If this site provides value to you and your practice, please consider donating a small amount to help with the hosting fees.
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: The truth of dukkha

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 10:14 #98554

Kenneth Folk wrote:
Gary has his strengths and weaknesses.

In your opinion, what are Gary's weaknesses?

Kenneth Folk wrote:
If [Gary Weber] were to claim to be without suffering, I would not believe him.

How come? Gary has no interest in lying to you. Based on my discussions with Gary and Gary's writings, he would say that he has eliminated his suffering. For example, in this blog post, Gary writes "Getting rid of self-referential internal narrative (SRIN), IME, is the only way to be totally free of suffering…SRIN… is the best indicator of where you are still attached…If you do self-inquiry and "letting go" practices...you can let go of these remaining attachments."

Kenneth Folk wrote:
I think [Jeffery Martin's] model is deeply flawed, and have told him so at length.

What flaws do you find?

Thanks
The administrator has disabled public write access.

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 12:41 #98556

This is a really interesting thread, thanks everyone. The conversation has prompted a few reflections about the OP but we've veered into an interesting tangent r.e. 'nibbana' defined. First I just wanted to express my surprise that you (Kenneth) have never encountered in the Therevada world a description of nibbana as the extinction or blowing out of tanha? while experience continues?

It seems to me I have encountered two versions of 'nibbana' in Therevada discourse. Version 1 is cessation (blowing out) of experience. Version 2 is cessation of clinging, tanha, whatever you want to label that tendency of mind to resist complete and open experiencing which equates to 'dukha'. I'm no scholar, these are just my impressions from listening to Therevada talks, and I'm surprised you've not encountered version 2? Or maybe you have, and see it as relating to version 1 in some specific way that actually makes version 2 support version 1?

That said, I completely agree, it appears pretty clear that early Buddhism is down on experience and ultimately seems to point to complete cessation of experience as the best possible thing. I don't know if that's in the early Suttas or later Therevada culture [ETA: it certainly seems to have been current amongst Buddha's contemporaries; my impression is he was surrounded by schools which looked to escaping the wheel of birth and death into some kind of oblivion or other]. Personally that doesn't inspire me much but as a modern secular person I have a natural tendency to be comforted by the thought of death=oblivion as the alternatives are pretty heavy; I can see why someone in this time and place would want to have certainty about that point. As a skeptic I'm happy to admit I have no idea what happens at death and leave it at that. [ETA: ok well, not happy exactly, uncertain and insecure is probably more to the point haha!].

More to the point of the OP, here is my own experience so far:

I do not see the characteristic of dukkha as having the same status as the impermanence and no-self characteristics. Experience is unsatisfactory when viewed through a lens of wanting phenomena to be different than they are-- such as wanting phenomena to be permanent and to have solid stable essences. When that lens of wanting to see phenomena as essentially defined and lasting things/selves drops what is revealed is empty impermanence, which does not need to be seen in terms of 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory'. There is magic in this, for me, and it is open to including the full range of human experience.

ETA: do you honestly feel that each and every phenomena is unsatisfactory in the same way that it is empty of essence and impermanent? I know I have heard Therevada teachers say this, but not all of them, and it seems kind of sad (for you) if true. I can relate more to the notion of empty appearences as the 'wish fulfilling jewel'-- empty of essence, unstable, uncontrollable, be careful what you wish for.. but there is magic in this, too.

After all, the moment of contradiction-- in which phenomena don't pan out as expected-- can equally well be experienced as surprised delight as 'dukha'. The same mechanism (something not matching expectation) is operative in such things as having a sense of humor and enjoying a surprise birthday present ;)

So, when I reflect on my experience there are two cases in which I can say there has momentarily been the extinction of suffering; cessation of all experience, and cessation of that impulse to resist/evade/control experience-- cessation of 'tanha'. I have no idea whether either of those modes of being could or should be permanent but they both seem, experientially, equally 'nibbana', and my impression is that both versions of nibanna are spoken of in Therevada circles-- but maybe not so much in Mahasi circles, eh?
Last Edit: 27 Apr 2015 12:48 by Jake St. Onge.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Kenneth Folk, Jake Yeager, Laurel Carrington, Antero

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 13:05 #98557

Jake St. Onge wrote:
It seems to me I have encountered two versions of 'nibbana' in Therevada discourse. Version 1 is cessation (blowing out) of experience. Version 2 is cessation of clinging, tanha, whatever you want to label that tendency of mind to resist complete and open experiencing which equates to 'dukha'. I'm no scholar, these are just my impressions from listening to Therevada talks, and I'm surprised you've not encountered version 2? Or maybe you have, and see it as relating to version 1 in some specific way that actually makes version 2 support version 1?

I haven't experienced nibbana yet, at least as the cessation of all experience. I don't know if I will, but Thai meditation master Ajahn Buddhadhasa makes it seem accessible in his essay, Nibbana for Everyone, which is here: www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/message/nibbevry.htm

Nibbana is the coolness resulting from the quenching of defilements, whether they quench on their own or someone quenches them through Dhamma practice. Whenever the defilements are quenched, then there is the thing called "Nibbana," always with the same meaning — coolness.

I'm not interested in a debate regarding the precise definition of nibbana. However, since I haven't yet reached Stream Entry, one helpful way for me to aim for nibbana is to know that every time I can let go of moments where I'm feeling friction, heat, or a lack of coolness (not in the sense of frigidity) with something that's happening, is a moment that I can cool down, feel that the flames of greed or aversion are temporarily quenched & feel a wholesome satisfaction with that, even if it's not the same relief that may be gained with a total cessation of experience.

Just my inexperienced two cents! :lol:

PS - The first post started with Kenneth saying: " As long as you draw breath, there is dukkha." I agree that we are up shit's creek when it comes to the problems of aging, sickness & death. The last few years have taught me some harsh lessons regarding the fact that I have little to no control over these. The real suffering, it seems, has been my lack of skill in dealing with these inevitabilities, & this is what I'm aspiring to learn from these teachings.
Last Edit: 27 Apr 2015 13:13 by Tina.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Tom Otvos, Kate Gowen, Jake St. Onge, shargrol, Kenneth Folk, Laurel Carrington, Rod, Paul

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 14:47 #98558

Is anyone here familiar with the Heart Sutra? The sutra is, from what I have heard, a canonical version of awakening in the Mahayana. Maybe it is, maybe not, but what we are talking about here seems to approximate what the Heart Sutra is all about. I will paraphrase:

Through practice one can have deeper and deeper realization, into no-self, into no-time, and so on. This exploration ultimately leads us to the realization that there is no attainment. There is no ignorance and no ending of ignorance. There is no suffering and no ending of suffering. There is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment. Emptiness is form, form emptiness. They differ not at all.

This discussion leads me to that very thought, which I find surprising and fascinating.
Last Edit: 27 Apr 2015 15:15 by Chris Marti.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Jake St. Onge, Jake Yeager, Alex Serrano, Elizabeth

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 14:52 #98559

Yes, I think part of what my post is pointing to is the playful possibility of interpreting nonduality of emptiness and form... just because each of these things: self, path, attainment, suffering, awakening etc. are 'empty' i.e. not reducible to a defined concept doesn't mean they are all meaningless. Emptiness is a gate to creativity, playfulness and compassion. We still have to do something, say something. Be someone. Be in relationship.

The simultaneity of fleeting suffering and emptiness is very interesting indeed. Maybe suffering isn't what we think it is... ;)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Laurel Carrington

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 15:04 #98560

It is opening rather than narrowing :-)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Jake St. Onge, Laurel Carrington, Tina, Alex Serrano

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 15:16 #98561

Just so, Chris, Jake, Tina, and all: that is what is SO EFFING COOL about paradox! It is dynamic, alive, moving, morphing. "'Nothing' remains, but does not remain still..." Like the infinite-loopiness of reality.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jake St. Onge, Tina, Rod

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 15:59 #98562

Kenneth Folk wrote:
Elizabeth wrote:
Does it have to ‘hang together” and make sense to the logical, rational part of our minds?

As we interpret the Four Noble Truths, I might turn your question around: why interpret them in a way that does not hang together, when we can just as easily interpret them in a way that does?

I think both are useful. I have worked with nibbana as absence of experience. It is a very intriguing definition to work with and see what results.
But if it all fits together too well, there isn’t much room for paradox, mystery or the unknown and exploring those avenues has also been very fruitful for my practice.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Jake St. Onge

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 16:08 #98563

Elizabeth:
... there isn’t much room for paradox, mystery or the unknown and exploring those avenues has also been very fruitful for my practice.

I'm not sure I follow this, Elizabeth. To me, accepting the premise that nibbana is the absence of experience leaves everything in experience open to inquiry. All of "this" is grist for the mill.

And, accepting that nibbana is the absence of experience does do one thing which bears repeating, again and again: it takes the thrashing over presence/absence of emotions equating to nibbana off the table. We all got 'em (emotions) unless we're dead (or temporarily in a cessation, or under full anaesthesia).

:-)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Elizabeth

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 16:32 #98564

"accepting that nibbana is the absence of experience does do one thing which bears repeating, again and again: it takes the thrashing over presence/absence of emotions equating to nibbana off the table. We all got 'em (emotions) unless we're dead (or temporarily in a cessation, or under full anaesthesia)."

I do not follow this: "if we accept that nibbana = absence of experience (in toto), then we needn't discuss whether nibbana = absence of emotions (a subset of experience)." It makes sense in a redundant sort of way, but it doesn't necessarily seem to bear on the truth of the claim.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jake St. Onge

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 16:48 #98565

Maybe I can elucidate:

If we accept that nibbana (aka being fully enlightened or awake in a strict Theravada sense) means that one is dead, then the recurring argument in these parts (KFD), on the DhO, in Pragmatic Dharma circles, etc, that if one is alive and fully enlighted one therefore must have no emotions, is moot. Thus we can move on to everything else that really matters to us in a practical, daily living sense.

Helpful, or still murky?
Last Edit: 27 Apr 2015 16:49 by Chris Marti.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 16:50 #98566

I agree, Kate: the issue of eliminating emotions vs. re-understanding emotionality may be better tackled head-on. But I gotta say again: the logic of elimination, generally, doesn't inspire me, or resonate with my experience; which is fine, the world is big enough for many different styles and approaches ;)

If flat tires seem to be a problem, I could have a car with no tires. Or I could just have no car! Orrrrrrrr....
I could just drive the car, just change the inevitable flats, and just live.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Laurel Carrington

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 16:52 #98567

Chris, it might be helpful... if everyone agreed with the premise. That, my friend, may be one of those dukkha-causing expectations though ;)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 16:55 #98568

Um, folks, I was addressing a very pedestrian, tactical issue - message board arguments about emotions, some of which have already cropped up on this topic. Nothing of major import, philosophical meaning or of earth shattering importance.

Edit to Jake: Of course. That's why I keep using the word "if" :-)
Last Edit: 27 Apr 2015 16:57 by Chris Marti.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 18:12 #98570

I think I understand-- an argument to which I have paid very little attention is being resolved. My take on the "no emotions" and its extrapolation into "permanent no-self" theory of enlightenment is that folks would do well to look into the phenomenon of dissociation: eminently possible, sometimes useful, but not a good way to live a wise and compassionate life. ;)
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Chris Marti, every3rdthought

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 20:03 #98573

Hey Everyone,

My view, for now, well, let's see,

Dukkha is likened to the friction of the axle, when the wheel turns freely , it turns freely because there is no friction, it is greased, everything is in alignment, balanced. So when the wheel turns freely there is no Dukkha. When things are out of balance, not greased, bent, contorted, not in alignment, rusty, then there is Dukkha.

The Wheel is the Noble Eightfold Path, with Eight Spokes. When one is aligned and well balanced with the Dhamma, then there is No Dukkha arising, that is Nibbana, the extinguishment of the fire, for there is no fuel for the fire when one is in alignment with the Noble Eightfold Path. But, when one comes out of alignment, causes friction, is not balanced, then there is fuel for dukkha, and Dukkha arises again.

There is a spectrum to the amount or level of dukkha one may experience at any given mind moment, plus path stage models, etc.

So, there is Dukkha, a source for Dukkha, there is a cessation of Dukkha, and a pragmatic way to end Dukkha.

Now is there a way to abide in perfect alignment all the time with the Noble Eightfold Path, and abide in Nibbana for ever and ever? Well, when I look into the Magic Eightball, it says, "Ask again later".

That is the view I have for now anyway.

Bryan
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 20:10 #98574

I think we're making good progress to this point!

The opening gambit in the OP was:

As long as you draw breath, there is dukkha. It's not because you are doing it wrong. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand Buddhism.

I explained that by dukkha I mean suffering, stress, unsatisfactoriness. Discussions work best when everyone understands what everyone else is saying. This happens when everyone agrees, at least for the purposes of the current discussion, on the meanings of words.

Shargrol weighed in with an alternative meaning of dukkha, which is fair, and a natural part of defining terms. At some point, I think most of us tacitly agreed that at least for the purposes of the current discussion, we would translate dukkha as suffering, stress, unsatisfactoriness. Or at least in that ballpark. In other words, by this point in the thread, no one thinks we're using the dukkna word to denote happiness.

Based on this near consensus of what we mean by dukkha at least for the purposes of the current discussion, we went on to define nibbana. This is important because while exploring whether it is possible to be free of dukkha while still alive, it is inevitable that someone will say, "but, dude, what about nibbana?" After all, this whole discussion is taking place in a distinctly Buddhist context, and dukkha is itself a Buddhist word. (Besides, I included my interpretation of the Four Noble Truths in my second post and mentioned nibbana.)

Here's why I insist that we provisionally accept the definition of nibbana as nonexperience at least for the purposes of the current discussion: because doing so frees us up to discuss the original question, i.e., "is dukkha baked into experience?" When nibbana is defined as nonexperience, nibbana becomes a non-issue for the purposes of this discussion. (Thanks to Chris for making this point upthread.)

I agree that each of us has a right to believe what we want about the meaning of the Pali word nibbana. The highly-regarded Thai monk Buddhadassa Bikkhu rejected the Mahasi interpretation and defined nibbana as something accessible even to animals. (Thanks, Tina, for the link and the commentary).

My goal here, though, is a "long, open-eyed look at the First Noble Truth" (thanks, Kate, for clarifying this), and as long as we believe we can cheat the dukkha-reaper by walking around in nibbana, we simply can't have that discussion.

So I request that for the purposes of this thread we provisionally define nibbana as the absence of experience. I understand that many of you don't like that definition, but at this point I think no one will deny that it is a legitimate interpretation. (Thanks, Ovadacariya Sayadaw U Pandita, for the sleeping millionaire reference.)

If we can agree on our terms to this point, we can move on by clarifying what it might mean to walk around without suffering. Following is a list of questions. If you answer "no" to all of them, I will consider that you are claiming to be free from dukkha on a persistent basis.

1. Do you ever experience anger?
2. Do you ever experience irritation?
3. Do you ever experience boredom?
4. Do you ever experience craving?
5. Do you ever experience fear?
6. Do you ever experience despair?
7. Do you ever experience annoyance?
8. Do you ever experience angst?
9. Do you ever experience jealousy?
10. Do you ever experience envy?
11. Do you ever experience loneliness?
12. Do you ever experience hatred?

13. Do you ever express irritation?
14. Do you ever express anger?
15. Do you ever express defensiveness?
16. Do you ever express lust?

(This list could be much, much longer, but you get the idea; in order to claim freedom from dukkha on a persistent basis, you must assert that you never experience or express difficult emotions.)

If you yourself do not claim to be without suffering, but you have a champion you think might qualify, go through the list again and ask yourself how the person in question might answer. Pay careful attention to questions 13 through 16.

Let's discuss the results together as a way of making concrete the question of whether it is possible for a human being to walk around without dukkha. Note that momentary happiness and peace are commonplace and do not qualify. Let's clarify "persistent." If someone can answer "no" to all of the questions above and assert that this has been ongoing for 90 days without a lapse, let's consider them to have passed the first screen.
Last Edit: 27 Apr 2015 20:22 by Kenneth Folk. Reason: formatting
The administrator has disabled public write access.

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 20:53 #98576

It seems obvious to me we're not going to find anyone who fits these criteria. If we do I'd like to promptly join their cult.

But, I'm wondering your motivation for this post as you (99.9%+) know no one will meet these standards... I don't believe many who talk about attaining nibbana (whichever definition) or removing fetters (whichever definition) or achieving emotional transformation (whichever definition) use these simplistic standards. Defining/discussing/debating standards for similar, more plausible claims seems more interesting to me
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Jake St. Onge, Kenneth Folk, matthew sexton

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 22:04 #98577

Haha, Synchronicity, I answered your question seven minutes before you posted, Dhamma is funny , huh? :blink: The Magic Eight Ball was right! Ask again later...
The administrator has disabled public write access.

The truth of dukkha 27 Apr 2015 22:57 #98578

"Here's why I insist that we provisionally accept the definition of nibbana as nonexperience at least for the purposes of the current discussion: because doing so frees us up to discuss the original question, i.e., "is dukkha baked into experience?" When nibbana is defined as nonexperience, nibbana becomes a non-issue for the purposes of this discussion. (Thanks to Chris for making this point upthread.)"

Hmm-- what I'd say is that it sounds like a suspect way of making a circular argument by way of defining your terms.

If nibbana is defined as nonexperience, the checklist would have to include "Do you ever experience joy, wonder, gratitude, freedom (and you can fill in the '4 immeasurables' as well) ...?"

If so, back to the path grindstone for you, buddy-- you are still stuck in samsara.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jake St. Onge

The truth of dukkha 28 Apr 2015 01:33 #98580

Deklan asked about my intentions in presenting the emotional suffering checklist; I'm hoping that through dead-simple reality testing we can cut away some of the fog.

If no one can answer a clear and resounding "no" to all the questions on the list, or even think of someone else who might answer "no," what can that tell us about the truth of dukkha?

What happens when we stop protecting ourselves with clouds of words, and simply look around? Can we resist the temptation to meet the question "do you suffer?" with convoluted explanations about why suffering isn't really suffering because we're Buddhists, or because we're smart, or because we're good with philosophy, or because we went to India for two weeks when we were in our twenties?

Wouldn't it be better to start with the stark truth of our own experience?

The First Noble Truth is one of the most precious treasures of Buddhism precisely because it has no sugar-coating.

There is suffering. This uncompromising inventory of the situation is the place to start. Practice begins after we stop running, excusing, sugar-coating, denying. There is unsatisfactoriness. Let it sink in for a minute. In a lifetime spent running from dukkha, we can afford to take a minute to let it in.

We can talk about what to do about dukkha only after we acknowledge that dukkha is happening. Without this first courageous step, we're just playing in the shallows.
Last Edit: 28 Apr 2015 02:16 by Kenneth Folk.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: AugustLeo, Kacchapa, Paul

The truth of dukkha 28 Apr 2015 08:46 #98585

I have to say yes, there is suffering, so --

I assume that we're meditation practitioners because we experience at least one, probably many more, of the afflictions listed. There have been times in the history of the Pragmatic Dharma movement when some folks have claimed to be alive and free of those afflictions, or say they can point to someone who is alive and free of them. Are we trying to eliminate that as a possibility? I think we will always have those who want to believe in that as the end to their practice, so I'm afraid that obtaining some kind of total, person by person full agreement on its non-existence will be an exercise in futility. If we're playing this discussion out for the .001% who believe in the possibility of living with no suffering or dukkha of any sort whatsoever then we may be wasting our time.
Last Edit: 28 Apr 2015 08:47 by Chris Marti.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

The truth of dukkha 28 Apr 2015 09:33 #98586

I invited Gary Weber to answer Kenneth's questions on this thread, since I feel that it might add an important data point to the discussion. So Gary might show up at some juncture.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Andy, Kacchapa, Tina

The truth of dukkha 28 Apr 2015 09:53 #98587

It would be great to have Gary Weber to discuss this with!
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Tina

The truth of dukkha 28 Apr 2015 13:52 #98589

Here is my favorite book so far about defining the Buddhas teachings.....it's pretty good. Walpola Rahula What the Buddha Taught
Walpola Rahula wrote:
The conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects: (1) dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-hukkha), (2)dukkha as produced by change (veparinama-dukkha) and (3) dukkha as conditioned states (samkhara-dukkha).

But the third form of dukkha as conditioned states (samkhara-dukkha) is the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble truth, and it requires some analytical explanation of what we consider as a 'being', as an 'individual', or as 'I'. What we call a 'being', or an 'individual', or 'I', according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces of energies, which may be divided into five groups or aggregates (pancakkhandha).pg14
The Second Noble Truth is that of the arising or origin of dukkha
(Dukkhasamudaya - driyasacca). The most poular and well-known definition of the Second Truth as found in innumerable places in the original texts as follows.: 'It is this "thirst" (craving, tanha) which produces re-existence and re- becoming (ponobbavika), and which is bound up with passionate greed (nandiragasahagata), namely, (1) thirst for sense-pleasures (kama-tanha), (2) thirst for existence and becoming (bhaa-tanha) and (3) thirst for non-existence (self-annihilation, vibhavatanha).'pg 21
Here the term 'thirst' includes not only desire for, and attachment to, sense pleasure, wealth and power, but also desire for, and attachment to, ideas and ideals, views, opinions, theories, conceptions and beliefs (dhamma-tanha). pg 21
Now you will ask : But what is Nirvana? Volumes have been written in reply to this quite natural and simple question ; they have, more and more, only confused the issue rather than clarified it.
So it is often referred to by such negative terms as Tanhakkhaya 'Extinction of Thirst', Asamkhata 'Uncompound', 'Unconditioned',Viraga 'Absence of desire', Nirodha 'Cessation', Nibbana ' Blowing out of'' or 'Extinction'.
Let us consider a few definitions and descriptions of Nirvana as found in the original Pali texts: 'It is the complete cessation of that very 'thirst', giving it up, renouncing it, emancipation from it, detachment from it.'pg25
Nibbana seems only to get complicated because of the combining of descriptions of what happens at the different paths (esp. projections of those who have not experienced them) with the actual event of non-experience within which the change to path happens. Then add in that you can have subsequent cessations without path moments, and some people do not notice the cessations ....it is easy to see why this is so confusing.
Pragmatically it all works out pretty clearly when it actually happens as it should per the Mahasi tradition. Without the maps and first hand experience I have no idea how you would sort it all out.
~D
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen, Jake St. Onge
Moderators: Kenneth Folk
Time to create page: 0.272 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum