Jiva-tattva [cont...]

shvu · April 27, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Advaita provides no basis on which one can prove or disprove anything. If everything is unreal, then there is no basis on which one can stand to make any intelligible argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, nothing is changed. Since there exists someone, saying that everthing is unreal, it simply means that everything is real. Thus Advaita poses no such problem. It is convenient for critics to say, according to Mayavada, everything is an illusion. One who makes such a claim should also address the question of his own existence. Otherwise it is just an empty argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the very Vedas are considered simply part of this grand illusion, and do not exist eternally, contradicting the very statements of the Vedas themselves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The concept of Maya is derived from the Vedas. The concept of eternity is also part of this 'grand illusion', if people want to call it so. But as I have explained above, the whole concept of ilusion and unreal as explained by the opponents does not hold water.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Though Sankara adored the Vedas sincerely and wrote Bhashyas for ten Upanishads, strictly speaking, according to his philosophy, their status is only similar to the song of an ignorant musician.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Madhva never addressed Shankara by name. He only spoke about Mayavada. This is just soemone adding his own decorations using the name of Madhva.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In the first place they are products of Avidya, and so not ‘Anadi’ or

unoriginated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. Shankara said that Avdiya is Anirvachaniya [inexplicable] and beginningless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>According to the poorva-meemamsakas the Vedas are beginningless and eternal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to all schools of Vedanta, the Vedas are eternal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Though Sankara followed them in his epistemological analysis, he could not regard the Vedas as ‘Anadi’ like Brahman. So they are ‘Pourusheya’ according to Advaita. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. Pourusheya means created/authored by people. Advaita never made such a claim. Neither is such an idea implied indirectly in any way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Secondly being products of nescience or Avidya they are Mithya and Badhya. They do not exist in the past, present, or future. They will be sublated and they disappear like rope-serpent at the time of the cognition of Brahman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When there is no distinct individual, there is no time and space. Where is the question of eternal?

A lot of the this post is definitely not by Madhva. It is someone's opinion interspersed with Madhva here and there. The consequence is, one will assume that Madhva raised this argument in full.

Cheers

shvu · April 27, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sankara's mayavada as well as any other Vedic or non-Vedic philosophy is not the real path to self-realization. Much more is needed, beginning with guru pada asraya, to take shelter at the lotus feet of a self-realized soul. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Guru in turn, can only talk about a path, Vedic or non-vedic, which brings us back to square one. Regarding the importance of having a Guru, Shankara himself has said that without Parampara, one is as good as blind.

Cheers

shvu · April 27, 2001

Everything is real. There are distinct Jivas, the vedas are eternal, there exists time and space, et cetera. This is what Advaita says.

This should knock down a big list of objections raised by people out of improper understanding of the concept.

Cheers

April 27, 2001

An Advaitin does not differentiate between different forms. He is above sectarianism or in other words belongs to all sects.

We do agree with this assertive, and acintya-bheda-abheda conciliate even advaitavada in some extension.

But this is not the case of mayavada doctrine. While postulating his thesis, Sankaracarya had stressed some sruti mantras and he said that they are mahavakyas. Statements such as kena kam pasyet, aham brahmasmi, tat svam asi, prajñanam brahma are famous Sankara's mahavakyas stablishing the thesis of the oneness among jiva, jagat and Brahman.

But nowhere in all Vedic lore such mantras are described as mahavakyas. Only in order to establish the pre-eminence of his own doctrine, Sankaracarya have proclaimed these statements to be mahavakyas.

Actually, pranava (OM) is the only mahavakhya; all other Vedic statements are pradesika, which means that they relate only to one particular aspect of the Vedic knowledge. If one refers to all the statements of the Vedas as mahavakyas there is no fault. However, if one singles out one particular statemente of the Vedas as the mahavakya and lables all other as ordinary, one is guilty of dogmatism and commits an offense to the Vedas.

So, Sankara's mahavakyas should be considered as only dogmatic doctrine to his followers, and not as an absolute assertive. This is called sectarianism. This is not pure advaitavada philosophy and it is an avaidhika conception.

>> When there is no distinct individual, there is no time and space. Where is the question of eternal?

This is the main character of an avaidhika doctrine, that is against the following sruti mantras:

balagra sata bhagasya satadha kalpitasya ca

bhago jivah sa vijneyah sa canantyaya kalpate

(Svetasvatara Upanisad 5.9)

"Though the jiva is situated in an inert material body, he is a subtle transcendental principle (tattva). If one divides the tip of a hair into one hundred parts and again divides one of those parts into hundred parts, then however subtle one of those parts may be, the jiva is even more subtle than that. Although he is so subtle, the jiva is a spritual substance (aprakrta vastu) and he is suitable for anantya dharma." ('ant' means 'to be free from death', and anantya maens moksa, liberation).

Therefore sruti is clear stating that jiva is atomic (minute) in size, but never non-existent. Jiva is anu-caitanya (minutely conscious) and endowed with the quality of knowledge. He has the self-reference of "I", and he is an enjoyer, a thinker and an intelligent entity, in spite of his minute svarupa.

The Mundaka Upanisad also corroborate the same assertive:

eso' nuratma setasa veditavyo - "This atma is atomic in size."

And Gitopanisad, the sastra that conciliates different opinions of all srutis, states very clearly:

apareyam itas tv anyam / prakrtim viddhi me param

jiva-bhutam maha-baho / yayedam dhayate jagam

(B.g. 7.5)

"He Mahabaho! The maya-sakti is my apara, or inferior potency. Apart from this I have jiva-bhuta, my apara or superior potency, in the form of jiva-sakti by which you should known, this entire universe is being maintained."

So, anmaya clearly states that jiva is an eternal principle distinct from Parabrahman and also eternal. If he is eternal, how can jiva lost his personal identity in any of the three phases of time and even beyond the scope of time?

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 27, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But nowhere in all Vedic lore such mantras are described as mahavakyas. Only in order to establish the pre-eminence of his own doctrine, Sankaracarya have proclaimed these statements to be mahavakyas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. They are mahavakyas to the Advaitins, because they serve to explain the concept of Advaita in concise terms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If one refers to all the statements of the Vedas as mahavakyas there is no fault. However, if one singles out one particular statemente of the Vedas as the mahavakya and lables all other as ordinary, one is guilty of dogmatism and commits an offense to the Vedas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The intent like I said above, is to come out with a concise expression. If one rejects some statements as false or inferior, that qualifies as an offense to the Vedas, which Shankara never did. On the contrary, he wrote Bhasyas for all the main Upanishads, thus being very consistent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, Sankara's mahavakyas should be considered as only dogmatic doctrine to his followers, and not as an absolute assertive. This is called sectarianism. This is not pure advaitavada philosophy and it is an avaidhika conception.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that I have explained what it means, things should be clear.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Therefore sruti is clear stating that jiva is atomic (minute) in size, but never non-existent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Jiva being Brahman itself, how can it be non-existent at any point?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"This atma is atomic in size."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Proves nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, anmaya clearly states that jiva is an eternal principle distinct from Parabrahman and also eternal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. Clear contradiction with Ayamaatma Brahma and tattvamasi.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If he is eternal, how can jiva lost his personal identity in any of the three phases of time and even beyond the scope of time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simply because there is no duality after Mukti. Personal identity is possible only as long as there exists duality.

Cheers

Maitreya · April 27, 2001

quote:

How would Mayavada philosophy then deal with avatars?

And what would motivate Their descent?

And upon descent does that not exhibit separation in oneness?

All the usual explanations, motives apply. One must remember that the world as we

know is totally real until Mukti. That is the point of difference, if one can call it a

point.

Cheers

shvu,

Avatar meaning one who descends from the spiritual world into this one.If after Mukti there is no individual consciousness of this world,what motivates the Brahman to descend?And how can there be any motive for action from that state?

Gauracandra · April 27, 2001

I was going through some of my cabinets and found an old, beat up book I had called "The Strength Madhvaism". I figured I'd post some of its passages as relates to Madhva's critique of Advaita philosophy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>At the beginning of his Anuvyakhyanam Madhva shows that Shakara's unreality doctrine, Mayavada, kills the Vedas also. Mithyatvamapi Bandhasya Tadvakyasya Agrato Bhavet (If all is unreal, that sentence which says so first becomes unreal.) An unreal sentence not related to three times cannot teach anything like the speech of a barren woman's son. The story of the King's evidence before the Magistrate comes to the mind. The Magistrate asked the King to swear as usual before the court and give his evidence in the criminal case. The King was angry. He said 'I am dead; my father has no children; all men are liars'. Such is Advaita. The Vedas are unreal having no time-connection. They were not created or manifested. They do not touch reality or teach the truth.

Owing to this conspicuous blunder, the Mayavada fails utterly and runs to the absurd excesses of making all pratyaksha, all reasoning, and all sacred scriptures unreal; and before all making itself unreal and therefore powerless to posit or prove or disprove anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gauracandra

Gauracandra · April 27, 2001

In the first posting I made from 'The Strength of Madhvaism' Madhva points out that Advaita provides no basis on which one can prove or disprove anything. If everything is unreal, then there is no basis on which one can stand to make any intelligible argument. Here is a passage that shows that based on this argument, the very Vedas are considered simply part of this grand illusion, and do not exist eternally, contradicting the very statements of the Vedas themselves.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Though Sankara adored the Vedas sincerely and wrote Bhashyas for ten Upanishads, strictly speaking, according to his philosophy, their status is only similar to the song of an ignorant musician. In the first place they are products of Avidya, and so not ‘Anadi’ or unoriginated. According to the poorva-meemamsakas the Vedas are beginningless and eternal. Though Sankara followed them in his epistemological analysis, he could not regard the Vedas as ‘Anadi’ like Brahman. So they are ‘Pourusheya’ according to Advaita. Secondly being products of nescience or Avidya they are Mithya and Badhya. They do not exist in the past, present, or future. They will be sublated and they disappear like rope-serpent at the time of the cognition of Brahman. So the Vedas are unreal and not satya or nitya. Why they should be called Srutis, Why their voice should be regarded as final and valid beyond question, why should they be regarded as superior to even Sakshipratyaksha and sense-observation, how should they be proved to be defectless in comparison with the scriptures composed by Anadi Isvara Himself who is said to be sarvagnya (all knowing) and sastra karta (Author of Sastra) are inexplicable and are not explained either, exhaustively, in the works of Sankara and his school.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gauracandra

shvu · April 27, 2001

Maitreya,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Avatar meaning one who descends from the spiritual world into this one.If after Mukti there is no individual consciousness of this world,what motivates the Brahman to descend?And how can there be any motive for action from that state?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are a few verses from the Bhagavad Gita,

Though I am birthless, immutable and the Lord of creatures, yet resorting to My Prakriti, I come into being through my own inscrutable power [Maya] - BG 4.6

Whenever, O descendant of Bharata, righteousness declines and unrighteousness prevails, I manifest Myself. - BG 4.7

For the protection of the righteous and the destruction of the wicked, and for the stablishment of religion, I come into being from age to age. - BG 4.8

Actions do not touch me, nor have I any desire for their fruit - he who knows me thus, is not bound by actions. - BG 4.14

I believe these four verses address all your questions.

Cheers

shvu · April 27, 2001

Dear Satyaraja Dasa Goswami Maharaj,

You may want to take my earlier advice on something called the brain, more seriously. It can help you rise above your school-boy logic. Prayer to Lord Gaur and Gauranga, thrice a day, may also help.

Cheers

April 28, 2001

>> False. Clear contradiction with Ayamaatma Brahma and tattvamasi.

At first you stated that these mahavakyas are meant to stress a point of view. They are mahavakyas to the Advaitins, because they serve to explain the concept of Advaita in concise terms. Now you are taking them as absolute!?

For certain you know that these mantras also have other commentaries according savisesa-abheda point of view that is exactly the opposite of Sankara's point of view, and are also supported by sruti mantras as those that we quoted before.

So, when sruti clearly states that jiva is an eternal principle distinct from Parabrahman and also eternal, no interpretation supported by so-called dogmatic mahavakyas are necessary, as the meaning of the sruti text is direct. Therefore, what is the true necessity of Sankara's mahavakyas?

Shvuji, we cannot hear you laugh! Oil is boiling and isn't good for you to enter on it without laughing. It would break our heart. Please, start to laugh a little, following your parampara!

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 28, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Everything is real. There are distinct Jivas, the vedas are eternal, there exists time and space, et cetera. This is what Advaita says.

Everything is real... except for the world, which is mithya (false)... except to the illusioned jivas, to whom the world is true... until they realize they never were jivas in the first place, then the world is again false... but since the world never existed in the first place, it never ceases to not be real...

It is all the covering of illusion which limits the unlimited perception of brahman to an individualized state of identity. Why? Don't ask.

April 28, 2001

Mundaka Upanisad states:

eso' nuratma setasa veditavyo - "This atma is atomic in size."

Shvuji allegation:

"Proves nothing."

Something that has form may also have dimension, or size. This is quite logical. Therefore, sruti is stating that jivatma has an eternal dimension, that is minute, atomic. But he is not nirakara (formless). Jivatma is sakara, in spite of his atomic size. This minute form is eternal, not suitable to annihilation while living outside the jurisdiction of maya.

This is the direct meaning of the mantra, no one needs to makes any speculation employing misleading words to try to prove the opposite.

dasa dasanudasa

Satuyaraja dasa

shvu · April 28, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Something that has form may also have dimension, or size. This is quite logical. Therefore, sruti is stating that jivatma has an eternal dimension, that is minute, atomic. But he is not nirakara (formless).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More school boy logic from you.

The Sruti also says that Atman is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the biggest. It is far, yet near, so on and so forth. It implies that it is beyond comprehension, which also implies, beyond forms. The formless Brahman and formless Atman is explicitly declared several times in the Sruti and I myself have quoted it a couple of times here. All that was conveniently ignored by you for the simple reason that you already have a preconceived notion that the Atman has a form [sic].

What else can one expect from someone who has absolutely no knowledge of Sruti? If I may suggest, read/hear your Puranas and Guadiya literature from your Gurus and be happy discussing it amongst your own people. Stop making a fool of yourself. But if you still want to continue with posting junk in the name of Sruti, then have fun.

Cheers

April 28, 2001

Stop making a fool of yourself.

Fully agreeded! But action is better than precept. Next time you should avoid commentaries on books that you have no idea of their meaning, such as Navadvipa-Mahatmaya. And enjoy yor nirvana!!!

shanti, shanti, shanti, OM!

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

kailasa · April 28, 2001

and I myself have quoted it a couple of times here. All that was conveniently ignored by you for the simple reason that you already have a preconceived notion that the Atman has a form [sic].

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

Boundless means what there is all? If there is a material form, why there can not be a spiritual form? Why is not present?

There is by incomprehensible mind(wit) a Supreme unity, But as there is by incomprehensible mind(wit) a form?

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

" The Sruti also says that Atman is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the biggest. It is far, yet near, so on and so forth. "

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

Where here proofs of absence of the form?-------More school boy logic from you.--------

Sruti it is the form?? Whether have force arguments therefrom?

Better sect, than not distinguishing reason. The sect she(it) as is spiritual, it is a part of unity?? :)Sequence not bad quality. How you consider?

Cheers.

animesh · April 29, 2001

__________

If there is a material form, why there can not be a spiritual form? Why is not present?

__________

Yes, it is definitely possible. But, since it is not material form, we can not imagine this and, therefore, can not discuss this.

__________

There is by incomprehensible mind(wit) a Supreme unity, But as there is by incomprehensible mind(wit) a form?

___________

Perhaps, you are trying to ask, "If there is a Supreme unity who can not be comprehended by our mind, can there be a form which can not be comprehended by our mind?"

Yes, it is possible. But, as you yourself said "it can not be comprehended."

___________

" The Sruti also says that Atman is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the biggest. It is far, yet near, so on and so forth. "

Where here proofs of absence of the form?

_________

Well, in this there is no proof of absence of form, but it is quite clear that the statement "this atman is atomic in size" should not be taken to mean that atman has got form just like atom. If you imagine any form, it can not be 'smaller than the smallest' and 'bigger than the biggest' at the same time. Similarly, it can not be far and near at the same time. This means that the words 'smaller', 'bigger', 'near, 'far' in this verse do not hold their common meanings.

I am trying to understand the meaning of your last question.

shvu · April 29, 2001

I had not seen this until now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Everything is real... except for the world, which is mithya (false)... except to the illusioned jivas, to whom the world is true...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything is real to the Jiva.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>until they realize they never were jivas in the first place, then the world is again false... but since the world never existed in the first place, it never ceases to not be real...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

??

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It is all the covering of illusion which limits the unlimited perception of brahman to an individualized state of identity. Why? Don't ask.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite similar to, why does Krishna keep creating and destroying the world again and again and again? Is he doing it for kicks? He does not say why in the 700 verses of the BG [and nowhere else either].

Cheers

kailasa · April 29, 2001

Yes, it is possible. But, as you yourself said "it can not be comprehended."

ÎÊ. The form Sankarsana is real?

Quite similar to, why does Krishna keep creating and destroying the world again and again and again? Is he doing it for kicks? He does not say why in the 700 verses of the BG [and nowhere else either].

"Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world." BG 13.21 Desire of soul the reason of existence of the material world. There is some more place in sastrah, explaining too most.

kailasa · April 29, 2001

Actually,even the SOUL IS FORMLESS -

There is no material form, but has the spiritual form?

jijaji · April 29, 2001

jayasriradhey posted 04-29-2001 05:53 PM PT (US)

--

'vadanti tat tattvavidas tattvam

ya jnAnam advayam,

brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAniti zabdyate'

(Bhagavatam 1.2.11)

'teen roop sri krishna ko,vedavyas bakhaaya,

brahma aur paramatma,aru bhagavaan kahaaya'

According to Sri Veda Vyasa,the Supreme Personality has THREE ASPECTS, Brahman,Paramatma and Bhagavaan.

"Whatever be your CONCEPT of God,be it with FORM or FORMLESS,

HOLD FAST TO IT and ARDENTLY WORSHIP Him.

But BE NOT CONCEITED that your CONCEPT ALONE of Him is the FINALE.

In the course of your SADHANA you will COME TO KNOW by HIS GRACE that His ATTRIBUTES and FORMS are INEXHAUSTIBLE.

-Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

Very nice indeed...

Thank you for the nice quote!

jijaji

;^)>

shvu · April 29, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Next time you should avoid commentaries on books that you have no idea of their meaning, such as Navadvipa-Mahatmaya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this your problem all this time? You are right, anyway. I should not be commenting on the Navadwipa-Dham, which was written is a state of Samadhi.

Perhaps Chaitanya did go back in time and appear in the dreams of Ramanuja, Madhva and Nimbarka. Perhaps they did cry and he did tell them to keep it a secret. Perhaps although, Madhva was worshipping Vishnu openly, he was also secretly worshipping Chaitanya when no one was looking. The question is, did he finally go to Vaikunta or to Goloka? Basically this will depend on who is more powerful, Vishnu or Chaitanya. SD, if you or any of your Goswami friends have the habit of going to Samadhi, please find out if Madhva is in Vaikunta or Goloka or hanging somewhere in between in some kind of a Trishanku state. The latter may have happened if both Gods are equally powerful.

It is also surprising that the author of Navadwipa Dham in his Samadhi state did not see where Madhva currently is. It is also suprising that Madhva did not appear in the dreams of any of the major Acharyas in his own line after the 16th century [after which it was no longer a secret] and tell them to switch to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. But then, we are living in a strange world. Anything can happen.

Cheers

amanpeter · April 29, 2001

Actually, Madva is right here in the Toronto ISKCON temple and has been for years. He's that really old Indian guy with no teeth that cleans the pots! By the way, Jayasriradhey, that last post was a beauty and really should put an end to what seems more and more to be a rather tiresome personal poking match.

shvu · April 30, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually, Madva is right here in the Toronto ISKCON temple and has been for years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great. Say Hai to him when you see him next.

Cheers

April 30, 2001

>> The question is, did he finally go to Vaikunta or to Goloka? Basically this will depend on who is more powerful, Vishnu or Chaitanya. SD, if you or any of your Goswami friends have the habit of going to Samadhi, please find out if Madhva is in Vaikunta or Goloka or hanging somewhere in between in some kind of a Trishanku state.

The jiva called Madhva has for certain attained his siddha-svarupa, but not vastu-siddhi yet. In other words, he is in the way to any point at Goloka, but he has no svarupa meant to Paravyoma Vaikunta. You may consider that he has surpassed Vaikuntha-prema. The whole process until vastu-siddhi will take many lifetimes to be fulfilled, and at that point there is no chance of fall down into the clutches of maha-maya again, being completely deluded by this potency. But the process should be completed in material brahmandas like ours.

As Jaysriradhe has kindly posted:

vadanti tat tattvavidas tattvam

ya jnAnam advayam,

brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAniti zabdyate'

(Bhagavatam 1.2.11)

Bhagavan's full realization is not so easy as the realization of His aspect of the formless Brahman. Sri Nandanandana Sri Krsna is Svayam Bhagavam, that means tha He is the origin of all Visnu-tattva, and Sri Caitanya is Sri Radha-Krsna combined aspect, therefore He is non-different than Sri Nandana-nandana Sri Krsna.

If Madhva has the svarupa meant for Navadvipa-prema, he will finally attain this realm, otherwise he will attain any other place at Goloka, and even may attain Vraja-prema.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

Sign In

Jiva-tattva [cont...]

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest