I have observed a backlash against the word 'Hindu' growing especially in the west, but in India as well. While I...
I have observed a backlash against the word 'Hindu' growing especially in the west, but in India as well. While I understand the whole Sindhu river Persian reason for the word Hindu. I don't find any compelling argument that anyone actually knows what the ancients called their religious beliefs, while I realize they practiced Dharma, I still see no compelling argument as to what the tradition really was called in ancient times. Most 'ancient' terms appear to modern coming from the last few hundred years as adaptations against Hindu. Is anyone aware of clarity presented in any of the authoritative texts?
Kindly do not waste everyone's time with the argument that others named us, as the word 'India' likewise came from the Greeks and Persians, as this is not my query. In fact Bharata can be traced back to a king, so it is unclear as to the antiquity of even this term as far as referring to a geographical area. I appreciate your insight and thoughts!
Kindly do not waste everyone's time with the argument that others named us, as the word 'India' likewise came from the Greeks and Persians, as this is not my query. In fact Bharata can be traced back to a king, so it is unclear as to the antiquity of even this term as far as referring to a geographical area. I appreciate your insight and thoughts!
what is your query exactly? is it what ancient call themselves or what ancient call their religious beliefs? or is it something else. can you please put your in one simple sentence.
ReplyDeleteWhat the ancients called their tradition, as per the texts
ReplyDeleteBut I would like to address both, but based on actual authortative texts.
ReplyDeleteAgain I realize the ancients practiced dharma, but I am not aware of them calling their religion dharma, as we see dharma appear in a varity of texts but these traditions dont generally call their religion dharma, certainly this is true for Buddhism and Sikhs which refer to be dharmic but the religion is under a different banner if you will
ReplyDeleteI agree to the points raised by Sri Yogi Baba Prem. I have witnessed people identifying themselves as Tamil or Bengali or Panjabi, etc. - Why?
ReplyDeleteThe reason for this is 2 fold - Frst one is that we seldom care about the abuses that are taking place against Hindus in many places in the world - there are more than 20 million Hindus living India. Earlier it was difficult to connect - but now I don't think it is difficult - please subscribe to forums like HAF (Hindu American Foundation) etc. in Facebook, G+, etc. It is necessary that we need to know what is happening in the world and give our support where and whenever necessary - I remember about 15 years back the Hindu community had to suffer in the hands of Army in Fiji, despite being the majority.
The second one is that we really don't know about our religion - we may just be practising some customs and may be visiting temples but those are not sufficient to understand Hinduism. I see that American born Hindus and People who are Hindu by choice (They are either Yoga practitioners or Bhaktas or Spiritually inclined or combination of all these together) know about Hinduism better than people from India. Our families don't educate the children properly, because most of the adults themselves are blissfully ignorant.
Sanatana dharma (here dharma means Cosmic order) is the supreme principle. At the "vyavahara" level (worldly affairs) - 3 things determined the code of conduct and social harmony
ReplyDeleteVarna dharma (here dharma means the charecteristics - the choice of lifestyle and the order associated with it) and the ashrama dharma (the phisical-psychological status of the person - aashrama dharma) and sva-dharma (self conduct).
(Here dharma means rules and guidelines) The above are governed by Baahya dharma (external), Gruhastha dharma (house holder), and Yajna dharma (sacrificial rites) [dharmas - guidelines and practices] - these three are collectively called as 'Kalpa" in the 6 Vedanga.
Now on Matam (religion /opinion) - if one reads - "dashasloki" of Sri Adi Shankaracharya - we'd come to know that there were about 8. I give below 10+ matams in those days (matam means opinion in literal sense and religion in a suggested sense). They are Shaiva, Vaishnava (paancharaatram), Shaakta, Gaanapatya, Kaumaara, Shrauta (Vaidika /shruti - Mimamsa is part of this and also its derived one Saura (Sun worship)), Bauddha, Jaina, etc.
The internal differences within certain Matam etc.. makes them beyond 10, such as there was Kashmiri Shaivam and Dakshina Shaivam. Buddhists had 4 groups - Mahayana, Sautrantika, Maadhyamika, Yogachara. Jaina had 2 - Paarshwanathiya, Mahaveera. - matam always used to refer to personal god in those days - "ishta devataa" - this is at "Upaasana level"
In addition to "Matam" people were also following dharshanas - Nyaya, Mimamsa, Saankhya, Yoga, etc - this is at "Darshana level" (philosophical).
Even with all these differences there was harmony because - none of these is superior to the "Sanatana Dharma"
Important points you make, does support exist for Sanatana Dharma as being the actual name used in older texts?
ReplyDeleteHindu basically refers to things from India, and India is a material place. However the Vedas are spiritual, and of course the reality described as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan is spiritual. The individual self (atma) is also spiritual. So these are not actually Hindu at all. The word is too imprecise and commonly used inappropriately.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see someone identify as Hindu, I immediately put the individual in the category of not understanding the first lesson of Bhagavad-gita, which is to recognize the difference between the self and the body.
Precisely how does this address or have anything to do with my query?
ReplyDeleteYogi Baba Prem It was a general remark related to the discussion. I assumed you were interested in spiritual discussion rather than just academics. I'm not sure which texts you consider authoritative, so it's difficult to address that part of your inquiry. I thought they called themselves āryāḥ.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Srimad Bhagavatam 3.33.7 states:
aho bata śva-paco 'to garīyān
yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam
tepus tapas te juhuvuḥ sasnur āryā
brahmānūcur nāma gṛṇanti ye te
aho bata — oh, how glorious; śva-pacaḥ — a dog-eater; ataḥ — hence; garīyān — worshipable; yat — of whom; jihvā-agre — on the tip of the tongue; vartate — is; nāma — the holy name; tubhyam — unto You; tepuḥ tapaḥ — practiced austerities; te — they; juhuvuḥ — executed fire sacrifices; sasnuḥ — took bath in the sacred rivers; āryāḥ — Āryans; brahma anūcuḥ — studied the Vedas; nāma — the holy name; gṛṇanti — accept; ye — they who; te — Your.
"Oh, how glorious are they whose tongues are chanting Your holy name! Even if born in the families of dog-eaters, such persons are worshipable. Persons who chant the holy name of Your Lordship must have executed all kinds of austerities and fire sacrifices and achieved all the good manners of the Āryans. To be chanting the holy name of Your Lordship, they must have bathed at holy places of pilgrimage, studied the Vedas and fulfilled everything required."
Srila Prabhupada's purport to that verse is an absolute gem, cintāmaṇi:
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/3/33/7
No disrespect, but the post did not address my query from a spiritual or academic perspective. I would appreciate if all posts could be limited to my actual query, as I am trying to do some important work in this area and I am looking to have serious discussions with those knowledgable about this subject if they are willing to participate.
ReplyDeleteKrishnamurthi I appreciate your post. No doubt Shankaracharya has influenced this greatly, but I believe he is dated to circa 8 CE. I'm looking to see if there is some support on this subject within the main Vedic texts, but there seems to be an absence of this, which is understandable as they were not put in written form necessarily for that purpose. But I am looking to see if there are pointers that you or another is familiar with in these older texts that support Shankaracharya's position. Most positions I see are merely based on the term dharma appearing consistently through a variety of texts, this is supported by many as Sanatana Dharma, which is found in some texts. One might agree supportive of the tradition they practiced dharma. But I am investigating to see if there is more solid evidence as to a specific term. My suspicion is that specific names as we have now (Hindu, Christian, Muslim) are more a manifestation within the last few thousand years, and possibly may have not been as important in ancient times going back to the last ice-age. While dharma is present, the term 'Sindhu' is an important term within the Vedas, ranging from the seven rivers which is quite important relative to Ila, to the Indus and to the ocean indicating a seafaring people as well.. It seems logical that at one point in history people may have identified with landmarks, we see this in modern day with people separated as mountain people, valley people etc. it makes sense that people would have identified with geographic landmarks. The question then expands to does the name of the tradition expand to its people, are they kept seperate. Within the Hindu/Sindhu example it has encompassed both. Within the dharma model it does not necessarily. Within the Vedas we see separation of people's over dharma/adharma concepts. So I realize there are numerous points here, but this is the line of thought I have. But I am looking for what can be compiled as a compelling argument pertaining to the view of Hindu antiquity (over 3000 years), but ai realize this may not be possible, hence my query.
ReplyDeleteMy friend Durgadas notes that slight differences in pronunciation are quite common within India. One must wonder if the original change in Sindhu to Hindu might have predated even the Persian or was influenced by variations of the language found in the broader region then what is present day India.
ReplyDeleteNot 'Hindu' but "Sanatana dharma" as per Sringeri guru (from an interview).
ReplyDeleteAll other religions are professed by respective person and those followers of him will be given with named religion. But ancient Indians are permitted democratically to follow anyone if it is strictly inline with basic Dharma ( of the land/region) and practices are similar in the region. So there was no need of any separate name like Hindu.
There is no equivalent word for Religion (the organised part, because there was no organiser) in Samskritam. The closest word that comes is mata (not Maata) - ( मत from the root मन् (मनु अवबोधने - तनादि) This root has many meanings when it joins with different suffixes in “kridanta” (direct nominal derivation from the verbs), Thus the word mata it is more towards (अभिप्रायः – opinion). All mata in Bharata is under the supreme Sanatana dharma. As given in Veda. However 2 distinct things also determines the dharma then – आस्तिक, नास्तिक. – the first one takes Veda as a “pramana” and follow the lifestyle – dharma-artha-kaama-moksha as the “individual dharma”.
ReplyDelete1. In Vedas, in the “Samhita” part (the stuti part) is mostly praises the “Rta” - the cosmic order. Later since that is too broad to understand for “Aacharna” (practice) the word “dharma” is used in-lieu of Rta – this is due to fact that “dhaaraNaat dharma” – that which holds /sustains therefore dharma. This becomes specific to what should we do, so that the cosmic order is not disturbed through our lifestyle. This has been what is referred as “Sanaatana dharma”
2. In the “brahmana” part the word dharma appears and it deals again with mimicking the cosmic order through the sacrificial rites “Yajna”. My teacher Vedavidvan mahamahopadhyaya Sriman Krishnamurthi Sastrigal, says that the word “Yaaga’ or “Yajna” stands for “tyaaga” (sacrifice).
3. Shastras say that “dharma-artha-kaama-moksha” is the way of fulfilling the purpose of life. Here the word “dharma” means following the human part of the contribution to the “cosmic order” – primarily the “Poortha dharma” or sacrifices. In Kalpa (Vedanga) the word “Poortha dharma” (appearing in Manu smriti) – talks about maintaining the order and doing sacrifices for that
4. In Taitriya Upanishad the famous mantra – “satyam vada, dharmam cara, svaadhyaayaan maa pramata, etc. Also in Ramayana the famous quote “dharmo rakshati rakshitaH” – here the word dharma refers to the one who doesn’t disturb the cosmic order and its representation – as man’s physical, social and spritual order as described in shastras. In bhagavadgita 16th Chapter – last 2 slokas states about the Dharma as outlined as “shastra vidhi” and the importance of that.
5. With respect to the “naastika” dharma – bauddha and jaina (here the word "dharma" is synonymous with “mata” or practice) – in the dharma-artha-kaama-moksha – the first and last are important – dharma and moksha. But as for as artha and kaama are concerned, both Jainas and Bauddhas philosophically didn’t give any importance to them. They took the vedic purport – “the sacrifice” to new heights and found way to use it directly for the purpose of moksha - without the "Yajna" as a vehicle. For more details pl. refer to Jaina texts (particularly the debates of the followers of Paarshwanatha and Mahavira and Buddhists texts (particularly Moola madhyamika of Sri. Nagarjuna).
The above are some pointers for dharma. Now with respect to “Mata” (मत) some points in ancient Bharata
1. Starting with Maharishi Panini in this era of Kali (prays to Shiva - Maheshwara), and Maharishi Bharata (Naatyashastram), Maharishi Patanjalai (Mahabhashyam) etc. had their Ishta devata as “Shiva” thus “Shivam” as a “matam” existed then. The darshana part is still Vedas (dharma) at this time.
2. Again going back in time in Mahabharata – Sri Krishna advices Arjuna to to pray to Shiva and get the “Paashupata-astra” – here also Veda (with Vedanta) as the primary “religion” as outlined in Bhagavadgita.
3. Going back in time further – In Ramayana “Rama” did pooja to “Shiva” and Ravana was a “Shiva Bhakta” . In Ramayana itself the Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva is established - Yuddha Kanda.120.3, Yuddha Kanda 120.8, etc.)
4. On the Sindhu Valley Seal (Indus seal) there is a seal of “Pashupati” and a person in Yogic Samadhi – thus in those day philosophically it was dharma that was the highest principle - whatever be the Ishta devata
ReplyDelete5. Form based worship was there then and even now – this the Yogis says that – while meditating on nothing the possibility of insanity is higher (at least in the initial stage) and thus they stick to some form – be a symbol, an image, a sound, etc.
Based on the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shaakta - the “agamas” -the worship - that is from Ishta Devata to the form of Ishwara - this kind of worships have become initially branches of Vaidika dharma and later – a dharma on their own (without distorting Vedic dharma) and with the ishta devata as Ishvara, acharyas, philosophy and sacred texts (these texts don’t differ from the Taatparya of Vedas and Vedanta in dharma and moksha) and then a guru-shishya parampara.
Namaskar Krishnamurti! That is a compelling argument. This would be a nice article, if you are ever so inspired. I think this would be of benefit for many to read! I appreciate you taking the time to write this.
ReplyDeleteOne important point got leftout - How the 3 main Sections of dharma (Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shaakta) raised from Vaideeka Sanatana dharma? - The Veda talks about 33 Koti devataa - the word Koti means सङ्ख्या a number (10 million) as well as कोण Perspective/Angle/Principle.
ReplyDeleteI take it as - 33 Natural/Cosmic phenomenons (Principles) that maintain the Cosmic order - Rta (ऋत). This is within the purview of Mother Earth. They are 8 Vasu - Representing "Shakti" and 11 Rudra - Representing "Shiva" and 12 Adityaa - Representing "Vishnu". 2 more for Buddhi and Jiva or Ahankaara. In Bhagavadgita Sri.Krishna says that he is Shankara among Rudra(s) and Vishnu among Aadityaa(s) and Paavaka (fire) among Vasu(s).
Namaskar Krishnamurti, Have you categorized each? For example, I believe in this model the Adityas would be the months of the year, as there are twelve. But where does one place Aditi? Or other devas such as this?
ReplyDeleteWhat is given as 33 is what is categorized as 8 in Bhagavadgita as the "prakriti" of Krishna (5 bhoota + Buddhi+ Manas+ Ahamkaara). The same thing is there in Dakshinamurthi stotra where for buddhi is represented as Sun, manas as Moon and Ahamkaara as Jiva. All this verily maintains the cosmic order - represented in us as "Shad-bhaava-vikaara" as given in Mahabhashyam - अस्ति, जायते, वर्धते, विपरिणमति, नश्यति, मृयते - everything has to go through this.
ReplyDeleteThe principle behind all these is to connect everything to "One" or "Oneness". All forms of shakti as Vasu - the word is a derivative from the verb root वस् - to reside. And the loci is represented as "Kala" or "purusha" and the "Sambandha" which is eternal. All these ultimately connects with the absolute one - the brahman (not Brahmaa). This is what propounded in Veda as "ekam sat vipraah bahudhaa vadanti" - vipraah means scholars, bahudhaa here is to be taken as classification.
I understand, but as there is a correlation with prakrti and the tattvas, should there not be a definable correlation between the Vasus, Rudras, Adityas and tattva such as we see in Samkhya and Shaivite's 36 tattvas?
ReplyDeleteInitially the word Saankhya is used in synonymity with Jnaana - in Bhagavadgita it is widely referred with the meaning of jnaana. Pl. refer BG 5.4 [here in this sloka the word Saankhya means Jnaana and the word Yoga means Karma (action)].
ReplyDeleteLater a darshana by Maharishi Kapila was also called as Sankhyaa. Buddha has taken lot of inputs from Saankhya - the major difference is the Nirvana and also Buddhism don't accept the final duality. The same way Yoga (darshana) shastra of Maharishi Patanjali also aligns with some principles of Saankhya - the major difference is again the duality which Yoga don't accept and also the Iswara in Yoga.
Thus the Saankhya of Vedanta /Shastra and the Darshana - both are different.
However, the 24 tattvas of Saankhya (darshana) and the 36 tattva of Kashmiri Shaivam and the 96 tattvas of Tamil Shaivam - all originated from the 33 principles of Veda - "vasurudraadityasvaroopa". In Veda they are Devataas - later they are phenomenons.
The hair-splitting arguments and differences of these things, are difficult to comprehend also I don't know the exact derivations of these tattvas from the original Vedic 33 devataas.
Ultimately at the end - the phenomenal world and the universe is transient - this is the final truth propounded by the Upanishads.
Yes, but do we have a direct correlation between the Vasus, Rudras per the Vedas and the tattvas? As it seems to me anyway, that if we are to have an association with prakrti, there should be correlation between these and the tattvas? Am I missing something? I mean using the Samkhya model for example, while all the tattvas are from an interaction between Purusha and Prakriti the tattvas emanate out of this interaction. So we can say they all one in a sense, but yet each tattva is specifically identified. I would think we would need something similar with the Vedic tattva model your proposed.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if we take Agni and interpret from an adhibautic perspective, Agni as a literal name would refer to the literal fire. This could be the fire within the earth, or a fire of a homa/havan. This would be a specific tattva for Agni. But if the name jatavedas is used this tattva would change even within the adhibautic perspective, and would move into the realm of the mind. Jatharagni would be a clear classification of Agni within the physical body while mano'agni would be the fire in the mind. Again these are clearly classified. But they would change if interpreting from an adhidevic perspective.
ReplyDeleteFor Paadapooranam or Chandas the word Agni might have been used even when not referring to the devataa. However while referring Bhootas [Bhoo itself means sattaa (astitvam)] the word Agni is used - this is to denote that there is a chaitanya (chitta's bhaava is chaitanya - a samskraara vishesha)
ReplyDeleteSo if you read the agni other than in Jatara (digestive), Yajna (gaarhapatya, aahavaneeya, daakshina) and Paaka (cooking) - it is nor used in the sence of Devataa. In rest of the places the word - Tejas, Vahni etc. are normally used. However after the Navya Naiyaayika (later Indian logicians) this kind specific usage has slowly diminished and people are also using without any idea.
The same thing with Vayu (used only to denote a devata or praaNa (a shakti)) rest of the places it is Marut, Vaata, etc.
aa+hava+neeya (connected with Yajna agni - represents sacrifice) - from the root "huu" (juhotyaadi gana)
ReplyDeletegaarha+patya (connected with griha - paaka agni - represents order - dharma)
daaksh+naaya (connected with jnaana agni - represents moksha) - daksha means jnaana
Thats why dakshinaamurti is dakshina+amurti (jnaana+formless) - this explanation of dakshinaamurti is by Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi.
These are later commentaries and not necessarily easily proven to be based in the Vedic philsophy of the Vedas themselves. The devas are understood to be referenced when using an adhidevic interpretation within the Vedic tradition and can be see as conscious beings, I believe even advaita teaches that consciousness may take form for the benefit of the aspirant (Vashistha's Yoga). Rather these later commentaries appear to be addressing the changing age within the Kali Yuga. Even the Vedas was reduced in size for this Yuga. Having a considerable amount of information removed from the Rg Veda itself. Though of course the remainder of the Vedas remains hidden in the ethers to reappear in another age. The Vedas were generally interpreted in 5 general ways at a minimum, though there are quite a few more. What we commonly see is a mixing of interpretations in the present era, which seems to be confusing the message within the Vedas.. Certainly there would be an adhiyajnic interpretation to the Vedas as the Yajna or Yagya was important to the Vedic marga and Vedic dharma, and appears to be a reappearing theme through the texts, with over 23 (I believe) different agnihotras referenced in the Brahmanas. But these different levels of interpretation should be able to be associated with tattvas, in order to work with the Vedic system and later era models. While I can concur with your point that Agni might not referring to the devata per se', there is a conundrum as one cannot say 'all is one' and then separate it from the teachings on occasion, there must be a logical progression of specific qualities, attributes, form and function inorder to clarify the interpretation, separation and meaning of the function. I find this is what the Vedic system does, while Jatharagni does not indicate a 'deva' in the gut of a person, it does indicate a function of the deva on a mundane level. Which is my point, if we have a belief of association of the devas with prakriti there must be a classification and clear association with the element. So to me it seems that if one is to associate the devas with prakrit, there must be an association with tattva? Hence that is my query, what tattvas are the Rudras, Vasus etc. associated with? Again, if I am missing something, please let me know.
ReplyDeleteNot intending to take up your valuable time, I am really just looking to see the association of these groups you mentioned with tattva. I hope this makes sense.
ReplyDeleteVaishvanara is the jataraagni devataa. Which is again based on the Upanishad (both in Mandukya and Brihadaranyaka) Vishwa-Vaishvanara, Tajas-Taijasa, etc. Even in BG - 15.14 "aham vaishvanaro bhootva..."
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are certain loose ends - but the Taatparya (purport) is ultimately the same - which is "Dharma" in vyavahara (worldly affairs) and "Moksha" in adhyaatma (spiritual pratice)
I would recommend 2 small books that connects a lot of things 1) Mandukya Upanishad (only 12 mantras) with Mandukya Karika, 2). Panchikaranam of Adi Shankara with Vartikaa of Sureshvaracharya. Some degree of Adhidaivika and Adhyaatmika connections are well established - however the adhibhaudika part is still missing - in Bharata people never gave so much importance to bhaudika (material) things. Thus the missing links
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with them. I have stayed with the Vedas themselves in my query, as I believe that the tradition supports all these things should be found within the Vedas themselves. Unless I am mistaken. Within the Rg Veda, Vaishvanara is largely associated with dyauh and influenced in function by its chanda. I am aware of the Mandukya teaching of Vaishvanara occupying a role of almost 'Purusha' if you will. But we also see an association with elements as Vaishvanara is associated with 'a' and called the first element. I believe that Taijasa is given the 'u' and the second element. etc. Is this not correct?
ReplyDeletePersonally I feel that the correlation of Vaishvanara with jatharagni is relative to broad karmas spanning numerous lifetimes, As I believe that Agni and its association with the earth would be more specific to the digestive fire, but this is just my opinion. But it should be noted that Vedacharya's have agreed with this position. Of course all the forms are one, but to me anyways the names must indicate a different function and form of the one, otherwise it is illogical to have different names.
ReplyDeleteYes correct. Thats what is in Mandukya. The AUM (each one maatraa varna combined into one aksharam together with the half maatraa silence). A is the Vaishvanara, U is the Taijasa and M is the prajna and the "silence" is the Turiya - literally the 'forth' and that is not a state but 'brahman' - so there is a "devataa vishesha" - I don't know what you mean by element.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure I can concur with the article when it comes to the Vedas, in my opinion, we see too many views that are not actually based in the views or definitions of any tradition relative to the Vedas. This can be illustrated by the common translation of 'salvation' for moksha. Clearly this is not what moksha means and is a imprint of a foreign culture upon Indian translations. As moksha means liberation, and liberation is quite different from salvation. So the opposite can be true as our immersion into other languages and cultures provide samskaras and terms that do not fit dharma or the Vedas as well. This is a big problem in the west, as we taking Sanskrit words and adding our own definitions to them. Which has led to absurd understandings of yoga in the west. I believe that the Vedas and Upanishads supports my elements association with the devas be it a literal element or tattva. And have illustrated a few generally accepted ways of interpreting the Vedas by Vedascharyas (note adhibhautik reference, adhiyajnic etc.) But I am assuming that you are saying the information for connection with the Rudras and Vasus can no longer be found in relation to their connection with tattvas? Am I reading that this is your position correctly?
ReplyDeleteMy readings are not based on any Western translation nor purely traditional (today there are handful of Acharyas teaching in a Gurukula method for Vedanta teaching) - Mine is mostly based on Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi's various talks and the traditional Vedanta discourses by Veda/Vedanta pundits. There are 3 styles of schools for Vedanta studies - 1). College 2). In-formal - Chinmaya, etc. 3). Guru shishya parampara. So you need approach a Veda /Vedanta scholar if you need deeper level answers on adhibhaudika part and their connections to tattvas of other systems.
ReplyDeleteI have taken the liberty to post a brief comment on the Rudras and tattvas.
ReplyDeleteKrishnamurthi CG, your knowledge and depth is quite impressive. I always learn from your posts and appreciate you taking the time to chat with me. Wishing you joy!
ReplyDelete