Beliefs and Intent

[Sunya]

If the universe is not real no claim is true.

 

what is 'real' ? and what is 'true' ?

 

for the universe to be not real, there has to be something that is real. real and not real are diametrically opposed ideas. Buddhism does not say that the universe is not real. Buddhism says that the universe is made up of phenomena, all of these phenomena are interdependent and impermanent. the nature of phenomena is beyond 'real' or 'not real', but in your experience the universe appears real. when, in actuality, whatever you experience is conditioned based on past experiences, ideas, conceptions, etc. the mind is very powerful. so what you actually experience is like an illusion. to say that everything IS an illusion would deny the relative experience of the deluded observer. we cannot do that. your experience is real, nobody can deny your experience, but since you are experiencing the world with impure vision, it isn't true. so there is truth in buddhism and truth is seeing the universe free of conceptions. dharma is also truth and these are the ways to get to pure vision.

Edited July 28, 2009 by mikaelz

[Aetherous]

Vajrahridaya,

 

It's not as linear as all that. It's quite complex and the doctrine of karma has many layers. There's the karma of body, mind, history, group karma, karma just means action. Every action has an equal but opposite reaction.

 

It's not so black and white, it's quite complex as each point in the universe can lead through contemplation to all other infinite points simultaneously. As anything is supported by everything else.

 

Karma doesn't judge good or bad, we do.

 

Things just happen through a complex order of cause and effect. But for conscious beings, it also has to do with the state of consciousness. So, evil intent, so called evil emotions, selfish actions also bare fruit and effect physical events, as all layers are interconnected.

 

Of course every effect has its cause...but like you said, it's very complex, and karma doesn't judge what's right or wrong.

 

What's closer to the truth is that the girl influenced the entire universe...or that the entire universe influenced who the girl was...but it's not true that she had any part in being abducted, raped, and buried alive through her unrighteous actions.

 

Other than that, like lucky7strikes said, "too much thinking today."

[Vajrahridaya]

...but it's not true that she had any part in being abducted, raped, and buried alive through her unrighteous actions.

 

 

 

But of course she did, through actions in past lives she was born to certain parents and underwent certain actions based upon reactions, based upon conditionings. A person her age without that much self awareness or awareness of consequences was reaping the fruit of past lives. Of course she had something to do with the occurrence, because it happened to her, she directly effected the outcome through a complex layer of cause and effect. It's both direct and indirect as influence runs both ways add infinitum.

 

If you think birth of the body is the beginning, and if you think it's death is the end. Then that's a revelation of an attachment to identity with the physical appearance. As if that's the true self... When one thinks that and relates all experience as starting there and ending with that's end, then there's going to be confusion and a belief in, "things just happen".

 

If you understand re-birth, then you understand that, yes... she did have the latent karma to manifest that circumstance due to actions in previous lives. I can understand how hard this is to grasp if one's personal experience is limited to 5 sense relation and perception.

 

 

 

Hmm...then again, I guess you could say that for other religions also?

 

 

Yes, but Buddhism also empties the basis of experience through dependent origination and does not see an inherent experiencer of the freedom from suffering seemingly external circumstances. Other religions, generally speaking, reify an observer, a primal conscious being of some sort. Solidify a soul or essence... while Buddhism does not.

[xabir2005]

More talk from me is only speculation as I have not transcended singular or bodily awareness nor have I created universes, given rise to Buddha realms.... etc. .

 

My point is simple: Self-awareness is itself ignorance. Awareness is the root of all creation and suffering. When I said the transcending of awareness I meant of singular outlook of the universe as a single phenomenon. All knowing, all pervading awareness or unawarness, being or non being are concepts that are beyond words for only experience can bring them about.

 

Nirvana is therefore neither a state of existence, non-existence, both, or neither.

 

And what gave rise to realization except the state of experience itself? Which came first, the realization or the experience? Such distinctions are silly. Just because someone has told you that the colors you see are illusory and dependent on the human eye doesn't let you see the truth of phenomena (again this is a metaphor).

 

You don't seem to believe that a Bodhisattva can indeed transform himself into myriad forms and create Buddhalands for the sake of enlightenment of all beings. Well I think it's cool , and believe it to be very very possible.

Yes, self awareness is ignorance, but awareness without self is not ignorance. Actually awareness has all along been without self, but was mistaken as self, and upon realisation awareness is freed from the illusion of self.

 

An all pervading awareness, if mistaken as an ultimate self, is still under ignorance. However if freed from the illusion of self altogether (whether a self or a Self), that is liberation.

 

The Buddha has said that the Mind of the Arhant is a consciousness which is unmanifest, signless, infinite and radiant in all directions.

 

Awareness itself is not ignorance, has nothing to do with self, being, or non being, we simply superimpose our illusions on it.

 

Also, experience are common, realization is not. One who experiences it may not realise it (i.e. no-self) as the nature that is always so, but one who realises it as the nature will experience it.

 

I believe in Bodhisattvas and Buddhalands.

[xabir2005]

Edited July 28, 2009 by xabir2005

[JustARandomPanda]

Whoda thunk there were so many Enlightened Buddhas posting at TaoBums.

 

From the posts in this thread TB has at least 3 and possibly 4.

[Sunya]

Whoda thunk there were so many Enlightened Buddhas posting at TaoBums.

 

From the posts in this thread TB has at least 3 and possibly 4.

 

 

whats with the sarcasm? we're just having a discussion here that you started.

[JustARandomPanda]

All are free to say whatever they wish.

[Marblehead]

I wish to speak - so I will. (Exercising my free will, you know.)

 

Specifically to the concept of cause and effect.

 

Many things have happened to me during my lifetime that I had absolutely no control over. But they happened none-the-less. I do not see where anyone can suggest that this is because some supposed 'other life' I had is paying me back. Personally, I think this is very lame.

 

Why did the star explode? Oh, it did something naughty in a previous life. That's BS!!! It was a direct result of cause and effect (the laws of physics - the processes of Nature - Tzujan).

 

Regarding the deformed newborns, it is not because of some evil they performed in some previos life, the cause can be directly identified using the scientific method of inverstigation for almost every occurance.

 

Karma is a term that is very misused. In many forms it is used just as the term 'miracle' is used in Western thought. There ain't no miracles either! Cause and effect rule - science has replaced the terms 'miracle' and 'karma' (as it is used to replace the concept of cause and effect.

 

As we speak of things today we must speak with the knowledge that is available today. Science (observation as the early Taoists taught) today answers many more questions today than it did 2 or 3 thousand years ago. Don't hold tenaciously to old invalidated misunderstandings.

 

Be well!

[YawningMind]

This is quite an enlightening question, SereneBlue. If this was a Buddhist forum I might have called it a Koan, but seeing as this is a Taoist forum I'm not quite sure what to call it. It gave me a couple of interesting thoughts about the nature of self vs. universe.

 

 

What I think is:

 

Belief does lead to intent, but the originator of belief is experience. Then, the actions caused by intent create a new experience, and the cycle repeats itself!

 

The self is that which experiences, believes, and intends, and the universe is that which gets experienced and intended on by the self! As for beliefs, they often have nothing to do with the universe - they're sort of there to fill in the gap between experience and intent. Along with thinking, planning, hoping, scheming, etc.

Edited July 28, 2009 by YawningMind

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, self awareness is ignorance, but awareness without self is not ignorance. Actually awareness has all along been without self, but was mistaken as self, and upon realisation awareness is freed from the illusion of self.

 

An all pervading awareness, if mistaken as an ultimate self, is still under ignorance. However if freed from the illusion of self altogether (whether a self or a Self), that is liberation.

 

The Buddha has said that the Mind of the Arhant is a consciousness which is unmanifest, signless, infinite and radiant in all directions.

 

Awareness itself is not ignorance, has nothing to do with self, being, or non being, we simply superimpose our illusions on it.

 

Also, experience are common, realization is not. One who experiences it may not realise it (i.e. no-self) as the nature that is always so, but one who realises it as the nature will experience it.

 

I believe in Bodhisattvas and Buddhalands.

 

I do not believe that that pure awareness, presence, etc as written by Thusness and several other so-called modern enlightened masters is the final stage of liberation. It is only a liberation of view point. One has simply seen what he/she has been all along, accepting the rising and falling of all myriad things, and how this world phenomena has occurred due to one's own illuminating light. I have just found out what I am....uh ok...

 

I see this stage as the creator (you) becoming one with his or her own creation (the world). Even being infatuated with it. You (creating consciousness) have just come full circle into the origin of creation which in itself is illusory, only to create again and again and identify with the creation and thereby falling into samsara. This is more the case since is not only one sentient reality but countless ones. Interconnectedness and Karma will just cycle through as the various planes of existence influence one another.

 

I'm just browsing these ideas and not at all certain about them....

Edited July 28, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[thaddeus]

You know the person who came up with the Chaos theory also said that Chaos only appears chaotic upon initial view, but if one looks deeper, there is a pattern that emerges, even if deeply complex.

 

This modern usage of the term Chaos to suggest complete disorder is a mis-use of the term as it was intended upon it's creation. There are still causes and conditions surrounding the creation of what the term describes as certain aspects of the universal workings.

Hi Vajrahridaya,

Of course everything has a cause. The problem is identifying what is that cause. Take the babies born with a genetic disorder. The cause was whatever caused the 'random' change in the genes. This could be something external, something natural, etc. Of course 'something' caused it. The challenge lies in determining what caused it. I think you may be using a belief system to explain what caused it, namely karma in the context of buddhism (I may be wrong on that, there were alot of threads to go through). A scientist will look for something verifiable that caused the genetic variation. I agree people say 'random' when they don't know the cause. Once the cause is identified, then it's no longer random.

I think this is all elementary and doesn't really need to be argued. I just want to point out that you might be using circular reasoning to justify your point of view. I think Pietro made some excellent points in his last post about making statements.

 

I quoted the above because I just wanted to say again, I learned alot from reading 'Fooled by Radomness'. One thing I learned was that randomness means there may be patterns. A good example from the book is to imagine someone throwing darts at a square. Naturally you will find little holes on the square from the darts. These holes will naturally cluster and form patterns. Now superimpose a map of the US on that square and look at how people will look at these clusters and start believing the clusters represent something happening in that area like an epidemic or cancer statistics etc.

T

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vajrahridaya,

The challenge lies in determining what caused it. I think you may be using a belief system to explain what caused it, namely karma in the context of buddhism (I may be wrong on that, there were alot of threads to go through). A scientist will look for something verifiable that caused the genetic variation.

 

A persons mind-stream experiences what it has invested in it'self and environment. Accidents don't really happen. It has nothing to do so much with belief as it does insight into realms of perception of connection that transcend what is now deemed normal human experience. This level of belief based on experience limited by the 5 senses is culturally conditioned and believed to be true, because it can be viewed under a micro-scope. Yet, scientists still don't know what's going on and become more and more confused as they keep changing their minds about the laws of physics when they find a deeper law to subvert the previous law.

 

The things that a personal consciousness experiences is not separate from that consciousness. That baby somehow put his or herself there and that babies soul was not born right at that point of birthing from the mother. That baby has had endless previous lives. Buddhism goes deeper than this because we get into what the soul is made of. But that would be another discussion.

 

I don't expect you to believe this. But, I feel that the materialist view is based on very limited level of perception which carries it's own beliefs based on this limitation and interprets circumstances through a limited criteria of limited experience of human potentiality.

 

Buddha's teachings were an attempt to explain direct experience. For me it's not a belief system, it's more of a conceptual display of insight. I've seen many of my own past lives directly through meditation and these experiences started when I was very, very young spontaneously due to the fact that I meditated in past lives. Before I read a book on spirituality or religion, I was having insights into the nature of the different realms and writing my opinion papers on this in class, only later to find out that these opinions were in fact quite matched with ancient Indian belief systems. For me, the condition of direct experiencing and insight pre-existed the doctrine. In this life at least. Reincarnation and karma has always made sense on an intuitive level that is deeply complex since I was 5 or 6.

 

It has first something to do with a state of mind before the creation of morality. A state of mind that feels separate, and fearful, angry and jealous, emanates a type of energy and action that bares fruit, and this rotten fruit influences everyone but is really bad for the person who made it because that's what they have to eat in their own garden. So, morality was a human attempt at making for a better society where these rotten fruits didn't flourish and pollinate fertile soil everywhere. Consciousness is deeply subtle. Scientists want to say that it's a function of the brain, but no, the brain/body complex is a function of consciousness.

 

All the best!

 

 

As we speak of things today we must speak with the knowledge that is available today. Science (observation as the early Taoists taught) today answers many more questions today than it did 2 or 3 thousand years ago. Don't hold tenaciously to old invalidated misunderstandings.

 

Be well!

 

LOL! Stars don't have past lives other than that of energy in another form.

 

Because you haven't seen your past lives directly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Past lives is not a lame idea, it's a direct experience of yogi's that is as clear as day and explains a deeper order to why things occur. To think that you are born and you die and that you are just physical, and your consciousness is a mere function of your physicality and not subtler than body is a limitation based upon a limited level of insight into one's own consciousness. To hold up the ever changing science as the new religion that will explain everything, would be silly, because science is as well as matter a function of consciousness, not the other way around. Scientists still don't know what the heck consciousness is and how it really works. Only consciousness can know consciousness, not microscopes and physical tools. They may be able to peel away layers of physical functionality, but consciousness remains ever slippery.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

LOL! Stars don't have past lives other than that of energy in another form.

 

Because you haven't seen your past lives directly doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Past lives is not a lame idea, it's a direct experience of yogi's that is as clear as day and explains a deeper order to why things occur. To think that you are born and you die and that you are just physical, and your consciousness is a mere function of your physicality and not subtler than body is a limitation based upon a limited level of insight into one's own consciousness. To hold up the ever changing science as the new religion that will explain everything, would be silly, because science is as well as matter a function of consciousness, not the other way around. Scientists still don't know what the heck consciousness is and how it really works. Only consciousness can know consciousness, not microscopes and physical tools. They may be able to peel away layers of physical functionality, but consciousness remains ever slippery.

 

Hehehe. I figured I would get a significant response to that post. There are Buddhists here for at least one of y'all to have caught my comment.

 

You are exactly correct. I cannot prove that I have had no prior human or other animal lives. Nor can I prove that there is not some caucasian-looking old man sitting in some throne upon high observing everything we humans do and preparing us for judgement.

 

Nor can I prove that fairies don't exist.

 

BTW The bolding above is mine - I wanted to highlight what you said.

 

Yes, there is much more to it than just being born, living, and then dying. However, ...

 

to suggest that my concsiousness lives on after I die is a little too much for me. Or even the thought that my soul or spirit lives on after I die and it is placed into some new-born at birth is a little too much for me to handle.

 

I won't argue about the ignorance of the scientists because I really do understand that there is so much about the universe and even of man that is still not understood. But, what is understood should be acknowledged by all else we are not only wishing to remain ignorant but we are also showing our stupidity for holding to disproven answers to questions. That is the main thing that bugs me about the people who support Intelligent Design. Not only have they chosen to remain ignorant but they are being stupid in trying to justify their ignorance.

 

Now, if you wish to discuss the concept that "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be although it takes different form over time" I would be happy to discuss this concept from that point of view.

 

Be well!

Edited July 28, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Now, if you wish to discuss the concept that "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be although it takes different form over time" I would be happy to discuss this concept from that point of view.

 

Be well!

 

Yes, no intelligent design. Buddhism see's cosmos as a deeply ordered chaos, but only ordered by the beings that make up the cosmos, not by a transcendent being, or supreme cause. We are the designers, all of us together, including bugs and animals and microbes... blah, blah.

 

But yeah... yes, everything is everything and it all evolves, though not one, not two. Just endless cycling. I'm sure you were my father in one life or another. What gets interesting about Buddhism, is split mind-streams and having multiple simultaneous lives. It gets a bit tricky and can lead to insanity if one thinks about it too much.

[Marblehead]

Yes, no intelligent design. Buddhism see's cosmos as a deeply ordered chaos, but only ordered by the beings that make up the cosmos, not by a transcendent being, or supreme cause. We are the designers, all of us together, including bugs and animals and microbes... blah, blah.

 

But yeah... yes, everything is everything and it all evolves, though not one, not two. Just endless cycling. I'm sure you were my father in one life or another. What gets interesting about Buddhism, is split mind-streams and having multiple simultaneous lives. It gets a bit tricky and can lead to insanity if one thinks about it too much.

 

My first thought when reading you first sentence was that you Buddhist have a lot in common with discordians sometimes.

 

Yes, it is the Manifest that causes the appearance of order in Tao. (I gotta' use my words sometimes.)

 

Indeed, two primary concepts in Taoism are "cycles" and "reversion".

 

I might actually be your father - I played around a lot when I was younger. Hehehe.

 

Well, the only way I could go along with multiple, simultanious lives is if we consider the possibility of multiple universes, which is a possibility in Taoist philosophy (according to Wayne L Wang in his "Dynamic Tao").

 

Actually, back during my days of searching I almost stopped with Buddhism but something inside me felt that I wasn't yet complete so I continued my search and finally rested in Tao.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Well, the only way I could go along with multiple, simultanious lives is if we consider the possibility of multiple universes, which is a possibility in Taoist philosophy (according to Wayne L Wang in his "Dynamic Tao").

 

 

Be well!

 

Yes, both Buddhism and Hinduism talks about that in their cosmology.

[Lucky7Strikes]

But yeah... yes, everything is everything and it all evolves, though not one, not two. Just endless cycling. I'm sure you were my father in one life or another. What gets interesting about Buddhism, is split mind-streams and having multiple simultaneous lives. It gets a bit tricky and can lead to insanity if one thinks about it too much.

 

This is really interesting. The endless cycling and the multiple simultaneous dimensions according to each planes of consciousness creation...

 

The actualization of all "probabilities" of existence...a dream with out the dreamer...argh!

 

Can the endless cycling be broken? Or are we to only realize it in order to be free from it...

 

Haha, I think it is leading me to insanity... .....

Edited July 28, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

This is really interesting. The endless cycling and the multiple simultaneous dimensions according to each planes of consciousness creation...

 

The actualization of all "probabilities" of existence...a dream with out the dreamer...argh!

 

Can the endless cycling be broken? Or are we to only realize it in order to be free from it...

 

Haha, I think it is leading me to insanity... .....

 

 

Hehehe. Yes, this is a difficult subject to discuss logically. But then I consider this:

 

Even if it is so that all is a continuing recycling of 'stuff' it is only through the living things that the universe is able to experience itself so we are serving a useful purpose. Problem I have with this discussion is that others always want to insert a supreme experiencer (some form of God) into the equation.

 

Yes, eventually the cycles will end. Eventually all will return to Oneness. The Big Crunch. (I call it the Big Suck.)

 

(Of course, after that everything starts all over again. Hehehe.)

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

This is really interesting. The endless cycling and the multiple simultaneous dimensions according to each planes of consciousness creation...

 

The actualization of all "probabilities" of existence...a dream with out the dreamer...argh!

 

Can the endless cycling be broken? Or are we to only realize it in order to be free from it...

 

Haha, I think it is leading me to insanity... .....

 

From the perspective of Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen, you never stop acting in the play, you just either are liberated in it, or bound up in it. There's never a point where one just stops and is some non-conceptual formlessness, unless of course your mind thinks that's the end all be all, then of course that's what you'll get for a while. But, then, back to reality... duh duh. There's also never a point where you become actually non-existent. I mean... of course you are already kind of non-existent in a sense of identifying with what you deem to be yourself right now, because this moment is non-existent when the next arises, even though the next is based on the previous, thus neither truly inherently exist. But you know the yadda... blah, blah.

 

 

Yes, eventually the cycles will end. Eventually all will return to Oneness. The Big Crunch. (I call it the Big Suck.)

 

(Of course, after that everything starts all over again. Hehehe.)

 

Be well!

 

Buddhas don't experience the big suck. Which in Sanskrit is called, the Pralaya.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Buddhas don't experience the big suck. Which in Sanskrit is called, the Pralaya.

 

 

I ... don't ... think ... so. Hehehe. But then, I don't know, you know?

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

I ... don't ... think ... so. Hehehe. But then, I don't know, you know?

 

Be well!

 

Yes, I know, because we offer merit to endless cycling in order to maintain a conscious merit body made of refined bliss. The Pralaya's happen on denser dimensions, but not Buddharealm dimensions. The Pralaya happens to those that still have a clinging to identity, generally by that point, the identity becomes formless, thus these beings actually cause the pralaya through there intense idea to merge into a blissful oneness. To Buddhism that's the subtlest type of ignorance.

[JustARandomPanda]

I wish to make one last post and then I am going to be quiet and just listen.

 

If I seemed snappish in prior posts I apologize. The pondering of belief, intent, reality and the doctrine of karma has caused me a lot of anguish over these past few days. I won't lie. I find karma as it's described in this thread (assuming I'm understanding the explanations correctly) brutal. Brutal and sociopathic.

 

However I had a discussion last night with a friend who helped me immensely.

 

From what I understand from our talk there is no need for me to reach back, back, back for any kind of explanation. The Buddha gave one that works for me quite well on it's own and is directly comprehensible to my unenlightened mind as much to an enlightened one.

 

Life is Suffering.

 

All else, my friend said, flows from this premise. If you live eventually you will suffer. It's just that some of us experience it far sooner, more often or more acutely than others. I realized that I at least don't need any other explanation than that. Indeed any other 'ultimate' explanation will entail relying on the testimony of others rather than being directly comprehensible by myself. As such - all testimony - even if well meant - is of zero use to me. I have no memory of past or future lives, know of no one who has done the same and even if I did know of such a person since I haven't experienced it myself it becomes just words on a page or words in the air. It's spinning castles in the air.

 

It is playing the Mysticism card just like Pietro said even if well meant. It's just like the Muslim who cornered me in a discussion once who started "proving" via quotes from the Koran how anyone who does not believe in Allah and Mohammad is condemned to Hell forever. My reaction? *yawn.* I'm sure that Muslim was convinced he had just met someone who is condemned to hell forever. *shrug* [bTW - I found an interesting, very detailed website not long ago by an Islamic scholar that is solely dedicated to slicing Buddhism to pieces. If I find it again I'll post the link here].

 

I can only focus on what I myself can directly comprehend. As such - "proving" Buddhism via references to one's own past lives or via pointing to some teacher who is supposedly more enlightened or saying I haven't meditated enough or saying I'm deluded so I have no intelligent basis to stand on when objecting to Buddhist thought, philosophy, etc has the same effect on me as that Muslim's arguments did.

 

So anyhoo

 

The things explained in this thread have given me much anguish though I suppose the people doing the explaining didn't intend such.

 

Then my friend talked to me and he was a blessing like rain in a parched desert.

 

 

As the Buddha said, Existence is suffering. I can comprehend that directly - no enlightenment needed. No further explanation (for me at least) is needed. There are the 8 Nooses which bind one to suffering - delusion, anger, greed, lust, envy, shame, fear and disgust. But fortunately for me there is the 8-Fold Path to free one from them.

 

p.s. He's got 25 years or so in Buddhist practices and philosophy. He was also able to tell me what the heck panpsychic Brahmanism is and explained the bit about intent preceding belief. And If you're reading this my friend - if I had the power to bestow any good karma I've been lucky enough to store up - I would gladly give it all to you.

 

Blessings to everyone

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

p.s. He's got 25 years or so in Buddhist practices and philosophy. He was also able to tell me what the heck panpsychic Brahmanism is and explained the bit about intent preceding belief. And If you're reading this my friend - if I had the power to bestow any good karma I've been lucky enough to store up - I would gladly give it all to you.

 

Blessings to everyone

 

Wow... good friend. Indeed. Well, don't forget that this is merely the first noble truth and there are 4.

 

Anyway... I do wish you all the best. It's true that most times out of many, people read information before they are ready for it and run away instead of having realization. It's an incredible blessing that your friend was there to catch you. WOW!! I'm pretty eye watery right now.

[Xienkula1]

Wow... good friend. Indeed. Well, don't forget that this is merely the first noble truth and there are 4.

 

Anyway... I do wish you all the best. It's true that most times out of many, people read information before they are ready for it and run away instead of having realization. It's an incredible blessing that your friend was there to catch you. WOW!! I'm pretty eye watery right now.

 

Reminds me of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI_0Hyn57Lk

Edited July 29, 2009 by Xienkula1