suryaz

Humm - such-a-bomber

Originally posted by talasiga:

 

Let us take a look at the paradigm

in Radhe's conundrum above.

Perhaps it could be represented as:-

question: Can Krishna fail so badly that He can not overcome it ?

 

And the answer may be:-

answer: Yes ! He can fail so badly that He cannot overcome it. And then He will overcome it !

 

But think about this:

If Krishna creates an insurmountable failure which He then overcomes, then the failure has not been succesful as a failure. Therefore it is a failure. The Perfect Failure.

 

Jay Jay Shri Krishna !

Moreover the failure is a failure in the interim period this would render Krishna in a state of temporary overcomeness. But overcome by what – myay???? Perhaps????

 

Another point to raise is - if Krishna can become overcome then what of his eternity in nature. An interim would indicate a temporary disposition. Jivas also have a temporary disposition - this it usually theologically defined as the temporary identification with that which is not one’s eternal disposition

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-01-2001).]

SAvitri and gAyatrI

 

Recently somebody requested reference to SAvitri and gAyatrI. I do not know which forum it was on – but anyway

 

Last nigh while reading “bRhadAra.nyaka upaniSad” I came across correlated references. They are as follows:

 

BRh Up V. xiv.1-8.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-02-2001).]

Originally posted by premananda:

I wish the Buddhists all good luck in their efforts.

What???

 

We could ask :

 

Why do the Buddhists not have enough compassion and charity to help the peasants improve their living conditions?

 

What of their ahimsa doctrine?

 

Why should the Buddhists group to function so as to violate the improvement of living conditions for the masses encouraged by the Christians?

 

The masses did not take sannyas or monkhood? The monks did. They can live as monks.

 

Are not people free to choose? Or would the Buddhists prefer the peasants could not?

 

Why do the Buddhist not want to promote something other than the peasants' continued living in squallar (tama-guna). Does the poverty of the peasants give them power?

 

If the Buddhists cannot create satva or raja-guna living conditions for the peasants why try to create the continuity of tama-guna tama living conditions.

 

In short could it not be argued that the Buddhists actions do not promote ahimsa at all.

 

 

Cheers

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-31-2001).]

'Speech is better than a name… KHANDA 2 1

'Mind (manas) is better than speech…. KHANDA 3 1

'Will (sankalpa) is better than mind…. KHANDA 4 1

'Consideration (kitta) is better than will. … KHANDA 5 1

'Reflection (dhyana) is better than consideration. …KHANDA 6 1

'Understanding (vignana) is better than reflection. …. KHANDA 7 1

‘Power (bala) is better than understanding. … KHANDA 8 1

'Food (anna) is better than power….KHANDA 9 1

'Water (ap) is better than food. …KHAIVDA. 10 1

'Fire (tegas) is better than water….KHANDA 11 1

'Ether (or space) is better than fire…KHANDA.12 1

'Memory, (smara) is better than ether….KHANDA 13 1

'Hope (asa) is better than memory….KHANDA. 14 1

'Spirit (prana) is better than hope. …..KHANDA 15 1

'But in reality he is an ativadin who declares the Highest Being to be the True (Satya).'…KHANDA 16 1

'When one understands the True, then one declares the True. …KHANDA 17 1.

'When one perceives, then one understands. …KHANDA 18 1

'When one believes, then one perceives. … KHANDA 19 1

'When one attends on a tutor (spiritual guide), then one believes… KHANDA 20 1

'When one performs all sacred duties, then one attends really on a tutor..KHANDA 21 1

'When one obtains bliss (in oneself), then one performs duties…KHANDA 22 1

The Infinite (bhuman) is bliss. .. KHANDA 23 1

'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite….KHANDA 24 1 (Tr Muller M: KHANDOGYA-UPANISHAD )

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-30-2001).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Caitanyacandra: Why can't these two stories be from 'two different kalpas'.

 

Satyaraj: Notice that I am stressing differences between Sanatana’s version on Bhagavata and Sukadeva’s. Supposedly both sages belong to the same kalpa, and they are dealing with the last Krsna’s avatara lilas. I had not noticed a pralaya between two different kalpas yet. Did you?

 

Krsna’s lilas from former kalpas were quite different, as those described by Parasara in Visnu Purana.

...and the cow jumped over the moon

Originally posted by Tarun:

When ViSNujan SwAmI offered prasAd, while bowing down, forehead aground, he'd recite a special prayer aloud in English which contained the phrase:

"For You can change matter into spirit, or spirit into matter as You like."

So what of the argument that life cannot come from matter ????

 

Arguments of this kind are not consistent with the view that the Supreme "can change matter into spirit, or spirit into matter" ?????

Originally posted by rand0M aXiS:

<h3>"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."</h3>

 

General Patton

 

bin Laden needs “special handling”

 

To kill him would only fulfil his hearts desire to go down in history as a “martyr for Allah”. The best punishment for him is that the US

 

Kidnap him

Give him sex-change operation

i.e., Turn him into a female

Then send him back to the Taliban

 

 

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I think the purity comes from the notion of "original state". I think to some degree most religions have the idea of a pull between matter and spirit. So virginity which is a state prior to having engaged in sex is seen as purity, because sex is an attachment to matter (I know some people will claim "Our sex is pure love....", but it is tinged with lust to a greater or lesser degree). Lust is what creates impurity in our heart. Still one can regain that purity in their heart by becoming free from lust. But once we take a step down a path (whether it be sex, intoxication etc....) it is very difficult to come back to that "original state". It should also be pointed out that virginity as purity is applicable to both men and women. These are my thoughts.

 

Gauracandra

 

[This message has been edited by Gauracandra (edited 10-19-2001).]

"Lust"???

 

Why call it lust? Why be so negative? Why not address it as the innate mechanism for the survival of the species?

 

A strong libido is that which directs the continuity of the species/humanity? Why not see it as a God-given function to ensure “natural selection” persists so as to help in his creation .

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Moksa can only be attained by vidya,

And what may I ask constitutes “vidya”?

Originally posted by shvu:

On a lighter vein,

 

Cheers

Shvu you are funny, both you and satire make me

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-15-2001).]

Let us try to work out what a "pure devotee" is first.

 

What is a "pure devotee"?

 

Purely devoted to who/what?

 

What does that depend on?

 

What does it include?

 

What does it exclude?

 

By whose estimation are we to accept, (with regard to who “determines”) that which is believed acceptable: included and/or excluded?

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-14-2001).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Suryaz What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Satyaraj: Bhaktivinoda has made a new theology were Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam. Therefore Maya should be combated. This is not found anywhere in srutis and even in Gaudiya-vaisnavism before him. This is a typical Semitic influence in Hinduism.

 

B]

“Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva, just like Satan in the Islam.”

 

Satyaraja,

 

Certainly in BG devi or maya is described by Krishna as his “divine energy” and is for the jiva difficult to overcome. And in Bhaktivedanta Swami's purport to Chapter 5 Text 16 (BG) he identifies “nescience” as “Satan”. Here, he also mentions that living entities are bewildered by “nescience”. Moreover, he says, that to think oneself as God is the “last snare of nescience”.

 

Sound like he is saying Satan is Maya – Have you got any ideas about this?

 

 

However, the notion that “Maya is a kind of negative power always tempting and deluding a jiva” goes back further (than Bhaktivinoda). Are there not traces of that in Srimad Bhagavatam? And Srimad Bhagavatam was published during the 5th century CE. This was before Islam

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-12-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-12-2001).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Suryaz What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Satyaraj: Bhaktivinoda has made a new theology...

 

.... the concept of sadhana as a ‘duty’.....

I thought Bhaktisiddhanta was the orchestrater of the "sadhana as a duty" bit.

 

Satyaraja,

 

Where does Bhaktivinoda do this?

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Bhaktivinoda has tried to re-edict a new version of it by mixing some newly Christian and Muslin conceptions.

 

 

Satyaraja,

 

What were the islamic concepts added by Bhaktivinoda?

 

Suryaz

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

 

 

So, according to your own definition Radha cannot be a soul as she is in the category of ananda. Therefore she cannot be Hari’s soul. (Satyaraja dasa )B]

Not so Satyaraja - "life giving" means ananda. The "eternity" (sat) bit - that you will not prove

 

 

My definition of soul would be: The inner eternally concious essence that gives life to the outer body. (valaya )RR

 

>>>> confused

Apart from the act of believing – can anybody really prove that there is such thing as “eternally conscious life giving essence”? Certainly in our own existence we can prove there is “life giving essence”. But the notion of “eternally conscious life giving essence” is not the same thing.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 10-09-2001).]

From "ethicsBeliefDebste_files/AD0000004932.gif" width=124

 

0>Many theologians and philosophers of

religion are actively involved in the Ethics of Belief Debate.

A short collection of essays written by several well-known

academics was complied by the American Academy of Religion

which clarifies why we have reasons for faith and I would like

to share their insights with you.

 

The discussion

arises out of the need for theologians and philosophers to

justify truth claims about their beliefs. If someone holds a

particular religious belief then there should be justifying

reasons which warrant conviction of the mind. Hopefully, the

reasons are free, inward and self-evident and not necessarily

because "Joe told me so" or "this is always what we believed."

 

It was William Clifford who first proposed that we

should proportion the confidence we invest in our beliefs to

the evidence we have. (2) The essays he published caused quite

a stir in his day and encouraged such famous writers as G.K.

Chesterton and C.S. Lewis to respond.

 

When we believe,

do we assent to the truth "God exists" or do we infer (by

experience)? Is what we believe one of the following?

 

 

Presumption

Persuasion

Belief

Conclusion

Conviction or

Certainty (excludes doubt)

 

 

Do our beliefs have:

 

 

Plausibility

Probability

Doubtfulness or

Untrustworthiness

 

 

VAN A. HARVEY clearly states that Christians have a duty and are

bound by their beliefs to seek the truth. If a Christian

belief by definition is the entertaining of propositions

incommensurate with the evidence, the Christian cannot be

regarded as a lover of truth (a moral virtue) (189),

therefore, it is imperative to the Christian to base beliefs

upon truth supported by evidence.

 

 

JOHN NEWMAN

proposes that the certainty of a proposition does not consist

in the certitude of the mind which contemplates it. (84) For

example, not all men discriminate the same way such as

identifying particular authors of a book in the Bible. There

are also no specific criteria for judging gentlemanly

behavior, poetic excellence and heroic action. The belief we

hold about the degree of these rests in our own propriety,

skill, taste, discretion, art, method and temperament.

 

 

LESLIE STEPHEN agrees on the grounds that there are

other affections which motivate us besides love of the truth;

men of equal ability can hold diametrically opposite

principles which shows certitude alone is no test of objective

truth. (110)

 

 

Does it follow that nobody ought to be

certain? Of course not, but do we:

 

 

1) entertain relevant evidence?

 

2) 2) do our actions based on erroneous belief make

the error manifest? (112)

 

 

Perhaps we can rely on the experience of others - is there a uniformity in nature which

expresses itself as to whether some things are good and others

bad?

 

Maybe the truth of a belief does not rest on the

weight of the evidence, but from whence the weight is derived?

Who told you?(157)

 

In love, it would be the degree of

truth verified by experience or by experts and we cannot reach

certainty because there may be possibilities which we are

unable for want of evidence to exclude. (160)

 

You can't alter the effect of the evidence by your feelings about

it, "I just feel it in my gut" and if you wish to believe in

truth, you would usually act on certain principles.

 

 

Michael Polanyi's book "Personal Knowledge" calls

these kind of principles a fiduciary framework.

 

All of us hold basic propositions which we assume to be true without

systematically and critically examining our reasons.

Wittgenstein referred to the example of a chess game and his

basic belief about the chess pieces - he assumes that they are

not arbitrarily going to start changing places. He is content

to accept they would not and this has nothing to do with his

stupidity or credulity (Van Harvey, 193) it just makes life

easier.

 

It has been argued that if one cannot prove

the evidence of belief in God, than the effort to do so is

meaningless, for example, Immanuel Kant's "If one cannot, one

ought not" quote.

 

 

We also make the assumption that one

must adhere to norms and procedures in a particular sphere of

study (202) - scientific, analytic - when there may be a host

of other ways to find truth.

 

In what proportion (HUME)

or threshold (CLIFFORD) do we hold the strength of the

evidence? Can truth be assigned degrees?

 

Is there some

other VALUE to the evidence, a "solace and private pleasure of

the believer" which was disparaged by Clifford, yet

nonetheless provides some goods received for holding beliefs

which may or may not be illusory.

 

Maybe the key is not

so much the objective and universal truth, but the nature of

the consequence in believing, or the moral character one is

led to as a result of the belief.

 

If one simply is

looking toward Truth - than you do not want to distort the

issue with values - this is the "Primacy of truth" claim that

it is not the proportions of truth, but truth's intrinsic

importance.

 

Faith causes knowledge itself - this is

what St. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine have shown. Aquinas

believed that our will is biased to the good of the person by

fundamental beliefs which are not typically illusory.

 

 

What one gains by believing (226) causes the election

voluntarily by the will. There are scientific AND volitional

justifications for belief and you cannot force yourself to

believe "at will" or "unwillingly." Therefore, your will to

believe the truth or falsity of a statement is usually based

upon reason. <

 

>AAR Studies in Religion 41

Edited by Gerald D. McCarthy

Scholars

Press, Atlanta Georgia,

 

 

 

Originally posted by M-dd:

And that is not about putting blame for one's own set of conditioned being on another person, rather it is a process to disentangle oneself from entangling association.

 

Suryaz:I say we nip it in the bud. "It begins with misuse of language as the accepted norm. I do no understand why so may are against this, or the elucidation of it. What is wrong with establishing truth?"

 

Originally posted by M-dd: I wholeheartedly agree to your intent of establishing the truth, but I don’t think that abuse simply comes from language misuse. …This kind of abuse is about rage, and it is rampant, very rampant… Still, having said that, there is definitely the phenomenon of misquoting Srila Prabhupada in order to support abusive behaviour, and on that I agree totally with you that it is extremely important to nip such misuse of language in the bud. So I guess I agree and disagree overall on that point.

 

Originally posted by Suryaz: Moreover, when abuse (in whatever form, be it action, language, etc. etc.) becomes the accepted norm not only does toxic shame intensify but also the whole society knows only hell (distortion) as truth.

 

Originally posted by M-dd: YES! Wholeheartedly I agree. It is a historical fact that ISKCON became a hell to live in in many places and many ways.

 

---M-d.d. said>>There is a subtle but all-important difference between humility and false humility.

 

Suryaz: Exactly my point. To use anything of distorted origin and promote it as truth is bad enough – but then to present it as presented with humbleness, this brings into play distortion of the most deplorable sort.

 

---M-d.d: ISKCON…gave free reign to abusers due to these mis-truths full of toxic shame.

 

Originally posted by Suryaz: …those who are interested in upholding abuse, injustice distortion degradation etc., etc. at its point of entry VIZ lingo-symbolic confusion etc., etc. shifting the gaze etc., etc. are also as you put it Madhavi, “nothing more than a jailer for the material energy,” and should be rejected. It si simply WRONG to support abuse at any level.

 

---M-d.d: I agree. And we saw historically in the most blatant example, how this foolish 'linguistic' support of abuse supported even the most horrific abuses of rape of children. Without so much of a supporting structure, these thugs would have been rooted out, so in that way, I wholly agree with you. But the misuse of language didn't actually cause the rapes, it just served to allow it to go on so long unchecked

 

... the sad history is that these very women have been categorically blamed for the resultant disastrous volume of ISKCON divorces, lack of submission and lack of chastity being cited, in the name of Srila Prabhupada. The idea, as Srila Prabhupada presented it, was supposed to be that the woman benefits by submitting to her husband because he lifts her up spiritually. I cannot say it enough times that there is an extremely large number of godsisters who did submit to their husbands, only to be dragged down, and I'm not talking about dragged down through sex, which is an oversimplistic idea, but dragged down by abuse, by toxic shaming, usually accompanied by physical violence or the threat of physical violence. That is not to blame the woman's conditioning on the man, rather it is to enlighten society to the fact that when a woman leaves such a situation it is a move on her part up the ladder of spiritual evolution, not down.

 

Suryaz:Why? Because of use (misuse) of language.

 

---M-d.d: I'm unclear here if you are blaming the actual abuse on the misuse of language? I can't agree with that, but I do agree that it was greatly enhanced. … It is conditioned into the abuser to abuse, and the misquoting was simply a vehicle to justify, and in that way, yes, increase their evil behaviour, as it went unchecked.

 

Suryaz: OK knowledge, ethics, social relation, social reality and power relations, are very closely related to the way we use language. We need to take a critical approach to developing an understanding of language, and/or communication dynamics. We need to ask how do we use such dynamics support or hinder abuse and/or truth. How do we use them to distort the truth. We need to explore how language reflects and interacts with society, with particular emphasis on addressing where how and why distortion occurs. To do that we need to look at stereotypes, language taboos, and the powerlessness and power relations in language usage’ and the lived experience of such.

 

Let us start with something of Foucault’s social theory. Certainly Foucault’s work is complex and often ambiguous but he has much to offer.

 

Through our use of language (discourse) we conceptualise and develop 'social power' and this in turn functions as the benchmark for the production and/or reproduction of social relations. Through the deconstruction of discourse (as we have already done further up in this thread) we saw how discourse motivated, encumbered or limited our conceptualisations. We saw how in the course of the discourse some meanings were marginalized. Some were accepted. We saw how this in turn blocked out certain aspects of knowledge and/or limited our understandings of other knowledges. We saw how we were governed by our lingo-social understandings. We saw in your (Madhavi’s) ethnographic posts how social relation were encumbered through linguistic determinism. We saw that certain types of abuse occurred when certain linguistic statements were not only accepted as the socially accepted norm by people, but they also worsened when they were institutionalised (but the institutionalisation bit was follow on from the linguistic bud and can be dealt with later if necessary). Through these select linguistic tools certain notions were constructed and put into play in a distorted manner, using other linguistic tools to support the injustice.

 

We can argue that with a different use of language (discourse) in a similar natural (not social) environment, without a doubt, different sets of lingo-tools for the construction of social reality would occur. Correspondingly, different social relation would develop. Social relations in turn produce specific knowledges about social conditions and on it goes.

 

Foucault goes further, he suggests that in the use of language (discourse) it is not enough to look at what is said but also what is not said, silenced or excluded. With that application one can expand knowledge and break the cycle, the power relation and all that it brings to bear. You gain greater perspective. You look at stereotypes, and language taboos, and not only deconstruct them but also look at what is not said and what social power both charry. For what aim are they constructed? and what is not constructed? In its construction where does the power relation lie? is it just, ethical, logical, what are the fallacies etc., etc., etc.????

 

Meanings are developed through specific ways of organising social power. To shift the meaning produces resistance to the way some social relation have been constructed – what constitutes domination for example.

 

But more importantly we have seen how through the deconstruction language, arguments and practices taken for granted were socially accepted religious belies presented as true, but in fact they were for many especially the most vulnerable of society (those who are to be protected by society) no more than tools of abuse.

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

Originally posted by Audarya lila:

 

I personally don't believe that the answer to abuse is to become an abuser oneself. Audarya lila dasa

 

 

…………………..

Suryaz: I could not agree with you more – but you have to remember not to act is also to act in more ways than one. Not to act or to act can act to support or act as fallacy.

To promote – VIZ: “see the good in others and cultivate the good in ourselves” as a means to establish truth is wonderful in some contexts. However the promotion of such can also be used as a dangerous form of coercion and oppression. Certainly your above mentioned view can be addressed as moralistic in some context of analysis, however it is also a misleading notion or a fallacy of morality in other contexts. The fallacy of moralistic thought results from the generalization of moral imperative into all of ethics. Yes, without a doubt what you speak of is a moral principle for the positive regulation of life. However it does not fare very well in the context where morally indifferent actions are accepted as the norm. And in the context of this discourse we have already establisher the existence of moral indifference through linguistic distortion. Never mind whether the moral indifference is consciously or unconsciously orchestrated, the existence of moral indifference has been established. And the discourse is about how to establish truth (satyam; satva-guna) as the accepted norm in a social environment influenced by aspects of moral indifference (distortion) (tama-guna).

 

Yes you are very clever. You are keeping the gaze on the self. You are keeping the gaze on the self with the aim to mitigate deception. You are being true to the self. Yes in a particular context it works. But this is about combating those who shifting the gaze onto the “other” to orchestrate deception (whether knowingly or unknowingly). It is not about shifting the gaze alone. We all shift the gaze when we pray; when we recognise our self as das, das, das anudas. It is the negative shifting of the gaze; the shifting of the gaze to establish deception (to promote tama-guna) that is wrong. (and your inactive stance could also be argued as the promotion of tama also; some may argue that to not overtly act against deception is to indirectly promote it- since the deceptive act is in the realm of the overt) It is not just the shifting of the gaze we are talking about it is the overt mitigation of deception and the overt establishment of truth of that that deception occurs socially.

 

And yes, I would like to thank you Audrya, as you have just given us another example of more subtle and indirect symbolic confusion: VIZ fallacy in moral conceptualisation. (interesting).

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-29-2001).]

Originally posted by talasiga:

In a trial the plea of non compos mentis may variously go towards exempting from trial or towards mitigating guilt or lessening the penalty of the person purported to be "not of sound mind".

NOTA BENE: For this purpose, the being "not of sound mind" must be to the extent that the prosecuted does not have the capacity to understand or appreciate the nature or quality of the alleged crime. It does not simply mean someone of insane disposition.

 

In the circumstances, your continued use of the term is incorrect and when correctly understood tends to undermine the very point about culpability that you are putting forward.

 

 

Thanks Talasiga. I will remember that

 

 

 

Originally posted by valaya:

I prefer to try and look for the essence and thereby bring out the best in others, whenever possible, rather than using them to justify my own position as superior in any way. Sometimes that entails voluntarily assuming the position of inferior myself.

 

"To thine own self be true." + Look for the essence of truth (or the lack of it) in sound. smile

 

Originally posted by M-dd:

Hare Krsna prabhus! Very interesting to see the dips and turns of this thread.

 

One thing I think needs pointing out is that until pure unalloyed devotion fully blossoms in our hearts, it is necessary, and in fact our duty, to discriminate. 'Accept whatever is favourable for your Krsna consciousness and reject whatever is unfavourable.' That includes people. And that is not about putting blame for one's own set of conditioned being on another person, rather it is a process to disentangle oneself from entangling association.

......................................

Suryaz:Yes Madhavi I agree with you on this point.

But where to begin? I say we nip it in the bud. It begins with misuse of language as the accepted norm. I do no understand why so may are against this, or the elucidation of it. What is wrong with establishing truth?

..................................

 

 

Telasiga,

 

The

· Neglect of abuse

· Distortion of abuse

· Abuse of abuse

· Acceptance of that abuse

· Promotion of abuse

· The silencing of

· Etc. etc.,

Is "not of sound mind" they are of distortion.

 

I am sure you can make some logic, as with some good poetry out of the above.

 

Perhaps you may begin with “To thine own self be true” and move on from there.

 

Valaya,

 

My apology, - however, we must become more aware of inaccuracies as they occur.

 

Suryaz

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Ah ! Randomji !

It is so very good to see

you are not bringing your boots

into the spiritual discussion room any more.

But, PLEASE, you must be leaving

your <u>SANDALS</u> at the door

also ! Thanking you.....

 

 

Telasiga,

 

Without a doubt, Random knows that the true ksatriya spirit is set in truth and chivalry. The true ksatriya spirit is far from the protection of distortion, injustice and abuse.

 

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-27-2001).]