Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche

Since another contributor to Gornahoor has penned an excellent series of articles on Shunryu Suzuki, I thought it appropriate to write something on Suzuki Roshi’s Dharma brother, Chogyam Trungpa.

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche (Rinpoche is an honorary Tibetan title which means “precious one”) almost single-handedly brought Tibetan Buddhism to the West.  Although several other lamas emigrated to the West before him, no one else had anywhere near as much of an impact.  In his short time here, he firmly established the Kagyu lineage, founded the tradition of Shambhala Buddhism, founded Dharma centers all across the continent, as well as a major university in Boulder, Colorado, and left behind a legacy that still resonates to this day.  A good deal of the vocabulary of Buddhism in English is the result of his work and teaching.

There is much information about Chogyam Trungpa available at other sites, so I won’t bother rehashing the details of his life here, including the controversies which some find off-putting.  What I would like to mention are some aspects of his teaching that are especially relevant to Gornahoor and our readers.

Trungpa Rinpoche arrived in the United States in the early 1970s, when the country was still tearing itself apart over the Vietnam war and the counterculture.  There was an entire generation of desperate, confused, spiritually hungry people, some of whom had begun to look east for answers and salvation.  This is the situation he had to deal with upon his arrival, and the way he dealt with it is very telling.

More than anything else, he stressed the need for meditation practice.  In Tibet, the Kagyu school to which he belonged is known as the “practice lineage.”  He also guided his students away from the many mind-altering drugs that were especially prevalent at the time, such as marijuana (which he thought was particularly detrimental to spiritual practice) and the stronger hallucinogens.

In a time of fiercely anti-traditional attitudes, Rinpoche taught his students respect for tradition – not only his own Tibetan traditions, but the traditions of the West.  He saw that many Westerners were adopting Tibetan or Indian culture along with Buddhist or Hindu spirituality, and he encouraged his students to see the beauty and majesty of their own cultures and traditions, rather than pretending to be something they are not. He modeled his community of students on the traditional structure of a King’s court, and made his students get haircuts and wear suits and formal dresses, so as to look the part of a proper courtier.  Rinpoche himself was very fond of suits, as the above photo shows.

In an era of laziness and cynicism, which he termed ‘setting sun vision,’ he encouraged responsibility, dignity, and the vision of the Great Eastern Sun.  As in Plato and other Traditional teachings, Rinpoche used the light of the sun as a metaphor for the primordial state of enlightenment, which he also called ‘basic goodness’ because it is the very basis and foundation of being.

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche met Shunryu Suzuki some time in the early seventies, and they remained great friends throughout their lives.

22 thoughts on “Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche

  1. “The early masters who brought Buddhism to Tibet blended it with the native Bon tradition because that is often how a religion takes root in an area. So of course they have a ‘Tibetan version’ of Buddhism. Did you expect them to give up their own culture and become Indian? That is exactly the sort of thing a people should not do.”

    Again the ignorance is astonishing. I wonder the early Indian masters (who were mostly aristocracy) taking Buddhism to tribals in Tibet did not seem to think: should we become like them (tribals)? Contrast their giving and generosity to others regardless of ethnicity or race or class with the petty question you raise.
    Again for a peoples who have their al[habet from Indians, who were taught art by Indians, who have their religion and most of what they preserve from Indians and who are now allowed to live as refugees by the locals (who in many cases are tolerant, considering there are Tibetan areas where you can to and be knifed)…I think Indians don’t give a damn whether these people want to be Indians or not!

  2. Upon reading your post I realize, I did forget to answer you.
    “One’s feelings about a particular tradition are only relevant in considering whether or not one can or should practice that particular path. So if you don’t like Tibetan Buddhism or feel at home in it, that only means it’s probably not the religion for you.”

    I never wrote about my feelings; but said little is “original”; much of it taught and borrowed, just as Tibetan culture is a mish mash of the two greater civilizations, the Chinese and Indian.

    “You have to compare the best and brightest Indian Buddhists with the best and brightest Tibetan Buddhists.”

    I have found that there is no comparison, excuse me. And although the modern day days we must consider all cultures “equal”, there is simply no comparison between a land that has produced a civilization, and a little area which has been Buddhist for a few centuries, trasitioning from tribalism. But then you do like to make comparisons about stuff you don’t seem to have quite mastered such as in your previous posts. No all civilizations are not the same, the high civilizations must be compared with the high ones, not a limited culture, not some borrowed culture which cannot even exist on its own today. But then pointing out to do some homework before writing offends people. You would avoid gross generalizations like this before saying I do not like Tibetan Buddhism due to my “feelings”. Seeing not much original in a tradition, does not mean someone is speaking from “feelings” but speaking the truth.
    thank you

  3. Also I sincerely apologize if I was disrespectful towards anyone. I was just explaining my frustrations with monks that I have known to be smug and materialistic, like many of the swamis and gurus I have seen. I assume it is difficult to stand up and “teach” people, unless one really has something to teach, especially in the case of spiritual matters, which is why Aquinas prays that he be worthy to teach others. My criticisms were more towards why the sangha is not as influential as it used to be, and does not carry as much weight than with any particular monk, I am speaking in the general as to the decline of the order. However, I do not wish to belittle anyone or disturb anyone’s learning: people understand at different levels and I perfectly understand that what inspires one might not necessarily inspire another, and I also respect people’s attempts at understanding.

  4. Well the negatives are conditioned by the Buddhists themselves: I am not bragging ( I do not brag but think this a forum where people speak their minds). Many Buddhists as they teach their religion like to “distinguish” it as being different in philosophical outlook from Hinduism, which appears strange to us. Fine they have different countries and political environments, they are different in that, and want to see their way as “unique”. They can think as they want. Also, is the annoying the “holier than thou” attitude of Westerners who try to teach us our own traditions: except in the most sophisticated cases, it appears ludicrous. Hinduism is a civilization, not a dogma.
    Hindus do not brag about these things but keep it to themselves which is why they have a tradition that has survived for 3000 years and running, and they do not feel the inclination to convert, except where they are converted by force or have been suppressed or are tricked. In this sense, the tradition is extremely deep. It has been suppressed for 800 years in its own homeland and needs a better political climate if it is to flower again fully and be creative again.
    Any attempt to understand Buddhism without the roots I think is incomplete.

  5. So because you, as a Hindu Brahmin, are not impressed by what you have seen of Tibetan Buddhism, you feel a need to brag about this and put down the entire tradition?

    I’m happy for you that you have a tradition all your own and which you are proud of. I appreciate your concern about your country and your people, as I am also concerned about my own. But what bothers me about your numerous comments is their dismissive, negative tone towards other traditions, especially when the only reasons you give for it is your own personal feelings. It is fine that you feel that way, but perhaps others, particularly Westerners who do not have the benefit of having been born into an authentic tradition like you, have something to gain by studying the doctrines of Buddhism and other religions? Therefore, perhaps, as a courtesy to others, you can keep these negative feelings to yourself, unless you have something to add which can benefit our understanding and offer some insight.

  6. Well I try to give the Hindu perspective on things: I don’t claim to have “superior” knowledge in the sense of being better than anyone. I meant to state the simple fact that when hearing modern Tibetan monks, the Hindu Brahmin is not impressed because he mostly hears what his tradition has already taught him. If you have learned your Plato extremely well do you want to spend too much time with Neo-Platonists except to see how the philosophical tradition carries on? These things might appear something new to the Westerner, but it does not appear altogether new to us (depending on knowledge and upbringing): that is what I am saying. Perhaps this is why we have remained the same religion for 3000 years and despite attempts by Muslims and even colonialists to convert, India could simply not be converted. It’s different for the other East Asians who readily convert such as Koreans and Japanese and even Chinese to Christianity. In India, the upper castes rarely convert. In this case Indians are different. Also it is curious that Buddhists try to distinguish themselves from us (Hindus) when they are not all that different in terms of the core beliefs. Now when I hear someone like Evola who tries to put it all in a way that speaks of tradition in a larger context, I hear something original and relevant for our times which monks fossilized in time uttering the same tune ad nauseum cannot impart. I want to listen to this man!
    As for politics not being important, it is highly important, as politics concerns the art of what is possible in a state: so while at the metaphysical level the philosopher may be apolitical, politics concerns him in terms of daily living: which is why Aristotle says in the Ethics that although the highest good consists of the activity of “contemplation” and however much the philosopher wants to live outside the polis, he will not neglect the political art. For a decay in politics entails the decay of the environment in which a life of contemplation becomes possible in the first place. That is why I talked of Indian politics. I feel that a great deal of India’s problems are of a political nature: people are not questioning religion the way they do here (although they are getting corrupted by copying the fads here which they copy without even understanding them), it’s still a way of life and a carrying on of a long tradition.
    When I made reference to Indian politics, I meant to say that the right kind of political culture in India would nourish the traditional native culture: it is a hightly creative one already and can achieve wonders in the right political environment, the current political environment is not suited to the culture as it is a mere copying of the West. So our questions about “tradition” are slightly different from the one the West faces. In this context, I find Evola extremely interesting as he made some experiments with politics and has adressed the larger question of what it means to return to a “tradition”.
    Also, I really did not mean to belittle anyone but I have had my fill of monks and gurus and scholars. People like Evola address these questions in a unique manner that I have not encountered before.

  7. Kadambari, the question you need to ask yourself is not whether this site can teach you anything novel, but rather can you impart to others your superior knowledge.

  8. Perhaps you can express yourself better as well, because it is hard for people to misunderstand clear thoughts.
    I have merely said that the crop of Tibetan monks I see holds no interest for me. You asked me why and I told you. You asked me a question about what buddha dharma is and I answered that it is not something that is represented by the order of monks these days as you rarely come up with an order that carries both intellectual or spiritual weight. Once upon a time the order of Buddhist monks did carry weight and that was when Buddhism had relevance and monks were held in high esteem and people followed them.
    Not so today.
    So not all people like to go and listen to monks and gurus talking.
    If certain Westerners like to do so and want to go watch “eat love and pray” afterwards: to each his own.
    Anyway as this site is not going to teach me much I do not already know you are right, it is pointless being here. Ta Ta.

  9. “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”

    Please stop writing comments on my posts, since it is clear that you do not actually read anything that I write. I asked you a direct question, based on your previous comment. You ignored it. Instead, you write a rant about Tibetan monks, when I specifically said in my last reply that these are precisely the people you should NOT look to as the best representatives of the tradition.

    Then there is your previous comment, number 7 here. The first two sentences are about your personal feelings about Tibetan Buddhism. Then you completely change the subject and decide to use my post as a platform for your views about contemporary Indian politics, which are utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand.

    I sincerely hope you read your history books, and especially your scriptures, with more care and attention than you do my posts, since you have misinterpreted or missed entirely the substance of what I am saying.

  10. Part of the problem is that what these monks teach is something we already know by virture of growing up in an orthodox Brahmanical tradition in the East so they do not teach us much that is new to us that our tradition does not already teach us. Indeed, in Buddhism itself, there is nothing new or different from Hinduism other than the fact that one does not become a Brahmin by birth but by knowledge. As for meditation techniques, we grow up seeing the elders perform this regularly at home. I have yet to see an impressive monk I want as my spiritual teacher. This goes for the so-called Hindu gurus as well that people flock to. I think Evola is a good spiritual teacher in this respect, because I find he has something to teach me that these monks do not that relates to the age and times in which I live, although I do not agree with everything he says, and he is a product of his time and like all people his understanding is limited by the circumstances and the times in which he lived. I rather would take the trouble to read the early Buddhist texts and find out on my own but that is just me. As for Tibetans, most of what I see popularized is pop Buddhism, which in fact does more harm than good because intelligent people dismiss Buddhism as some new age Dalai Lama pop wisdom. Do you know a monk who can teach you something good? Good for you. I don’t. In fact, the best living person who taught me about Buddhism was the author of a Buddhism text book who happened to be a Catholic priest.
    So I am not impressed by these monks and don’t see a point listening to them. Just as I don’t see a point in watching movies like ‘Eat, pray, love”. Buddha-Dharma means excellence in living and thinking. Once upon this was exemplified by the order of Buddhist monks and they carried intellectual and spiritual weight. These days, people who do that are not necessarily Buddhist monks or members of religious orders. Show me a world class Tibetan intellectual and I will pay homage to him (he does not have to be contemporary), just as I would respect a fine mind, whatever culture they might come from.
    But I can never understand the mania some of these Westerners have for these monks. As a religious order, the current crop of monks just do not represent what the older tradition of monks represented, because back then the monks would be the most intelligent men of their times, and they would inspire people by their intellectual example and spiritual authority. Show me a Tibetan monk like this and I will gladly pay him my resects!
    As for religion, I am perfectly happy in my own and am not in search of “religion”. We don’t change our religion as some people change their lifestyles here. We have the oldest religion tradition known to man, and the problem is not so much what it teaches, but rather living up to what it demands, of which we all fall short.

  11. You are comparing your actual world experience of Tibetans with “the excellence that Buddhism once represented in thinking.” Of course the Tibetans will come up short, because you are comparing the ideal with the real. Furthermore, if you want excellence in thinking, look to the teachers, not the students. If I go to a Christian sunday school class and find that the students are not particularly bright, should I therefore conclude that Christian theology is not profound?

    You can’t compare the best and brightest examples of Indian Buddhism such as Nagarjuna or Vasubandhu on the one hand with average Tibetan monks and nuns on the other. You have to compare the best and brightest Indian Buddhists with the best and brightest Tibetan Buddhists.

    And yes, we do apparently have different ideas about what “Buddhadharma” means. I have stated my view of it. You have not stated yours. So tell me then, What is the essence of the Buddhadharma?

  12. This is not to disrespect the simple lives some monks lead in any way or their contributions towards preserving texts. There are plenty of Buddhist monks everywhere- in Thailand, in Sri Lanka in Japan and Korea who keep alive certain facets of Buddhism. Just as perhaps some Christians might not see Church to be the same as what it once used to be and do not feel it inspires them although it keeps the tradition alive in a form, it is natural for Easterners to also to see the current monks as not being representative of a far loftier tradition that went by the name of “buddhadharma”. And please having been brought up around Tibetans and Buddhists, I am entitled to percieve them based on life experience and not on some romantic notions.

  13. And no, I do not identify with the “spiritual” essence you are talking about that they preserve. No I do not think the have preserved the essence of “Buddhadharma”. Obviously we have quite different ideas of what “Buddhadharma” means.

  14. No I don’t although the only place that allows them to be Tibetans is in fact India and Nepal which allows them to exist without being bothered. I have simply said that I do not think their culture respresents the excellence that Buddhism represented once in thinking, not in any way. I am not impressed by Tibetan culture or Buddhist Tibetan monks I have seen–of which I have seen quite plently, and plenty of the refugees. We came into contact with their cluture quite often. This does not mean they are not nice people. That’s all. I do not see them preserving the essence of Buddhism (the essential excellence), just some version of it that does not interest me. I have never said whether they ought to be Indian or not. That is all irrelevant to me. As for them not wanting to be Indian so what? India is the only place that allows them to live without bothering them.

  15. I don’t mean you any disrespect, but whether or not you can relate to Tibetan Buddhism, or feel at home in it, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it has preserved the essence of the Buddhadharma. One’s feelings about a particular tradition are only relevant in considering whether or not one can or should practice that particular path. So if you don’t like Tibetan Buddhism or feel at home in it, that only means it’s probably not the religion for you.

    By ‘essence,’ I do not mean the cultural essence (there is no such thing as the cultural essence of Buddhism, since Dharma transcends culture) but the spiritual essence; that is, the initiatic chain of realization, the teachings on the nature of reality, and the methods of meditation. The Tibetans have preserved all of these.

    The early masters who brought Buddhism to Tibet blended it with the native Bon tradition because that is often how a religion takes root in an area. So of course they have a ‘Tibetan version’ of Buddhism. Did you expect them to give up their own culture and become Indian? That is exactly the sort of thing a people should not do.

  16. And as for the Tibetans preserving the essence of Buddhism, no I do not think that they have, they have a Tibetan version of Buddhism, most of it is quite alien to me, I can’t relate to it even as an Easterner and even to their culture. Their Buddhism is a Tibetan version, a certain facet of Buddhism. Agreed that Indian high culture was destroyed by the Muslims and the imposition of Islam which is utterly alien to Indian native culture, and India was in darkness for eight hundred years after the disappearance of that culture and the physical decimation or conversion of most of the aristocracy that created that culture. However, the sense of rigor and excellence survives in those Indians who are remnants of that culture in a high degree. Now since the overall culture has been distorted by the imposition of an alien mid-East religion and its way of life for centuries and then the negative effects of colonialism, the current artificial secularism(the secularism imposed is not even genuine as secularism) and change in ethnic composition of the population, that excellence always does not appear in a unified context but appears in different contexts as the culture is fragmented; so you see it appearing in a Tagore, in a Ramanujan and amongst people who excel in the various walks of life. These people carry the spirit of the old culture in the sense of excellence that was once associated with it, in my opinion, but these people do not form a unified group or a monolith, and might not even reside in the country. However much India often seems to me headed towards a slow motion death with the kind of culture and politics it has adopted after independence, the existence of native excellence in some forms gives me some reason for hope. The problem there is really a political one. Given the passive nature of Hindus in general (this is not how they always were but have come to be unfortunately) it is not even difficult to change things, they need the right leaders and this is lacking, because the right leader will have to be tough enough to make some very difficult choices. They have had entirely the wrong set of people leading them since independence as there was never any revolution or any real change in institutions. I don’t see the chances of one in the near future as the kind of people who could lead such a movement with the requisite mindset have been mostly sidelined by Congress party after independence and the current artificially imposed culture discourages this kind of thinking at every level. So it is a complex story as there are pockets of civilization there amidst a general heart of darkness…These fragile pockets of civilization that are not to be taken for granted and can easily be destroyed, to me retain its ancient spirit and its values and I feel more at home in it than amidst Tibetan Buddhism…

  17. Tibetans are a benign harmless bunch. They were tribals practicing their Bon religion before they became Sanskritized and adopted the Buddhist religion. The Kashmiri Buddhist masters taught them a lot–for example they have been painting in the same way for 1000 years, just as they were taught, without much change. I guess we used to come into contact with them a lot in places like Ladakh and they appeared primitive in culture although nice people. Also I find that little that is original has been added to the Buddhist corpus later, except regional variations like Zen. Most of the interesting work is done by the early founders and it seems to stagnate afterwards as people just expand on the key ideas…Did you know they were quite violent and warlike before they became Buddhists? I wonder how much of their pacifist nature today correlates with the kind of Buddhism they adopted? Now perhaps it was this kind of pacifist attitude that lead most of Central Asia to fall to the Muslims (many Buddhists refused to fight, being reluctant to shed blood)! One wonders what the Turko-Mongols would have been like if they had adopted Buddhism?
    The Al Khanids, who conquered Persia which had been converted to Islam by the Arabs, were a mixed bunch composed of those who practiced Shamanism, Buddhism, and one of the important wives of the Khan was even a Nestorian Christian! Muslim historians have recorded an interesting debate that took place in the Al Kahnid court regarding what religion they should adopt. The Muslims in the court state that believers are like gardeners who need to clear all weeds (non-Muslims) so that the garden can grow properly. The Buddhist monks hold a long discourse on how life is sacred and are against the shedding of blood. It is interesting that the account records Buddhist monks as being imported by the court from Kashmir! Well these Mongols just ended up adopting the religion of the people they conquered after a few generations, that is, Islam. But it is a an interesting debate showing the difference between the two religious perspectives in those times! I wonder when was the point at which Buddhism started to become pacifist to an extreme, to a fault?
    Certainly, the Tibetans preserved a lot by copying many texts, and considering both Hinduism and Buddhism got wrecked in Kashmir, much of what we know of Tantra apart from Kashmiri Shaivism is preserved by them. It is largely Nehru’s (the Nabob of cluelessness) fault that they are now under the Chinese. Soon they will be overrun by the Han Chinese.
    It is sad that the place of the origin of these things like Kashmir got a different religion from the Mid-East forced upon them, while Buddhism went farther East and enriched those cultures in East Asia that it came into contact with, having been wiped out in its own native land!
    But I do think a lot of people like Thurman who are considered Buddhist scholars in America are quite shallow overall…they don’t see the big picture. Evola, on the other hand, if you place aside his militarism and supremacist attitudes which are peppered in his writings, hits upon amazing insights, appreciated by even an Easterner! I think one has to carefully read the earliest Pali texts as they tell a different story than what is popularized today as Buddhism ; I have found people like Grimm, Rhys Davids, Evola on early Buddhism interesting and informative to read.

  18. Kadambari – The Tibetan Buddhist tradition is very rich, and I would encourage you to check out some better sources of information. Of course, Buddhism came to Tibet from India and from the Kashmir area, as you have pointed out. In fact, I have recently encountered some material which claims that the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition – considered the highest teaching of Buddhism – has roots in the Tantric traditions of Kashmir Shaivism. But it isn’t a matter of looking for originality and innovation; it’s a matter of preserving and transmitting the true essence of the Buddhadharma. Whether or not the tradition undergoes any transformation or innovation is secondary to that. And I think the historical record shows that the Tibetans have by and large done a good job of keeping the Buddhadharma alive, and we should be grateful for that, since it was largely wiped out in its native India, as you have mentioned. (By the way, I agree with your observation in an earlier post that the Indian Buddhists would have done well to practice self-defense rather than pacifism, since the latter only caused their own destruction.)

    There have been many great scholars, innovative thinkers, accomplished yogis and realized masters in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. I think their history compares quite favorably with Indian Buddhism in this regard. But then, my own view is that a tradition’s greatest representatives elevate the entire tradition by their embodiment of its true essence. You may have another view of history which makes it look another way to you.

    We must also keep in mind that “Tibetan Buddhism” is not a monolithic structure. There are four distinct schools of Tibetan Buddhism: the Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelugpa. There are many important differences in view and style of practice among these schools, so it’s important to know what view is being represented in what you are reading. For example, the Dalai Lama is a Gelugpa, and even though he is supposed to be the spiritual leader of all Tibetans, not everyone accepts his ultimate authority or his views on dharma. The Nyingma, which is the oldest school, views the relationship between guru and disciple as being the primary and only really important relationship. So if you are a Nyingmapa and your guru gives you one instruction and the Dalai Lama gives you another, you follow your guru, because the guru is to be viewed as an embodiment of the Buddha and a manifestation of enlightened mind.

    Some other differences involve the relationship between study and practice. The Gelugpas emphasize study and debate, whereas the Kagyus emphasize actual sitting meditation. Also, there are some other sub-sects within Tibetan Buddhism that are accepted as authentic by some, and viewed as heresy by others. Tibetans have warred with each other on more than one occasion because of different interpretations of Dharma.

  19. I am not aware of any relation between Chogyam Trungpa and UC Boulder, though perhaps there was. The University which he founded is Naropa University.

    Trungpa Rinpoche’s “wildness” needs to be understood in the context of the tradition of the Mahasiddhas, who have often flouted convention and morality in their personality display. Keith Dowman’s book Masters of Mahahudra gives an overview of this lineage, which is claimed by both Buddhist and Hindu Tantricas. Of course, this sort of thing is easily misinterpreted and/or abused as licentiousness.

  20. Also I am unimpressed by what goes by the name of Zen, but at least the Japanese applied Buddhism to their culture and derived sustenance from it, regardless of what one may think of Zen, they have shown that Buddhism can adapt to an intelligent culture.

  21. Excuse my ignorance, but I am not all too familiar with the so-called Tibetan contributions. Granted they have preserved a copied a lot in the course of centuries, is there really much in the corpus that is new in terms of thinking and original contributions by Tibetans such as in the old times of Buddhism when the smartest people were still contributing to Buddhism and debating relevant philosophical issues? I find no rigor in most of the monks I see: they seem out of touch with the rest of reality aparty from their little Buddist worlds of transcendental meditation. I respect the Dalai lama for his simple life, but reading his books, I can understand why Buddhism has turned into a pop cult, judging from their intellectual content. It can only be effective if it has intelligent spokesmen who can actually influence intelligent people, who can make it relevant to our times. I find this lacking.
    One has to remember that Buddhism was relevant once in India when the most intelligent men of the times were contirbuting to it, and these men were fully versed in what constituted all relevant knowledge of their times as monks. Only such men can make it of any value in the western context. One is better off just reading Evola, because he really attempts to show how Buddhism can be useful in a Western context, and Evola is a smart man.

  22. What exactly was Rinpoche’s influence on UC Boulder? Funny, a lot of sites like to focus on the “wild” side of his personality and practice rather than discuss the healthy habits he ordered his students to follow.

Copyright © 2008-2013 Gornahoor Press — All Rights Reserved    WordPress theme: Gornahoor