Sāmmukhyatā

sākṣād-upāsanā-lakṣaṇas tad-bhedo’pi bahu-vidho darśyate

sākṣād-upāsanā-lakṣaṇas tad-bhedo’pi bahu-vidho darśyate | atra sāmmukhyaṁ dvividhaṁ—nirviśeṣamayaṁ saviśeṣamayaṁ ca | atra pūrvaṁ jñānam | uttaraṁ tu dvividham—ahaṅgrahopāsanā-rūpaṁ, bhakti-rūpaṁ ca | asya jñānasya lakṣaṇaṁ—‘jñānaṁ caikātmya-darśanam’ iti | abhedopāsanaṁ jñānam ity arthaḥ | tat-sādhana-prakāraś caivaṁ bahu-vidhas tatra tatroktaḥ | sa ca jñānam evocyate | tatra śravaṇaṁ śrī-pṛthu-sanat-kumāra-saṁvādādau draṣṭavyam | tad-anusāreṇa mananaṁ ca jñeyam | prathamataḥ śrotṝṇāṁ hi vivekas tāvān eva yāvatā jaḍātirikta-cin-mātraṁ vastūpasthitaṁ bhavati | tasmiṁś cin-mātre’pi vastuni ye viśeṣāḥ svarūpa-bhūta-śakti-siddhā bhagavattādi-rūpā vartante, tāṁs tu te vivektuṁ na kṣamante, yathā rajanī-khaṇḍini jyotiṣi jyotir-mātratve’pi ye maṇḍalāntar bahiś ca divya-vimānādi-paraspara-pṛthag-bhūta-raśmi-paramāṇu-rūpā viśeṣās tāṁś carma-cakṣuṣo na kṣamanta ity anvayaḥ, tadvat | pūrvavac ca yadi mahat-kṛpā-viśeṣeṇa divya-dṛṣṭitā bhavati, tadā viśeṣopalabdhiś ca bhavet | na cen, nirviśeṣa-cin-mātra-brahmānubhavena tal-līna eva bhavati | tathaiva nididhyāsanam api teṣām | tad yathā—‘sthiraṁ sukhaṁ cāsanam āsthito yatir yadā jihāsur imam aṅga lokam | kāle ca deśe ca mano na sajjayet prāṇān niyacchen manasā jitāsuḥ || manaḥ sva-buddhyāmalayā niyamya kṣetra-jña etāṁ nilayet tam ātmani | ātmānam ātmany avarudhya dhīro labdhopaśāntir virameta kṛtyāt ||’
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 214–215)

“The division of that [i.e., of intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the Para-tattva] in the form of direct approach (upāsanā) [thereof] is shown [throughout the śāstras] to be of numerous types. In this regard, intentness (sāmmukhya) is [in general] of two types: [one] related to the unqualified [alt., non-differentiated] (nirviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva], and [the other] related to the qualified [alt., differentiated] (saviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva]. Herein, the former is [referred to] as jñāna. The latter, on the contrary, is of two types: ahaṅgrahopāsanā [i.e., taking oneself as the object worship in the approach], and that the form of which is [referred to as] bhakti. The characteristic of this [aforementioned type known as] jñāna is [described as follows by Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa in SB 11.19.21], ‘And vision of oneness [of the self with the Supreme Self] is [known as] jñāna,’ the meaning being that an approach (upāsanā) of non-distinction [between the self and Supreme Self, i.e., a form of upāsanā focused realization of this non-distinction] is [known as] jñāna.
“The manner of practice (sādhana) thereof, furthermore, is similarly said to be of many types in various places [throughout the śāstras]. That [i.e., jñāna-sādhana in various forms] also is called jñāna itself. Therein, hearing (śravaṇam) [i.e., the first part of the sādhana] is to be observed in the conversation of Śrī Pṛthu and Sanat-kumāra [described in the Fourth Canto of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam] and elsewhere. Contemplation (manana) in accord with that [i.e., with the hearing done in the first step] is also to be understood [i.e., should be understood as the second step in the process]. Firstly, listeners’ discernment reaches to the extent whereby the Existent constituted solely of consciousness distinct from matter [i.e., unqualified Brahman] is regarded [to exist]. [In this state] They are not able to discern in that Existent constituted solely of consciousness the qualities (viśeṣāḥ) existing [in that Existent] by virtue of [its] inherent potency (śakti) the forms of which are Bhagavattā [lit., ‘Bhagavān-ness,’ i.e., the quality of existing as Bhagavān] and so forth, just as those possessed [only] of eyes of flesh are not able to [discern] in the luminary constituted [solely] of light that is [known as] the sun [lit., ‘the dispeller of night,’ i.e., darkness] the qualities inside and outside the orb [thereof] in the form of divine airplanes and the like, and the mutually distinctly existent particles in the light-rays [thereof]. This is the purport [i.e., those who take up the path of jñāna and hear and contemplate the teachings related to it acquire an understanding of the existence of the Para-tattva such that they consider the Para-tattva to exist only without qualities (viśeṣa) and thus seek to realize the aspect of the Para-tattva known as unqualified (nirviśeṣa) Brahman rather than the qualified (saviśeṣa) aspect known as Bhagavān].
“Furthermore, as [was discussed] previously, if one [i.e., someone engaged in jñāna-sādhana] becomes endowed with divine vision by the special grace of a mahat [i.e., a bhakta-mahānta], then realization of the qualities (viśeṣāḥ) [of the Para-tattva, viz., Bhagavattā and so forth] shall also occur. If not, then by means of experience of Brahman as unqualified (nirviśeṣa) and constituted solely of consciousness one merely becomes absorbed in that [aspect of the Para-tattva without manifest qualities, viz., nirviśeṣa Brahman]. Their [i.e., jñāna-sādhakas’] meditation (nididhyāsanam) is also in the very same manner. That is [described in SB 2.2.15–16] as follows: ‘O dear one, when an ascetic, having become situated in a stable, comfortable posture, intends to leave this plane [i.e., body], he should not fix the mind on the time or the place. Having mastered the vital air, he should regulate the senses with the mind, regulate the mind with his own taintless intellect, merge this [i.e., the intellect] into the perceiver of the field (kṣetrajña), [merge] this [i.e., the perceiver of the field (kṣetrajña), meaning, the observer of the intellect] into the self (ātmā) [i.e., the pure jīva], merge the self (ātmā) [i.e., the pure jīva] into the Self (Ātmā) [i.e., Brahman], and, becoming steadfast and possessed of tranquility, [finally] withdraw from action [entirely, since there is nothing more for him to attain].’”

Read on →

rahūgaṇaitat tapasā na yāti

rahūgaṇaitat tapasā na yāti
na cejyayā nirvapaṇād gṛhād vā |
na cchandasā naiva jalāgni-sūryair
vinā mahat-pāda-rajo’bhiṣekam ||
yatrottamaḥśloka-guṇānuvādaḥ
prastūyate grāmya-kathā-vighātaḥ |
niṣevyamāṇo’nudinaṁ mumukṣor
matiṁ satīṁ yacchati vāsudeve ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 5.12.12–13)

“[Jaḍa Bhārata:] O Rahūgaṇa, neither by austerity, nor by sacrifice, nor by giving, nor by household life, nor by the Vedas, nor by [worship of] water, fire, and the sun does one attain this without bathing in the foot-dust of the mahats, amongst whom is sung recounting of the qualities of he of highest praise [i.e., Śrī Bhagavān], on account of which termination of village talk occurs, and which upon being honored daily produces a seeker of mokṣa’s genuine inclination towards Vāsudeva.”

Read on →

tasmai namo bhagavate vāsudevāya dhīmahi

tasmai namo bhagavate vāsudevāya dhīmahi |
yan-māyayā durjayayā māṁ vadanti jagad-gurum ||
vilajjamānayā yasya sthātum īkṣā-pathe’muyā |
vimohitā vikatthante mamāham iti durddhiyaḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.5.12–13; cited in Tattva Sandarbha: 32; Bhagavat Sandarbha: 28, 100; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.32)

“[Brahmādeva:] Obeisance unto him, Bhagavān. We meditate on Vāsudeva, because of whose difficult to surmount māyā people call me the master of the universe, and thoroughly deluded by she [i.e., Māyā] who is ashamed to stand in whose purview, the ignorant boast of ‘I’ and ‘mine.’”

Read on →

karmaṇaḥ sākṣāt-sāmmukhya-rūpa-jñāna-bhakty-udaya-paryantatvāt

karmaṇaḥ sākṣāt-sāmmukhya-rūpa-jñāna-bhakty-udaya-paryantatvāt svayam eva tābhyāṁ nyakkāraḥ | tatra sākṣāt-sāmmukhye ca nirviśeṣa-sāmmukhyaṁ jñānam | saviśeṣasyāpi tattvasya bhagavattvaṁ paramātmatvaṁ ceti mukhyam āvirbhāva-dvayam iti saviśeṣa-sāmmukhya-rūpāyā bhaktes tu mukhyaṁ bheda-dvayaṁ bhagavan-niṣṭhatvaṁ paramātma-niṣṭhatvaṁ ceti |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 176)

“Because of karma’s extending [only] up to the appearance of jñāna or bhakti, that is, the [two] forms of direct intentness (sākṣāt-sāmmukhya) [upon the Para-tattva], discarding [of karma] by them [i.e., by jñāna and bhakti] occurs of its own accord [i.e., automatically once jñāna or bhakti come about]. Therein, furthermore, among the two [forms of] direct intentness [upon the Para-tattva] (sākṣāt-sāmmukhya), intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the unqualified (nirviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva] is [called] jñāna. The Qualified (saviśeṣa) Tattva also has two primary manifestations, Bhagavān-ness (Bhagavattva) and Paramātmā-ness (Paramātmatva), and thus bhakti, the nature of which is intentness (sāmmukhya) upon the qualified (saviśeṣa) [aspect of the Para-tattva], has two primary divisions: fixity upon Bhagavān and fixity upon Paramātmā.”

Read on →

yogās trayo mayā proktā nṝṇāṁ śreyo-vidhitsayā

yogās trayo mayā proktā nṝṇāṁ śreyo-vidhitsayā |
jñānaṁ karma ca bhaktiś ca nopāyo’nyo’sti kutracit ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.20.6; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 170)

“Three yogas—jñāna, karma, and bhakti—have been taught by me with the intention of bringing about the weal of human beings. There is no other means [to weal for human beings] anywhere.”

Read on →

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo
hy astīti nāstīti bhidārtha-niṣṭhaḥ |
vyartho’pi naivoparameta puṁsāṁ
mattaḥ parāvṛtta-dhiyāṁ sva-lokāt ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.22.34; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)

“[Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Śrī Uddhava:] The disputation on the part of people of mind turned away from me, [their] own domain [i.e., their own shelter], which is fixed [only] on the object of a difference [between their own view and another’s], ‘It is [so]; [no,] it is not,’ and based on incomplete knowledge of the self (ātmā), shall never cease even though it is useless.”

Read on →

bhavāpavargo bhramato yadā bhavej

bhavāpavargo bhramato yadā bhavej
janasya tarhy acyuta sat-samāgamaḥ |
sat-saṅgamo yarhi tadaiva sad-gatau
parāvareśe tvayi jāyate matiḥ ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.51.53; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 10.256; Dig-darśinī-ṭīkā on Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.7.14; Bhakti Sandarbha: 179; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.22.46, 84)

“When the cessation of worldly existence shall come about for a a wandering person, then, O Acyuta, association with the sat shall come about, and when association with the sat shall come about, only then does inclination manifest towards you, [who are] the Shelter of the sat [alt., whose shelter is the sat] and the Master of the higher and the lower.’”

Read on →

tad evaṁ teṣāṁ bahu-bhedeṣu satsu teṣām eva

tad evaṁ teṣāṁ bahu-bhedeṣu satsu teṣām eva prabhāva-tāratamyena kṛpā-tāratamyena bhakti-vāsanā-bheda-tāratamyena sat-saṅgāt kāla-śaighrya-svarūpa-vaiśiṣṭyābhyāṁ bhaktir udayate | … tatra prathamaṁ tāvat tat-tat-saṅgāj jātena tat-tac-chraddhā-tat-tat-paramparā-kathā-rucy-ādinā jāta-bhagavat-sāmmukhyasya tat-tad-anuṣaṅgenaiva tat-tad-bhajanīye bhagavad-āvirbhāva-viśeṣe tat-bhajana-mārga-viśeṣe ca rucir jāyate |
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 202)

“Thus, in this way, bhakti manifests with speciality in nature (svarūpa) and with swiftness or time [i.e., relative slowness] as a result of sat-saṅga in accord with a gradation in types of bhakti-vāsanās [i.e., the predilections for particular forms of bhakti fostered by the sādhus with whom one associates], [as well as] in accord with a gradation in [the degree of] grace [received by an individual from the sādhus with whom one associates], and in accord with a gradation in the potency [i.e., spiritual prowess] of those [sādhus] among the numerous types of sādhus there among [i.e., among all the sādhus who are Vaiṣṇavas]. … In this regard, taste [alt., liking] (ruci) for a specific appearance [i.e., form] of Bhagavān as one’s specific object of worship (bhajanīya), as well as for a specific path of worship (bhajana) of him, manifest in the course of ongoing specific association [i.e., association with a specific type of Vaiṣṇava sādhu] for someone in whom intentness (sāmmukhya) upon Bhagavān has manifested by means first of all of a specific form of śraddhā, a specific form of taste (ruci) for the kathā [i.e., discussion of Bhagavān] of a [specific] paramparā [i.e., lineage of Vaiṣṇava sādhus], and so forth, [which become] manifest as a result of a specific form of association [i.e., the association of a particular Vaiṣṇava sādhu].”

Read on →

mat-saṅga-śabdenātra mama saṅgo madīyādīnāṁ ca saṅga ity abhidhāpyate

mat-saṅga-śabdenātra mama saṅgo madīyādīnāṁ ca saṅga ity abhidhāpyate | ubhayatrāpi mat-sambandhitvād ity abhiprāyeṇa | tatra svasyāpi sattvāt sat-saṅga-prakaraṇe sva-saṅgo’py antarbhāvitaḥ | yat tu purā bhāgavata-saṅgenaiva bhagavat-kṛpā bhavatīty uktaṁ, tat tu tat-sāmmukhya-janmany eva | atra tu sa eva bhāgavata-saṅgaḥ sādhana-viśeṣatvenocyata iti na doṣaḥ | yadi vātra kutracit sāmmukhya-janma-kāraṇam api bhagavat-saṅgo bhavet, tadāpy evam ācakṣmahe—sac-chabdārtham avatāram aṅgīkṛtya yat kadācit sarvatra kṛpāṁ vitanoti bhagavān, tac ca sat-sambandhenaivety ato nābhyupagama-hānir iti ||
(Bhakti Sandarbha: 240)

“Here [i.e., in SB 11.12.7] by the [compound] word mat-saṅga [lit., ‘my association’], the association of myself [i.e., Bhagavān], and the association of those who are my own [i.e., Bhagavān’s own, meaning, his bhaktas], are [both] indicated with the intention being because of there being a relation with me [i.e., Bhagavān] in both cases [i.e., by means of both types of association]. In that regard, because of himself also being sat [i.e., because Bhagavān himself is also a sādhu], his own saṅga is also included in the subject of sat-saṅga. While it was stated previously [in Anuccheda 180] that Bhagavān’s grace occurs [towards a jīva in saṁsāra] only because of [the jīva first having] association with those devoted to Bhagavān (bhāgavatas) [i.e., his bhaktas], that was [stated] specifically in relation to the production of intentness (sāmmukhya) upon him [i.e., Bhagavān]. Here, however, that very association with those devoted to Bhagavān is [being] referred to as a type of sādhana. Thus, there is no fault [i.e., no inconsistency between these two statements, since sat-saṅga understood as association with bhaktas of Bhagavān specifically, and not association with Bhagavān himself, can be considered the sole cause of the sāmmukhya towards Bhagavān, which is only an initial, general state of intentness upon Bhagavān, whereas association with bhaktas, or association with Bhagavān, or various other practices can all be rightly recognized as forms of sādhana, that is, means to siddhi, meaning, full attainment of Bhagavān, which are all processes that begin after the attainment of the aforementioned initial sāmmukhya towards Bhagavān]. If, alternately in this regard, association with Bhagavān shall also be [seen to be] in some cases a cause of the production of intentness (sāmmukhya) [upon Bhagavān], even then we shall consider the meaning of the word sat [as follows] in this manner: when Bhagavān, after undertaking a decent (avatāra), sometimes distributes his grace everywhere, then that is also because of a relation with the sat [i.e., his bhaktas, meaning, Bhagavān primarily descends for the sake of gracing his bhaktas, as was explained earlier in Anuccheda 93 of Paramātma Sandarbha, and in the process if he happens in some cases to distribute his grace widely to everyone around his bhaktas as well and as a result persons around his bhaktas are seen to attain sāmmukhya towards him, then that extension of grace is still to be considered to have occurred because of Bhagavān’s relation with the sat, that is, his bhaktas]. Therefore, there is no loss in conceding [that sometimes Bhagavān extends his grace directly to some persons who are not seen to have previously had any association with his bhaktas, since even in those cases his bestowing his grace upon such persons is actually still because of a relation with his bhaktas, and thereby the principle that sat-saṅga is the sole cause of sāmmukhya toward Bhagavān stands].”

Read on →

atha bhagavat-kṛpaiva tat-sāmmukhye prāthamikaṁ kāraṇam

atha bhagavat-kṛpaiva tat-sāmmukhye prāthamikaṁ kāraṇam iti ca gauṇam | sā hi saṁsāra-durantānanta-santāpa-santapteṣv api tad-vimukheṣu svatantrā na pravartate, tad-asambhavāt | kṛpā-rūpaś ceto-vikāro hi para-duḥkhasya sva-cetasi sparśe saty eva jāyate | tasya tu sadā paramānandaikarasatvenāpahata-kalmaṣatvena ca śrutau jīva-vilakṣaṇatva-sādhanāt tejo-mālinas timirāyogavat tac-cetasy api tamo-maya-duḥkha-sparśanāsambhavena tatra tasyā janmāsambhavaḥ | ata eva sarvadā virājamāne’pi kartum akartum anyathā kartuṁ samarthe tasmiṁs tad-vimukhānāṁ na saṁsāra-santāpa-śāntiḥ | ataḥ sat-kṛpaikāvaśiṣyate | santo’pi tadānīṁ yadyapi sāṁsārika-duḥkhair na spṛśyanta eva, tathāpi labdha-jāgarāḥ svapna-duḥkhavattve kadācit smareyur apīty atas teṣāṁ saṁsārike’pi kṛpā bhavati, yathā śrī-nāradasya nalakūvara-maṇigrīvayoḥ | tasmāt prastute’pi saṁsārika-duḥkhasya tad-dhetutvābhāvāt parameśvara-kṛpā tu sa evātra mama śaraṇam ity-ādi-dainyātmikā-bhakti-sambandhenaiva jāyate, yathā gajendrādau, vyatireke nāraky-ādau | bhaktir hi bhakta-koṭi-praviṣṭa-tad-ārdrībhāvayitṛ-tac-chakti-viśeṣa iti vivṛtaṁ vivariṣyate ca | dainya-sambandhena ca sādhikam ucchalitā bhavatīti tatra tad-ādhikyam | tasmād yā kṛpā tasya satsu vartate sā sat-saṅga-vāhanaiva vā sat-kṛpā-vāhanaiva vā satī jīvāntare saṅkramate, na svatantreti sthitam |
(Excerpt from Bhakti Sandarbha: 180)

“Now [i.e., in regard to the question, ‘How does intentness (sāmmukhya) upon Bhagavān come about?’ the following may be proposed], ‘Bhagavān’s grace alone is the primary cause of intentness (sāmmukhya) upon him.’ [In reply to this, it should be said:] [No.] That too is secondary. That does not proceed independently towards those oblivious (vimukha) to him, even those [among the oblivious who are] afflicted by the difficult to bear and unending afflictions of saṁsāra, because of the impossibility of that. The transformation of the heart in the form of grace occurs only when the suffering of another touches one’s own heart. Because of the impossibility of the touch of suffering, which consists of darkness (tamas) [alt., ignorance], upon his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] heart, [which is just] like the impossibility of a luminous object’s [becoming covered by] darkness, on account of the establishment in the Śruti of the jīva’s distinctness [from Bhagavān] by virtue of his [i.e., Bhagavān’s] always being solely of the highest bliss in affection [i.e., his being constituted of, and having a taste solely for, the highest bliss] and [his] being repellant of sin, its [i.e., grace’s] appearance there [i.e., in Bhagavān’s heart] is an impossibility [i.e., because Bhagavān’s very nature is that of the highest bliss and he is never subject to the influence of sin, he has never had any direct, personal experience of the suffering of saṁsāra, and he can never become subject to any experience of it; the suffering of jīvas in saṁsāra can thus never touch his heart and evoke his grace upon those undergoing it]. Therefore, even though he is ever-present [everywhere] and capable of doing, not doing, and doing otherwise [i.e., even though he is an independent conscious agent capable of any and all forms of action], there is no end to the afflictions of saṁsāra for those who are oblivious of him [i.e., he takes no action to terminate the suffering in saṁsāra of those oblivious of him, since there is no scope for grace specifically for them to arise in his heart which would inspire him to take such action]. Therefore, only the grace of the sat remains [i.e., the grace of the sat, by the elimination of all other possibilities, is determined to alone be the primary cause of jīvas in saṁsāra attaining intentness (sāmmukhya) upon Bhagavān]. Although the sat too are not touched by sāṁsārika suffering then [i.e., while in the midst of saṁsāra], still those who have awakened [after sleeping] may also sometimes remember a dream’s having been filled with suffering, and thus their [i.e., the sat’s] grace comes upon even a saṁsārika [i.e., a worldly person in general], just as Śrī Nārada’s did upon Nalakūvara and Maṇigrīva [i.e., the sat’s grace can come upon a worldly person should the sat see a person’s suffering and happen to be thereby reminded of their own past suffering in such a manner that their grace upon the person they observe to be suffering in saṁsāra so happens to be evoked]. Therefore, because of the absence of the suffering of a saṁsārika being a cause thereof [i.e., of grace] even in this analysis [i.e., even in the case of grace coming from the sat], the grace of Parameśvara [i.e., Bhagavān], rather, arises only in relation to bhakti constituted of humility (dainya), such as [praying as follows], ‘He [i.e., Bhagavān] is my only shelter here [i.e., in this world],’ as in the case of Gajendra and others [who prayed to Bhagavān for his shelter in this manner], and in contrast to the denizens of Naraka and others [who may call out to Bhagavān, but not out of bhakti constituted of humility]. Bhakti is a particular śakti of his [i.e., of Bhagavān’s] which is a melter of him [i.e., of Bhagavān, and specifically, of Bhagavān’s heart] upon having entered the class of [his] bhakta [i.e., bhakti is a śakti that belongs to Bhagavān and manifests the capacity to melt Bhagavān’s heart upon it entering the hearts of bhaktas, who, as a separate class, do not by nature possess bhakti but upon receiving bhakti become inspired to perform acts of bhakti that result in Bhagavān’s heart becoming melted]. This has been described [in Paramātma Sandarbha (93)] and will be described [further in Prīti Sandarbha]. Furthermore, in connection with humility (dainya), it [i.e., bhakti] becomes abundantly enkindled. Thus, there is an abundance of that [i.e., of bhakti] therein [i.e., in a bhakta who responds to distress with humility (dainya) as a result of past association with the sat]. Therefore [i.e., because Bhagavān‘s grace manifests directly only in response to bhakti and never directly towards jīvas devoid of bhakti], his grace, which dwells in the sat, being either conveyed solely by association with the sat, or conveyed solely by the grace of the sat, is transmitted to another jīva [from the sat who are carrying it]. Thus it is established that this is not independent [i.e., Bhagavān’s grace is not transmitted to jīvas in saṁsāra directly, that is, independently of the sat, but rather is transmitted to jīvas in saṁsāra only through the sat].”

Read on →

Scroll to Top