The Varna System (replying to Chittaranjanji and Bhaskarji)

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

"the question that begs the answer is, can we

establish our siddhAnta (whatever it may be) without taking the aid

of

shabda pramANa-s....without quoting anything from shruti-smruti texts,

without quoting bhAshya vAkya-s from our Achryas' can we establish a

siddhAnta that is applicable & acceptable to one & all irrespective of

their cast, creed, mata, religion etc. etc.???"

 

Your answer, simplified (in my opinion anyway, please do correct me)

is as follows:

 

1) If there were not texts, etc... to be held as basic premise, then

our position would be subjective and not acceptable to all.

 

2) If our position is subjective and not applicable (or acceptable) to

all, then our religion would not be a universal religion.

 

3) Our religion is a universal religion.

 

4) Therefore, there are texts, etc... to be held as basic premise.

 

This rests on the assumption that our religion is a universal one. But

how do you know that our religion is a universal one? You can't say

scripture because the validity of scripture, according to your

argument, depends on the universality of our religion!

 

So surely this is not a satisfying answer in so much as it is quite

circular. Please correct me if I understand the argument incorrectly,

of course.

 

Dear Chittaranjanji,

 

I am not sure how to interpret that message. Perhaps someone will

write a smriti for me!

 

"When 'i' doesn't come in the way, that from which thought springs is

Sruti."

 

If that is how you define sruti: how do you know that the words which

we call the samhitas, brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads came up that

way? Is there any reasonable basis for considering these specific

texts to be more special than any other book?

 

If that is how you define sruti, there is another problem. It would

mean that any work written by a person without an ego is equally

sruti, not just the Vedas. This brings the problem of figuring out who

had an ego and who didn't - something we can't do unless we have

already got rid of our ego. But most of us can only get rid of our ego

if we follow the teachings of someone without an ego! So we have

another circle,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Rishi-ji,

 

advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

> Dear Chittaranjanji,

>

> I am not sure how to interpret that message. Perhaps

> someone will write a smriti for me!

>

> "When 'i' doesn't come in the way, that from which

> thought springs is Sruti."

>

> If that is how you define sruti: how do you know

> that the words which we call the samhitas, brahmanas,

> aranyakas and upanishads came up that way?

 

 

I wasn't trying to define Sruti. Sruti is apaurusheya.

 

I was trying to reply to your question:

 

"Why do you accept sruti and smriti?"

 

The answer is:

 

To the extent that 'i' don't come in the way, 'that schema' from

which thought springs is seen to coincide with the words of Sruti. To

that extent, thought has the same form as Sruti. And there is a way

in which thought may reflect upon 'that schema' to conform to the

words of Smriti without any logical incongruence.

 

Rishiji, I beg to be excused from further discussion on this topic.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Note from the List moderator: Posting is a privilege and posters like you are

expected to list guidelines and conduct the discussions without crossing the

SCOPE of this list. This list is dedicated to Adi Sankara who considers that

"Shruti is infallible." This note became necessary because you have gone beyond

the list scope and use this forum as a market place for 'promoting Buddhism.'

 

 

Dear Sri Rishi,

> "the question that begs the answer is, can we

> establish our siddhAnta (whatever it may be)

> without taking the aid

> of

> shabda pramANa-s....without quoting anything from

> shruti-smruti texts,

> without quoting bhAshya vAkya-s from our Achryas'

> can we establish a

> siddhAnta that is applicable & acceptable to one &

> all irrespective of

> their cast, creed, mata, religion etc. etc.???"

 

I wanted to answer this question, but did not do so

initially, for reasons I mention briefly, in the text

and in the end of this mail. Please donot mind, but

note that I would withdraw from any form of debate, be

it even the remotest and shall not reply if someone

challenges me to debate.

 

The idea that scripture is assumed to be the highest

authority is native only to the uttara and purva

mimamsa schools. Other orthodox Indian schools did not

consider scripture to be the absolute authority,

although some of them held scripture as a pramana.

[Note: Sankhya does not hold scripture as pramana, but

Sankhya is accepted as an aastika school. In fact the

actual reason for dividing the schools as aastika and

naastika is, not on the basis of considering some

texts as pramana, but on the basis of which school

talks of souls and which schools don't!!! The concept

of soul has been a favorite of Indian philosophy!!]

 

There is however one system of philosophy that allows

for so much freedom in beleif and freedom from

assumptions - Buddhism.

 

Considering that I am myself a Buddhist, members may

think that I am preaching my religion or that I am

converting you. These are not my intentions. Although

if someone can understand the teaching, finds it

meaningful, useful and embraces it, it would only give

me happiness, my intention is not to increase the

Buddhist population and I am not going to be granted

heaven/enlightenment on the basis of the number of

people I convert to Buddhism, contrary to Catholic

Christian beleifs.

 

Since members would want to know my background before

I go ahead, I am of Indian origin and brought up in

the West, by an Tamil brahmin family. I was to a very

large extent very much a ritualist and was fanatic of

the Hindu faith, with all the Hindu faiths that people

have in this group. Yet, the Buddha offered prajna and

a path to attain it and gives a focussed teaching.

This was very attractive for a person like me.

 

I chose to take to the Buddhist path due to my own

reasons. Members might even see me as a person with no

morals, who gave up his dharma and who has now

embraced a religion that is anti-Vedic. I leave it to

members to take such a view and discard the following

or to read my message objectively as it is, and take

what's reasonable in it and reject the rest.

 

Buddhism considers no texts to be authority. There is

no scripture in Buddhism that is authority. Yet, the

Buddhists do study several texts. The Pali Canon is an

example. We study it, try to understand the teaching

of the Buddha and use it as a representative for the

Buddhas (including Gotama the Buddha) or the other

arahants that wrote them. The purpose of this is to

know their teachings in the pristine pure form and to

gain from it. It is NOT however an authority for

anything.

 

For example, the Pali Canon contains a passage called

the Kalama Sutta, where the Buddha specifically says

that nobody should place blind trust in anybody's

words. He tells the skeptics not to blindly trust his

own teaching but to test it and see if it is

reasonable to the discriminating mind and to check if

it is logical to an objective and a discriminating

mind.

 

It is noteworthy that the Buddha made no metaphysical

statements that are illogical at face value and

complex to comprehend such as: "The world belongs to

the realm of avidya and hence is mithya or Maya". Such

metaphysical statements were not there.

 

The only statements that the Buddha makes throughout

his career comprise of the four noble truths:

 

1. Dukkha - needs to be realized. This is not to be

blindly beleived, but to be discerned and realized.

Usual people donot know the nature of this sorrow. The

nature of sorrow is described in the tipitika, but is

not considered authority. Each individual has to know

it as such. The tipitika is only a guide, not

authority.

 

2. Mula - The Tipitika assures that this stress has a

root cause that can be known too. Each person that

develops discernment and discrimination can know it.

It does not authoritatively state that there IS a root

cause. The root cause is to be known ourselves. It is

written in summary that the cause is desire and

ignorance. But that does not completely describe the

meaning of the words. The text is no authority on this

too. Yet, it points in that direction.

 

3. There is nibbana or cessation of this stress - This

is not an onotological position or a logical

conclusion, but something to be realized.

 

4. There is a path to this nibbana - this is described

in the tipitika in considerable detail. Yet, neither

is the tipitika an authority on the subject, nor does

it claim to be one. The tipitika is taken as only a

guide. Even a teacher is only taken as a guide.

 

Therefore, there is very little scope left for arguing

in it, regarding blind faith and beleif.

 

Unlike the strict Vedanta schools that consider

teachers as infallible, texts as authority, Buddhism

is totally scientific in its approach. It assumes

nothing other than the reasonable assumption that

those willing to become enlightened have a reasonable

level of discrimination and have a minimal regard for

ethics. In fact the Buddha taught in times when even

the second assumption is not true. Samana schools of

charvaka were prevelant in those times. Hence one

would find that the Tipitika goes to the extent of

even justifying the need for ethics and the reason for

each of the ethics in detail, with scientific and

reasonable explanations, without invoking any God or

Supreme being.

 

In fact every statement in the Tipitika is open to

question. The tipitika sets rules for asking questions

so that one may get answers to them and does not

answer the rest, that are rightly discarded.

 

For example, the Buddha never ever taught about the

creation of the Universe or took any position it's

existence or any such thing, or soul. In several

places in the Tipitika, when such questions as

pertaining to 'God', 'creation', 'soul', etc. are

raised, the questions are appropriately discarded. The

reason for discarding such questions is also

explained. This is important to understand as most

people think that Buddhism fails to explain the basic

things such as the beginning of the Universe. But the

Buddha made it clear that these questions were in no

way conducive to the goal.

 

Therefore, each statement can be questioned, and

tested - provieded the question helps in

enlightenment. Nothing is to be accepted as authority.

Things such as 'Gotama the Buddha was truly

enlightened' is also open to question and you are free

to disbeleive that too. You are invited to learn about

the teachings of the Buddha, test it and when you know

for sure that his teachings are right, useful, and

conducive to the good of one and all, then and only

then, you need to accept it and live up to it.

 

I shall quote Einstein here, but that does not mean

that just because Einstein said this, Buddhism is

great. Einstein was not infallible. [When the

Uncertainty Principle was presented, he resented the

view and said "God does not play dice with peopke."

Today, this principle is the cornerstonde of quantum

physics.]

 

"Buddhism is the religion of the future centuries. It

is the only world religion which explains ethics

without thr invocation of God."

 

All this does not mean that Buddhism is the best

religion. It is only a teaching of the Buddha, that

leads to the cessation of all stress. The Buddha did

not teach a siddhanta. He did not preach a religion.

He taught dhamma alone.

 

Buddhism does not claim to be a universal religion.

But it is open to all, irrespective of caste, creed,

sex, age or wealth. It only claims that the universal

solution to all sorrow and suffering is prajna or

knowledge or wisdom and teaches the path to attain

that. This is open to question and to test.

 

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

praNAms Sri Rishi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

 

R prabhuji:

 

Your answer, simplified (in my opinion anyway, please do correct me)

is as follows:

 

1) If there were not texts, etc... to be held as basic premise, then

our position would be subjective and not acceptable to all.

 

bhaskar :

 

even if there were texts as basic premise, then also our position would be

subjective only...whatever text we are holding as basic premise is not an

universal text that is acceptable to one and all in this world is it not??

If we (hindus) try to advocate our siddhAnta by quoting shruti & smruti

texts in front of a muslim, he will laugh at us..so is the case a christian

holding bible in front of us or a muslim...so even if there is texts, it is

again, a subjective affiliation only...nothing else!!

 

R prabhuji:

 

2) If our position is subjective and not applicable (or acceptable) to

all, then our religion would not be a universal religion.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes, my question is, is there any possibility to propagate an universal

siddhAnta without labelling it with any brand name??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

> bhaskar :

>

> yes, my question is, is there any possibility to propagate an universal

> siddhAnta without labelling it with any brand name??

>

 

Bhaskarji,

What in your opinion should be the characteristics of such a

universal siddhAnta ? Based on those characteristics, maybe we can see

if any of the existing religions fit the bill.

 

The following characteristics could apply :

1. It should be free from dogmatic belief in any individual or text.

2. The ultimate goal of that siddhAnta should be clear enough.

3. The steps leading to that goal should be well-defined.

4. Those steps and the ultimate goal should be verifiable by any

seeker in this life itself.

 

Does any of the existing religions fit these characteristics ?

 

In my subjective opinion, probably Madhyamika Buddhism comes closest.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

Dear sir,

 

Based on those

> characteristics, maybe we can see

> if any of the existing religions fit the bill.

>

> The following characteristics could apply :

> 1. It should be free from dogmatic belief in any

> individual or text.

> 2. The ultimate goal of that siddhAnta should be

> clear enough.

> 3. The steps leading to that goal should be

> well-defined.

> 4. Those steps and the ultimate goal should be

> verifiable by any

> seeker in this life itself.

>

> Does any of the existing religions fit these

> characteristics ?

>

> In my subjective opinion, probably Madhyamika

> Buddhism comes closest.

 

Why do you characterize it particularly as

'Madhyamika'? In my opinion, the term Madhyamika alone

means "the middle path", which is what the Buddha

taught. I would rather put it as thus:

 

1. The Buddha's teachings don't need any further

qualification as Madhyamika or Theravada.

2. The earliest extant records of the teachings of the

Buddha are the Pali Canon.

3. What is called 'Madhyamika Buddhism' today comes

very close to the above requirement and 'Theravada

Buddhism' in Burma (in other places, a variant of

Theravada is practised having several rituals) is even

closer.The problem with 'Madhyamika Buddhism' or

'Mahayana Buddhism' is that it makes some statements

that are not necessarily acceptable at face-value

although open to question and test - such as Sunyata.

The Buddha however avoided such metaphysical

statements in order to make sure that :

a. We are focussed on the goal of enlightenment and

donot waste time on metaphysics.

b. The teaching does not raise unnecessary

questions that are detrimental to the progress of the

monk.

c. The teaching is as universally acceptable as is

possible. The moment things such as 'Sunyata' come

into picture, it becomes difficult to explain it.

 

Today, Vipassana teaching schools are sprawling around

everywhere and Buddhism is the fastest growing

religion in the world today, especially owing to it's

completely scientific and objective approach.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Thursday, March 9, 2006, at 05:01 PM, Yogendra Bhikku wrote:

> [When the

> Uncertainty Principle was presented, he resented the

> view and said "God does not play dice with peopke."

> Today, this principle is the cornerstonde of quantum

> physics.]

>

 

It may not be relevant to the discussion going on here but just wanted

to point out that if at all, it is the reverse of the above statement

that is said to be the corner stone of quantum physics i.e. God indeed

plays dice.

 

praNAm

 

 

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

> It may not be relevant to the discussion going on

> here but just wanted

> to point out that if at all, it is the reverse of

> the above statement

> that is said to be the corner stone of quantum

> physics i.e. God indeed

> plays dice.

 

When I said 'this principle' I meant, 'this

uncertainty principle'.

 

Thankyou,

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

First of all, just a few words to the moderator. Since Bhikku Yogi's

post was allowed despite the seeming proselytization, I assume it was

considered an appropriate basis for discussion. In light of this, I

would like to reply because the message seems to suggest that Buddhism promises

liberation without having to accept anything and free experimental, non-belief

based system whereas Vedanta does not. This is not just something Bhikkhu Yogi

says but many others also say, especially the "Vipassana" advocates - for this

reason, I think its important to see to which extent this is true. As I have

explained in my introductory post, I have had the opportunity to study Buddhism

from Buddhist teachers so at least some of my understanding should be valid. I

also have enormous respect for Buddhism. It is, however,important to deal with

this because Buddhists in India are offering an alternative to Hinduism which is

clearly marketed as being superior for reasons similar to Bhikkhu Yogi's - these

have to be addressed somewhere. It is not fair to address the problems with

Christian missionaries but ignore the problems with the milder Buddhist

missionaries.

 

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

Reply from the List Moderator: Those who want to discuss the merits/demerits of

Buddhism are advised that this forum is for learning and understanding Sankara's

advaita philosophy. You should continue such discussions through private mails

and not through this forum.

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

 

Dear Bhikkhu Yogi,

 

While your presentation is common of Buddhists in the Burmese

tradition especially as the teachings are propogated by Goenka, and so

on, these teachings are not particularly undogmatic or particularly in

line with the Buddha's teachings in the Nikayas.

 

"Yet, the

Buddhists do study several texts. The Pali Canon is an

example. We study it, try to understand the teaching

of the Buddha and use it as a representative for the

Buddhas (including Gotama the Buddha) or the other

arahants that wrote them. The purpose of this is to

know their teachings in the pristine pure form and to

gain from it. It is NOT however an authority for

anything."

 

This is a highly misleading presentation.

 

The Buddha (in the Nikayas) clearly says that anyone who is liberated

is a pratyekabuddha (beings who got liberated on their own but can't

teach), an arhant (beings who got liberated through the Buddha's

teachings) or a samyaksambuddha (beings who got liberated on their own

and re-establish the dharma). As per standard Buddhism, in this age

there are no pratyekabuddhas because it takes much less merit to

encounter the Buddha's teachings than to get liberated completely on

one's own. There are also no samyaksambuddha's for the next few

million years until the Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings are completely

forgotten and Buddha Maitreya comes.

 

So anyone who is liberated in this age is an Arahat. An Arahat gets

liberated by studying the Buddha's teachings. This means outside the

Buddha's teaching, there is no liberation. (As a side note, this is

accepted by the Mahayana as well). The scripture, which gives the

Buddhist teachings becomes an absolutely and completely neccesary

factor for attaining enlightenment.

 

"For example, the Pali Canon contains a passage called

the Kalama Sutta, where the Buddha specifically says

that nobody should place blind trust in anybody's

words. He tells the skeptics not to blindly trust his

own teaching but to test it and see if it is

reasonable to the discriminating mind and to check if

it is logical to an objective and a discriminating

mind."

 

The context of this passage is often forgotten. The Kamalas were

people who had a lot of teachings floating around in their

neighborhood and they asked the Buddha "which one do we follow? how do

we know which one to follow"?

 

Without the Buddha's teachings, according to Buddhism, one cannot get

the right view. Without the right view, one cannot get liberation.

 

"It is noteworthy that the Buddha made no metaphysical

statements that are illogical at face value and

complex to comprehend such as: "The world belongs to

the realm of avidya and hence is mithya or Maya". Such

metaphysical statements were not there."

 

Of course he made metaphysical statements - it is amazing that people

keep saying this. Dependent origination, the absolute foundation of

the Buddha's teaching, is metaphysical. In addition, karma and rebirth

are central to the Buddha's teachings and are also very much

metaphysical.

 

"The only statements that the Buddha makes throughout

his career comprise of the four noble truths:"

 

Have you read the Pali canon or are you just quoting some teacher of

yours? The Buddha talks about a lot, lot more than the four noble

truths.

 

"It does not authoritatively state that there IS a root

cause. The root cause is to be known ourselves. It is

written in summary that the cause is desire and

ignorance. But that does not completely describe the

meaning of the words. "

 

You should really brush up on your Buddhism!

 

The Buddha clearly identifies the four causes of suffering:

 

1) Attachment to sense pleasures.

2) Attachment to views.

3) Attachment to traditions, etc...

4) Attachment to self.

 

He also explains how this is so in great detail. The Buddha is not

leaving this open-ended and saying "Come up with your own reasons!" He

is saying "These are the reasons."

 

"Yet, neither

is the tipitika an authority on the subject, nor does

it claim to be one. The tipitika is taken as only a

guide. Even a teacher is only taken as a guide."

 

Of course, it is an indispensable guide and without this guide, there

is no liberation - as per standard Buddhism.

 

"In several

places in the Tipitika, when such questions as

pertaining to 'God', 'creation', 'soul', etc. are

raised, the questions are appropriately discarded."

 

The Buddha clearly has a position on creation - that all things are

dependently arrisen. He also negates most concepts of God - in

particular he does not accept God because it would be incompatible

with the existence of suffering. As for the soul, the fact that there

is no soul/self is one of the key aspects of the Buddha's teachings.

 

He explains why we keeps quiet when people ask if there is a self. If

he answered "there is a self" it would be wrong. If he answered "there

is no self" then people would interpret his position as

annihilationism, ie: no rebirth. This is the reason why sometimes he

is quiet about it, its not because he doesn't have a opinion about

this. He explains this himself.

 

"Things such as 'Gotama the Buddha was truly

enlightened' is also open to question and you are free

to disbeleive that too."

 

Of course the Buddha categorically states many times that he alone is

enlightened.

 

And from the other post:

 

"Today, Vipassana teaching schools are sprawling around

everywhere and Buddhism is the fastest growing

religion in the world today, especially owing to it's

completely scientific and objective approach."

 

Of course, as you probably know well, the Buddha never taught

Vipassana meditation. This was an invention of later Theravada

commentarial tradition.

 

Even in the "bible of vipassana", the satipatthana suttas, the Buddha

advocates the practice of Jhana-meditation as the final stage in the

path leading to liberation. In several other Suttas, notably the

anapanasati sutta he clearly shows how this path leads completely to

liberation - nothing about a second meditation technique. He also

tells his disciples to always "go practice Jhana" and never mentions

any other practice to be done. In one of the suttas, he declares that

vipassana (insight) is one of the fruits of Jhana meditation - not

some kind of meditation technique.

 

The basic point is that according to all traditional schools of

Buddhism, and the Buddha's own teachings in the Nikayas, there is no

liberation outside the Buddha's teachings. Only someone with a

Buddhist view can get liberated and only the Buddha's teachings can

impart a Buddhist view. If you don't accept the Buddha's teachings,

you have wrong view and no hope of liberation. So it is misleading and

dishonest to suggest that Buddhism is somehow less dogmatic than

Vedanta. It is just that most Vedantic teachers are honest about the

importance of scripture whereas most Buddhist teachers disguise the

importance of scripture it to make it more digestable in the west.

This is not meant with negativity - as I said, I have great respect

for nearly all the Buddhist teachings whether I agree with them or

not,

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji,

 

praNAms Sri Rajkumarnair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your kind reply.

 

RN prabhuji:

 

What in your opinion should be the characteristics of such a

universal siddhAnta ? Based on those characteristics, maybe we can see

if any of the existing religions fit the bill.

 

bhaskar :

 

I believe the siddhAnta which is purely based on lOkAnubhava (universal

experience) is acceptable to one and all. This siddhAnta born out by

analysing the pUrNAnubhava can be accepted if one is not biased &

prejudiced in his outlook...do you think madhyAmika school will fulfill

this requirement??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Note to Moderators : I am not a Buddhist, and it is not my intention

to propagate any variant of Buddhism in this esteemed group. I am just

replying to a query from Bhaskarji. Further discussions on this topic,

if required, will be off the list.

 

Bhaskarji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Bhaskarji,

>

> praNAms Sri Rajkumarnair prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> Thanks for your kind reply.

>

> RN prabhuji:

>

> What in your opinion should be the characteristics of such a

> universal siddhAnta ? Based on those characteristics, maybe we can see

> if any of the existing religions fit the bill.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I believe the siddhAnta which is purely based on lOkAnubhava (universal

> experience) is acceptable to one and all. This siddhAnta born out by

> analysing the pUrNAnubhava can be accepted if one is not biased &

> prejudiced in his outlook...do you think madhyAmika school will fulfill

> this requirement??

>

 

I am not sure. Even when the universal experience is the same,

different people seem to interpret it in different ways.

In my personal view, mAdhyamika has lot in common with Advaita.

Also, it does not base itself on any "infallible scriptures", and

hence suits individuals with a scientific outlook. That is why I

mentioned that maybe, it comes closest to a universal siddhanta.

Again, it is just a personal view.

 

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Rajkumarnair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

RN prabhuji:

 

I am not sure. Even when the universal experience is the same,

different people seem to interpret it in different ways.

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes, I do agree, but the *anubhava* part in that is one and the same, I

think nobody can deny that though they differ in interpreting the

same...Based on that *anubhava* or *pUrNAnubhava* alone can we not

instigate any siddhAnta prabhuji?? that is my question...

 

RN prabhuji:

 

In my personal view, mAdhyamika has lot in common with Advaita.

Also, it does not base itself on any "infallible scriptures", and

hence suits individuals with a scientific outlook. That is why I

mentioned that maybe, it comes closest to a universal siddhanta.

Again, it is just a personal view.

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion with us prabhuji...I dont know much about

mAdhyAmika school...but I think advaita which primarily deals with one's

pUrNAnubhava to propagate its siddhAnta.....I think nobody can deny this

*experience* part....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : Anyway, this is my last mail on this thread...