Meat, Wine and Fighting Monks

[GeneChing]

Fujian temples

Well, now that opens up a huge pandora’s box as soon as you mention Fujian. Right now, there are three temples claiming to be the Fujian temple, none that are ‘officially’ recognised by Songshan. Many scholars are skeptical of the Fujian temples. They may have been, to take a term from Shahar’s article, Fangtou, remnents of Shaolin’s Anti-piracy campaign (circa. 1550). These remnents may have been inflated by Tiandihui legends. Anyway, the point is that the entire legend has fallen under scrutiny.

Now for Brad’s question, Shaolin didn’t fare too well in the Qing. Basically, Shaolin supported the Ming, chose the wrong party, so to speak. My suspicion is that this had a large effect upon their leadership, or lack thereof, probably not too different from what we experienced with the 20th century.

[r_shaolin]

Just a Guy, are you saying that according to your tradition, pre-1900’s clergy at Shaolin were not celibate nor vegetarians?
…
Originally posted by Just a Guy
“. . . that monks living in the monastery be celibate and vegetarian is not authentic to Shaolin tradition . . .”

". . .While it is true that most Chinese Ch’an sects practice vegetarianism, it is unsurprising that Shaolin does not. . . "
…
I’m most interested in seeing even a partial list of form names from your tradition of pre-1900’s Song Shan Shaolin martial arts. You mention “Dragon styles” - I’m curious what you meant by that.

r.

[GeneChing]

Back to vegetarianism

Looking again to the paper that Shahar just published with us, we can find evidence that Shaolin monks may well have eaten meat, but that was in violation of the regulations. The Sengchou story is the earliest and provides the foundation of what I like to call the “meat gives strength” idea, albeit Sengchou’s violation is divinely inspired. That’s a Tang period source. The official condemnations, all Qing dynasty soucres I think, criticized Shaolin monks for eating meat. So by this, we can imply that meat was forbidden during periods of the Tang and the Qing.

Today, meat is still forbidden in the temple, but there are meat vendors right outside the temple still, depsite the great purge of the valley in the last few years. This reminds me of when I was in Rishikesh, India. That’s a holy city, the origin of the Ganges river, and meat is banned with in the entire city. Millions of people descend on Rishikesh for certain rituals, like the Kumba Mela, which is defined by many as the largest spiritual gathering in the world. While many of the pilgrims are devout, with such a large base, of course, not all of them are. Such is the nature of any spiritual path - it’s hard for humans to be true to the spirit in a carnal world. Even in India, where vegetarism is more common than meat eating, people still sin around holy places. So what’s right outside Rishikesh? Meat vendors.

Anyway, enough about diet for now, let’s get back to CMA. I completely concur with r.(shaolin) - Just a Guy, do you have a list of forms?

[jun_erh]

meat eating and wine drinking are seen (by some) as sort of understandable desires if you are living in something as unpredictable as the “world” whereas the guys who mainly have a set pattern of things they do in the temple see themselves as having to live the ideal (vegetarian) way. So they function as a way for the people in the larger society to see that meat and wine are luxuries nt neccesaties.

[Just_a_Guy]

Re: Back to vegetarianism

Originally posted by GeneChing
The official condemnations, all Qing dynasty soucres I think, criticized Shaolin monks for eating meat. So by this, we can imply that meat was forbidden during periods of the Tang and the Qing.

Some caution is useful here, I think. The Manchu were ardent supporters of Buddhism, perhaps even more so than the Ming, and it was customary for Buddhist orders in China to be vegetarian. So it makes sense that the Manchu would criticize Shaolin.

But there is a short circuit here in thinking that a secular authority, despite its legal powers (might makes right, and all that), has any sort of moral authority over the conventions of a religious organization. I realize that separation of church and state is primarily a Western legal notion, but consider:

If the EU suddenly decided not to recognize the Pope as the “valid” pontiff, how would the College of Cardinals respond? They might respond in different ways, one of them being to ignore the EU and elect the Pope they intend to elect. Maybe this example is too off base.

Gene brought up the fact that Shaolin did not have an “official” abbot during certain periods. What this means is that the Imperial Court did not appoint anyone to the post, basically as a way of chastising the Shaolin Order. This certainly does not mean that Shaolin went without an abbot, however. Again, even though it was Chinese custom that the Court appointed abbots of major temples, a break-down of this process does not mean that censured Buddhist communities fell to pieces!

The whole implication that Shaolin were “bad” Buddhists because they failed to obtain the approval of Manchu emperors is a bit of a stretch, I think - unless you believe that the government is the appropriate body when it comes to deciding spiritual matters.

Regarding detailed information on styles and forms, etc., etc., you’ll have to wait for the book (see above). The book also includes detailed information on Shaolin’s oral philosophical tradition and interpretation of the Dharma.

If the tone of my posts ever seems abrupt or dismissive, I apologize. I am opting for directness, and “tone” is easily misinterpreted in this medium.

[r_shaolin]

Was Shaolin orthodox in its Buddhism?

Subversive religious secret societies in the north, such as Hong Jin, Qing Hong Dang, Qing Dang and Wu Fu Tang, etc. (by the way Gene, Tiandi Hui, although it may have had some connections to the above, was really a Southern phenomena) have traditionally made much of their alleged connections to the Shaolin fighting monks - a connection that is suspect at best. The Shaolin tradition I practice makes no mention of anti-governmental activities associated with these heterodox societies in its oral tradition. Furthermore, the background of its founders were monastic, orthodox and loyal to the Imperial government. The indication from our tradition is that during the mid-1800’s Shaolin Si, as well as the near by nunneries had good contact with the Imperial administrators in Henan and Beijing. Historical information also supports this. Note as an example, in the early 1700’s Qing emperor, Kang Xi wrote a gate inscription for Shaolin’s main building which said “Bao shu fang lian”. There are a number of other records as well, since this period.

Just a Guy, I agree with you when you say, “The Manchu were ardent supporters of Buddhism.” Generally northern Chinese Buddhism cultivated close relations with Imperial governments and vise-versa - in particular with the so-called foreign dynasties. This includes the Qing and Yuan.

Although not all Buddhist monasteries had the same practices or status, Buddhism in great centers like Luoyang, tended to be more orthodox and stable. A further important distinguishing feature of Shaolin was its designation as an official place of worship. The monks (and I’m not talking about Fangtou, which IMO is a bit of a red herring) who resided in these official establishments were selected and ordained by Imperial decree and required higher qualifications. Their supervisory clergy was appointed by the Imperial throne and accountable to it. The older generation of our lineage made it clear that Shaolin took ordination vows and Bodhisattva vows very seriously. However, lay followers did not follow the strict regulations of the clergy.

One further note, generally when government officials became concerned that Buddhists clergy were involved in subversive activities and brought it to their attention, official monasteries tended to became even stricter in their regulations and conduct. Without going into this and beyond the obvious, there were very good reasons why orthodox Buddhist clergy in the north were very quick to condemn heterodox practices.

Just a Guy, your mention of the “the Dragon styles” is most interesting. This is an old term that is connected to Qiu Yue Chan Shi and Wu Xing. I look forward to seeing your book.

r.

[GeneChing]

Fangtou

True Fangtou is a red herring, sort of the ultimate red herring in Shaolin research, both in modern day and in historical work. Now, many researchers are leaning towards the notion that the southern Shaolin temple may have just been legend based upon Fangtou. Shaolin has Fangtou now, not only around Shaolin, but throughout China, and even internationally. It starts to get into the whole question of what is Shaolin? Where do you draw the line? Some of the Fangtou are completely valid. For example, I find the Shaolin Temple Overseas in Flushing to be quite consistent with Shaolin and Buddhist principles. At the same time, there are schools right around Shaolin that are just martial arts schools, and not even traditional Shaolin. So this is where it gets realy tricky. Shi Guolin calls himself abbot of Shaolin Temple Overseas, and I find that to be a completely valid claim. In contrast, I’m sure there are other headmasters of Shaolin-derived temple-schools today that use the term Abbot and it’s more questionable. I’m sure that this existed in the past too. Now today, no one calls himself Abbot in the Shaolin area and gets away with it. In fact, according to hearsay, that is why Shi Wanheng was ejected from the order. But in the past, during the Ming/Qing, who knows? More research is clearly needed here. Now please don’t view this as a condemnation of your upcoming book by the Abbot, Just a Guy. I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. I’m very much looking forward to this book and hope that you will keep us notified about its publication here.

As for Shaolin under the Manchus, while Buddhism may have thrived, it’s a mistake to generalize Shaolin’s political standing by the rest of the sangha. Shaolin has always been exceptional - and very different - and still is today, obviously so, or we wouldn’t be talking about it here. The main difference is the martial arts. Since Shaolin was known for its military might, it had a different political standing that any other temple. It was allied to the Ming, so it came under scrutiny during the Qing. In fact, it became a symbolic source of many rebellions due to the Yi Lu legend, which of course, we see echoed in so many movies.

This is not the first time that Shaolin was an exception. In fact, it’s a critical point to understanding the Li Shinmin legend. If we use the same lens of Dynastic support of Buddhism for Shaolin that was just used here for Shaolin under the Manchus, then Shaolin should have been destroyed under the Tang during it’s great purge of Buddhist Temples. Shaolin was very close to the capital geographically and should have been destroyed during that period, but it was spared, probably solely because of the Li Shinmen letter, which had been erected as a stele near the front of the temple. It was like a get-out-of-jail-free card from the frist Tang emperor. In fact, there is a note from a Tang dignatary on the back of another stele noting and dating his visit, which happened to be in the midst of the purge, a clear indication that Shaolin was examined by the government during that time and spared. If you really want, I can dig up the source on that, but it’ll take me a bit. The point of all this is that many researchers look at Buddhist history to supplement the lack of valid Shaolin history, and while that’s a very useful - in fact, indispensible - tool, we cannot make too many assumptions from that data because of Shaolin’s unique status.

[r_shaolin]

Gene wrote:
If we use the same lens of Dynastic support of Buddhism for Shaolin that was just used here for Shaolin under the Manchus, then Shaolin should have been destroyed under the Tang during it’s great purge of Buddhist Temples.
…
Gene, you will note that the number of great state monasteries, of which Shaolin is one, remained small and fairly stable though out dynastic history. Generally (although not in every case, the great state monasteries, were spared from repressions. I’m not sure I buy the idea that Li Shinmin’s letter had anything to do with it. More likely it had to do with Shaolin being a “lin” monastery (Shif-fang tsung-lin).

The principle reason for periodic suppression of Buddhism was economic. The first targets were monasteries built by commoners and then those built by eminent families and nobles (mostly built to evade taxation). When these ‘private’ institutions became so numerous that they began to strain resources and the samgha so massive that the numbers of people withdrawn from the labour force began effecting the economy, memorials began appearing calling for purges and indeed they periodically occurred.

As I say above, the motive for purges were primarily economic with the common criticisms and reasons felling into two broad categories: first, that Buddhist monks were “unproductive mouths” and “Monks eat without having to work the land and are clothed without having to weave.” The second was tax and corvee evasion. This was done by accusations of either, “wei-lan seng” - fraudulent, unregistered monks or monks not following Buddhist regulation, simply using religious titles to escape taxation or corvee services owed to the state; or accusations that property of the well to do was turned over to ‘private’ monasteries for the purpose of tax evasion.
…
Gene wrote:
Some of the Fangtou are completely valid. . . there are schools right around Shaolin that are just martial arts schools . . . Shi Guolin calls himself abbot of Shaolin Temple Overseas, and I find that to be a completely valid claim. . . today, no one calls himself Abbot in the Shaolin area and gets away with it. In fact . . . that is why Shi Wanheng was ejected from the order. . .
The point of all this is that many researchers look at Buddhist history to supplement the lack of valid Shaolin history,
…
My “point” being, it appears that present day Shaolin is spinning history a bit to justify some of their actions and to inflate the role martial arts may have played historically in Buddhism as practiced at Shaolin through out most of its history.

[GeneChing]

Ancient economics

Well, you’re right about the economic motivations for the purge. There was also the factor of political clout. This culmiated with Tang Emperor Wuzong (841-846) and was probably the biggest blow the Chinese Buddhism in all history. Some feel the Chinese Buddhism still has yet to recover from that event over 11 centuries ago. Now I’m sure you’re familiar with the Li Shinmin stele. In it, Li Shinmin bestows 40 qing of land (560 acres) and a water mill. That’s a lot of affluence for a temple during those times. It was common in those times for temples charged rent for their water mill usage as well as rent for land use. What’s more, that encompasses the Cypress Valley estate (Baigu) which contains the road between Luoyang (the Tang capital) and Dengfeng - a major tactical holding. Now Li Shinmin was clearly anti-Buddhist. In 629, he ordered the execution of illegally ordained monks. In 631, he forbade monks and nuns from recieving homage from their parents. In 637, he decreed that Taoists had precedence over Buddhist in all state rituals. Now Li Shinmin made hs decree on the stele as a prince, not as the emperor, so there was a lawsuit in 626, only a year after Li donated the land. Shaolin suceeded and that is also on the stele, as you know. Why put that on the stele? It helps reaffirm their ownership, which became critical as the anti-Buddhist purge of the Tang waged on. Some 70 years after the erection of the Li Shinmin stele, the Assistent Magistrate of Dengfeng county reiterated Li’s support on another Shaolin stele. In 845, in the midst of Wuzong’s purge, the governer of Henan Lu Zhen visited Shaolin which was recorded on the back of that stele. Clearly, if it wasn’t for the Li Shinmin stele, Shaolin would not have survived the Tang purge.

As for spinning history, well, everyon has their spin. But I think you’re misinterpreting Shaolin. If anything, the current abbot is trying to downplay the CMA and increase the Buddhist aspect. What’s more, most scholars are leaning towards deflating the role of martial arts in history, not just with Buddhism, but with any perspective of martial arts as a spiritual pursuit instead of strictly military.

[r_shaolin]

…
Gene wrote:
. . .This culminated with Tang Emperor Wuzong (841-846) . . . Now Li Shinmin was clearly anti-Buddhist. . .
…
Although Tai Tsung is often portrayed as anti-Buddhist, this is in a sense, a bit misleading of his place in history. In around 645 the famed Buddhist monk Xuan Zang converted Emperor Tai Tsung to acceptance of Buddhism and the Emperor began a patronage of Buddhist institutions which in turn began the acceptance of Buddhism by the Chinese elite. This patronage occurred at the beginning of a two hundred year flowering of Chinese Buddhism which helped shape, one of the culturally richest periods, in Chinese history. This puts the purge that followed into context.

When the purge of Tang Emperor Wuzong began it was short but, as you say, nasty, brutal and extensive.
Now I would like to point out that ancient China at the time was divided into nine main districts and in the order, the destruction of Buddhist establishments had exceptions - in each of the districts one temple was to be preserved. It made sense that under that order Shaolin, which was already famous for over 200 years and was an official Imperial monastery, would be preserved in its district. Furthermore this should not surprise because of the growing popularity of the brand of Buddhism emanating from this monastery.

I would concede that Shaolin’s assistance during the early founding of the Tang did not hurt their cause. :-))) By then, that was part of its fame.
r.

[GeneChing]

Xuanzang

It is true that Li Shinmin (Taizong) befriended the pilgrim Xuanzang (596-664) in his later years. For those that aren’t familiar, Xuanzang was one of the most famous Chinese Buddhists who travelled to India to retrieve some sutras. The Monkey King is a fantastic version of his journey, but Xuanzang was very real and important to Buddhist history, and Shaolin too. When most people visit Henan, they stop at Baimasi, or White Horse Temple, the oldest Buddhist temple in China and named for Xuanzang’s white horse upon which he journeyed ‘to the west’ to India and back. Also, Xuanzang’s native village is about less than 20 miles from Shaolin.

But, it is generally believed that Li Shinmin’s interest in Xuanzang was in no way spiritual. He sought Xuanzang’s knowledge on foreign affairs. Li Shinmin asked Xuanzang to jion his cabinet, but Xuanzang never did.

It did however set some precendent for Buddhist patronage of the early Tang, like empress Wu Zetian’s support of the Loyang grottoes. But even that is kind of funny. There’s no denying its magnificence, but it’s Empress Wu’s face on the biggest Buddha, which I’ve always found to be one of the most blatent examples of self-centeredness in history, especially ironic given the Buddhist teachings.

But to follow up more on the Shaolin stele being critical in escaped the Tang purge, we can look at the other imperial section of the stele from Emperor Xuanzong (712-756 - not to be confused with Xuanzang) - he reitirates Li Shinmin’s praise but, like his ancestor, was not Buddhist in any way. In 714, he ordered ans ban on any new Buddhist temples. In 727, he shut down all village temples. Again, like Li Shinmin, the support of Shaolin was an exception to expansive religious suppression. The logical question is “why?” The most likely answer is military support.

[r_shaolin]

There were significant reasons for imperial patronage which in large measure accounted for Buddhism’s success in China. Fertile land in the low-lying areas was already densely populated before the Tang Dynasty. In order to expand cultivation to regions that were more arid, Imperial governments began a policy of forced colonization by the deportation of farmers. They did this by two principal means. The first was by establishing military farm colonies in these areas. These colonies performed a double duty – guarding the hostile northern borders (which protected trade routes) as well as developing agriculture. Likewise, Buddhist monasteries were established in these same arid areas, granted land and given families who farmed under supervision. In was also not uncommon for military families to be assigned to monasteries as well for the same reasons. Shaolin was situated in a remote but strategically important location and clearly a military presence was intended. Note that the significant stele from Shi-Min is addressed not only to the monks, but also soldiers and commoners that were at Baiguwu.
…
Gene wrote:
Li Shinmin’s praise but, like his ancestor, was not Buddhist in any way. In 714, he ordered ans ban on any new Buddhist temples. In 727, he shut down all village temples.
…
“When these ‘private’ institutions became so numerous that they began to strain resources and the samgha so massive that the numbers of people withdrawn from the labour force began effecting the economy.” As I say in the above post, much of what is called 'anti-Buddhism" was more a concern about controlling growth of private temples and the withdrawal of labour and resources in the fertile regions.

In the well documented second meeting with XuanZang, the emperor is recorded as saying. “I am delighted that you went to seek for the Law at the risk of your life for the benefit of all the people.” In fact it was the Imperial government that provided the resources for Xuan Zang’s translation. As he got older and his health deteriorated, Taizang sought out Xuan Zang as his spiritual guide. Taizong’s son ( the one who succeeded him as emperor) also supported Xuan Zang’s translation work. Although he was not interested in Chan, he did help build 2 important monasteries in Chang’an.

However, for the above reasons, I agree with you that the principle objective for the development of martial arts at Shaolin was military.
I would add for defensive purposes.
r.

[GeneChing]

The language of politics

“When these ‘private’ institutions became so numerous that they began to strain resources and the samgha so massive that the numbers of people withdrawn from the labour force began effecting the economy.”
What is this a quote from? You gotta cite if your goona use quotes, man, otherwise, why use quotes?

But I don’t really question that statement so much. It comes back to that ‘red herring’, eh? Fangtao This is a bit of a grey zone for Chinese Buddhism. What defines one temple as ‘official’ and another as fangtao? It’s a tricky question, especially when you realize that most Chinese religion, like so much of Chinese culture, comes up from folk, not from organized religious or governmental bodies. So who was running said private institutions? Bad Buddhists? Buddhists not in cahoots the Emperor?

Surely it’s hard to second guess the heart of Li Shinmin, especially given his stature. He was one of the more heroic emperors, to be sure, a conquerer like they founder of any other dynasty. When a historic figure becomes so legendary, to question his motivations might appear sacreligious. But from a human and governmental standpoint, given his actions, we can’t but question. It’s clear that he instigated many anti-Buddhist laws. He also befriended Xuanzang, although the motivations of that friendship could easily have been political. And he spared Shaolin, but again, that may have been motivated for military reasons.

[r_shaolin]

…
. . the economy." As I say in the above post, . .
…

I was quoting one of my other posts above. Clumsy? Ambiguous? Yes :-))) Unread, probably because it wasn’t that interesting :-))))

r.

ps.
What defines one temple as ‘official’ and another as fangtao?

In imperial times, official monasteries, such as Shaolin, received their name via Imperial decree, as well as land, money, servants, subject families, rights to maintain certain industries that generated profits, etc. The number of official monasteries tended to be small throughout dynastic history. The monks in these official monasteries were selected and ordained by Imperial decree and required higher qualifications. Their supervisory clergy was appointed by the Imperial throne and accountable to it. Official monks and monasteries were required to perform ceremonies, such as those for the military dead, on behalf of the government.
Other temples were at times encouraged, marginally excepted, tolerated, or destroyed, depending on the political climate, their connections, who their patrons were, etc.
…
Gene wrote:
Surely it’s hard to second guess the heart of Li Shinmin,
…
I agree, never-the- less once the civil war was over, Taizong made an obvious effort to heal spiritual wounds and bitterness in the country by enlisting Buddhist clergy to help in this regard. In 628 he held a Buddhist memorial service for all those that had died in battle. He also ordered seven monasteries be built, one on each of the sites of his battles as a gesture of respect for the dead of all sides.
In fact the temple at Hulao, where 3000 men from the opposing side were killed, was named ‘Temple of Equality in Commiseration’.

My point in all this: Shaolin had good relations with imperial governments through most of its history. Clearly not always (e.g. 3 Wu Catastrophes), but mostly.

I certainly don’t disagree with your point that ‘military support’ was in Li Shinmin’s mind. Even after his major victory at Hulao, he could not be everywhere and in-listed all the local help he could muster. Shaolin’s interest on the other hand was survival and self defense given the dangerous, and violent conditions of the region. There is some very convincing evidence that supports this notion.

r.

[GeneChing]

That’s the question I was waiting for…

What defines one temple as ‘official’ and another as fangtao?
Very good question. It’s a lot like what defines an official Shaolin monk, yes? Today, what is a fangtao and what is official is very nebulous, especially with three large southern shaolin temples in existence and a northern one on the way. That doesn’t even address the dozens of smaller temples opened by monks, like the ones around Shaolin and in the USA. Very tricky question, indeed.

[SIZE=1]you quoted yourself? [/SIZE]

[r_shaolin]

Re: talking the language of politics

As I wrote above, monks in these official monasteries were selected and ordained by Imperial decree.
…

Gene wrote:

“It’s a lot like what defines an official Shaolin monk (today) . . .”
…

Gene, if you mean that today’s official Shaolin monks are appointed/approved by PRC government officials as they were in the past by Imperial decree, I would tend to agree .

r.

[GeneChing]

Emperors vs. party leaders

That’s not quite what I meant, but that’s a fine interpretation so let’s go with it.

[Just_a_Guy]

www.shaolintemple.org

The book I mentioned earlier in this thread is now available here.

Best Wishes.

[Songshan]

Meat, wine and fighting monks?

My question is what is really the point here? Monks who drink beer/wine and eat meat are evil? Makes them less of a monk unworthy of practicing buddhist mercy? Violating a unwritten code that cannot be confirmed or denied?

Are we talking about martial monks, religious monks or lay disciples? What about the monks who were being killed during the boxers rebellion or the monks in the cultural revolution that were forced back into secular life to avoid death? Some took wives and had children. Should they be kicked for surviving? Scrutinized?

Some of the martial monks of today eat meat and drink alcohol. Is their life devoted to the study of buddhist scriptures and living in a holy temple? Or is their life devoted to the study of Chinese martial arts and spreading the seed of Shaolin Kung Fu? The only one who can answer the question is the one who listens to what their heart tells them. Your true intentions lie in your heart and in your mind.

[blooming_lotus]

look, I had serious hard core issues with this very thing. What I decided was ( and bear in mind the Dalai himself is partial to a t-bone at times) that as buddhists and having this temporary body housing our souls or benti / whatever, and particularly for shaolin buddhists who put away their attatchments to provide path clearance to nirvana for others, ( also remembering not everyone leads aescetic lifestyles and have secular work elsewhere( and how the face and duties of shaolin and its’ affectionados changes with time , media and wider exposure) , we believe we have a duty to provide ourselves the best health we can to prolong the body and " do more good deeds " as it were. now if you don’t believe me on this, talk to Jet Lis’ coach / shifu, sometimes, unfortunately that requires eating meat and doing other things we’d probably rather not.

That aside though, remember that tradition is a huge factor of shaolin which grew in notoriety when a small group of monks saved an Emporor and were “given permission” ( invited and expected to accept ) to dine over a meal containing mostly meats and wine. As a result of accepting this, shaolin enjoyed it’s first major foray into secular conciousness. If nothing more than a tributal ( if such word exists) ritual, it has a valid place.

That being said though, and in the spirit of taking only what you need, at Shoalin Si today, I can assure you they dine on little more than fruit, nuts and rice, perhaps some fancied up shcnazzy looking tofu at best, meat being unecessary. I personally don’t enjoy meat but if I felt I needed it, I would no doubt put away my attatchment to not wanting or liking it and get myself the health I need to continue an accepabley healthy body for secular life.

Amitopho

Bl