Is Daoism and Taosim the same thing?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Newton1
no no...it's more like Dao(in cantanese or mandarin is same)

I have a native english speaking friend who translates chinese for a living. He hears both the T and D sound, and so do I, however, I do agree that the temptation is to translate the sound as D.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by totoro
i also don't know much about buddhism. in buddhism you need to release all your emotion and everything external in order to achieve nirvana. for example become a monk. for me, we don't have to become a monk or release everything to live a happy life. we just have to enjoy everything that come out of our mind. for example, if you can enjoy the pressure from yourself and others, then you will know the true enjoyment.

i'm not here so say that buddhism is wrong. the's a man who release his suffering and become a monk, then he realized that he just release the suffering of his own but make suffering for his family. for me i will not do anything just for my own enjoyment and leave my family behind.

A number of vietnam veterans and others suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder become almost addicted to meditation as a coping mechanism. Fortunately it is possible to do just about anything while meditating and one need not become a monk. One friend of mine, for example, meditates while typing, showering, or whatever. Driving in contentious Los Angeles traffic, he says, presents the biggest challange for him.

A common practice among Buddhists is to wait until the kids are grown and then attend a monestary for a few months or years. This is similar to the trend of retiring warriors to choose to go to a monestary as a way to pay for their sins. Raising a family can distract one from a path dedicated more pointedly to personal growth.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by totoro

i'm not here so say that buddhism is wrong. the's a man who release his suffering and become a monk, then he realized that he just release the suffering of his own but make suffering for his family. for me i will not do anything just for my own enjoyment and leave my family behind.

maybe you think become a monk will make the family suffer
but i think become a monk is better than suicide
buddhism had help many people choose to alive
although i am don't encourage people to become a monk
but i don't think this is a bad thing
buddhist really help many people, but they never pursuade a people become a buddhist when they help a people

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Buddha promoted a path that broke with the traditional cast system of India. His path is often called the "middle path" because it advocates something between the ascetic and hedonistic and welcomes people from all walks of life. That isn't to say he promoted the belief it was impossible to become enlightened any other way, just that most people require disciplined efforts towards achieving enlightenment. For example, supposidly the Buddha once walked out on stage to address an audience and said nothing, he just held up a lotus flower for the audience to see and one of his followers became enlightened.

I suspect we are going to have to agree to disagree about what the Buddha taught, which is of course perfectly okay.

The reason the Buddha coined the term "the middle way," was due to the disposition of most of his original followers. Their emphasis on self-mortification and reflection on Truth was a standard begun during a period in first millennium B.C. India when old tribal units were breaking up, and many individuals were no longer satisfied with the rituals and speculations of the ancient Vedic religion.

Leaving family and social responsibilities behind, along with caste distinctions, thousands of men took to the forests and roads to live a hermit’s life and explore the inner self (the sramana and yati traditions, for example). As a result of intense dedication to the search, within two centuries numerous philosophies, turning-inward methods, austerities, teachers and sects became available for seekers to assay (the insights from some of them became the basis for early Upanishad writings).

This grand experiment was a convergence of inner savants that parallels (IMHO) the brilliant concurrence of physicists in the first half of twentieth century exploring quantum and universal laws. Similar too was the ascetics’ decidedly unsentimental investigative approach, with its emphasis on the development and application of inner technologies.

It was the momentum of this ascetic and philosophical movement, plus the apparent dedication of its participants, that attracted Gautama Siddhartha after leaving home as a young man; and it was also the community where as a Buddha he first taught and from which he gathered disciples. Understanding the Buddha’s environment and his disciples’ yogic bent is crucial to one's study of the phenomenon of enlightenment; that’s because of the difficulty many people have had in distinguishing the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment from his methods for teaching others how to achieve the experience.

Buddhism today, as a popular religion, is often explained in terms of the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path, as though these precepts are the core principles of the Buddha’s teaching. But the Buddha’s instruction on the Middle Way was a communication aimed specifically at his audience of ascetics, some of whom might be found staring all day at the sun, covered in cow manure, hanging tortuously from ropes, fasting to the brink of starvation, or in other predicaments that required so much effort no energy was left for what really is the core principle of enlightenment—turning inward.

The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are likewise part of the Buddha’s turning-inward discipline. The message of the Four Noble Truths is that suffering is caused by seeking lasting satisfaction “outside” one’s being, and that suffering can be eliminated if one stops desiring outside fulfillment. The Eightfold Path is “right” ways of behaving to help one stay aimed toward, and practice, turning inward. This is why it is safe to say that the core principle of the Buddha’s teaching is first to practice inward-turning meditation daily (with the objective of attaining samadhi), combined with striving every moment to stay in touch with the inner experience one has acquired through the day’s inward-turning meditation.

Originally posted by wuliheron
The enlightened still think, as the Buddha himself demonstrated. To assert otherwise is absurd and just proves my point that it is difficult to talk intelligibly about enlightenment.

You misterpreted what I said. I did NOT say one who has attained enlightenment never thinks! What I said was, that it is possible to attain complete stillness of the mind, and one can thoroughly enjoy that experience without having a single thought about "nothing" or anything else. Of course if you want to think you can. But if you believe it is easy to attain a still mind, sit down, close your eyes, and see just how much peace your mind gives you. Most people can't shut it up for even a few seconds. I know for a fact it can be stilled, and that the experience is wonderful.

Originally posted by wuliheron
The fat Buddha, by the way, is one of eight standard representations of Buddha. His size represents prosperity, among primitive people being fat is a sign of wealth and often sex appeal. So much myth surrounds people who lived two thousand years ago that you have to take everything with a pound of salt.

Yes, I agree with this. The same is true of the legend of him being a wealthy prince. Most scholars suspect Gautama was the son of a chief of one of the villages that were (and still are) spread all over India. That technically made him a "prince" but probably not one who benefitted from great privilege.

Originally posted by wuliheron
In contrast there is the "Mafia personality" of who-I-am-and-what-I-do-at-work is not who-I-am-what-I-do-at-home. This simply does not apply to such belief systems as Buddhism. Instead, the emphasis is on integration. Integrating our mind, body, soul, work, play, and all of who we are and do is the goal . . . Monks were philosophers, political advisors, teachers, and so much more just as they often are today. Again, the pursuit of enlightenment is as much for cultivating compassion and understanding as anything else. It is an integrative lifestyle, psychology, etc. that either suits who you are at the time or it doesn't.

Well, I've already acknowledged the difference between the religion of "Buddhism" and what the Buddha himself taught. What you say above is pure religion, nicely watered down for the masses, and not what the Buddha taught.

You have to go back in time, mentally, and look strictly at the words of the Buddha, and what he set up. The primary setting was the sangha; that is, it was monastatic life, withdrawn from participation in worldly matters, in order to practice samadhi meditation. Twice a day monks would meditate, and then try to stay within the experience the best they could the rest of the time.

It is true there were also lots of householder followers, and they did have to stay involved in worldly stuff, but while the Buddha was alive at least, he kept the focus on samadhi. But today? Forget it. Without the Buddha's enlightenment to guide, Buddhism. in my opinion, has become just another remnant of something orignially very powerful but which few people understand. Today it seems a vicarious thing, like the way Trekkies gather together wearing Star Trek costumes and such in order to recreate a sense of, and to feel they are part of, the original event.

But individuals who've dedicated their lives to enlightenment (and it hasn't just been Buddhist monks) have been very serious in their devotion. To equate the relatively lightweight efforts of the religious to that has always seemed inappropriate to me.

Originally posted by wuliheron
Fortunately it is possible to do just about anything while meditating and one need not become a monk. One friend of mine, for example, meditates while typing, showering, or whatever. Driving in contentious Los Angeles traffic, he says, presents the biggest challange for him.

I just couldn't let this go . . . I disagree so much with this popular concept. It is really a great example of "translating down" that people do so they can claim they are practicing.

The term “meditation” has many meanings, but only that meditation which works at merging, or samadhi, is the Buddha’s method. The inward-turning methods of samadhi that the Buddha taught were very specific in their focus; there was nothing vague about them (although the methods themselves were kept secret from non-initiates, as they still are).

That is why some so-called meditation practices do not make much sense as inward-turning techniques, such as staring at a candle, contemplating a mandala or focusing on anything else outside oneself (right?). Similarly, relative to the direct path of samadhi, one must regard chanting, purely repetitive mantras, trance, self-hypnosis, and really all other indirect or mental practices as “outward.” That is not to say the practices don’t have value, it’s just that they are different from the practice of samadhi.

So how can you drive a car and turn inward at the same time? I mean, your attention is (hopefully) focused "out there," as it should be when driving a car. I've practiced for 30 years, and I can tell you it cannot be done. To successfully attain union one has to be very still, disassociate from the senses and mentality, turn one's attention 180 degrees around, and gradually let go to a bright and powerful "something" one learns to locate within.

I will agree that after one attains union/samadhi, there is a subtle effort one can make to stay in it. One might refer to that as "preserving" one's meditation. But if one hasn't attained samadhi to begin with, then how can one preserve it while, say, driving a car?

BTW, this sort of "preserving" practice is exactly what I believe the Four Noble Truths were, and especially the Eightfold Path (except, obviously, for the eighth step).

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The reason the Buddha coined the term "the middle way," was due to the disposition of most of his original followers. Their emphasis on self-mortification and reflection on Truth was a standard begun during a period in first millennium B.C. India when old tribal units were breaking up, and many individuals were no longer satisfied with the rituals and speculations of the ancient Vedic religion.

When the British arrived in India they also found a popular religion that revolved around the idea that sexual orgasm could lead to enlightenment. Part of the myth of Buddha being a wealthy prince who choose to become an ascetic is that he went from one extreme to another.

So how can you drive a car and turn inward at the same time? I mean, your attention is (hopefully) focused "out there," as it should be when driving a car. I've practiced for 30 years, and I can tell you it cannot be done. To successfully attain union one has to be very still, disassociate from the senses and mentality, turn one's attention 180 degrees around, and gradually let go to a bright and powerful "something" one learns to locate within.

I will agree that after one attains union/samadhi, there is a subtle effort one can make to stay in it. One might refer to that as "preserving" one's meditation. But if one hasn't attained samadhi to begin with, then how can one preserve it while, say, driving a car?

Actually, the friend I mentioned has attained samadhi but not until after learning how to meditate while driving. Unlike Buddhism which emphasises instant enlightenment and sitting still, Taoism emphasises gradual enlightenment and moving meditations. Meditating in a cave eight hours a day as religious Buddhists monks do is fine, but so is meditating while playing music or whatever. The issue of surrender or acceptance remains the same no matter how you go about achieving the result.

The term “meditation” has many meanings, but only that meditation which works at merging, or samadhi, is the Buddha’s method. The inward-turning methods of samadhi that the Buddha taught were very specific in their focus; there was nothing vague about them (although the methods themselves were kept secret from non-initiates, as they still are).

Zen Buddhists would disagree. A Zen story that illustrates this is of a master who liked to raise one finger when making a point. One of his pupils made fun of him by immitating him behind his back. When he did this one day his master quickly turned around and cut his finger off. In that moment he became enlightened.

Of course, whether you choose to call Zen a philosophy or religion is debatable. Certainly what you are calling Buddhist philosophy is debatable as well. :0)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Actually, the friend I mentioned has attained samadhi but not until after learning how to meditate while driving. Unlike Buddhism which emphasises instant enlightenment and sitting still, Taoism emphasises gradual enlightenment and moving meditations. Meditating in a cave eight hours a day as religious Buddhists monks do is fine, but so is meditating while playing music or whatever. The issue of surrender or acceptance remains the same no matter how you go about achieving the result.

I want to reemphasize that it's okay we are disagreeing, because I completely disagree with you (but that's okay )

There is just no way to practice samadhi while doing something else (except "preserving" as I mentioned). The degree of attention it takes, the withdrawal from the senses, and the inwardness of it completely separates one from external reality for that hour or so of practice.

Maybe your friend does something he calls mediation, and maybe it is beneficial. But it is not the samadhi practice I have been referring too (by the way, the living Buddha's monks did not spend eight hours a day in a cave, it was a couple of hours or so -- what monks have done outside of the Buddha's direction is not his responsibility).

Originally posted by wuliheron
Zen Buddhists would disagree. A Zen story that illustrates this is of a master who liked to raise one finger when making a point. One of his pupils made fun of him by immitating him behind his back. When he did this one day his master quickly turned around and cut his finger off. In that moment he became enlightened.

I don't know if you remember at the old PF site how I distinguished for Manual Silvio the practices of the varioius branches of Zen. What you are describing is from a later school of Zen that had "translated down" what Bodhidarma had brought to China from India. The word "Chan" itself means meditation, and that is what the original Zen centered around. This so-called "enlightenment" from seeing a finger cut off is nothing more than an insight. In my opinion Rinzai and others who altered the original teaching are responsible for misleading a lot of people.

Sure, it would wonderful if you could get enlightenment without having to do all that work. It is like people who offer themselves as consultants with PhD's from a degree mill. They have the degree don't they? Aren't they therefore every bit as qualified as the guy who spent years working his tail off to get his degree?

I have tried all the stuff, from koans to seeing enlightement in every day activities. Actually I like the koans, they can be insight-producing; and trying to stay "present" throughout the day is likewise beneficial. But unless you've undertaken the daily practice of samadhi, you won't be able to really understand how different that experience is. In my experience, there is nothing like it. And after a few years of dedicated practice one can achieve samadhi nearly every morning (or whenever) one practices.

So the reason I don't buy the "instant enlightenment" theory is not just because of my study of the history of it, but also from my personal experience. And I express my disagreement mostly because I think this watering down of the experience is both why people are missing out on something pretty awesome, and why critics wave it off as religion or delusion.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I want to reemphasize that it's okay we are disagreeing, because I completely disagree with you (but that's okay )

Oh yeah, its great to agree to disagree! Makes for wonderful conversation.

So the reason I don't buy the "instant enlightenment" theory is not just because of my study of the history of it, but also from my personal experience. And I express my disagreement mostly because I think this watering down of the experience is both why people are missing out on something pretty awesome, and why critics wave it off as religion or delusion.

The legend of the Buddha himself is that he became enlightened in an instant. Your interpretation of Buddhism and samadhi then defies not only religious Buddhism but most schools of philosophical Buddhism that I'm aware of. Exactly what "old" school you are talking about I have no clue and until I get some serious evidence to the contrary I'll just stick to the more established thought on the subject.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The legend of the Buddha himself is that he became enlightened in an instant. Your interpretation of Buddhism and samadhi then defies not only religious Buddhism but most schools of philosophical Buddhism that I'm aware of. Exactly what "old" school you are talking about I have no clue and until I get some serious evidence to the contrary I'll just stick to the more established thought on the subject.

You are wrong Wuli. First, I am a decent authority on religion, both through formal and many years of supplimental self education. I could put together quotes of experts, including those quotes from early writings of the Buddha's monks, who describe what life was like then. Nothing I've said is much disputed. The mistake you make is to rely on popular religious concepts rather than history and the words of the Buddha himself.

The Buddha may have attained enlightenment in an instant, but he did NOT achieve that instant before spending many years in meditation. And the day it actually occurred, he'd already been sitting under that Bodhi tree for several days because he'd sworn to himself he wasn't leaving until he achieved enlightenment.

The myth of instant enlightenment was a movement started by Rinzai in China, and popularized in Japan when they got a hold of it. Of course the masses grabbed it, it was easy! But that view of it not only contradicts everything the Buddha taught (and most later masters taught), but it disagrees with every case of genuine enlightenment I've found in my research into the phenomenon (consider possibly the greatest Chan master of all time, Joshu, who spent forty years meditating before realizing).

If you want to look at it in Western culture, consider the mystical saints of Christianity. Everyone of them who'd managed to be recognized as having self realized were devotees of "union prayer" as some called it, or "prayer of the heart." All the great Orthodox monks, Teresa, John of the Cross, Brother Lawrence, Meister Eckhart . . . all of them spent hours daily attempting union. Teresa of Avila, for instance, worked at it over forty years.

The early Greek monastaries of Byzantium has given us the great writings of the Philokalia, and it reveals how important union prayer was. Consider this quote from Gregory Palamas, the then archbishop of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century, as he counsels a young monk. First the monk asks, “Some say that we do wrong to try and confine the mind within the body . . . and write against them for advising beginners to look into themselves and, through breathing, to lead their minds within, for . . . if mind is not separate from soul, but is joined with it, how can it be reintroduced within? I beg you my father, teach me how and why we take special care to try and lead the mind within and do not think it wrong to confine it in the body.”

To this Gregory answered, “For those who keep attention in themselves in silence it is not unprofitable to try to hold their mind within the body. Brother! Do you not hear the Apostle [Paul] saying that ‘your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you’ [I Cor. 6:19], and again, that ‘ye are the temple of God’ [I Cor. 6:16], as God also says, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God.’ [II Cor. 3:16]? Who then, possessing a mind, will deem it unseemly to introduce his mind into that which has been granted the honour of being the dwelling of God? How is it that God himself in the beginning put the mind into the body? Has He too done wrong?”

So, I say if it is popularized, watered down, faddish, made-easy enlighenment one wants, then by all means join a religion, or accept their dogma, so one can utterly ignore the teachings of the individual who actually realized in the first place.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are wrong Wuli. First, I am a decent authority on religion, both through formal and many years of supplimental self education...

The Buddha may have attained enlightenment in an instant, but he did NOT achieve that instant before spending many years in meditation. And the day it actually occurred, he'd already been sitting under that Bodhi tree for several days because he'd sworn to himself he wasn't leaving until he achieved enlightenment.

The myth of instant enlightenment was a movement started by Rinzai in China, and popularized in Japan when they got a hold of it. Of course the masses grabbed it, it was easy! But that view of it not only contradicts everything the Buddha taught (and most later masters taught), but it disagrees with every case of genuine enlightenment I've found in my research into the phenomenon (consider possibly the greatest Chan master of all time, Joshu, who spent forty years meditating before realizing)...

So, I say if it is popularized, watered down, faddish, made-easy enlighenment one wants, then by all means join a religion, or accept their dogma, so one can utterly ignore the teachings of the individual who actually realized in the first place.

I definitely get the impression you have studied the subject, but even Buddhists value the beginners mind. :0)

I understand that the Buddha spent years working up to his enlightenment, but an important aspect of his teaching of instant enlightenment predates Rinzai to the best of my knowledge. As I've already said, writings predating Rensai describe five states of consciousness and, of course, that all of these except samadhi are illusory. One might meditate in a cave all day and achieve any number of higher mental states without achieving enlightenment.

The journey of working to achieve samadhi in other words is also illusory and the reality is unity. As the Buddha said, "The past is only a memory, the future is only a dream." Nothing in Buddhist literature that I know of suggests otherwise except, of course, the law of Karma in religious Buddhism.

From what I've read of people who have studied supposidly enlightened beings, they tend to slip out of samadhi once in a while, perhaps a few times a day, but have acquired the skills to quickly jump right back. Whatever the case might be, the transition itself is instantaneous, spontanious, and present centered. That is, it does not require any acquired skills or cognition to maintain.

The idea that enlightenment can only be had in the moment of stillness while sitting in a cave or whatever is wholly foreign to me. I've never come across it anywhere in Buddhist literature no matter how old. When you say you attain enlightenment every morning only to loose it the minute you stop meditating quietly it is as strange an assertion on the subject as any I have ever come across.

Your analogies with western mystical tradition are interesting, but unless you can come up with varified documentation of your interpretation dating from around the time of the Buddha, again, I will have to stick with the more traditional view of the subject. This is not to say I believe practice is any less valuable, merely that lightning does perhaps strike once in a blue-blue moon and that for all I know enlightened people do drive cars without becoming unenlightened in the process.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
The journey of working to achieve samadhi in other words is also illusory and the reality is unity. As the Buddha said, "The past is only a memory, the future is only a dream." Nothing in Buddhist literature that I know of suggests otherwise except, of course, the law of Karma in religious Buddhism.

If the journey is an illusion, then why did the Buddha set up the Sangha, and live there himself for forty years? For most monks, the whole thing is a journey since relatively few ever attain full and permanent enlightment, or "nirvana." But everyone who understands how to practice samadhi meditation can experience the joy of merging and the peace it brings to one's life, fully enlightened or not.

Originally posted by wuliheron
From what I've read of people who have studied supposidly enlightened beings, they tend to slip out of samadhi once in a while, perhaps a few times a day, but have acquired the skills to quickly jump right back. Whatever the case might be, the transition itself is instantaneous, spontanious, and present centered. That is, it does not require any acquired skills or cognition to maintain. . . . When you say you attain enlightenment every morning only to loose it the minute you stop meditating quietly it is as strange an assertion on the subject as any I have ever come across.

Well, you are a bit confused. Samadhi is not a permanent sort of enlightenment. Samadhi, the eighth step of the Eightfold Path, is the goal of a certain type of meditation. The word means "union" and it can be achieved by anyone who practices regularly and correctly. Inside each of us is something I would describe as an energetic, pulsating brightness. Through specific methods one can learn to be quietly with it, breathe in harmony with it, and relax so completely into it that at some point one's attention and it "unite." Let me quote a description by Teresa of Avila, a 16th century nun and a good example because she wrote explicitly about union experience.

The following are parts of an often-quoted passage from "The Way of Perfection" on how she practiced union through three stages of contemplative or inner prayer: recollection, quiet, and then finally union. In the recollection phase of union prayer Teresa says, “the soul collects its faculties together and enters within itself . . .” In other words, an individual withdraws his or her attention from the senses and mind and allows that energy to return to, or be “recollected” by, the innermost being. The next stage of union prayer is the “quiet” which Teresa says is, “something we cannot procure through our own efforts. In it the soul enters into peace . . . The soul understands in another way, very foreign to the way it understands through the exterior senses . . . that not much more would be required for it to become one . . . in union.” Now Teresa says the inner practitioner is ready for the final stage of prayer she calls union where awareness, “neither sees, nor hears, nor understands . . . for the union is always short and seems . . . even much shorter than it probably is.”

In an even more revealing passage, taken from her first work "Life," Teresa describes union prayer: “And I say that if this prayer is the union of all the faculties, the soul is unable to communicate its joy even though it may desire to do so—I mean while being in the prayer. And if it were able, then this wouldn’t be union. How this prayer they call union comes about and what it is . . . . we already know since it means that two separate things become one. . . . While the soul is seeking God in this way, it feels with the most marvelous and gentlest delight that everything is almost fading away through a kind of swoon in which breathing and all the bodily energies gradually fail.” (Here you see Teresa interpreting the brightness she is merging with as God, and what is merging with God as her soul. But, as the Buddha demonstrated, one doesn't have to give any interpretation to it in order to achieve union.)

So, those who practice know full union is temporary, but partial union can easily be maintained with some care, and there are other powerful residual effects which make it very worthwhile to practice. Full and permanent enlightenment, as I said, is what the Buddha called "nirvana." It is rare.

Originally posted by wuliheron
The idea that enlightenment can only be had in the moment of stillness while sitting in a cave or whatever is wholly foreign to me. I've never come across it anywhere in Buddhist literature no matter how old.

I don't know what to say here except you haven't done your homework. The pursuit of enlightement is listed in religious studies (my field) under the heading of "mysticism." It is common to every major religion. Study it Wuli, you will find this "instant enlightenment" claim is the exception, not the rule. In my humble opinion, it is total BS dreamt up by a lazy monk wanting to take a seat as a "master."

Originally posted by wuliheron
Your analogies with western mystical tradition are interesting, but unless you can come up with varified documentation of your interpretation dating from around the time of the Buddha, again, I will have to stick with the more traditional view of the subject. This is not to say I believe practice is any less valuable, merely that lightning does perhaps strike once in a blue-blue moon and that for all I know enlightened people do drive cars without becoming unenlightened in the process.

I could very definitely do that, practically with one hand tied behind my back, but again, I think it is you who must pursue this if you are interested enough (or you can wait for my book to come out ).

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

I could very definitely do that, practically with one hand tied behind my back, but again, I think it is you who must pursue this if you are interested enough (or you can wait for my book to come out ).

Or you could send me a few excerts. We could swap if you'd like to see more of my own work. :0)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Or you could send me a few excerts. We could swap if you'd like to see more of my own work. :0)

Okay, but not for awhile. I have been playing hooky from work I need to do. Thanks for the interesting discussion here -- I hope MajinVegeta thought our exchange was "enlightening."