Surrender versus Self-Acceptance - www.ezboard.com

>

SRF Walrus

Mt. Washington, Ca

Open discussions about SRF

SRF Walrus > Core Issues > Surrender versus Self-Acceptance
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/20/01 4:39 pm) Reply	Surrender versus Self-Acceptance My worldview has expanded immensely since I began studying the SRF teachings. I am, above all, grateful for the Kriya techniques. And it was through SRF that I gained a tutored insight into the unity of all religions. Thank You PY. Unfortunately, I can no longer read the lessons nor can I attend an SRF service without feeling that something is missing and something psychologically off has been added. A friend of mine enlightened me one day. He showed me how SRF spends an inordinate amount of time pushing the idea of surrender but precious little time on the subject of inner self-acceptance. He also showed me that the SRF lessons are peppered with what cognitive psychologists call "should statements." Too much of this kind of bossy thinking to one's self and to others, too much black and white / all-or-nothing thinking creates a very negative taint on the expansive aspects of the teachings, which are there. It's no wonder we have a bunch of critical people at Mother Center. This also explains why there is so much underachievement and low self-esteem among members when the teachings could easily help to exalt lives not only spiritually but also materially and psychologically. The lessons, books and recorded media of SRF do not have any direct words to say about inner self-acceptance. About the only allusions to it --and there aren't that many -- are 1) a story where Guruji tells a sneaky boy to ask him for cigarettes whenever he has the urge to smoke, and 2) an article where he tells us look at life unmasked as we bring into consideration all aspects of our nature. That's the whole shebang really. Everything else is definitely about outer relinquishment or controlling and directing thoughts and feelings from within. I basically run into the following words over and over again in the lessons: control, change, wash away, transmute, free yourself from, get rid of, obey, follow, abandon, overcome, renounce, rid yourself of, will power, won't power, change, discipline, avoid, cut out, you should, you must, don't, do not, break, get away from...etc. These are very bossy imperatives, and when, like salt or spices, they become overused, they can have an unsettling effect on the psyche. One may argue that human nature is lazy and needs to learn to fight, fight, fight. I won't deny that. But still there is an imbalance here. Humans also need to revel in the beauty and mystery of paradox. What more paradoxical experience than one's own humanity? This is the teachings of the Vedas and Upanishads. Notice how it relishes the idea of paradox: Then who knows from where this came into existence! Where this creation came from , whether He supported it or not, He who is controlling it from the highest of the heavens, He perhaps knows it or He knows it not ! (Rig Veda X.129) "Spirit and Nature dancing together" ...You can't say SRF exactly reflects this idea. Oh sure, if you rummage enough, you'll find it, but it is not up front and center. Whatever is put up front is what people regard as most important. Isn't that true? What does get pushed to the front is the concept of surrender, which is synonymous with relinquishment. Not very life-affirming. And a far cry from the concept of "Spirit and Nature dancing together." In my opinion, SRF fosters a peevish relationship to human nature. Its hard to see it operating at first glance because SRF devotees like to believe they are "balanced" in all things. Well, they're not. The Vedas and the Upanishads were. They regard paradox as something worth fathoming. From The American Heritage Dictionary:........ SURRENDER [from Old French sur-, "over" + rendre, "to deliver"] 1) To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion. 2) To give up in favor of another 3) To give up or give back that which has been granted. 4) To give up or abandon 5) To give over or resign (oneself) to something, as to capture or an emotion or influence 6) To give oneself up, as to an enemy We know Guruji was a Kshatriya. And, if you read my posting on two clashing models, you will see that there is a direct relationship to the SRF monastic order and Kshatriyan thinking. In general, monastics work with the surrender paradigm. Their life is about a sloughing off of the natural self in preference to the spiritual self. Therefore they often conceptualize their role on the spiritual path as one who should ideally be contemptuous of human nature or - at minimum -- ungenerously tolerant of it. Such "renunciants", as they are called, are always doing battle with their unsavory side as if they were taming an animal or waging a war against a crafty opponent. Now, in no way am I trying to deligitimize this method. But, I've observed that it often tends to promote dualistic thinking -- the grandfather of all sorts of stresses, neurosis, and antagonistic projections. This is the way of the Kshatriyan warrior: "Here is me and there is the enemy. Enemies everywhere, including within." By countering an enemy, one can prove one's loyalty and devotion. This thinking has its own aesthetic, but that doesn't make it the only way or the best way. My brain doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, its de rigeuer in SRF, making the studying of the lessons or attending services an extremely tedious experience. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Inner self-acceptance, on the other hand, is a non-judgmental acknowledgment that a spectrum of thoughts and feelings occupy a person's psyche at any given point in time. It is based on the assumption that one can achieve a sublime internal balance by the integration of opposites. This alchemical approach may be found in the works of Carl Gustav Jung as well as much of the cutting edge of modern psychology. But the alchemical model really goes as far back as the Vedas themselves. This is the Brahmanic way of thinking where all states co-exist paradoxically. Any degree of this type of thinking in an organization would make me feel at home. But the senior monastics have avoided it, call it lax and self-coddling, and say Master never taught it. When two or three high profile monastics tested these ideas publically at an SRF Convocation, they were uncompassionately reprimanded. Why are the SRF elders so slavishly wedded to such constrictive thinking? Is our guru to blame? Did someone alter and adjust the lexicon of the SRF text? I have serious questions about this. I like to be prudent about what I assimilate but am told not to give these issues too much thought. What's going on here? Where do I come into the picture? Where's the free will? There are many reasons why I feel I have the right to demand an answer. First off, my self-esteem has suffered immensely. I feel that I've eaten a most delicious meal that has been somehow laced with arsenic. Secondly, I have a political duty. I am very much against any type of world denying orientalism which glorifies any form of servitude or surrender. Leaders often use religion to drive a wedge between will and cognition, to set up false choices so that the ruled only get to chose between following the will of a master or following their own infantilized will, unguided by any education or thought. People who have their creativity dumbed down and who exist in passive servitude, cut off from their own cognition, become great tools of the asuras. We've witnessed throughout history how religions become prey to larger economic forces they cannot understand. They become too ditzy to know what hit them. In the minds of those economic forces, when a religious entity has outworn its purpose, it gets discarded just like any thing else of questionable utility. The ones who refuse to be dumbed down, who make the effort to connect cognition to will are labeled revolutionaries and persecuted. Perhaps I can't follow these teachings any more. Or perhaps I'm forever doomed to be the proverbial wise ant who sifts through sand to get to the sugar. I'm against this patchwork style of living. I came to these teachings to be inspired, not shackled and shrink-wrapped.
Yuga Unregistered User (10/21/01 10:34 pm) Reply	history and religion Religion through the ages has suffered similar consequences, especially Christianity. Now we have the Christian fundamentalists, the fanatics, the middle-of-the road, etc. What makes our "religion" different is that self-realization is not something one can ascertain from an organization. Even the most realized of all of us could be someone not in a leadership position, with the exception of Guruji, who has omniscent vision. He said he would be the last of our line of gurus. I've always thought he was leaving it to all of us to truly define self-realization, to keep this concept alive. Is it too much to ask our organization to get back to basics? I think so. Too much has been invested into the organization being the guardian, the gestapo, the guru. Text HAS been rewritten, we're finding that out more and more the deeper we dig. I think there's fear at the top and matas going after rebels because they're afraid of losing something. Well, there's nothing to lose! Perhaps Guruji planned it all to be like this, to have the doubters, the challengers, the questioners, because he wanted us to stand up for what we know is right on an inner level. Organizations do serve a purpose, they aren't totally inane. But your post triggered me to re-examine what does self-realization really mean? Who's going to give a damn about SRF if all we're ever known for is our lawsuits. Paramahansiji came to teach the world about self-realization, and all of us can relate to that and in turn relate this concept to others. God isn't going to strike us down because we aren't card-carrying party line members. He loves the sincerity of an open heart, crying out to him for help, for his love, for guidance. Love, after all, is what it's all about. Organizations will come and go.
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/22/01 1:22 am) Reply	Further thoughts The text has been written, but WHO wrote the text? I understand the SRF lessons were not written by Guruji but rather by disciples who took notes. That means we've been nurturing our spirits on tainted milk. What the BOD doesn't understand is that the SRF teachings are inevitably going to have to be scrutinized and subjected to revision. This will happen when enough people know what we know. Either the leadership of SRF will wise up and willingly make the changes or someone will do the job on the outside. My own hunch is that SRF will not die. I'm still convinced that PY gave something important to the world. Not so much that he was entirely presenting new information. Just about every facet of the SRF teachings can be found in other teachings contemporary to SRF as well as in the Upanishads and ancient esoteric knowledge. However, the world has never had an advanced meditation technique, diet and health tips, business and relationship tips. a unified understanding of the truth behind all religions, a plea for science and devotion and more all sent conveniently in the mail to your home where, in absolute privacy, you may learn about the ways of approaching God. We've got in SRF the foundations of a spiritual movement not based on churchianity but on a grass roots individualistic level. Yogis enlightened through their mailboxes in the privacy of their own homes and neighborhoods. The problem -- and it's a terrific one --- is that, while the foundation's been laid, the structure is infested with the editorial error and bias. I disagree with Brother Anandamoy's assertion that the teachings do not require updating. Master was adamant about making truth an ongoing discovery. He did not give us the bread, he gave us the yeast. It is up to us to make the bread. He suggested that the best minds get together to determine the right art of living. Now why would he say this if his word was the last word on the subject? T.S. Elliot once wrote that, at the end of the journey, we arrive once again at the place where we began. Part of the joy of being human is to romance truth in its ever-evolving manifestations. So we begin with Guruji's words and we commence with our own discoveries and find what is true and what is valuable of our guru in the time in which we live. SRF is stuck somewhere between the 1920's and 1950's. Truth must be endlessly rediscovered in the context of the present. SRF doesn't seem up to the job of exuding freshness and vitality. It believes its job is to preserve fire. Yet, it is heaping ashes upon coals until the fire is so buried that it suffocates. The ashes are the burnt cultural remnants of a forgone society's way of expressing itself. Every thinker who is worth any serious consideration these days admits society has gone through several paradigm shifts in the last century alone. More than any other era in the history of mankind. And those shifts are increasing exponentially due to technological, scientific, and cultural breakthroughs. New scholarship threatens old theories. Belief systems are being challenged. Revolutions are happening in the political sphere and the countries seem to be faced with the need to embrace a new world paradigm. Through all this change, SRF wants to be the bedrock, the unbendable axis and spiritual polaris of the world's spiritual hungry. But look at the type of people who go to an SRF church. Look at the people who run the organization. Tell me. Does SRF stand a chance? Do you think most devotees continue to read the lessons regularly? I not so sure. I never hear them do more than quote an occasional Sunday Service or Convocation lecture....and sometimes stuff they remember having half-read in the lessons ten years ago. These are not the signs of a spiritual teaching making a vibrant influence on world culture. To become vibrant, a teaching has to dare to enter into the boxing ring of world affairs. If it lasts all ten rounds, it deserves the respect of a world audience. I'm in full agreement with another post which said that Guruji planned it to have doubters, challengers, and questioners. If believers are the salt of the earth, then the doubters, challengers, and questioners are the water which purifies the salt. So said, I encourage all who are troubled by what they see to challenge SRF on every tenet it places before the undiscriminating masses.
KS Unregistered User (10/22/01 6:40 am) Reply	Absolutely I absolutely agree. I don't have anything to add right now, but I wanted to toss in a big affirmative.
Yuga Unregistered User (10/22/01 8:23 am) Reply	core issues Very thought provoking, Raja Begum. As for the lessons, they don't have the the tone of Guruji's earliest writings, articles in early SRF magazines. One can see the importance of writings and editings, how subtle concepts can easily be destroyed by sincere though inept "editors". A true vedic scholar might be able to find where we've gone wrong, using methods employed by comparative literature. The danger is that we've become tainted from within the organization, and one would have to wonder if a scholarly study were done, would it be "manufactured evidence" purely for the result of keeping the gestapo in power, out of fear of reprisal. I do agree that our guru brought a whole new spiritual movement, which seems caught in it's own web right now. Why is this?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/22/01 11:08 am) Reply	On being stuck in a web Yuga wrote: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do agree that our guru brought a whole new spiritual movement, which seems caught in it's own web right now. Why is this? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The SRF movement is founded on a variety of models, many of them apparently antithetical to each other. Master would follow the quoting of Kipling's poem "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet" by saying that East and West not only can meet but are mandated by God to meet. And doubtless, he was thinking along these lines with regard to the abundance of paradoxical models which comprise both the teachings and his training methods. But what Guruji did not do was explain the difficult process which would ensue called integration. He gave us the ingredients. It's as if he were saying, "I've given you oil and I've given you water. Now combine them." And here we are doing the "impossible" task. But executing a paradoxical task is exactly what evolves a civilization. I used to think about that whenever I'd read the Old Testament. In one section, God is extolled as compassionate. Then a chapter later, he commands Moses to stone a man who was collecting firewood on the Sabbath. What happened to compassion? And those paradoxes run deep all throughout the OT. But, if you look at the Jews, they're not exactly a bunch of stupid people. Lots of lawyers, bankers, doctors, songwriters, moviemakers, and Nobel Prize winners. I theorize that they had to develop an intelligentsia -- initially their rabbinical elite - to make sense of all those laws and paradoxes they were saddled with. You get smart when you tackle the mysterious. Then God swung the other way in the Christian era. He decided to interject humility and devotion. But Jesus then says "I have come to set the world on fire" and. while he routs out the money changers in the temple at Jerusalem, he passively takes the ultimate abuse on the cross. People have based their whole lives on the zen-like paradoxes of Jesus' life. And that doesn't even mention the task St. Paul was up against in trying to entice people of different beliefs into the fold. Christianity, which has a renunciant founder, is chalked full of earthy paganism. Can we then conclude that God tends to evolve a civilization through the employment of paradox? I think so. The Greeks had it in a formula: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. The reason why SRF is caught it a web right now is because the inherent opposites in the teachings are now being polarized. People are taking sides, not according to wisdom or revelation, but according to inclination. Birds see everything in color and dogs see everything in black and white. To achieve synthesis, oppositional camps must have it out much like two opposing football teams going for the nationals. There has never been a dainty way of achieving it. Here's what Jung has to say.... "Out of [the] collision of opposites the unconscious psyche always creates a third thing of an irrational nature, which the conscious mind neither expects nor understands. It presents itself in a form that is neither a straight 'yes' nor a straight 'no'....Psychologically, we can see this process at work in the development of a lasting and relatively unchanging attitude. After violent oscillations at the beginning the opposites equalize one another, and gradually a new attitude develops, the final stability of which is the greater in proportion to the magnitude of the initial differences. The greater the tension between the pairs of opposites, the greater will be the energy that comes from them . . . [and] the less chance is there of subsequent disturbances which might arise from friction with material not previously constellated." What we're witnessing in SRF is a stubborn entrenchment of wills. There is no way this can last, and sooner or later it will meet in a showdown. That is a psychological law. For the more entrenched a single idea is, the more its opposite will prevail upon it. The universe is not made up of one thing. Balance means the harmonization of all elements. The soul walks on all paths. The process of integration takes a long time whether in an individual, a community, or a civilization. Granting Guruji is a world avatar, then he surely knew the arc of cultural fusion would extend itself far beyond ours and his lifetime. It's that or he bungled our lives with a crazy pastiche of incongruous ideas. Something in my meditation tells me its the former. So what's our job in the meantime? Our job is to facilitate the movement towards synthesis. Civilization only steps forward when individuals take initiative. When individuals sleep, so does a civilization. So it is entirely up to us and the use of our free wills to decide how far we want to push this forward. Of course everyone says God has His plans. But I'm inclined to think He has an objective and leaves the plans to us.
Yuga Unregistered User (10/22/01 4:46 pm) Reply	synthesis I agree. The synthesis needs to take place and it probably will be a long process, maybe we will see it in this lifetime, maybe not. If Dwapara Yuga is a dissolving of old forms, does that mean old organizations, old relationships? What would the new energy look like, the energy that includes the mixing of oil and water?
Raja Begum Unregistered User (10/28/01 1:54 am) Reply	Can oil and water mix? Dear Yuga, I thought long and deep about your question. The truth is I don't have a specific idea what the new energy would look like. But I believe the fun in life is to discover it. The spiritual path ought to be an adventure. Shouldn't it? I got away from a close involvement with SRF because it was turning me into a spiriitual automaton. It was killing my curiosity, giving me a false sense of satisfaction (all questions have been answered, just add obedience and stir). I felt life was too precious to spend it as a drone, so I set out with my Kriyas in my knapsack and ventured to live more authentically, more romantically in my search for God. And so far, my life as a human being is growing richer. There are some who really love an abundance of structure, routine, rules and hierarchy. Others get jazzed by the ornaments of churchianity. Different temperaments are suitable to different ways of life. What can I say other than that I found mine? But if everthing boils down to temperaments, synthesis seems unlikely. Could I have been wrong in even considering the idea of synthesis? Anything is possible. Right now, it's merely an intellectual exercise to guess about the far off future. Maybe we'll all clash like atoms in a partcle accelerator and the pieces will go flying -- SRF splintering into various sects. No one knows. And what does it matter? If you are the type to live authentically, go your own way. If you like conformity, stay attached to Mt. Washington. If you like confrontation....go after SRF like a shark. Be a modern day Martin Luther. But stay hungry for God. If SRF had a leadership as enlightened as the likes of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, we might see ourselves all sharing the same roof. But today's SRF leadership is an anachronism. You and I want to listen to the Beatles, but our parents are commandeering the record player in the living room now and want nothing but Lawrence Welk. Wunnerful.. Wunnerful...Wunnerful......for them.
Mighty Mouse Unregistered User (10/28/01 6:53 pm) Reply	It's happening I'm aware of a few monastics who are eating this web site up. Things are changing. In this world of technology the world is getting small. We saw the larger frog pond on the other side of the hill. We can't ever go back to our little frog puddle, the way the Seniors want. There is a larger and larger group of us moving on, growing. Yes a bit secretly but as we grow in true wisdom. As we see how one sided our lives had been and see a glimpse of what an unfolding of love would bring we grow in courage. I'm learning. I see a lot of the Seniors afraid of change. They don't seem to understand what is going on. One needs to use compassion and non-threatening language to get ideas across. Yes I've had it rough for years too! But I can honestly say I see a light now. In the past I didn't know why I wasn't happy. I was low on energy and figured it was normal. But now I see myself growing. I and my little group of inside brothers are having fun. Truly making deep friendships. Getting together to get our lives in order. I realize the organization is screwed up right now, but the way I see it, it is up to all of us to learn how to get along. We can respect people without agreeing with them. The Seniors seem afraid at this point to really listen to us, but their scared because they don't know how to stop this inflow of Truth and Light. Love and Truth will win out over fear and repression. For Love and Truth is the bottom line. Keep up the web site. I'm listening, learning and believe if we all do the same a transformation is inevitable.
KS Unregistered User (10/28/01 8:18 pm) Reply	To Mighty What do you think the Seniors are afraid of? Change is very general. Change is a constant. What specific things do you think the Seniors (we call them the Bad Ladies as most, but not all, of them are old ladies) are afraid of? Losing money and having to skip meals? Having the Lessons posted on the Internet? Having the names of large donors made public or their own spending habits? Is is more EGO focused? Are they afraid of being forced to make decisions and take risks? Are they afraid of making mistakes and looking bad? Do they think that maybe Master is not really in charge and they can fail? You seem to have some insights and I would like your opinion.
XInsider Unregistered User (10/28/01 8:23 pm) Reply	Monastics using this board Glad you feel a sense of growth through reading thoughts posted on this board. Hopefully you are accessing it away from your Mother Center computer, though, because Systems Dept. monitors the internet usage of all monastics. As you know, this could bring you some negative results you could well live without!
Jaded Unregistered User (10/29/01 8:08 am) Reply	to the lurking monastics Please see my message about the real question. I don't want to go to any monastic and ask it. The org has gotten so bad I no longer trust them. Think of that: we don't have the counselor-trust relationship any more, because we know they will go and tell our private confidences!! But it sounds like some of you are at least trying. So this board is the next best thing to confidential confession that there is. So what do you think? What can you tell me about this whole thing being real? I have never had much success in meditation, after over 30 years. My problem is that the people who are supposed to be best at it, who are supposed to be "realized", who are supposed to be the examples, are some of the worst people I have ever met. So why should I think there is anything to this at all? All the evidence I hear is about things in the past, or how things will be great in the future. Everything I see now sucks.
Musicman Unregistered User (10/31/01 2:15 pm) Reply	Lurking monasticism I worked for SRF many years ago. I've been a devotee for over a quarter century. I no longer live in S. Calif., but I did for many years and was a regular at different temples, depending on where I was living. I know that the monastics occupy a special place in the consciousness of most devotees, especially those who live away from Mother Center. There is almost universal admiration and respect for them, and when you get outside the US, for instance Spain and Germany, where I have lived, well, the monastics are virtually saviors, emissaries from an enchanted realm. I agree with what many have said on this site: If you were to tell most devotees the reality of life at MC and about the bad ladies, they not only wouldn't believe it, they actually couldn't. That Ma is Master's appointed successor and in cosmic consciousness is a basic tenet in the SRF catechism. It is fully enshrined as dogma. The reality may not be that tidy, but, hey, life is confusing enough. People come to SRF for simple answers to complex questions. They don't want shades of gray, and the BOD isn't going to bother them with nuances. It has been dispiriting to me over the decades to see many of my favorite monastics leave the order. I now fully understand why. As Brother Mokshananda said to me over 20 years ago, "the creative ones don't usually last." The ones who do last, who can "take it," are not often the people we most admire or would want to emulate. It's heresy, but I don't care for Ma that much, have not drawn much inspiration from her, and truth be told, I really wouldn't want to be like her. Couldn't if I tried. Ditto for Mrinalini. These folks are trapped in a time warp, devoting their talks and writings to teary-eyed reminiscences about a time and place long ago and far away. Yes, it's interesting to hear about Master, the things he said and did. But over and over and over and over again? The same old stories we can all now recite by heart? The Xmas meditation is especially quaint. I mean, I just can't sing some of these old songs, they are soooooo corny. Okay, okay, it's just once a year, and it's special. I'm sure most people enjoy it. But what it strikes me as more than anything else is a personality cult, dwelling on the irretrievable past of the ruling council, working through their trauma caused by the guru's passing. Hello, it's 2001. Could we move on, please! By trying to hang on the past, you lose it. The past has to be recreated and reinvented to remain alive. One has to adjust to changing circumstances or be left behind. What Raja has said in recent postings goes straight to the heart of the matter. There has to be a paradigm shift, and it is happening right here. It's no wonder the old Communist regimes exercised tight control of the media and technology in general, why you had to get a government permit just to own a photocopier. Technology is subversive. It subverts the old ways of doing things, and in the process the way we think about those things. SRF is not unlike a tottering Communist dictatorship, with a gang of four at the top micromanaging everything, always on the lookout for counter-revolutionary activity. It is the most inefficient way to run things ever invented, and it's predicated on a profound distrust of almost everybody and everything, because the rulers themselves are ruthless and untrustworthy. They can't see the world any other way. But it just can't last. Very few dogs want to learn new tricks when they're in the seventies and eighties. It will take time to be rid of the gerontocracy at MC, though they may simply be followed by clones. But that will only delay and not prevent the demise of the old order. It reminds me of what Master said about his work, that it would start out as a zephyr and gradually sweep the world. The subversion coming out of this website is that zephyr. In the old days people gathered in secret in places like Budapest and Warsaw to listen to Radio Free Europe broadcasts. It is heartening to know that, today, SRF monastics are taking their vocations in their hands and tuning in to the truth here. There is hope for the future. I am so grateful that some of my favorite monastics, now ex-monastics, aren't gone from the scene. They live on, on the outside of the organization, where they can continue to work their magic and serve SRF in a more powerful way than they ever could've inside the belly of the beast. And they are joining hands with ones on the inside to form a bond for change. All that remains is to get the rank and file in on the revolution. That may be harder, but it's bound to happen.
srfwalrus ezOP (10/31/01 7:17 pm) Reply	Thanks Thanks for all the thoughful posts like this one. Many of you are sharing good thoughts and I hope this debate continues!

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Core Issues -

Powered By ezboard� Ver. 7.32
Copyright �1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.