|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 28, 2023 15:25:37 GMT -5
I had kept coming back to this certain book (on Amazon), for years, finally found it at a good price and got-it. It is most exceptional, why did I wait so long? Yogacara is variously translated as Mind-Only or Consciousness-Only. It's basically a very extensive exploration of how the mind-being is structured and that in relation to the world, It basically could be called Buddhist psychology. I'm about 2/3 of the way through, it just keeps getting better. Have been considering some quotes. They are relevant to some of the other posts today, so decided to pull the trigger. It's a 2009 book by the abbot of the Hosso Zen Temple of Kofukuji in Japan, Tagawa Shun'ei, translated by Charles Muller, who teaches at the University of Tokyo.
Basically, there are eight consciousnesses. The first six were known and accepted in Buddhism previous to Yogacara (the six object-discerning consciousnesses). These are the consciousnesses of the five senses, and the sixth is thinking, called mano consciousness, the thinking mind. The developers of Yogacara decided these categories did not explain the full range of human experience so developed the 7th and 8th consciousnesses. The seventh is manas consciousness. "The Yogacarins, deliberating on the composition of our mind and its functions of conscious awareness, came to be convinced that there had to be an additional, deeper layer of the mind, which, while continuously imposing its influence on everyday conscious awareness, also served as its underlying basis. Thus, they posited a subconscious region of the mind, comprised of the two deep layers of consciousness of manas (fundamental mentation consciousness) and alaya-vijnanapg 12 (storehouse consciousness, which I will use from here on). Manas consciousness is ceaselessly exerting great influence on our conscious daily lives". pg 15
What becomes of mano-thinking consciousness when we sleep? The Yogacarins saw the necessity for a 7th manas as a consciousness that maintains a sense of self and information, information which is not constantly on one's mind. When we improve at anything, a craft or a skill, this is maintained in manas, the subconscious mind. IOW, the thinking mind only operates at intervals, not continuously. pg 15 So why is this important? Because in Buddhism there is no permanent soul which can handle these "duties".
So storehouse consciousness, the 8th, is necessary to maintain continuity from past to present to future, "it firmly retains the aftereffects of all that we have done". pg 13 Later in the book we see storehouse consciousness is necessary to hold causes and effects from one life to a next life, the seeds and fruit.
So storehouse consciousness is the base of manas consciousness, which is the base of thinking-mano consciousness. These are called the three subjective transformations.
Now the quotes...from Living Yogacara, An Introduction to Consciousness-Only Buddhism. Yogacara forms the base of Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. Without even finishing I'll put it into my top ten favorite books.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 28, 2023 16:01:13 GMT -5
"Our mind does not simply cognize objects exactly as they exist in themselves. On the contrary, it is fundamentally disposed to subjectively alter everything that is seen, heard, and touched. Our minds carry out such subjective transformations at three levels, storehouse, manas and mano. The first subjective transformation is made against the backdrop of the gamut of our prior experiences, the second subjective transformation, manas, is motivated by our deeply-held attachment to ourselves. Even though both of these dramatically alter the objects of cognition, we operate under the assumption that these objects are being directly cognized, and we go forth with our lives based on this. Once we understand this teaching, we can no longer continue assuming that we are cognizing things as they actually exist. If nothing is done to counteract it, we become ever more strongly convinced that our view is basically correct instead of finding liberation from the habit.
The process of subjective alteration does not stop with the first and second subjective transformations. There is now yet another occurring, the third subjective transformation. This is the sixth consciousness, mano-thinking consciousness and the prior five consciousnesses. At the level of conscious awareness, the mind is capable of working in either wholesome or unwholesome modes, according to the powerful influences of the subliminal storehouse consciousness (8th) and manas (7th), carried out by the thinking consciousness (6th). IOW, we may come closer to Buddhahood, or fall further away from it. Based on the function of this sixth consciousness (thinking), things are subjectively altered, and these transformed objects are taken to be the objects of our direct cognition". pgs 81,82 (some paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 29, 2023 11:33:48 GMT -5
"In Yogacara Buddhism, unusually deep consideration was undertaken in regard to the nature of cognitive function and the objects of cognition. As a result of their investigations, Yogacara thinkers came to the conclusion that although as a matter of convention we perceive the things of the external world as if they were directly apprehended by us, and although we furthermore think that we correctly interpret their meaning based on this direct apprehension, these objects do not in fact exist in this way. Rather, the Yogacarins said that these cognitive objects are actually transformed by our own minds, and then are reflected onto our minds as images that resemble those things.
Since the image that resembles the thing is conjured through transformation and floated in the mind, it is natural that some of its distinctive aspects will be sufficiently transmitted such that we can recognize it. However, we have good reason to doubt the extent to which this manifestation actually reflects the appearance of the thing as it is. Despite this reasonable suspicion, we proceed along with our lives thinking that we are accurately seeing, hearing, judging, and understanding the objects that impinge on our awareness. Since none of us are intentionally trying to change the appearance of these objects, wanting to distort their shape, or alter their appearance, we unthinkingly live our lives believing that we are cognizing everything accurately". pgs 11,12 Living Yogacara (emphasis sdp)
The Yogacara view is confirmed by modern neurological research, which I've posted on here previously.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 29, 2023 11:57:28 GMT -5
"We live our lives based on the assumption that we directly perceive, and are accurately interpreting, objects with a fair amount of accuracy. Since we naturally assume that we are apprehending objects of cognition as best as possible, it does not occur to us that we are purposely twisting the object before our eyes to fit our own convenience". pg 66
sdp asks why? Continuing next paragraph.
"Instead, we take as our objects of cognition things that have already been influenced and altered by the alaya-vijnana (8th storehouse consciousness) and manas consciousness (7th, recalling both of these are subconscious [processing], not accessible to manos-[6th consciousness]-thinking-mind, note sdp). Everything has been greatly twisted and defined to support our own convenience, and as such, objects of cognition are in fact referents that have been transformed by the subjectively transforming minds. The things we are cognizing are certainly not "external objects" in the commonly understood in sense of the term. Those of us who believe we are carrying out our daily lives based on an accurate understanding of the true way of being should begin to abandon that conceit and begin to rethink the matter just a bit. This realization forms a critical juncture in Yogacara teaching". pg 66 Living Yogacara
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 29, 2023 13:45:18 GMT -5
Now we get down into the weeds. It's difficult to summarize or even quote briefly.
"The first feature of manas (7th consciousness) would be that it constitutes a latent region of the mind that is not directly accessible to conscious awareness. The second is that the mental activity of the manas is never interrupted--it is always active. (note sdp, We call this unconscious brain processing, here). Third, its function is to place "I" at the center of any event, rendering one incapable of unbiased views.
...Our selfishness and self-love are not things that can be cast off so easily--they are extremely tenacious, and embedded in the subconscious level of our mind, known as the manas. Yogacara Buddhism, in striving to see human being through its function in the reality of daily activities, could not but pay close attention to the matter of our selfishness. And such a view could not find its conclusion without the discovery of the manas, the source of selfishness and egoism.
The manas is always functioning subliminally. ...The notion that the mode of existence of unenlightened regular people is that of deep attachment to self--one that it is deeply rooted in the reification of the ego-notion--is of course a widely held understanding in Buddhism. However, it was the Yogacaras to postulate that this attachment was based on a deep region of the mind called manas and to clearly articulate its characteristics. It is this attachment to self that Buddhist practices aim to remove.
...It is easy to see how selfishness cannot but bring great influence to bear the objects that we see, hear, and consider. ...we imbue greater significance to objects of our cognition according to the self-centeredness emanating from the manas. We are conducting our lives in an environment that is subjectively altered by the alaya-vijnana (storehouse 8th consciousness, IOW, that which remembers everything), and is now, in addition, subjectively altered by the manas (7th consciousness). This is called manas as the second subjective transformation (mentioned in an earlier post). [IOW, we distort entering information].
Within the conscious "I" that earnestly reflects on the selfishness of one's speech and behavior, there is a subtler "I" that is sunken deeply in egoism. He gets technical, then:
Primary afflictions contain the fundamental afflictions, or mental disturbances, representing the fundamental psychological functions that make our mind and body suffer intensely. Within this group are the six mental factors: craving, ill-will, pride, ignorance, doubt, and incorrect views. ...Another text gives four afflictions associated with manas: self-delusion, self-view, self-conceit, and self-love.
The mental factor of self-delusion, synonymous with such Buddhist concepts as ignorance or bewilderment, refers to the obscuration of reality, and implies a state of confusion. Because it is the psychological function that serves as the source of all afflictions, self-delusion is considered to be the most original, fundamental, aberrant mental function. It is the prime cause for the confusion that we experience in our daily lives. ...In addition to the functions in manas, self-delusion is also understood to operate throughout the prior five consciousnesses (basically the five senses) and the sixth, thinking consciousness. Despite the seemingly simple label ignorance, the true scope of its function is various and indeterminate. ...and it has continued to function since the immemorial past without interruption". pg 68
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He then spends pages and pages elaborating on all these detriments. This is basically the point I've read up to, so this quote is jumping ahead.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Becoming Buddha" means that if we make an effort to truly understand the structure and mechanism of our own minds along with its various psychological functions, and endeavor to nurture wholesome psychological functions while trying to subdue the afflictive mental factors, somewhere at the other end of the path, the buddha-state will manifest itself. The consummation of this buddha-state is precisely the meaning of "becoming Buddha". ...The central theme for all branches of Buddhism is how to overcome suffering and eventually be freed from it. By now, we understand that the marrow of the teaching is that which we saw in the content of Sakyamuni's first sermon delivered at Deer Park in Benares, where he discussed the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path. pg 102 Living Yogacara, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IOW, what is continually claimed here on ST's is that nothing matters concerning the small s self, it only matters that we see it is illusory. This is just patently bs. We can call it illusory, but it still exists in the neural structure-thinking mind, and in the manas and in the alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) and it still greatly influences our lives. And, the history and tradition of Buddhism is that all this crap in ourselves is passed on as vasanas and samskaras from one life to another, until they are actually eliminated. Yogacara talks of these as seeds. This is the whole point ouroboros just made on the person is an illusion thread. And it boggles the mind to hear ZD ask what purification is. Purification means to actually eliminate the whole structure of the illusory self. Living Yogacara goes into all of this, why and how self exists, and why and how to eliminate the influence of self.
I won't cross threads, ouroboros has not written yet what he means by purification on the self is illusory thread. But, basically, purification means eliminating the attributes mentioned above, craving, ill-will, pride, ignorance, doubt, incorrect views, self-conceit, self-love, and primarily self-delusion. These are gone into extensively in the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 1, 2023 15:59:19 GMT -5
I will somewhat jump ahead, as certain circumstances seem to call for it. After I had gotten far enough into the book to see its value, I checked to see if had other books. He does but it is not translated into English. Best i recall it's a biography of Jokei. So he has some quotes in Living Yogacara.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we take into consideration such statements as "all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature" and "each and every sentient being accomplishes buddhahood," from this perspective of those encountering the very first challenging practices of the paramitas, who in the world can be so bold as to proclaim "I have the buddha-nature within me"? We instead begin to feel as if we are the one who is furthest from the buddha-realm--a disheartening conclusion, to say the least.
Though we are encouraged by the Buddhist expression "all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature," and may rejoice at knowing we may eventually arrive at the state of buddhahood, on the other hand if I reflect on and examine the "I" who is supposed to arrive to this state of buddhahood, it seems impossible. There is a considerable gap here, between this declaration of possession of buddha-nature and what I actually see in myself based on rigorous reflection. How did other Yogacara masters perceive and address this problem?
Jokei resolutely studied the psychological factors that compose the mind according to Yogacara, and used them to earnestly examine himself. His descriptions of the experience state that:
If I desire to enter the vast and great entrance to the mind,
my nature is not equal to the task.
If I want to practice just a little bit cultivation,
my mind is difficult to rely on.
He is stating that although liberation is hoped for, and we have the inclination to seek enlightenment, through self-reflection we realize we are not in possession of the qualities to consummate that intention. Based on this awareness, we then think that perhaps it is possible to only practice a portion of the Buddhist path. But by reflecting deeply, we see that the mind is something that cannot really be relied upon.
This pronouncement is somewhat disheartening. For the purpose of transcending our everyday lives and seeking enlightenment, what else can we rely upon if not our own minds? This thing that I call "myself" is truly a deluded being, distant from the buddha-realm, and Jokei is fully consumed by this realization. The Yogacara teaching of sentient beings lacking the nature for liberation that underlies these phrases, "my nature is not equal to the task" and "my mind can't be relied upon," is pointing to no one other than ourselves. ...
What exactly might be this path that leads from the level of the ordinary person to that of the Buddha? What could be of more concern to us than this?
Jokei has conjectured that it may be precisely because one lacks the nature for liberation that this "I" seeks empowerment of the buddhas and wishes for liberation. Furthermore, it is the sentient being who lacks the nature for liberation who can come to the level of sincerely seeking liberation, and one-pointedly desiring the Buddha's enlightenment.
(IOW, Jokei reaches the end of his rope, note sdp) and writes:
By means of none other than my foolishness,
I know I possess the requisite qualities for attaining enlightenment.
We should read this passage knowing that it was at precisely this moment of writing that Jokei felt released from his feelings of deep depression engendered by the conviction of a lack of buddha-nature as taught by his own Yogacara school, and it is then that he was able to make a great leap forward toward enlightenment. Hence, we can say that it was precisely the depth of his awareness of himself as a sentient being lacking buddha-nature that made him take his first step into the buddha-nature. His arrival to this critical juncture was based on nothing other than his single-minded, penetrating self-examination. And this self-examination was greatly advanced and deepened by his awareness of the composition of the mind and its various psychological functions, as articulated by the Yogacaras. (Lots of weeds sdp will not quote extensively).
Criticizing of others is something to always be restrained, or even better, not done at all. If we who are deeply attached to our selves, and who are under the sway of negative mental factors such as conceit and envy, compare ourselves with others and criticize them while abiding in this condition, we cannot but end up doing nothing but praising ourselves, and either slandering others or envying them". pgs 111-113
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 2, 2023 11:41:53 GMT -5
Will getting closer to the "fly in the ointment". We first need to establish there is a something which perpetuates cause and effect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...even though we talk about impermanence we cannot but directly feel that there is something about the "I" of today and the "I" of several months ago that has remained constant, hardly changing throughout time and growth. ...we understand it to be something substantial connected with self... Concerning this mechanism of attachment to a fictitious self, Yogacara Buddhism created a detailed elaboration of this latent mind of self-attachment called the manas than takes the alaya-vijnana as its object. Since our attachment to a fictitious self is understood by the fact that the alaya-vijnana (storehouse) which accumulates the impressions of our actions and creates a general sense of continuity in type from the past to the future, is misconstrued by the manas to be an unchanging substantial self". pg 74
~~~~~~~~~~
IOW, as memories are stored, this gives a false feeling that the fictitious self is substantial. Buddhism purports that it is not.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Our mind does not simply cognize objects exactly as they exist in themselves. On the contrary, it is fundamentally disposed to subjectively alter everything that is seen, hear and touched. Our minds carry out such subjective transformations at three levels. ...manas and alaya-vijnana (unconscious processing) both dramatically alter the objects of cognition, we operate under the assumption that these objects are being directly cognized, and we go forth with our lives based on this. Once we understand this teaching, we can no longer continue assuming that we are cognizing things as they actually exist. ...if nothing is done to counteract it, we become ever more strongly convinced that our view is basically correct instead of finding liberation from the habit. (And there is to) a third subjective transformation, the operation of the 6th consciousness (ordinary thinking mind) and the five consciousnesses, the five senses.
(All this) our psychological functions, are broken down into fifty-one mental factors and classified into six groups. (So) at the level of conscious awareness, the mind is capable of functioning in either wholesome or unwholesome modes. (And as manas and alaya-vijnana are subliminal, and influence thinking consciousness, and things are subjectively altered), we may either come closer to buddhahood, or fall further away from it. ...The most important factor to take into account when discussing the third subjective transformation is the objects of observation will differ significantly from person to person... Thus, the former person sees much that is not seen by the latter...through greater application of attention.
In the case of a deficiency in apprehension for something that should be m=normally cognized by the thinking consciousness, we can see the operation of factors of slackness from among the secondary afflictions, or drowsiness from among the uncategorized factors, which bring dullness to one's cognitive faculties and gloom to one's emotional state. ...or, in the case of ill-will among the afflictions, the psychological function of anger narrows our overall cognitive scope. As a result, our ability to execute proper judgement is lost. pgs 80-83
"Yogacara Buddhism analyzed our mental functions including the five omnipresent factors, the five object contingent factors, the ten wholesome factors, the six fundamental afflictions, the twenty secondary afflictions, and the four uncategorized factors for a total of fifty-one, which were categorized into six groups. The ability of these fifty-one to function is due mainly to the sixth, thinking consciousness. ...Since mental factors having a clearly defined karmic moral character--such as the wholesome factors, afflictions, secondary afflictions--operate within the thinking consciousness, our conscious awareness is capable of leading us into either wholesome or unwholesome directions.
Even though wholesome functions are available to us, such functions must operate on top of the deep selfishness of the manas as expressed in its four concomitant afflictions. This puts us in the position of swimming upstream, as it were. ... (IOW) we are always being defiled in the depths of our consciousness. ...(Knowing all this) we can either take a powerful first step in the direction of the good, or further enhance disturbances of the mind, scattering body and mind in a thousand pieces, telling everyone we are forced into this situation by external circumstances beyond our control. The decision regarding our course of action is entirely up to our own conscious mental activity". pgs 85,86
In chapter 6 we surveyed the four mental factors of craving, conceit, ignorance, and incorrect views from among the primary afflictions, as well as no-faith, indolence, dissipation, slackness, agitation, forfetfulness, incorrect knowing, and distraction from among the secondary afflictions. We now move to covering the remaining two basic afflictions, and then follow up with the remaining twelve secondary afflictions.
Ill-will is related to anger. ...Jokei calls us "fellows deeply impregnated with poisonous habituation". His statement reminds us that we are nothing but beings who lead our lives under the profound influence of the impregnation by the karmic impressions in our alaya-vijnana, which is in turn conditioned by the rudimentary psychological functions of craving, ill-will, and ignorance. ...
Doubt is a psychological function only found in the sixth consciousness. When one has misgivings about the validity of such principles as the law of cause and effect and no-self, hesitation prohibits us from fully entrusting ourselves wholly to these basic truths". pgs 86,87
(And then you have) anger, resentment, worry, concealing, deceit, arrogance, hostility, envy, parsimony, unscrupulousness, and shamelessness. pgs 87-89 Living Yogacara
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, all that's to say the deck is stacked against us. satch presented us on the other thread the views that all that is irrelevant. But it's not. Tawaga Shun'ei says the basis of all these attributes is fictitious (it is), but that does not mean they do not lead us around like a bull with a ring and chain in its nose. He ends the chapter with: The Problem Is, What To Do Now
Basically it starts with an unrelenting pursuit. Unrelenting means you don't get sidetracked when an easy escape is offered, all this doesn't matter anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 14:15:12 GMT -5
There is no one doing anything. You’re like a dog chasing it’s tail. That post doesn't make any sense. If there's no one doing anything.. then how come you can't apply that to this situation? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 16:16:52 GMT -5
That post doesn't make any sense. If there's no one doing anything.. then how come you can't apply that to this situation? There is no explanation that will satisfy your curiosity You need to get very clear on who is at the centre of perception, as you say Let me explain what I meant, slightly differently. You wanted to tell someone that no one is doing anything, while simultaneously believing that the someone was the cause of you having to say that no one is doing anything. IOW.. if you truly understood that no one is doing anything, then firstly, you'd know who really wrote this thread. And secondly, you wouldn't have to believe that it was a someone. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 2, 2023 17:28:09 GMT -5
Let me explain what I meant, slightly differently. You wanted to tell someone that no one is doing anything, while simultaneously believing that the someone was the cause of you having to say that no one is doing anything. IOW.. if you truly understood that no one is doing anything, then firstly, you'd know who really wrote this thread. And secondly, you wouldn't have to believe that it was a someone. Get very clear on beliefs while you’re at it Do you know what the phrase 'Drink your own medicine.' means? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 21:56:35 GMT -5
There is no explanation that will satisfy your curiosity You need to get very clear on who is at the centre of perception, as you say Let me explain what I meant, slightly differently. You wanted to tell someone that no one is doing anything, while simultaneously believing that the someone was the cause of you having to say that no one is doing anything. IOW.. if you truly understood that no one is doing anything, then firstly, you'd know who really wrote this thread. And secondly, you wouldn't have to believe that it was a someone. Because that's what's happening. 😃 Non doership doesn't negate the experience on a personal level of cause and effect. I know that my next thought or action will just appear quite spontaneously without personal doership but then if someone asks me, did you do that I will say yes I did that. I will claim it was my action after the fact. Do you see that as a contradiction? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 3, 2023 13:20:34 GMT -5
Let me explain what I meant, slightly differently. You wanted to tell someone that no one is doing anything, while simultaneously believing that the someone was the cause of you having to say that no one is doing anything. IOW.. if you truly understood that no one is doing anything, then firstly, you'd know who really wrote this thread. And secondly, you wouldn't have to believe that it was a someone. Because that's what's happening. 😃 Non doership doesn't negate the experience on a personal level of cause and effect. I know that my next thought or action will just appear quite spontaneously without personal doership but then if someone asks me, did you do that I will say yes I did that. I will claim it was my action after the fact. Do you see that as a contradiction? Ok.. I glanced at this morning and thought that we were going to dig in and explain what this 'non-doership' really is. So I'm still going to do that if you don't mind? Are you saying that because thought and action is formed from the immediate environment, rather than from a parallel movement inside the skull that claims to be the developer of thoughts and therefore actions. That this understanding, is what is called.. non-doership? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 14:04:33 GMT -5
Because that's what's happening. 😃 Non doership doesn't negate the experience on a personal level of cause and effect. I know that my next thought or action will just appear quite spontaneously without personal doership but then if someone asks me, did you do that I will say yes I did that. I will claim it was my action after the fact. Do you see that as a contradiction? Ok.. I glanced at this morning and thought that we were going to dig in and explain what this 'non-doership' really is. So I'm still going to do that if you don't mind? Are you saying that because thought and action is formed from the immediate environment, rather than from a parallel movement inside the skull that claims to be the developer of thoughts and therefore actions. That this understanding, is what is called.. non-doership? I'm going to guess he is evoking the dream analogy. All the characters in the dream, are ~you~. So any character in the dream has no doership, all characters arise out of your own consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 3, 2023 14:58:44 GMT -5
Ok.. I glanced at this morning and thought that we were going to dig in and explain what this 'non-doership' really is. So I'm still going to do that if you don't mind? Are you saying that because thought and action is formed from the immediate environment, rather than from a parallel movement inside the skull that claims to be the developer of thoughts and therefore actions. That this understanding, is what is called.. non-doership? I'm going to guess he is evoking the dream analogy. All the characters in the dream, are ~you~. So any character in the dream has no doership, all characters arise out of your own consciousness. Let's just stick with my explanation for now. That thoughts and actions are not actually formed in the skull they are formed in the immediate environment, much like what's happening now. The contents of the skull when perceived correctly is just a crystal clear mirror. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 16:07:24 GMT -5
I'm going to guess he is evoking the dream analogy. All the characters in the dream, are ~you~. So any character in the dream has no doership, all characters arise out of your own consciousness. Let's just stick with my explanation for now. That thoughts and actions are not actually formed in the skull they are formed in the immediate environment, much like what's happening now. The contents of the skull when perceived correctly is just a crystal clear mirror. OK. I just gave my view on the Purification thread, responding to satch. I see you have found it. |
|
