Magic

[garro]

Well my point is that it is search for happiness (or to escape from suffering) that draws people to different paths. It is my view that the Buddha provided a practical means to achieve this. I don't think that it is any coincedence that when people achieve insights it is often accomplished with great happiness. The Buddha himself praised the rapture associated with these states. Of course, the ideal would be to become an arahant, but then again this state is often described in reference to happiness. I suppose though that until we achieve this ourselves it is mere speculation. So for me happiness is a very important part of the path. When I experience happiness from my practice it is often a sign that I'm doing something right. I don't think that the Buddha wanted people to merely repeat his words but to experience things for themselves - see the experience is impermanent for myself but not dismiss it.

All good, and when the time comes and you are going through a dry patch in your practice and the happiness has gone temporarily I'd be willing to bet that you won't say "Sod this I'll go and be a Jehovah's Witness because they always look happy".

Why? because there is more to your path than just being happy, hence my original point "There needs to be more to it than just making people happy."

When I hit a dry patch it's often a sign that I've somehow taken a wrong turn somewhere. If this unhappy period continues then it is a sure sign that I'm doing something wrong. The good thing is that my past experience of gaining happiness from the path gives me confidence to make it though the bad periods.

If the Buddhist path provided no happiness then I would abandon it. I would feel that the Buddha had misled me because he promised an escape from suffering which for me equates to happiness - equanimity being a great happiness.

[Brucenkhamen]

When I hit a dry patch it's often a sign that I've somehow taken a wrong turn somewhere. If this unhappy period continues then it is a sure sign that I'm doing something wrong. The good thing is that my past experience of gaining happiness from the path gives me confidence to make it though the bad periods.

If the Buddhist path provided no happiness then I would abandon it. I would feel that the Buddha had misled me because he promised an escape from suffering which for me equates to happiness - equanimity being a great happiness.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Dry patches are an important part of the path, they enable you to deepen your practice and seperate the men from the boys.

If you read about the lives of any of todays respected teachers they all went through dry patches, or times when the happiness was gone, or the rug was pulled from under them.

But this is probably another topic worthy of it's own thread, we don't want to distract from the riveting subject of magic inanimate objects.

[garro]

Yes dry patches are a great learning opportunity for me and there is no need for you to feel 'sorry to hear that'.

It is always nice to come out of the other side of these again and feel the happiness which comes from the teachings.

I have found that a bit of humility is a great asset, when trying to practice the path, but that would also be 'another topic worthy of its own thread'.

So it will probably be better to return to the topic at hand.

[thaiclan]

Huh? You say 'drugs can make people happy.'

I say 'I don't believe that drugs make people happy.'

You say 'I believe that was my point.'

Sorry I don't understand and it's a bit too early in the morning for koans.

My reference to drugs as an example is irrelavent. Chocolate can make you happy, Icecream can make you happy, winning the lottery can make you happy.

The point is happiness is impermanant, subject to conditions, so I don't thaiclan's statement that "I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism" is enough reason to validate a spiritual path.

Not only that but if that happiness is based on ignorance then that's counterproductive, in some cases even dangerous.

When is "enough", to validate a spiritual path? I mean some people eat choccie or pop a drug to be happy in the moment, others choose a patriarchal or orginised religion in the belief they will find happiness within it for longer than a moment. Others like me find that neither fits the bill and searches a combination of science, spiritulism and humanism to also find a level of understanding that enhances and sustains the happiness I feel.

There is an interesting concept of "ego", which states the ego is the chitter chatter or voice in our head, and is also never happy in the present. Our ego defines who we are by using our past and also will never be happy in the present as it is searching for a future date/event/thing to become happy. It is therefore the ego that is searching for a religion/cause/group as the ego must define itself and separate itself from others. Via meditation the ego can be seen for what it really it is. Jesus, Mohammed and Suddharta were 3 men amongst many men and women who saw this truth and encouraged people to "search" within themselves for God in one shape or form. That is to get past the ego and see the self for what it is.

It is very easy to do and once glimpsed the path becomes even easier. Incidentally it is also then becomes very clear to see ego at work within others (and any forum is a great example of this). Most religions tell us to give each other an easy break as we do not know what we do. This is because it is the ego creating conflict and judgement not a true self.

(one of many books that describe this perfectly is Eckhart Tolle's New Earth)

[traveller5000]

I notice in Thailand that people wear buddha amulets. Do they possess power to protect or bring wealth or love or etc.....?

To answer your question (and avoid the other questions it raises), I think there is a possibility some amulets have magical powers.

I'm basing this on something I read in the scriptures which tell about the Buddha and some of his monks exhibiting magical powers (thus giving credence to this whole magic thing).

As to how this is done, I have no idea, except to say it must have something to do with the talent and power of the "magic monk".

[traveller5000]

Jesus, Mohammed and Suddharta were 3 men amongst many men and women who saw this truth and encouraged people to "search" within themselves for God in one shape or form. That is to get past the ego and see the self for what it is.

I'm not sure if Jesus or Mohammed would have equated "God" with "getting past the ego", or if Siddharta would have equated "getting past the ego" with "God".

I think Eckard Tolle made a mistake in this comparison, along with his overly liberal use of the word 'enlightenment' - with the effect of cheapening its meaning. Probably increased book sales though.

Otherwise a very good book.

[Austhaied]

I notice in Thailand that people wear buddha amulets. Do they possess power to protect or bring wealth or love or etc.....?

To answer your question (and avoid the other questions it raises), I think there is a possibility some amulets have magical powers.

I'm basing this on something I read in the scriptures which tell about the Buddha and some of his monks exhibiting magical powers (thus giving credence to this whole magic thing).

As to how this is done, I have no idea, except to say it must have something to do with the talent and power of the "magic monk".

Nothing "magical" about it. Just natural, like everything else that exists in the universe.

http://www.orientalia.org/dictionary-Buddh...11-abhinna.html

[Brucenkhamen]

To answer your question (and avoid the other questions it raises), I think there is a possibility some amulets have magical powers.

I'm basing this on something I read in the scriptures which tell about the Buddha and some of his monks exhibiting magical powers (thus giving credence to this whole magic thing).

As to how this is done, I have no idea, except to say it must have something to do with the talent and power of the "magic monk".

That would be people having attained powers, through having developed a very high degree of samadhi.

Inanimate objects aren't sentient beings so can't develop this. I'd be very surprised if there was a scriptual reference to magic inanimate objects or at least one where the Buddha encourages use or reliance in them.

[traveller5000]

That would be people having attained powers, through having developed a very high degree of samadhi.

Inanimate objects aren't sentient beings so can't develop this.

Sure, I realise the amulets don't develop the powers in and of themselves (although there seems to be a belief that the older the amulet, the stronger its powers get). I assumed they have to be charged through the intent of the "magic monk". That is, the monk projects his magical intent into the amulet (and containing it within there somehow) in the same way he might use his powers of samadhi to effect/influence anything else in the world. I'm only speculating here.

...inanimate objects or at least one where the Buddha encourages use or reliance in them.

me too.

[traveller5000]

I notice in Thailand that people wear buddha amulets. Do they possess power to protect or bring wealth or love or etc.....?

To answer your question (and avoid the other questions it raises), I think there is a possibility some amulets have magical powers.

I'm basing this on something I read in the scriptures which tell about the Buddha and some of his monks exhibiting magical powers (thus giving credence to this whole magic thing).

As to how this is done, I have no idea, except to say it must have something to do with the talent and power of the "magic monk".

Nothing "magical" about it. Just natural, like everything else that exists in the universe.

http://www.orientalia.org/dictionary-Buddh...11-abhinna.html

Yes, i'm not equating "magical" with unnatural.... I think i know what you mean though.

Nice link, i've pulled out a quote.

(1) "Now, O Bhikkhus, the monk enjoys the various magical powers (iddhi-vidha), such as being one he becomes manifold, and having become manifold he again becomes one. He appears and disappears. Without being obstructed he passes through walls and mountains, just as if through the air. In the earth he dives and rises up again, just as if in the water. He walks on water without sinking, just as if on the earth. Cross-legged he floats through the air, just like a winged bird. With his hand he touches the sun and moon, these so mighty ones, so powerful ones. Even up to the Brahma-world he has mastery over his body.

[Brucenkhamen]

Sure, I realise the amulets don't develop the powers in and of themselves (although there seems to be a belief that the older the amulet, the stronger its powers get). I assumed they have to be charged through the intent of the "magic monk". That is, the monk projects his magical intent into the amulet (and containing it within there somehow) in the same way he might use his powers of samadhi to effect/influence anything else in the world. I'm only speculating here.

Well I think you've got a good handle on the Thai belief around this. Just because something is believed by a group of people doesn't make it true. Some people believe in Santa Claus, but they'd be wrong, and when they grow up they'll realise that.

I'm still waiting for an anecdote demonstrating the magical powers of an inanimate object.

I'm also waiting for a scriptual reference where the Buddha encourages belief in amulets as it's not in the spirit of his core teaching.

Even if there was the possibility of inanimate objects weilding magical powers I don't see how reliance on them can do anything but encourage spiritual immaturity.

[traveller5000]

Sure, I realise the amulets don't develop the powers in and of themselves (although there seems to be a belief that the older the amulet, the stronger its powers get). I assumed they have to be charged through the intent of the "magic monk". That is, the monk projects his magical intent into the amulet (and containing it within there somehow) in the same way he might use his powers of samadhi to effect/influence anything else in the world. I'm only speculating here.

Well I think you've got a good handle on the Thai belief around this. Just because something is believed by a group of people doesn't make it true. Some people believe in Santa Claus, but they'd be wrong, and when they grow up they'll realise that.

I'm still waiting for an anecdote demonstrating the magical powers of an inanimate object.

The relic of the Buddhas tooth in India is said to have miraculous powers, for example when a King ordered the relic to be destroyed and just before doing so suddenly decided to convert to Buddhism. And the "rain making power" of the Buddhas tooth relic in Sri lanka is another example.

Anyhow. Lets assume for the moment that magic powers through high levels of Samadhi are possible (plenty of scriptural references).

Whats to say the "magic monk" can't project his Samadhi powers into the inanimate object, charging it somehow through the powers of his intent, (like positively charging a battery) ? Can't see why not. I don't think it is an unreasonable jump.

If so, then there is the possibility that some amulets have magical powers.

I'm also waiting for a scriptual reference where the Buddha encourages belief in amulets as it's not in the spirit of his core teaching.

I've not encountered such a reference to amulets, I doubt one exists.

Once again, I acknowledge the point you are making.

[Brucenkhamen]

The relic of the Buddhas tooth in India is said to have miraculous powers, for example when a King ordered the relic to be destroyed and just before doing so suddenly decided to convert to Buddhism. And the "rain making power" of the Buddhas tooth relic in Sri lanka is another example.

I'm not familiar with these stories, they are obviously after the Buddhas lifetime (unless the Buddhas dentist swiped some of his teeth) so I would question their reliability. Also considering the many thousands of claimed Buddha relics around the world why do we have droughts today, surely their rainmaking ability should be well known.

Anyhow. Lets assume for the moment that magic powers through high levels of Samadhi are possible (plenty of scriptural references).

Whats to say the "magic monk" can't project his Samadhi powers into the inanimate object, charging it somehow through the powers of his intent, (like positively charging a battery) ? Can't see why not. I don't think it is an unreasonable jump.

The first question I'd ask is why would they want to? the second question is if they could do this is why don't they use these powers for something useful? the third question is where do you draw the line? (maybe they can beam themselves up to the Klingon starships orbiting the earths atmosphere too), the last question is why do you care? how is it going to help you to gain freedom from suffering in this lifetime?

[Brucenkhamen]

Oops, I forgot Klingons use Warbirds not Starships... my bad.

[traveller5000]

Anyhow. Lets assume for the moment that magic powers through high levels of Samadhi are possible (plenty of scriptural references).

Whats to say the "magic monk" can't project his Samadhi powers into the inanimate object, charging it somehow through the powers of his intent, (like positively charging a battery) ? Can't see why not. I don't think it is an unreasonable jump.

The first question I'd ask is why would they want to? the second question is if they could do this is why don't they use these powers for something useful? the third question is where do you draw the line? (maybe they can beam themselves up to the Klingon starships orbiting the earths atmosphere too), the last question is why do you care? how is it going to help you to gain freedom from suffering in this lifetime?

answers

1. You would have to ask them not me. I would not presume to know their motives.

2. Protecting someone from danger sounds useful enough to me.

3. Probably should draw the line when you use intent to hurt someone.

4. why do I care? I don't really. Just answering the OPs question - "do amulets have magical powers?".

5. how is it going to help me gain freedom from suffering? again.... I don't believe it will.

But the real question of this topic is "do amulets have magical powers?"

[Brucenkhamen]

But the real question of this topic is "do amulets have magical powers?"

I've got about 20 of them Thai people have given me over the years, I don't really want them but I don't feel right about thowing them away. If you ever find evidence they are magic I'll sell them to you for a good price

[traveller5000]

Can't help you there, sorry.

Have you heard about the "guu mun tong" amulets?

They are apparently made from a small, dried up human foetus, and worn around the neck. The owner must take care of it every day, feeding or something, and it apparently bestows superhuman powers of protection to the wearer. However if they fail to feed it, the powers of the guu mun tong thing will turn upon its owner. That's what they believe anyway.

I can sell one to you for a good price if your interested.

[Brucenkhamen]

Can't help you there, sorry.

Have you heard about the "guu mun tong" amulets?

They are apparently made from a small, dried up human foetus, and worn around the neck. The owner must take care of it every day, feeding or something, and it apparently bestows superhuman powers of protection to the wearer. However if they fail to feed it, the powers of the guu mun tong thing will turn upon its owner. That's what they believe anyway.

I can sell one to you for a good price if your interested.

No thanks, I have enough trouble remembering to feed my goldfish.

[camerata]

My take on amulets is this: For those who understand the Buddha's teaching, psychological security comes from mental cultivation, i.e. it has an internal source. For those who don't, it comes from external sources such as amulets. Regardless of whether an amulet really has power or not, the belief that it has confers a degree of psychological security.

The belief that an amulet works is generally based on non-rational information. For example, we all have good luck and bad luck every day, some days are luckier than others. If we get an amulet and it's followed immediately by some (normal) good luck, we make a connection between the amulet and the luck. Because we want it to be true, we tend to ignore any bad luck that follows. Similarly, all the people who have amulets could be displayed as a standard distribution curve (bell curve) - most have both good and bad luck, but a few have a lot of bad luck and a few have a lot of good luck. But it's only the good-luck group we hear about and remember, so we get the impression there is overwhelming evidence that they work. Same with the Erawan Shrine. Zillions of people go there and don't get what they asked for but inevitably a few supplicants win the lottery or whatever and those are the ones we hear about.

Another aspect of this is that people seem to think that just because millions of others believe in the power of amulets (or anything else), it must be true! There is a scene in the movie of Carl Sagan's book Contact where the Christian guy is talking about God and says to Ellie (an atheist scientist), "So you think that 90% of humanity is under some sort of mass delusion?" She doesn't answer but for any serious Buddhist this a poignant scene in the movie.

In the past, when asked for an amulet, some forest monks would teach villagers to meditate and insist that the amulet would only "work" if they kept the five precepts and meditated. The idea was that if the villagers did this they would get some psychological security from mental cultivation even though the amulet had no magical power.

[Brucenkhamen]

My take on amulets is this: For those who understand the Buddha's teaching, psychological security comes from mental cultivation, i.e. it has an internal source. For those who don't, it comes from external sources such as amulets. Regardless of whether an amulet really has power or not, the belief that it has confers a degree of psychological security.

The belief that an amulet works is generally based on non-rational information. For example, we all have good luck and bad luck every day, some days are luckier than others. If we get an amulet and it's followed immediately by some (normal) good luck, we make a connection between the amulet and the luck. Because we want it to be true, we tend to ignore any bad luck that follows. Similarly, all the people who have amulets could be displayed as a standard distribution curve (bell curve) - most have both good and bad luck, but a few have a lot of bad luck and a few have a lot of good luck. But it's only the good-luck group we hear about and remember, so we get the impression there is overwhelming evidence that they work. Same with the Erawan Shrine. Zillions of people go there and don't get what they asked for but inevitably a few supplicants win the lottery or whatever and those are the ones we hear about.

Another aspect of this is that people seem to think that just because millions of others believe in the power of amulets (or anything else), it must be true! There is a scene in the movie of Carl Sagan's book Contact where the Christian guy is talking about God and says to Ellie (an atheist scientist), "So you think that 90% of humanity is under some sort of mass delusion?" She doesn't answer but for any serious Buddhist this a poignant scene in the movie.

In the past, when asked for an amulet, some forest monks would teach villagers to meditate and insist that the amulet would only "work" if they kept the five precepts and meditated. The idea was that if the villagers did this they would get some psychological security from mental cultivation even though the amulet had no magical power.

Well said!

[j0hnga1t]

ditto....

[traveller5000]

The belief that an amulet works is generally based on non-rational information. For example, we all have good luck and bad luck every day, some days are luckier than others. If we get an amulet and it's followed immediately by some (normal) good luck, we make a connection between the amulet and the luck. Because we want it to be true, we tend to ignore any bad luck that follows. Similarly, all the people who have amulets could be displayed as a standard distribution curve (bell curve) - most have both good and bad luck, but a few have a lot of bad luck and a few have a lot of good luck. But it's only the good-luck group we hear about and remember, so we get the impression there is overwhelming evidence that they work.

This paragraph reminds me of the power of positive thinking. If someone has a belief in the magic of amulets for luck, and primes their mind so to speak using an amulet, their mind will be more receptive to anything good popping up, and through that receptivity will be in a better position to seize any "lucky" opportunity.

So perhaps it is not the amulets themselves that have the magic power, but the belief of "I am lucky" which brings about a small change in perception, not to attract luck, but to be more receptive to it. (similar what you mentioned in the first paragraph about psychological security).

Edited March 20, 2008 by traveller5000

[Brucenkhamen]

This paragraph reminds me of the power of positive thinking. If someone has a belief in the magic of amulets for luck, and primes their mind so to speak using an amulet, their mind will be more receptive to anything good popping up, and through that receptivity will be in a better position to seize any "lucky" opportunity.

So perhaps it is not the amulets themselves that have the magic power, but the belief of "I am lucky" which brings about a small change in perception, not to attract luck, but to be more receptive to it. (similar what you mentioned in the first paragraph about psychological security).

True, the possession of any external object can potentially change a person's attitude if it triggers faith in them. It also follows that if one day they accidently drop their amulet down a drain they will be plunged into the depths of despair.

Better to grow up I say.

[traveller5000]

True, the possession of any external object can potentially change a person's attitude if it triggers faith in them. It also follows that if one day they accidently drop their amulet down a drain they will be plunged into the depths of despair.

Better to grow up I say.

Many people in the grown up world have worked hard to build up elaborate mental constructions of security, safety and pride in their lives. These mental constructions more or less rest on the ownership of their material possessions - car, house, money in the bank.

That is, the external objects in their lives give them a sense of security etc, and if the external objects were to suddenly vanish so would their feelings of security. Doesn't the whole concept of money rest on collective faith?

I don't see too much difference between the wearer of a gold necklace and the wearer of an amulet, except for a vast difference in collective belief.

For example, the lady wearing a gold necklace might believe it makes her more attractive, so she might act more attractive, see herself as more attractive, other people around her participating in and reinforcing this collective belief. The amulet owner similarly believes he is now going to be lucky, and becomes more receptive to opportunities than he would otherwise be.

[camerata]

So perhaps it is not the amulets themselves that have the magic power, but the belief of "I am lucky" which brings about a small change in perception, not to attract luck, but to be more receptive to it. (similar what you mentioned in the first paragraph about psychological security).

Well, even if amulets do offer some psychological security or mental uplift, the flip side - as Bru mentioned - is that it can go the other way. If we lose the amulet, we may get depressed or desperate. The point is we can't control the amulet. This to me is the main message of the Buddha, that trying to control the external world is impossible and leads to suffering. We can only control our mind.

Having an amulet may also result in a false sense of security. Apparently a lot of gangsters, cops and soldiers wear amulets (or have tattoos) to protect themselves from bullets. But if their belief in this magical power causes them to take more risks than they otherwise would, they'd be better off without them. As I recall, a couple of years ago a bunch of Muslim youths attacked a police station with knives and sticks, and many got shot. Apparently they had been brainwashed into believing some kind of talisman would protect them from bullets.

[Brucenkhamen]

Many people in the grown up world have worked hard to build up elaborate mental constructions of security, safety and pride in their lives. These mental constructions more or less rest on the ownership of their material possessions - car, house, money in the bank.

That is, the external objects in their lives give them a sense of security etc, and if the external objects were to suddenly vanish so would their feelings of security. Doesn't the whole concept of money rest on collective faith?

I don't see too much difference between the wearer of a gold necklace and the wearer of an amulet, except for a vast difference in collective belief.

For example, the lady wearing a gold necklace might believe it makes her more attractive, so she might act more attractive, see herself as more attractive, other people around her participating in and reinforcing this collective belief. The amulet owner similarly believes he is now going to be lucky, and becomes more receptive to opportunities than he would otherwise be.

The wearer of a gold necklace has a pretty good reason to believe that if she takes it down to the gold shop she'll be given the market price.

The owner of a house has a pretty good reason to believe that if he lists it for sale he'll get the market price.

The owner of a car has pretty good reason to believe that if he starts the car it will get him from A to B without breaking down.

Of course nothing is certain.

So you're telling me the person who believes an amulet will give him good luck has just as much justification to believe that as what the people believe in the examples above? You've really made grasping at straws into a fine art.

[Brucenkhamen]

Imagine two Thai Taxi drivers.

Taxi driver A is a Thai animist Taxi driver, he has and amulet hanging around his rear vision mirror (heck he's probably got 10). He believes that the amulet will bring him good luck and no matter what he does, no matter what risks he takes, the amulet will prevent him from having an accident.

Taxi driver B is a good Buddhist Taxi driver. He realises that the safety of the passengers is his responsibility, he realises that he must be alert and do his best to ensure that he drives safely at all times. He ensures the car complies with all safety standards. He knows if he causes an accident he'll only have himself to blame.

Which taxi would you prefer to ride in?

Edited March 20, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[traveller5000]

Many people in the grown up world have worked hard to build up elaborate mental constructions of security, safety and pride in their lives. These mental constructions more or less rest on the ownership of their material possessions - car, house, money in the bank.

That is, the external objects in their lives give them a sense of security etc, and if the external objects were to suddenly vanish so would their feelings of security. Doesn't the whole concept of money rest on collective faith?

I don't see too much difference between the wearer of a gold necklace and the wearer of an amulet, except for a vast difference in collective belief.

For example, the lady wearing a gold necklace might believe it makes her more attractive, so she might act more attractive, see herself as more attractive, other people around her participating in and reinforcing this collective belief. The amulet owner similarly believes he is now going to be lucky, and becomes more receptive to opportunities than he would otherwise be.

The wearer of a gold necklace has a pretty good reason to believe that if she takes it down to the gold shop she'll be given the market price.

The owner of a house has a pretty good reason to believe that if he lists it for sale he'll get the market price.

The owner of a car has pretty good reason to believe that if he starts the car it will get him from A to B without breaking down.

Of course nothing is certain.

So you're telling me the person who believes an amulet will give him good luck has just as much justification to believe that as what the people believe in the examples above? You've really made grasping at straws into a fine art.

If you drop your defensiveness for a second, you might see the point I'm trying to make.

Namely, the effects of belief (whatever it is - good luck amulet, social status, wealth) are real. That is, the belief alters the perception of the believing person, and influences them. Whether or not the belief can be justified is irrelevant, and as far as the OP is concerned is of secondary consideration.

In fact, justification is not even a prerequisite for belief, it only serves to strengthen it. As you say, nothing is certain, although collective belief certainly helps.

Do amulets have magical powers? If the wearer believes they have, and if this belief alters his or her perception, and therefore the way he or she responds and reacts to the environment, however subtle, then yes, one could say amulets have power of some sort.

Magical? don't know about that. The native American Indians in their naivety probably believed Christopher Columbus was a magician.

[traveller5000]

Imagine two Thai Taxi drivers.

Taxi driver A is a Thai animist Taxi driver, he has and amulet hanging around his rear vision mirror (heck he's probably got 10). He believes that the amulet will bring him good luck and no matter what he does, no matter what risks he takes, the amulet will prevent him from having an accident.

Taxi driver B is a good Buddhist Taxi driver. He realises that the safety of the passengers is his responsibility, he realises that he must be alert and do his best to ensure that he drives safely at all times. He ensures the car complies with all safety standards. He knows if he causes an accident he'll only have himself to blame.

Which taxi would you prefer to ride in?

definitely Taxi driver B.

if he exists.

Edited March 20, 2008 by traveller5000

[Brucenkhamen]

definitely Taxi driver B.

if he exists.

I made him up.