Red Dragon 2

Vimalakirti and the Angry Dragon

The Jakata tales are wonderful folklore-like tales from ancient India. They tell the adventures and accomplishments of the Buddha in previous lives as a bodhisattva, before he becomes the Buddha. In many stories, the Buddha is an animal who demonstrates the ideals of Buddhism.

In this story of compassion and redemption, the bodhisattva is named Vimalakirti.  He is portrayed as an example of the ideal lay practitioner in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition.  In this wonderful adaptation of the Jakata tradition, Bartholowmew Klick tells the story of a very angry dragon and how the dharma changes him into a protector hero.  Children of all ages should love this folk tale, which speaks so poignantly to the angry dragon in all of us!

Vimalakirti and the Angry Dragon

By Bartholomew M. Klick

Long ago there was an angry dragon. This irate great-serpent delighted in the pain and torment of others, and would often kill and torture people, just to hear them scream in anguish.

One day, the angry dragon came across Vimalakirti, the lay bodhisattva. “A rich man” the dragon exclaimed, “I can torture him, and then steal his gold to make a bed with!” The dragon let out a fierce roar, and flew towards Vimalakirti.

Vimalakirti, however, paid the dragon no mind, and sidestepping its attack, continued about his business. The Dragon become infuriated at his missed attack, and screamed, “You will pay for that dearly, pig!” Vimalakirti did not even turn his head, but instead replied, “You are no different from any other minor annoyance, and you shall not distract me.

The Dragon had a tremendous ego, and did not like being considered ‘ a minor annoyance.’ He yelled again, and breathed a ball of flame at the lay bodhisattva. Vimalakirti merely sidestepped and watched as the fire went by, admiring its beauty. The fire struck a banana cart that was in Vimalakirti’s possession, and burnt it to cinders.

Burnt Bananas!

However, through Vimalakirti’s power, the bananas were not ruined: instead they became cooked to perfection. The bodhisattva said, “What an excellent meal these fried bananas will make: the monks will surely enjoy them. How surprised they will be when I tell them who cooked them.

The dragon blinked in surprise—his ball of fire, meant to destroy Vimalakirti, would now feed the hated monks! He became even angrier, and declared to Vimalakirti “I shall feast upon your flesh and torture you all the while!” The bodhisattva replied, “and I shall pray for your well-being, dragon.”

The Dragon became confused, for most lizards are not mental giants. He asked the Bodhisattva how he could find compassion for one who threatened his existence. “You are not a threat, dragon. One time, long ago, you were my mother, and were sweet and tender to me- you whole-heartedly gave your life for me, without begrudging me anything, and for you I will do the same.”

Dragon meets Dharma

The dragon, now believing that he understood the Bodhisattvas meaning, said, “Then so be it- I will make your death a quick one!” and he took a step in Vimalakirti’s direction; Vimalakirti said, “Only through my past actions can I be harmed. If you can kill me, then I need to be killed to pay for my past-life evil deed.”

The Dragon seemed to consider this a moment and then tried to grab the Lay Bodhisattva with his great jaws, but all he ended up with was air for his dinner. After numerous attempts the Dragon finally wailed, “I cannot harm you!” Vimalakirti replied that this certainly seemed to be true.

“Know then, Dragon, that we are not capable of harming any but ourselves. Your actions are like smashing your own feet with a hammer, and have not yet felt the pain of it. It would be best for you to repent for your evil deeds before you suffer greatly in the hells for millions of years.

In a sudden flash of ‘Dragonly’ insight he saw that Vimalakirti was right—and his thoughts turned to the countless people he had tortured, maimed, and even killed and he began to weep. “What is to become of me? I will surely fall into the deepest hell for my crimes!”

The Scaled Protector

“If you devote yourself to protecting people instead of harming them then someone will do the same for you when the time of punishment is at hand. If you use your gifts for the protection of others, then your time in hell will be brief, and your next birth will be a happy one.

The Dragon saw the truth in Vimalakirti’s words, and made a vow to protect all those who needed protecting, placing himself under the Bodhisattva’s tutelage. In the ages that passed the Angry Dragon came to be called “The Scaled Protector,” and he devoted himself to preventing harm; his great wings fetched food during famines, his great talons shielded people from unjust attack, his great stature helped rescue people from high places and all of his other fierce attributes became devoted to doing good for others.

One day the Dragon saw foreign ships approaching to invade a distant island. He flew in front of them, and began to beat his wings, reversing the direction of the wind. The invaders tried to struggle through the fierce storm but finally had no choice but to turn and flee. As the ships sailed away, one of them fired their rear ballista at the dragon. The flaming ballista bolt pierced the dragon’s eye and went straight through his head, killing him instantly.

His body tumbled from the sky, into the sea below, creating a huge tidal wave, which destroyed almost all of the invaders fleet. To this day these islanders believe the Dragon to be their protector, and they celebrate the day that he saved their country from destruction.

The Dragon in Hell

The dragon fell through the water, struck hit the ocean bottom, and then felt himself continue to sink, until he found himself in a dank, dark pit, filled with flames, implements of torture, and demons, armed with fierce weapons.

The dragon felt great fear—these demons were far larger then a mere great-serpent! A great demon king, foul from head to toe, noticed the little dragon and chuckled evilly as he stepped toward him and attempted to impale him.

As the spear descended upon the Scaled Protector Vimalakirti appeared bearing a huge shield, which deflected the great spear with a bright flash visible throughout the entire hell realm and stunned the demons.

“Those who protect will always be protected!” Vimalakirti declared, and with a wave of his hand he made an opening for the dragon to depart through. The dragon, seeing all the pain and torture and hearing the screams of tormented beings all around him, sounds which at one time would have pleased him, gathered as many people as he could, and carried them with him into the Pure Land beyond Vimalakirti’s gate.

♡♡♡

About Steven Goodheart

"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Spinoza

12 Responses to “Vimalakirti and the Angry Dragon”

  1. Thanks, Steven, for so thoughtfully and exhaustively replying to my comment. It’s pretty much what I expected of you.

    I’ve read it through once and I’ll have to study it for a while to see if there’s anything to which I want to respond. I doubt that there will be, since that’s not really what we’re doing here – debating.

    I will say that there is much in your reply that is very enlightening to me and answers many more lingering questions than I had hoped to illuminate.

    Since my real spiritual battle is between Christianity (or, to be more honest, Theism) and Secular Humanism, our exchanges feel to me more like two friends congenially revealing their views. My problem is more like the man who told Jesus (I brutally paraphrase here in an out-of-context way for my own convenience.), “I sometimes believe a lot of it, but other times I don’t believe any of it. Could you give me a hand with that?”

    So, our exchanges are actually a bit of a relief from my normal spiritual battles.

    Jan

    • Jan

      Thanks, my dear friend. I hope my reply was more exhaustive than exhausting, but given the length of my replies, I hope it wasn’t too tiring! ☺ It’s just that I take queries like yours very seriously, and a short, off-the-cuff answer can come across as awfully trivial and simplistic. These are, after all, matters of the heart.

      No, we’re not debating, and I strenuously tried to avoid any sense of that, which is also what I sensed in your queries—not argument or defensiveness, but genuine desire to understand. I can get on that old horse of debating and ride with the best of them, but frankly, I’m pretty much bone-dead tired of that stuff and the Buddha tells me it’s worse than useless, to boot! ☺ Plus, that’s not what this blog’s for.

      Ah, I think I know your paraphrase– KJV version, “Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief” – was that it? Your paraphrase is brilliant—should be in the next Revised Standard version! ☺ I still remember prodigious amounts of Scripture, I confess. But I don’t reject it; it’s part of my heritage and of Western heritage.

      Theism versus secular humanism—I understand what’s at stake in that battle. Frankly, the extremes of either make my head hurt, I’m glad our exchanges have another feel and agenda.

      • No, Steven, your reply was not too exhaustive nor too exhausting. It was just enough of both.

        I suspect that we have many more interesting conversations in our future.

        I’ve mused my entire adult life about spirituality primarily because of the slipshod, hippity-hop example set by my parents. It was Easter Sunday, Transcendental Meditation, Zen, or whatever the latest trendy guru dictated. My father died believing the Edgar Cayce was Christ incarnated.

        I don’t know whether to be angry or grateful. I suppose grateful would be more honest. It has forced me to find my own way rather than simply accept parental dogma.

        • Thanks Jan. I look forward to future conversations too.

          You’re upbringing is so different from mine—I had to smile, Edgar Cayce a Christ???—but I agree there’s a huge benefit in a) being exposed to so many world views and b) then having to find out for yourself what rings true.

          I think even if one is raised powerfully in some tradition, the person still, at some point, has to ask, “What do I believe?” This sometimes happens as a crisis after years of devotion. It can be cataclysmic but the person is infinitely more important than the belief system of the “tribe” he’s from. I ended up having to look deeply at just about every religion before I found my true home.

  2. Steven, what a typically wonderful Buddhist story. I’ve always enjoyed reading them, even since I somehow transformed into a Christian.

    I’ve always been a bit curious that Buddhism claims to be redemptive, but has no central sacrificial entity. It’s implicit in the concept of redemption that something of value must be exchanged to complete the process. In my ignorance, I reckoned that it is the rejection of desire which is our sacrifice. Then circular logic seems to whirl me around and I’m thinking, “Yeah, but isn’t wanting redemption also desire?” So, is not that also a source of suffering?

    In this story, if I understanding it correctly, Dragon seems to have achieved redemption through sacrifice – the sacrifice of his own life. His redemption was to be released from hell and become a, if you will, “Christ figure” who carried souls with him to the “Pure Land”. I guess my question is, “Is this universal, and, if so, what is the sacrificial agent for the whole of us?” Is redemption universally available? By what means? Is it, in fact, necessary? What is the final outcome if one is not redeemed? Indeed, redeemed from what?

    Having received a minor dose of Buddhism in my youth (obviously insufficient to cope with such questions), I’ve always been intrigued by some of the stark similarities with Christian thought.

    I’ve always attributed this to a common Christian aphorism, “All truth is God’s truth.”, which I’ve always remembered reading in something by Blaise Pascal, but, oddly, I can’t find the specific seminal reference now.

    • Jan, was gone all day and just got back home from San Francisco…about midnight. Great comments and questions. I promise I’ll get back to you in the morning. Steve

    • Hey Jan! Thanks again for your interesting post and questions. In an effort not to get long-winded and keep the post manageable, I take your question a paragraph at a time, a central thought at a time (as best I can discern that.) And, I want to try to avoid mere metaphysical discussion or argument, because I had enough of that for a lifetime when I was a Christian!🙂

      For me, one of the refuges of the Buddha is that he resolutely refuses to answer or engage in metaphysical discussions and debates—Is there a God? Is the universe infinite? Is there a self that lives forever?”—and instead focuses on what brings an end to suffering and what skillful means bring about that end.

      It’s not that he doesn’t say some things are “unskillful”—like arguing about the nature of God, or even if there is a God—it’s just that the Buddha’s “medicine” is decidedly non-metaphysical and rather focuses on actions and their consequences—the true meaning of karma. Anyway, I want to keep this aspect of the Buddha’s wisdom in mind in responding skillfully to your query.

      You write:
      I’ve always been a bit curious that Buddhism claims to be redemptive, but has no central sacrificial entity. It’s implicit in the concept of redemption that something of value must be exchanged to complete the process.

      As far as I know, the idea that there must be a sacrificial entity, or a “blood” sacrifice, for there to be redemption is an ancient one, and predates Christianity by thousands of years. Frazer’s seminal >em>The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion has a terrific explanation of this ancient belief and it’s mostly horrendous effects on mankind’s actions. (Think of the rivers of blood of people and animals killed to propitiate angry gods or to “redeem” some tribe or nation.)

      So, I have to say that on the whole, I find this ancient belief that there must be a “sacrificial entity” incredibly pernicious in its effects on individual’s and mankind’s actions. Not that there haven’t been great and noble individual sacrifices for the welfare of others (when done by individual choice, not horrendous, insane beliefs in divine propitiation or that the individual must be sacrificed for some “greater good.”) After all, didn’t Jesus say, “Greater love hath no man, than to lay down his life for others?” This is what all the spiritual heroes, and bodhisattvas of mankind’s history have done, either literally, or through a life of unselfish service to others.

      So, I do agree, that redemption involves sacrifice—for the root meaning of “sacrifice” is literally to “make sacred.” What makes something scared, then? A blood offering to a wrathful deity to propitiate his wrath? I think the more profound answer is that the redemption of things involves their transformation—their sacralization—by a giving up, a renunciation, of whatever limits or keeps something bound up by limitation and conditionality.

      One of the Buddha’s profound insights is that all conditioned things suffer– they change, they decay, they pass away. He wanted to know whether there was a happiness that was not dependent on conditions, on cause and effect, on anything. What he found in his awakening was that there is an unconditioned, a deathless, and undying. And one of the key elements to finding that deathless, unconditional happiness was renunciation of whatever ties one to a limited, conditional self-centered sense of life and being.

      This is the essence of sacrifice (typically called renunciation) in Buddhism. But this way of renunciation is hugely and widely misunderstood by non-Buddhists, and frankly, many Buddhists too, in my opinion. (Just as renunciation is misunderstood, I feel, in Christian asceticism and its rejection of a “sinful” world.”)

      Renunciation as a “principle” or metaphysical idea is, quite frankly, horrific and life-denying. It is not what the Buddha taught. (Nor do I think it’s what Jesus really taught.) What the Buddha taught was a kind of compassionate, skillful renunciation. What he taught was giving up fearful or selfish clinging to people and things as a skillful means for actually having more light, more life, more genuine love, more true happiness in one’s life.

      What we find is that through meditation and looking deeply into our grasping and hungry holding on to things, we find the source of suffering in this very grasping. We find that we actually lose the objects of our desires through our fearful holding on and our selfish desire to consume, to eat, what we desire after.

      To the unskillful mind, renunciation, or sacrifice—as a mere idea or “principle” just looks like giving up good itself, the very thing that makes one happy. Well, hell yes, then flee that kind of renunciation as the plague it is! But if have begun to suspect that our grasping, clinging, fearful, limited sense of self and others is actually the very source of our suffering, then we can begin to look into that insight and start down the path to true happiness, indeed, down the path to redemption.

      So, to go full circle to your assertion that “something of value” must exchanged to complete the process of redemption. Well, from the Buddhist standpoint, yes, and no, as I’ve tried to explain. (And actually, I don’t think what I’ve said is much different from what many Christian thinkers have said about the true nature of sacrifice.)

      No, in that redemption is not a propitiation of an angry god or a “deal” we make—I give up this thing of value, with great harm to my soul, but because it hurts so bad, it must show my sincerity and how much I want to please the god (parent, really) figure. And yes, in that the redemption of all things is the true loving of all things by a liberation of them from the causes and conditions of suffering. That will certainly involve, at some point, our giving up of many things, views, beliefs, and attitudes that we now might feel are quite wonderful and essential to our happiness.

      Real sacrifice isn’t from outside. It comes from within us, from our deepest desire to be happy and free. In this sense, it really isn’t sacrifice, though it might look that way to others. It’s the effect of love and wisdom. If we see sacrifice, or renunciation, as a “requirement,” or as imposed from outside or from above, then our wise hearts reject this arbitrary, outside-imposed sacrifice as the evil it surely is. But if our hearts are alive with genuine love, wisdom, and compassion, then gladly learn how to let go of whatever keeps us from the maximum of happiness or from helping to end suffering in the world. This is the sacrifice that really redeems us and the world.

    • Jan, you wrote:

      “…..I reckoned that it is the rejection of desire which is our sacrifice. Then circular logic seems to whirl me around and I’m thinking, “Yeah, but isn’t wanting redemption also desire?” So, is not that also a source of suffering?

      Jan, I hope my previous response answers the first part of your question, about what genuine sacrifice is and how dealing with desire it understood in terms of genuine renunciation and redmption.

      As for your last part, your question reflects, I feel, a common misconception about what the Buddha taught—that since he taught that all suffering originates in desire (even that’s a gross oversimplification) that the desire for redemption, or liberation, would also be a source of suffering.

      Actually, the Buddha taught just the opposite—that without the desire or aspiration for liberation, for lasting happiness, one can’t really attain it.

      A contradiction? Only on the face of it, and only if you think the Buddha was giving out metaphysical truths and not a skillful means and methods to end suffering. In fact, in the Pali canon, the Buddha is recorded as saying, “There is a kind of craving that has good results, the craving that leads you away from repeatedly wandering on [in delusion], the desire to get out of this wandering, to discontinue this wandering.”

      And there are dozens more like this where the Buddha not only speaks to the need for an earnest desire for liberation, but also the need for all kinds of other positive, energetic actions and attitudes—aspiration, patience, perseverance, vigorous effort, judicious watching of one’s thought to see what thoughts lead to harm and what to happiness.

      The Buddha wasn’t a metaphysician, a categorical theorist like Kant or Leibnitz. When he said that desire leads to suffering, he wasn’t establishing desire as a metaphysical category of evil. Rather, he wanted us to look into the relationship between desire and suffering. What desires lead to suffering? What desires lead to happiness?

      One of the amazing things about the Buddha’s teachings is that he shows how to take the very ordinary things of our lives, even things that may now cause stress and suffering, and to use them as aids to freedom.

      Yes, it’s true, the desire for liberation involves stress, a kind of suffering. But the Buddha would have us use this very stress as a skillful means, even as a goad, to increase our mindfulness of what actions and thoughts increase stress and what eliminate it.

      The desire for liberation from suffering is like a great horse—we can ride it a long way before we can finally let go of it because we’ve arrived at full freedom. The Buddha used the metaphor of the dharma teachings as raft to cross a wide and terrible river. The raft is a temporary means for getting across the river; it is not an end in itself.

      But we’d be awfully foolish if at the beginning of our river crossing, or halfway across, we said, “I’m not going to use this raft any more, because it’s a temporary means and thus involves stress and suffering.”

      Let me share a brief passage from a teacher I admire, Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He’s talking about right views here, but you could just as well substitute the word “aspiration” or “right desire” for “right views” in what he says. He beautifully sums up what I’m trying to say about right desire:

      “Any correct statement about the path is a part of right view. And yet the goal of the path—total freedom—includes freedom from attachment to all views. This means that right views don’t stand at the end of the path. In other words, we don’t practice the path simply to arrive at right view. And yet we can’t follow the path without making use of right views. So right views are tools—strategies—to a higher end. They are unique in that their approach to reality leads ultimately to their own transcendence. They are meant to spark the sort of inquiry that takes the mind beyond them. Their efficacy is what proves their truth. Their integrity in action, combined with the worthiness of their outcome, is what makes them— as strategies—noble.”

    • Jan wrote:

      “…I guess my question is, “Is this universal, and, if so, what is the sacrificial agent for the whole of us?” Is redemption universally available? By what means? Is it, in fact, necessary? What is the final outcome if one is not redeemed? Indeed, redeemed from what?

      Jan, great questions! Everything you’ve asked has really made me think and look deeply into my own experience and understanding, so thank you.

      Again, the first thing I’d say, which is perhaps even more obvious with a folk-tale like this, is that everything said is deeply metaphorical. It’s myth-making in the very best sense of that word, as Joseph Campbell explains. This Jakata tale can work for the simplest child or the sophisticated adult. But, it’s not metaphysics, thank goodness; it’s more poetic.

      So in terms of actual practice, yes, the dear dragon achieved his redemption through self-sacrifice. “Greater love hath no man (or dragon) than to lay down his life for his fellow man (or woman.)” As for carrying off souls with him to the “Pure Land,” I think there’s a truth in this in that a great soul like that can, by his or her very presence and example, bring others out of deep suffering. But in terms of actual Buddhist practice, (or Christian practice, I would also argue), each individual must work out his own salvation (liberation), “with fear and trembling,” to echo the Bible. In Buddhism, all hells are self-made hells, in that actions have consequences.

      In Buddhism, there’s no savior-god, even though there are bodhisattvas whose whole purpose it to help others break free from suffering. There is no vicarious atonement. The Buddha’s great example does not ensure your or my liberation, except by following his example. We are responsible for our own lives, for what we think and do, and no one else can work out the problem of being for us. In Buddhism, heaven and hell all states of consciousness made manifest in karma as conditioned being. Each of us must become the Buddha of our own lives; we cannot look to some outside power to save us. Even the highest good of another can only bless us if we let it in our hearts.

      In fact, even in the Jakata tale, the dragon couldn’t bring everyone out of hell, could he? Only some. Why was that? He wasn’t good enough? I don’t think that’s the point. How often have we wanted to save another from suffering, but the other just wasn’t ready to see or receive the good at hand? The poignancy of Jesus was that he was a rejected savior; he had the power to show others the way out of their individual hells, but they had to have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

      So, in Buddhism, as I explained in my earlier response, there doesn’t have to be an outside “sacrificial agent.” Sacrifice is something we do ourselves, from within. It’s not something from outside or something that can be done for us, though again, the self-sacrifice of others surely bless and inspires us, if we have eyes to see. (To the Romans, and many Jews, what Jesus was giving wasn’t even recognized as sacrifice.)

      In Buddhism, redemption (liberation) is universally available. It’s for everybody. There is no eternal hell, no special heaven for some. The capacity for self-redemption is in latent and indeed, intrinsic, to every sentient being. Some schools of Buddhism call this inner capacity and ability evidence of Buddha nature, perhaps not unlike what Christians call the Christ consciousness, though both these term offend some fundamentalists in both camps. In any event, the Buddha taught that everyone can follow the Eight-fold Path to full freedom and undying happiness. No one is left out or rejected, nor is it ever to late to start walking the walk.

      And this answers your “by what means” question—by means of our own desire for freedom, by developing skillfully our own innate capacity for self-transcendence, call it Buddha nature, inner spirit, the Christ consciousness, or whatever. By skillful means, by means of meditation and metta. By means of discipleship, if one is a Christian, and living a life of Christ insofar as the light within shows the way. In Buddhism, mere faith in the Buddha doesn’t “save,” nor does faith or belief in any savior figure or deity. We save ourselves, but we are not without help and aid.

      To me, the greatest redeemer is love itself, hence the theme of this blog. The love that liberates is at once both absolutely ordinary and absolutely beyond all mundane definitions of love and affection.

      Is redemption necessary? This seems self-evident to those who suffer, and I’m sure to those who have a heart, such as you.🙂 To one who has taken the bodhisattva vow, redemption of all beings is the reason for enduring in samsara, until all beings everywhere are free. Surely there is a very similar motive in every genuine Christian heart, because, to paraphrase, “all of creation is on tip-toes, waiting for the redemption of the sons and daughters of God,” for in their redemption comes the redemption of all createdness.

      What is the “final outcome” if one is not redeemed? Eternal hell? So far as I can tell from my own practice, there is no “final outcome” that is done to you. We choose, moment to moment, our “final outcomes,” and I reckon that can go on for a long, long time, if one hasn’t suffered sufficiently to get on that horse of right desire and ride it all the way to freedom. But there is no eternal hell in Buddhist teaching, though looking into my own at-time stubborn, selfish heart, I can imagine some states of thought must assuredly take eons to awaken to love’s call.

      “Redeemed from what?” I assume you mean what does Buddhism say about this, since Christianity certainly is clear about both the need for redemption and from what folks are redeemed. In Buddhism, final redemption is freedom from all conditionality, freedom from the suffering of endless becoming, of eating and being eaten, of participation in the endless round of suffering that comes from a finite, limited, and selfish sense of being. The Buddha wouldn’t characterize what this final release is like, because it isn’t “like’ anything, and beyond space and time. Yet he spoke of it as absolute bliss, as the the deathless, as supreme happiness.

      As the Buddhist teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes, “The Buddha insists that this level is indescribable, even in terms of existence or nonexistence, because words work only for things that have limits. All he really says about it—apart from images and metaphors—is that one can have foretastes of the experience in this lifetime, and that it’s the ultimate happiness, something truly worth knowing.”

    • Jan said:

      …I’ve always been intrigued by some of the stark similarities [of Buddhism] with Christian thought. I’ve always attributed this to a common Christian aphorism, “All truth is God’s truth.”

      Yes, truth is truth, wherever you find it. I’ve often felt the same way about truths I’ve found in Hinduism and Integral Yoga. Knowing your good Christian heart, I take your last sentence as the highest compliment for any truth you may have found in my remarks. ☺

  3. What a wonderful site. Thank you.

    • Thanks, Mark. Was away all day and just got back this evening, so I just got this…near 3 am your time! Getting this site going has been a great joy to me, and it’s been a while coming. It feels so good to share what’s in my heart. Thanks for stopping by and for your remarks. Steve

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: