Buddism and the Baha'i Faith

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Popeyesays,

Momen follows Fozdars interpetations quite a bit, to the point that they make some of the very same points, rather incorrectly, i should add.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the condsidered response.

Originally Posted by arthra

Vajradhara

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post. i hope you don't mind my interjection into your conversation with Awaiting the Fifth.

My reply:

No my friend... but I would also hope that Awaiting will feel free to respond if he wishes...

seems that's not a worry

Vajra:

yes, and they are incorrect about that.... of course, that is only the case if you beleive the Buddha Shakyamuni. as he quite clearly explained, he was not divine or an Avatar of any of the Gods in any of the God realms.

Comment:

I cited them to indicate there have been many views of Buddha over time and also that Buddhism itself redefined the vedic gods ...

actually... to be technical, Buddha Dharma didn't redefine the Vedic conceptions of Avatar and Deities, it did, however, posit a different understanding of the nature of said beings. perhaps a bit of semantics there but a salient point nevertheless.

Vajra:

so... he came to this view on his own? well.. no wonder. i thought that they had read the Tipitaka and determined this. which would be quite unusual, but this makes much more sense to me.

Comment:

I do know there were texts in Persia about Buddhism in India. Abdul-Baha lived close to His Father and interpreted His Writings. He recognized the Buddha as a Manifestation...

perhaps i wasn't clear. when i say that "he came to his view on his own" i mean to say that he didn't have instruction from a qualified Buddhist teacher so there was no opportunity for him to determine if his understanding of the Buddha Dharma was correct or not.

do you happen to know which texts were consulted vis a vie Buddhism?

Vajra:

not an intentional one, by any means, but it is a slander really. he said that he wasn't and you guys say that he is, so you are either calling him a liar or a lunatic (gotta love C. S. Lewis ) i'm going to have to go with Buddha Shakyamuni on his understanding of what he is, i'm sure you understand.

My comment:

Maybe we could work here to have a more peaceful dialogue ...less "us" and "them" "you guys"... I do not call anyone a "liar" or "lunatic".

perhaps you are not aware of C. S. Lewis. nevertheless, that is an argument of his about Jesus as the Christ. i.e. either Jesus is a liar, lunatic or telling the truth. sure, it's a bit of a false dilemmia, but i've been keen to see how it would work in other situations.

in any event... i suppose that, in the end, it comes down to whom you trust to know the situation. i trust that Buddha Shakyamuni knows his situation in a more complete manner than any other being. you may feel differently.

to be honest with you, Art, i'm not real sure of the wisdom of dialoging unless there is some opportunity for a change of views. without that it seems to be nothing more than simple argument.... not to say that this doesn't serve a purpose but it certainly is a different one than one of dialog wherein beings learn from each other.

of course, my view of what dialog is could be quite mistaken

Vajra:

isn't the word you use "corrupt"?

sort of like how the Muslims think the Bible and Tanakh have been "corrupted". quite interesting really.

My reply:

I'm not making a case here for that and we Baha'is do not agree with some who call the Gospel or Torah "corrupted" ...so this isn't really our thing.

the case is made in the literary references which you've provided. i have to presume that you are in agreement with those conclusions or you wouldn't have cited them.

metta,

Agreed!

Let's start building a universal kindness and friendship here.

- Art

whilst i would agree, wholeheartedly, with this view. it does not seem like this is what you are honestly wanting.... and perhaps i shouldn't indicate you as a personal noun rather, the Baha'i community, in general, seems to have the view that their understanding of things is correct and it supercedes the previous understandings.

without giving the same respect to previous teachings, i am not sure where the foundation for kindness and friendship is anchored other than in an acceptance of the Baha'i view.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

Additionally, I am not aware that an exhaustive search has been made in the untranslated works among the Baha'i Scriptures about the Buddha. I've seen various comments translated into english which were clear enough to me but opinions differed...."The real teaching of Buddha is the same as the teaching of Jesus Christ. The teachings of all the Prophets are the same in character." Comparisons and likenesses are made between the Buddha and other Prophets (aka Manifestations, not necessarily the same thing as Prophets in a Christian context, etc.) and there was some question as there was no straight forward comment. The Guardian offered one. This isn't mere opinion. This is a declaration that a faithful understanding, according to the Scriptures of the Baha'i Faith, that the Buddha is of the same station as of Jesus, Moses, etc. and therefore fully a Manifestation of God, etc.

have you read the link which you've referenced?

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/A...highlight#pg64

the first bit states:

"Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it."


the next bit declares:

.”—“What if they were to kill you?” the Master asked for the last time. “Still,” answered the disciples, “we will be thankful, for they cause us to be martyrs. What more glorious fate is there than this, to die for the glory of God?” And the Buddha said: “Well done!”

without any source. in point of fact, one can search the entire Tipitaka, any of the three, and will never find such a thing written since this is completely contrary to what Buddha Shakyamuni taught.

of course, you can believe it if you'd like, but it isn't correct from the Buddhist point of view.. whatever that may mean.

the next section asserts:

"The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything."

overall, this is quite denigrating and disparaging. how one could then conclude that Buddha Shakyamuni was a Manifestation of God is quite strange. one disregards the Buddhas own words on this matter and, instead, consults a being which never practiced the teachings.

what manner of dialog can really exist between beings which hold such radically different views of the same subject, especially when the primary sources are not consulted or, seemingly, understood?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namasker popeye,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Again, I am not interested in promoting my particular faith, but a question has been raised and it requires the practice of "Apologia" to answer.

Shoghi Effendi is not the only one of the Central Figures to mention the station of Buddha. Abdu'l Baha went into detail about the Station of the Buddha, and the nature of Buddhist practice of today. I'll give a single quote from Abdu'l Baha's talks in London in 1911.

"Buddha had disciples and he wished to send them out into the world to teach, so he asked them questions to see if they were prepared as he would have them be. "When you go to the East and to the West," said the Buddha, "and the people shut their doors to you and refuse to speak to you, what will you do?" -- The disciples answered and said: "We shall be very thankful that they do us no harm." -- "Then if they do you harm and mock, what will you do?" -- "We shall be very thankful that they do not give us worse treatment." -- "If they throw you into prison?" -- "We shall still be grateful that they do 64 not kill us." -- "What if they were to kill you?" the Master asked for the last time. "Still," answered the disciples, "we will be thankful, for they cause us to be martyrs. What more glorious fate is there than this, to die for the glory of God?" And the Buddha said: "Well done!"

what Sutta is this from or Sutra for that matter? don't you think that it would be appropriate to actually determine if the Buddha Shakyamuni said anything remotely close to this?

The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything. Why go so far back? Consider the laws of the Old Testament: the Jews do not follow Moses as their example nor keep his commands. So it is with many other religions.

i suspect that many Jewish adherents would disagree with the author as well.

this would, of course, imply that none of the teachings could be reliable.. how would one know? given that... how did the Baha'i faith go about determining which of the Sutta/Sutras are correct and which are not? it is an easy enough thing to state, yet not nearly as easy to demonstrate.

How can we get the power to follow the right path?

By putting the teaching into practice power will be given. You know which path to follow: you cannot be mistaken, for there's a great distinction between God and evil, between Light and darkness, Truth and falsehood, Love and hatred, Generosity and meanness, Education and ignorance, Faith in God and superstition, good Laws and unjust laws.
Faith."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 64)

oh.

As to the nature of religions and how they develop over time, Buddhism was once firmly based in the sayings of the Buddha, but unfortunately time has obscured those words with practices that Baha`i's feel dims the Message.

this displays an ignorance of the Buddha Dharma more than anything else. the Dharma has *never* been the words which were spoken. it gets a bit technical.. however, the Dharma is the teacher, the Buddha Dharmas are rafts to be set aside once no longer required. Dharma is an interesting word in Sanskrit and connotes a wide variety of phenomena and thus, its meaning is dependent upon the subject matter.

The same thing has happened to Hinduism,

please demonstrate that this is so.

Does this mean a Buddhist should abandon his practice of religion to satisfy Baha`i's? No.

good. you may be surprised at how many of your breatheren and sistern do not share this view.

To admire, emulate, base your life upon the Buddha is to follow the religion of God.

yet, since that is precisely what the Buddha instructed us not to do, why would you think that is what is going on? is it due to your understanding of your religious path or the Buddha Dharma?

If you do not like the way Baha`i's venerate the Buddha, it is your right to not like it and to question.

indeed.. and we are accused of engaging in the practice which your tradition engages in! i hope you can see the irony of this.

metta,

~v

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

have you read the link which you've referenced?

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/A...highlight#pg64

Actually I have.

Let's see what the basis of discussion can be. We can all pretend we all agree on everything and "just get along". No Faith has ever done that but we could just wish it away, pretend the differences don't matter and ignore them. Or we can take umbrige from such comments. Or we can seek to understand those differences, relate to them, observe their existance and conclude some basis and meaning from these things which are, just as much as the oft quoted spiritual virtues, part of the history of every single Faith of the planet. It is even possible that such criticism and correction be taken at face value, albeit it may turn a history of practice and interpritation on its head. Granted that such differences have perpetually been a source of antagonism and angst egged on by those who seek advantage in dispute and even war; we can do better, or so I wish.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the first bit states:

"Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it."

You have no reason to beleive the Buddha forbid worshiping idols or what? Or do you object the idea that the teachings of your religion have changed? Or do you simply take offense?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the next bit declares:

.”—“What if they were to kill you?” the Master asked for the last time. “Still,” answered the disciples, “we will be thankful, for they cause us to be martyrs. What more glorious fate is there than this, to die for the glory of God?” And the Buddha said: “Well done!”

without any source. in point of fact, one can search the entire Tipitaka, any of the three, and will never find such a thing written since this is completely contrary to what Buddha Shakyamuni taught.

So even if it a complementary comment in relation to Buddhism, it is objectionable? Is everything the Buddha said known and footnotable today? Perhaps Abdu'l-Baha knew things not so. Tens of thousands commemorated his burial. Perhaps they would not have beleived Him one prejudiced against the truth.

the next section asserts:

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

"The teaching of Buddha was like a young and beautiful child, and now it has become as an old and decrepit man. Like the aged man it cannot see, it cannot hear, it cannot remember anything."

overall, this is quite denigrating and disparaging. how one could then conclude that Buddha Shakyamuni was a Manifestation of God is quite strange. one disregards the Buddhas own words on this matter and, instead, consults a being which never practiced the teachings.

So the Buddhist teachings do not refer to this kind of degradation of the Buddhist way? Whenever it happens, aught this not be a reasonable characterization? How many times must we hear about the elephant who's trunk is like a rope? Doesn't it ever become trite?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what manner of dialog can really exist between beings which hold such radically different views of the same subject, especially when the primary sources are not consulted or, seemingly, understood?

What kind of dialog? Well, despite all purposed reasons, one can begin with hearing what is said, reacting to it, putting forth effort, respecting that what was simply offensive is not the product of a heated moment, nor of simple illogic. If one can appeal to those spiritual verities we have entrusted to us by our teachings, we can struggle for some better than feeling denegration.

[Popeyesays]

My purpose was not to challenge anyone's faith. So I will not participate further on this thread.

Regards to all,

Scott

[arthra]

I'm also feeling that what has been written from the Baha'i perspective is pretty much what it is... and frankly think we've thoroughly beat these bushes pretty well... There's only a few citations on Buddhism from Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and the Baha'i books from Fozdar and Momen that relates..

I think Fozdar is sometimes misunderstood but i think he had some fertile ideas.. Momen's approach is valid i think.

There was an interesting dialogue which i think makes of this thread a poor echo perhaps but it can be read at:

http://bahai-library.com/essays/buddha.dialogue.html

I'm not going to post elements from it as it's fairly long but i would recommend everyone including my friend Vajra read it as perhaps it deals with some of the concerns raised here...

In re. Vajra's question to me earlier... There was a Persian text entitled Dabistan-ul-Mazahab by Moshan Fani who lived in the seventeenth century and travelled around India. The Dabistan was translated by David Shea and Anthony Troyer and was part of the Universal Classics Library published in 1901.

The Dabistan was available to Persians up to the nineteenth century and is a catalog of various religious tenets and doctrines in India.

Marzieh Gail suggested that this text may have been the "Book of Juk" mentioned in Gleanings p. 174. I asked Juan Cole about this some years ago and he wasn't sure but he implied that Baha'u'llah had a great deal of knowledge about India that is not widely known.

So much for that..

In friendship, and I sincerely mean that Vajra for you!

- Art

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by arthra

I would also hope that Awaiting will feel free to respond if he wishes...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

seems that's not a worry

Indeed

Now men have changed the teaching. If you look at the present practice of the Buddhist religion, you will see that there is little of the Reality left. Many worship idols although their teaching forbids it

You have no reason to beleive the Buddha forbid worshiping idols or what? Or do you object the idea that the teachings of your religion have changed? Or do you simply take offense?

I would say that there is no worship of idols in Buddhism, in fact there is no worship at all as the Baha'i faith would use the word.

We use idols, yes. The muslims prey towards Mecca, is it Mecca they worship? or God?

So even if it a complementary comment in relation to Buddhism, it is objectionable?

I think this is the real source of misunderstanding here. None of what you say is complementary to buddhism.

If a nazi said to a Jew, "You're not really Jewish" would it be a complement? The nazi would probably think so but the Jew would not.

I hope you will forgive the obviously extreme example but I hope I have made my point.

[arthra]

Awaiting:

I think this is the real source of misunderstanding here. None of what you say is complementary to buddhism.

If a nazi said to a Jew, "You're not really Jewish" would it be a complement? The nazi would probably think so but the Jew would not.

I hope you will forgive the obviously extreme example but I hope I have made my point.
__________________

My reply:

Ummm...Well Awaiting.. Since misunderstanding is an issue here, do you think we can work toward some understanding here?

It's rather sad don't you think when you feel you should use such as "obviously extreme example".... In our history the Nazis didn't really like Baha'is and outlawed our religion in Germany, sending some to prison. We've also had some Baha'is with Jewish backgrounds.

- Art

[Popeyesays]

I think we are running a counter-productive thread. Baha`i's believe that the Pali text in its descriptionof an un born and uncreated as being a reference to God. Anyone is welcome to disagree with the Baha`i point of view, but it is time to agree to disagree and get on with a better topic of discussion.

Abdu'l Baha is also reputed to have said: When two argue religion they should stop, because it is not pleasing to God that religion should be a means of division amongst men.

I do not think it is part of the Buddhist path to argue religion either, since it is clinging to things of the world and the point of Buddhism is to transcend this world.

Perhaps it is time to close this thread?

Regards,

Scott

[smkolins]

Argument and challenge.

Every Faith makes comments about other Faiths in their scripture. Buddhism speaks of Hindu brahmins and other topics. Christianity speaks of Jewish laws and priests. Islam speaks of Christian teachings. And the Baha'i Faith speaks of them all, and some day another Faith will have scripture which speaks of Baha'i references.

A metaphor I use sometimes speaks of points of view of, and behaviors around, a camp fire in the woods by a mountainside lake.

One may view the fire from the shore, seeing it against the woods on this side, that tree in particular and how it is illumined by the fire. Or one may may view the fire from the tree and speak of the lake, it's surface glinting from the light of the fire. Or one may walk around the fire, noting the changing views of circumstances while the fire itself remains changeless, or one may sit close to the fire and be warmed and wondered at its leaping flames. And still another may hold up a hand to block out the overwhelming light in order to more clearly note the brightness in all those gathered about, each illumined.

None may agree. Each may correct the other. The argument is over the framing of the truth. It is almost impossible to see the truth aside from preconceptions and assumptions. For some it even robs the truth of its inherent meaning to remove all reference from it. From the lakeside there is no water framed against the light, nor from the trees is there naught but the expanse of water far from it. Each and all can define in detail what is related to the fire, and each detail of definition can be rejected by the others. Careful thinkers might notice the strong relationships implied and object to the assumptions and definitions of the otherside and totally reject even the semblance of the light they see. Even that they are at another camp fire completely. And even if they are, still do all witness the same light, even if it's on a TV. Or do they just see differences?

In discussions, things can break down. Religion is ultimately personal as well as social and institutional. We do not speak much today of egyptian, roman or norse religions, and one day none of the religions we know today existed at all and so it must be that religions change - at least they go into and out of existence, and even change markedly during their appearance among the people.

For my part I have never meant to engaged in increasing the dust clouds, nor in poking a finger in the chest of another. But it happens that making a step does raise dust. And in making gestures, one may poke an eye and not know it. Offense is at least partly measured in the beholder, rather than the beheld. Such is the difficulty of discussing religion. It can hardly not challenge; one might say if it doesn't challenge it hasn't been truthful to itself in the life of its believer. But everything in moderation. Unending sun burns, and unending rain floods. And if we have neither too long we have death again.

If the discourse can continue with enough respect then I wish it so. Some of the most remarkble things happen when discussions come to an empass. People may grow.

But if it is just dust, then let it settle.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Originally Posted by arthra

Ummm...Well Awaiting.. Since misunderstanding is an issue here, do you think we can work toward some understanding here?

Work towards some understanding? That is exactly what I am trying to do, that is why I chose to use an example understandable by everyone.

You criticize my analogy, and probably with good reason, but still you make no move to answer my point. This is why I feel compelled to use such an analogy in the first place.

Understanding is exactly what I am looking for, but I find none, I am continually being told that Baha'is respect Buddha and I should be happy about it.

Do you (All Baha'is) understand that when Baha'is claim to venerate and respect Buddha as a manifestation of the one God, this seems like more of an insult than anything else to Buddhists?

Originally Posted by arthra

It's rather sad don't you think when you feel you should use such as "obviously extreme example".... In our history the Nazis didn't really like Baha'is and outlawed our religion in Germany, sending some to prison. We've also had some Baha'is with Jewish backgrounds.

If this is so then I would have thought that you would understand my analogy better than most, but Bahai's certainly don't have the monopoly on being beat on by the Nazis, they gave it to everybody pretty good.




I chose my religion largely because it involved no God. I had become very disillusioned with the idea of God. I pulled away from my Christian upbringing and reached certain philosophical conclusions on my own at quite a young age which I still hold true today, and to be honest, I am quite proud of that. Then I found (by accident) a religion which generally concurred with my conclusions and developed them and I embraced it whole heartedly, celebrating the fact that I could develop my spirituality without the need for any "God" figure. This is why I get quite worked up when people (of many backgrounds) suggest that my religion is theistic.

I hope this explanation is sufficient and I apologise if I have spoken too strongly on this thread.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste smkolins,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by smkolins

Actually I have.

if this is so then i cannot really understand your motivation in posting it. for it certainly does not present the Buddha Dharma in a positive manner, in my view.

Let's see what the basis of discussion can be. We can all pretend we all agree on everything and "just get along". No Faith has ever done that but we could just wish it away, pretend the differences don't matter and ignore them. Or we can take umbrige from such comments.

naturally, there are a range of responses available in such a situatuion. hopefully, we all choose ones which are respective of our belief systems.

Or we can seek to understand those differences, relate to them, observe their existance and conclude some basis and meaning from these things which are, just as much as the oft quoted spiritual virtues, part of the history of every single Faith of the planet.

true.

It is even possible that such criticism and correction be taken at face value, albeit it may turn a history of practice and interpritation on its head. Granted that such differences have perpetually been a source of antagonism and angst egged on by those who seek advantage in dispute and even war; we can do better, or so I wish.

i think, and i can only speak for myself (such that it is), it is a matter of respect. it seems that the Baha'i tradition has very little respect for the Buddha Dharma, per se, though much respect for one particular Buddha.

You have no reason to beleive the Buddha forbid worshiping idols or what?

there is no teaching within the Buddha Dharma which advocates worship of anything, let alone inanimate objects which cannot help one get to the other shore.

on this, there is little room for compromise, in my view.

Or do you object the idea that the teachings of your religion have changed?

Impermenance is part of my religious teaching. that being said, since the Buddha Shakyamuni explained that the True Dharma would last for 5,000 years, why should i take any non-Buddhists word over the veracity of the teachings?

Or do you simply take offense?

it is somewhat strange, i'll grant you, yet... i find myself not being offended as in a sense of outrage or what have you. i find, rather, that i would prefer to explain the teachings in a manner which is consistent with their promulgation.

So even if it a complementary comment in relation to Buddhism, it is objectionable?

you must not have linked to those. nevertheless, it would be objectionable if you were attributing things to the Buddha Dharma which are not part of the teachings, i.e. worship of a being or what have you.

Is everything the Buddha said known and footnotable today?

nope, not even close. we have more from Buddha Shakyamuni than is necessary, as it stands nevertheless, not all of the things that he said were memorized and written down.... Buddhism only works on that level in a very narrow sense. it is a direct mind to mind transmission as established at the First Turning of the Wheel.

Perhaps Abdu'l-Baha knew things not so.

how can you know things which are not so?

So the Buddhist teachings do not refer to this kind of degradation of the Buddhist way?

as you well know, they do. the Buddha even talks about the extra rules which he instituted to forstall the loss of the True Dharma.

Whenever it happens, aught this not be a reasonable characterization?

well... frankly, no. the next period of time in the Teachings would be the Sembelance Dharma.

How many times must we hear about the elephant who's trunk is like a rope? Doesn't it ever become trite?

it would seem that it does not.

What kind of dialog? Well, despite all purposed reasons, one can begin with hearing what is said, reacting to it, putting forth effort, respecting that what was simply offensive is not the product of a heated moment, nor of simple illogic. If one can appeal to those spiritual verities we have entrusted to us by our teachings, we can struggle for some better than feeling denegration.

what if one has done those things yet the beings with whom they dialog do not change their view? would one, then, seek to employ a different tactic to try to build understanding?

however, it is difficult to have beings with a strong theistic bent understand that we do not have that sort of thing in our religion. moreover, it is extremely difficult for said beings to understand the Buddha Dharma without a self-referent to a being, a life, a self or a soul.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Art,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by arthra

I'm also feeling that what has been written from the Baha'i perspective is pretty much what it is... and frankly think we've thoroughly beat these bushes pretty well... There's only a few citations on Buddhism from Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and the Baha'i books from Fozdar and Momen that relates..

i agree. it is pretty plain and unequiviocal in my view.

I think Fozdar is sometimes misunderstood but i think he had some fertile ideas.. Momen's approach is valid i think.

naturally, i find fault with Fozdars work, as i've indicated previously to you, and thus, Momens approach is equally critiqued when he relies upon Fozdar as his source.

nevertheless, it is not my contention that Baha'is cannot reference those works. however, if a Baha'i would like to understand what Buddhism is and is not, those works are not going to be all that helpful, in my experience.

In re. Vajra's question to me earlier... There was a Persian text entitled Dabistan-ul-Mazahab by Moshan Fani who lived in the seventeenth century and travelled around India. The Dabistan was translated by David Shea and Anthony Troyer and was part of the Universal Classics Library published in 1901.

17th century, C.E.?

The Dabistan was available to Persians up to the nineteenth century and is a catalog of various religious tenets and doctrines in India.

written from that time frame? as you know, the Muslim invasions of the 1100's destroyed Mahayana Buddhist institutions throughout Northern India and, effectively removed instutional Buddhist praxis from the mainland. fortunately, it survived in Tibet, China, Mongolia, Japan et al and has recently been re-establishing itself in northern India.

as a consequence, it is unlikely that the Dabistan contains a well sourced exposition of Mahayana Buddhism. that, however, is speculation on my part.

In friendship, and I sincerely mean that Vajra for you!

- Art

Metta, art, metta

[arthra]

I'd really like to call a truce on this thread...realizing I'm no longer a moderator of course makes this not very practical here but I'd still urge that in a spirit of good will we can agree to disagree on a few points and part as friends.

- Art