Re: PersianDNA.com Re: What is Knowledge? The Gathas is a THOUGHT PROVOKING TEXT.

[MoobedyAr Mehran Gheibi]

Dear Gita

dorood

Upon gAthA, the best and nearly the unique measure for goodness and badness is the extent of usefulness or harmfulness to others. As I have found out, all words that are translated as GonAh(sin), do mean harmfulness....

Every arranged set, has undobtedly and certainly a wise and able arranger. Thus, although we can not see or find where God is, the so well arranged set of Universe has been made by a wise and able arranger, however biger and more knowledgeable than entire well-arranged set of Universe. Ashoo Zartosht calls this arranger, ahoorA (able) mazdA (wise/knowledgeable). Others call this: God,.....

gita <feart...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Rohinton Billimoria, Arman, Alexander Bard, Parviz,

 
What is the system to 'measure' the level or percentage of the goodness and the badness part in every deed? 

What is also the system to render the exact measure of Effect or Consequence to a measured Cause or a Deed? 

What is the reference used to measure this variable input and output?

 In Zoroastrianism  we believe in Cause and Effect, We don't believe in judgment.

What is Judgment Day?

help me!!!

I like to learn from you

gita
Good Thought, Good Word, Good Deed

What is Knowledge?

Thanking you in advance for sharing your Knowledge

http://groups.google.com/group/fearthought

Dear Alexander Bard and all 

 

 

Alexander Bard Asked, " WHERE this God is!!!" 

 

Knowledge is an understanding of the facts of reality.  Knowledge is Not learning a particular kind of thinking, belief, or conclusion. "Come morning, the Lord will make known who is His and who is holy, and will grant him access to Himself; He will grant access to the one He has chosen." (THE TORAH 16.4)

 

What is The Knowledge of God?

help me!!!

I like to learn from you

gita
Good Thought, Good Word, Good Deed

 

 

http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch9.html

CHAPTER IX.

 

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.

 

GOD is an intelligent being possessed or knowledge.

This may be proved:

1. From his spirituality; for intelligence is an essential element of spiritual existence.

2. From his perfection; for the perfect one must have intelligence as one of his perfections.

3. From his causal relations to other beings and things.

(1.) As the cause of mental power and action in others, he must himself be possessed of mind. As the Scriptures aptly inquire, " He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" Ps. 94:9; so may we ask, he that made the mind, and gave the power of thought and knowledge, shall he be without intelligence?

(2.) The effects he has produced show that they are the result of, conscious action in the fulfillment of purpose, which he has formed. His causation is not like that of mechanical or chemical forces, which operate with blind productiveness or effective operation towards ends unknown to them, and not predetermined. This is possible to secondary causes, because they are the instruments of some other cause, itself intelligent and purposing. But intelligence and purpose are necessarily present in him, who is the great first cause, the prime mover and designer of all else that exists. All the evidences of design in creation, therefore, prove the intelligence of him who bears to it the relation of its first cause.

(3.) It is sometimes argued from his omnipresence, but omnipresence alone would not prove intelligence. His intelligence, however, having been established, his omnipresence enables us to determine the extent of his knowledge.

How does God know? or in what way does he possess knowledge?

1. Not as we gain it, by using faculties fitted to acquire it. There is in him nothing corresponding to observation, comparison, generalization, deduction, processes of reasoning, by which we pass from one step to another, or the contemplation or conjecture of suppositions or theories by which we account for facts.

2. It is even improper to speak of his knowing by intuition, as is frequently done.

3. All that we can say is that his knowledge is his essence or nature knowing. It is not something acquired, but something belonging to that nature itself and identical with it, in like manner as are his love, and truth, and justice. It is something so inherent in his nature that it exists exclusively of any means of attaining or perceiving it, which we call action.

4. The knowledge of God, therefore, not being acquired, cannot be increased. Time does not add to it. Succession of events does not bring it before God. All the objects of his knowledge are to him eternally present and known.

What then are the objects of his knowledge?

1. Himself his nature, or essence; the personal relations subsisting in that essence; all that that nature is, and all that it can appear to be in its manifestations; all that the purposes of God include, and all that might be purposed by him, whether to be done or to be permitted.

2. His creation in all its fullness; in its whole extent, whether marked by magnitude, or minuteness, or variety. The whole universe, with its innumerable worlds, is ever before him, while not an atom of dust, nor the most microscopic of sensitive existencies is unperceived thoroughly.

3. Not merely inanimate matter, nor simple animal natures, but all spiritual beings; he knowing their essences which to them remain unknown, and having perfect perception of the intents and thoughts of their hearts. "When Thales was asked if some of the actions of men were not unknown to God, he replied, 'not even their thoughts.'" [Knapp's Theology.] An inspired writer has taught us that God knows us even better than we know ourselves. "Hereby shall we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before him, whereinsoever our heart condemn us; because God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 1 John 3:19, 20. His knowledge is not limited to the manifestations and operations of spiritual beings, but extends to their essences, and includes not only what they are, but also those tendencies which indicate what they may be.

4. He knows all the past, present, and future of all things, knowing the future with the same certainty and accuracy with which he knows the present and past; for that future is already as present to him as though actually existing with the creatures and time belonging to it, and is as distinctly perceived as it shall be then.

But more specifically as to his knowledge of future events it may be said:

1. That he knows all events that are certain or fixed. The certainty that they will come to pass is based upon his decree. He therefore knows all things that shall come to pass.

2. He knows all events that could possibly come to pass. This is based upon his infinite knowledge of himself and of all his creatures, by which all things or events, which could at any time or under any circumstances occur, are known to him.

In these two classes are necessarily included all objects of knowledge.

Knapp lays down a third kind of knowledge, namely, the knowledge of contingent events, or events which might take place under certain circumstances; for example, that God foresees that if James lives until he is grown, he will commit murder; he therefore determines to prevent this by removing him from life. The knowledge of the murder is here claimed to be that of a contingent event. And hence it is claimed to be another kind of knowledge.

But to examine this. It is readily admitted that the murder does not come under the classification of things certain or decreed, because it will not take place. But it does come under the head of things possible, and between it and all other possible things no distinction can be made. All possible things are contingent until made certain by a decree. Every possible thing is only possible in connection with the circumstances under which it can happen. There is therefore no distinction between possible things and contingent things, and consequently no third class is to be added.

The kind of knowledge which he thus speaks of as contingent is stated by Knapp to be what is called Scientia Media. It is one form only, in which Scientia Media is presented by those who maintain it.

Another form of Scientia Media is, however held by some. According to this, the future event to which it refers is known to God as an event that will take place, but his knowledge of that fact is attained, not through his decree, but through his foreknowledge that, under certain circumstances, a man will pursue one course of action rather than another.

This kind of Scientia Media teaches:

(1.) The future event as certain.

(2.) That God knows it as such.

(3.) That this knowledge does not arise from his decree.

(4.) But, from his knowledge of the nature of the man, together with that of the circumstances that will surround him, he knows that he will act in a particular way.

The only question here is as to the 3d and 4th, for it agrees with the usual orthodox statement in saying, 1st, that it is certain, and 2d, that God knows it as such.

But the 3d and 4th assert that this knowledge is the result of a foreknowledge of God as to how a man will act under certain circumstances. It is evident, however, that this foreknowledge is necessarily accompanied by a determination to allow him so to act.

Now the question arises, is this universally the method of God's action? If it be so, then God has left the world entirely to itself, without any influence from him. Everything has come to pass, not because of his will and action, but because he has left the general laws, under which he has placed the world, to work out their results without any action or influence on his part.

But this is so manifestly untrue and unscriptural, that it never has been maintained by any Christian men, and it is by Christian writers only that the idea of Scientia Media referred to above has been presented.

It is therefore denied that this is what is meant, and they say that while God does operate in and interfere with the world, and carry on his own purposes in certain matters, he does not choose in other events to exercise any influence, but simply refrains and leaves the events to work out their own effects; and that the knowledge which he has of these events is based upon the fact that they will take place if he does not thus interfere.

The theory thus presented, as will be seen, admits the continued preservation of all things, with all their powers. This can only result from God's providential action, and involves all that concurrence with events on the part of God through which alone they preserve and exercise effectively the powers he has given them.

This being admitted, then the views held by these parties, stated in any form in which they could hold them, would involve no additional fact beyond the distinction, recognized by all orthodox divines, between the absolute and permissive decrees of God.

But in any event there is a decree, determination, intention, purpose, or whatever else men may call it,--in the broadest language, a will, or volition,--to leave these things so to operate. And upon this will or decree is based his knowledge that these things will be; for without the knowledge of such a purpose, how could he know that he will not at some time choose to change the circumstances or prevent their accomplishment of the event?

It will be seen that in neither of the forms of Scientia Media thus far referred to is there any serious disagreement from the truth. The objection to them is more the lack of accuracy and the mistaken notion that some new idea is involved; or rather the great objection has been the purpose by which men have been led, viz., a desire to lay down the distinction of conditional decrees in salvation. According to these decrees:

(1.) God offers salvation to every man.

(2.) But does not decree his salvation or damnation.

(3.) Yet only decrees his salvation if he believes.

(4.) Or his damnation if he does not believe.

(5.) The knowledge which God is admitted to have had of the event from the beginning arises from foresight that, under the circumstances in which the man is placed, he will exercise, or will not exercise belief.

The Scientia Media is, therefore, introduced to show how an event can be known as something that will actually take place, and yet as something not fixed by a decree of God, and consequently known upon some other ground than because decreed. This we have shown to be a mistaken conception in the forms already examined.

But a third kind of Scientia Media is by no means as harmless as the two already presented, although its absurdity is readily seen. It is given in Dr. J. Pye Smith's first lines of Christian Theology, p. 145, as follows:

"That God foresees all future events, depending upon the will of His voluntary agents, (i. e., all possible beings and all possible actions of all possible beings), under a position of antecedents endlessly varied; and that, then, in every case certain consequents will follow. The Deity does not certainly know which, in the endless number of possible antecedents, a voluntary creature will choose and practice; but he knows what will be the result under every possible variation of these antecedents. When, therefore, the creature has made his election and fulfilled his course of action, the Deity may say that he foreknew the whole."

The objections to this scheme are manifest.

(1.) It makes the God, whose purposes we see constantly manifested to us, a God of no purpose at all. He can have no end; he can only know that at any time given in the universe, some one end of many myriads may be the one attained.

(2.) It s contrary to the power to prophesy the actual events which shall happen at a given time, which God has exercised through his prophets.

(3.) It is opposed to his independence, for it makes him dependent upon the will of his creatures, and not their actions dependent upon him.

(4.) It is opposed to his perfection, for that perfection forbids the idea of increase or addition from without; yet, according to this view, his knowledge is constantly increasing as to what is done by his creatures. Every moment, that which heretofore has been only one of many possibilities, becomes a certain event.

(5.) As there can be no reason for God's will not being effective at least in some respects in man, this Scientia Media, which rests upon the idea that God ought not thus to operate on the mind, even by a purpose, must be a misconception. Else how could God bestow influences upon intelligent creatures which are fitted to affect their minds, as in the gift of Christ, or of the Spirit. Even the conscience within ought not to exercise its powers, nor even to exist in man. If it be said that these would only operate with the free consent of the party, it may be replied that such is the case with all the influences arising in connection with God's decrees. Is it said that these are influences for good only? So also is it in connection with his decrees. The effective decrees of God, by which he changes in any respect the will of his creatures, are altogether connected with influences for good. In all other respects men are left to act as they please. But their action is known, and known because of God's decree to leave them thus to act.

(6.) That God should exert no influence over his intelligent creatures also involves that he be excluded from the physical universe.

The very circumstances under which men are supposed to act in Scientia Media are circumstances arising from things around as well as within. Neither can he who can control these circumstances be shut out from the control of those physical events which he knows will affect the will of a voluntary agent. If it be necessary to responsible freedom of the will that man shall not be influenced at all, God must be excluded from the universe; yea, every other being and thing except man. Every man also must be completely isolated from all others, even so far that he shall suppose that he owes no obligations of obedience, and that none shall know his action. These absurd conclusions might even be further extended.

The passages in Scripture supposed to support Scientia Media do not sustain it. These are Genesis 3:22; Ex. 4:8; I Sam. 23:5-14; Jeremiah 38:17-20; Matt. 11:21, 23; Acts, 27:22, 31.

 

THE WISDOM OF GOD.

Wisdom is that power which enables one to put to practical use the knowledge and skill which he possesses, to choose wise ends of action, and to attain these ends by wise means. It is that guidance of the understanding under which the will determines wisely its pleasure, and puts forth power to accomplish it.

Wisdom in God is infinite mid unerring, choosing always the best end and the best means of attaining it. It is seen in creation, and in providence, but is most signally manifested in redemption.

 

[next chapter] [previous chapter] [table of contents]

 

 

Dear Friends,

There is no concept of God or Godess in Zorastrianism.

There is only the creator & his/her myraid attributes as listed in the 1001 names of Ahura Mazda.

There are references in the Avesta (Avan Yasht ) of the Hukar/Hukairya mountain peak in which feeds  into Vouru-Kashem (Root:Vara: wide lake; kash: pure): meaning wide shored, sea like fresh water lake. This lake is also refered to as Chae-chishtahe Varoish in Atash neyash……….the receptacle of pure knowledge, wisdom & insight (chishti).

This lake in turn, fed the legendary Saraswati river of southwestern Afghanistan, known as Harahvaiti in Avestan, and Helmand (from Haetumant/Setumant) in modern Afghan Persian.

The  Harahvaiti river & its 6 other tributaries, which till approximately 2500BC irrigated the “land of the seven rivers”; Sapta-Sindhu (Hapta-Hindu) –the main center of Iranian tribes as per  the Avesta, Vendidad & the Rig Veda---todays’ un-divided Punjab, Rajasthan, Kutch area, emptying itself into the Indian Ocean at Kutch.

 It is on this basis that at the end of all Yashts there is a requirement to face the South & give homage to this mighty river, the source of livelihood for the Aryan tribes.

In the Hormazd yasht (Para 15), there is  a reference to this “knowledge & wisdom spreading” river, as an attribute of Ahura Mazda.

“Sura Nama aahmee” : Pure, Righteous Knowledge Spreader is our name/attribute.

 The Rig Veda calls the  Saraswati the greatest of rivers (Nadi-tame' ) that flowed from "the  mountain to the sea".

It is mentioned some 50 times in the Rig Veda; and there is a whole hymn devoted to her. In the Avesta, the Khordad Yasht is dedicated to it.

In later times, following political loses, & the movement of Iranians, northward to Balkh, the  Aredvi Sura Anahita (an existing river in the Balkh-Margiana area) is used as a substitute for their beloved Harahvaiti.

Each yasht prayer ends with a dedication to her (Namasetey ashaon Sevishte Aredvi Sura Anahita).

Aredvi: River rising from Mt Hukairya;…….Himalayas…..the pamirs.

Sura: Enlighted/pure source of spiritual nourishment;

Anahita: Pure, undefiled, not muddy.

As such therefore artificially categorizing scriptures as pre or post Zarathushtra & suggesting non-concordance of these scriptures with Zarathushtras' Gathas, without analysing the historical & cultural context, literally second guessing the masterminds who followed Zarathushtra; smacks of  un-enlightened pre-conceptions that have no place in a faith that puts so much store on knowledge & scientific inquiry.

Nader

On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:07 PM, gita wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Arman Ariane" <arman@XerxesForGents.com>

Date: March 11, 2006 6:27:34 PM PST

To: <asha@bahnhof.se>, "Zoroastrians" <zoroastrians@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [zoroastrians] It is not about Science but attitude

Dear Alex,

You said: >.. The belief in THE HOLY TEXT is a Judaist-Christian-Muslim belief.

Let us once and for all clear up some misunderstandings, so that you do not have to ponder on them restlessly. We are not TEXT worshipers, as a matter of fact and in the Abrahamic point of view, there is nothing we worship. Though, the only way I can access your mind is through your TEXT.

The only way I can access Zarathushtra’s mind is thru his own TEXT.

You wrote: >…the Gathas is not and was never intended to be the only source of knowledge to Zoroastrians. Far from it.

This statement is wrong in its core. The Gathas are not knowledge, but a tool to obtain knowledge. It is a source code. That is what makes Zarathushtra so special and extraordinary. He did not think for you and me, but gave us a tool to help us think. 

The Gathas is a THOUGHT PROVOKING TEXT. Zarathushtra conveyed his message precisely as a source code and made it timeless.

You wrote:> Zarathushtra was NOT a scientist. Quoting The Gathas is not scientific. Science is not something you BELIEVE in. Science is something you propose, test and prove.

The Gathas is a proposal.  That is what Song 3.2 is all about, just a proposal.

You wrote:  > a theological authority who knows nothing else but to repeatedly quote The Gathas, and who even turns poetic text into formal and literal interpretation, is not much of a theologian in 2006, if I have to be honest about it. There are thousands of  other important sources of information to a modern Zoroastrian. Which even Ali Jafarey acknowledges, especially with his liberal use of Wikipedia on this forum.

You are seating in Sweden in the year 2006 and claiming that the Gathas written 4000 years ago in the Middle East are not a big deal. There are better information to a modern Zoroastrian. But to the rest of the world the source code is missing. Therefore there are people who believe they should not preach anything other than the source code, and let different ethnicities and cultures think for themselves and build on a Gathic foundation. Parviz rejects the source code if it does not contain any indigenous old Iranian deities and certain distinct cultural flavors.  

You wrote: > Debating is an important part of any religious activity. Otherwise, religion is turned into blatant and boring propaganda. And if there is anything we need right now, it is to be relieved of the endless and mindless propaganda of quote-queens like Ronald Delavega. We need to think! And to be able to think, we need to debate.

There is the difference between Religion and Philosophy. Religion is not all abut debate like philosophy is. It is maintained by attitude, manners and life style of a people. That is why I do not have much time to argue with Parviz or get into an endless debate with you over Monism. The Festival of Fire last month took over 1000 hours of man-hour. I tried to explain to Arthur that it is all about Havareshta, to get there we do need Humata and Hukhta, but I did not succeed. I promise to write him in the near future.

With my best wishes and Ushta,

Arman 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-asha@bahnhof.se [mailto:owner-asha@bahnhof.se]On Behalf Of Alexander Bard
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:03 PM
To: asha@bahnhof.se
Cc: Zoroastrians
Subject: asha: It is not about Science but attitude

Dear Arman

Ali Jafarey is the self-appointed THEOLOGICAL authority of The Zarathushtrian Assembly. I did not talk about formal titles, I talked about theology. Furthermore, I believe it is a good thing that he is the theological authority of The Zarathushrian Assembly. Every religious institution needs a theological authority, how else would you know who to turn to with questions about your beliefs? This does, however, carry certain responsibilities with it. For example, accessability towards the followers and/or friends of The Assembly, which I believe the vast majority of Asha members are. Ignoring important theological issues raised is not a sign of good leadership. Rather, it undermines the autority.

I think the reason is that he has already answered your questions in his writings and postings.  His answers are based on the Gathas of Ashu Zarathushtra and he does not add his own views. They carry all the necessary references. He believes that what Ashu Zarathushtra has said in his Gathas are logical and scientific. However, if you think that his presentation of the Gathic theology is not correct then point it out with your proofs. I think it will solve the problem. Unless you are also saying that the Gathas are not very scientific and we should follow new discoveries to lead our life.

1. Ali Jafarey has still NOT answered the question on how dualism is compatible with modern science, which he has repeatedly claimed without backing it up. We are still waiting eagerly for his elaboration on this important issue.
2. Ali Jafarey has HIS interpretation of The Gathas. He is NOT Zarathushtra's appointed spokesperson. There are many different interpretations and translations of the Gathic text, but none of them can ever claim to be objective, official or forever valid, for that matter. That would indeed be a horrendous claim. Furthermore, The Gathas is not and was never intended to be the only source of knowedge to Zoroastrians. Far from it. The belief in THE HOLY TEXT is a Judaist-Christian-Muslim belief. It has no place in Zoroastrianism. Zarathushtra himself would be totally opposed to such an idea, he was the ultimate relativist (cause and effect determine what is right and/or wrong in each specific case; the order of good thoughts, good words, good deeds, the ultimate relativistic ethical stance ever proposed!!!).
3. Zarathushtra was NOT a scientist. Quoting The Gathas is not scientific. Science is not something you BELIEVE in. Science is something you propose, test and prove. Otherwise it simply is not science. Maybe I have to disappoint you, but a theological authority who knows nothing else but to repeatedly quote The Gathas, and who even turns poetic text into formal and literal interpretation, is not much of a theologian in 2006, if I have to be honest about it. There are thousands of  other important sources of information to a modern Zoroastrian. Which even Ali Jafarey acknowledges, especially with his liberal use of Wikipedia on this forum. Good!

Asha's chat room is not the only place for the Assembly.  Jafarey's voice can be heard on your hometown's radio in Sweden every Friday.  Arthur can tell you much better than I could about South and North America, and there are others on the list that could write about the rest of the world.

Good! But none of these fora has any DEBATING going on. Debating is an important part of any religious activity. Otherwise, religion is turned into blatant and boring propaganda. And if there is anything we need right now, it is to be relieved of the endless and mindless propaganda of quote-queens like Ronald Delavega. We need to think! And to be able to think, we need to debate. I have learned enormously myself from debating with Parviz, Ardalan and Arthur on this forum. May the learned debates continue! The days of one-way communication and propaganda are over!

Again this is only my input, Jafarey is a Linguist and an anthropologist, he is a Scholar and believer in the Gathas. Everything he writes will store in his archives for future references, therefore he will not talk from top of his head. I too sometimes enjoy Parvis's emotional writings and exaggerations, but it will not work with Jafarey, he is 85 and he is not here to invent a new religion made of Mithra, Zarathushtra and new age discoveries. He argues that the Gathas are ageless.
You have to think before you write to him, and you need to back up your arguments with references and proofs.

I do. But it is not my fault if Ali chooses to ignore what Arthur, Parviz and I write. Ali Jafarey is our brother, not our superior authority. There are no superior authorities in our religion. We are all equal, worthy of equal treatment.

I do not intend to defend him or brag about him, but reality is that because of his background he HAPPENED to be the most knowledgeable Gathic Scholar alive. He HAPPENED to live the Parsi migration from central Iran to Pakistan and India, and end up with many Zoroastrian mentors thru out his life. He has lived in all continents and other than Western languages, he masters Sanskrit, Rig Veda, Farsi, Urdu, Arabic, Hindi, Gujarati and Shahnameh.

If that is so, then why is Ali so afraid to answer straight-forward questions? Where are is answers to Arthur's excellent questions? Maybe Ali is a good linguist and a good Gathic scholar of  impressive merit. But where is his knowledge about modern science, cosmology, astrophysics, even contemporary philosophy? And first and foremost, why does he not answer simple, straight-forward questions?

I do not remember last time I wrote so much and in such a length on the list since I am extremely short on time. I hope my input could at least bring some peace to you and Asha.

I believe we have had complicity and a deafening peace for far too long on this forum. Thankfully we now finally have a lively debate, many opinions heard, minds being changed, prestige lost, new loving brotherhoods and sisterhoods appearing and growing. And old. moudly authorities that did nobody any good torn down, for us all to be liberated. The days of one-way communication are indeed over, thankfully!

Ushta
Alexander Bard

http://groups.google.com/group/fearthought

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Members

*Take a minute of your time to vote at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PersianDNA/polls THANK YOU!
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 
©©©©        PersianDNA         ©©©©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
©©©©  PAST . PRESENT . FUTURE  ©©©©
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
     http://www.PersianDNA.com

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Recent Activity

•  6
  New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

• Culture change
• Corporate culture
• Persian rugs
• Cell culture
• Organization culture

Yahoo! HotJobs

Be Discovered! ?

Upload your resume

Employers find you

Yahoo! Mail

Get on board

You're invited to try

the all-new Mail Beta.

Need traffic?

Drive customers

With search ads

on Yahoo!

.

__,_._,___

Nik-o shAd bAshid

KhodA negahdAr,
MoobedyAr MehrAn Gheibi.

Kerman_Iran

 

 

---

Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.