buddhism

[Marc1152]

Does the Orthodox Tradition recongnize the Supreme authority of the Pope?<<

No. The Pope had no such authority over us when we were one Church and none at all now that we are seperated ( the Roman Church remembers things differently)

Are Orthodox allowed priests to marry?<<

yes

Are there celibate monastics?<<

yes

 

[notself]

Does the Orthodox Tradition recongnize the Supreme authority of the Pope?<<

No. The Pope had no such authority over us when we were one Church and none at all now that we are seperated ( the Roman Church remembers things differently)

Are Orthodox allowed priests to marry?<<

yes

Are there celibate monastics?<<

yes

I think the Roman Church has done itself and its members a discervice by making celibacy manditory for priests. It separates them from the people they serve and the problems of everyday life. Celibacy for monastics is a different issue. Monk and nuns, as I understand the Christian practice are in a different role in most instances. They are scholastic leaders and recluses…

When did the RC establish celibacy for it’s priests? Why didn’t the Orhtodox?

 

[Marc1152]

I think the Roman Church has done itself and its members a disservice by making celibacy mandatory for priests. It separates them from the people they serve and the problems of everyday life. Celibacy for monastic’s is a different issue. Monk and nuns, as I understand the Christian practice are in a different role in most instances. They are scholastic leaders and recluses…

When did the RC establish celibacy for it’s priests? Why didn’t the Orthodox?

Sometimes clerical celibacy is a disadvantage but other times not. It’s nice confessing to a married Priest because you can say stuff like: " Cant live with em, Cant live without em, cant punch em out" and they nod their heads knowingly. However, during periods of strife, they have a wife and kids ( read " A Job") to worry about.

The Roman Church established this rule in medieval times ( it’s not a “Dogma” btw, some Roman Priests can marries if they are outside the Latin Rite). It may have been motivated by a desire to keep male offspring from inheriting local Church wealth and property. This is a problem in Japan with Buddhist Priests who often do pass down their position and Temple property to their heirs.

The Orthodox don’t change much. That is how we see our mission, to guard the original deposit of faith. Latin’s see themselves as able to develop the Faith as the Church matures with age.

Marc

( The comedian Sam Kinison once said: " I am not a wife beater. I am not at all for wife beating. I just understand it")

 

[notself]

Marc1152The Roman Church established this rule in medieval times ( it’s not a “Dogma” btw, some Roman Priests can marries if they are outside the Latin Rite). It may have been motivated by a desire to keep male offspring from inheriting local Church wealth and property. This is a problem in Japan with Buddhist Priests who often do pass down their position and Temple property to their heirs.

Yes, I think Zen is the only form of Buddhism that has priests. Property ownership is a problem. In Korea I believe that the monestaries are owned by the monks and there can be property disputes. In Theravada the monastic property is owned by a trust run and controlled by laypeople. There may still be property disputes, but the monks and nuns are not involved.

The Orthodox don’t change much. That is how we see our mission, to guard the original deposit of faith. Latin’s see themselves as able to develop the Faith as the Church matures with age.

Marc

Thereavada has not changed since the missionaries from India were sent to Sri Lanka by King Ashoka in 250 BC. It is considered by some to be too orthodox. Mahayana sees Buddhism as something that can continue to have revelations of the Buddha’s teachings even after his death. I guess Theravada would be similar in spirit to Orthodox and Mahayana would be closer to Roman Catholic in spirit with Tibetan Buddhism closer still.

( The comedian Sam Kinison once said: " I am not a wife beater. I am not at all for wife beating. I just understand it")

 

[Marc1152]

Yes, I think Zen is the only form of Buddhism that has priests.

Not so. Most all Japanese sects have Priests, the Tendai Shu, Nichiren Shu, Zrn and Pure Land all have Priests.

Thereavada has not changed since the missionaries from India were sent to Sri Lanka by King Ashoka in 250 BC. It is considered by some to be too orthodox. Mahayana sees Buddhism as something that can continue to have revelations of the Buddha’s teachings even after his death. I guess Theravada would be similar in spirit to Orthodox and Mahayana would be closer to Roman Catholic in spirit with Tibetan Buddhism closer still.

You have to be careful with these comparisons I think. For example, one could argue that Hinayana Buddhism is more akin to Judaism as it relates to Christianity. Should we really go that far back?

 

[notself]

Not so. Most all Japanese sects have Priests, the Tendai Shu, Nichiren Shu, Zrn and Pure Land all have Priests.

You have to be careful with these comparisons I think. For example, one could argue that Hinayana Buddhism is more akin to Judaism as it relates to Christianity. Should we really go that far back?

I hardly think that the differences between the Nikayas and the Agamas are as significant as the Old and New Testaments. In fact there is very little difference between the Agamas and the Nikayas. There is a difference in order and organization but little else. It is the later texts (after the death of the Buddha) that vary widely as does the interpretation of those texts by later teachers.

What sort of ordination do you have? I asked about the Buddha as a Supreme Being on the Mahayana forum but perhaps it would be better to ask on the forum of a specific tradition.

 

[notself]

I tried to edit my post but it was too late. Here are some additional comments and some comments from others.

---

I hardly think that the differences between the Nikayas and the Agamas are as significant as the Old and New Testaments. In fact there is very little difference between the Agamas and the Nikayas. There is a difference in order and organization but little else. It is the later texts (after the death of the Buddha) that vary as do the interpretation of those texts by later teachers.

Of course the term Hinayana was not used in India until about 100 to 200 years after Theravada was established in Sri Lanka around 250 BC. So even though the term is used as a derogatory slur toward Theravada today, it misses its mark.

What sort of ordination do you have? I asked about the Buddha as a Supreme Being on the Mahayana forum but perhaps it would be better to ask on the forum of a specific tradition.

Those who responded on the Mahayana forum were unanimous in stating that although the Lotus Sutra says that Buddha is omnipresent and omniscient, it does not say that he is omnipotent or a God of any kind. The Mahayanists who have responded said

the Lotus Sutra spoke abt the quality of Dharmakaya. it is not the same as God or Unmanifest Brahman.

Yes, the Dharmakaya is in no way equatable with a creator or a being who influences our lives seeing as everything is one with the Dharmakaya, that buddha nature is Dharmakaya, that the Dharmakaya is none other than emptiness.

The Theravada and Mahayana point of view is that it is through self effort. IMO Vajrayana is a combination of grace and self effort. Evidently there are some Pure Land schools that are through grace alone.

Buddhism pre-dates the Gnostics, and there is much in the later schools that seem to conflict with the Theravada. You can say the became corrupted, they evolved, or (as the Tibetans do) that they were secret until much later. Many people practice the Theravada because of this.

The Lotus Sutra is not universally taught.

The eternal Shakyamuni Buddha is a metaphorical way of expression used as convenience way / skillful way to teach the profound concepts those yet in the dream land/ unawaken minds , reading Mahayana texts one must have to wisdom to read it’s intent and not take all the literal surface meaning, that why Great Teacher Tientai ( Chi-i) spoken about the the important to preceive the actual meaning in hidden in between the lines of the important sutra. Because it is may be written in a way to suit the unwaken minds ( who always clings to extrenal deities and heaven etc , and forgot or afraid to recognise themselve are the Buddha ) inorder to lead them into the Dharma gate , and hopefully them could see the hidden truth and tehir mind could be awaken eventually.

When we read the Lotus sutra - we should read as it is spoken from our innate Buddha nature , that it is originally enlightened since the beginless time. This entitt is derive from the prespective of the Truth of Middle Way, which consists of both the Truth of Temperory existience and the Truth of Emptiness/Sunyata.

While our current appearance mind and it’s nature may seem covered in delusion, this enlighten potential is always with us and could be tapped with we do the correct practice. A tarnish mirror is like our mind that is clouded by our 3 poisons and ignorance , but daily polished will enable it start to shine from our innate consciouness.

The Dharmakaya is the funadament Entity of the individual minds we all share .
It means the etrnal Truth body or principle of the universe.

In this sense if you are using ‘God’ as metaphor for Dharmakaya, then it implied that we are all part to make the entity called ‘God’, or another words it is our mind of all the beings that support the entity called ‘God’. It is basically no different between our mind entity , mind nature and the our individual appearing mind.

hence outside our mind that is no teaching, no Dharma , no Buddha , and certainly no ‘God’

 

[Fa_Chan]

Would you agree that it is my duty as a Catholic to tell you what the Church teaches? It is my duty as a Christian to tell you what Jesus teaches. Should you choose not to listen, then the destination of your eternal soul is in the hands of God.My conscience is clear. I have done all I can do.

I often find it easier to “bring others along” into the faith by using honey instead of bringing condemnation. Of course those verses are meaningful and dogma according to the Christian faith. But, I think Christians could do a lot better in bringing people into the fold by showing them the wonderful positive things about it rather than simply telling them they are going to hell.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

Not necessarily so. There are many different kinds of Buddhism, just like there are many different kinds of Christianity

Some forms of Buddhism have taken on many aspects of “self help” groups, some other forms are rather occult. But some Buddhist sects are actually quite sober spiritually.

I’m curious as to which forms fit into the two categories you have supplied. Maybe that would help clarify some issues.

The self help and Gnostic forms don’t like it, but there is a Divine Supreme Being in Buddhism. The Buddha was not really illumined under the Bodhi Tree here on Earth but rather has an Eternal Life, is omniscient and omnipresent…But that doesn’t sell too well in the West so they don’t mention it often.

There is no Divine Supreme Being. In basic Pure Land Buddhism there is Amitabha Buddha. His name means “eternal life” and “eternal light”. He is a being that was once a man, became enlightened and created a Pure Land in the West where anyone who recites his name and has faith in him will someday be received into.

That doesn’t make him a “divine” supreme being. He is not divine or supreme. He is an enlightened being (not the same as divine) and he does not rule over other enlightened beings. As a matter of fact, there are Buddhas who preside over Eastern Pure Lands, Northern Pure Lands and even Southern Pure Lands.

Pure Land Buddhists do acknowledge the enlightenment of the historical Buddha under the Bodhi tree. They believe he is the master teacher and one of many Buddhas who have come to the earth. There are believed to be over 50 according to the Infinite Life Sutra of the Pure Land school.

Now, there is a school in Japan called the Jodo Shin-Shu or (True Pure Land School). They believe that Amitabha is the supreme essence of the universe, but not omnipresent or omniscient. This is a large school with many followers, even many in the US.

“The Buddha was asked: Is there a God?”

He didn’t answer

“Then he was asked: is there no God?”

He remained quite

I don’t understand your point. But, I will say that these quotes must be taken in context. The exchange between the Buddha and this man was one in which the man wanted to know the answer to all of the secrets of the universe. The problem is that he didn’t want that information to enlighten himself, but to exalt himself. Also, he did not have an open mind to what the Buddha was ready to teach. The student wasn’t ready for the answers and so the Buddha did not share them.

Example: if your 6 year old asks you what sex is, do you tell them then or do you wait until they are ready? That’s exactly the situation here.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

I hold a Buddhist Ordination. In my opinion Buddhism has been taken over by a form of Gnosticism ( “Everyone is already a Buddha inherently and need only realize it through practice”). I feel this is a corruption that the sages of old would not recognize. Buddhism as understood via the Lotus Sutra is at the end of the day enlightenment through grace, not self effort. The Pure Land Sutra’s are also like this in many ways.

do you mean that you were ordained a priest or monk or that you took refuge and precepts and was given a Buddhist name? They are two different things. I took refuge and precepts and was given the name Fa Chan by a Zen Buddhist temple.

I don’t see how “everyone is a Buddha inherently” is some form of gnosticism. It is taught in the Platform Sutra by Venerable Hui Neng which was written around 600 AD and is a central Zen theme. And in fact, it is a central Mahayana theme. I’m quite unsure of what to make of this statement.

The Pure Land schools are divided into “self-power”, “other power” and a mixture of the two. The Chinese schools emphasis a synthesis of the two. The Japanese emphasize “other power”. It’s hard to generalize because there are many different masters of different traditions and cultures.

The older interpretation is fast disappearing as you mentioned . It is a big no sale in these modern times when many people are running away from any sort of authority much less a supreme being.

After 30 plus years of Buddhist practice I converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity which I feel more at home with.

So, were you a Tendai devotee or one of the Nichiren sects?

I’m glad you feel more at home now. Peace be with you.

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

I hope this clears things up for you.<<

thanks.

In Mahayana Buddhism the Lotus Sutra is the central teaching for several sects and has a place of importance in others.

In the 16th Chapter of that Sutra the Buddha discards the earlier Sutra’s including the one you quoted. He then goes on to reveal his eternal life in order to bring beings into the final Truth.

It is unfortunate that one sutra can hold all the meaning and practice for a Buddhist sect. I personally don’t think Shakyamuni Buddha would have us discard all his other teachings and hold one sutra as absolute. The Lotus Sutra teachings are one dharma door, not the ultimate. They are meant for some, not for others.

The Buddha revealed there that the Buddha ( The Eternal Buddha Lord Shakyamnui)is not a temporal being but rather has an Eternal Life, is Omnipotent and Omnipresent. He declares that he only appears to pass away as an expedient means of teaching.

According to the Lotus Sutra. I know of nowhere else that this claim is made. Many have eternal lives. That’s not something for a Buddha only. The terms omnipotence and omnipresence are not suitable terms for the Buddhist faith. It works well in Christianity, but terribly in Buddhism. There is no such thing as these in Buddhism, no matter what sect it is. It implies god-like characteristics that Buddhas simply don’t have. Omnipotence is out of the question as this implies that a Buddha could say the word and kill a human being. Not so.

I would use the term manifestation for Buddhas instead of omnipresence. A Buddha can manifest to a person and help them in their time of need, but this is more akin to the saints or angels in heaven, not similar to a God-like quality.

As I said before, there are many different kinds of Buddhism. In some of them there is without doubt a Supreme Being… Your own mileage may vary.

I hope this clears things up for you too.

Which ones declare that there is a Supreme Being? That way we can methodically deal with them. It’s such a general and misleading statement that has no debateable value.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

Not so. Most all Japanese sects have Priests, the Tendai Shu, Nichiren Shu, Zrn and Pure Land all have Priests.

Yes, that’s true. The Chinese hold to the traditional form as monks and nuns. The Japanese have simply incorporated more Western concepts than their counterparts.

You have to be careful with these comparisons I think. For example, one could argue that Hinayana Buddhism is more akin to Judaism as it relates to Christianity. Should we really go that far back?

I could see the comparison vaguely. But I think it’s really only true from a historical perspective and not a doctrinal perspective. But, that’s just my opinion.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Marc1152]

I hardly think that the differences between the Nikayas and the Agamas are as significant as the Old and New Testaments. In fact there is very little difference between the Agamas and the Nikayas. There is a difference in order and organization but little else. It is the later texts (after the death of the Buddha) that vary widely as does the interpretation of those texts by later teachers. .

I was thinking more of how Theraveda teachings resempble Judasim in following strict precpects and self effort.

What sort of ordination do you have? I asked about the Buddha as a Supreme Being on the Mahayana forum but perhaps it would be better to ask on the forum of a specific tradition.

Honmon Butsuryushu. It is in the Nichiren tradition but most Nichiren Buddhism is corrupted by modern Japanese idea’s of Health Wealth and Happiness.
Master Nichiren as well as Master Tendai and Dengyo Daishi would not recognize how the Lotus Sutra is being used today as a magic amulet of sorts.
Ask about the 16th Chapter of the Lotus Sutra, or better yet read it for yourself. It will come up if you google on it. The Buddha reveals his true nature there. Folks who cant beleive what it says will tell you it’s all a metaphore for what ever it is they prefer.

 

[notself]

Marc1152 I was thinking more of how Theraveda teachings resempble Judasim in following strict precpects and self effort.

Yes, Theravada does follow the precepts and self effort and the monks strictly follow the vinaya. (at least most of them do )Which forms of Buddhism do not follow the precepts and do not believe in self effort.believe in self effort?

 

[Marc1152]

Yes, Theravada does follow the precepts and self effort and the monks strictly follow the vinaya. (at least most of them do )Which forms of Buddhism do not follow the precepts and do not believe in self effort.believe in self effort?

Nichren Buddhism which is pretty close to the largest form of Buddhism in the world today although there are many variations within the school.

Also Pure Land Buddhism totally discards the idea of self effort even more so than Nichiren Buddhism.

I am sure there are others in the Mahayanna tradition .

 

[Marc1152]

link to chapter 18 of the Lotus Sutra “The Eternal Life of the Buddha”

mit.edu/~stclair/Lotus16.html

 

[notself]

Nichren Buddhism which is pretty close to the largest form of Buddhism in the world today although there are many variations within the school.

Also Pure Land Buddhism totally discards the idea of self effort even more so than Nichiren Buddhism.

I am sure there are others in the Mahayanna tradition .

Nichiren Buddhism may be the largest in Japan but there are many other forms of Mahayana Buddhism and I think Pure Land is the largest tradition in the world. Fa Chan is Pure Land and I will let him comment on whether your characterization of Pure Land being without self effort is an accurate one.

Thank you for the link to the Lotus Sutra. The translation certainly reads like a Christian text with similar phrasing and vocabulary as a Western Christian Bible. I can understand why you like it so.

I found this in Wiki about the origins of the Lotus Sutra. The part about the dragons is quite a charming.

The Lotus Sutra was probably compiled in the first century CE in Kashmir, during the fourth Buddhist Council of the newly founded Mahayana sect of Buddhism, more than 500 years after the death of Shakyamuni Buddha. It is thus not included in the more ancient Agamas of Mahayana Buddhism, nor in the Sutta Pitaka of the Theravada Buddhists, both of which represent the older Buddhist scriptures which can be historically linked to Shakyamuni Buddha himself.

The Lotus Sutra appears to be a discourse delivered by Shakyamuni Buddha himself toward the end of his life. The tradition in Mahayana states that the Lotus Sutra was written down at the time of the Buddha and stored for five hundred years in the realm of the dragons (or Nagas). After this, they were re-introduced into the human realm at the time of the Fourth Buddhist Council in Kashmir. The tradition further claims that the teachings of the Lotus Sutra are higher than the teachings contained in the Agamas and the Sutta Pitaka (the Sutra itself also claims this), and that humankind was unable to understand the Lotus Sutra at the time of the Buddha (500 BCE). This is the reason given for the need to store the Lotus Sutra in the realm of the dragons for 500 years, after which humankind was able to understand the Lotus Sutra.

Of course the Mahayana Agamas and the Theravada Nikayas cover the entire life of the Buddha and there is no mention in either group of texts of a “higher teaching”. I find it unusual that there could be a teaching not understood by the enlightened followers of the Buddha that were walking and practicing with him during his lifetime. And, that this teaching was hidden for 500 years until humans could “mentally mature” enough to understand it.

It would as though there were undiscovered words of Christ suddenly appearing from a heavenly ream because the people of his time could not understand them but people 500 years later, suddenly could.

What I find even more interesting is, that according to the history, the Lotus Sutra was written down during the time of the Buddha. However, India at the time of the Buddha was pre-literate. Nothing was written down for almost 200 years after the death of the Buddha because there was no written language.

The Buddha’s teachings were regularly recited by groups of monks who had eidetic memories and these recitations were approved as accurate by other groups of monks with eidetic memories. Pre literate societies (such as the Celts) trained and highly valued this talent. This is how the Agamas and Nikayas were preserved until they were written down. The Moslem invasion of India separated the Southern and Northern schools for hundreds of years. Yet in spite of the separation and the oral traditions, comparison of the Agamas and the Nikayas today show there is very little difference. Neither mentions nor contains the Lotus Sutra.

I can accept that this Sutra is a commentary on the teachings of the Buddha, an expansion if you will. But I am not convinced it reflects the words of the Buddha himself.

I hope I haven’t offended you, but since you no longer consider yourself a Buddhist, I though I would be frank with my opinions.

 

[Marc1152]

Nichiren Buddhism may be the largest in Japan but there are many other forms of Mahayana Buddhism and I think Pure Land is the largest tradition in the world. Fa Chan is Pure Land and I will let him comment on whether your characterization of Pure Land being without self effort is an accurate one<<<

Both sects hold that this is the degenerate age of
Mappo, where little can be done to atchieve Buddhahood. Self effort and strict precepts was fine in the age close to the life of the Buddha. Later people still had the seed of Buddhahood within them but less so but could still be illumened via wisdom. In Mappo, people are born without the seed of enlightenment at all and have to rely on the Buddha to transfer it to them by his grace.

Certainly physical effort is needed to practice but practice is a way of union with the Buddha and/or being born in His Pure Land.But no one can become a Buddha today without the direct participation of the Buddha.Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by self effort. You must try to practice but you cant make progress on your own, by your own efforts.

It is the same with Eastern Christianity. One practices with the aim of Theosis, union with God.

Thank you for the link to the Lotus Sutra. The translation certainly reads like a Christian text with similar phrasing and vocabulary as a Western Christian Bible. I can understand why you like it so. <<

I had never even picked up a bible in my entire life until long after I became a Buddhist. The Lotus Sutra is central to many Mahayanna sects. Sorry if it doesnt appeal to you.

I found this in Wiki about the origins of the Lotus Sutra. The part about the dragons is quite a charming.<<

Of course the Mahayana Agamas and the Theravada Nikayas cover the entire life of the Buddha and there is no mention in either group of texts of a “higher teaching”. I find it unusual that there could be a teaching not understood by the enlightened followers of the Buddha that were walking and practicing with him during his lifetime. And, that this teaching was hidden for 500 years until humans could “mentally mature” enough to understand it.<<

If you want to have a secular-scholarly debate over the validity and origan of various Sutra’s, then I am not the guy for you. You had stated that Thereveda had not changed in over 2,500 years. I bet it has. Any group can be easily attacked based on a Western view of reason and fact gathering.

It would as though there were undiscovered words of Christ suddenly appearing from a heavenly ream because the people of his time could not understand them but people 500 years later, suddenly could.<<

One could also argue that assuming a sect has not changed in 2,500 years could be seen as very naieve. There were many Hinyanna groups at one time. Only Theraveda survives today. We have no idea what was lost when all the other Hinyanna sects came to ruin.

I can accept that this Sutra is a commentary on the teachings of the Buddha, an expansion if you will. But I am not convinced it reflects the words of the Buddha himself. <<

Believing that the Hinyanna Sutra’s are the words of the Buddha is equally fantastical. Most scholars think “A few words” may have been actually uttered by the Buddha himself, but not much more than that. Tha’ts hardly a decisive advantage.

I hope I haven’t offended you, but since you no longer consider yourself a Buddhist, I though I would be frank with my opinions<<<

No problem…Why are you on a Christian board? Are you looking to start a fight?

 

[notself]

I suggest you read my posts and decide for yourself.

 

[notself]

Here are two responses from a Nichiren Buddhist (although I do not know his lineage) in his explanation of the Lotus Sutra. I am posting them to provide a widely accepted POV towards this Sutta.

The eternal Shakyamuni Buddha is a metaphorical way of expression used as convenience way / skillful way to teach the profound concepts those yet in the dream land/ unawaken minds, reading Mahayana texts one must have to wisdom to read it’s intent and not take all the literal surface meaning, that why Great Teacher Tientai ( Chi-i) spoken about the the important to preceive the actual meaning in hidden in between the lines of the important sutra. Because it is may be written in a way to suit the unwaken minds ( who always clings to extrenal deities and heaven etc , and forgot or afraid to recognise themselve are the Buddha ) inorder to lead them into the Dharma gate, and hopefully they could see the hidden truth and tehir mind could be awaken eventually.

When we read the Lotus sutra - we should read as it is spoken from our innate Buddha nature , that it is originally enlightened since the beginless time. This entitt is derive from the prespective of the Truth of Middle Way, which consists of both the Truth of Temperory existience and the Truth of Emptiness/Sunyata.

While our current appearance mind and it’s nature may seem covered in delusion, this enlighten potential is always with us and could be tapped with we do the correct practice. A tarnish mirror is like our mind that is clouded by our 3 poisons and ignorance , but daily polished will enable it start to shine from our innate consciouness.

The Dharmakaya is the funadament Entity of the individual minds we all share .
It means the etrnal Truth body or principle of the universe.

In this sense if you are using ‘God’ as metaphor for Dharmakaya, then it implied that we are all part to make the entity called ‘God’, or another words it is our mind of all the beings that support the entity called ‘God’. It is basically no different between our mind entity, mind nature and the our individual appearing mind.

hence outside our mind that is no teaching, no Dharma , no Buddha , and certainly no ‘God’

ASN

*All things are void and without essential reality.
All things have a provisional reality.
All things are both absolutely unreal and provisionally real at once. *Triple Truth - Nagarjuna

continued