Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 I thank Sri Rajaram for focussing on the nature of pramANas (ways of knowing) in this discussion of science and the Vedas. I would first like to ask Sri Rajaram whether his opinions are based on the writings of Sri Vaishnava acharyas, or teachers outside the sampradAya. If the latter (such as Sri Prabhupada or other Hare Krishna teachers), I urge strong caution before mixing these up with the conclusions of the Visishtadvaita Sri Vaishnava sampradAya. The entire approach of these other teachers to Vedanta and pramANas are markedly different from ours. I get the feeling that Sri Rajaram has read these other scholars and has left with the idea that they reflect the opinions of Sri Ramanuja's sampradAya. This is evident from his very first argument: > 1. Acccepting scientific opinion : Among the sources of knowledge, > observation with senses and reasoning based on these observation are > faulty because of the four defects namely imperfect senses, ... and > illusion. Every scientist will accept that if the tools are > imperfect, so will be the results. The belief that senses are fundamentally imperfect directly contradicts Ramanuja's opinion. It is also invalid, according to Visishtadvaita, to claim that the senses are faulty because they are under the sway of illusion. It is Sankaracharya and the Advaita school who believe that the senses cannot be trusted with respect to reality. Please see Sribhashya 1.1.1 and the many works of Desika. The Visishtadvaita conclusion: except in individual cases where a sense organ is actually occluded or afflicted with a disease, the senses and therefore perception MUST BE trusted. In general, therefore, perceptual observation is 100% reliable. This is an irrefutable conclusion of Ramanuja. I do however agree with Sri Anand Karalapakkam's point that not all scientific inference (anumAna) can be trusted 100%. However, it is us to determine whether a particular argument makes sense; it doesn't mean that scientific inference as a whole is invalid. I also do not understand Sri Rajaram's reluctance to accept Vedanta's fundamental axiom vis-a-vis the pramANas, that they are independently valid (svataH-prAmANya). He writes: > 2. Order of prmanas : All the pramanas are equal only if we are not > materially conditioned. But in the conditioned state it cannot be > said so. If you still insist, please answer this. A blind does not > see and we can see. Which is the correct version of reality ? We > accept the pratyaksha and anumana of acharyas like Sripad Ramanuja > or Alwars etc., because they are on the absolute platform. a) The blind person suffers from a defective sense organ. This case is specifically dealt with by Ramanuja in Sribhashya 1.1.1, as mentioned above. This just means that the blind man has incomplete knowledge; it does not mean that sensual perception in general is invalid. b) Ramanuja *never* argues from the standpoint of spiritual superiority. He never expects anyone to accept his statements simply because he is supposedly a "realized" being. That would be theologizing a la the Koran. Rather, Ramanuja consistently requests the reader to accept his arguments based on reason. At the end of the Vedarthsangraha, he says that he writes for those clear-thinking individuals who are 'sAra-asAra-vivekajnAH', those who can distinguish the essential from the non-essential. c) It is accepted by all Vedantic schools that sabda (Vedas), pratyaksha (physical observation), and anumAma (logical inference) are three independent sources of knowledge (svataH-prAmANya). Please see Sri S.S. Raghavachar's "Introduction to the Vedarthsangraha" where he discusses this in great detail. d) As I stated before, we accept on faith statements by the Vedas and Alvars on the nature of ultimate reality, that which is incapable of being perceived. This means (according to Ramanuja), the nature of God, the nature of the individual self, their mutual interrelation, the means of obtaining moksha, and the ultimate cause of the universe. We *do not* blindly accept statements about, say, the chemical constitution of water. Based on the above principles, Ramanuja and Desika argue very forcefully that statements from the Vedas have to be reinterpreted to fit physical observation. (The opposite argument is made by Sankara and the Advaita philosophers). Please reread my argument in my previous article which explains this analysis. > In Sri Mani's quotation of Sripad Ramanujacharya, all that comes out > is that science (which depends on perception) cannot explore brahman > whereas sabda can. He does not say that sabda has to be corrected, > abandoned or reinterpreted to fit scientific opinion. As for as Sri > Desika is concerned, Sri Mani has only given his opinion on Sri > Desika's work. Unless we scrutinizingly study it, we cannot accept > it. I presume you do not have the original of Sri Ramanuja or Desika, and you are assuming that I am misunderstanding him. I assure you I am not. Please see Sri S.M.S. Chari's "Advaita and Visistadvaita", or Sri Raghavachar's work mentioned above, which explain the relation between sabda and pratyakshA pramANAs in detail. Ramanuja's fundamental principle is this: "Srutiopapattaye'py anupapannam viruddham na kalpanIyam" -- "even for supporting the Vedas, what is against reason or contradicts evidence should not be postulated" (Vedarthasangraha). I sincerely urge you to study only Sri Ramanuja's and Desika's works, and then revisit your arguments. Please *do not* base your ideas about pramANAs on Hare Krishna materials and expect them to be consonant with the Sri Vaishnava sampradAya. Thank you, Mani P.S. The question was further raised as to how to understand the various cosmological details mentioned in the Puranas. (The Vedas, by the way, never speak of concrete dates). It is important to understand that the Upanishads themselves propagate different creation theories, sometimes mutually contradictory at first glance. However, all of them are meant to only elucidate the principle that God is the material and efficient cause of the universe, needing no kind of assistance from anything or anyone else. Where does this leave Rama, Krishna, etc.? I have expressed my ideas on this subject, and the unimportance of the exact dating of the avatAras in a previous article (see http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan98/0098.html ). I agree with Sri Venkat Nagarajan's statement that trying to prove the dating, the exact historicity, etc., simply misses the point of the avatAras. Rama and Krishna are meant to be *enjoyed* -- this is the verdict of our Alvars and acharyas. Their lives are entirely TRUE. We may differ on the details, but this should not of any significant concern to us. Much is symbolic, much factual, but nothing should stop us from enjoying Rama, Krishna, et al irrespective of any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 >> 1. Acccepting scientific opinion : Among the sources of knowledge, >> observation with senses and reasoning based on these observation are >> faulty because of the four defects namely imperfect senses, ... and >> illusion. Every scientist will accept that if the tools are >> imperfect, so will be the results. > >The belief that senses are fundamentally imperfect directly >contradicts Ramanuja's opinion. It is also invalid, according to >Visishtadvaita, to claim that the senses are faulty because they are >under the sway of illusion. It is Sankaracharya and the Advaita school >who believe that the senses cannot be trusted with respect to >reality. Please see Sribhashya 1.1.1 and the many works of Desika. Some context is necessary to differentiate between Sankara's views and those of the Gaudiyas (aka Hare Krishnas). The former says that the senses are not to be trusted because for them, the whole world is maayaa. For the latter, the world is very much real, being an emanation of one of the Lord's energies, and as such the senses can be used to gather information about it. The reason members of the latter school regard the senses as imperfect is because they are *limited*. For example, one can not see his own hand in a dark room without light, what to speak of seeing (unaided) the spiritual existence of other jiivas or even the Lord's own spiritual form. Because of such limitations, the senses are described as imperfect, though they can be perfected when used in conjunction with shaastra. For example, the Bhaagavatam 1.3.5 has a reference to the devotees being able to see the Lord's divine form with "adabhrachakShuShaa" or "perfect eyes." Looking at Sri Bhaashya 1.1.1, it appears that Sri Ramanuja's problem with the idea of direct perception being faulty is in relation to the Advaitin's view. Therein, he appears to be arguing with the advaitin's view that direct perception is false because through it one sees variety, as opposed to the shaastras which allegedly teach only unity. I don't see anything on first glance that would contradict the idea of the senses being independently limited. >b) Ramanuja *never* argues from the standpoint of spiritual >superiority. He never expects anyone to accept his statements simply >because he is supposedly a "realized" being. That would be No Vaishnava Vedantin that I have ever heard of argues like that. Unfortunately, it's not hard to find in every tradition followers who are less enlightened on epistemology and will assert the correctness of their beliefs on the basis that their guru is supposedly "advanced,realized," etc. For the purposes of discussing any system of Vedanta, it is probably wise to discriminate between what the acharyas say is the means to acquiring right knowledge and what their lay followers might say. >d) As I stated before, we accept on faith statements by the Vedas and >Alvars on the nature of ultimate reality, that which is incapable of >being perceived. This means (according to Ramanuja), the nature of >God, the nature of the individual self, their mutual interrelation, >the means of obtaining moksha, and the ultimate cause of the universe. >We *do not* blindly accept statements about, say, the chemical >constitution of water. There must be *some* sense in which we accept Vedic statements which describe material phenomena. If we reject them outright (or assign some totally off-the-wall meaning to them in the name of "reinterpreting") because they do not seem to be consonant with our direct perception, then that is tantamount to saying that the Vedas have flaws. If the Vedas cannot describe material phenomena properly, how can we be sure they are correct in describing what is beyond our direct perception? >Based on the above principles, Ramanuja and Desika argue very >forcefully that statements from the Vedas have to be reinterpreted to >fit physical observation. (The opposite argument is made by Sankara >and the Advaita philosophers). Please reread my argument in my >previous article which explains this analysis. I probably missed that article, and I don't think the May archives are up yet for me to check. However, let me point out that the context of what Sri Ramanuja said is very important; I think there is concern over taking a perfectly reasonable directive out of the bounds in which it was originally spoken. Specifically, Sri Ramanuja's argument about the validity of direct perception seems to be based on the Sankarite view that it is incorrect, because of perceiving manifoldness. Ramanuja then points out that if manifoldness is an error, and thus so too is direct perception, then how can one state that the Vedas can allow one to arrive at the correct understanding? Quoting from him, "The very fact that one has to practise reasoning and meditation on Vedic texts after hearing them shows that a person, who hears these texts, is aware of their inherent defect that they, too, have a tendency to show differences, for they are made of words and sentences which are differentiated." Sri Ramanuja then goes on to point out that if direct perception is flawed in this way, then one cannot argue that the scriptures are also without flaws, since consciousness by itself cannot prove it, and "nor can direct perception prove it, since it is defective and gives wrong knowledge..." This view of the faultiness of direct perception does not seem at all related to the view that the senses are limited. If we all agree that the senses independent of shaastra are limited, then we must accept the possibility in regards to any scientific theory that contradictory evidence can exist which we do not yet perceive. That seems reason enough to excercise caution before reinterpreting Vedic statements in light of theories based on pratyaksha and anumaana. We can't always assume at any given time that we have seen all the evidence to support a particular view; nor does the scientific method require this. For any scientist who is worth his money will tell you that a paradigm is useful only as long as it continues to explain the available evidence and allows one to correctly make further predictions. When new evidence is discovered, the old theories must be modified or thrown out in favor of new ones. Therefore, material science is by its very nature a constantly changing thing. (cont'd) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 I have said pretty much all that I wish to say on this subject. I notice that the few who are discussing this with me now are affiliated with the Gaudiya sampradAya. We can all continue this discussion offline. A few concluding points to clarify my argument: 1) The original question was how to reconcile scientific opinion and the teachings of the Vedas. People are free to believe in the literal truth of Puranic cosmology, and I don't want to convince them otherwise. I am merely stating my opinion that *if* one finds evolution irrefutable (as I personally do, others are free to disagree), it is fully reconcilable with Vedanta. 2) I don't wish to engage in debate over Hare Krishna views on pramANas here either. However, it is accepted by all mImAmsakas and Vedantins that each pramANa is svataH-prAmANya, intrinsically valid, so pratyaksha needs to be given full weight in its sphere of influence. 3) It has been argued that Ramanuja only makes these points in the context of Advaita. This is true of almost all of Ramanuja's philosophy. It, however, does not mean that Ramanuja did not espouse these as general principles. This is easy to deduce from Ramanuja's and Desika's works. Specifically, pratyaksha is to be trusted absolutely because it is the 'upajIva' of Sruti. If Sruti and pratyaksha come into conflict, one's understanding of Sruti must be wrong, so Sruti must be reinterpreted (whether concerning the chemical constitution of water or otherwise). 4) Sense perception is by its very definition limited. It cannot perceive the super-sensous, nor that which cannot be detected by that sense. One does not need to study Vedanta to come to this conclusion, and I stated this in my first post. However, given certain sensory data, which much be trusted according to Ramanuja, how is one to reconcile that with Sabda? This is the question I sought to address. 5) Sri Vaishnava acharyas, to my knowledge, have not specifically addressed the topic of historicity or evolution. It is not their primary concern, frankly. I am stating *their* opinion on the pramANas and *my* opinion on how to reconcile conflicts in the pramANas based on principles elucidated by the acharyas. By the way, there is very often not just _one_ Sri Vaishnava opinion on a subject. There is a certain degree of intellectual freedom on some issues, as in most schools of Vedanta. In short, if you think that taking the Puranas literally in every aspect is satisfying and convincing, go ahead. I am not going to challenge you. In the same vein, I reserve the right to reconcile conflicts my own way, and I believe I am being fully faithful to Vedantic principles. My words are addressed to people who are trying to make a similar reconciliation. rAmAnuja dAsan, Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 1999 Report Share Posted May 22, 1999 Mani Varadarajan <mani >I have said pretty much all that I wish to say on this >subject. I notice that the few who are discussing this >with me now are affiliated with the Gaudiya sampradAya. I think this must be a reference to me, among others. I would like to say first, that I am no more affiliated with the Gaudiya sampradaya then I am with the Sri Vaishnava one. Having been born into neither tradition, I am prepared to question both perspectives and go either way in my philosophical views. However, that is all besides the point. Any of the remarks I have made could just as easily have been made by a Sri Vaishnava, an Advaitin, a Tattvavadi, a Muslim, a Christian, or even an agnostic or atheist. I think that pegging the discussion as a "Hare Krishna vs Sri Vaishnava" one does not really do justice to the issue. Because at the heart of the discussion is *not* whether or not you believe in evolution, but what you ultimately accept as a spotless authority and how you reconcile it to science. Such basic questions as how faith can be reconciled with empirical observations and deduction plague modern day practitioners of almost every ancient religion, and the discussions which try to answer them strike me as the kind of practical use of religious forums like this that would be highly relevant. I think it is unfortunate that such a basic discussion on epistemology is officially discouraged here. But seeing as how that is the case, I would like to offer a few clarifying remarks of my own before letting this thread go. >1) The original question was how to reconcile scientific > opinion and the teachings of the Vedas. People are free > to believe in the literal truth of Puranic cosmology, and > I don't want to convince them otherwise. Nor am I attempting here to convince others of the literal truth of Puranic history, cosmology, and so on. Rather, I am only pointing out that the type of reconciliation spoken of here between the two sources of knowledge is not as clean and easy as is thought; I personally think it is counterproductive. I also think that in some cases, there is no need for a reconciliation at all. I am merely stating > my opinion that *if* one finds evolution irrefutable (as I > personally do, others are free to disagree), it is fully > reconcilable with Vedanta. Respectfully, I would like to point out that many proponents of evolution consider evolution to be an irrefutable fact. But many proponents of evolution, when challenged to explain its inconsistencies, can often be caught saying things like, "well I don't know how to explain that, but I'm sure the evolutionary scientists have already thought these things through since they have PhDs, are highly respected, are intelligent, well funded, etc etc." Now, if a religious man were to claim that his guru's teachings must be accepted as correct because his guru is a realized soul, a pure devotee, or some such thing, it would be rejected by any true Vedantin. A real guru is obliged to provide evidence for his views from scripture; he is not a prophet whose words must be accepted on the basis of blind faith alone. But this willingness among many Western-educated thinkers to give evolutionary biologists the benefit of the doubt when inconsistencies emerge is really nothing more than prophet-acceptance all over again. Why are scientists given more flexibility than gurus? It is only reasonable that if a guru must be ready to support his views with scriptural evidence (the standard by which his beliefs are to be evaluated), then a scientist must be ready to support his views with at least experimental evidence. There is an obvious double standard that should not be there. It is hardly correct to call a theory unassailable if one is unprepared to explain its inconsistencies himself. >2) I don't wish to engage in debate over Hare Krishna views > on pramANas here either. However, it is accepted by all Neither do I. First of all, I don't see that they are so different to begin with. But even if they were, that is irrelevant. The point I am making is that even according to Sri Vaishnava standards of pramaanas, the acceptance of mechanistic models of creation and the treatment of Puraanic stories as quaint mythology presents obvious problems. > mImAmsakas and Vedantins that each pramANa is svataH-prAmANya, > intrinsically valid, so pratyaksha needs to be given full > weight in its sphere of influence. However, there is a world of difference between "intrinsically valid" and "always correct and never to be doubted." If you acknowledge that senses are limited in their perception, then so too is deduction based solely on information gathered through those limited senses. One cannot assert with any degree of certainty that theories based on the two are always perfect and correct; even empirical scientists are not supposed to do this. To give you an example, it used to be thought by European navigators that the Earth was flat and that sailing too far Westward would be a fatal mistake. That was their deduction based on their limited senses. Now we know it isn't true. The point I am making here is that information based solely on pratyaksha and anumaana must be held to be correct in a relative sense; it is considered correct only as long as contradictory evidence does not exist and it continues to be a valuable paradigm for making further predictions. It is unscientific to assert the absolute truth of any theory at any particular point in time, even within its sphere of influence. Theories based on limited senses must change as new information becomes available to those senses. And this is why I caution against the reckless "reinterpretation" of shaastric truths just to make them consistent with what we consider to be empirical truths at any given time. Another example that is relevant is the Big Bang theory. It used to be considered gospel among physicists and the lay public. But now there are astrophysicists (with no religious affiliation whatsoever) who publicly disagree with it, based on sound empirical principles (involving the COBE data among other things). When even scientists allow their views to change, why must we cling blindly to scientific truths that just happen to be en vogue? And that too when it requires us to change our understanding of scripture? >3) It has been argued that Ramanuja only makes these points > in the context of Advaita. This is true of almost all of > Ramanuja's philosophy. It, however, does not mean that > Ramanuja did not espouse these as general principles. This > is easy to deduce from Ramanuja's and Desika's works. > Specifically, pratyaksha is to be trusted absolutely > because it is the 'upajIva' of Sruti. If Sruti and pratyaksha > come into conflict, one's understanding of Sruti must be > wrong, so Sruti must be reinterpreted (whether concerning > the chemical constitution of water or otherwise). Sri Ramanuja's point, however, is that pratayaksha should be used to *help* understand the shruti, and that it should not be casually rejected as the advaitins do. I see no evidence that Sri Ramanuja would have espoused the *rejection* of scriptural truths based on pratyaksha. The difference as I see it is this: The shrutis must be eternally true and correct in order for them to be an acceptable source of information for teaching us. If any flaws exist in them, then all of the shrutis must then come under scrutiny. Therefore, we may not understand fully certain statements in the shaastras describing some material phenomena until we get supporting evidence using pratyaksha and anumaana. A classic example of this is a statement in the Bhaagavatam describing Bhuu-mandala as a disc so many millions of miles in diameter. One scholar points out that the description corresponds almost exactly to the astronomers' conception of the Earth's orbital plane, and thus "Bhuu-mandala" here must refer to the orbital plane and not the Earth itself. This I think is an acceptable use of pratyaksha because it does not contradict the scriptural view; it helps us to understand it better. What I do not believe are acceptable uses of pratyaksha for Sri Vaishnavas are the rejection of scriptural truths based on: absence of empirical evidence or speculation based on limited information. There are two cases mentioned in this thread which I would like to point out. 1) Rama's appearence in Treta yuga. This is millions of years ago if we are to believe in the Puraanic accounts. Because we allegedly do not have empirical evidence of human existence before a few thousand years ago, we do not really have to believe that Lord Rama appeared in Treta Yuga. We can say instead that the dates mentioned in shaastras are convenient exaggeration, or somehow symbolic, and assert with conviction that whatever the evidence allows us to believe is what we can believe to be the actual truth. But absence of evidence is *not* the same thing as evidence of absence. It is ludicrous to assert that the events did not happen as told because empirical evidence does not yet substantiate it. Supporting evidence could be discovered tomorrow, or next year, or ten years from now. Or it could be never, given that common sense holds that fossil and archaeological evidence from millions of years ago is harder to find than those from only a few thousand years ago. Why must we look for empirical evidence before accepting Vaalmiiki's view? The important point is that there is no *contradictory* evidence. 2) It is asserted by many that macroevolution is an unassailable fact. Yet the shaastras state that creation was accomplished by Brahma, who was first born from a lotus emerging from Lord Vishnu's navel, and who then went on to create the various species and Prajaapatis who in turn gave birth to the entire human race. Therefore, because this account of creation differs with the neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, the scriptural accounts must be regarded as poetic exaggeration, as symbolic (or in other words, incorrect). After all, pratyaksha is intrinsically valid and must be given full weight within its sphere of influence. And scriptural truths have to be reinterpreted in light of what we observe with our senses. But who here has observed macroevolution occurring? Can even one person step forward and claim that he has seen it? The scientific method requires that a theory be replicated with experimental evidence. Can anyone replicate macroevolution? Obviously not, since evolution is by its very nature an unobserved and unreproducible phenomenon (except of course, for God who could probably conjure up millions of material universes for His laboratories). There is evidence of evolution on a much smaller scale, but whether or not macroevolution can be inferred from it is in dispute. I can discuss this point in more detail with reference to professional journals if it is desired. Suffice it to say that the grounds for dismissing the scriptural view on the basis of pratyaksha is shaky; there is no observation of evolution, only the inference that evolution occurred based on a limited (and some would say, biased) sample of evidence. --- Furthermore, just to drive home the relevance of all this to Sri Vaishnavism, I think an important question must be asked. Do you think Sri Ramanuja would have condoned the dismissal of Puraanic stories as mythology based on the absence of supporting evidence? For example, you point out that it is hard for some to believe that Sri Rama could have appeared at the beginning of the Treta Yuga, because no empirical evidence exists supporting that notion or the notion that any humans existed on Earth millions of years ago. Well, if no empiricial evidence exists now to support the idea of human existence in the Treta Yuga, then it logically follows that such evidence did not exist in Ramanuja's time. So did Sri Ramanuja reject the literal understanding of the timing of Sri Rama's appearance because of the absence of empirical evidence? You are probably more well read in his works than I; you tell me. Personally, I find it telling that no evidence has yet been provided from the writings of Sri Vaishnava acharyas, past *or* present, which use Sri Ramanuja's views of pratyaksha vis-a-vis shabda to compromise with shaastric accounts of creation or of the Lord's descents. >4) Sense perception is by its very definition limited. It cannot > perceive the super-sensous, nor that which cannot be detected > by that sense. One does not need to study Vedanta to come to > this conclusion, and I stated this in my first post. However, > given certain sensory data, which much be trusted according to > Ramanuja, how is one to reconcile that with Sabda? This is the > question I sought to address. I think there are ways to do it without compromising the sanctity of sabda pramaan. If we were allowed to discuss it, there are many points I would love to bring up. >In short, if you think that taking the Puranas literally in every >aspect is satisfying and convincing, go ahead. I am not going to >challenge you. In the same vein, I reserve the right to reconcile >conflicts my own way, and I believe I am being fully faithful to >Vedantic principles. My words are addressed to people who are trying >to make a similar reconciliation. I want to mention something I brought up earlier. I said before that everything I have said on this subject could have been said by anyone. Let us say for the moment that I am not a Vaishnava, but instead a seeker looking for something to believe in. When I find you asserting the correctness of your beliefs on the basis of scriptures which you only accept on your own terms to begin with, I naturally feel quite skeptical as an outsider looking in. For example, one reason I could never be, say, a Christian is because I note that many of my Christian friends have obvious problems with specific teachings of the Bible; they can't believe that I am going to hell for not being a Christian. But they want very badly to feel like Christians, so they follow the rest of the Bible and "reinterpret" (or in other words, change the meaning of) those passages which they find intellectually troublesome. To me, that is tacit acknowledgement that the Bible has flaws in it to begin with, and thus I could never accept it as a spotless authority. In a similar vein, I might point out that young people born and brought up in Sri Vaishnava families will likely notice the compromises with shaastra that elders choose to make, and this will affect their decision about where to place their faith to begin with. In the Telugu smaartha community in which I grew up, I can think of not even one among the first generation immigrants who faithfully accept the shaastras, but prefer instead to compromise with the historical details, all the while claiming that they are great for the spiritual/philosphical/intellectual truths they teach us. Their children notice this, and go even further into left field with their views: if scripture cannot be counted on to teach us historical truths even when it tries, why should we trust it in spiritual truths? And thus the whole problem of passing on religious values develops. I am sorry for the long mail. namo naaraayaNaaya, - Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.