On Mandukya:
[by searching in the advaitin for Mandukya Sadananda]
announcement
intro 1
agama prakarana and intro
intro 1
intro 2
intro 3
intro 4
intro 5
intro 6
What about this?
1,
2,
3,
5
DONOT FORGET TO READ THE THREADS TOO!
==
A must read post by Sada-ji. Not surprisingly, Shri Sastri-ji complements in this post: Your analysis of the deep sleep state is absolutely brilliant. It reminded me of the discourses of Swami Chinmayananda.. What a complement!
==
On Bhakti:
Here is Sastriji's explanation of Bhakti: Part 1 and part 2.
Here is Sadaji's explanation if Karma and Jnana and Bhakti Yoga in Gita (the same articles can be found in Advaita-L (Feb-2008 archives) in more clean formatted form).
Read the rest of this entry >>
Showing posts with label Upanishads. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Upanishads. Show all posts
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Ranade: The Doctrine of Maya in the Upanishads
A Constructive Survey Of Upanishadic Philosophy: Being An Introduction To The Thought Of The Upanishads by R.D. Ranade. This is from p 163-165. Here is a link.
As we have said, we shall examine the ideas instead of words in the Upanishads, and see whether the traces of Maya doctrine cannot be found in them. The Isopanishad tells us that truth is veiled in this universe by a vessel of gold, and it invokes the grace of God to lift up the golden vessel and allow the truth to be seen [Is. 15]. The veil that covers the truth is here described as golden, as being so rich, gaudy, and dazzling that it takes away the mind of the observer from the inner contents, the rivets it upon itself. Let us not be dazzled by the appearance of gold, says the Upanishad, everything that glitters is not gold. Let us penetrate deeper and see the reality that lies ensconced in it. We have thus, first, the conception of a veil which prevents the truth from being seen at first glance. Then, again, we have another image in the Kathopanishad of how people living in ignorance, and thinking themselves to be wise, move about wandering, like blind men following the blind, in search of reality, which they would have easily seen had they lodged themselves in knowledge instead of ignorance [Ka 1.2(4,5)]. We have here the conception of blindfoldness, and we are told that we deliberately shut our eyes to the truth before us. Then, thirdly, ignorance is compared in the Mundakopanishad to a knot which a man has to untie before he gets possesstion of the Self in the recess of his heart [Mu. 2.1.10]. Fourthly, the Chandogyopanishad tells us how knowledge is power, and ignorance is impotence [Ch. 1.1.10]. We, who are moving in this world without having attained to the knowledge of the Atman, are exhibiting at every stage the power of impotence that lies in us. Not unless we have attained to the knowledge of Atman can we be said to have attained power. Then, fifthly, the famous prayer in the Brihadaranyaka, in which a devotee is praying to God to carry him from Not-Being to Being, from Darkness to Light, from Death to Immortality, merely voices the sentiment of the spiritual aspirant who wishes to rid himself of the power of Evil over him. Unreality is here compared to Non-being, to Darkness, or to Death [Br. 1.3.28]. The Kathopanishad declares that Sages never find reality and certainty in the unrealities and uncertainties of this world [Ka. 2.4.2]. Maya is described as an adhurava -- an unreality, or an Uncertainty. The Changogya again tells us that a cover of Untruth hides the ultimate Truth from us, just as the surface of the earth hides from us the golden treasure that is hidden inside it. We, who unconsciously move to the region of Truth, day after day, do yet labour under the power of Untruth for we do not know the Atman. This Atman is verily inside the hearts. It is only he, who reaches Him everyday, that is able to transcend the phenomenal world [Ch. 8.3(1-3)]. Maya is here compared to an untruth, an "anrita". Then again, the Prashnopanishad tells us that we cannot reach the world of Brahman unless we have shaken off the crookedness in us, the falsehood in us, the illusion (Maya) in us [Pr. 1.16]. It is important to remember that the word Maya is directly used in this passage, and almost in the sense of illusion. In the same sense is the word maya used in Svetasvarata where we are told that it only by meditation upon God, by union with Him, and by entering into He being, that at the end there there is the cessation of the great world-illusion [Sh. 1.10]. Here again, as before, the word Maya can mean nothing but ilusion. It must be remembered, however, that the word Maya was used so far back as at the time of the Rigveda in a passage, which is quoted by the Brihadaranyaka, where Indra is declared to have assumed many shapes by his Maya [Br. 2.5.19 and RV. 6.47.18]. There apparently, the word Maya meant "power" instead of "illusion" -- a sense in which Shvetashvatara later uses it, when it describes its God as a Mayin, a magician, a powerful Being who creates this world by his powers while the other, namely, the individual soul is bound again by Maya [Sh. 4.9]. Here is must be remembered that there is yet no distinction drawn, as in later Vedantic philosophy, between Maya that envelops Ishvara and the Avidya that envelops Jiva: for both, the generic word Maya is used, and in the passage under consideration, it means only "power", almost in the same sense which Kuno Fisher gives to the "attributes" of Spinoza. Then again, in the Shvetashvatara, Maya is once more identified with Prakriti [Sh. 4.10], a usage which prevailed very much later, as may be seen from the way in which even the author of Kusumanjali had no objection in in identifying the two even for his theistic purpose. The Shvetashvatara also contains passages which describe the Godhead as spreading his meshes and making them manifold that he catches all the beings of the universe in them, and rules over them [Sh. 3.1, Sh. 5.3]. Here we have the conception of a net of meshes inside which all beings are entangled. Then again, a famous passage from Brihadaranyaka, which we have already considered, which speaks of "as if there were duality", implying thereby that there really is no duality, signifies the identification of Maya with a semblance, as-it-were, an appearance [Br. 2.4.14]. Finally, in that celebrated conversation between Shetaketu and Aruni which we have also had the occasion to consider, we are told that everything besides the Atman is merely a word, a mode and a name [Ch. 6.1.4]. We thus see from an examination of various passages in the Upanishads that even though the word Maya may not have been used for many times in the Upanishads, still the conception that underlies Maya is already present there and even though we do not find there the full-fledged doctrine of illusion in its philosophical aspects as in Gaudapada and later writers, still we do find in the Upanishads all the material that may have easily led Shankara to elaborate a theory of Maya out of it. When we consider that we have the conceptions of a veil, of blind-foldness, of a knot, of ignorance, of not-being, of darkness, of death, of unreality and uncertainty, of untruth, of crookedness, and falsehood and illusion, of the power of God, of this power as identical with nature, of meshes, of semblance, an as-it-were an appearance, and finally, of a word, a mode and a name, let no man stand up and say that we do not find the traces of the doctrine of Maya in the Upanishads!
Also, must read is this article, titled "Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads" (posted by Shri Ram Chandranji). Read the rest of this entry >>
As we have said, we shall examine the ideas instead of words in the Upanishads, and see whether the traces of Maya doctrine cannot be found in them. The Isopanishad tells us that truth is veiled in this universe by a vessel of gold, and it invokes the grace of God to lift up the golden vessel and allow the truth to be seen [Is. 15]. The veil that covers the truth is here described as golden, as being so rich, gaudy, and dazzling that it takes away the mind of the observer from the inner contents, the rivets it upon itself. Let us not be dazzled by the appearance of gold, says the Upanishad, everything that glitters is not gold. Let us penetrate deeper and see the reality that lies ensconced in it. We have thus, first, the conception of a veil which prevents the truth from being seen at first glance. Then, again, we have another image in the Kathopanishad of how people living in ignorance, and thinking themselves to be wise, move about wandering, like blind men following the blind, in search of reality, which they would have easily seen had they lodged themselves in knowledge instead of ignorance [Ka 1.2(4,5)]. We have here the conception of blindfoldness, and we are told that we deliberately shut our eyes to the truth before us. Then, thirdly, ignorance is compared in the Mundakopanishad to a knot which a man has to untie before he gets possesstion of the Self in the recess of his heart [Mu. 2.1.10]. Fourthly, the Chandogyopanishad tells us how knowledge is power, and ignorance is impotence [Ch. 1.1.10]. We, who are moving in this world without having attained to the knowledge of the Atman, are exhibiting at every stage the power of impotence that lies in us. Not unless we have attained to the knowledge of Atman can we be said to have attained power. Then, fifthly, the famous prayer in the Brihadaranyaka, in which a devotee is praying to God to carry him from Not-Being to Being, from Darkness to Light, from Death to Immortality, merely voices the sentiment of the spiritual aspirant who wishes to rid himself of the power of Evil over him. Unreality is here compared to Non-being, to Darkness, or to Death [Br. 1.3.28]. The Kathopanishad declares that Sages never find reality and certainty in the unrealities and uncertainties of this world [Ka. 2.4.2]. Maya is described as an adhurava -- an unreality, or an Uncertainty. The Changogya again tells us that a cover of Untruth hides the ultimate Truth from us, just as the surface of the earth hides from us the golden treasure that is hidden inside it. We, who unconsciously move to the region of Truth, day after day, do yet labour under the power of Untruth for we do not know the Atman. This Atman is verily inside the hearts. It is only he, who reaches Him everyday, that is able to transcend the phenomenal world [Ch. 8.3(1-3)]. Maya is here compared to an untruth, an "anrita". Then again, the Prashnopanishad tells us that we cannot reach the world of Brahman unless we have shaken off the crookedness in us, the falsehood in us, the illusion (Maya) in us [Pr. 1.16]. It is important to remember that the word Maya is directly used in this passage, and almost in the sense of illusion. In the same sense is the word maya used in Svetasvarata where we are told that it only by meditation upon God, by union with Him, and by entering into He being, that at the end there there is the cessation of the great world-illusion [Sh. 1.10]. Here again, as before, the word Maya can mean nothing but ilusion. It must be remembered, however, that the word Maya was used so far back as at the time of the Rigveda in a passage, which is quoted by the Brihadaranyaka, where Indra is declared to have assumed many shapes by his Maya [Br. 2.5.19 and RV. 6.47.18]. There apparently, the word Maya meant "power" instead of "illusion" -- a sense in which Shvetashvatara later uses it, when it describes its God as a Mayin, a magician, a powerful Being who creates this world by his powers while the other, namely, the individual soul is bound again by Maya [Sh. 4.9]. Here is must be remembered that there is yet no distinction drawn, as in later Vedantic philosophy, between Maya that envelops Ishvara and the Avidya that envelops Jiva: for both, the generic word Maya is used, and in the passage under consideration, it means only "power", almost in the same sense which Kuno Fisher gives to the "attributes" of Spinoza. Then again, in the Shvetashvatara, Maya is once more identified with Prakriti [Sh. 4.10], a usage which prevailed very much later, as may be seen from the way in which even the author of Kusumanjali had no objection in in identifying the two even for his theistic purpose. The Shvetashvatara also contains passages which describe the Godhead as spreading his meshes and making them manifold that he catches all the beings of the universe in them, and rules over them [Sh. 3.1, Sh. 5.3]. Here we have the conception of a net of meshes inside which all beings are entangled. Then again, a famous passage from Brihadaranyaka, which we have already considered, which speaks of "as if there were duality", implying thereby that there really is no duality, signifies the identification of Maya with a semblance, as-it-were, an appearance [Br. 2.4.14]. Finally, in that celebrated conversation between Shetaketu and Aruni which we have also had the occasion to consider, we are told that everything besides the Atman is merely a word, a mode and a name [Ch. 6.1.4]. We thus see from an examination of various passages in the Upanishads that even though the word Maya may not have been used for many times in the Upanishads, still the conception that underlies Maya is already present there and even though we do not find there the full-fledged doctrine of illusion in its philosophical aspects as in Gaudapada and later writers, still we do find in the Upanishads all the material that may have easily led Shankara to elaborate a theory of Maya out of it. When we consider that we have the conceptions of a veil, of blind-foldness, of a knot, of ignorance, of not-being, of darkness, of death, of unreality and uncertainty, of untruth, of crookedness, and falsehood and illusion, of the power of God, of this power as identical with nature, of meshes, of semblance, an as-it-were an appearance, and finally, of a word, a mode and a name, let no man stand up and say that we do not find the traces of the doctrine of Maya in the Upanishads!
Also, must read is this article, titled "Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads" (posted by Shri Ram Chandranji). Read the rest of this entry >>
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Some references by Adi Shankara in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya
I am reading the book "Vedanta Explained (Sankara's (Shankaracharya's) Commentary on the Brahma-sutras" by Prof. V.H Date (Here is the reference.). Prof. Date is a student of Shri Ranade.
At the end of second volume, Prof. Date gives a listing of the original verses of which references have been made by Adi Shankara his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and the particular verse from Brahma Sutra where the reference has been made from. Here are the numbers of the specific verses (I am leaving out the big ones like Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya because of their sheer number.).
At the end of second volume, Prof. Date gives a listing of the original verses of which references have been made by Adi Shankara his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and the particular verse from Brahma Sutra where the reference has been made from. Here are the numbers of the specific verses (I am leaving out the big ones like Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya because of their sheer number.).
- Aitareya Aranyaka: 2.1.6, 2.2.4-6, 2.4.2-4
- Aitareya Upanishad: 1.1.1-2, 1.2,2-3, 1.3,11-13, 3.3
- Bhagavad Gita: 2.24, 2.25, 3.17, 3.35, 3.42, 4.37, 5.17, 6.11, 6.45, 7.21-22, 8.6, 8.10, 8.23, 8.26, 10.4, 10.5, 13.12, 15.6, 15.7
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ...
- Chandogya Upanishad: ...
- Isavashya Upanishad: 2 and 7
- Jabalopanishad: 4.1, 5
- Kathopanishad: 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.14, 1.2.15, 1.2.18, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.9, 1.3.10-11, 1.3.12, 1.3.13, 1.3.15, 2.1.1, 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, 2.2.8, 2.2.11, 2.3.2, 2.3.13, 2.3.16
- Kausiki Upanishad: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 2.9-14, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 4.18-19
- Kenopanishad: 1.3
- Manusmriti: 1.21, 2.87
- Mundakopanishad: 1.1.3, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.2.11, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.2.6, 2.2.8, 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 3.1.1., 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.8, 3.1.9, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8. 3.2.9, 3.2.10
- Prashnopanishad: 2.3, 3.6, 3.9, 3.10, 4.9, 5.2, 6.5
- Rig Veda: 2.12.2 10.129.2
- Satapatha Brahmana: 1.3.1.26, 10,5.4.16
- Shvetashvatara Upanishad: 1.11, 1.12, 2.10, 3.8, 3.9, 4.3, 4.19, 5.8-9, 6.9, 6.11, 6.19
- Taittariya Upanishad: 1.11.2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ranade: Bhagavad Gita and Upanishadic references
I am reading Shri Gurudeo R.D. Ranade's classic "A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy" (more about the book here and here). Note that the book was written in 1926! The book is very good and scholarly (if someone like me can dare use such a qualification) and has deep philosophy explained in a clear way.
On pages 142-146, Shri Ranade makes connection between Bhagavad Gita and Katha Upanishad. To students of Vedanta, it is not a new fact that there exists heavy similarity between Katha Upanishad, but Shri Ranade being the scholar-philosopher he is, makes an exact correlation which is thorough. Further, he compares the passages in Bhagavad Gita with different Upanishads. This post is a summary of the references with some excerpts and notes. Firstly, Shri Ranade make the following note:
Here are the comparisions that Shri Ranade makes between various Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita
Krishna in Chandogya and Mahabharatha: Later, Shri Ranade analyses the references of Krishna, Son of Devaki and disciple of Ghora Angirasa in Chandogya (Ch. Up. 3.17.1-6) with Lord Krishna of Bhagavatha/Mahabharatha and says that they are different characters.
He is a great scholar indeed, to point out such seeming inconsistencies with that great authority. My simple mind however, has a simple question: Doesn't Om answer the definition of Akshita, Achyuta and Pranasamsita (indestructible, unchangeable, very edge of life)? What is wrong in thinking that the concepts in Chandogya have been put more precisely in the Bhagavad Gita? If a student has already been imparted with the knowledge of the pranava, does she not immediately associate the notions of infiniteness in space and time and beyond causality, beyond life to it because all the finite characterizations are anyway meaningless when compared to it?
Note that this passage is in serious disagreement with Shri. S.Radhakrishnan's introduction to his translation of Bhagavad Gita. In particular, Shri. Radhakrishnan uses the same argument to validate the historical aspect of Krishna. That will be covered in a later post. For now, I take a deep bow at a scholar as great as Shri. Ranade. Read the rest of this entry >>
On pages 142-146, Shri Ranade makes connection between Bhagavad Gita and Katha Upanishad. To students of Vedanta, it is not a new fact that there exists heavy similarity between Katha Upanishad, but Shri Ranade being the scholar-philosopher he is, makes an exact correlation which is thorough. Further, he compares the passages in Bhagavad Gita with different Upanishads. This post is a summary of the references with some excerpts and notes. Firstly, Shri Ranade make the following note:
There is an amount of truth in the famous verse that "The Upanishads are like a cow, Krishna is like a milk man, Arjuna like the calf that is sent to the udders of the cow before milking, and the Bhagavad Gita like the milk-nectar that is churned from the udders of the cow."
Here are the comparisions that Shri Ranade makes between various Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita
- Ka.Up 1.2.18 and BG 2.20 [Exact]
- Ka.Up 1.2.19 and BG 2.19 [Exact]
- Ka.Up 1.2.17 and BG 2.29 [Paraphrased and Adopted.]
- Ka.Up 1.2.15 and BG 8.13 [Imperishability and significance of Om. Almost word for word]
- Ch.Up 5.10.1-5 and BG 8.24 to 8.25 [Same concepts of Deyayana and Pithruyana. He notes that the former itself is from Vedas.]
- Is.Up 2 and Karma Yoga of BG:
The verse from Isavashya Upanishad (IS. 2) which tells us in a spirit of apparent contradiction that "a man should spend his life-time only in doing actions, for it is only thus that he may hope to be untainted by action" has supplied Bhagavad Gita with an idea so prolific of consequences that the Bhagavad Gita has deemed to fit to erect a whole philosophy of Karmayoga upon it.
...
This passage supplies us with the means as well as the goal of moral life, without giving the connection between them. As we shall see later, the principal theme of Bhagavad Gita is teach a life of activity coupled with the effects of actionlessness through the intermediate linkage of un-attachment to and indifference to the fruits of action. - Mun. 2.1.4 and Cosmic vision of Arjuna in BG Chapter 11. He refers that Mundaka itself may have taken its concepts from Purusha Sukta.
- Ka. Up. 1.3.10-11 has the hierarchy: senses < objects < mind < intellect < Mahat < Avyakta < Purusha, with nothing being beyond Purusha. The hierarchy in BG 3.42 is senses < mind < intellect < Purusha, which he feels is crisp.
- Asvattha of Bhagavad Gita and Katha Upanishad: Shri Ranade sas this about the Asvattha tree example in the Ka. Up and BG.
In one important respect, however, the Bhagavad Gita takes a position antagonistic to the position advanced in the Upanishads. In the Ka. Up 2.6.1, we are told that Asvattha tree is the Brahman itself, and that it is imperishable. On the other hand, the Bhagavad Gita in 15.1-4 (BG 15.1, BG 15.2 and BG 15.3-4) tells us the opposite. We shall not consider the contradictions that are introduced in this description, but we are concerned here only to find out how far this description from Bhagavad Gita agrees with the description of the Upanishad. It may be noted at once that there is an agreement between the Upanishad and the Bhagavad Gita so far as the Ashvattha tree is regarded as having its root upwards and its branches downwards. But, while the Upanishad teaches that the Ashvattha tree is real, and identical with the Brahman and therefore impossible to cut off, the Bhagavad Gita teaches that the Ashvattha tree must be regarded as unreal, and as unidentical with the existence, and therefore that it is necessary to cut off this tree of existence by the potent weapon of non-attachment.
I am sure at a peripheral level, the difference are huge and bound to confuse the beginner. But I have a simple question: Is not the method of defining things using contradictions, exactly the method employed by Vedantic teachers? If we define Brahman as something, does it remain brahman anymore? If the anirvachaniya maya is tried to define as something, does it not escape that definition? Points to ponder (for me, that is!).
Krishna in Chandogya and Mahabharatha: Later, Shri Ranade analyses the references of Krishna, Son of Devaki and disciple of Ghora Angirasa in Chandogya (Ch. Up. 3.17.1-6) with Lord Krishna of Bhagavatha/Mahabharatha and says that they are different characters.
While no mention is made whatsoever of Ghora Angirasa who was the teacher of Krishna in Chandogya. Such a fact cannot be easily ingored in a work like Mahabharatha which is expected to give us everything about the divine warrior Krishna, and not not leave the name of the teacher unmentioned. If the Krishna of Chandogya is identified with the Krishna of Mahabharatha, for that matter why should not we identify the Harischandra of the Aitareya Brahmana who had a hundred wifes with the Harishchandra of mythology who had only one wife? Mere similarity of name proves nothing. It fills one with humour that new facile philosophy of identifications brahmana-wise should have been instituted in modern times by a host of critics of no small calibre when they would raise a huge structure of mythico-imaginary identifications by rolling together the god Vishnu of Vedic repute, Narayana the Cosmic God, Krishna the pupil of Ghora Angirasa, and Vasudeva the founder of a new religion, and thus try to prove that the sources of religion of Bhagavad Gita are found in the teaching of Ghora Angirasa! There would seem to be some meaning, however in the attempted identification of the Krishna of Chandogya with Krishna of the Bhagavad Gita when in verse 4 of the passage we are discussing [Ch. Up. 3.1-6], we are told that the gifts which such a sacrificier should make to priests are those of the following virtues: Tapas, Danam, Arjavam, Ahimsa and Satyavachanam. This list is closely similar to the list of virtues enumerated in BG16. 1-2 where the same virrtues are enumerated along with a number of other virtues, and almost the same order. But this fact proves nothing, because, as we have pointed out in the preceeding paragraphs, the Bhagavad Gita is a congeries of quotations, phrases and ideas borrowed from the Upanishads, and it is only by accident, as we may say, that the five virtues mentiones above should have been enumerated in the Upanishadic passage where Krishna, the son of Devaki is mentioned. There is a stoty about the Delphic Oracle that a number of trophies were hung round about the temple in praise of the god who had saved so many souls at different times from shipwreck in the midst of waters. A philosopher went to the temple and asked, Yea, but where are those that are drowned? Similarly we may say about the virtues in the Chandogya passage which are identical with the virtues in the passage from Bhagavad Gita. True, that the virtues enumerated in the Chandogya almost correspond to the virtues enumerated in the Bhagavad Gita: but, why, for the world, should not the essence of teachings of Ghora Angirasa have been incorporated, when the Upanishadic passage tells that at the last moments of a man's life, he should take the resort to these three thoughts: Thou art indestructible, Thou art Unchangeable, Thou art the very edge of life? Why should not the Bhagavad Gita have profited from these three expressions: Akshita, Achyuta and Pranasamsita? Why shoud it have left us merely with advise that a man should utter Om at the time of his death and meditate upon God? Finally we may say that the burden of proof of the identification of the two Krishnas falls upon those who make the assertion and so fas as their arguments have gone, we donot think that they have, in any way, proved identification at all.
He is a great scholar indeed, to point out such seeming inconsistencies with that great authority. My simple mind however, has a simple question: Doesn't Om answer the definition of Akshita, Achyuta and Pranasamsita (indestructible, unchangeable, very edge of life)? What is wrong in thinking that the concepts in Chandogya have been put more precisely in the Bhagavad Gita? If a student has already been imparted with the knowledge of the pranava, does she not immediately associate the notions of infiniteness in space and time and beyond causality, beyond life to it because all the finite characterizations are anyway meaningless when compared to it?
Note that this passage is in serious disagreement with Shri. S.Radhakrishnan's introduction to his translation of Bhagavad Gita. In particular, Shri. Radhakrishnan uses the same argument to validate the historical aspect of Krishna. That will be covered in a later post. For now, I take a deep bow at a scholar as great as Shri. Ranade. Read the rest of this entry >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
