You are hereForums / Spiritual Tradition, Scriptures and Religion / The Saint and The Enlightened One

The Saint and The Enlightened One

16 replies [Last post]
User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009

Is there such a thing as enlightened behavior? Please share your ideas, doubts, thoughts, feelings...

Just a few examples that are provocative:

- Jiddu Krishnamurti apparently had at least two secret relationships. One with a married woman (and her unknowing husband was an active supporter of his work.) So he didn´t exactly apply the insights he so eloquently spoke in front of his listeners.
(Of course I´m not referring to the fact that he had a relationship [Go Krishnamurti! btw, he wasn´t a weirdo that was anti-sex anyway.] But I´m pointing to his [years long] dishonesty towards the people who were close around him.)

- Osho with his collection of Rolls Royces.

- Sai Baba with his ´strange´ (read: abusive) way of expressing himself sexually. Apart from his phony magic tricks.

- Jezus own-handedly made an end to a bazaar that was held in a temple.

- Some teachers see the eating of meat as a bad thing, others don´t.
(for the record: I do eat meat and I´m convinced [unlike others] that you don´t have to become a vegetarian in order to become enlightened. But I do am curious that if I would go through the gate less gate, if my appetite for meat would naturally fall away.)

- Nissargadata smoked like a chimney.

I could go on with teachers having face-lifts, or gold embroidered clothes, etc... but you get the picture.

Sure, advaita tells there is ´no one´ that get´s enlightened. But I´m talking about the relative play of live here. So let´s hang around in that relative place for a moment - that illusory realm where actions do have consequences.

I guess it all boils down to: what is enlightenment, and from this springs the question: what is ´unenlightenment?´
For me it´s clear that there is a clear distinction between a saint (do they even exist?) and an enlightened one. But I have the sense more can be said about it. Please do...

Your rating: None
danalomas's picture
User offline. Last seen 5 years 47 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 03/01/2011

Yet another one of those seemingly paradoxical truths: how can someone who is supposedly enlightened/awakened/liberated -- or whatever name you wish to give that state of being -- and someone supposedly beyond sin and karma, still have lust, desires, needs, baggage, bad habits, etc. One explanation -- and no doubt an oversimplified one -- is that perhaps for those who have reached that state, there is an initial period when their default position becomes: “absolutely YES,” as opposed to the “normal” default position, which is to say No, or to resist anything that is deemed by our culture to be sinful, greedy, taboo, that which thou shall not do, etc. That is to say, that whatever the universe has to offer, the good, the bad; the beautiful, the ugly; the joyful, the painful; the loving, the suffering: whatever happens to be presented is now openly accepted as the perfect gift for that particular time and place. For if All That Is, indeed is all-knowing, all-loving, infinite intelligence, then why wouldn't whatever gift is lovingly offered, whatever is unconditionally presented be anything other than perfectly appropriate to the needs of the moment, and therefore unconditionally accepted.

In other words, in a nutshell, that which is provided is always that which is needed. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether enlightened or not, whether one says yes or no, accepts or pushes it away, either response is perfectly appropriate. It can’t be otherwise.

One supposes that the logical response to that would be: What about right and wrong? What about the consequences? What about the suffering that is engendered? Good questions. The only answer that I can come up with is that the consequences and the suffering are also part of the package. They too are perfect gifts from the Universe.

One would then logically ask: well why would an all compassionate being, intentionally inflict suffering? From the “why me” victim point of view, this seems to be inexplicable. But again, if consequences and suffering are what is needed, for anyone at any given time and place, then why wouldn’t an all compassionate being provide that too? To use a simple analogy: when you give a baby a bath, or change their diaper, they aren’t always happy about it, and may resist it, kicking and screaming all the while. One could say that the parent is inflicting suffering upon an innocent child, when in fact, the parent is just doing what needs to be done. And guess what? The baby gets over it and eventually learns to accept it.

Of course, that is a rather benign example of suffering, compared to many of the horrific things that some people seem destined to endure. But who is to say that their suffering is disproportionate, or unwarranted, or unnecessary? It seems to me, that only an all-knowing, all-loving, infinite intelligence, would know the answer to that question.

So to paraphrase the Rolling Stones song: “You don’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need...” The only change I would add is that perhaps one ALWAYS gets what one needs. And like the ever-thankful receiver of a birthday present, enlightened or otherwise, one should always respond with: “Thank you, how did you know exactly what I needed?”

How indeed?

Poet at heart

Ed Baranosky's picture
User offline. Last seen 4 years 51 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/17/2011
the saint and the enlightened one

From a previous post part of my comment was:
The Buddha would answer such questions with a question about practice; what is this to your experience? Which might sound like bringing it back to ego. But even in the
Buddhist practice you aren't expected to manufacture
enlightenment, but to peel back what conceals it. But I'm still convinced it's not any practice that can bring it on
except "recognition" of what is and has always been.
Such awareness is often gilded with unreal expectations,
where the actual maybe disruptive. I remember a quotation from the French poet Baudelaire in which he said that if he reached enlightenment, it would occur when he was hung-over in the morning in bed with a women whom he forgot...
And it wouldn't be pleasant.
Of course this brings up the question of Karma. The law of cause and effect still operates from the limited perspective. In an unlimited perspective it is included,
though presumably having lost its sting.

I asked a Lama about teaching the unprepared what are thought to be advanced practices, and he said you really can't teach the over prepared. And about the misuse of such
practices he said it would be like sticking your finger in a live light socket, whether enlightened or not.

when once asked what is enlightenment, answered "A trap."
Of course there are too many labels around this enquiry;
fears and expectations and the predictable post-enlightenment depression, but these are all from an
ego-manufacture, synthetic. There is a trap-door.

If you're familiar with the Christian tradition of the saints they were all unpredictable, scary people; rarely as
pure as the cultural propaganda.

My feeling about freedom is that if given, it involves an implied debt; freedom must be taken, and yet then who can authenticate the fact?
The Dalai Lama insisted that the student is always the
responsible one, and experiences would always vary.
And yet I have met some seriously damaging teachers.
Intentionally damaging; that was the hard thing to grasp, involving self-betrayal. I'm always interested in "teachers'" mutual views. This is where legacy might be useful, but not necessarily.

User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009

Both danalomas and Ed Baranosky thanks for your extensive replies.

At the moment the issue brought up in the topic isn´t really a concern to me anymore.
I guess I still believe in Self-Realization (which is irrevocable), yet at the same time it´s very likely that old tendencies (vasanas) will keep arising. Perhaps we could say that if one is not bothered by vasanas anymore he/she is enlightened. But as this is virtually impossible, enlightenment remains a theoretical state.

Wim Hein's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 41 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/23/2009
Enlightened behaviour

Nothing is wrong with the behaviour off those that are seemed to be enlightened.

Look if you can find the one that is disappointed about it.



RishiEd's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 years 2 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/19/2009
Who should we trust

Modern non-dual teachers avoid the term enlightenment for the same reason they avoid the term God. There's too much past baggage with both terms for them to be effective communication tools. As to the gossip part of your question, (who did what with whom and why), I'll leave that to Ryan Seacrest. I think we need to look at what we think we'll learn if we got a definitive answer to our question of who is enlightened or who is a saint? We long to trust someone to guide us from our suffering to our goal. Who should we trust? And what qualifications would earn our trust? Each of us must come to our own conclusions. I don't think there's any one answer. The important answer is your own.

User offline. Last seen 6 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/19/2009
A Short Story

i am thinking.. Jerry and Liz are the most awake.. sober people
i have ever met.

They should at least pass by each other in Life.

The Flower Goddess

The Hawk God

THAT is about Liz and JerryO ...

NOW" Six Days On The Road" ... about Jerry :-)

Love's Anticipation
The Promise

no romantic film from India was ever good as this parable.

google this exact.. "the surround is consciousness"
You are looking..with just functional Your Soul..
the least of GodCreation. JC said IT this way.. I AM the Light.
Another said.. I AM THAT.

User offline. Last seen 6 years 50 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/19/2009
my method

i am thinking about explaining

how my pesher works...

Immediatly She picks the song
on a music channel on my TV..

The Colour And The Shape

google this exact.. "the surround is consciousness"
You are looking..with just functional Your Soul..
the least of GodCreation. JC said IT this way.. I AM the Light.
Another said.. I AM THAT.

User offline. Last seen 2 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
The Saint and The Enlightened One

Thank you Arjen for your comment on saints and sinners. Actually I didn`t know about Krishnamurti`s "sinfull life" and I am glad that he is on the list too.
I am quite convinced that there are no saints nor sinners, just humans who think they are the doers of their actions if they aren`t conscious of their own conditioning. When we realize that our behavior dipends on how we react on different stimuli (enviromental, mental, genetic etc.)then we don`t blame ourselves or others for what we do. On the contrary we become humble, compassionate and tollerant, trying to help and understand instead of attacking and blaming.
Important is the theaching of a s.c. "enlightened" person,not his private life. If his/her words feel right to you and you say: "Oh no, I can`t accept his theaching because I don`t approve of his behavior..." it sounds quite odd to me.It`s like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
So my opinion is that there isn`t something like an enlightened behavior, just different ways of behave.
What enlightement is remains for me still a matter of discussion...Really a very interesting one!

User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009

About Krishnamurti. I also didn´t know it for a long time, although he is the person that influenced me the most in my search. And his good or not so good behavior can´t change anything about that. Haha.
I don´t know all the details, but it´s refreshing somehow to see him as the human being that he was. If you google ¨Krishanmurti + affair¨ you will likely get some info it. It apparently was published in a book called ´Lives in the shadow: with J. Krishnamurti.¨

But it brings up the question: on what basis do we call him an enlightened person?

This morning I made this topic because the question ´what is enlightenment?´ burned inside of me. So throughout the day I more or less kept with it.

And now I´m exploring whether the term enlightenment isn´t a term from ´the old days.´ Perhaps it would be more correct to talk about ´integration.´
I mean someone can have a big insight but not fully integrate it in the human form. So in this view Sai Baba for example had some insight in Reality and he combined this with his superior talent for presenting things (and maybe he happened to have some supernatural powers.) As a result it looked like he was the real deal. But when we look closer at his life we see that his insights in Reality were not fully integrated at all.

In the same way we could talk about Krishnamurti. His insights in Reality were perhaps integrated to a very, very large degree, but not fully.
And I´m thinking perhaps there never was someone on this earth who had full integration. Not even the Buddha.
Maybe as long as this bodily form is here it is not even possible. Sometimes I think: would Ramana still have been so 24/7 relaxed if he had to work in a factory every day?
Perhaps, perhaps not. We don´t know.

It´s pretty radical what I´m exploring here, but the idea that there is no such thing as enlightenment somehow feels like a relieve to me.

There is only integration.
Sounds pretty neat to me!
And as I think about it, I could in this regard quote Florian: ¨the only question that remains is: how deep can you go?¨

Richard Miller's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 years 16 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 07/04/2009

Yogic Lore will tell you that every last "enlightened master" has had a character flaw.  And that it is by this mechanism that they are able to hold onto their incarnation.  The moment that they leave their flaw, it is only days before they are leaving this body.  That's a nice story.

While there may be no enlightenment, there certainly IS our preconception of what it means for "enlightened behavior?  We are pretty good at what is abuse? too.  Integration is also our "pretty good idea".  Even I believe that "centeredness" or call it insight into life's "reality", would somehow be visible, or manifest for all to see.  I don't particularly know how that would look.

I know something about Osho, although far from all the details.  You might want to say that he lacked basic "responsibility" with regard to the Oregon Commune.  Then they got into all that victim stuff, which his commune truly bought into, (If not propagated in the first place).

I think that it is laid out pretty well in that book, Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic.  In India he did many years of great work, healing and transforming people, and really fostering deep change.  Neither the press, the banks nor the establishment could minimally be bothered with that.  Then he told Laxshmi, go out and buy the most expensive car that you can find in India.  She came up with an old Rolls Royce.  From that day he was the talk of the newspapers, and banks rushed in to lend him money for expansion of the Pune facility.

He was a Guru of controversy ever there after.  The sex guru, every kind of excess, the fiascos of Oregon, all rode the razor's edge of what was more free press coverage, and what was over the line.  It was bound to flop from side to side of excess every once in a while.  Still, is that enlightened behavior?  You could make a case that he abdicated responsibility to show us that we are self responsible.  But the only way to prove responsibility at the time was to leave.

It was always said that all the Rolls Royces were gifted.  Many people had money, no doubt, and this could have been the gift for he who needs or cares for nothing.  It was said over a 100, (but then I heard in the 80's).  The Rolls' were the "temple", and in a better way than any physical building could be.  Bhagwan went for a drive every day, and on the way back when he entered the main gate 5 miles up, the call when out for the line-up.  Everyone went out to the road and lined up on one side, sometimes for a couple miles.  He slowly slowly drove the line with his window down and gave darshan for a few seconds to each person at about an arm's length.  It was an enormous "hit".  In what building could you arrange that?  It would have taken hours to file that many people by in the traditional approach. It happened every day.

At that time I think that the cars were worth about $80,000 to $120,000 each, or something like $10 million.  Churches, Gurus and religions build temple compounds way over $10 million and nobody bats an eye.  They give even more.  Osho regarded publicity higher than bricks.  Furthermore the cars always appreciated and were totally liquid in $100,000 increments.  They were the "financial lungs" for the organization, like a revolving line of credit in any other business.

Twenty years later I had a most amazing contact for about an hour.  I was visiting certain days of a weeklong conference with Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj ( ).  He is an "enlightened master" in the "Sant Matt" tradition who headquarters in Naperville (Chicago area) for almost half of every year.  It is totally amazing what a wide variety of ages and background his followers have and for how many decades they have been devoted to an Indian tradition, that must have been very "fringe" back in the 60's.  I was standing in a line to receive his blessing that went all around the walls of this hotel ballroom, and it was moving at a snails pace, more than an hour. 

Next to me was a true Oregon cowboy in his 60's. Really, Clint Eastwood, could't even approach him for authenticity.  I learned more about horses in 15 minutes than a lifetime of research.  All my stereotypes were totally bent out of shape, at how he ever ended up there?  We talked for about an hour in that line because he had participated in liquidating the Osho Oregon Ranch.  He had bid on all the horses and the cattle, and he bought all the "tack" animal gear like saddles, for nothing. Osho had run cattle on the BLM part of the ranch, (Bureau of Land Management) otherwise any other rancher would have had the run of the place.

This guy had also bid on all of the cars.  A cowboy might have $ millions in land, but no liquidity, and his bank would not back him on this opportunity.  A rich Texan waltzed away with the whole lot.  What a fun conversation.  I had known all that stuff, but not where it went nor how?

User offline. Last seen 2 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010

Just a few words about how I enjoyed your description of Osho`s wild living. I really like your humor and the story of what happened at the Sant Rajiander`s conference - I just had to read it to others here at home and it was a great fun!

Richard, I also wish to thank you for this great site, for how it is growing. It is amazing.It is open to everyone who wish to participate on what I feel is a fertile ground for "soulmaking", for spiritual growth.
As I said once before - you are put on the right place in the right time by This God or Entity who makes us grow in Consciousness.

User offline. Last seen 2 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
The Saint and The Enlightened One

We are dealing here with three questions:
1. What is Enlightement?
2. What is Moral/Immoral behavior?
3. What is Integration?

As often happens - the topic becomes quite complicated, but very interesting and fun to discuss, don`t you agree? I`m myself fighting a lot with these questions so I am not sure I can contribute some useful comments, but I`ll make a try.
Of course they are all three concepts, since as we are thinking and writing and talking there are only concepts.

If we start with Enlightement I quite agree with you, Arjen. I would also call it "a term from the old days" but it dipends on how we use it. We could e.g. redefine it so that it fits "the new days" we are now living in. The problem arises when we put the old into the new right as it is.People and Cultures are evolving and we should realize how our consciousness has evolved during all these centurys.

Also Moral is not the same in different cultures. What was immoral under the Middle Ages in Europe isn`t maybe immoral today anymore.Of course, Richard, we all know what is abuse and crime, but in some cultures is still okey and we can`t do much about it other than try to change things as much as it is in our power to do. In Sweden e.g. where I`ve been living for 40 years there is a tendency to "understand" the reasons of acting of a terrorist who kills innocents.So moral is also evolving in a spiral of growth both individually and collectively.But not absolutly, it goes back and forth dipending on our (primal) needs.

I also agree with you Arjen as Integration being just the key-word for both Enlightement and Moral.It depends on how much we integrate the new emerging values on our level of evolution we`ve reached up to right now, both as individuals and as collective.And Integration is only valid when it has become stable in our life.

It should mean that the s.k. Enlightement is a gradual growth in our Consciousness both individually and collectively to fulfill some Mysteious Potential that we realize more and more as new insights are emerging in us.

( Jee,I wonder what Peter Dziuban would say about all this. I like him very much. For me he represents the "Vedanta of Advaita-Vedanta". But of course, looking out of the Absolute there is nothing else so we don`t need to say anything)

User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009

About gossip. There´s a fine line between gossip and useful information. Anyway, however you want to call it, it´s something a ruthless seeker can´t avoid. When it comes to Krishnamurti, when I point out certain questionable behavior patterns of him, I don´t do this to make him look bad for the fun of it. No, Krishnamurti is the father of me as a seeker. Nothing can change that. But in order for me to go ´deeper´ I have to look him in the eye from being to being and say: ´hey brother, what about this and this....´ I don´t expect any straight answers from this, but it has to happen.
I totally agree with Ed´s conclusion: ´The important answer is our own.´ For me this reflects the ´be your own guru´ statement by Krishnamurti.

I guess for me this is where the most (or at least a lot of) fear (tightening up ) is. And paradoxically, if there is any ´pot of gold´, this is the place where to look! Recently the extremity of ´being your own guru´ came to me. It means that I have to be open to the possibility that I will stand all alone. Because following what´s ultimately true for me may mean that no one will stand beside me in this, not even the Buddha or Ramana or the holy scriptures- perhaps everyone will reject my view on Reality, even all the people in the advaita realm. I´m not saying that this hás to happen, but we at least have to be open to this most extreme possibility. And I find it necessary to sense the tightening up within my system as the idea of standing totally alone presents itself.

I think in the past few months and weeks I´m seeing the guru´s less and less as teachers and more as ´friends´ with whom we can share ideas from shoulder to shoulder. This is not to say that there is no respect or admiration. But I see more a real person who basically has the same worries, but (overall) deals with it in a much more healthy way. And I would love to learn from him or her. For me the Buddha is no longer a Mount Everest. And guess what, I feel more love towards these beings as they become more human.

Anna, I agree that morality changes throughout time. And even within a certain time/culture people can have different opinions about the certain issues. So this means that we will never be able to write out certain points of enlightened and non-enlightened behavior. I do wonder whether there may be a certain gut feeling of right and wrong that has been the same as long as humans exist. Of course this would be a very basic understanding of right and wrong, so basic that it´s perhaps not possible to write them out satisfyingly. Perhaps one example would be: abuse with the goal of doing good, will be seen as wrong in some cultures and acceptable in others (dutch proverb: you have to break an egg in order to make an omelet.) But abuse without any higher goal, just for mere self indulgence, is always wrong. This could be a ´moral building block´ in my view.
(btw: I think abuse is always wrong.)
And when do we call something abusive. Well, I think when the ´victim´ experienced it as such.

About integration.
Like Richard more or less mentioned, if I understood him correct, also a term like integration will be subject to ideas of how an (almost fully) integrated person would look like. I agree on this.

But to come back to the point why I dislike the notion of enlightenment more and more. It´s not only the part of enlightened behavior that brings up problems. But also the idea that a person is either enlightened or not enlightened doesn´t seem correct to me. Because even if such a person is ´flawless,´ this doesn´t mean that he/she doesn´t ever believe an I-thought. Apparently Papaji wrote in a journal (that he kept for a certain period) something like: again another day spent in full identification. And I believe even Ramana had moments (perhaps just a few seconds, I don´t know) in which there was identification with this limited form.

Perhaps I´m going way off topic, but hey I´m having inspiration. :)
Does this mean I also don´t believe in such a thing as ´going through the gate-less gate´?
Well no. There still is place for that. But to me (at this moment) it means more something like: having a moment of giant integration (likely the biggest you will ever experience) in which a really large chunk of stress energy is being released. And than you can indeed speak of a before and an after. But you can still go deeper and deeper. And perhaps Buddha and Ramana..., until so far, went the deepest of all human beings.

User offline. Last seen 2 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/25/2010
The Saint and The Enlightened One

I liked your last replay very much, Arjen. I really admire your frankness in thoughts and expressions and your courage.The path of a seeker is painful specially when we hear from some teachers that we should stop the seeking since there isn`t anything to get that we don`t already have. I think that we should seek until we find what we are looking for and shouldn`t stop until then. Period.
Also I realized that we must have friends to talk with and to share thoughts with. I do not have any where I live so I think this Forum is just great.
Maybe I am not such a ruthless seeker as you are, not having the same courage, but I am indeed very cautious and I like to ponder everything before I can accept it.It is important if we want to keep a straight path.
Your replay inspired me too with some more thoughts about saints and enlightement.Of course I do believe there is a gateless-gate to go through but I don`t believe in a sudden enlightement. Not even Buddha had it. He had a long life of searching and probably quite a lot of work afterwards.When you have come through the gate it is a hard job to stay there.In the meantime we become our own gurus but even that I think is a process, it doesn`t happen all at once.And to "stay alone" once we have defeated our fear it could be quite an interesting and challenging adventure,,,
I have also been thinking about the word "saint". It is a concept but where does it come from? Of course from our culture which conditions out thinking and behavior.We got it from Catholicism I suppose, 2000 years ago and it wasn`t until Luther that the idea of a saint was questioned (but for him there were only sinners so we didn`t gain so much from his Reformation...).A saint should imitate Christ, try to be like him, but actually what do we know about Christ`s life? Not much I think. Then we have the Bhoddisattvas but they came later and probably as an influence from Christianity.(By the way, I just heard that the pope John Paul II used to flagellate himself in secret with a belt and he is now going to be beatified by the current pope).
To come back to the problem of moral, I don`t know... I would indeed like to agree with you about this "gut feeling" for what is right or wrong that is not connected with a certain culture, but I am not sure...I am still chewing the end...

User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009

Anna, nice to hear that you also find it interesting. I think that it's important to release stress energy that through the years gathered itself in my system.
For that it's indeed useful to be able to share things with people who are genuinely interested (issues can really be met easier that way.)
A forum like this can indeed be used for this. Perhaps as an alternative if you (like me) don't know any people in day to day life who share these interests.
But in the past half year I did have the luck to find a satsang gathering (about once a month) not far from were I live, were I can release quite some energy regarding these subjects (although ofcourse these specific 'searcher subjects' touch the whole of life, and therefore are actually not that searcher-specific at all.)

As I release more junk from the past (by paradoxically accepting it fully) I find that I'm more able to go deeper in a healthy way (hard to explain the word 'healthy' here.)

I have no idea where I go from here. Were I will be in a year from now remains a big questionmark (or exclamationmark!)

About the moral. Perhaps somehow 'chewing' on it is the answer. To let the pulsating of the issue be fully there. Somehow it wouldn't surprise me if it's a source of Love. (can't explain it though) I'll check it out...

User offline. Last seen 4 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 12/20/2009

Wim Hein. I indeed think that looking for the one who has a problem with it is essential.
For me making such a topic is a way to bring the tightening- up to the light, to experience it more fully.

I find more and more that where tightening-up is, is the place where to look. To see it fully. Or to put it more precise: to let it be, it´s totally welcome. And then the tightening-up may evaporate or not (which is fine also.)

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 


My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  


Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.



Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.