Shaktis come in threes...

[Guest guest]

Several weeks ago, Devi Bhakta forwarded (to some appreciative acclaim) a

poster of "Tri-Devi," portrayed as a goddess with three heads and upper

torsos, and a number (was it twelve?) of arms. The deities were

described as Lakshmi, Parvati, and Sarasvati. These are the peaceful

female equivalents of the classical Trimurti -- the Hindu trinity of

Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver), and Shiva (the Destroyer).

 

But there are other Goddess combinations of threes. Parvati in the

center is more often replaced with Durga, a more wrathful aspect of

Shiva's Shakti.

 

Another form of Shiva's Shakti is Kali, who is more likely to be placed

to the left (from their view) of Sarasvati and a central Lakshmi. I'm

used to this threesome being referred to as the Tri-Shakti, and typifying

Jnana Shakti (power to Know), Iccha Shakti (power to Will), and Kriya

Shakti (power to Act).

 

I put "Tri-Shakti" in a search engine, and came up with some interesting

results. One Indian company has a Trishakti Yantra, portraying Kali,

Shri, and Sarasvati, yeilding the blessings of protection, security, and

success. These goddesses are equivalents of the last (Chamunda), middle

(Vaishnavi), and first (Brahmani) of the Sapta-Matrikas or Seven Mothers

of Shakta tradition.

 

Another website sells a Tri-Shakti pendant with three gemstones (from the

price, I'd guess that they are precious stones and not just glass!) --

one white, one green, and one dark blue. I'm guessing that the white

stone (too big for a diamond, perhaps a white tourmaline?) stands for

planet Shukra (Venus) and Lakshmi, the emerald stone stands for planet

Budha (Mercury) and Sarasvati, and the sapphire stone stands for planet

Shani (Saturn) and Kali. These planets share rulerships over the Air and

Earth signs in the Zodiac. (And inspire curiousity as to what deities

the Water and Fire sign rulers are associated with! That's yellow

sapphire (Guru/Jupiter), red coral (Mangala/Mars), pearl (Chandra/Moon),

and ruby (Surya/Sun), if you'd like to hazard a guess.)

 

On still another website, a Tantric Guru offers a Tri-Shakti yantra

combining the influences of three of the Mahavidya wisdom goddesses:

Kali, Chinnamasta, and Bagalamukhi (though why that combination is

suggested, is not made clear).

 

There's a <shloka> to Lalita/ Kameshvari which concludes by saying "this

deity is served by the other goddesses... by the wife of Indra, skilled

at arranging the hair; by the wife of Brahma, skilled at applying

sandalpaste; by the wife of Vishnu, skilled at ornamenting with precious

gems." Here's another threesome of goddesses, and apparently indicating

that Indrani is patroness of hairdressers, Sarasvati is patroness of

perfumers, and Lakshmi is patroness of jewellers.

 

I like the idea of worshipping the three Shaktis together, perhaps a

holdover from my Wiccan training, where I was used to honoring the

Goddess as Maiden, Mother, and Crone.

 

Anyone have other combinations of three Devis that appeal to them?

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

______________

The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

, kalipadma@j... wrote:

> One Indian company has a Trishakti Yantra, portraying Kali,

> Shri, and Sarasvati, yeilding the blessings of protection,

security, and

> success. These goddesses are equivalents of the last (Chamunda),

middle

> (Vaishnavi), and first (Brahmani) of the Sapta-Matrikas or Seven

Mothers

> of Shakta tradition.

>

> Another website sells a Tri-Shakti pendant with three gemstones

(from the

> price, I'd guess that they are precious stones and not just

>glass!)

 

 

As an aside, these pendants wont do anything they claim. These

websites just make money. So is the case with yantras for sale.

 

> There's a <shloka> to Lalita/ Kameshvari which concludes by

saying "this

> deity is served by the other goddesses... by the wife of Indra,

skilled

> at arranging the hair; by the wife of Brahma, skilled at applying

> sandalpaste; by the wife of Vishnu, skilled at ornamenting with

precious

> gems." Here's another threesome of goddesses, and apparently

indicating

> that Indrani is patroness of hairdressers, Sarasvati is patroness

of

> perfumers, and Lakshmi is patroness of jewellers.

 

 

That is a just a poetic description. It does not mean anything.

 

It is illogical to infer Indrani as patron of such and such and

Sarasvati as patron of pefumes or whatever. A poetic description may

contain many things and they are not meant to be understood/taken

literally.

 

Kamakshi, Minakshi and Vishalakshi. Paintings of these 3 goddesses

side by side are commonly found in south.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

> That is a just a poetic description. It does not mean anything.

>

> It is illogical to infer Indrani as patron of such and such and

> Sarasvati as patron of pefumes or whatever. A poetic description

may

> contain many things and they are not meant to be understood/taken

> literally.

>

 

 

When does one decide to interpret poetically and when not to

interpret poetically? It seems that what you are really telling is

that "I dont like this interpretration so it has to be poetic" and

when you do like an interpretation you decide " I like this

interpretation, so I will take this literally".

 

On this basis now I can conclude all instructions relating to getting

diksha from a guru for mantra sadhana are also "poetic" and must not

be taken literally. (we have argued on this at every other forum :-)).

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

It is of course best to get mantra diksha from a Guru. But some say that

your Ishtadevata can act as your Guru. And certain Devas

(Dakshinamurthi, Matangi, among others) are especially noted for granting

mantra diksha.

 

-- Len/ Kalipadma

 

 

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:23:12 -0000 "childofdevi" <childofdevi

writes:

>

> On this basis now I can conclude all instructions relating to

> getting

> diksha from a guru for mantra sadhana are also "poetic" and must not

>

> be taken literally. (we have argued on this at every other forum

> :-)).

 

 

______________

The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

, "childofdevi"

<childofdevi> wrote:

> > That is a just a poetic description. It does not mean anything.

> >

> > It is illogical to infer Indrani as patron of such and such

and

> > Sarasvati as patron of pefumes or whatever. A poetic description

> may

> > contain many things and they are not meant to be

understood/taken

> > literally.

> >

>

>

> When does one decide to interpret poetically and when not to

> interpret poetically? It seems that what you are really telling is

> that "I dont like this interpretration so it has to be poetic" and

> when you do like an interpretation you decide " I like this

> interpretation, so I will take this literally".

 

 

That is bcoz Saraswati is known as goddess of learning and not

perfumes. Is there any source which says Saraswati is goddess of

perfumes or something?

 

Please tell me if you find anything about Saraswati like that. And

what on earth does a goddess of perfumes mean? She makes all

perfumes in this world? Or should one meditate on Saraswati while

using perfumes? Is there some scripture which prescribes her

meditation while using perfumes? Please let me know if you find

something like that.

 

Another reason is that, She doesnt need someone to dress Her hair

and perfume. Is She human? Since such questions come up one

concludes it is poetic.

 

Another way is to observe similar shlokas and see if they make any

literal sense.

 

In another shloka of Saundaryalahari, it says, he who worships

Lalita, sports with Lakshmi to the jealousy of Vishnu. U want to go

ahead and literally believe that? U r free to do so if u want.

And what kind of literal meaning is that? Anyone here beleives the

above statement about Lakshmi is true and literal? So all we need to

conclude whether it is poetic or not is a little common sense and

some logic and familiarity with various kinds/types of scriptures.

 

-------------------

Saundaryalahari is a *poem*. A tantra is *not a poem*.Just remember

that.

-------------------

>

> On this basis now I can conclude all instructions relating to

getting

> diksha from a guru for mantra sadhana are also "poetic" and must

not

> be taken literally. (we have argued on this at every other forum :-

)).

 

Yeah.Lol.

That is because there is a living tradition(hence there is no

question of interpretation in the first place) which follows that

rules. And that there are great teachers who taught so. And bcoz

there is no ambiguity in that.

Secondly, some negative effects of doing so are clearly experienced

by sadhakas.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

>

> That is bcoz Saraswati is known as goddess of learning and not

> perfumes. Is there any source which says Saraswati is goddess of

> perfumes or something?

 

 

See now again, what you concluding here is primarily arising out of

your dislike for the notion that Saraswati is the patron of perfumes.

Now the author of the poem could have described Saraswati as the

patroness of honey, milk, cowdung, gold... but of all possible

choices perfumes were chosen; so there must have been a good basis

for this.

 

Granted that Saraswati Maa is popularly known as the patroness of

learning, but this does not preclude her from being the patroness of

perfumes also ?

>

> Please tell me if you find anything about Saraswati like that. And

> what on earth does a goddess of perfumes mean? She makes all

> perfumes in this world? Or should one meditate on Saraswati while

> using perfumes? Is there some scripture which prescribes her

> meditation while using perfumes? Please let me know if you find

> something like that.

>

> Another reason is that, She doesnt need someone to dress Her hair

> and perfume. Is She human? Since such questions come up one

> concludes it is poetic.

 

How can you tell? Are there any scriptural sources that affirm that

Maa Saraswati does not need someone to dress Her hair, if you do find

any please let me know :-).

>

> In another shloka of Saundaryalahari, it says, he who worships

> Lalita, sports with Lakshmi to the jealousy of Vishnu. U want to go

> ahead and literally believe that? U r free to do so if u want.

> And what kind of literal meaning is that? Anyone here beleives the

> above statement about Lakshmi is true and literal? So all we need

to

> conclude whether it is poetic or not is a little common sense and

> some logic and familiarity with various kinds/types of scriptures.

>

 

 

Are there any scriptural source telling that if something does not

stand-up to common-sense, then it must be taken only

poetically/allegorically. If you do please let me know.

 

 

This shloka is from the last 60 shlokas of SL, which Acharya had to

compose from a vision/revelation(since Nandi did not let him take

away those). This incident was very real in Acharya's vision; we

cannot say that just because you find it hard to believe, that this

was a pure allegory. Using common sense is very misleading; for it

would lead us to believe that the earth is flat!

 

> -------------------

> Saundaryalahari is a *poem*. A tantra is *not a poem*.Just remember

> that.

> -------------------

 

SL is first a tantra and second a poem. The tantrik prayoga for each

shloka is well known.

>

> That is because there is a living tradition(hence there is no

> question of interpretation in the first place) which follows that

> rules. And that there are great teachers who taught so. And bcoz

> there is no ambiguity in that.

 

For the most part, living traditions are a miserable failure; severe

distortions have been added to these traditions over time and these

distortions are vigorously defended in the name of "tradition". Many

great teachers have taught things that are contradictory and

understandly so, for on the spiritual path is one of great

flexibility and tolerance and rules may vary for different people. I

know at least 3 well-known mahatmas who have advocated chanting of

mantras without initiation( though not all mantras)

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

, "childofdevi"

<childofdevi> wrote:

> See now again, what you concluding here is primarily arising out

of

> your dislike for the notion that Saraswati is the patron of

perfumes.

 

 

U sure I dislike the idea? It isnt dislike. What I said is that it

is a wrong conclusion from a wrong source. When everything is

considered a form of the divine, why dislike perfumes? Especially

when perfumes are used in pujas and it is called a mangala dravya

(auspicious material). Doesnt it feel pleasant to hear that a

certain goddess is goddess of perfumes?

 

> Now the author of the poem could have described Saraswati as the

> patroness of honey, milk, cowdung, gold... but of all possible

> choices perfumes were chosen; so there must have been a good basis

> for this.

 

 

First: Did the author mention explicitly(used exact words) mention

that She is a patroness of perfumes? No. That She is a patroness of

perfumes is inferred by a list member. The shloka never said She is

patroness of such and such. It simply said Saraswati is applying

perfumes to Lalita.

 

Second: There is another shloka in Saundaryalahari where Saraswati

is singing the glories of Shiva for Lalita to hear. Thus She is

described as doing various acts of service(like singing,applying

pefumes etc) to the divine mother, which is what the shloka wants to

convey and not just that She is goddess of perfumes.

 

>

> Granted that Saraswati Maa is popularly known as the patroness of

> learning, but this does not preclude her from being the patroness

of

> perfumes also ?

 

No problem at all if She is mentioned actually as goddess of

perfumes anywhere. That will be something sweet to hear, IMO. But

the shloka does not convey that message, which is what I pointed out.

 

***Why did I point that?***

 

1)So that the shloka is understood in its essential spirit and not

narrowed down to something like a perfume or hair etc.

2)So that one does not draw a certain conclusion from a certain

shloka which the shloka does not intend to convey.

 

 

> How can you tell? Are there any scriptural sources that affirm

that

> Maa Saraswati does not need someone to dress Her hair, if you do

find

> any please let me know :-).

 

 

Lol. You seemed to be in a hurry and digressed a lil. This

particular point you raised looked like you raised it simply to

argue. I assume you mean Lalita instead of Saraswati. The below

applies even if you mean Saraswati.

Anyways listen:There are lots of statements in the Vedas and

Puranas and Tantras saying that She is independent and doesnt need

help from anyone. From what I know about you, I assume you are

familiar enough with scriptures to find a sanskrit reference for

yourself. I bet LS had a couple of names to impress that point.

Well, know it now then.

 

> > In another shloka of Saundaryalahari, it says, he who worships

> > Lalita, sports with Lakshmi to the jealousy of Vishnu. U want to

go

> > ahead and literally believe that? U r free to do so if u want.

> > And what kind of literal meaning is that? Anyone here beleives

the

> > above statement about Lakshmi is true and literal? So all we

need

> to

> > conclude whether it is poetic or not is a little common sense

and

> > some logic and familiarity with various kinds/types of

scriptures.

> >

>

>

> Are there any scriptural source telling that if something does not

> stand-up to common-sense, then it must be taken only

> poetically/allegorically. If you do please let me know.

 

 

Along with common sense I said(see above-I left for ref),

familiarity with scriptures. Common sense obtained by familiarising

oneself with scriptures, not the common sense in wordly parlance.

You knew it now of what I speak.

>

>

> This shloka is from the last 60 shlokas of SL, which Acharya had

to

> compose from a vision/revelation(since Nandi did not let him take

> away those). This incident was very real in Acharya's vision; we

> cannot say that just because you find it hard to believe, that

this

> was a pure allegory. Using common sense is very misleading; for it

> would lead us to believe that the earth is flat!

 

 

Again: The point I made is that one cannot-conclude-that-Saraswati-

is-the-goddess-of-perfumes-based-on-the-shloka-in question and not

whether the incident is real or unreal. Whether She is a goddess of

perfumes or not, I dont know and I did not think so coz I never came

across anything which told so. If someone says She is said to be the

goddess of perfumes in certain scripture(i am not sarcastic here) I

will be happy to note that.What I said in another way, is that the

shloka isnt giving the message that saraswati is the goddess of

perfumes. What message is it giving? That Saraswati the great

goddess of speech or vak serves Lalita Mahatripura Sundari in

various ways like in one shloka She is singing in another She is

applying perfume in another She is doing some other service etc etc.

Clear now?

Whether the incident is real or not?- I dont know.Am I concerned

whether the incident is real or not? No I am not.

 

> > -------------------

> > Saundaryalahari is a *poem*. A tantra is *not a poem*.Just

remember

> > that.

> > -------------------

>

> SL is first a tantra and second a poem. The tantrik prayoga for

each

> shloka is well known.

 

 

Each shloka certainly has great power like mantras as you mentioned.

Good thing that you mentioned about it. It also has great enjoyable

poetic descriptions. It can be viewed in both ways.

 

 

>

> For the most part, living traditions are a miserable failure;

severe

> distortions have been added to these traditions over time and

these

> distortions are vigorously defended in the name of "tradition".

 

That is just your opinion. One of many million insignificant

opinions.

 

The living traditions are a grand success. This is my opinion.

Like yours one among many million insignificant opinions.

 

 

> I

> know at least 3 well-known mahatmas who have advocated chanting of

> mantras without initiation( though not all mantras).

 

I know more than 3 mahatmas who say initiation is definitely

required and am certainly sure about a great number of other

mahatmas who would espouse the same.

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

, kalipadma@j... wrote:

> But some say that

> your Ishtadevata can act as your Guru. And certain Devas

> (Dakshinamurthi, Matangi, among others) are especially noted for

>granting

> mantra diksha.

 

 

Not true.

 

It is true for only those who get initiated properly from a teacher

and after reaching great levels in sadhana. There are some higher

and unknown mantras(in Srividya) whom no human guru can initiate.

These mantras are initiated by Dakshinamurti. Sometimes Lalita

appears b4 them and initiates. Ofcourse that is very rare and true

for only 1 in a million accomplished sadhakas(accomplished sadhakas-

not sadhakas in general-not to speak of those devoid of mantra japa

etc).

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

>

> > How can you tell? Are there any scriptural sources that affirm

> that

> > Maa Saraswati does not need someone to dress Her hair, if you do

> find

> > any please let me know :-).

>

>

> Lol. You seemed to be in a hurry and digressed a lil. This

> particular point you raised looked like you raised it simply to

> argue. I assume you mean Lalita instead of Saraswati. The below

> applies even if you mean Saraswati.

 

 

Satish-ji, I was being facetious when I made that statement; it was

also a pun at you( for lot of things that can be easily resolved

by "common-sense", you ask for the same thing).

 

My point is that you cannot arbitrary decide to

intrepret "poetically" something that you cannot accept literally; at

the same time you cannot be exacting to the word when it comes to

things that OK to you.

 

So for instance, you cannot assume the phalasruti has to assumed word

for word and the LS is "poetic". Now you may say that the phalasruti

is not a "poem" so has to be taken literally, to that I will say that

I will quote authoritative statements(these are not "poems" BTW) from

the Manusmriti, Chandogyaupanishad etc and prove that

 

1) there are no Brahmanas in India today and the ones that call

themselves Brahmanas are chandalas

2) 90% of the population of the Western nations are brahmanas

.....LOL

 

So to summarize, please be more consistent and dont foist your

opinions on others(under the pretex of shastra, "poem"

or "commonsense")- everybody else is entitled to an opinion as much

as you are.

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

> My point is that you cannot arbitrary decide to

> intrepret "poetically" something that you cannot accept literally;

at

> the same time you cannot be exacting to the word when it comes to

> things that OK to you.

 

May I request you to kindly focus on the issue. It is probably

second or third time that I am mentioning to you that the issue is

*not* whether the "poetic description is acceptable to me or not".

 

Where on earth, did I mention that the literal translation of that

shloka is unacceptable to me?

 

Wont it be a good idea on your part to thoroughly read what I post

if you are planning to respond to that? Where is the need to re-

iterate and concentrate on something which I clearly mentioned is

not an issue for me? Nor is it an issue for anyone in this

discussion.

 

Plz read the following post again and see what I am discussing and

what I am concerned about and what I am not concerned about.

 

/message/9129

 

MIQ: (Most imp questions).

 

Q1) What is the exact point we are discussing?

 

Ans: Whether one can say Saraswati is goddess of perfumes or not

based on a shloka which said, "Saraswati is applying perfumes to

Lalita".

 

Q2) Am I concerned whether the poetic description makes sense or not?

 

Ans: No.

 

Q3)What am I concerned about?

 

Ans: Whether it is appropriate to make a certain inference from a

certain statement.

 

Q4) What is the statement and what inference is made from it?

 

Ans: The statement is " Saraswati applies perfumes to Lalita".

 

The inference made from above statement is that "Saraswati is

goddess/patroness of perfumes".

 

Q5) What is the main point of discussion again?

 

Ans: If the inference in answer for Q4 is correct or not.

 

Q6) Is the poetic description unacceptable to anyone?

 

Ans: Nobody involved in this discussion said that the poetic

description is unacceptable.

 

 

I asked you if the statement, "He sports with Lakshmi to the

jealousy of Vishnu" can be taken literally.

Yes or no?

 

> So for instance, you cannot assume the phalasruti has to assumed

word

> for word and the LS is "poetic".

 

Both LS and Phalashruti have poetic parts.

 

How does one know that such and such is poetic?

By comparing what other scriptures say on the same issue.

 

>Now you may say that the phalasruti

> is not a "poem" so has to be taken literally,

 

As above phalashruti has its own share of poetic exaggerations.

Q1)How do we know that?

Ans:By comparing with other scriptures. Say for ex:ParashuRama Kalpa

sutra or Srividyarnava tantra.

 

Q2)But how do we compare? When should one doubt that something is

poetic and not literal in the first place?

Ans:If one is examining the two scriptures and finds something

contradictory in what they say about the same issue, then one

decides one of the scriptures is being poetic in that part.

Or one can infer that they are referring to different valid

traditions.Because none of the scriptures can be wrong.

 

Q3)So how does one decide which exactly among the two is poetic?

Ans:By comparing with a third one or many more or by seeing the

practices of living traditions.

 

Guru's word and instruction prevails over *almost* everything.

 

> So to summarize, please be more consistent and dont foist your

> opinions on others(under the pretex of shastra, "poem"

> or "commonsense")- everybody else is entitled to an opinion as

>much

> as you are.

 

See above.

Also: Please read the following again.

/message/9129

 

Rgds

[Guest guest]

, "Satish Arigela"

<satisharigela> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> > My point is that you cannot arbitrary decide to

> > intrepret "poetically" something that you cannot accept

literally;

> at

> > the same time you cannot be exacting to the word when it comes to

> > things that OK to you.

>

> May I request you to kindly focus on the issue. It is probably

> second or third time that I am mentioning to you that the issue is

> *not* whether the "poetic description is acceptable to me or not".

 

I apologize for giving that impression; I was not referring to your

like/dislike for that shloka. I was alluding to your interpretation

of the Phalasruti in the context of a statement that you had made

earlier; was trying to be funny (but apparently not LOL).

> Q3)So how does one decide which exactly among the two is poetic?

> Ans:By comparing with a third one or many more or by seeing the

> practices of living traditions.

 

I see that you are adding more and more criteria- "common

sense", "poetic" and now "living tradition". So called "living

traditions" are so hopelessly way off...

 

You are carrying on the grand tradition of our great God-sent

philosopher saints- Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha... of

interpreting (the same!!) scripture to their own sectarian viewpoints

and you know what, they were all correct.

>

> Guru's word and instruction prevails over *almost* everything.

>

 

EXACTLY! And I would remove that *almost*.

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

, "childofdevi"

<childofdevi> wrote:

> I was alluding to your interpretation

> of the Phalasruti in the context of a statement that you had made

> earlier; was trying to be funny (but apparently not LOL).

 

Ok.

>

> > Q3)So how does one decide which exactly among the two is poetic?

> > Ans:By comparing with a third one or many more or by seeing the

> > practices of living traditions.

>

> I see that you are adding more and more criteria- "common

> sense", "poetic" and now "living tradition". So called "living

> traditions" are so hopelessly way off...

 

How does talking about a living tradition amount to adding a

criteria? They are the ones who has been following these for so many

centuries.

 

They are quite consistent.

 

 

> Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha... of

> interpreting (the same!!) scripture to their own sectarian

viewpoints

> and you know what, they were all correct.

 

 

So?

[Guest guest]

yogaman,

 

what are Brahmanas and Chandalas?

 

Om Amriteswaryai Namaha

Brianna

 

--- childofdevi <childofdevi wrote:

> 1) there are no Brahmanas in India today and the

> ones that call

> themselves Brahmanas are chandalas

> 2) 90% of the population of the Western nations are

> brahmanas

> ....LOL

 

 

 

 

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

 

[Guest guest]

, Brianna Mosteller

<rubyrapunzel> wrote:

> yogaman,

>

> what are Brahmanas and Chandalas?

>

 

Brianna:

 

Brahmanas are the priestly caste and Chandalas are the so-called

untouchables- byproducts of an infernal caste system that has been

the bane of Mother India.

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

thats the common parlance defenition

He who knows brahma is a brahmana and he who does not or strive to know is a

chandala.

 

childofdevi <childofdevi wrote:

, Brianna Mosteller

<rubyrapunzel> wrote:

> yogaman,

>

> what are Brahmanas and Chandalas?

>

 

Brianna:

 

Brahmanas are the priestly caste and Chandalas are the so-called

untouchables- byproducts of an infernal caste system that has been

the bane of Mother India.

 

-yogaman

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam