self, because something that is intrinsic cannot be affected by other causes, but surely a spirit is so affected, in that it changes from "possessing a body" to "not possessing a body," if one exists, when the body ceases to be. So there is no intrinsic, inherent self. Based on this, there can be no transfer of a self. There are only causes and conditions arising that result in a self, but it is not the same "self." Even if my killing that person in the example before does not result in immediate suffering for me, those conditions still exist, I have still created those causes. So when I inevitably die, it becomes impossible that I myself might suffer consequences for my actions. I am, after all, dead. This self is no more. There is no more a body, no more this mind. The causes and conditions which brought about this self have exhausted, and I'm now dead. But in dying, the causes and conditions for another self, a new being, being born arise. The causes and conditions for violence still exist. So, a new self may be born in violent circumstances. This new self, this new being, is a result of previous causes and circumstances and conditions coming to fruition. A human baby is the result of all of the circumstances surrounding its birth, both physically and spiritually. There can be no baby born without causes and conditions because that would be a self-arising thing, with an intrinsic nature, and so does not exist. Perhaps this baby is born lame, or deaf, or mentally retarded, or blind, or something like this. Maybe this baby is born with Down Syndrome. It certainly is not correct to say this is the fault of the baby, that this is a consequence of the baby's actions. How could it be? This baby is blameless, it is simply a being born in adverse circumstances. At the same time, it is incorrect to say that this baby's afflictions are the result of randomness, or that they have occurred for no reason. This is simply not possible, there cannot be an effect without a precipitating cause, or else that effect would be intrinsic, without cause, and so immutable, permanent, and so on. Such things cannot happen. We might take a strictly materialist perspective on the matter, and say that it is merely genetic mutation or somesuch, but still this must have a cause, which we do not understand, and still on a spiritual level this requires us to ask "why this baby? How is this just?" The lack of self-ness, though, the lack of intrinsic nature, answers this for us. Surely it is true that this baby's afflictions are not the fault of the baby, but it is also surely true that this is not the result of randomness. The baby's birth is a fruition of causes, a plant born from a seed, or as Kunzang Pelden describes, a flame passed from one lamp to another. While it is surely true that without the first flame, the second could not be lit, and so they are unarguably linked and interdependent, it is also true that the second flame cannot be said to be the same as the first. The second flame arises as a result of the first, but is not identical to it. There is no transfer, no migration, no exchange of consciousness from the death of the killer and the birth of the baby, but causally they cannot be said to be independent. Ultimately, the last point is one that follows as a sort of digression from the absence of self, from the nature of emptiness, which is the concept of non-duality. Because I lack an intrinsic identity, and the baby lacks an intrinsic identity, and you lack an intrinsic identity, and so on, it becomes impossible to determine where one stops and the other starts. There is no distinction. Just as each cell of our body constitutes "us" without defining "us," each being is just a particle of a greater being and on and on. Cells in my heart and cells in my lung are distinct though related. Remove my heart or my lungs and the other suffers, but they aren't the same. Ultimately, sentient beings are much the same. We are all equal, all part of the same void-process, the same expression of interdependence. Even having never met you personally, I know you are a person just like me, riding the waves of samsara. We're only superficially distinct, our minds delineating artificial boundaries between selves based on arbitrary standards. When this baby is born with unfortunate afflictions, it is not fair to say that this baby is suffering for his or her nonvirtuous acts, because he or she is only freshly born, and has not yet done anything, but still they are a result of a system of cause and effect that they are a participant in. There is no intrinsic nature of "past-wrongdoing-ness" that has led to these circumstances, but simply there are causes and conditions of beings causing fruition in beings. Personal accountability exists in the form of this kind of participatory nature. If I kill someone, I create causes and conditions for being killed. I personally may die of old age, but these causes and conditions exist in the general universe. Other beings, who lack any intrinsic distinction from myself, will suffer as a result of these actions. Because I am non-distinct from them, I will suffer. There are all sorts of things about mindstreams and such, and there's concepts such as tulkus and so on. Even tulkus do not claim to be the same being, they know this is impossible. The Dalai Lama says sometimes he gets flashes of his past, but he knows that is not him. They are non-equivalent. So it is true that I will die, it is true that "I" will be born again. The "I" that is born again will not be the same as the "I" that has died, because the circumstances, causes, conditions, and so forth will be different. If I as a 28 year old white male die today, and tomorrow am reborn as a cat, or a hell being, or even another human, I will not be the same I. There is a kind of perpetuation, but it is not a transfer or transformation or transmigration. It's simply distinct beings arising at different points along a chain of cause and effect. And if I die today having killed someone without the fruit having resulted from that action, then it is reasonably safe to assume that whatever "I" exists in the future will have that come to fruition. With mindstreams, they are often misunderstood of having the concept of a stream flowing along, like a path with movement along it. Instead, they are better conceived of as having the nature of a stream, that we might pass a stream daily and think "ah, the same stream!" but in fact, none of the water there today is there tomorrow. It is all different while maintaining the same sort of causal nature. That's how mindstreams work, and that can be understood in the discussion of karmic fruition as to how the "I" that is typing this now is not the same "I" that existed before and will not be the same "I" that will exist in the future, but maintains the same causes and conditions and so on. Edit: So, to bring this back on point, the baby born with a disability is not being "punished," it is not suffering consequences for its "own" actions, but it is suffering, and those actions are actions that in a causal chain must come to fruition. The baby is not to blame, not to be held at fault, but neither is the baby perfectly innocent of it. If the baby were totally innocent, without any causes or conditions of whatever affliction, then the baby would not be born with such afflictions. It would be a different baby, born in different circumstances. But the baby does have those causes and conditions somewhere in its past. They don't belong to the baby, but they are present and some previous life has produced those karmic seeds, just as in that life karmic seeds had come to fruition, and so on. Therefore, we must treat every being with respect, compassion, and lovingkindness as if they were our own mother, because they are not guilty of anything we ourselves have not been guilty of in some life or another. There can be all sorts of spiritual interpretations of how karma brings mindstreams intertwined together, where spiritual masters are reborn close to their disciples and vice versa, where husbands and wives are reborn close to one another for many generations, due to the causes and conditions of attachment, and so on, but I have tried to keep this very much philosophical and analytical in order to avoid confusion with lots of examples. I hope I've not done a disservice by so doing. I realize I've typed a small book and I hope it has helped, I don't know any better how to clarify this point short of referring you to various books and sources which have a better understanding and capacity to teach, but which I have not assembled and do not have close to hand. I hope someone else might correct any mistakes I've made, and that this in any case doesn't cause you further suffering or confusion. Edit continuation: also, the above link is concise and somewhat differs from mine in some key points, which I believe to be differences between Theravada and Mahayana thought. It is still something that is very good to read, and far more concise and well organized than what I've written. Thanks Prickly Pete for sharing it. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Another way of breaking down what paramemetic is saying is thus There is a sort of semiotic self Something which we can look at and designate as "Hey, this is for the purposes of discussion, a self- We will call the actions related to this entity 'Mine'" The trouble with buddhist thinking is that this is false according to that mindset. There is no ego-differentiated self. That is to say that there is no entity distinct from the world by virtue of being an individual. It is a false construct. The milindapanha has a great breakdown of this in the exchange with nagasena. To quote a section: Visudda-magha posted:Just as the word “chariot” is but a mode of expression for axle, wheels, chariot-body, pole, and other constituent members, placed in a certain relation to each other, but when we come to examine the members one by one, we discover that in the absoulte sense there is no chariot; and just as the word “house” is but a mode of expression for wood and other constituents of a house, surrounding space in a certain relation, but in the absoulte sense there is no house; and just as the word “fist” is but a mode of expression for the fingers, the thumb, etc., in a certain relation; and the word “lute” for the body of the lute, strings, etc.; “army” for elephants, horses, etc; “city” for fortifications, houses, gates, etc.; “tree” for trunk, branches, foliage, etc., in a certain relation, but when we come to examine the parts one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no tree; in exactly the same way the words “living entity” and “Ego,” are but a mode of expression for the presence of the five attachment groups, but when we come to examine the elements of being one by one, we discover that in the absolute sense there is no living entity there to form a basis for such figments as “I am,” or “I”; in other words, that in the absolute sense there is only name and form. The insight of him who perceives this is called knowledge of the truth. To get dumb and pedantic; a person would not be born disabled because of actions taken in their prior life- There was no "I" that the differently abled person had in that prior life. They were not the same person. Indeed they are not the same person on a moment-by-moment basis. We abandon personhood freely with each new thought, for every thought that arises is a distinct experiential construct from the previous. Every thought has with it a certain perfuming, if you will, whereby it is coloured by all prior thoughts and experiences. You see a table and you call it a table because of your past experiences with the concept of table-ness; but it is no more a table than a car, there is no intrinsic feature which makes it a distinct and pure table. It is a participation in the ideal of table, but not that ideal itself. Likewise will "you" apply similar biases and experiences to all your experiences, all your thoughts, and even your own actions Paramemetic posted:Based on this, there can be no transfer of a self. There are only causes and conditions arising that result in a self, but it is not the same "self." Even if my killing that person in the example before does not result in immediate suffering for me, those conditions still exist, I have still created those causes. So when I inevitably die, it becomes impossible that I myself might suffer consequences for my actions. I am, after all, dead. This is a big problem that comes with the acceptance of rebirth in the west where it is an alien concept: There is no soul to transfer from body, No self that goes. Karma can be seen like a storehouse for seeds- The karma accrued in a life sits in the storehouse, over time reactions occur to the actions that generated the karma. This depletes the seeds that are stored. However, these reactions may themselves be actions, or more actions may occur. This adds new seeds in. If all of the original seeds of a life are depleted, are the new seeds still the same storehouse? Ultimately, yes. Because they will in turn be depleted by reactions. When a life ends, there are still actions which must yield fruit because of the actions of the dying. Something occurs which causes a new life to emerge as a result of the depleted life. Without getting overly spiritual. So yes, someone who is born in unfortunate circumstances is experiencing the result of something that occured to put them into unfortunate circumstances. They did not spontaneously arise into poor circumstances. If I step into the street and am hit by a bus, has that bus spontaneously hit me? Nope. Did I "Deserve" it? Justice is irrelevant here, but I took an action (Stepping into the street) that precipitated my being hit by the bus. This is what is meant when we say that someone is born into a harsher or a more fruitious life. That there was a precipitant agent. Here's a big write-up I did of karma and dependent origination that might help. quantumfate posted:Firstly- Karma is the law that states that all our actions, whatever we do with our body, mind or speech have consequences. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PrickleyPete, you might be one of the few theravadins here; Please offer your insight because it is always great to have cross-doctrinal discussion. Also please recommend theravada books or sources for the OP 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Ajahn Sucitto posted:‘Bad’ & ‘good’ (or unskilful/unwholesome/‘dark’ and skilful/wholesome/‘bright’ in Buddhist terms) are consequently not just value-judgements imposed by a society. They are references to energies that are Ajahn Sucitto has a book called Kamma and the end of Kamma that is a good read if anyone is interested in getting their hands dirty on this topic in a way that is fairly easy to understand. It is Theravadin (he comes from the Thai Forest Tradition), and I can't speak of its relevance to other schools, but I found it a good read. The group that I sometimes sit with has a Dhamma study group that meets once a week to discuss various books or suttas, and this book was their focus for several months. As far as source books for the OP, I am a huge fan of Bhikkhu Bodhi, both for his Pali translations and his educational efforts in general. He has a Youtube channel (BAUS Chuang Yen Monastery) with hundreds of videos of him teaching and going over suttas from the Majjhima Nikaya, so you can basically follow along with the text and have the middle length discourses taught to you by one of the most well respected scholar monks of our era. Specific books I'd recommend to people interested in Theravada: What the Buddha Taught - Walpola Rahula - this has been mentioned in the thread a few times I think. It can be found for free online if you look around. In The Buddha's Words - Bhikkhu Bodhi. I think this is the best possible introduction to the Dhamma if you are interested in studying the original Pali texts as we know them today. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha - Nanamoli/Bodhi Also, Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness and Mindfulness In Plain English by Bhante Gunaratana. This version of the Dhammapada, which was translated from the Pali by Acharya Buddharakkhita, and has a very good introduction by Bhikkhu Bodi These books, especially Mindfulness in Plain English, are applicable across traditions I think, but happen to be written by Theravadin monks, so they won't draw from any suttas or interpretations that fall outside the Pali canon. Also, Access to Insight has some great Study Guides which are perfect for those of you who want to focus on a specific topic or facet of the Buddha's teaching. They are put together by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, another monk who is very well regarded for his Pali translations. I'm sure I am missing some but these could be helpful in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I ask because I'm curious about what it feels like. I think about death a lot. Maybe not the healthiest thing to do, but whatever. Anyway, assuming there's no afterlife, which is impossible to know for 100% certain but there's no scientific evidence of one, death would be a state of non-existence. We can't imagine non-existence, but maybe ego-death is the closest we can get while still being alive and conscious. No sense of personal identity, no sense of time. I'm very curious about those who have experienced this state and how it affected your feelings about death, non-existence, or any other "big questions". We can't experience non-existence, but I think I came pretty near once. I woke up immediately after surgery and realized my consciousness didn't exist during the recent period of time. I suddenly understood there was no difference between deep anesthesia and being dead - the mind just isn't there. Without the thought process, I thought, there is no experience of the self. Then I fell asleep again. This experience influenced me so deeply I started studying all kinds of materials related to death, consciousness and the self. Some of the books I picked up at the time were about Buddhism and everything just fit perfectly with my waking up experience (literal waking up, not in the Buddhist sense of the word). I guess I was driven to Buddhism by a single insight gained while being transfered from the table to the gurney. I count myself lucky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Wow, you guys are really wordy . All I have to say on the topic is, "No mud, no lotus".
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Yeah. . . 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
mcustic posted:We can't experience non-existence, but I think I came pretty near once. I woke up immediately after surgery and realized my consciousness didn't exist during the recent period of time. I suddenly understood there was no difference between deep anesthesia and being dead - the mind just isn't there. Without the thought process, I thought, there is no experience of the self. Then I fell asleep again. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
You're on the right track there, but still a little off if you think that mind 'isn't there' during sleep. Being dead and being asleep are very different states, both in the moment and in terms of future potential. One involves zero brain activity and zero metabolic activity, the other requires a great deal of brain activity as well as regenerative metabolic states. Consciousness also clearly continues during sleep, though indeed in markedly different ways from active, waking awareness. While there's no reason to assume that death and parts of the brain shutting down are actually identical, from the perspective of an individual, there is basically no experiential difference between something not existing and something not remembering it exists. Except that a living thing will, barring extremely extensive brain damage, remember that it exists again. Not trying to nitpick or anything. I find the intersection of sleep and wakefulness really fascinating as well. Each morning we experience our brains basically waking up and coming back online in a more individual sense. Memory functioning picks up after almost completely dropping away in the middle of the night. What we are coming back from, each morning, is not some absolute passivity, but an active state. Sleep is active, from the perspective of the brain. It is outwardly inactive because our brains effectively paralyze us in sleep (though not always perfectly). Physiologically, sleep involves some really important metabolic states to both growth and healing. That said, we all experienced non-existence once. Seems like death probably is pretty comparable to how it felt before we were ever born or conceived.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Also, strictly speaking, there's no reason people can't consciously experience sleep. It is just difficult as both memory and time-perception are not so functionally present in sleep states. Dunno to what extent it truly is trainable, but there are a number of sleep disorders that lead to such. Some are considered to be pretty terrifying (waking up mentally while sleep paralysis is still engaged) as that often goes along with hallucinations of 'entities.' Similarly, the transition from wakefulness to Stage I sleep is so subtle that it can't even be reliably noticed. People who are in Stage I sleep often would believe themselves to still be awake if you asked them. Cognitive function doesn't really substantially drop out until Stage II sleep.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
You're right but full anesthesia is so much closer to death in terms of actual brain activity compared to regular sleep. At least I think so, I'm not a neuroscientist. However, all your points are valid and I didn't mean to claim I'd experienced death, just that I had an experience that pushed me towards Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
mcustic posted:You're right but full anesthesia is so much closer to death in terms of actual brain activity compared to regular sleep. At least I think so, I'm not a neuroscientist. However, all your points are valid and I didn't mean to claim I'd experienced death, just that I had an experience that pushed me towards Buddhism. As someone who spent a lot of time in the OR (from a work standpoint), I can assure you that people often start to wake up and become conscious in the middle of procedures. It's described as the patient getting "light" from an anesthesia perspective, so the anesthesiologist or CRNA will just crank the meds. Many times people will say they could hear things going on in the room, experience what was happening while it happened, etc. Often times, it's because they're not totally out, and it's very common and not at all supernatural, which disillusions some of my more "spiritual" friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
I was at an academic conference on consciousness studies and one of the presenters was an anesthesiologist reporting findings of people under anesthesia who wake up with a sort of locked in syndrome who reported being being able to feel, vividly, surgical procedures without any outword appearance of consciousness. It was a small number of patients, but non trivial from what I remember. He described it as an inverse of the traditional philosophical zombie problem, where someone has every outward appearance of being conscious but are not. I'll have to find my conference program and notes once I get back home, I remember finding his presentation pretty horrifying though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Paramemetic and The-Mole gave very good responses to the questions I asked earlier in this thread, so thanks to them. They convinced me to take up certain elements of Buddhist belief, although I don't fully buy the metaphysics as I understand them. I'm still more of a monist pantheist (almost Taoist), but I don't think that's incompatible with Buddhism. My question's about meditation rather than doctrine though. Which forms of meditation do you find most beneficial for which purposes? Most of the time I practice emptiness meditation, which relaxes me wonderfully and helps me cope with almost any problem I have. However, my most profound meditations have been when I've meditated in a natural environment and reflected on the interconnectedness of all things, the illusory nature of distinctions between objects, predestination and the absence of moral law, and so on. I've also experimented with deity meditation a few times, and felt an extreme sense of energy - or light - building up inside me when I did so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
mcustic posted:You're right but full anesthesia is so much closer to death in terms of actual brain activity compared to regular sleep. At least I think so, I'm not a neuroscientist. However, all your points are valid and I didn't mean to claim I'd experienced death, just that I had an experience that pushed me towards Buddhism. Just to be really clear, I in no way meant to nitpick your post. Experiences where the self drops off temporarily are really all around us in life, though by nature very difficult to notice. Many people seem to think of it as an absolute 'All-self' or 'zero-self' kinda thing. By nature, it seems to be more of a spectrum. Often the self drops off a bit and makes a bit of room for something else. Day dreams, getting lost in thought for a moment, forgetting time for a bit, forgetting to breath for a few moments, sleeping, dreaming, getting absorbed in work or a game are a bunch of day-to-day ways in which self-perception (aka proprioception) drops off for a bit without us having to do anything. Like you, I find the fluid nature of self fascinating, both to be aware of and to try to bring a little more awareness to. I emphasize that I'm not trying to nitpick because, from what I can tell, everyone experiences all of these things a little differently, both experientially and neurologically. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:Just to be really clear, I in no way meant to nitpick your post. Experiences where the self drops off temporarily are really all around us in life, though by nature very difficult to notice. Many people seem to think of it as an absolute 'All-self' or 'zero-self' kinda thing. By nature, it seems to be more of a spectrum. Often the self drops off a bit and makes a bit of room for something else. Day dreams, getting lost in thought for a moment, forgetting time for a bit, forgetting to breath for a few moments, sleeping, dreaming, getting absorbed in work or a game are a bunch of day-to-day ways in which self-perception (aka proprioception) drops off for a bit without us having to do anything. I'm just wondering whether or not complete egolessness can be experienced through meditation. I'm intrigued by it. I understand emptiness and dependent origination intellectually but I don't feel them. I don't feel like I'm "one with all things" and "everything is connected", even if they intellectually make sense to me. But I want to feel it and know it on a visceral level. Because sometimes I think about it and think "It's a nice thought, but I'm really just trying to make myself feel better about dying and disappearing." In a GBS thread, I used an analogy about how I look at existence: that everything is like waves on an ocean. The waves are ephemeral and transient, but the ocean remains. So when I die, it's like my wave is breaking and receding, but I was never separate from the ocean to begin with, and it's only my pattern that is disappearing. Except that I also used the word "God", and I wonder if all I did was use a cutesy metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Sure, the meditative state of being is almost, by definition, intended to loosen the rigidness of an overly-clinging sense of self/ego/whatever. What an individual experiences really depends on the individual, but people who spend some meaningful time putting together a more flexible and inclusive 'sense of self' seem to experience a greater range of the spectrum(s) of self. The more specifically Buddhist perspective on this stuff tends to particularly emphasize a balanced, middle path, perspective on such human phenomena. I.e. Don't worry about 'getting the experience' of the absolute extremes of such matters. Build a more gradual path towards a more relaxed notion of self that will support you more fully in whatever you want to do. A more gradual path in such things leads to being better grounded in the event that you begin to notice more fully the presence of a perspective that just doesn't really connect to any material identity. Of course, that's the safer, more traditional approach to such things. There are other ways people end up experiencing alarmingly complete loss of sense of self, from trauma to drugs to schizophrenia etc.. In those cases, it is usually profoundly disruptive (particularly in cases of trauma and schizophrenia) and terrifying when not expected. In the case of drugs, some people experience it as their sense of self is literally dying, which can be terrifying and traumatic, to put it mildly. In other cases of substances, some people experience a more gradual and painless/effortless/profoundly blissful 'slipping away,' so to speak. And, of course, everything in between. Naturally occurring (and welcomed or even invited), such experiences often are only a few moments or seconds long. Sometimes maybe a minute or two. With drugs, such things can be hours or days in duration, with after-effects lasting for months. From trauma and schizophrenia, such states can hang around for weeks, months, years at a time. Whether someone is trying to loosen the boundaries of their 'sense of self' or trying to rebuild the tatters of a self, both involve meaningful grounding in just what a healthy, balanced, adaptive, and inclusive (but not amoral) 'sense of self' would even look like. A sense of self graceful enough to relax its death grip from time to time. That and maybe investigate the strange 'canvas' onto which our mind is projected?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I'm just wondering whether or not complete egolessness can be experienced through meditation. I'm intrigued by it. I understand emptiness and dependent origination intellectually but I don't feel them. I don't feel like I'm "one with all things" and "everything is connected", even if they intellectually make sense to me. But I want to feel it and know it on a visceral level. Because sometimes I think about it and think "It's a nice thought, but I'm really just trying to make myself feel better about dying and disappearing." In a GBS thread, I used an analogy about how I look at existence: that everything is like waves on an ocean. The waves are ephemeral and transient, but the ocean remains. So when I die, it's like my wave is breaking and receding, but I was never separate from the ocean to begin with, and it's only my pattern that is disappearing. Except that I also used the word "God", and I wonder if all I did was use a cutesy metaphor. Meditation is a wonderful vehicle for insight, but benefits tremendously from (and may be very difficult without) the balance of the eightfold path (or something similar). Thinking it over clearly isn't doing it for you - why not try it out for a few months and see where it leads you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 03:46
|
|
|
Folderol posted:Meditation is a wonderful vehicle for insight, but benefits tremendously from (and may be very difficult without) the balance of the eightfold path (or something similar). Thinking it over clearly isn't doing it for you - why not try it out for a few months and see where it leads you? You can't lose with the noble eightfold path 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
Does Buddhism or Zen (if we happen to have an expert) have any official stance on art/creativity and it's place in a person's life
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I'm just wondering whether or not complete egolessness can be experienced through meditation. I'm intrigued by it. I understand emptiness and dependent origination intellectually but I don't feel them. This is a common thing I have heard and experienced myself. Reading the teachings, studying the sutras and getting your head around things intellectually is only going to take you so far. I think it was Ajahn Chah who compared it to reading a menu but never sitting down to eat, or planning a trip and studying maps, but never actually getting on the road. Meditation will start you in that direction. You'll start to see the arising and passing away of things, your tendency to cling to conditioned states, and all the tricks your mind constantly plays in order to keep you fooled. It was really intense at first but it is very valuable. I thought I was insane for a while. At some point in "mindfulness in plain English", the author says something like "after a few says of sitting in meditation and wrestling with your mind, you will realize you are totally insane." And he is totally right. But it passes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
After reading "Mindfulness in Plain English", I tried to meditate and realized it is harder than I thought it to be. Somatization is the main problem. Weird pains and sensations have always used to come and go in my life, usually as a response to stress. Unfortunately, they also seem to come during meditation. It's hard to concentrate on your breath when you feel like your neck is going more and more stiff, something itches just under the skin or your eyeball rotates inside its socked and it seems like its trying to break free. Consciously I realize it's nothing out of ordinary - just normal sensations, amplified for some reason by my nervous system - but it's really hard to endure. I tried several times and never lasted longer than five minutes. Not sure what can I do here, except trying more and hoping it goes away. Unfortunately, it definitely will appear if I expect it, so every trial makes the next ones more difficult. Anyone here had a similar problem and managed to overcome it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:After reading "Mindfulness in Plain English", I tried to meditate and realized it is harder than I thought it to be. This is very common and very frustrating at first. You'll find yourself distracted by aches, pains and sensations that arise while you try to watch the breath. The best thing to do is realize that these are temporary sensations, and simply note them, and then return to the breath. You may only manage to maintain attention on the breath for a few seconds before being distracted again by another sensation. And when this happens, you note the sensation, and then gently return attention to the breath. You will spend entire meditation sessions doing this, and while it may seem immensely frustrating, it is part of the training. You are training your mind to be able to maintain attention on a particular thing (your meditation object), without instantly darting to each sensation or thought that arises. Meditation is difficult. Be gentle with yourself and start with small sessions, increasing the length of meditation as you feel comfortable. Mindfulness in plain english is a great book and there is a section about dealing with difficult sensations as they arise. I refer back to that area often.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
My question for the thread; Do you think there is a right way and wrong way to go about Buddhism? If so, what are the implications? I myself have an interest in Buddhism although I haven't delved too deeply into things. I have some understandings and insights and gained a lot of knowledge from someone close to me (who happened by chance to be Buddhist). Her way of doing things was "what was right for her" and took her own interpretation on things. To answer a post I noticed just above, my understanding of karma was that the literal translation meant "action". I myself began to understand this when I was going through a difficult phase with my wife, who had moved out. It also tied a little into the four noble truths a little, in my view anyway. Karma for me, during this stage of my life meant that any action I would take would have a response. I wanted to know what she was doing, who she was with and so on - the action. If I found out then I could be happy (if it was the outcome I wanted) or very upset (if it was the outcome I didn't) - the response. If I took the action, then it would have a response and possibly not the response I would have desired. Therefore, for me, simply it was "If you don't want the suffering, don't instigate the action which could create it". It also tied into the 4 noble truths in that I realised that by clinging on to something which may or may not happen despite my wanting it would only lead to my further suffering. I know this is a very simple and basic interpretation but I think the impact and understanding for me was quite deep, and has at least opened some doors for me going forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:In a GBS thread, I used an analogy about how I look at existence: that everything is like waves on an ocean. The waves are ephemeral and transient, but the ocean remains. So when I die, it's like my wave is breaking and receding, but I was never separate from the ocean to begin with, and it's only my pattern that is disappearing. Except that I also used the word "God", and I wonder if all I did was use a cutesy metaphor. It's funny you've used this, because a similar analogy is sometimes used for mind with thoughts, where mind is the ocean and thoughts are waves that rise and fall, or where mind is space, and thoughts are like clouds that obscure the actual space. This is a pretty accurate view of the whole thing, but as all conceptual metaphors, it is of course bound by conceptual thought. I'm a big fan of such metaphors as thinking things. In terms of knowing it but not "feeling" it, that really sounds to me like the distinction between knowing a thing and realizing a thing. You are aware of emptiness, but you haven't realized emptiness, because your habitual thoughts of things being substantial still take over. With mental training, we can train ourselves not to use those habitual thoughts, not to rely on that old ignorant view, and to instead address things as they really are. This is achieved through contemplation and practice, which requires some degree of discipline. This is why many traditions teach first calm-abiding, to train the mind to be able to focus and contemplate effectively, and then insight meditation, to turn that laser focus towards a goal. Another useful thing is to simply remind oneself of these things frequently. Constantly think of impermanence. When you see something you don't like, remember it is impermanent. When you see something you do like, remember it is impermanent. This will shape your way of interacting with the world. Likewise with interdependence. Start thinking about the connections between things as part of your way of addressing them. Prickly Pete posted:This is very common and very frustrating at first. You'll find yourself distracted by aches, pains and sensations that arise while you try to watch the breath. The best thing to do is realize that these are temporary sensations, and simply note them, and then return to the breath. You may only manage to maintain attention on the breath for a few seconds before being distracted again by another sensation. And when this happens, you note the sensation, and then gently return attention to the breath. I haven't read this book but this is spot on stuff. The thing that made meditation "click" for me was when a teacher pointed out that meditation is not about focusing on the object. It's about those moments when, while focusing on the object, you become aware of the fact that you have been thinking about other things for however long, and then bring it back to the object. That moment is the actual mindful awareness. Focusing on an object is just focusing on an object, the "success" in meditation comes from developing freedom from distraction, which comes first from recognizing when distraction occurs. In Shamatha to Mahamudra, it is written that there are two approaches to distraction, which are to recognize the true nature of any thoughts that arise, and allow them to arise, or to quickly cut the thoughts and return to the focus object. It is then pointed out that only people with great accomplishment in previous lives, who are right on the cusp of liberation, can look at thoughts and examine their true nature without getting caught up, so it is better to practice cutting the thought when we realize they are there. Thoughts are like any other event - impermanent. Simply not following thoughts but going back to the focus object is the practice. Insight meditation where we focus on certain things is usually reserved for once you can maintain that one-pointed meditation. AlphaNiner posted:My question for the thread; Do you think there is a right way and wrong way to go about Buddhism? If so, what are the implications? The right way is the virtuous way that results in fruition, the wrong way is via non-virtue and wrong action. Basically, do what works for you, what seems right, what stands up under scrutiny. The Buddha never demanded blind devotion or undeserved faith. He taught to practice what works, and abandon what doesn't. So for some people one tradition is good, for another another tradition is better. Even things like precepts are things you should practice if you can, don't if you can't. It's not uncommon for practitioners in Tibet for example to hold one, maybe two precepts. Do what you can do. Practice what you can practice. Another thing with what you mention is the different understandings and such. In my own experience, when I started practicing Buddhism, I figured "eh, I can drink, it's no big deal." I did for a while. I had ways it was justified for me, even my teacher told me it was okay to drink certain times while avoiding inebriation, and so on. But as I practice more and more, I have stayed away from it. I have also stopped smoking entirely. At first I'd still maybe have a cigarette if I was with friends who smoked because if I smoked a cigarette early on I wouldn't crave one anymore despite them doing it around me. Over time though, I simply have no desire to smoke. As your understanding deepens and changes, your practice can change. That's great, that's impermanence. So maybe right now your understanding of karma is very direct, and is a behavioral modification thing. That's fine, if it encourages you to practice virtue, and abandon non-virtue, then do that. If later you learn other things about karma that changes your understanding, that's fine too! So yeah, the right way to practice Buddhism is the way that ultimately leads to fruition. The wrong way is the way that leads to suffering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:After reading "Mindfulness in Plain English", I tried to meditate and realized it is harder than I thought it to be. Second, the itches and the pains are like your old friends and relatives; they might get on your nerves at times but you still invite them in for a cup of coffee, ask how they're doing, have a quick chat and then they're on their way again. Now you can get back to whatever you were doing. The only thing better than mindfulness is kindfulness. Be kind to the itches and the eyeballs, invite them in to stay, hear what they're trying to say, get to know them. If you're really itchy, scratch yourself! That's just compassion, you can't really meditate without it. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Can anyone explain Yogacara to me? I've been Googling it and there seems to be conflicting information as to whether its a form of metaphysical idealism (only mental stuff is real), but other people say that it isn't, even though the name translates to "mind-only" or "consciousness-only". Those people say that Yogacara (and Eastern philosophy in general) is only concerned with epistemology, not ontology. Western philosophy, when it comes to the idealism/realism debate, is concerned with the ontology, but all Yogacara is saying is that, regardless of what ultimately exists, the mental is what we're presented with, and is therefor what we know about the world. But if that's the case with Yogacara, what makes it different from other forms of Buddhism? I thought Buddhism in general was only concerned with phenomenology, and maintained that the world we perceive is illusory since it's all ultimately in our heads. Not literally solipsism, but only that what we KNOW of the world is all simply in our heads, and everything we believe about the world is what we're bringing to the table, and are not objective reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:You have to add kindness into your meditation. First, that means sitting in a comfortable position that doesn't strain your neck. You can try meditating lying down on your bed or a sofa. Personally I like to sit with my back against a wall, or else my neck gets really strained. That's... something I haven't thought about  Believe it or not, I have never considered the possibility of lying down or scratching, instead trying to meditate the exact same way as before, but with extra resolve. I can see now why it seemed so hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Can anyone explain Yogacara to me?  The quick and dirty that makes it different from other forms of buddhism is that Yogacara is one of maybe four Mahayana root schools, it's not a distinct form of Buddhism as much as it would be a subcategory of thinking within the Mahayana. It's like Hasidim within Haredi Judaism. I would break mahayana down thusly: T'ien T'ai: Schools of buddhism focused on bringing tons of different sutras and teachings together as the Dharma, focuses on practising expedient means. In the past it had a fair bit of criticism when Phenomenology-oriented Buddhism made a push, being criticized for focusing on studying the sutras and copying them rather than practising them. The legitimacy of that criticism is debateable. Pure-Land: A school of mahayana thinking which holds that life in this world is much too corrupt, because all actions create disharmonious dukkha- instead focus is to be given to prayer, devotional acts and mantra-recitation to be reborn into the heavenly realm of the pure land and study under the Buddha Amitabha. Madhyamika- A phenomenology-oriented school of buddhism that stresses emptiness above all. It holds that all objects have no valid existence because their conceptualization and/or use is ultimately based on participation with an ideal. Since there is no real, or at least experientially real, realm of forms (sorry platonists) there is therefore no true existence of objects as things-for-themselves. Yogacara- Takes the madhyamika another step further- Ultimate reality is itself false, there is no objective world because all perceptions are made through consciousness. Now to go a little deeper and handle your questions more! Firstly the academic disputes. Yogacara and Madhyamika may not have been as opposed or different from each other as some would suggest. There was a long and protracted history of dialectic between the two schools, but whether this was a friendly rivalry or just logical discourse in pursuit of collusion is up for questioning. Secondly, the extent to which some yogacarins hold mind-as-real is very contested. Most modern offshoots of yogacara, modern practitioners and scholars of the school hold that mind is not real. I have to be honest in that I agree with the aforeentioned people; I feel that Asanga and Vasubandhu especially disagreed with the concept of mind as real. This will give me some bias, so take what you will. Blue Star posted:I've been Googling it and there seems to be conflicting information as to whether its a form of metaphysical idealism No, it is not metaphysical idealism. It is emphatically not that. It's a common thing for many people to assume it is, the school is often summarized as vijnapti-matra or citta-matra (Mind-only), but much of this assumption is the result of pollution by Kantian and enlightenment thinking. You cannot apply ontology to yogacarin thought because consciousness is not an ultimate reality, but rather the ultimate problem. Karma is the chief concern because ultimately all unenlightened actions are done with intent because they are perfumed by consciousness Blue Star posted:But if that's the case with Yogacara, what makes it different from other forms of Buddhism? I thought Buddhism in general was only concerned with phenomenology, and maintained that the world we perceive is illusory since it's all ultimately in our heads. Part of the complication in scholarship regarding yogacara is the fact that very little of the treatises or discourses on sutra is translated into anything but french. I hope that helped, if you want I could outline and overview the tenets of it, go into more of what it is, but I suspect you've already got a good grasp on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:That's... something I haven't thought about If you take the intention to be kind with you into your meditation, it will naturally guide you in the right direction. If it's hard to focus on your breath, be real kind and gentle to the breath, you can treat the breath like a cute lil' puppy dog, and you just want to pet that lil' puppy because it's so darn lovable.And remember, your breath actually wants to calm you down, it is always soothing you and calming you down. If you don't agree, try not breathing and see how it feels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Does anyone else feel their eyes moving in their head while sitting? Also, can I describe my meditation process and have someone critique it? I usually set my alarm on my phone for 11 minutes (I know people do 15/20, but this is hard for me) and then begin to sit. I forget where I learned this method, but I usually count to 10 with the breaths, in 1, out 2, in 3, out 4, etc. and just try to be with the breaths. Only I often find myself writing narratives in my head, such as "oh I am going to go to the Something Awful forums and describe this mental object or this other obstacle" or "I am going to write a poem when i am done with this." I don't think I am really trying to announce these, but they do constantly float across my brain. Anyway, I have one rule while I sit and that is that even if those things are happening, I keep counting and breathing in and out. Sometimes it becomes too much and I feel very tense and have to stop. But if I perservere, typically it becomes bearable or I become resolute and continue sitting in spite of it. After about the 5-6 minute mark (I'm guessing) sometimes I start to feel a feeling of relief and then I become aware of the white glow in front of my eyelids if there is a light somewhere in the room. I try to face away from light or leave lights off, but if there is a light behind me even then this will happen. It almost feels like this is the precipice of being in the moment, and then when I reach that point I am able to fade somewhat blissfully in between being in the moment and out of the moment, counting counting counting, and even though it feels somewhat good (atleast compared to the beginning of the meditation) I still find myself sometimes yearning for return to non-meditation, or thinking about when the alarm will go off. Even so, I always feel better if I make it through. Does this sound typical at all to my fellow sitters? Thanks for reading.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
All that is pretty typical, and good on you for sticking with your breathing. You can also try subvocalizing mantras. As far as your eyes go, this is kind of dumb but. . . Are your eyes closed? Try opening them a little, letting the lids hang half open. It will help your problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:Does anyone else feel their eyes moving in their head while sitting? It's much easier to meditate if you bring right intention into your meditation. Specifically the intention to be kind. Ask yourself during mediation: am I being kind (to this moment)? am I being kind to the tension? am I being kind to the light behind my eyelids? How are you relating to each moment during meditation? Here's a good exercise: Sit down to meditate, but instead of meditating, just sit there and see if you can be content just doing nothing. See if you can make yourself perceive the delight of not having to move your body, not having to think anything specific, not having to do anything; not having to engage your will to perform any specific task. Can you find a way to perceive the delight in this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
an skeleton posted:Does anyone else feel their eyes moving in their head while sitting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
If your eyes are darting, you've fallen asleep, generally. It's particularly easy to fall asleep if you sit with eyes closed, as opposed to half-open. Interestingly, the transition to Stage I sleep isn't (generally) noticeable as a sensation. Most/many people in Stage I sleep believe themselves to be awake when queried.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
I don't think it necessarily means sleep. I've experienced the feeling of my eyeballs rapidly shifting or trembling behind my eyelids even a few minutes into meditation while very much awake and alert. It can be very distracting. Like most sensations that arise during a sitting, the best thing to do is note the sensation, and then gently return your attention to your breath. Sometimes you'll spend your whole session going back and forth between the two objects which can be very frustrating, but it is part of the practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2013 19:38
|
|