Welcome to the History Discussion Forum!

Today's Posts Search FAQ Contact Us

User Name User Name

  Historum - History Forums > Blogs > ghostexorcist Remember Me?
A Venerated Forgery: The Daoist Origins of Shaolin’s Famous Yijin Jing Manual Password Log in

Register Forums Blogs Community

Welcome to the Historum - History Forums.

Please login or register for a new account.
Need help with the website?Contact Us anytime.

Atraiga
Invite a nuevos
potenciales
clientes
clientes
con que buscan
Regístrese hoy
lo que usted
anuncios en Google.
ofrece.

ghostexorcist
A Venerated Forgery: The Daoist Origins of Shaolin ’s Famous
Yijin Jing Manual
Posted March 31st, 2011 at 09:52 PM by ghostexorcist
Updated October 31st, 2013 at 06:09 AM by ghostexorcist
Tags bodhidharma, buddhism, kung fu, shaolin, taoism

A Venerated Forgery: The Daoist Origins of Shaolin’s Famous Yijin Jing

Join Date Mar 2011
Location Midwest
Manual
Posts 724
Blog Entries 63 By Jim R. McClanahan

Find Blog Entries b y ghostex orcist The Buddhist monk Bodhidharma ( 菩提達摩 , a.k.a. Damo,達摩 ) is said to have come to China during the 6th
century in order to spread his own form of meditation-based Mahayana Buddhism known as Chan ( ), or 禪
Containing Text: as it is more widely known, Zen. The common story passed around in martial arts circles is that the Indian
monk retired to a cave near the Shaolin Monastery where he meditated for nine years. During this time, his
Search Titles Only
concentration was so strong that either: 1) his image was burnt into the living rock or 2) his gaze burnt a
hole in the rock. After his period of reflection was over, he saw the monks of Shaolin were too physically
Advanced Search weak to handle the rigors of lengthymeditation, so he, in the words of Master Wong Kiew Kit: “taught them
Search
a series of external exercises known as the Eighteen Lohan Hands, and asystem of internal exercises
Blog Categories known as the Classic of SinewMetamorphosis.” [1] Kit believes generals who retired to the Monastery later
developed the external exercise into a fighting system, and the internal exercises became Shaolin Qigong.
Global Categories [2] Other legends flat out claim Bodhidharma was the cr eator of Shaolin kung fu. There is even a Chinese
General History film dedicated to his life and later creation of kung fu in China. [3]
European History
American History
Asian History
Middle Eastern and African History
Ancient History
Medieval and Byzantine History
Current Events
War and Military History
Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology
Art and Cultural History
Personal Blogs
Miscellaneous

Recent Comments

Kaifeng Jew paper - Part II by

Nobusuma
A Verdant Paradise: The Garden in
Chinese History and Art by
ghostexorcist
That Piece of Rare Magic Iron: The
Literary and Religious Origins of the
Monkey King by ghostexorcist
The Spotted Cat: A Study of Nazca
Pottery with Feline Motif by Cliff
When Heroes Meet: Sun Wukong and
Yue Fei In Fiction, Martial Lore, and
Religious Text by Zoopiter

Recent Entries

The Literary Precursor of Journey to

the West
Interesting Facts About the
Tyrannosaurs
A Patriotic Yoga: The Deep History of
the Tendon-Changing Classic
Brief Musings on the Evolution of
Primate Tail Loss
Tracking the Cat: The Biography of a
Nazca Water Pot with Feline Motif

Recent Visit ors

Cerberus HackneyedScribe Hadrien

heavenlykaghan michael d Piccolo
piete stevapalooza thamirlan
wuzzywu

Tag Cloud

dinosaurs evolution
journey to the west
monkey king reptile sun
wukong tyrannosaurus
rex
Search by Tag

Archive A 19th century Japanese woodblock print of Bodhidharma b

y Yoshitoshi.
 <  February 2017    
These legends are actually based on information derived from a qigong manual entitledYijin Jing ( 易筋經 ).
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa This is commonly translated into English as the “Muscle-Changing Classic,” “Tendon-Changing Classic,”
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Muscle-Metamorphosis Classic,” etc. The manual has two prefaces purportedly written by two Chinese
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
generals of different eras. The first preface by Tang Dynasty General Li Jing ( 李靖 , 571- 649) tells the story
of Bodhidharma’s seclusion in the cave for nine years and how the monks later found two books written yb
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 him inside an iron chest after his death. The first manual, Xisui Jing ( 洗髓經 , Marrow-Washing Classic), was
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 taken by his most senior disciple Huike ( 慧可 ) and disappeared. The second manual, theYijin Jing, was
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 coveted by the monks even though they could not fully understand the Sanskrit text. Some time later, a
monk tracked down the famous Indian holy man Paramiti who was able to translate it in full. After 100 days
26 27 28 1 2 3 4
of practice, the monk gained an immortal body capable of living 10,000 eons. [4] The man ual later
disappeared until it was passed on to Li Jing by the hero Qiuran ke ( 虯髯客 , the Curly-Bearded Stranger)
during the 7th century. [5] The second preface by Song Dynasty General Niu Gao ( ⽜皋 ) tells how he met a
mysterious monk who had been the childhood teacher of his superior officer Gener al Yue Fei (岳⾶ , 1103-
1142). The monk passed Niu a letter and then magically anished
v “to the West, to look for Master
Bodhidharma.” [6] Yue read the letter which warned him of the fate that awaited him (ex ecution on trumped
up charges) if he returned to the capital. But being loyal to the end, Yue decided to return anyway. He gave
Niu his copy of the manual before leaving. Niu buried the manual because he didn’t know anyone who was
“capable of becoming a Buddha.” [7]

Unfortunately, the prefaces were written centuries after these generals died. There are many anachronistic
mistakes and flat out fictions that point ot this. I will list some of them:

* Li Jing’s preface is dated 628, but the Indian holy man Paramiti (fl. 705), who is said to have
translated the Yijin Jing from Sanskrit into Chinese years before the general received it, wasn’t
actively translating anything until almost 80 years later. This means he probably hadn't even
been born yet. [8]

* A battle formation said to have been utilized by Li Jing in the first preface comes from Ming
Dynasty fiction. [9]

* The hero Qiuran ke ( 虯髯客 ) is actually a popular fictional character from a 10th century
Chinese tale called “The Curly-bearded Stranger.” Li Jing is a prominent character within the
narrative. [10]

* Niu Gao’s preface is dated 1142, but he refers to Emperor Qinzhong ( 欽宗), a posthumous
temple name that was not bestowed until 1161. [11]
 * Yue Fei’s family and state memoirs do not mention him studying under a monk. He did study
under two men with possible military backgrounds, but records do not allude to them having
any affiliation with Buddhist monasteries. [12]

Analysis of outside sources show Bodhidharma had no historical connection to the monastery or the
development of its martial arts during his life time. According to Prof. Meir Shahar:

In the sixth-century Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Louyang (Luoyang qielan ji) (ca. 547),
[Bodhidharma]* is said to have visited the city, but no allusion is made to the nearby Mt.
Song[, where Shaolin is located]. Approximately a century later, the Continuation of the
Biographies of Eminent Monks(Xu Gaoseng zhuan) (645), describes him as activ e in the "Mt.
Song-Luoyang" region. Then, in such early eighth-century compositions as the Precious
Record of the Dharma's Transmission (Chuanfa baoji) (c. 710) Bodhidharma is identified not
merely with Mt. Song but more specifically with the Shaolin Monastery, where supposedly for
several years he faced the wall in meditation. [13]

* The bracketed words are mine.

There is no way Bodhidharma could have taught the monks martial arts or even written the two manuals if
Chinese records do not attest to his presence at Shaolin during his own lifetime. As far as martial arts are
concerned, researchers have analyzed documents going back 250 years, and there are some that mention
both Bodhidharma and Shaolin martial arts, but never connect the two. [14] In fact, the idea of the Zen
patriarch physically teaching monks martial arts did not come about until the publishing of a highly popular
satirical novel entitled The Travels of Lao Can (⽼殘遊記 ) in a magazine between 1904 and 1907. The author
apparently confused the qigong attributed ot Bodhidharma with martial arts. This mistake was then echoed
in the proceeding novel Shaolin School Methodspublished in a newspaper serial in 1910, and an alter ed
reprint in 1915 calledSecrets of Shaolin Boxing. It spread into popular books and manuals on the subject
from there, and into the public consciousness. [15]

So if Bodhidharma didn’t write it, who did? Researchers have suggested two different people. In a series of
articles appearing in Black Belt Magazineduring the 1960’s William Hu stated physicalcopies of the manual
could not be traced back any further than the mid-19th century. He also claimed the author wasa provincial
governor of Hubei called Pan Wei ( 潘蔚 ), who was apparently adept in Chinese medicine and qigong. P an
published his version of the Yijin Jing under the title Weisheng Yaoshu ( 衛⽣要術 , Essential Techniques for
Guarding Life) in 1858. Hu explained the manual did not mention Bodhidharma, and thatan P himself
likened the Muscle-Changing qigong ot a Daoist exercise. [16] The only problem with Hu’s study is that he
did not have access to all versions of the Yijin Jing, some of which predate Pan’s work. The earliest known
extent version possible derives from the 17th century. The manual carries a comment which eads: r “Stored
at the Narrating-Antiquities Library of Qian Zunwang.” [17] This may refer to a certain Qian Ceng ( 錢曾 ), with
the style name of Zunwang ( 尊王 ), who is recorded to have lived from 1629-1701. This version has an
undated postscript by a person with the pennameZining Daoren ( 紫凝道⼈ , Purple Coagulation Man of the
Way), who lived on Mt. Tiantai in Zhejiang province. [18] His name appears on several of the proceeding
versions. An 1884 edition dates his postscript to 1624, [19] lending credence to a version of it being in Qian
Ceng’s library (click here to learn more about the dating of the manual). Based on the penname,Zining
Daoren could haven been either a Daoist or a Buddhist because Mt. Tiantai was home o t temples of both
religions, not to mention the fact that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) was a time of synchr onization between
the “three religions.” [20] The reason that most current researchers believe he was a Daoist and that he was
the true author is because: 1) the Muscle-Changing qigong is Daoist in natur e since it is comprised of
Daoyin (導引 , guiding and stretching) exercises; 2) The goal of the exercise goes against the Buddhist
concept of impermanence since it is said ot result in an immortal body; and 3) the Chinese have a habit of
attributing newer works to famous sages. For example, there are verified Daoist works that attribute various
other qigong exercises to Bodhidharma, some as far back as the 12th century. [21]

The monks of Shaolin have worshiped the Vajrapani Bodhisattva as their patron saint for over a thousand
years. Literary and stelae evidence from the 8th and 16th century shows the monastery originally venerated
him as the source of their martial strength and pole skills as well. An anecdotal st
ory appearing in Zhang
Zhuo's (張鷟 僧稠
. 660-741) Tang anthology tells of how the Shaolin monk Sengchou ( , 480-560) gained
supernatural strength and boxing skills after being force-fed raw meat by Vajrapani. [22] A stele dedicated in
1517 illustrates the story of how Vajrapani, disguised as a lowly monk, transformed into a mountain-striding
giant wielding a fire poker as a pole in order to defend Shaolin from the Red Turban army during the Yuan
Dynasty (1279-1368). [23] Stan Henning belie ves this story was created as both a decoy to hide the monk’s
historical defeat at the hands of the Red Turban rebels, and to give a mythical origin for their famous pole
method. [24] Nevertheless, this shows the monks considered someone else to be the originator of their
skills centuries before Bodhidharma.
 An engraving of the 1517 stele

People who willingly choose to ignore the above information tend to cite the fact that even the current
Shaolin abbot has mentioned Bodhidharma cr eating kung fu in interviews. I believe I know how the monks
came to accept a new in-house origin myth. First and foremost, monks can’t have children after taking the
tonsure, so the monastery must get cadre from amongst the common folk the satirical no vel and martial
manuals mentioning the legend circulated. This means those people outside the monastery would be more
likely to accept the legend than those already in it. Second, because the monastery has a rotation of new
people, the “collective memory” of the sangha (Buddhist community) tends o t differ from generation to
generation. For example, the monks wove a wicker statue of Vajrapani’s Yaksha-like King Jinnalou ( 緊那羅
王 ) form during the 17th century. One hundred years later, the monks of the new generation believed that
Vajrapani himself had made it. [25] Third, Shaolin chose the wrong side in a political dispute, which led ot
the dispersal of thesangha when the monastery was burnt by a warlord in 1928. Fourth, the Shaolin cult of
Vajrapani received a huge blow when the aforementioned statue perished in the fire. The cult was not
rejuvenated until almost sixty years later when the monks rebuilt the shrine to him in 1984. [26] By the time
the monastery was rebuilt and a newer sangha was formed, the Vajrapani legend had all butbeen forgotten.
The younger and more prevalent myth about Bodhidharma won out in the end thanks largely to its
proliferation amongst the common folk outside the monaster y. To my knowledge, no one has ever tried to
explain this before.

There is mixed sentiment towards debunking such myths among martial arts practitioners. On one end of
the spectrum, there are some who are greatly offended to the point of anger. For example, during the 1920s
and 30s the noted martial arts practitioner and historian Tang Hao (唐豪 , 1897-1959) was the first person ot
seriously call into question the myths concerning Bodhidharma and the Daoist Immortal Zhang Sanfeng ( 張
三丰 顧留馨
). [27] A memorial essay about Tang by his friend and fellow martial artist Gu Liuxin ( ) states:
“Unhealthy factors such as ridiculous descriptions of Chinese martial arts which included outright
fabrications, fantastical stories of Taoist fairies and immortals and strange Buddhist folktales corrupted
and tainted people’s thoughts about Chinese martial arts. Tang Hao was merciless in his exposure of such
tales and was extremely harsh in his critiques.” [28] This offended the long standing Confucian family-based
lineage system where in martial artists thought of their masters and grandmasters as “fathers” and
“grandfathers.” Therefore, a lot of people were upset when Tang’s book Study of Shaolin and Wudang ( 少林
武當考 , 1920) came out claiming their lineagepatriarchs had no connection to martial arts at all. So upset it
seems, as Gu Liuxin remembered, “some ruthless and self-proclaimed practitioners of Wudang and Shaolin
made a plan to attack Tang Hao and beat him up.” [29] Tang was able to avoid this possibly lethal
confrontation only because his friend Zhu Guofu ( 朱国福 ), a famous practitioner of Chinese and western
boxing, negotiated an agreement where Tang left Nanjing for Shanghai. [30] On the other end of the
spectrum, there are some who feel the “art” of martial arts is more important than the legends. I would say
most of the practitioners that I have interviewed fall in the middle but lean ot wards the first end of the
spectrum. Many of them are either unaware of the scholarly research into the subject, or they just simply
refuse to accept it (without out reading anything!) because it goes against what they have been told by the
senior members of their martial arts community. They feel generations of oral transmission trumps
decades of solid research. They also seem to be under the impression that the scholarly consensus comes
only from western researchers with zero martial arts experience. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

There is also mixed sentiment among martial arts historians. In a paper entitled "Theater of combat: A
critical look at the Chinese martial arts," Prof. Charles Holcombe warns: “If it is necessary to debunk the
Bodhidharma myth since it is historically false, we must also be wary of our modern materialist impulse to
tear aside the veil of myth to uncover the real martial arts beneath. The truth is that for most Chinese
practitioners of the arts the myths were real enough.” [31] In a rebuttal paper, "On Politically Correct
Treatment of Myths in the Chinese Martial arts," Stan Henning claims the statement was directed at him
because of his own efforts to separate the myth from the art, and counters by highlighting the pioneering
research of Tang Hao, thus illustrating that this is not a recent phenomenon. [32] In addition, Henning
chastises him for accepting Chinese martial arts as a religious practice as opposed to its historical
association with the military. He concludes by saying: "The bottom line is, polite deference to the myths
surrounding the Chinese martial arts is not only unwarranted but also unworthy of serious scholarship. It is
high time that self-styled American martial arts “scholars” [i.e. Holcombe] took a big step forward out of the
1920’s and up to the threshold of the 21st century." [33] I stand with Henning on this matter . I would also
argue against Holcombe's stance by stating it is our duty as historians to record the past accurately for
posterity. Bowing out to tradition will only cause the true history to be forgotten.

Notes

[1] Kiew K. Wong, The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense Health and
Enlightenment (Boston, Mass: Tuttle, 2002), 19.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Bodhidharma the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu,” Youtube, è©æ达摩 1 Bodhidharma the founder of
Shaolin Kung fu è©æé”æ‘© 1 - YouTube (accessed July 21, 2011).
劫
[4] I have not seen the original Chinese for this text. If the "eon" it refers to is the Buddhist "Kalpa" ( )—this
would be appropriate since the manual is attributed to a Buddhist saint—then a person would live a very,
very long time. Tradition states a single Kalpais 432 million years long (William Edward Soothill and Lewis
Hodous, A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms: With Sanskrit and English Equivalents and a Sanskrit-Pali
Index (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000), 232). So a person living 10,000 eons would be 4.3 trillionears y old!
To put things in perspective, scientists believe the earth is currently 4.5 billion years old. You would be 1,000
times older than the Earth.
[5] Meir Shahar, The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts (Honolulu: University
of Hawai'i Press, 2008), 165-167.
[6] Ibid, 169.
[7] Ibid, the full translation is on 168-170.
[8] Ibid, 168.
[9] Ibid, 170.
[10] Ibid, 168. For a brief synopsis of this character's tale, see James J.Y. Liu, The Chinese Knight Errant
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967), 87-88. A full translation can be read in Yang Xianyi and Gladys
Yang, Selected Tang Dynasty Stories (Foreign Language Press, 2000), 181-195.
[11] Ibid, 170.
[12] Edward Harold Kaplan, “Yueh Fei and the Founding of the Southern Sung” (Ph.D. Diss., University of Iowa,
1970), 10-11.
[13] Shahar, 13.
[14] Stan Henning and Tom Green, "Folklore in the Martial Arts" in Green, Thomas A. Martial Arts of the
World: An Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2001), 129.
[15] Stan Henning, "Ignorance, Legend, and Taijiquan," Journal of the Chen Style Taijiquan Research
Association Of Hawaii2, no. 3 (Autumn/Winter 1994), 4-5.
[16] William Hu, "Research Refutes Indian Origin of I-Chin Ching," Black Belt Magazine3, no. 12 (December
1965): 48 and 50.
[17] Shahar, 203.
[18] Ibid, 162 and 203.
[19] Ibid, 204.
[20] Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. See the full chapter ongymnastics” “ in Ibid, 137-181.
[21] Ibid, 171-172.
[22] Ibid, 35-36.
[23] Ibid, 83-92.
[24] Stan Henning, “Martial Arts Myths of Shaolin Monastery Part I: The Giant with the Flaming Staff,”
Journal of the Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii5, no. 1 (1999): 2.
[25] Shahar, 88.
[26] Ibid.
[27] See the chapter “Chinese Martial Arts Historians” in Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo, Chinese Martial
Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey (Berkeley, Calif: North Atlantic Books, 2005), 38-60.
[28] Ibid, 47-48.
[29] Ibid, 49.
[30] Ibid, 50.
[31] Charles Holcombe, “Theater of combat: A critical look at the Chinese mar tial arts” in Combat, Ritual,
and Performance Anthropology of the Martial Arts, ed. David E. Jones (Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2002), 158.
[33] Stan Henning, "On Politically Correct Treatment of Myths in the Chinese Martial arts," Journal of the
Chen Style Taijiquan Research Association Of Hawaii3, no. 2 (Summer 1995): 1.
[32] Ibid, 3.

Bibliography

“Bodhidharma the founder of Shaolin Kung Fu.” Youtube. è©æ达摩 1 Bodhidharma the founder of
Shaolin Kung fu è©æé”æ‘© 1 - YouTube (accessed July 21, 2011).

Henning, Stan, and Tom Green. "Folklore in the Martial Arts." In Green, Thomas A. Martial Arts of the World:
An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2001.

Henning, Stan. "Ignorance, Legend, and Taijiquan." Journal of the Chen Style Taijiquan Research Association
Of Hawaii 2, no. 3 (Autumn/Winter 1994): 1-5.

---------- “Martial Arts Myths of Shaolin Monastery Part I: The Giant with the Flaming Staff.” Journal of the
Chenstyle Taijiquan Research Association of Hawaii5, no. 1 (1999).

---------- "On Politically Correct Treatment of Myths in the Chinese Martial arts." Journal of the Chen Style
Taijiquan Research Association Of Hawaii3, no. 2 (Summer 1995).

Holcombe, Charles. “Theater of combat: A critical look at the Chinese martial arts” in Combat, Ritual, and
Performance Anthropology of the Martial Arts, ed. David E. Jones. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2002.

Hu, William. "Research Refutes Indian Originof I-Chin Ching." Black Belt Magazine3, no. 12 (December
1965).

Kaplan, Edward Harold. “Yueh Fei and the Founding of the Southern Sung” (Ph.D. Diss.), University of Iowa,
1970.

Kennedy, Brian, and Elizabeth Guo, Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey. Berkeley, Calif:
North Atlantic Books, 2005.

Liu, James J.Y. The Chinese Knight Errant. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967.

Shahar, Meir. The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts. Honolulu: University of
Hawai'i Press, 2008.

Soothill, William Edward, and Lewis Hodous.A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms: With Sanskrit and
English Equivalents and a Sanskrit-Pali Index. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2000.

Wong, Kiew K. The Art of Shaolin Kung Fu: The Secrets of Kung Fu for Self-Defense Health and
Enlightenment. Boston, Mass: Tuttle, 2002.

Yang, Xianyi, and Gladys Yang. Selected Tang Dynasty Stories. Foreign Language Press, 2000.

Posted in General History, Asian History, Ancient History, Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology Views 19409 Comments 4

« Prev     Main     Next »

Comments Total Comments 4

Thanks for an enjoyable read .. a well thought out piece of work.

Posted April 4th, 2011 at 03:27 AM by Gile na Gile

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gile na Gile

Thanks for an enjoyable read .. a well thoughtout piece of work.

Thank you very much. I plan on extending it later before submitting it to an online
journal.

Posted April 4th, 2011 at 03:27 PM by ghostexorcist

Excellent work, ghostexorcist.

 Posted April 20th, 2011 at 03:39 PM by Kuon

People who disagree with Tang Hao's demythologizing of the Chinese martial arts are
now starting to resort to ad hominem attacks. During the Japanese occupation of China,
Tang was arrested by the Japanese police on suspicion of being a communist. He was
later acquitted of the charges and released. His modern day detractors have latched
onto this story and use it to try to discredit his work. For instance, I recently saw an
Amazon review for Brian Kennedy's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals (2008) that
said the book was untrustworthy because it relied on Tang’s research. It goes on to say:

“Tang Hao was a known communist (even arrested for it) and a shill for the newly formed
Chinese communist government. Hao's research into historical martial arts manuals
amounted to nothing more than a commie white-washing of Chinese martial arts history.”

I challenged the person to post supporting evidence in the comments section. I doubt they will produce
anything. That seemed like the sort of unsupported hearsay that would make its way into Tang’s
Wikipedia article. I looked it over, and sure enough one person had recently edited the page to reflect
that Tang’s research had “widely been discredited as anti-tradionalist [sic] Communist propaganda.”
What’s funny is that the person inserted it into a sourced sentence, which gave the impression that it
was supported by the cited books by prominent martial arts historians. I of course removed it from the
page.

Saying stuff like this is the last reserve of people who have absolutely no evidence to back up their
claims. It’s sad, really.

Posted June 3rd, 2012 at 12:29 PM by ghostexorcist

Updated June 3rd, 2012 at 12:39 PM by ghostexorcist

Remove Ads

Shop Shop Shop

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.

Contact - Forums - Blogs - Top