Sai Discourse Discussion.

[Athreyan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hello!

I am starting a new thread to discuss discourses found in "Sai Lives On" thread.

I am a neutral person. I am not a Sai devotee or any devotee. I look at a discourse as a discourse only. It is not important who said that; but, it is important to discuss the message in such a discourse.

This is not a debate thread. So, if anyone is interested in debating any of the discourses, may please do it elsewhere.

After a discussion, a discourse may not be understood at all; if that happens, one should not blame the discourse but just accept the fact we could not quite understand author'spoint of view and please leave it at that.

Since I am not a devotee of anyone, this is the first discourse I am going to choose to discuss -

The Lord does not discriminate between the weak and the strong, or the high and the low. Such an attitude will never warp God’s vision. All are entitled to His grace; no one is invited, no one is prevented. All are entitled and welcome to enter His halls of worship. Its doors are ever open. What can anyone do if some do not approach the door? Those who desire warmth have to go near enough to the fireside and sit there. Those who stand afar can only know the light that emerges from that fireside. What do you say of that one, who, standing afar, declares that the fire has no warmth? It is inappropriate. Know that each and every one who yearns for the Lord’s presence and to enter His darbar (Court), and who strive in their minds constantly for the fruition of this desire, have admission and accommodation there.

[SIZE=-1]- Geetha Vahini, Ch 16. [/SIZE]​

​

As I said, I am not a devotee of anyone. How would this discourse affect me?

This discourse is actually an invitation for the persons like me to join the worship or devotion of the Lord, any personal Lord.

No matter what I believe or not, I have to believe myself. There is a light in every one of us. That light is the truth and honesty. We can fool the whole world; but we can never fool ourselves. Sometimes, we get deluded and try to fool ourselves with devastating results. When we know ourselves with all the honesty, we get the warmth from the truth and honesty within. Not only we get that, we also share it to others. That is when others find warmth in our company. Sometimes people say " so and so doesn't have to say anything; just in his/her presence, I feel calm and peaceful". That 'So and so' could be one's parents, siblings, close friend, a sanyasi or a saint.

It doesn't matter one has faith in God or not; one should have faith in oneself.

Thanks.

 

[Athreyan]

Hello.

the next discourse is an important discourse.

Your nature is Divine; God is the very substance of which you are merely another name and form. To realize this you must develop the discrimination between the eternal and the ever changing. You must know that the Universe is constantly subject to change and modification, and that Lord alone is unchanging. Practice detachment from pleasures of this world and that of the other, being convinced that they are fraught with grief. Control the senses and the sensory promptings; exhibit fortitude in the midst of grief and pain, joy and victory. Have firm faith in the Teacher and the Sacred Texts, and on the steady contemplation on the Absolute, undisturbed by other waves of thought. You will then gain realization of your True Nature.

How would this discourse suit a person who doesn't really believe in God? That is something to meditate on.

I request the members to take part in the discussions.

Thanks.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Athreyan,
you wrote:

This is not a debate thread. So, if anyone is interested in debating any of the discourses, may please do it elsewhere.

Then you said:

I request the members to take part in the discussions.

What are we supposed to do.

I have no argument with the discourses themselves.

 

[renuka]

Hello.

the next discourse is an important discourse.



How would this discourse suit a person who doesn't really believe in God? That is something to meditate on.

I request the members to take part in the discussions.

Thanks.

Dear sir,

There are many types of Atheists/Agnostics

1)First type who do not believe in any Higher Form and just lead lives as normal as they can.For all practical purposes religious texts do not interest them.
For them life is existence,birth,living and death and that's the end of the road.

2)Second type..who do not believe in God but still want to find fault with religion and God becos they are Atheist/Agnostic due to some frustration or situation in life that made them so.

They have not got over the God attachment and have the "Shishupala Syndrome" where they get pleasure by abusing God and religion without realizing that they spend lots of time contemplating on God even though negatively.

3)Then we have Agnostics..the "Opportunistic Infection" type as I call it.
You see most Agnostics do not mind even going to temple to derive benefits but at the same time they doubt the existence of God.

They are opportunistic in the sense that they hope to derive benefit from God(if He exists) but otherwise doubt everything from rebirth,karma and even the very existence of God.

So..we need to know which type we are dealing with when you say "How would this discourse suit a person who doesn't really believe in God?"


Cos for Type 1 ....any discourse will not matter.

For Type 2 ..have hidden agenda..so everything will be twisted and turned to suit their whims and fancies.

For Type 3..they might want to benefit from any discourse for self improvement but might still stay non committal in the believe in God.


So if you ask me..I feel if anyone wants to read any discourse he/she better decide what they really want in life.
You see food is meant to be eaten and digested..once it is in our system we can't say we do not want it to be digested.

Just say a person has eaten Thayir Sadam..he can not say he only wants to digest the Thayir portion and not want to digest the rice portion isn't it?

So if a Non Believer in God wants to digest a discourse he/she should not expect any modification to suit his/her personal taste.

I am not saying Take it or Leave it here but to a certain extent a person who wants to read religious texts should have a mind open enough to accept the Truth in the words.

 

[Athreyan]

I have no argument with the discourses themselves.

Prasad Sir,

You need not disagree with a discourse to discuss on that. Yes, it is true I requested not to have a debate. I noticed in the past, in a debate situation most debates quickly turned into arguments. Then not only the messages, even the messenger was commented upon. I do not anything like that to happen. I am very happy to see one post contributed to this per week in the way of meaningful discussion. It is much better than 50 posts contributed on the daily basis in a meaningless arguments.

All these discourses have some context to them. They must have been uttered for a specific purpose, to empower specific persons who were in need at that time. The discourses posted in the parent thread also may have been posted by Renuka in a particular context, aimed at certain persons at times and may reflect Renuka's mood and emotions on that day. So, sometimes we may not be able to work out the true meaning at all. That doesn't mean anything about the discourse itself. All it means is, we could not undertand the context. That is all.

Secondly, It would be nice to know the different views and different interpretations of a given discourse. I am more interested in such discussions. In a debate situation, the debate is on to prove or disprove a statement; that is not my aim. There is no question of disproving anything. that is why I requested not to have any debates.

That is my explanation, Sir.

Thanks.

 

[Athreyan]

Renuka,

Please address me either Athreyan or Athreya. You need not address me sir etc.

Cos for Type 1 ....any discourse will not matter.

I will not be that sure. In Tamizh we have 'Thirukkural'. Not even two full sentences. There is so much to discuss for each kural. I do not have to believe in God to be a decent person, to be a honourable person. You can't really say these discourses may not matter to some of the decent or some of the honourable persons.

I do not know of your bitter experiences, if any. I am broad minded. I have no desire to make fun of anyone or any idea. You are saying you placed 'thayir sadam' here, I can not take sadam and thayir seperately. I quite agree with you. But why can't I take mango picle, potato fry, lime picle or peanut sundal along with the thayir sadam provided by you? How do you know the taste of the original discourse would not be increased when many learned persons share their life experiences in line with the discourses provided by you?

Here is an example for you - அண்ணலும் நோக்கினான் அவளும் நோக்கினாள் Just four words from 'Kamba Ramayanam'. If you google those words in Tamizh, you get so many pages discussing those four words. I googled those same words in English. I got somany results. Here is one - Sita - Part 1 - Please look at the section 5 in this page.

To taste the nectar of any discourse, some one need not believe in God. That has nothing to do here. There is no need for me to read sacred texts. Why are they sacred? Because we think they lead us to a honourable and decent life. If a person can lead a decent and honourable life without ever looking at any of the sacred texts, does it mean he should not read them, discuss them?

I may not have belief in any devotion. But I do not have disrespect for any discourse. If you suspect I may have ulterior motive leading to any disrespect, please do not think so. I really think any discourse would be more sweeter with discussions and explanations with life experiences.

Thanks.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

Please address me either Athreyan or Athreya. You need not address me sir etc.



I will not be that sure. In Tamizh we have 'Thirukkural'. Not even two full sentences. There is so much to discuss for each kural. I do not have to believe in God to be a decent person, to be a honourable person. You can't really say these discourses may not matter to some of the decent or some of the honourable persons.

I do not know of your bitter experiences, if any. I am broad minded. I have no desire to make fun of anyone or any idea. You are saying you placed 'thayir sadam' here, I can not take sadam and thayir seperately. I quite agree with you. But why can't I take mango picle, potato fry, lime picle or peanut sundal along with the thayir sadam provided by you? How do you know the taste of the original discourse would not be increased when many learned persons share their life experiences in line with the discourses provided by you?

Here is an example for you - அண்ணலும் நோக்கினான் அவளும் நோக்கினாள் Just four words from 'Kamba Ramayanam'. If you google those words in Tamizh, you get so many pages discussing those four words. I googled those same words in English. I got somany results. Here is one - Sita - Part 1 - Please look at the section 5 in this page.

To taste the nectar of any discourse, some one need not believe in God. That has nothing to do here. There is no need for me to read sacred texts. Why are they sacred? Because we think they lead us to a honourable and decent life. If a person can lead a decent and honourable life without ever looking at any of the sacred texts, does it mean he should not read them, discuss them?

I may not have belief in any devotion. But I do not have disrespect for any discourse. If you suspect I may have ulterior motive leading to any disrespect, please do not think so. I really think any discourse would be more sweeter with discussions and explanations with life experiences.

Thanks.

Dear Athreyan,

I think you mistakenly took the post personally.

All the three types I listed are the types I have only seen in forum since I joined in 2009.

In my 42 years of life on this earth so far..I have never met an Atheist or an Agnostic.

I only got a pleasant shock when I joined Forum.
I am not saying it is wrong to be an Atheist or Agnostic but it was a culture shock to me.
Becos I grew up with a mind set that God is in everything and never separated Him from anything.


Even during my study in India from 1990 to 1995..never did I come across any Atheist or Agnostic.

All our professors would use the word God openly in our medical lectures and also quote some Mahabharat and Ramayan examples to get some facts into our head.

In my stay in forum so far..the 3 types which I listed are the types I have noted.

My post was not directed to you personally.

I know you have true intent to discuss any points from the discourse..that is the reason why I made the attempt to reply you today even though its a Public Holiday for me for Nuzul Al Quran(the day the Quran was given to the Prophet).

I would like to discuss further with you.

Keep it going.

P.S BTW I like to type "Sir" cos it is easier to spell!!LOL

 

[renuka]

I do not have to believe in God to be a decent person, to be a honourable person.



To taste the nectar of any discourse, some one need not believe in God. That has nothing to do here. There is no need for me to read sacred texts. Why are they sacred? Because we think they lead us to a honourable and decent life.

Thanks.

Dear Athreya,

Many a times I hear people saying what you wrote.

You have to agree to a certain extent that morality,decency and goodness in anyone is also partly contributed by environment and up bringing which have been shaped by religion and culture.

A person might not believe in God now but his/her upbringing by elders in the house would have been based on religious and cultural guidelines.

Religion and Culture has instilled discipline and code of conduct over generations.

There is a verse in Sanskrit that goes:

"I will summarize in half a stanza what crores of religious texts have said
Doing Good to others is a desirable act and Harming others is a despicable act"

So dear Athreya..I guess we get all our good behavior thanks to the hard work of all our ancient seers and rishis who explored religion for the benefit of mankind.

 

[Athreyan]

You have to agree to a certain extent that morality,decency and goodness in anyone is also partly contributed by environment and up bringing which have been shaped by religion and culture.

Renuka,

I agree with you. Not only partly contributed, I think it is wholly contributed. It is not just environment only. Indian girls and boys even in countries like Australia, USA, UK etc do not follow readily follow the norm of those countries. There is a a basic quality built in. The whole thing is built on that. I am not going to argue about the source of our discipline. It is there and I know it. We are not disciplined due to fear. We are disciplined because we want to. Only some people get to know read the texts. Most others do not get to read anything. I am one of those. But that does not stop me from trying to understand some of the discourses. I admit I do not understand most of the times. But it is nice to try. I have nothing to loose.

Thanks.

 

[Athreyan]

Renuka,

I met athiests while I was very young. I was born in Tamil Nadu. There was a movement promoting aism in the 1960s and 1970s. We were exposed to that. I remember, in 1970 a copy of "thuglag" fortnightly carried pictures of such atrocities. I was 13 years when I saw those pictures. I knew a lot about atheism. But that is a different story. I don't want to talk more about that here.

Thanks.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

I met athiests while I was very young. I was born in Tamil Nadu. There was a movement promoting aism in the 1960s and 1970s. We were exposed to that. I remember, in 1970 a copy of "thuglag" fortnightly carried pictures of such atrocities. I was 13 years when I saw those pictures. I knew a lot about atheism. But that is a different story. I don't want to talk more about that here.

Thanks.

That way I can say that I am very fortunate to live in Malaysia.
We have never been exposed to Atheism in any form.

We have a Rukun Negara(meaning National Principles) which we recite in School. It goes:

• BELIEF IN GOD
• LOYALTY TO KING AND COUNTRY
• THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
• THE RULE OF LAW
• COURTESY AND MORALITY

 

[Athreyan]

Hello.

the next discourse is an important discourse.



How would this discourse suit a person who doesn't really believe in God? That is something to meditate on.

I request the members to take part in the discussions.

Thanks.

Your nature is Divine; God is the very substance of which you are merely another name and form. To realize this you must develop the discrimination between the eternal and the ever changing. You must know that the Universe is constantly subject to change and modification, and that Lord alone is unchanging. Practice detachment from pleasures of this world and that of the other, being convinced that they are fraught with grief. Control the senses and the sensory promptings; exhibit fortitude in the midst of grief and pain, joy and victory. Have firm faith in the Teacher and the Sacred Texts, and on the steady contemplation on the Absolute, undisturbed by other waves of thought. You will then gain realization of your True Nature.

Hello.

This thread is yet to attract learned members to contribute their opinions and life experiences. I am continuing with my limited knowledge.

If we care to look around us, we can observe an ever changing world around us. Nothing stays the same. If we go through the history and archeology, we can observe more and more changes. Some of the plants, the animals of yestyears have completly vanished or changed. While some of the changes are made by the nature, some of the changes are made by the human beings by toying with nature. For example Genetically Modified crops to improve yield or some other qualities. We also change the animal kingdom to certain extend by cross-breeding procedures to bring different breeds of domesticated animals. What about us, human beings? We go through modifications too. In short, everything is changing in this world. We can observe changes in heavens too. Simplest of the changes is the ever expanding universe.

What about Gods? Since we humans made Gods, Gods are changing too. Starting from ancient Egypt Gods, Greek Gods, ancient Vedic Gods to later changes in Gods can be seen as some of the changes. All these changes in God take place because we made religion and we chose Gods to suit respective religions.

So, what is constant in this world, in this universe? Is there anything constant? Yes, the universal energy is constant. Ancient Indians named this energy with just one syllable "Om". Every thing organic or inorganic has energy. If I lost my energy completely, I am known as a corpse and I become a work order number for the undertaker. So, we are certainly connected to this energy even if we believe it or not.

That concludes one part of the discourse. Personally I see the quoted discourse in three parts. I just expressed my understanding of the first part.

The second part addresses about the pleasures and control of senses. No matter how much pleasure exists around us, no matter how much capacity we have to get those pleasures, there comes a time when we can't enjoy those pleasures. A simple change would be age. We just become too old to enjoy those pleasures and thrills anymore. We should learn to move on. If we get stagnated, when we miss those pleasures, such pleasures can and will cause pain. That is the pain of missing. But then, if we can detach ourselves from these plesures, we will not have any pain. We will have pleasant memories, but we will not miss those pleasures and will not have the pain and grief. The whole thing depends upon our mindset and mind make-up.

The third part addresses the requirement for the better mind make-up. Faithfully following a teacher to guide the mind properly, literatures to improve and help noble thoughts in our minds and a disciplined life to guide ourselves towards the truth and honesty are suggested for attaining a self realisation.

So, what is self-realisation? I guess that is a different topic, not quite covered in this discourse.

Thanks.

 

[prasad1]

I am not "learned" person by any means, secondly you scared some of us by proclaiming you do not want discussion. I have enough distractors, i was not interested in buying any more.

 

[Athreyan]

I am not "learned" person by any means, secondly you scared some of us by proclaiming you do not want discussion. I have enough distractors, i was not interested in buying any more.

Prasad Sir,

I requested not to have a debate and requested for a discussion. Appreciate your reply.

Thanks.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Athreyan,
You said:

What about Gods? Since we humans made Gods, Gods are changing too. Starting from ancient Egypt Gods, Greek Gods, ancient Vedic Gods to later changes in Gods can be seen as some of the changes. All these changes in God take place because we made religion and we chose Gods to suit respective religions.

That is a paradoxical statement. I do not know if God created Humans or Humans created God. That will depend on how you define God.

The next sentence you said:

So, what is constant in this world, in this universe? Is there anything constant? Yes, the universal energy is constant. Ancient Indians named this energy with just one syllable "Om". Every thing organic or inorganic has energy. If I lost my energy completely, I am known as a corpse and I become a work order number for the undertaker. So, we are certainly connected to this energy even if we believe it or not.

The doctrine of advaita vedanta as expounded by Sankara can be summed up in half a verse: “Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah" — Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman. This is the quintessence of his philosophy. [An alternate formula is "The world is unreal; Brahman is real; the world is Brahman"]

• Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.

• The Atman is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It.

• Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrisya, beyond the reach of senses, mind or intellect. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa, essence. It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi). It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It.

• Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.
• The world is not an illusion according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world because of a superimposition of non-Self (objects) on Self (subject - Brahman). This is called Avidya.

• The Jiva or the individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts only so long as it is subject to unreal Upadhis or limiting conditions due to Avidya. The Jiva identifies itself with the body, mind and the senses, when it is deluded by Avidya or ignorance. Just as the bubble becomes one with the ocean when it bursts, so also the Jiva or the empirical self becomes one with Brahman when it gets knowledge of Brahman. When knowledge dawns in it through annihilation of Avidya, it is freed from its individuality and finitude and realizes its essential Satchidananda nature. It merges itself in the ocean of bliss. The river of life joins the ocean of existence. This is the Truth.

• Because samsara (or duality) exists due to ignorance or Avidya, Knowledge (Jnana) alone can make an individual realize his true nature. Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga etc., are necessary only to purify the individual and to help remove this Avidya. All other paths culminate in Jnana.

• Brahma Jnana is not about acquiring any external knowledge (as Brahman can't be an object of knowledge), it just about removing the Avidya or Maya.


(excerpts taken from the book "All about Hinduism", written by Sri Swami Sivananda)

So Brahman is not created or destroyed. So Human can not create God.

 

[Athreyan]

Prasad Sir,

Nice discussion from you. I like that.

So Brahman is not created or destroyed. So Human can not create God.

The first half is true. In my message I said the constant is the universal energy.

Most texts describe Brahman like this - நீக்கமற நிறைந்திருக்கும் பரிபூரண ஆனந்தமே . Meaning - நீக்கமற= without exclusion, ie all included. நிறைந்திருக்கும்= filled everywhere பரிபூரண = in exalted total ஆனந்தமே = bliss/ happiness . Brahman is explained as the exalted total bliss, total happiness which fills the whole universe including everything in it. This Brahman doesn't have any shape , size of figure.

Now the universal energy is the same. Just fills up the whole universe. It is contained in everything. I did explain that in my previous message too. Yes, going by that, Brahman can't be created or destroyed.

So, it is entirely possible one may see the universal energy as Brahman. It is just a different point of view. Like a blind person feels an elephant to form a mental picture about that animal. Where ever he touched and felt are true; it is also true he had not got the whole picture of that elephant.

When I said humans created Gods, he did. The ancient Greek gods are not to be seen now. Indra is not a God any more. We only read about Azura Mazda as the Gods of ancient persians. We keep creating religions. Islam is 1,400 years old. Allah is the God of Islam. Isckon movement is one more example. Started after 1965, Krsna was borrowed from Hinduism. Jainism, budhhism were the religions created in the recent past. Man creates religions and create Gods for that specific religion. They all vanish in the long run.

Just the universal energy remains. Sacred texts call this universal energy as 'brahman. That is my opinion.

Thanks.

 

[Athreyan]

Hello.

I am choosing an important discourse. I do have a feeling Renuka maam posted this discourse with a context, posted for the benefit of someone in particular. I think this is a very good discourse to discuss.

The Lord does not ask you for penance or asceticism. He only wants that your mind be fixed on Him. Devote and dedicate your mind to God. If you plead that you have not the strength of mind to do this, ask yourself, where from comes the strength to dedicate yourself as you do now to hollow ideals and vain fantasies of family, fortune and fame? Can you not use this strength for that supreme dedication? People easily offer their all to poisonous objective pleasures, but squirm and protest when the call is made to dedicate their thoughts, feelings and acts to the Almighty! Those who are prompted by genuine desire for the fruit must overcome all obstacles and temptations, doubts and disappointments, and dwell on the thoughts of the Lord. Then the Lord will confer on you the blessing of Union.

I like to think about the discourse well before writing something.

Thanks.

[SIZE=-1]


[/SIZE]​

 

[prasad1]

When I said humans created Gods, he did. The ancient Greek gods are not to be seen now. Indra is not a God any more. We only read about Azura Mazda as the Gods of ancient persians. We keep creating religions. Islam is 1,400 years old. Allah is the God of Islam. Isckon movement is one more example. Started after 1965, Krsna was borrowed from Hinduism. Jainism, budhhism were the religions created in the recent past. Man creates religions and create Gods for that specific religion. They all vanish in the long run.

That is not my God, but a superimposition of a form on my God.
You can create an ugly pot ti fill the space, but when the pot is broken I still have the space. So these gods (pots) are nothing permanent.

 

[Athreyan]

That is not my God, but a superimposition of a form on my God.
You can create an ugly pot ti fill the space, but when the pot is broken I still have the space. So these gods (pots) are nothing permanent.

True. That was my position too. That's why I spoke about God's getting created.

Thanks.

 

[Athreyan]

Hello.

The discourse in post #17 does not seem like it was made for the benefit of an atheist. It sounds like it was addressed to a theist. In the case of an atheist, he doesn't believe in the existence of God. Since there is nothing to focus on, since nothing to dedicate his mind to, his mind just stays empty most of the times. I am not a theist. So, I am not going to assume a theist's mind.

Personally I have nothing averse to anything. That is I have no hatred towards God. I just have no faith. Lot of people say God sends a sign, a clear sign. I am not too sure about that. It may be quite possible God send me few signs and I may have failed to acknowledge any of the signs. What ever the case may be, There is no serious faith . That discourse is a nice appeal. I really don't know if God asks for anything. Possibly not. It is for us to have faith and belief in something. I have noticed so many times; unless we believe in something, we won't be able to do it.

Belief is the power emnating from the depth of our inner-self. One might say, Athreyan, for someone who says he doesn't have any faith, you talk too much. But I am not. I know the power of belief. I noticed it from my young years. While I was playing, If I didn't have belief in myself, I lost the game; During Karate sparring, If I didn't have belief, I was easily beaten up ( I learned contact method... in other words, one actually get beaten up). On the other hand, when I believed, 4 guys together couldn't land one punch or kick on me.

What is the difference between faith and belief? Can someone contribute more, please? I just don't want to go by dictionary meanings. Life experiences are the best teacher. Before discussing on dedication and devotion, I think it would be nice to discuss about faith and belief.

Thanks.

 

[Raghy]

Sowbagyavathy Renuka, Greetings.

I uploaded "Sai Lives On" thread. I will continue to upload on daily basis until you ask me otherwise. Since I do shift work, timings may not be uniform.

Young lady, go in peace. Enjoy your examinations and other trips in India. I wish you all the success and all the best for you.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Respectable members, Greetings.

On Sowbagyavathy Renuka's request I am uploading "Sai Lives On" thread. My participation in that thread may be debatable, worth discussing about; I quite agree. But kindly don't drag Sowbagyavathy Renuka or Sai Baba in that discussion, please because they are not going to be here to defernd themselves. I am just a Rhodesian Ridgeback in Sowbagyavathy Renuka's absence. I am not inclined to overstep that function.

I will be requesting Sri. Praveen to delete any unreasonable comments. Resonable discussion/debate messages have to wait until Renuka comes back if that involves Renuka.

I welcome any discussion about me; I will be more than happy to answer all the questions in this thread. Thank you.

Cheers!