Dogen Sangha Blog

  by Gudo NISHIJIMA

Japanese / German

Saturday, December 3, 2005

Estimation of Idealism and Materialism

Eaven though Buddhism criticises Idealism and Maereialism, we should never esteem the value of Idealism and Materialism light. Because both Idealism and Materialism have promoted human civilizations so enormously in many important points for thousands of years, and so we can never think the historical value of Idealism and materialism light at all.
In the case of Idealism, the history of Idealism might trace back to the origine of human beings, but even in the history it traces back to the Ancient Greece. A Greek philosopher, called Platon (427-347B.C.), insisted that all things and phenomena in this world are functions of reason, and the external world, which we can perceive, are all images of reason. And to proove such facts, he utilized the universal existences of mathemaic principles through the world. He insists that all things and phenomena are reasonable, therefore we can understand every thing on the basis of reasonable theory. And I think that the reverence of reason in European countries was so important for development of the Western Civilization.
The Idealism met with Christianity when Christianity entered into Roman Empire, and it is said that the famous Christian Father, called Augustinus, relied upon Platonic philosofical system, and also a very famous Theologian, called Thomas Aquinas in the medieval times, is based on Aristoteles's philosophical system, who was a student of Platon.
Furthermore in the modern age, Decartes, Spinoza, Leipniz, and so forth, had also tendency of Idealistic thoughts to, and later in Germany, there was a powerful lineage of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and so forth, which was called the German Idealism, and they insisted their idealistic thoughta so clearly. Among them, for example, Hegel insisted that all thinges and phenomena of the world are manifestation of the World Spirit.

26 Comments:

Blogger Mike Cross said...

Dear Nishijima Roshi,

I do not agree at all with the viewpoint which criticizes you for confusing Buddhist teaching with western philosophical and scientific endeavor. Following your brave example to try to clarify what Buddhism is on the basis of the Western thought, I made my own decision to clarify what Buddhism is on the basis of the discoveries of FM Alexander, and I do not regret that decision for one moment--even though the decision caused such a great rift to open between us.

Also following your example, I have opened my own blog. I think that I am always stupidly following your example. It is a bitter irony that by following your example, I caused you to doubt me. Anyway, if you have a moment, please visit my blog.

http://the-middle-way.blogspot.com

6:26 PM, December 03, 2005  
Blogger Alexander Teacher said...

Please do not judge the Alexander Technique based on the behaviour of Mike Cross.

9:28 PM, December 03, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

I think it's interesting that a lot of non-scholarly Westerners seem to think Buddhism is a minor variation on existentialism.

I think the Buddhist principles of anatman, and right and wrong action clearly demonstrate that the differences aren't minor. But I keep running into people who have this idea...

2:55 AM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Mike Cross said...

Alexander Teacher, My heart sank to read your comment. But, yes, it is true. I have made a complete mess of the effort to demonstrate within Dogen Sangha the value of FM Alexander's discoveries. My own ego has been hugely in the way. It has been one long exercise in greedy 'end-gaining,' angry recriminations, and a deluded sense of my own self-importance.

Maybe you can succeed where I have, so miserably, failed?

3:05 AM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Michael said...

Hey Jules,

From my own standpoint, I wonder why comparisons have to be made at all. It seems to me that often they're comparisons of apples to oranges, anyway.
I think all the philosophies/viewpoints being discussed here stand or fall on their own merits or lack thereof, subjectively speaking.
I know that when I try to compare viewpoints, it's often done with an eye to making the unfamiliar seem less so by seeking to corroborate that with which I'm pretty familiar through that with which I'm not. In other words, I try, often subconsciously, to make the unfamiliar fit within my frame of reference and all the baggage, cultural and otherwise, that's attached.
I'm working toward accepting things at face value, on their own merits, without putting too much of a subjective spin on them.
Needless to say, my progress is measured in baby steps.

5:43 AM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger reallynotimportant said...

michael: " I try, often subconsciously, to make the unfamiliar fit within my frame of reference and all the baggage, cultural and otherwise, that's attached"

This is the heart of the matter. We all do it. It is 'normal'. All of these things are used to give us a sense of 'Self' and to help us to make sense of the world.

Thus, zen buddhism is so hard to define because it doesn't fit anything.

Hence, the different rantings from people because what they read doesn't fit in with what they belive "Buddhism" SHOULD be.

5:56 AM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Mike Cross said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:16 PM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Pierre Turlur said...

Dear Anonymous Alexander teacher, thank you for reminding Mike Cross that he is a fool and reminding all of us that abstaining from judgements is a good start. may be it would be nice if you could join the club and practice what you preach.

I know the bloke a bit ( Mike Cross), one thing is for sure: he is a mountain of integrity and has never pretended to get anything right, at least lately. Quite the opposite, he sees more and more clearly how often and how much he misses the point, his life, the truth.

So, please, take his challenge seriously. Why don't you try to show all of us what is right?

Good luck.

9:01 PM, December 04, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

Pierre Turlur wrote: So, please, take his challenge seriously. Why don't you try to show all of us what is right?

Or even better, take it somewhere else, like to one of Mike Cross' blogs. This is Nishijima's blog about Zen Buddhism. Anyone who is interested in the Alexander technique can find mountains of information through Google or Wikipedia, or buying Alexander's books.

If I was selling Turnip Twaddlers(tm) I wouldn't spam every post in your blog with comments about them. Even if your blog was about turnips, which it's not. It would be rude.

3:31 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Mike Cross said...

Nishijima Roshi taught me that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophical search. A search for the truth. He taught me to search not only in the narrow confines of Zen Buddhist temples and Zen Buddhist writings but in books of western philosophy, and books of physiology. Above all he taught me to trust myself totally to the practice of Zazen, with no holds barred, and let others judge my actions as good or bad, polite or rude. In return I served him for many years in his effort to translate Shobogenzo into English. So I think I deserve to have my say on his blog, and am grateful to have the opportunity to do so. I am very grateful that Nishijima Roshi has included my webpage on his own links.

My Zazen life brought me to the Alexander Technique. I wholeheartedly believe that FM Alexander re-discovered the secret of Zen for our time. I am not a veteran, either of Nishijima Roshi's Buddhism or of the Alexander Techique. God forbid that anyone should judge either Way by my immature reactions. But is it forbidden for me, just because I am still immature in my Buddhist practice, to proclaim my wholehearted belief,in the truth of FM Alexander's discoveries? Who are you to tell Alexander Teacher to take his comments elsewhere? Who the hell are you? What service have you performed for Buddhism? What have you given up for Buddhism?

5:27 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Pierre Turlur said...

Dear Jules, Quite an interesting metaphor ( it happens that I am very familiar with vegetables, as I work in a supermarket), unfortunately Buddhism is not for sale like turnips. No zazen on shelves.

I think you think that you know what Zen Buddhism is. That is the only real problem. Don't worry, it is also mine. Good old arrogance. Your belief is getting in the way. Let me just invite you to experience an Alexander Technique lesson and then you might be able to understand the difference between sitting as fixation and sitting as a process. Better, you'll be able to experience the difference between the same and the identical. That subtle difference is a wonderful direction that all Buddhist patriarchs have transmitted: the practice of the ineffable, suchness. In real sitting there are no differences between Zen and AT, for the simple reason that there is no Zen and AT anymore! I remember writing this poem for Nishijima Roshi:

"Face to face.
Mind in Mind.
No trace is left.
Fish swimming. Birds flying.
Endless water and sky.
The old Gudo calls it the no direction of ten directions "

The rudeness, Jules, is to assume that we understand. You are rude, Jules even if every fiber of your being feels that this Mike Cross is an absolute disgrace.

We are always looking for traces,beliefs and gospels. Dogen wrote Genjokoan for guys like you and me: an invitation for us to release the grip. We bring along many expectations, and the invitation is to drop all of them on the cushion. One you can always start with is the one about zazen and goody-goody behaviour. The real dragon is quite fierce and without mercy. It kills my-your-everybody's stupidity on the spot.

Come on, Jules, have a go! wear the kesa, sit, listen to birds ( Kannon's activity) and as Sekito Kisen says in his Song of the Grass-Roof hermitage:

(...)let go of hundreds of years and relax completely.

And if you want, we'll talk about it again.

Meanwhile, enjoy your life and visit this other annoying blog of Mike's friend and student( me ): blue mountain.

6:15 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

Mike,
I hope nobody has given up anything or made any sacrifices at all for Buddhism, I think that would be a mistake.

Assuming for the moment that you and alexander teacher are two different people, alexander teacher's comments so far have been very polite, and non-proselytizing. I welcome any comments he/she might want to make about Nishijima's original posts or other topical subjects, and I hope he/she didn't take any offense at my comment, as it wasn't meant to offend.

In fact, I did some investigation on my own of FM Alexander when you first started posting about it, and it looks like it might be a very valuable practice for some people. I have taken kinesthesiology classes, and I know that kind of thing can be very valuable. But it's not Buddhism.

If Nishijima thinks it's interesting and wants to begin a discussion about the Alexander technique, more power to him. It's his blog. If he does that, I hope you, Pierre, and Alexander Teacher wax eloquent in the comments on the many wonders of the Alexander technique. But that's not the stated purpose of this blog, and it's completely unrelated to the "Estimation of Idealism and Materialism," which is supposed to be the subject of this particular conversation.

If a few Mormons came in here and started commenting in every single blog entry with a post about how Mormonism is the Way, I don't think it would be unreasonable to ask them to take it somewhere else, even if they claimed Mormonism was really True Buddhism. I'm sure they would be very sincere in their beliefs, and probably sincere in their intention to help all of us infidels. But that still wouldn't make Mormonism an appropriate topic for this blog, unless Nishijima explicitly made it so.

Now, it's not my blog. I'm sure nobody wants to read all this confrontational crap. So in the interest of not contributing further to the MOUNTAIN of non-Buddhism-related posts on this blog, this will be my last post on this issue. But I am really tired of hearing about FM Alexander, and I bet I'm not the only one.

There are people here who seem interested in the Alexander technique. I'm sure that those people would not find it a great burden to visit your blogs when they would like to join in a conversation about that subject. Thanks to Nishijima, they even have a convenient link to take them from here to there, if they so choose. So it is no longer necessary to hijack every single blog entry Nishijima makes, in order to sell your Alexander services.

7:00 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Michael said...

Hi Jules,

Isn't that a little harsh? I get where you're coming from in terms of not wanting Nishijima-sensei's blog to stray too far off-topic, and I agree. I'm not being gratuitous or trying to mollify you, either.
That said, Mike Cross wrote this about Nishijima-sensei's approach to spiritual inquiry:

"He taught me to search not only in the narrow confines of Zen Buddhist temples and Zen Buddhist writings but in books of western philosophy, and books of physiology."

So, I think these digressions, if they are digressions, really are quite useful. EVERYTHING is interrelated. Everything has the potential to be a skilfull means (uppaya) to helping a person immeasurably in advancing in his/her practice.
In my opinion -- and it's my opinion only -- it would be like rejecting a viewpoint because it's "not Zen enough," and thereby missing the inherent message.
In fact, any opinion or, for that matter, life circumstance can be a teacher, I believe, and is a potential signpost on the path -- if for no other reason then you vehemently disagree with it and thus can focus your efforts elsewhere.
I'm really enjoying these exchanges because I'm very interested in what people have to say.
I'm learning, and that's the main thing for me.

Michael

9:44 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Michael said...

Two quotes just came to mind that I think illustrate the point I was trying to make better than my previous post did:

"Wax on, wax off." (Mr. Miyagi, "The Karate Kid, Part I")

"Throw mudpies at EVERYBODY." (Old Zen saying)

10:02 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

Michael,
Sure, everything is interrelated. But I'm happy the Mormons aren't also posting their agendas here. You're stretching pretty far if you're saying that the Alexander Technique is related to the "Estimation of Idealism and Materialism." Mike's not interested in the topic of conversation Nishijima-sensei began. He's got an agenda, which has found its way into almost every entry in this blog.

Like I said, if Nishijima-sensei's post is on a related topic, no problem. But Mike's goal isn't give-and-take discussion, he's just proselytizing. Also known as comment spam.

Yes, it is a little harsh, and that's just exactly how I intend it. In the interest of minimizing off-topic nonsense, I'll keep this short. There are plenty of places to find out about blog etiquette. I think a harsh response is appropriate to a repeated pattern of rude behavior.

10:28 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

(deep breath)
...aaaah...

And now, to get back on-topic. I think a lot of Buddhist philosophers make the same mistakes some of the German Idealists did - putting together a model of the Universe in their heads and trying to make the world conform to the model.

I don't pretend to know what Buddhism is.
I think I do have some OK ideas about what Buddhism is not, though. But I make the same mistake sometimes, think I've got the Way, proud of Buddhism's superiority over all those misguided Christian doctrines. I catch myself being guilty of that misguided thought occasionally, when I run across some of the more particularly dumb things people do. But it's just another model, just another doctrine, just another ideal. At least this teaching points at the falsehood all ideals.

I think Nishijima's book, "To Meet the Real Dragon" mentioned that the European Dark Ages were the direct result of an attempt to make reality match an ideal.

But most people, who can see that there are no ideals that can truly represent reality, start to think Materialism is the truth. Frustrated with all attempts at Idealism, they swing to the other extreme. Whoops. What's in the middle? I don't know.

11:02 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Michael said...

Hey Jules,

I'm at a handicap insofar as I had never heard of the Alexander method until I read about it on this blog. So, I "won't go there," as they say, and speak about that of which I know nothing.
As for whether someone has an agenda (and all the insincerity that often goes hand-in-hand with agendas), I would think that the only people ultimately being fooled are the ones trying to fool others. Maybe I'm naive.
But I think we're missing a key viewpoint here. Nishijima-sensei, what do you think of the different topics being discussed thus far on your blog?
Anyway, Jules, I'm interested in your comments about Buddhist philosophers creating their own reality (little "r") and then trying to make Reality (big "R") conform to it. I can see how people would become very disillusioned.
I wonder if this cycle can be broken. It seems to me that everything we do and think -- even, arguably, the act of dying -- is the product of our perspective.
I'd love to get to that middle point that you talked about in your post.

11:33 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

Michael,
Yeah, me too. :-)

11:35 AM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Lone Wolf said...

Ideals huh well I would say that most of the religions have benefited the world in some way. What would the westeren world be without Chritianity? I'm not sure it would be a better world. At least Christiantiy teaches a since of morals and love thy neighbor and all that good stuff.(That doesn't make me want to convert and be a Christian though) I mean there is far more less benefiting ideals out there.(like being an atheist who just wants to please his ego as much as he can be for he doesn't exist anymore. So screw as much people over as you can to get as much wealth, fame, pleasure etc. as one can) Now it seems to become a problem when people get fanatical and lose balance. If you start to bomb abortion clinics because your pro-life that a bit extreme. It would be better if every religion had the idea(which buddhism teaches) to respect other religions and ideals. As long as they don't phisically hurt anyone believe in whatever floats your boat. But when ideals start to cause conflict like War or arguing over the Alexander Techinque or being an arrogant converter of Chritianity looking down at the poor soul that is going to hell cause he hasn't said the words"Christ come into my heart" is going a little to far with ones Ideals. I mean there just Ideals even Buddhism. Thats what I like about Buddhism it doesn't advocate converting at all. So if your thing is Buddhism, Alexander technique, thinking Elvis is god, Bunji jumping being the ultimate spiritual experience by all means enjoy those things but to argue over them or try to convert everyone to that way(that could even be saying that you shouldn't be talking about the alexander technique, another idea) or even the stuff I'm saying here. Enjoy what you enjoy for the sake of enjoying. I like Sag Paneer, I use to try to take everyone to the Indian Restraunt to each Sag Paneer. Almost no one else likes it. Thats fine. I'm not going to say "you are so stupid for not likeing Sag paneer." or "How could you say you don't like Sag Paneer get out of my face." Anyways just some thoughts, I hope everyone takes what I say with a humorous mind and a huge grain of salt. I was just thinking about the value of Idealism. It seems to cause trouble when it hurts others or when people believe that its the ultimate truth and that everybody should do it cause I'm living the truth.

4:26 PM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Pierre Turlur said...

Dear Jules,

How can you be tired to hear about FM Alexander when you are so obviously deprived of the faculty of listening?

How interesting to see that you start to show your real face.

You are somebody I would be pleased to teach for you are so much like me (you would not like it though, would you?)

I am nevertheless happy of being accused to make spam, hijacking Nishijima's blog entries and produce non Buddhist comments.

I bow to the Buddhist patriarchs and birds and all things.

As to know if Nishijima roshi is the victim of two of his heirs, I doubt he thinks so. Nishijima is a very open mind, and the discussion you witness without understanding has been going for a long time.

Let us all read fukanzazengi and let us allow us to become it.

Let us meet again where things are real.

Zafu. Kesa. Shaved head. Wall.

ZAZEN!!!


Be well, Jules.

5:49 PM, December 05, 2005  
Blogger Jules said...

Pierre wrote:
Dear Anonymous Alexander teacher, thank you for reminding Mike Cross that he is a fool and reminding all of us that abstaining from judgements is a good start. may be it would be nice if you could join the club and practice what you preach.

I know the bloke a bit ( Mike Cross), one thing is for sure: he is a mountain of integrity and has never pretended to get anything right, at least lately. Quite the opposite, he sees more and more clearly how often and how much he misses the point, his life, the truth.

So, please, take his challenge seriously. Why don't you try to show all of us what is right?


Pierre,
You accuse me of being two-faced. Your first post (quoted above) seems to imply that you only have a casual association with Mike. Now you reveal that you're his Dharma heir. I don't believe I have misrepresented my real position. My honest attitude has changed from respectful politeness to frustration because I'm obviously not getting through to you or Mike.

Well, I think I've made my point as clearly as it can be made. My previous posts speak for themselves. This conversation is starting to remind me of a bunch of crows squawking at each other, making a lot of noise, but no real communication is taking place. Am I the only crow who doesn't claim to be a certified Zen Master? Well, I'm done being a crow. No more squawking from me. Bye now.

4:32 AM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger monkey mind said...

Dear Nishijima,

You might find that Spinoza's philosophy is much more "realist" than "idealist". Spinoza argued that there is only one substance, which he called "God or nature". He said that thought (or mind) and extension (or matter) were just 2 attributes of this one substance--he didn't try to reduce mind to matter or matter to mind.

Interestingly, in his own time Spinoza was denounced by some as being an atheist, and by others as being a religious mystic.

7:51 AM, December 06, 2005  
Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

For Mike Cross San

I do not use the Sanskrit word Karma as a deterministic word of past conducts.

The denial of Idealism and Materialism belong to the area of intellectual consideration, and the dropping off body and mind belong to the practical area, and it is not necessary to say so deliberately.

I hope that you will study the latter,the area of practice, intellectually too.

I hope that you will study the dimensional difference between intellectual consideration and practical act. I think that it is important for you to recognize the dimensional difference between consideration and act.

I would like to ask you not to flee to a poem.


For soundchaser San

Thank you very much for you to quote my sntences.


For Michael San

Anyone does not say the importance of classification, but it is very important for us to distiguish the Truth from the falsehood.


For soundchaser San

As you say, I think that it is very important for us not to be drowned in the ocean of thoughts, or Idealism and Materialism.

Therefore Zazen is important.

It is true that the reason, why Master Dogen was so diligent to pursue the philosophical theory, came from that he wanted that we human beings would not fall
into the pitfalls, and we can say that Idealism and Materialism are both beliefs.


For Jules San

Frankly soeaking, I do not know whether capitalism is a materialistic approach to social organization, while anarcho-socialism and anarco-syndicalism are idealistic approaches, but I agree with your idea that the political and economical conditions of the world are going to become better gradually.


For Michael San

The simile of listen to radio to practicing Zazen was many times used by Master Kodo Sawaki in his Buddhist lectures. And I think that it is very nice simili to Zazen.


For Mike Cross San

I think that it is very dangerous for us to mix Buddhism with other philosophical system easily.

11:48 AM, February 20, 2006  
Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

For mike cross San

I have never criticized the confusion of Buddhist philosophy and Western philosophies at all, but my effors, which I have done for more than 60 years, are for me to combine Buddhist philosophy with Western philosophies on the basis of Western logic completely. My reverence of Buddhism is not so light. I think that your easy comparison between Alexander Techinic and Buddhism seems to me very serious blame or slander of Buddhism. I think that Alexander Techinic should be revered as Alexander Techinic and Buddhism should be revered as Buddhism.

The easy combination between the two can never be permitted. I will read your blog soon, but frankly speaking it is very uncomfortable for me to read your identification between Alexader Techinic and Buddhism.

I think that you should select only one between the two.


Alexander Teacher San

I feel the possibility, which you suggested me, and so I would like to study it in future.


For Jule San

I feel much interest what you said, but I do not know the variation is minor, or not.

I expect that by understanding the true Buddhist Therory the World civilizatin will enter into the brillian Age of Realism.


For Mike Cross San

I think that your reflection now is great and valuable. Buddhists should never become angry, is the one of the absolute criteria in Buddhism.

Please don't worry about the situations. Everythink exists only just at the present moment.


For Michael San

It is not the problem of comparison, but whether we can find the absolute Truth, or not.


For ReallyNotImportant San

If your situations are happy and satisfactory, there is no problem.

Unfortunately I do not know about zen buddism at all.

Fortunately what you have said doesn't exist on the earth at all.


For Pierre Turlur San

I think that what you said about Mike Cross San might be true from one viewpoint.

4:39 PM, February 20, 2006  
Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

For Jule San

I agree with your idea. Because Buddhism is a very exact philosophical system, and so we should discuss it very logically. Therefore it is better for us to discuss miscellaneous problems separately.


For Mike Cross San

Of course everyone has his or her perfect freedom to say everything, but at the same time everyone should say his or her opinion logically and understandably, not emotionally.

I think that before you insist the identity between Alexader Techinic and Buddhism, it is necessary for you to explain what Alexander Techinic is.


For Pierre Turlur San

I do not know why it is necessary for Alexander Techinic to get the help from Buddhism.

Is it impossible for us to understand Alexander Techinic logically?

We have had Zazen already, however, why we need to have Alexander Technic additionally?


For Jule San

I think that Buddhism is as wide as the Universe, and so everyone can enter it.

I feel also very soft personality in the alexander teacher, too.

I also like to listen to explanations what Alexander Techinic is, but I do not like to identify it with Buddhism.


(note) I feel that the discussions have become a little emortional, and so I would like stop giving my interpretations, and I would like to express my opinion to Lone wolf San and monkey mind San.


For Lone Wolf San

I revere the historical influences of Christianity so much, and I hope that it will become vigorous again by accepting the principle that "God is the Universe, the Universe is God."


For monkey mind San

Yes, I revere Spinoza so much.


End

11:44 AM, February 23, 2006  
Blogger GUDO NISHIJIMA said...

For Jule San

I agree with your idea. Because Buddhism is a very exact philosophical system, and so we should discuss it very logically. Therefore it is better for us to discuss miscellaneous problems separately.


For Mike Cross San

Of course everyone has his or her perfect freedom to say everything, but at the same time everyone should say his or her opinion logically and understandably, not emotionally.

I think that before you insist the identity between Alexader Techinic and Buddhism, it is necessary for you to explain what Alexander Techinic is.


For Pierre Turlur San

I do not know why it is necessary for Alexander Techinic to get the help from Buddhism.

Is it impossible for us to understand Alexander Techinic logically?

We have had Zazen already, however, why we need to have Alexander Technic additionally?


For Jule San

I think that Buddhism is as wide as the Universe, and so everyone can enter it.

I feel also very soft personality in the alexander teacher, too.

I also like to listen to explanations what Alexander Techinic is, but I do not like to identify it with Buddhism.


(note) I feel that the discussions have become a little emortional, and so I would like stop giving my interpretations, and I would like to express my opinion to Lone wolf San and monkey mind San.


For Lone Wolf San

I revere the historical influences of Christianity so much, and I hope that it will become vigorous again by accepting the principle that "God is the Universe, the Universe is God."


For monkey mind San

Yes, I revere Spinoza so much.


End

11:51 AM, February 23, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home